Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2021

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 19:41, 1 January 2022 (Moving these to January for User:DrKay). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 5:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC) [1].

Barthélemy Boganda[edit]

Notified: Nishkid64, Biruitorul, Physchim62, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Politics, 27 Nov

I am nominating this featured article for review because my concerns on the talk page (comprehensiveness/well-researched issues based on over-reliance on tertiary sources and neglect of French-language sources) were not addressed. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Buidhe: Do you mind elaborating on your problems with the tertiary sources? Some of the prose could definitely use some work, and Time magazine should probably not be used from this time period. Some of the Legacy section is also not really "legacy". For example, Boganda was also the designer of the flag of the Central African Republic and He successfully manipulated religious symbols (clerical garb, crosses, baptism, disciples, acolytes, etc.) for political purposes don't have anything to say directly about his impact' this is just highlighting elements of his career. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, the issue is that the sources cited in the article don't include the full length biography or various academic papers listed on the talk page. Most of the cited sources are either tertiary or don't focus on Boganda in particular. Because there are a lot of publications that aren't cited and the article is fairly short, I don't think the article can be considered "well researched" or "comprehensive" according to the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 06:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I just opened a 2017 article from History in Africa, "The Diaries of Barthélémy Boganda, Priest and Politician in French Equatorial Africa (1910–1959)", and the author opens with "Barthélémy Boganda, a nationalist politician from "Afrique Equatoriale Française" (AEF) in the 1950s, is poorly known in the English-language literature on Africa." So I think it's fair to incorporate some French sources and some of the newer English ones as well. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparison with the French wiki article (also a featured article) really brings home Buidhe's point here - it is three or four times as long and its bibliography takes up a whole page. Some years ago I tried to incorporate the text from the French article into the English one and I was stopped because it wasn't considered appropriate to do that with something of FA status. So, the status seems to me to be getting in the way of improvement. Furius (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. While a couple of the sources in the French wiki version likely would not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP for purposes here, there's definitely evidence there that there are non-English sources that need to be consulted for comprehensiveness. Hog Farm Talk 20:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The 2017 journal article I've been using to rework the Early life section is familiar with the French historiography and I think is much more accurate on the details of things. We definitely seem to be missing some pieces, though I would not advocate simply translating and copying text from the French wiki. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Why not? I'd grant that it would be best to use the fr.lang sources directly, but I have limited access to those. Furius (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we've got no idea if the Frech wiki version contains copyright violations or original research or similar issues. Ideally someone will come around who can both 1) read French and 2) access the sources. Hog Farm Talk 18:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m with HF on that one. If we start copying text without directly reading the sources well have no idea if it’s accurate. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further reflection with source material the problem per se isn't a lack of consultation with French historiography. Pierre Kalck is heavily referenced here, and he is primarily a French-language author who once wrote a biography on Boganda (van Walraven cites him several times). There does seem to be more info out there on Boganda though, so the article currently lacks comprehensiveness. It reads more like GA-status. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I've added some more info and updated the citation style, which should make it somewhat easier to edit. The main task is decompressing some of the article text about his political career (like fully explaining the French Community thing), removing editorialising and euphemistic prose (eg Boganda is not only considered the hero and father of his nation or It also robbed the country of a charismatic leader in the Houphouët-Boigny or Senghor mould) and reworking the Legacy section. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the Titley book, it appears we might have some issues with close paraphrasing, which explains the prose. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There also, unfortunately, seems to be some problems with WP:SYNTH. For example, the string His wife was sentenced to 15 days in prison, but neither served their terms. On 17 June, he was re-elected to the National Assembly with 48% of the vote despite the obstacles placed in his way by the administration and strong opposition by the authorities, colonists, and the missions, with two prominent French candidates seeking to oust him. is supported with a citation to the official National Assembly bio, which only supports the claims that he was reelected with 48% of the vote over two strong French candidates. It says nothing about prison terms or the opposition of the authorities. Thankfully, I've acquired Kalck's 1971 book, the 3rd edition of the Historical Dictionary of the CAR, and Titley's book, so I'm in the process of checking these for problems and am adding new information that seems relevant. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, folks. Done with my overhaul. Definitely a good idea on the part of Buidhe to bring this to FAR, but I think I've fixed most of the deficiencies. There was definitely a problem with close paraphrasing and cites not sufficiently supporting statements, but I have now laid my eyes on the source material for every citation (save for #11, #101, #119, and #121) and can say with reasonable confidence that that should no longer be an issue. I've also reworked the lede, corrected some details, expanded on his early life and political career, and rewrote the Legacy section in what I think is a more appropriate manner. As far as sufficiently looking into the relevant reliable sources, I think this is an accurate reflection of quality historiography on the subject, with Kalck being the original French-language authority on the CAR and, by extension, Boganda, and van Walraven being the new English language authority on him (the overall citation count has more than doubled, for the record). The article might need a once-over for some typos and whatnot, but I think this is good enough to save its FA status. @Buidhe: @Furius: @Hog Farm: @Biruitorul: What do you guys think? -Indy beetle (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check throughout for time context needed. As one example, should this be past tense, or use an as of date, or something … as it is cited to 2005. “Mythical perceptions of Boganda's invulnerability persisted after his death,[42] and his presence in Central African collective memory remains politically potent, serving as a unifying element among both the country's elite and the general populace.[118]” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks good to me; reviewers, please keep the page watched for WP:FASA followup. As soon as Buidhe et al are satisfied, I can be considered a Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HF
  • "The soldiers believed this was his name, rendering it "Boganda" and using it as such for the rest of his life" - something is off with phrasing here, as he used it as such for the rest of his life, not the soldiers
    • Changed to "the name was used for the rest of his life". Van Walraven uses the more colloquial phrasing, "the name stuck", and since this was what the soldiers and presumably the missionaries called him until he was baptised, I don't want to imply that Boganda directly chose this name at his young age, but probably acquiesced to it once he was in their care.
  • "to see him walk over the water (he did not appear)" - the walking on water link is to a dab page
    • Linked to Jesus walking on water, since that was the probable inspiration (I don't know if pre-colonial CAR cultures had any archetypal attraction to mythological walking on water, but does remain a possibility, hence my indirect link).

Looks good other than those two items, I think close without FARC is appropriate here. Hog Farm Talk 04:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Barthélemy
  • I noticed the sources use a mix of Barthélemy and Barthélémy, and that we even use the latter in the text once, referring to his baptism. Might it be worth introducing a footnote to his name, to the effect that both variants are recorded? — Biruitorul Talk 19:06, 20 December 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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC) [2].

Globular cluster[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Astronomy, diff for talk page notification

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because more than a month ago, Hog Farm stated on talk, "We've got lots of uncited text here, as well as many of the sources being from before 2005. This needs additional citations and an update with newer sources." There have not been any edits to the article since. I did not notify the FAC nominator as they have retired and not edited since 2014. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: can you explain why you arbitrarily picked the year 2005 as a cut-off criteria? Data collected from before that time should still be relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Praemonitus I don't know how quickly research becomes outdated in this field but ideally one should only cite current/up-to-date research. The 2005 suggestion is from Hog Farm. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have to say it depends on the subject. Some topics get researched more frequently, and others are more or less settled and rarely get an update. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Praemonitus and Buidhe: - 2005 wasn't suppose to have any innate meaning, rather just more of a rough estimate of when most of the sources seem to predate. I lack the knowledge about the topic to deem the pace of research in this subject, but for an article about an active science, there are quite likely new discoveries and theories over the last 15 years. Although astronomy editors may have a better idea of the extent of that. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References older than 2005 shouldn't automatically, or even generally, be considered inappropriate. Plenty of information isn't going to change, historical stuff most obviously, but also general background astronomy and physics. Obviously, any theories which have changed significantly in recent decades or are still in flux should have up-to-date references. Lithopsian (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agreed (@Lithopsian:). However, one thing that has changed since 2005 is the view that most globular clusters are simple stellar populations, which is now dead (but still canonical, so still worth mentioning). I've updated that with a 2018 review article. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ashill recently saved Star pre-FAR. Does your interest extend to globular clusters? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I took a quick look through. My impression is that the article is mostly pretty good. The statements that don’t have inline references are mostly what I would fit in the subject-specific common knowledge area of WP:WTC (things that are in any introductory astronomy textbook), so I wouldn’t challenge their verifiability. I tagged a couple things that could use improvement and can return when I have the time. Also, many of the older references are totally fine. Globular clusters are slightly odd in that they serve as a lingua franca of “standard” knowledge in astronomy, and Wikipedia should (and does) present that encyclopedic standard knowledge. That’s what older references in the research literature will state; newer ones don’t bother, not because the old references are outdated but because they’re common knowledge in the field. There are plenty of newer results that tweak that common knowledge with exceptions; this article does a good job, I think, of avoiding going down those rabbit holes citing new results. So I actually think it’s a good thing that this article avoids being based too much on new results. That philosophical comment aside, there are clearly some things that could be improved; I’ll try to work on it but may not have time for a while. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added references everywhere that was tagged. No attempt to address older references yet. Lithopsian (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from Graeme Bartlett
    • Images need to have alt= text to improve accessibility.
Done. A little repetitive, I'm afraid, but then one glibular cluster looks a lot like another to the average reader. Maybe someone with more imagination could take a look. Lithopsian (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-standard punctuation in use: “”
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awkward wording: "contains an unusual number of a type of star" (unusual number could be 0, 999, 1234, large - be specific)
Clarified to "unusually large". (The cited source simply said unusual; another source says unusually large.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was expecting to see a diagram of where globular clusters are in a galaxy, but there is none there. This could be in #Orbits section
That's a good suggestion, although easier said than done. This one is OK (and public domain), although I'm not wild about the fact that they're not very clear to what extent it's an artist's conception and to what extent it is true positions of known globular clusters. There's a good one in Figure 1 of this paper, but we can't use it due to copyright. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we add a diagram like one of these, it should go next to the fifth paragraph in the observation history section, which describes the distribution of globular clusters in the Milky Way and its historical importance in demonstrating that the Sun is not in the middle of the Milky Way. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This one? Artist's conception and it says so, labels the Sun and M4, but also has some other text that is a little dated. Lithopsian (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If we could get the underlying image, that would be great. It's definitely an artist's conception of the Milky Way (can't have a real outside image that includes the Sun!) but may be real (modulo distance uncertainties) positions of globular clusters; the caption isn't clear about that. (That's my issue with the other one too.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • One reference (94) uses authors list with non-standard affilliations.
Fixed. Lithopsian (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few author links (necessarily biased towards authors I know or know of, since I know they're worth checking for a link!). I did not link to Charles Messier in the ref list, since he's linked in the main text. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Femke

I've looked through the article in search of sentences I believe need updating, and found a few.

  • A total of 152 globular clusters have now been discovered in the Milky Way galaxy, out of an estimated total of 180 ± 20 (source 1992)
  • Done (in fact, that 1992 source did not actually state the 152 number that I could find anyway, though by 2010 [the last update of the Harris catalog] it had only increased to 157). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blue stragglers are mentioned in two different locations. Is there a problem with structure?
This seems to be ok. Both locations, plus the image caption, appear to be sensible to mention this type of star. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:9958:D746:E82D:FAD5 (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, a possible exception is when strong tidal interactions with other large masses result in the dispersal of the stars.
  • However about 20% of the globular clusters have undergone a process termed "core collapse". In this type of cluster, the luminosity continues to increase steadily all the way to the core region
Took a while, but I found and added a 2018 reference explicitly stating that that 20% number from a 1986 "preliminary" paper has stood up. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A 2008 study by John Fregeau. Is this now common knowledge? If so, modren source + rephrase in wikivoice?
  • I deleted that paragraph. The paper hasn't been widely cited in the 13 years since, and it doesn't seem to be a significant change in our understanding of clusters (despite a somewhat overhyped press release resulting in some media coverage -- not uncommon), so I don't think this is really worthy of a mention, and certainly not a full paragraph. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • potential computing requirements to accurately simulate such a cluster can be enormous -> next paragraph indicated it was done in 2010, so not that enormous after all?
I clarified that that comment refers to a low-density cluster. I also added a ref from a few weeks ago showing that we're still very much pushing compute power -- saying it was "done" is relative, since there are still lots of approximations, and we need to make fewer as time goes on. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How these clusters are formed is not yet known (2005 source)
How they form is still uncertain, but some progress has been made. See Forbes at el. (2018) for a decent overview, plus perhaps some of the modelling results since then. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:9958:D746:E82D:FAD5 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes et al reference is more about generic GCs; I added it in that context. (It is indeed a good overview; there's more from there that could be incorporated.) I added a more recent ref from the same team that originally discovered the unusual clusters with a bit more of an idea about how they form (accretion from satellites). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No joke, I think I've adequately addressed that last tag. Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went over the article once more, and put another set of cn tags in (sorry I didn't check thoroughly before). Six to go. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Think I've got them all; thanks for your thoroughness. (Most were just mid-paragraph refs that also supported the untagged sentence after the ref, but these checks did lead to a couple minor but substantive tweaks.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia comments

This is going to need a lot of citation cleanup before further prose evaluation can begin.

  • Why are these listed as "General sources", yet not formatted as the rest of the sources? They appear here as if they want to be External links rather than sources.
Yes, I'll move those to External Links. Separately, I think renaming the "Sources" section to "Further reading" makes sense. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • NASA Astrophysics Data System has a collection of past articles, from all major astrophysics journals and many conference proceedings. And "a collection of past articles" is non-specific; which articles are we looking at for sources? (We can't just tell our readers, well, somewhere in this collection of past articles you can find what you need to verify content in this article.)
Deleted. ADS is invaluable but isn't especially relevant to this article (not any more than it is to any astronomy article). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • SCYON is a newsletter dedicated to star clusters. Same, which are used as sources? Who is the publisher? Which authors? What makes them reliable?
    • MODEST is a loose collaboration of scientists working on star clusters. Same
  • "Review articles", not used as citations, should be alphabetical.
Done. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Books", Binnie and Spitzer each used only once, so why do they require a separate section, and Heggie is not used.
Spitzer isn't used either (a conference proceeding from the previous year is cited). I don't know this specific Spitzer book and don't have immediate access to it, but everything he wrote is brilliant, so it's easy for me to imagine that this book is worth including as a classic reference. Binney & Tremaine is a very widely-used dynamics book that is very relevant to this topic. I don't know the Heggie book, but it too looks relevant. To me, that looks like a decently-curated list of more-in-depth books for further reading, so my vote is to keep it as is. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote a seems to need a citation: Omega Centauri was known in antiquity, but Halley discovered its nature as a nebula.
That's stated in reference 10, which is right next to the footnote. (It refers to the object as having been named by Ptolemy, which is pretty direct evidence that it was known in antiquity, although in different words.) Should the reference move into the footnote? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I eventually figured out that ESO = European Southern Observatory, which is neither linked nor clarified in any citation that used the abbreviation.
    • Example, this is an incomplete citation: "Ashes from the Elder Brethren". ESO. 0107. Missing date, missing access date, and tell us somewhere what ESO is. (There are others similar.)
  • Similar problem here with SEDS ... what is that ?
I have expanded the European Southern Observatory and Students for the Exploration and Development of Space acronyms in the references, used the press release templates, updated URLs and access dates where needed, and added ID numbers to releases for additional permanence. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frommert, Hartmut (August 2007). "Milky Way Globular Clusters". SEDS. Retrieved February 26, 2008. I can't get the site to load and can't even tell what it is, or whether it is reliable.
Works for me. I think this collection of pages is reliable; it's perhaps in a bit of a WP:SPS gray area. But it's also very carefully researched and exhaustive. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Patrick Moore (2005). Firefly Atlas of the Universe. Firefly Books. ISBN 978-1-55407-071-8. This is a book, requires a page number.
  • This is missing author ... "Messier 13 (M13) - The Great Hercules Cluster - Universe Today". Universe Today. May 9, 2016. Retrieved April 23, 2018.

I will stop there for now; this is only a brief sampling, and the sourcing and citations here need to be cleaned up before further evaluation of the content. Please review all sources and citations for completeness. I am very skeptical that this article can retain status, and filling in the missing citations is not the same as making sure the older content is verifiable to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashill can we have an update here? You identified a recent review article by Gratton, which would be good to have included in the text. You convinced me that the science doesn't change much, so I'll be satisfied if it's not used very extensively. Can the section on orbits be expanded? FemkeMilene (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Femkemilene I incorporated the Gratton reference in a few places. I also took the opportunity to cite a bit what hasn't changed much (eg basic understanding of formation). I merged the very short orbits section into the formation section, where it puts the significance of the orbits in context. I also merged a couple see alsos into the main text. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to work towards the end of the FAR. So let me give another (final?) list of things I'd like to see improved.

  • Some giant elliptical galaxies (particularly those at the centers of galaxy clusters), such as M87, have as many as 13,000 globular clusters -> uniquely in lede, and relatively old source. Lede should be a summary of the body.
I agree that this information should be in the body of the article, along with some obvious data like the number in the Milky Way, but there doesn't seem to be a good place where it would fit. Perhaps in the observation section? A new section? 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I moved those numbers in to the paragraph in the observation section about numbers in the Milky Way; I think it fits there. Simplified lede to just say there are lots of globular clusters in other galaxies. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The retrograde orbit may suggest that ω Cen is the remnant of a dwarf galaxy which was captured by the Milky Way -> is this level of uncertainty (may + suggest) still valid with modern sources?
Still not entirely settled - added a recent paper on the subject. Lithopsian (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what this refers to; if it's footnote 41 in this version (footnote 45 in the current version), the author, date, and access date are all listed. I also added an archive-url for that one. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The typical distance between stars in a globular cluster is about 1 light year,[41] but at its core, the separation is comparable to the size of the Solar System (100 to 1000 times closer than stars near the Solar System) -> I don't know how wide the solar system is, so find it difficult to understand this sentence
Not only confusing, but wrong although it is an accurate reflection of what the reference says. I've provided a more correct reference and rewritten that sentence. Lithopsian (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • double parentheses: (more than 25 kiloparsecs (82,000 ly) from the center)
  • Globular cluster M15 may have an intermediate-mass black hole at its core. cn
That one is discussed in several sentences in the text; I copied the reference over to the image caption. Also tweaked the caption to more clearly reflect the fact that this claim is basically debunked. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note the characteristic "knee" in the curve at magnitude 19 -> don't speak to reader
Text tweaked. Lithopsian (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The origins of these stars is still unclear, but most models suggest that these stars are the result of mass transfer in multiple star systems -> update needed.
I#ve added a much more recent reference and rewritten that sentence, although the sentiment is still the same. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examples of core-collapsed globular clusters include M15 and M30. -> cn
  • Precise velocities were obtained for nearly 15,000 stars in this cluster -> update needed
  • Sometimes the GC are referred to as M15, sometimes M 15. Consistency.
Done. I've gone with no spaces. Messier objects are almost universally abbreviated without a space, although Simbad is one of a very few exceptions. Lithopsian (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FemkeMilene (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is some dense jargon in here; I had to click out of the lead multiple times to understand the lead. Also, "While his distance estimate was in significant error (although within the same order of magnitude as the currently accepted value), it did demonstrate that the dimensions of the galaxy were much greater than had been previously thought.[c]" is not sourced; rather the footnote looks like original research without a source. That is a brief glance; I don't understand a lot of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm struggling to find the dense jargon in the lead. Do you mean the bit about Latin? Heavy elements? Tidal forces? Most of the lead seems to be straighforward descriptions in plain English, although there are an unfortunate numbers of references, suggesting information that ought to be in the body. The Shapley piece is definitely a problem. I've tagged it. I'll look for a reference but it might need to be dropped. The footnote is pure original research unless a reference can be found. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the delayed response (real life stuff took over).
  • What is a "stellar density"?
Reworded to "concentration of stars". —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spiral galaxy is not defined, and the reader is obligated to click out to know what it is.
Added "like the Milky Way"; hopefully that provides at least some suggestion of meaning without trying to define it. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for galactic halo ... the lead should be digestible to a layreader, and the layreader should not have to click out to decipher the meaning of a sentence.
Clarified.—Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto for open cluster.
Clarified that both globular and open clusters are types of star clusters. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the "Disk of a spiral galaxy"?
Added wikilink, and again hopefully referring to Milky Way provides a suggestion. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redundancies in this sentence ... and were formed as part of the star formation of the parent galaxy, rather than as a separate galaxy.
I've rewritten that whole paragraph; see next point. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:LEAD must be an overview that is digestible to readers who are not well versed in astronomy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lead was missing any discussion of the history, and the discussion of formation and significance was a bit limited. I added to both, trying to provide more context. But I'm way too expert to really tell if it's digestible. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great Debate (astronomy) isn't exactly about Globular clusters, but is a focal point for many of the issues around the distances and distribution of them. This paper summarises that debate and categorises the important factors together with a precis of where Shapley was right and wrong. These could support a useful expansion of the information currently in the article: the statement that Shapley gave a distance and it was too high very much over-simplifies the history. Shapley gave a great many distances to the galactic centre, ranging from close to correct to more than double. He even came late to the idea that globular clusters had an asymmetric distribution indicating a spherical system with the sun off-centre. In 1915, he dismissed it when determining the distance to M13. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that "distance estimate" sentence and footnote c are totally standard textbook statements; I added three textbook references which say the same thing in different ways at different levels. I also incorporated the Trimble paper above to be explicit about Shapley's distance estimates. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC -- Just solved a few more prose issues myself. I'm a bit on the fence here, but this has been open for months, and would like to draw it to a close. I'm sure there is room for further improvement... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 18:23, May 14, 2021 (UTC)
See new replies above. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing ...
  • why are metal rich and metal poor in quotes? See MOS:QUOTEPOV. Ditto throughout (eg, blue stragglers)
I guess that should be italics per Wikipedia style; it's defining/referring to terms. Changed. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • review linking, blue stragglers is used in an image caption before it is linked in the next section.
Moved the image to the section in which it's used. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • de-howevering may be useful ... However, the above-mentioned historic process of determining the age and distance to globular clusters is not as robust as first thought, since ... see See overuse of however and User:John/however. Ditto for also, in addition, etc ... User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia.

I picked the section on simulations for a prose check, as that is a topic I do understand ...

  • subdividing what? An efficient method of mathematically simulating the N-body dynamics of a globular cluster is done by subdividing into small volumes and velocity ranges ...
  • The simulation becomes more difficult when the effects of binaries and the interaction with external gravitation forces (such as from the Milky Way galaxy) must also be included. ... What is meant by " when ... must be included" ... why are they not always included, and why must they only sometimes be included?
  • punctuation of this sentence? Over long periods of time this will result in a dissipation of the cluster, a process termed evaporation ... should that be an endash rather than a comma?
  • Either this is a switch in tense or I am completely misunderstanding the meaning ... The ultimate fate of a globular cluster must be either to accrete stars at its core, causing its steady contraction,[119] or gradual shedding of stars from its outer layers.

I think this article could yet benefit from a closer prose review by non-content experts, although I believe we are on the road to a restored bronze star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"" I've gone through several of these with responses inline, although it looks like several of the comments no longer apply as the text they refer to has been edited out. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Star clusters are often assumed to consist of stars that all formed at the same time" By whom?
    • "observed M4 in 1764... Subsequently, Abbé Lacaille would list NGC 104, NGC 4833, M55, M69, and NGC 6397 in his 1751–1752 catalogue" How do these dates work out? Reordered the sentences to what I think was intended
    • "Globular" was used a handful of times—too informal? I like it occasionally for brevity but I'm not familiar with the topic.
The lede states that "globular" is an alternative way of referring to them, although I don't actually see that usage in the text. I don't think it's too informal and think it's useful to vary the writing, and I far prefer "globular" to "GC" as a shortened form. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Both can be regarded as evidence that supermassive globular clusters are in fact the cores of dwarf galaxies that are consumed by the larger galaxies" seems redundant to what we said a section ago
    • "The proportion of metals can thus be an indication of the age of a star in simple models" In simple models or in reality?
    • "The Dutch astronomer Pieter Oosterhoff noticed that there appear to be two populations of globular clusters" I changed this assuming there are other populations besides the Oosterhoff groups, but just wanted to make sure
    • Was wondering whether you all thought it was Wikipedia voice to say "our" when referring to the Solar System or Milky Way. I lean toward no, but I thought I should check.
I don't see the Solar System referred to at all. For the Solar System, "our" can resolve ambiguity between the Solar System every possible reader of Wikipedia lives in and planetary systems around other stars (which are sometimes themselves called solar systems). The Milky Way is unambiguous (but "the galaxy" isn't, so it's typically called "the Galaxy" (capital G) or "our galaxy" or "our Galaxy" to distinguish it from other galaxies), so I changed "our" to "the". —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A blue straggler is thought to be formed from the merger of two stars, possibly as a result of an encounter with a binary system" What is "encountering" the binary system? A third star?
Between two binary systems is what the source says. Clarified. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Holger Baumgardt and collaborators" Not sure why we're singling their name out specifically; needs more context. I replaced with "Researchers" for now
    • "When the stars of a particular globular cluster are plotted on an H–R diagram, in many cases almost all of them fall on a relatively well-defined curve" seems to contradict "but nearly all globular clusters contain stars that formed at different times, or that have differing compositions" in the lead. Which is it?
Both. :) I've largely rewritten the H-R diagram section per this and other comments; I hope that clears that up. There are distinct populations which formed at different times in most/all globulars, but the two times are not very far apart. You really have to be looking with the newest camera on the Hubble Space Telescope to see the difference clearly, which is now stated in the main text of the article. (An image would help, but there aren't any free ones I could find; if I have time, I may try to find the data and create one that is suitably licensed.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will edit with this in mind
    • "The morphology and luminosity of globular cluster stars" What does "morphology" mean in this context? The shape of the curve they make on the HR diagram? I'm not a content expert but that seems like a weird—and unnecessarily complex—word to use
    • "the blending effect can introduce a systematic uncertainty into the cosmic distance ladder and may bias the estimated age of the Universe and the Hubble constant" what does this have to do with globular clusters
    • "Certain clusters even display populations absent from other globular clusters (e.g. blue hook stars) or feature multiple populations" don't most clusters feature multiple populations?
    • "gravothermal instability" what?
    • "forms a power-law cusp" I don't think most readers will understand this
    • The second paragraph of "Mass segregation" etc. really confuses me. I don't understand how the first sentence relates to the rest of the core collapse description
    • "this stellar mass-sorting process" Again, I didn't hear anything about mass in the preceding paragraphs, so I'm really confused
    • "Numerical simulations of globular clusters have demonstrated that binaries can hinder and even reverse the process of core collapse in globular clusters." Didn't we talk about this earlier?
  • Not sure how FARC works but agreed with Sandy that the writing is a bit off. I twiddled about with the first couple sections; see if that helped at all. The reading difficulty is highly variable... in particular the Color-magnitude section begins with a relatively detailed explanation of HR diagrams that I think could be shortened. But I don't see anything deal-breaking. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ashill: By the way, thank you so much for your work on this. The article is just a bit long but I'll get to your comments and everything soon. I think the article is a bit easier to parse so far. Ovinus (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went through and did a copyedit + adjustment of material I thought was way extra. But after the above concerns, I'm not opposed to keeping the bronze star. Ovinus (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drive by comment

Should ", constraining estimates of the universe's age." be moved from the lead as a historical detail? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: I did a quick skim of the article and here are some concerns: three paragraphs of uncited text, "Mass segregation, luminosity and core collapse" should be copyedited and trimmed, and the classification section might be expanded (it talks about a 2015 proposal for reclassification, is that still ongoing?) No major edits since mid-June and Ovinus has not edited since late-June. Ashill or Lithopsian might be interested in leading these improvements, as they commented above. If work continues, I'll strike my suggestion to move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - work on the article has been stalled for a month, and I still have concerns
    • There's some uncited text yet that needs to be assessed for common knowledge or not
    • "It is unclear why the Milky Way lacks such clusters; Andromeda is unlikely to be the sole galaxy with them, but their presence in other galaxies remains unknown" - Got a source more recent than 2005 to confirm that this is still unclear
    • Any updates on that 2015 classification proposal?
    • Some sources need page number citations, such as Moore 2005
    • Are we sure Universe Today is high-quality RS

This is getting a lot closer, but there's work needed yet, and this is getting a bit stalled out. Like Z1720 above, I'm willing to strike this move to farc if work resumes. Hog Farm Talk 23:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF

  • I find it odd that Omega Centauri is the one picked out in the lead as being known from antiquity, but it's relegated to a table and an uncited footnote in the body. It's either going to be significant enough to warrant more mention in the body, or not significant enough to get a prominent namedrop in the lead
    • Good point. It turns out that Halley simply thought Centauri was a nebula; Herschel discerned that it was a star cluster in the 1830s. I removed it from the table and put it in the text
  • "and 157 in 2010" - of the refs for this, the second looks fine, but the first ref for this is from 1996? Why is it there supporting information from 14 years after it was published?
    • The 1996 ref already references "~150 clusters"... I skimmed the internet for more recent information on the exact number of known clusters but couldn't find much. In the mean time I've hidden that ref and added a more recent one (2017) that says "more than 150"
  • "Some giant elliptical galaxies (particularly those at the centers of galaxy clusters), such as M87, have as many as 13,000 globular clusters" - This is hypothetical, right, since this is much in excess of the confirmed number? But why is it stated as a matter of fact?
    • Clarified that the count of globular clusters is referring to clusters of the Milky Way, not of all galaxies
  • "In 1927–1929, Shapley and Sawyer categorized clusters" - who is Sawyer?
    • Someone oddly put Sawyer's name incorrectly in the text and piped it to her article. Fixed
  • " In 2015, a new type of globular cluster was proposed on the basis of observational data: dark globular clusters" - is it worth saying who proposed this?
    • Done
  • After further reading, the uncited paragraph seems to just be a description of a how a specific type of graph is set up, I'd say that's probably fine per WP:WHENTOCITE.
    • I'll look for a suitable citation anyway Found one that seems appropriate. Funnily enough it's more about the pedagogy of H–R diagrams, and in the process describes things in a simpler way as the article text does
  • "A blue straggler is thought to be formed from the merger of two stars, possibly as a result of an encounter between two binary system" appears in the Exotic components section, while "How blue stragglers form remains unclear, but most models attribute them to interactions between stars, either by stellar mergers or by the transfer of material from one star to another." appears in the Consequences section. I don't think this is really contradictory, but it would probably be best to discuss blue straggler formation in one place, rather than in two
    • Good point; I moved most of the information about blue stragglers to the first section and mentioned their distinctive appearance in the H–R diagram in the latter section
  • Recommend citations for "Core collapse may be divided into three phases. During a cluster's adolescence, core collapse begins with stars nearest the core. Interactions between binary star systems prevents further collapse as the cluster approaches middle age. Finally, the central binaries are either disrupted or ejected, resulting in a tighter concentration at the core." - It's not as elementary as the H-R diagrams
  • Is the uncited stuff in the Tidal encounters section basic knowledge? I'm not sure. If not, it needs cited
    • Will take a look for the above two. I don't have access to many sources at the moment; this has detailed information on core collapse, especially its models, but I don't see anything about three phases. I'd say "The difference in gravitational strength between the nearer and further parts of the cluster results in an asymmetric, tidal force" is common knowledge as the definition of tidal force, but the rest needs to be cited. The source I just mentioned does talk about "gravitational perturbations" but not "tidal forces" per se.
  • " Bennett, Jeffrey O.; Donahue, Megan; Schneider, Nicholas; Voit, Mark (2020). The Cosmic Perspective (9th ed.). Pearson. ISBN 978-0-134-87436-4." could use page numbers for better verification (if possible)
  • " "ESA/Hubble Picture of the Week". Engulfed by Stars Near the Milky Way’s Heart. Retrieved June 28, 2011." - formatting error. The Engulfed by Stars ... should be the title, and the true publisher needs added
    • Done, I think
  • "Schwarzschild, Martin (1958). Structure and Evolution of Stars. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-486-61479-3." - could also use page numbers for verification
  • NO ACTION NEEDED - just noting that I've looked at the self-published Dave Pooley source, and as he helped discover SN 2006gy, I'd say he's probably a subject-matter expert for stars

This come a long way from when it started in FAR. I see Amitchell125 has done some work on this; do they have any further thoughts here? Hog Farm Talk 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've sort of stopped. Please don't wait up. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:17, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ovinus and Ashill: - Would either of y'all be willing to look at this? If it can be determined what needs cited and what is fine, the rest should be easy fixes. Hog Farm Talk 15:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I'm on the fence about marking this article as FA quality, although this is my first FAR so I'm not sure exactly what is required. I'll take a look anyway and responded to your comments above. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Z1720

In an effort to get this FAR closed, I am going to conduct a review of the article. I am not an expert in this field (I barely passed grade 10 science) so I will post questions and concerns below. I also conducted a copyedit while reviewing, so please review the changes to ensure I did not inadvertently change the meaning of a sentence.

  • "Some clusters display populations absent from other globular clusters (e.g. blue hook stars)" blue hook stars doesn't have a wikilink, and I don't know what this is. Can a different example be given here?
  • "may bias the estimated age of the Universe and the Hubble constant." Is Universe supposed to be capitalised?
  • There's a citation needed tag in "Mass segregation, luminosity and core collapse"
  • "Mass segregation, luminosity and core collapse" can possibly be combined into fewer paragraphs.
  • The first paragraph of "Tidal encounters" needs a citation
  • Why are the books and articles listed in "Further reading" not used as sources?

Those are my thoughts. My analysis is the first couple of sections have received more attention than the last few sections, so I recommend that an expert reviews the last sections for comprehensiveness and proper grammer. Z1720 (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fixed the few key missing citations. As I said in August, I don't think there are any outstanding issues presented above that currently prevent the review from being closed as Keep. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Early on, I was concerned about the lead. Eight months in (!!), that is all I have time to review. It is digestible now, but I have one question:
      • Although one globular cluster, Omega Centauri, was observed and thought to be a star in antiquity …
    • What is a “star in antiquity”? Or is the in antiquity in the wrong place, and supposed to observed in antiquity ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was "thought to be a star in antiquity"; i.e. "In antiquity, it was thought to be a star". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can that be fixed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, done. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan77777: Sorry for the delay in additional comments. Here are some thoughts:

  • For footnotes, are notes listed first, or are citations? This needs to be standardised.
  • I reordered the "History of observations section" to be more chronological. Please take a look to make sure I did not inadvertently change the meaning of something.
  • "It has been proposed that this multiplicity in stellar populations could have a dynamical origin." Who proposed this?
  • The notes need citations.

Those are my comments after this readthrough. I will admit that lots of this article is too technical for me to understand, however I think the technical aspects of this article require the prose to be more technical, and I predict that an undergraduate student in physics or mathematics will be able to understand its prose. Please ping me when ready for another readthrough. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, what issues are outstanding from your perspective? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article is fine. If the body is not entirely digestible to a layreader, that can be expected for technical topics. Earlier on, the lead was a mess, but now it is fine for a layreader. Once Z1720 is satisfied, I am a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'd like to see a citation for " Harlow Shapley’s error was aggravated by interstellar dust in the Milky Way, which absorbs and diminishes the amount of light from distant objects, such as globular clusters, that reaches the Earth, thus making them appear to be more distant than they are." (one of the notes), but the remaining issues don't warrant delisting. Hog Farm Talk 15:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll declare keep, although my notes above will need to be addressed at some point. I'll assume the notes are cited to the refs that are placed before it. Still not sure who proposed the multiplicity, but hopefully someone will come later to fix this. Z1720 (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 11 December 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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:29, 11 December 2021 (UTC) [3].

Chinua Achebe[edit]

Notified: Scartol, WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WikiProject Nigeria, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Disability, WikiProject Igbo, 2021-02-16

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are citation concerns from May 2020, an overreliance of the Ezenwa-Ohaeto source and bloated sections like "Influence and legacy" and "Masculinity and femininity". Z1720 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues in the review section focus on sourcing and length. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - lots of work needed, no engagement. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - per above -Indy beetle (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Indy beetle: to revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the ping. In Things Fall Apart, Okonkwo's furious manhood overpowers everything "feminine" in his life, including his own conscience, while Achebe's depiction of the chi, or personal god, has been called the "mother within".[152] Okonkwo's father was considered an agbala—a word that refers to a man without title, but is also synonymous with 'woman'. Okonkwo's feminization of his father's laziness and cowardice is typical of the Igbo perspective on any man seen as unsuccessful. This is something that might require in-text attribution. Gender scholarly interpretation of a literary work (or any interpretation for that matter) is hardly something that should be presented in Wiki-voice as purely factual (if something is a critical consensus this should be stated explicitly). Also, the Some have argued and Some argued is a little too vague; who are we talking about here? Literary critics? Igbo people? Gender scholars? Also, Achebe is regarded as the most dominant and influential writer of modern African literature by literary scholars I presume? Who is calling him the "father" of modern Africa literature? Also, His legacy is particularly unique in regards to its substantial impact on both African and European literature is somewhat vague. I presume this means that he's one of the few African writers who's work has influenced European literature? In summary, the article is indeed salvageable, but there appears to be too much MOS:WEASEL wording. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks Indy beetle. I have given in-text attribution for the "some have" sentences and the first part of the "Okonkwo's furious manhood..." excerpt. The agbala and feminization of his father's failure is too fundamental to the story to require such attribution I would think. I changed the line you were confused about to "His legacy as a writer is particularly unique in regards to its substantial impact on not only African literature, but European literature as well"—the source in question was stressing that most African writers of his time did not impact European literature much, but Achebe was an exception. The "father" thing isn't really disputable; you'll see that there are four references from a variety of sources, meaning a kind of universal opinion. The "dominant" line is similar; it is sourced to two entries on Achebe that are general overviews, where I would think the author is attempting to speak from a consensus-based perspective, not a personal one. Aza24 (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for your tweaks. I've made some of my own too, with a note that the "father" label percolated in many obituaries of him. WEASEL has its caveats, and searches through my university database on journal articles supports your conclusion that this high regard for Achebe is very much the consensus, even if it is somewhat taken for granted. Shame we don't know who was the first to accord him the honors, but we're doing what Wikipedia does at its best; representing the scholarly view. No more concerns about the article, I think it stands fine as an FA. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait - The issues above are being dramatized, this article is pretty close to FA standard. I want to get around to adding some refs to missing places and fix up other issues. I would ask that the coords hold on this. Aza24 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I've dealt with all the cn tags (that were there when I got there—there appears to be an IP addressing some) except two thus far. I will note that I found it rather concerning that almost all of the tags were faulty ones; placed on lines that were in fact sourced by the reference at the end of the paragraph (I have, regardless, added additional/duplicate citations for these). I will also note that I checked Achebe's Oxford Bibliography entry and it seems that Ezenwa-Ohaeto is currently the most thorough source on his biography—and (because of this) one can see that almost no Ezenwa-Ohaeto refs are used in the style section. Additionally, the supposed "length" issue commented below the FARC section has not been brought up by a single editor (??). It is somewhat concerning that three experienced editors were so quick to vote "delist", and equally so that none of the issues were properly evaluated. I still have some more work to do, the holdup was due to me reading a few chapters on Achebe... Aza24 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: I placed many of the cn tags that you fixed. When I reviewed the article, the prose contained many one-sentence paragraphs that were uncited, so I tagged them. Another editor merged the paragraphs together but kept the cn tags as the reference at the end of the new paragraph might not verify the information that was merged together. I am happy that most of the cn issues have been addressed. I don't mind removing duplicate references (and I actually prefer this, as footnotes distract the reader.) The length issues concern some sections that are very large, including the "Masculinity and femininity" section (especially the second paragraph) and the "Influence and legacy" sections. I recommend that someone familiar with this person review the article to try to more effectively summarise the article in the bloated parts. I am happy to re-review and copyedit once these are complete. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay @Aza24: where are we up to on this one? Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still working Casliber. I'm yet to finish cleaning the life section yet, and have just gotten (like the day before yesterday) access to some sources through resource request, to hopefully diversify the citations in the biography. I know you guys are trying to keep the process moving, but I only really started editing on May 2nd (though I briefly cleaned up some things on April 23rd), so any lenience—if possible—would be much appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More than happy to cut plenty of slack timewise if articles are being worked on. So take your time, there is no mad rush. We've kept things open for months if it looks like things are heading in the right direction Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I read through the bio and made copyedit: please review to ensure I did not change the meaning of something by accident. Some questions below:
  • "Achebe was admitted as a Major Scholar in the university's first intake" What is a Major Scholar? This should be clarified in the article.
  • "From its inception, the university had a strong Arts faculty; it included many famous writers amongst its alumni: Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka, poet and playwright John Pepper Clark, and poet Christopher Okigbo." Why is this sentence included in this article? Did these people influence Achebe? If so, how? If not, this information should be moved to the university's article.
  • "Achebe wrote a piece for the University Herald" What is the University Herald? A short description should be included in the article.
  • "When a professor named Geoffrey Parrinder arrived at the university" Is this Geoffrey Parrinder, and should it be wikilinked?
  • "Also in 1956, Achebe was selected at the Staff School run by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)." I'm confused by this sentence. What is the Staff School? Is it an institution, a program, or something else?
    • Clarified, it was a training school for staff at the BBC (and run by the BBC it self) as I understand it
  • "By 1957, he had sculpted it to his liking," Is this implying that he finished writing and editing his work? I've rarely seen writing described as sculpting and I think a more direct description would be better.
  • "The VON's supposedly objective perspective was put to the test when Nigerian Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa declared a state of emergency in the Western Region, responding to a series of conflicts between officials of varying parties." What was the result of this "test"? Was VON able to maintain their neutrality? Maybe something like, "The VON struggled to maintain an objective perspective when Nigerian Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa declared a state of emergency in the Western Region, responding to a series of conflicts between officials of varying parties." And in the subsequent sentence, describe what the VON did to maintain/not maintain this neutrality.

This brings me to "Nigeria-Biafra War (1967–1970)" Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 I've responded to the above, many thanks thus far. Aza24 (talk) 01:39, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delayed response. Real life has been busy. @Aza24: more comments below:

  • "As the turmoil closed in," Can this be more specific? What specifically was happening in Aba that was increasing turmoil? Were Nigerian forces getting closer to the city, or is this just talking about the war in general?
  • "serve as foreign ambassador" for Biafra? What does a foreign ambassador do?
  • "For his seventieth birthday in 2000, a sizable celebration took place at Bard College and was attended by writers and critics from around the world." Is this sentence necessary for this article? It feels like fluff to me.
  • "In Things Fall Apart, ceremonial dancing and the singing of folk songs reflect the realities of Igbo tradition." This sentence, and the subsequent sentences in this paragraph, are only cited to Achebe and the "In Things Fall Apart" book. This sentence needs a citation to verify this claim, as the book can only verify the plot, not the fact that the dancing and singing reflect Igbo tradition.

This brings me to "Themes" Z1720 (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing up the review:

  • I think the first paragraph in Themes can be merged into Culture and colonialism. Thoughts?
    • I would say no, as—not withstanding the fact that the section is already rather long—it introduces that Achebe includes igbo sentiments in both the "Tradition and colonialism" aspect and "Masculinity and femininity" ones. Aza24 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Things Fall Apart" paragraph in Masculinity and feminimity is still quite long. I think it can be trimmed, but I would rather an expert go through it.
    • I looked closely at it, but gender in Things Fall Apart is probably Achebe's most famous and analyzed theme (if not second most) and is the source of some controversy, so I am hesitant to remove much, as to avoid any risk of confusion or under-explanation. Aza24 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those conclude my first readthrough. Once the above are addressed, I'll do another read of the article. Pinging Aza24. Z1720 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments responded to Z1720. Aza24 (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More comments. I'm up to "Retirement and politics"

  • "Later, in Things Fall Apart, Achebe describes a similar area called the "evil forest", where the Christian missionaries are given a place to build their church." This is cited to a note, which in turn is cited to one of Achebe's books. Does the book verify that the evil forest is supposed to be a similar area to the Merchant of Light school in Oba? If not, I think this is WP:OR
  • "In 1957 he sent his only copy of his handwritten manuscript (along with the £22 fee) to the London company." Which London company?

Those are my comments so far. Will continue later. Z1720 (talk) 03:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • The company itself is actually unnamed in the source, but I've clarified that it was a "manuscript typing service"

@Aza24: Finishing up my comments. I don't think my two points above have been addressed. Also:

  • I don't think the ref, "Achebe, Chinua (1965). "English and the African Writer"." is cited in the article anymore. Can it be removed?
    • It had an incorrect date, so is now used
  • "Emenyonu, p. 86." Which work is this cited to? It should include the year.
    • Not sure, I couldn't get access to either ref. I've removed it as the information it covered was superfluous anyways
  • The following refs are not cited in the article. Can they be removed from the general bibliography section, or have footnote citations added that lead to them? "July, Robert W. (1987). An African Voice.", "July, Robert W. (1987). An African Voice.", "Lawtoo, Nidesh (Spring 2013).", "Franklin, Ruth (26 May 2008)."

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following refs are flagged as not having references leading to them. Can they be cited in the article or removed?

  • Achebe, Chinua (1975).
  • Emenyonu, Ernest N. (1996).
  • Laurence, Margaret (2001).
  • July, Robert W. (1987).

More comments to come later. Z1720 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Z1720, does "He wrote in and defended the use of English, describing it as a means to reach a broad audience, particularly readers of previously colonial nations" make sense to you? I wasn't exactly sure how to phrase the latter section; I'm trying to say that he's using English to reach nations that used to be colonizers (UK and America) but I think it might sound like he's using English to reach countries that used to be colonized (like Nigeria)? Aza24 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC) Also, I removed the unused refs, two were general books on African literature so it didn't make sense to include them in further reading. The other was a chapter of a book cited elsewhere (and one just just an Achebe publication). 22:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: I might say, "He defended writing his works in English by describing it as a means to reach a broad audience, particularly readers of colonial nations." This might emphasise that he is talking about writing in English. The UK is still a colonial nation (Falkland Islands, Bermuda) and the US can be argued as a colonial nation today (Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa) so to say they were previous colonial nations would, imo, be inaccurate. Z1720 (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Probably better than the existing phrasing, so I've changed it to your suggestion. Aza24 (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I finished a second review of the article. After shortening some phrases, and removing sentences that were not directly related to Achebe, I think this is almost ready for a keep. Aza24 thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Z1720! I am really bad at trimming things like that, so I'm glad you could step in to get that sorted. I did some minor ce and ran some tools dup link tools and such and it looks great now.
I'll officially put a Keep from me. Aza24 (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A wonderful and important FAR save, please ping me when completed so I can enter a Keep. Scartol made fabulous contributions, and it would have been a shame to lose this work. AS Aza24 is now the leading author of the article, Aza should be up for a FAR rescue barnstar. Oops, we never finalized that proposal ... hints, hints! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Have we not?[6] Renerpho (talk) 08:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better discussed on talk, and once the FAR closes, but first Indy beetle’s comment above remains to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have responded to all of your comments I believe SandyGeorgia Aza24 (talk) 22:50, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice work; I’m a Keep (although I’m still uncomfortable with the unlinked oeuvre in the lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I linked it to the Writings section, which is perhaps helpful? My assumption is that the contextual use makes it meaning clear. Aza24 (talk) 00:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Brilliant! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comments above have been addressed, I think this is ready to keep. Great work Aza24. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 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.

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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 5:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC) [7].

Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater[edit]

Notified: Steel, Jonny2x4, Th1rt3en, WP Video games, March 2021

Review section[edit]

This 2006 FA has been noticed since March 2021 yet has received no attention, and appears to be abandoned although the FAC nominator is still active. The talk page notice includes issues with prose, sourcing and listiness, and there is some uncited text, and sources flagged by Headbomb's script as unreliable. Because no one has responded in nine months to the (somewhat unnecessarily charged) description of the issues on talk, independent eyes to evaluate the article relative to criteria is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a quick skim through sources:
  • GoNintendo is listed as unreliable at WP:VGRS
  • Grinding Down is a wordpress blog, needs replaced
  • I can't tell if "Payton, Ryan. "The KP Report Session 027". Kojima Productions Report. mp.i.revo. Retrieved February 17, 2012." is a useable primary source publication or some sort of unaffiliated site that may not be reliable, as the link is dead, hopefully someone is familiar with this one
  • "Metal Gear Solid 3 commentary 2; Arctic Air Space ～ Bolshaya Past Base". Muni Shinobu.webs.com. Archived from the original on 2013-12-03. Retrieved 2013-07-23." - are we sure this is RS?
  • IMDB is cited many times, needs replaced
  • "Hideo Kojima's original idea for Metal Gear Solid 5 featured The Boss, Cobra unit - PlayStation Universe". Psu.com. Retrieved 2012-12-02." - not familiar with this one, not on VGRS, is this really high-quality RS?
  • ""Save MGO – The only community devoted to the revival of the original Metal Gear Online". www.savemgo.com. Retrieved 2009-09-04." - does not appear to be reliable
  • siliconera is cited, I see that it's VGRS entry says "Should be replaced with a higher-quality source where possible.", so gonna say this doesn't meet the higher quality standard of FA
  • "Metal Gear, Zone of Enders, Silent Hill HD Collection Coming to 360/PS3". The DamnLag. 2011-06-02. Archived from the original on 2012-03-24. Retrieved 2011-12-21." - any indication this is particularly reliable?

I'm not a video gamer, so others more experienced in this area may have additional sourcing comments. Hog Farm Talk 01:20, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 15 December 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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 5:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC) [8].

Texas A&M University[edit]

Notified: Buffs ([9]), WikiProjectHigher education, ([10])
See this discussion; additional notifications to WP Big 12, WP Texas, Karancas, Oldag07, BlueAg09, ElKevbo SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Review section[edit]

This article was promoted over a decade ago and it is showing its age. Much of the content is dated, sizeable portions of the article are unsourced, and there is a heavy reliance on primary sources and even some unreliable sources such as IMDb. Some of the images also lack alt text. I expressed concerns with this article back in early April and no improvements have been made. ~ HAL333 22:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HAL333, well, this is a bit of a joke. You hardly "expressed concerns with this article back in early April." In fact, you made one single vague statement and question: "I'm concerned about the heavy use of primary sources published by Texas A & M that are used in this article. Could this be fixed?" Just because no one answered your question then doesn't mean a lack of a response equates to "the article is lacking." To the contrary, this was brought up in the FAC nomination and had the requisite support, to include such citations as-is. Your opinion hardly overrides that consensus. The University providing such sources is no different than the Smithsonian or US Government providing such sources on themselves regarding general, uncontentious facts; falsification of such figures and statistics would incur financial penalties and/or criminal liabilities. They are an educational institution and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Accordingly, I don't see that you've satisfied the first requirement for a FAR.
As to the rest of your concerns that were FIRST brought up here (and never brought up prior), I would be happy to address them, but you need to be much more specific.
Which parts are "dated"?
Which portions do you feel are "unsourced"? By my quick count, there are a total of only 14 sentences that do not have a direct reference associated with them. Most of these were referenced by the previous sentences, are uncontentious facts, are frivolous facts that could easily have been removed, or, in the case of the single sentence in the lead, mentioned later in the article.
Which sources are unreliable? The sole reference to IMDb is Robert Earl Keen and Lyle Lovett. REK has told this story at hundreds of concerts. While a better source, such as the youtube video above, would be a better source, the fact itself is not in question.
Which images lack alt text? Alt text may be desired by you, but does not appear to be one of the requirements of a Featured Article
I'll be happy to address these concerns with specifics, but I'm not going to jump through vague hoops over vaguery/exaggeration. Buffs (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed every unreferenced instance on the page that I could find by either finding a source or deleting the necessary sentence. I've also replaced the REK reference with a MUCH better one.
It should be noted that during the FAC, concerns were made that it was OVER-referenced. Given that there is not a single passage without a reference, I think this point can be pretty much put to bed. I await clarifications on your other contentions. This only leaves things you feel are "dated", which is completely subjective without further clarification. Buffs (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some of the sections which need to be updated:
  • Most of the Rankings section.
  • Did the "University era" end in 2013?
  • The last three paragraghs of the Student body section need to be updated with recent stats.
  • The entire Endowment section needs to be rewritten and resourced to reflect the present.
  • Hopefully you get what I mean by dated. The later sections also need such work.
  • As I said the prose still needs some work. There are several bits the need to be made less authorial/promotional. First off, in the lede we have fluffy language like "over 500,000 strong". (The 500,000 statistic also happens to be unsourced...)
  • Why are multiple sources sometimes placed all at the end of the sentence and sometimes placed directly after the dependent material? This needs to be standardized.
  • For it to be accessible to screenreaders, it still needs alt text for every image.
Hopefully we can address those. ~ HAL333 13:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe alt text is part of FA requirements. (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say it was. But if an article is to be featured and exemplify the finest work on Wikipedia, it should be inclusive for screenreaders.18:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The FA criteria require that an article complies with the Manual of Style, and MOS:ACCIM, part of the MOS accessibility guideline, states Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added, it should be succinct or refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text. So my interpretation would be that yes, alt text is required for FAs. If there's a reason to believe that having alt text would make the article worse, I'd be open to considering an IAR argument for leaving it out, but if it's just that no one wants to put in the few minutes of work to add it, I really don't have much sympathy for that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have little sympathy for someone expecting others to jump through hoops for something they could have fixed in a few minutes and threatening to delist a featured article. I do not believe this was EVER addressed on the talk page which should have been the FIRST place to go. Given the misleading rationale for this page in the first place, this feels much more like a person attempting to manipulate/exert control over forcing others to do something.
Now, I'm going to do it., but I do so under protest that this was done in exceptionally poor form. Buffs (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. If you don't like the word choices, feel free to edit. Buffs (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now, to address each of the other points brought up:
  • Most of the Rankings section. The rankings section includes some of the latest information from 2021...we will update 2022 when it happens.
  • Did the "University era" end in 2013? No, but few major things have happened in the past 8 years. If you feel something has been missed, feel free to mention it, but you can't say you're missing something without specifying what's missing.
  • The entire Endowment section needs to be rewritten and resourced to reflect the present. I wouldn't say it needs to be rewritten from scratch, but I've since updated it.
  • Hopefully you get what I mean by dated. The later sections also need such work.[vague]
  • As I said the prose still needs some work. There are several bits the need to be made less authorial/promotional. First off, in the lede we have fluffy language like "over 500,000 strong". (The 500,000 statistic also happens to be unsourced...) That statistic is 508,000 and is sourced in the Texas_A&M_University#Notable_alumni_and_faculty section. If you have other specific instances, I will be happy to address them.
  • Why are multiple sources sometimes placed all at the end of the sentence and sometimes placed directly after the dependent material? This needs to be standardized. Unless you have a citation from WP:MOS, that is your personal preference. Citations are provided in the middle of sentences when appropriate and at the end of sentences when the sources apply to the whole sentence. This is consistent throughout and is pedantic to edit
  • The last three paragraghs [sic] of the Student body section need to be updated with recent stats. While we can update more, it doesn't need to be 100% up to date with the most relevant stats or it should be delisted. I will do what I can to update the figures.
To be blunt, this FAR needs to be pulled as malformed and certainly not within the guidelines of how one of these should roll; borderline done in bad faith (based on the opening logic, specifically "I expressed concerns with this article back in early April and no improvements have been made."). There's no reason this should have even been brought to FAR. Buffs (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the sourcing needs to be revamped. Here are a few that may not be high quality reliable sources:

  • "Largest.org", currently cited as "largest,org"
  • "brazosgenealogy.org"
  • Britannica is a tertiary source.
  • asumag.com
  • Is the Military Times considered reliable?
  • Kiplinger?
  • Applied Biosytems?
  • Are the cited college newspapers editorially independent?
  • Etc.

I'm not being picky either. When I got my first FA through earlier this year, I was told that I couldn't use Politico. I have ignored places where primary sources can/should be replaced with reliable secondary sources. Sources also need to be standardized. ~ HAL333 18:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re:"I'm not being picky either". Yes you are. And so were the people who said you couldn't use Politico. What is a reliable source depends highly on the claim being made. If I say "Biden/Trump said ______" and cite the primary reference for such a claim, that's perfectly accurate. The same could be said for the KKK or a Black Panther statement. Such a citation is not only appropriate, but desired so people can read the statement for themselves. The accuracy of said claim is irrelevant; so is the source as a WP:RS: they are the stated claims that were made from the organizations themselves. If Ben Shapiro states something on DailyWire.com, it's valid to cite that source as where he said it as it is the publishing arm of his organization. That does not mean the statement is accurate nor does it mean that DailyWire is somehow a more reliable source because of it, but it IS a reliable source for the statement itself even if it is self-published.
Re: "Some of the sourcing needs to be revamped. Here are a few that may not be high quality reliable sources" I'm not going to go through an article and address the few that "may not be high quality reliable sources" if you're going to be so vague and include even simple typos. WP:SOFIXIT applies in spades here. There's VERY little that you couldn't just fix yourself and would require far less work than what you're putting in here. If you are contending that any of these are unreliable sources, it's incumbent upon you to explain why, not vaguely claim there might be problems.
Lastly, this is not the forum for such claims and you have not acknowledged/corrected your deceptive initial statement. I'm not inclined to address such concerns only to have a litany of new concerns and preferences brought to the table ad nauseam every time they are addressed.
So, for that last time...for each of these points"
  • "Largest.org", currently cited as "largest,org" WP:SOFIXIT; you wasted WAY more space here complaining than it would have taken for what is clearly a simple typo fix.
  • "brazosgenealogy.org" Do you consider this unreliable? All the facts I see are accurate.
  • "Britannica is a tertiary source." So? What's your point? WP:RS "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited."
  • "asumag.com" The only thing it's cited for is an utterly uncontentious claim about where the college came from that neither school disagrees with. 1 2 3. I'm truly perplexed as to what the problem is here.
  • "Is the Military Times considered reliable?" For a statement about what they themselves published? Absolutely. That distinction is made in the very sentence it's cited (and the only citation from that source).
  • "Kiplinger?" For a statement about what they themselves published? Absolutely. That distinction is made in the very sentence it's cited (and the only citation from that source). This is the kind of asinine standards you're attempting to apply here. You clearly aren't even looking at the context in which they are used.
  • "Applied Biosytems? [sic]" Again, an utterly uncontroversial claim. The other source was a press release by the school.
  • "Are the cited college newspapers editorially independent?" In general, yes. This was addressed in the FAC and has been addressed multiple times on the talk page. Please review the archives.
  • "Etc." Sorry, but no one can possibly address what you're questioning here. There's not enough information.
You come up with a list of problems. I'll be happy to address them. But a vague "Here's a few, maybe, and there are more...because it was done to me" is horrible logic for proposing to delist an FA. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some issues I spot:
    • Missing an "organization and administration" section (see WP:UNIGUIDE for what it should contain).
    • Veterans section is way too short to stand on its own.
    • Enrollment surpassing 50k in 2011 is history moreso than anything about the student body.
    • A bunch of the info in the worldwide section belongs in the campus section.
    • It's promotional to talk about The Battalion's awards before ever introducing it.
    • Notable alumni section is significantly overlong.
    • Various prose issues throughout: "Note that", MOS:%, the promotional "over 500,000 strong"
There is probably a bunch more, but that's to start. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, then let's start with that logic then, not some circuitous reasoning that isn't mandatory. I still disagree that such a section is necessary in order to be "comprehensive", but I've added a section anyway and will update the bare urls in due time. Buffs (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed the Veteran section; merged as part of the rankings.
  • Removed 50K reference...not really needed.
  • Fixed the Battalion reference.
    Looks good now. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed 500K, "note that", updated percent -> % via rephrasing.
    Oh, MOS:% seems to say that writing out percent is more common for non-technical articles, but so long as you're consistent, % looks alright to me. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notable alumni section was formed by consensus and agreed upon in the FAC.
    The FAC was in 2007, so I can't put much stock in it. Notable alumni sections have been discussed frequently recently, and as a WP:HED participant, I have a good sense of the range of them. This one is way longer than most—it'll need significant trimming to avoid undue weight. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    5 paragraphs to summarize the contributions of over half a million alumni (and this excludes faculty)? That's hardly extensive given the number of people and hardly undue weight. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "A bunch of the info in the worldwide section belongs in the campus section." What parts? All of this pertains to parts of the school that aren't on the main campus...I'm confused. Buffs (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Qatari campus is a campus. On second look, I think most of what's in the academics section is fine there, but the campus section should include at least a bit on the Qatari campus. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So...that one's a bit of an oddity. The campus at Doha, Qatar is considered part of the A&M College Station main campus. It is not considered a separate school. Those who graduate from TAMUQ have "Texas A&M College Station" on their diploma. Buffs (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from HAL
Extended resolved commentary (with plenty of tq templates that stall the FAC page) moved to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should these be addressed (along with the ones above), I'll be happy to support keeping this as an FA. Cheers. ~ HAL333 00:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm happy to see the great work put into this article by Buffs. At this point, I drop any objections and advocate keeping this article as an FA. Cheers. ~ HAL333 14:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Motions to close

Close without FARC At this point, I think it's clear I'm happy to address any issues you find and respectfully request that this FAR be rescinded by its submitter as the pretenses for its listing are unfounded/unwarranted. Buffs (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720

I have moved my initial review to the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Intent to review; please hold closing. (Particularly since correct notifications were not done and I just did them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oldag07: Notes on article[edit]

Comment 1; First off, It seems like this article is in an archive. Does it mean it survived its review? We should move this page to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Texas A&M University/

No, it is in the right place; all FARs start off automatically in the next open archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2; I am sorry about the grammar. I wrote this in a rush, and I don’t particularly want to spend the time to proofread it.

Introduction; It is impossible for me to review this objectively. The notion of getting the Texas A&M University article as a "Featured Article" is one of the reasons why I got into wikipedia editing in the first place. Hence my scren name. Originally written as a joke, it hasn't aged well. Moreover, when we made this push, I was a senior at A&M, and I was intimately familiar with the topic. I feel like my knowledge of the topic is not what it was. And while I am proud of the work I put in to this article, but I really don't have the energy to care if this is demoted or enough. I am literally training for a marathon and my job already puts me in front of a screen way too much. That being said, I got a lot better at writing during grad school. I am actually an administrator on a mid size Fandom (Wikia) site. And my unique perspective might help improve this article. While will try to give what feedback I can. Of note, I don't think any of my criticisms disqualify the article. It seems like Z1720 has done a fantastic job nitpicking over the article and Buffs has done a fantastic job of cleaning up these errors. Thank you so much for helping to improve this article. I, instead will look at the forest, not the trees, and go for a big picture critique of the article. Of note is the Georgetown University article, the only other featured university article. I feel that article has just as many problems as this one does.

History I have always found history sections difficult to write in Wikipedia articles, most notably at the end of these. Knowing what is significant and what isn't while history is "being made" is hard.

  • Perhaps adding dates for each section like the History of Texas A&M page would be useful.
  • The Black Lives matter protests belong on this page. But it seems out of place with what is going on with the rest of the history section. It is a weird way to end the section. Perhaps some sort of summary of what Texas A&M has become would be a good way to end the section. Something like "As of 2021, the university growing at a rate of ???. it is a leader in research in the areas of ???? Texas A&M continues the challenges of merging its rich traditions with the challenges of the 21st century". That definitely is a way to end the History of Texas A&M University article. Something shorter?

Student Body

  • This article probably needs something about graduation rates.
  • Conservatism/Religion- The word "conservative" is only mentioned once in the article. And that isn't something that describes the student body. I know we used to mention it more. I know recent events have redefined the definition of "conservative". The average student might even be more liberal than average American. But in academia, A&M is still on the right. The average Aggie is much more religious than most university students.

Research

  • Research sections of any university article are also difficult to write. Summarizing all of the research at a university the size of this university is hard. This section highlights a bunch of interesting research this that A&M does, and then it ignores others. Great, A&M made its uranium safer. What about the university's work with knockout genes in mice? What about the 100 million dollars the university just earned from the DOD to research hypersonics? [11] I don't know how to prioritize what research belongs on this page and what doesn't.
  • Here is some big picture things that could be added. What is A&M's are on total research expenditures, Where does get its funding, how much it spends its money compared to other universities. I also know A&M has been very aggressive in hiring Nobel Prize researchers. The word "Nobel" is not found with a quick Ctl-F search. Researching this critique, I found a great article on that very issue. https://today.tamu.edu/2021/02/10/first-in-texas-am-research-tops-1-billion-mark/

Campus

  • Oh wow, the campus page is really outdated. Obviously not something that affects this article.
  • I feel like this seciton is a very clinical description of the campus. But what does the campus "feel like". How is its architecture styled? What are the the major buildings on campus, notably the MSC and Kyle field.
  • I haven't been back to main campus in years. Some updated photos would be nice.

Student life

  • Certainly the section I am most rusty at. I am mixed on why Texas A&M Hillel is in the article. It is the "oldest" in the nation, but it certainly isn't a particularly large organization. Most people who graduate from the school probably never heard of it.
  • I know Greeks do not own the school like they do at some Universities. But I am not sure how to write that appropriately. The student body has voted against having a Greek block... on several occasions. Maybe that is enough?

Traditions

  • I think this section is pretty spot on. It is emphasizes the importants of traditions, and gives a good overview of the topic. But it doesn't "go into the weeds".

Athletics

  • Really… Is the basketball section bigger than the football section? This is a football school. Make me feel like it is one when I read this.
  • Basketball. Buzz Williams might be in is 10th year as head coach, but we should mention that he has only been at A&M since 2019.
  • Other sports. This certainly could be longer. How many varsity teams does A&M have? I know A&M has one of the only equestrian teams in the nation. One way to discuss how comprehensive the school's athletics programs is to discuss how well the school has done in the NACDA Directors' Cup.

Alumni

  • I think these are horrible on almost all university pages. I believe this section not only should list out notable alumnim, but it should include stuff about the Aggie alumni as a whole. Here are some ideas of what could be added.
  • What are the typical jobs Aggies take after they graduate?
  • Where do they typically live?
  • How do Aggie alumni feel about their alma mater?
  • How large is the alumni association?
  • How generous are Aggies to their alumni association?
  • How many and how large are Aggie booster clubs?
  • How are Aggie alumni perceived by others?
  • I think the hall of fame article in the sports section could be moved into a section like that.

Final Comments. I don't believe anything I wrote above disqualifies this article. They were written as a way to improve the article. I feel like I should add some of the suggestions myself. Maybe I will someday. Thanks and Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldag07: I'm willing to address each of these points in due course, however, as you state "I don't believe anything I wrote above disqualifies this article", I'm going to refrain from addressing them until after this FAR is complete. It's been 3 months and I'm not going to lengthen it when even the criticizer says it isn't necessary. Likewise, many of the points you address are there because of wikiproject guidelines, which are de facto rules. Changing those would literally require changing thousands of other articles. I don't argue many of your points, but I'm going to refrain from adjusting anything that isn't an FA hangup. Buffs (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some bits of OldAg's concerns will be an "FA hangup" for me when I do my read-through (which I won't start until others like Z1720 indicate they are ready). I understand your frustration, and it is unfortunate that notifications were incomplete, but we mark an article as passing FAR when it is at featured standard, and FARs have remained open for a year. What I would like to see from OldAg's writeup:
  • History: I don't agree those changes are necessary.
  • Student body: OldAg could well be right, but should have provided sources-- we can't go on a goose chase for that kind of content.
  • Research: OldAg's comments rightly indicate a problem with how we assign due weight to mention of the University's research. Education articles tend to become promotional as we add content based on non-independent sources rather than using independent coverage to assign due weight. I see that here, including press releases from the University, and would rather see more independent mentions used to determine what research activities warrant inclusion in this article (over press releases). Some of the sources in that section, also, are old, making me wonder whether currently significant research is given appropriate weight. A comprehensive search for sources should be done in this area, and I see OldAg already supplied a source.
  • Campus: some of what concerns OldAg can be conveyed with images rather than text (Stanford University is gorgeous, but that is not conveyed in the text, rather than images). If OldAg wants text in this area, then supplying a source would help.
  • Student life: it looks like some of those points should not be difficult to fix.
  • Athletics: some needs to be incorporated, and OldAg even gave sources. But it seems to me that the basketball section is larger than football simply because basketball has a women's team, so I disagree with that critique of OldAg's.
  • Alumni, ugh (as they always are): convert it to a list, move it off the page, link to it, and focus on broader discussion of the type that OldAg mentions.
Let me know when some of OldAg's commentary has been completed, along with Z1720's work, and I will read through. In advance, please keep an eye as to whether the article is using good sources, or just a publicity brochure based on University press releases (I haven't looked yet). Also, please remember that when a FAC or FAR closes, that version is marked in the Article milestones, so it would be awkward to close a FAR when there are still improvements needed, leaving a less-than-best version flagged in article history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incomplete comments from Sdkb[edit]

First, I acknowledge Buffs' understandable frustration that this FAR has been open for so long. Higher education articles are notoriously difficult, and this one has undergone a lot of changes to bring it closer to the 2021 FA standards. However, looking through the article, I'm not yet persuaded that it has met them. Comments:

Lead

  • ”the only university in Texas to hold simultaneous designations as a land, sea, and space grant institution” reads as promotional and undue, especially since my understanding is that space-grant is not particularly important.
  • MOS:LEADCITE has not been followed; many excess citations in the lead.
  • ”Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas: is a bit of an MOS:EGG link.
  • ”Under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder” Is "the leadership of" needed? Seems promotional.
  • The overall organization of the lead is lacking and needs a bunch of reordering. “The university offers degrees in more than 150 courses of study through ten colleges and houses 18 research institutes.”, the sentence about the university's academics, shouldn't be way at the end. Meanwhile, “The Texas A&M Aggies athletes compete in 18 varsity sports as a member of the Southeastern Conference.” gets to be in the first paragraph, with the double problem that it's then disconnected from the other sentences about student life in the last paragraph. Listing examples of the organizations that fund the university's research also seems questionable for the lead and certainly the first paragraph.
  • ”Working with various A&M-related agencies, the school has a direct presence in each of the 254 counties in Texas.” appears to be uncited and does not appear in the body.
  • Texas A&M Corps of Cadets is linked twice in the lead.
  • Is there a list of largest U.S. campuses to wikilink?
  • Infobox has incorrect capitalization with “College Town”.
  • Accreditation is unsourced (and should be in body).
  • Infobox has the academic staff count but is missing the total staff count.
  • Does The Battalion have official status from the university? Most college newspapers don't and therefore shouldn't be in the infobox.

Other

  • The history section photos need improvement. There's only one actual historical photo in it, the World Wars era section is unillustrated, and then there's a sandwich.
  • The 2017 statue removal paragraph has poor wording.
  • In the student body section, I don't think it's necessary to give the percentage of students that took SAT vs. ACT.
  • The student body section is lacking a bunch of demographic information. There should be coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least.
  • ”as follows” is poor wording.
  • The rankings section just gives a bunch of listings of individual rankings, many of questionable value, rather than a holistic overview of the university's reputation.
  • The campus tree photo in the research section doesn't have anything to do with research.
  • The photo in the worldwide section of four guys in a group photo with a flag is not very compelling.
  • ”Several halls include a "substance-free" floor, where residents pledge to avoid bringing alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes into the hall.” The wikilinking choices here seem odd; why the first two but not cigarettes?
  • ”The Corps welcomed female members in the fall of 1974,[1]. has a punctuation error, and "welcomed" seems promotional compared to "began accepting".
    The university houses the public broadcasting stations: KAMU-TV, a PBS member station since 1970, KAMU-FM an NPR affiliate since 1977, and the student-run KANM, "the college station of College Station".: Needs grammar fix.
  • My concern above that the alumni section is significantly overlong has not yet been addressed. For smaller schools with less alumni, I find it more justifiable for individual people to be noteworthy in the context of the institution as a whole, but for somewhere as large as Texas A&M, I'd like to see mainly numbers (e.g. how many billionaires, how many generals, etc.), with only a few of the very most notable people individually called out. The rest can be moved to the people list page.
  • The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni. I'd like to see its scope expanded to "noted people" to also include notable faculty members.
  • In the external links section, I question whether having a link to the athletics page is justifiable per WP:ELMIN. I would suggest instead linking The Battalion's website (see this thread), the accreditation page from SACS (since it's an independent source with detailed info), and the College Navigator page (since it's from the U.S. government).

For content beyond the lead, I did only spot checks on various areas, not a full read. If I looked longer and deeper, I'm sure many additional concerns would arise, but the above is as much effort as I'm willing to devote. I hope these comments are helpful. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb thanks for the indepth review! Templates are discouraged at FAC and FAR because they cause the FAC page and archives to exceed template limits, which then cuts off the page. You have made extensive use of the tq template above. Would you mind if I go through and just convert them to straight (non-colored) quotes? Because of problems like this, there is consideration to remove the FAR page from FAC, to the detriment of FAR, so we should be sure to not use templates here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Sure, go ahead; thanks! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of sources questioned (above at 24 July 2021) that does not appear to have been addressed. Just looking at the first on the list, I can find no indication of reliability at largest.org. Sourcing should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs responses to each[edit]

Lead

  • the only university in Texas to hold simultaneous designations as a land, sea, and space grant institution reads as promotional and undue, especially since my understanding is that space-grant is not particularly important.
    NASA would disagree and it has been there for ~14 years based on plenty of prior consensus. Texas A&M is a prominent research institution with ties to US space programs nationwide.
    Actionable (no independent sources for this content in the body), this has not been addressed. If this info is so significant as to be in the lead, it should be covered (better) in the body, with sources other than Brittanica. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Brittanica is an acceptable source. IIRC, the space telescope was the primary piece in the article, but it looks like the space grant reference was omitted; fixed. Buffs (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:LEADCITE has not been followed; many excess citations in the lead.
    Since anything that may be challenged needs a source, a source has been provided. I disagree as well, but that was the consensus in the FA.
    The FA was passed in 2007; this is a new FA. I am comfortable that the items cited in the lead are worthy of citation, but “one of six” is cited to a 2008 source, and the one of ten is WP:CITATION OVERKILL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am 100% on board with removing ALL citations in the lead as all of the lead should be contained in the body of the article. You won't get any argument from me. However, WP:V states "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." Ergo, MOS:LEADCITE cannot override it. I think it's pedantic too, but you've put me between people who want to uphold WP:V to an extreme degree and MOS:LEADCITE/you. I don't want to do that, but it's also required. As such, I'm not going to comply with it as WP:V overrides WP:MOS. I think it's dumb and probably needs to be rewritten, but that's where we stand. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas is a bit of an MOS:EGG link.
    Not at all. It's a link to the history. If you don't like it, feel free to remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 02:44, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • Under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder Is "the leadership of" needed? Seems promotional.
    It explains who was in charge and a simple variation in "Under X, ABC happened...Under Y, DGH happened". Doesn't sound promotional to me in the slightest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 02:44, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The overall organization of the lead is lacking and needs a bunch of reordering. The university offers degrees in more than 150 courses of study through ten colleges and houses 18 research institutes., the sentence about the university's academics, shouldn't be way at the end. Meanwhile, The Texas A&M Aggies athletes compete in 18 varsity sports as a member of the Southeastern Conference. gets to be in the first paragraph, with the double problem that it's then disconnected from the other sentences about student life in the last paragraph. Listing examples of the organizations that fund the university's research also seems questionable for the lead and certainly the first paragraph.
    This sounds very much like preferences, not standards. I have no objection to addressing these, but not as part of FAR. SEC is included in the lead paragraph because there is a very strong popular association with athletic conferences in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 02:55, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    Sdkb raises legitimate concerns about structure and organization (of the article and the lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said they were not "legitimate concerns". I simply stated they were preferences. Does the lead have to follow the organization of the article? If so, where is that stated so I can make sure to follow each and every requirement to the letter? I'm not against fulfilling every single requirement for FA/MoS that's possible, but I'm also not going to waste time/effort on something that's not required at this time. Buffs (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Working with various A&M-related agencies, the school has a direct presence in each of the 254 counties in Texas. appears to be uncited and does not appear in the body.
    removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 02:49, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • Texas A&M Corps of Cadets is linked twice in the lead.
    Actually, it isn't. The first one links to the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets. The second links to Corps of Cadets (the generic term). Rewritten for clarity. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a list of largest U.S. campuses to wikilink?
    List_of_United_States_public_university_campuses_by_enrollment was removed initially per WP:OVERLINK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 02:55, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • Infobox has incorrect capitalization with “College Town”.
    I see nothing with "College Town" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 02:55, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • Accreditation is unsourced (and should be in body).
    fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:12, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • Infobox has the academic staff count but is missing the total staff count.
    Is that a standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:12, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    WP:WIAFA, 1b, comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a significant line between "comprehensive" and "too much detail". This may not be it, but it's getting close. I'll look those up and add them. Buffs (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added as requested Buffs (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does The Battalion have official status from the university? Most college newspapers don't and therefore shouldn't be in the infobox.
    This was recently added. I have no objection to its removal or addition. As for whether it should be in the infobox, that's a matter of opinion, not an objective standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs)
    The question was, does it have official status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can find nothing to show it does and I already removed it. Buffs (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other

  • The history section photos need improvement. There's only one actual historical photo in it, the World Wars era section is unillustrated, and then there's a sandwich.
    What needs improvement? As for photos, some were removed because it was "too cluttered". WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies in spades to preferences. The "sandwich" was noted above; moved photo anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The 2017 statue removal paragraph has poor wording.
    See talk page and history for the rationale behind the word choice. If that isn't to your satisfaction, please specify what is "poor" about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • In the student body section, I don't think it's necessary to give the percentage of students that took SAT vs. ACT.
    Basic acceptance averages seem acceptable. Many look at these pages to look for colleges and this is pertinent information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The student body section is lacking a bunch of demographic information. There should be coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least.
    What would you like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    “Demographic information: coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Consolidated to below list for ease of reference
  • as follows is poor wording.
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Rephrased anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The rankings section just gives a bunch of listings of individual rankings, many of questionable value, rather than a holistic overview of the university's reputation.
    The University confers degrees in such a wide list of studies and various ranking systems have wide-ranging criteria. There is no set standard. What would you propose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The campus tree photo in the research section doesn't have anything to do with research.
    Swapped with Zachry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The photo in the worldwide section of four guys in a group photo with a flag is not very compelling.
    If you'll note the caption, it's from the TAMUQ campus in Qatar; the part of the main campus located in another country...it's pretty unique. What's not compelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • Several halls include a "substance-free" floor, where residents pledge to avoid bringing alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes into the hall. The wikilinking choices here seem odd; why the first two but not cigarettes?
    WP:OVERLINK. If you feel it would be beneficial, please add it. If you think the wikilinks are unnecessary, please remove them. Your criticism could be easily fixed rather than voicing such a vague complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The Corps welcomed female members in the fall of 1974,[1]. has a punctuation error, and "welcomed" seems promotional compared to "began accepting".
    Fixed, but I would argue that they were allowed to attend. I don't think they were "accepted" as readily/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The university houses the public broadcasting stations: KAMU-TV, a PBS member station since 1970, KAMU-FM an NPR affiliate since 1977, and the student-run KANM, "the college station of College Station". Needs grammar fix.
    Fixed a missing comma. Please be more specific if it's something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    @Buffs: - maybe "three" instead of "the", if that's accurate? Hog Farm Talk 17:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    point taken. Fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 20:41, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • My concern above that the alumni section is significantly overlong has not yet been addressed. For smaller schools with less alumni, I find it more justifiable for individual people to be noteworthy in the context of the institution as a whole, but for somewhere as large as Texas A&M, I'd like to see mainly numbers (e.g. how many billionaires, how many generals, etc.), with only a few of the very most notable people individually called out. The rest can be moved to the people list page.
    We indeed have addressed and trimmed the page substantially. Pretending we've done nothing is absurd. All of the people mentioned are on the people page. These were largely chosen during the FA process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    This section needs a tighter summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni. I'd like to see its scope expanded to "noted people" to also include notable faculty members.
    "The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni"...how exactly is that a complaint? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect in an Alumni section? If you want it to be alumni and notable faculty, we could consider a change, however, most notable faculty are famous for their contributions prior to coming to A&M, not their work while at A&M. As such, it's fame/notability by mere association and the primary reason such people were removed from such a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    This concern is unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't "unaddressed". It just isn't what you want. I'll see what I can do to address at least some of these issues. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Consolidated/addressed below. Buffs (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the external links section, I question whether having a link to the athletics page is justifiable per WP:ELMIN. I would suggest instead linking The Battalion's website (see this thread), the accreditation page from SACS (since it's an independent source with detailed info), and the College Navigator page (since it's from the U.S. government).
    Their athletics page makes since as that and college admissions are the two primary reasons people popularly look up information about a school in the US, and certainly A&M. For the other sources, feel free to add them as you see fit. If you have a link and don't want to add it yourself, post it here and I'll happily add it. Likewise, I will correct any sloppy links after this round is complete (I prefer to address formatting en masse for the sake of consistency). Buffs (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Last updated: Buffs (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For content beyond the lead, I did only spot checks on various areas, not a full read. If I looked longer and deeper, I'm sure many additional concerns would arise, but the above is as much effort as I'm willing to devote. I hope these comments are helpful. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 19:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a list of sources questioned (above at 24 July 2021) that does not appear to have been addressed. Just looking at the first on the list, I can find no indication of reliability at largest.org. Sourcing should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...I responded within 5 hours (almost 4 months ago). To say that no one responded is highly misleading Buffs (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No improvements since OldAg's post a week ago, and no movement on Sdkb's list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Many edits were made during the review section but progress seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:SANDWICH in the Student body and Rankings sections, and when I edited to attempt to fix it, I found an inline comment indicating a missing table of data that needs to be completed and uncommented. I suspect it is related to one of Sdkb’s comments, unsure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed sandwich issues. By this interpretation, virtually all images have to be on the right which seems silly...done anyway. Buffs (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is some other commented out text (has it been resolved), and this is an inline comment: “ Simply adding the low scores together, and the high scores and getting one range of average scores is statistically incorrect.” And, the data used is cited to 2009. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This was added about 3 years ago, IIRC, due to people adding inaccurate information and to indicate why. It seems to be serving its intended purpose. Are you advocating removal? Buffs (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why bolding in the Academic rankings chart? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea. It's part of the infobox. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please take note of MOS:ACCIM on images after hatnotes (I think I got them all [12]). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted + fixed one more. Buffs (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can install User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to keep dates in order (done for now [13]). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted Buffs (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn’t appear to me that a MOS review has been done. I’ve corrected some as I go, and run scripts, but for example … “The system is governed by a ten-member Board of Regents, nine appointed by the governor to 6-year terms and one non-voting Student Regent appointed to a one-year term.” Ten, nine, one and yet … 6-year which should be six-year … please review throughout for basic MOS things like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Another example in the lead: “The university offers degrees in more than 150 courses of study through ten colleges and houses 18 research institutes.” Use of digits or spelling out should be consistent within a sentence (ten needs to be 10). Please check throughout for similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    fixed both. Buffs (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire paragraph starting with “Texas A&M is one of six United States Senior Military Colleges. The school's Corps of Cadets (or the Corps) is one of the largest uniformed student bodies outside the service academies. Many members participate in ROTC programs and earn commissions in the United States Armed Forces upon graduation. Members of the Corps have served in every armed conflict fought by the United States since 1876 … “ is cited to 2004. Inadequate; we don’t know how much of the paragraph is still true. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Um...why? Just because it was cited to a 2004 article doesn't mean things have changed (they haven't). If you have evidence to the contrary, fine, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or outdated just because it is a ref >10 years old. Buffs (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is cited to a 2003 Aggie network email !!! “ Texas A&M has over 1,000 student organizations, including academic, service, religious, Greek and common interest organizations.” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "It's cited to an email!" is a bit overblown. It's an official e-newsletter (an official publication) of the Association of Former Students that they also hosted/published on their page. Is that invalid? If so, why? Buffs (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bouncing around the Athletics sections, everything I clicked on is a very old citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    They are hardly "very old". Many of them simply reference when an event happened. Old rivalries are not going to have new sources until new games are played. Coaches that have been here a while aren't going to have new articles on when they started. Just because a source is more than a few years old doesn't mean it isn't accurate (this is a recurring theme/issue/standard that your critiques have here and it's generally invalid). That said, some needed updates and those have been done. Please cite meaningful errors in the future. Buffs (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This, for example, needs an “as of” date: “ The women's soccer team, formed in 1993, has been in every NCAA Tournament appearances since 1995.” Also, the publisher on the citation is not specified, and the reader has to rummage around to decipher what 12thman.com is, and that the publisher is Texas A&M Athletics. (Suggest using in situations like this, |work= 12thman.com |publisher= Texas A&M Athletics ) Please check that all publishers are specified. Also, original research again (the source does not say the team was formed in 1993, we can guess that from the data presented, but don’t know if that is factual based on the source given). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added "as of" It isn't original research to say they formed in 1993. No one forms a sporting team with the intent to not play games. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More dated: “ The women's volleyball team is a frequent qualifier for the annual NCAA tournament including 13 consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances from 1993 to 2005.” Frequent is original research, or needs an independent third-party source to say that. It is 2021, almost 2022. And almost everything is cited to Texas A&M; no independent coverage of anything. Do the newspapers not cover sports in TX? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How is that statement "dated"? "Frequent" is an appropriate descriptor of the referenced facts per WP:SUMMARY. Yes, it is cited to Texas A&M, a government institution with a strong reputation for accuracy. If you want to get technical, they meet all the criteria for WP:SELFPUB. They have no incentive to change the record and no one contests their records' accuracy. No newspapers are going to write articles about the history of the volleyball team every year. Lastly, the snark is not needed. Buffs (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilinking needs review throughout. As examples, Qatar and Galveston are not linked on their first occurrence in the article, there is MOS:OVERLINK (eg World War II), Governor of Texas is linked repeatedly, and returns from user:Evad37/duplinks-alt should be checked (some dup links may be useful, but not all are needed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Governor of Texas was linked twice (as were WWII and one other which escapes me)...hardly the egregious error you imply. Fixed the rest. Buffs (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • “ The University and Colleges are generally accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and associated professional organizations.[63]” Bare URL in citation, and what is the meaning of “generally” ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I noted at the time that I would use bare urls until completion. I find it WAY easier to go back and edit urls en masse than as I go. Too many things get changed or details are requested to be added like quotes linking authors, etc. There are a few departments that are accredited by other institutions as they were either initially part of another system or were certified by a professional association's accreditation source (see ref). Putting the certification sources of all 150+ seems onerous and I stuck with a more general tone. If you have other ideas, I'm all ears. Buffs (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Assuming you will correct them before this FAR closes, no problem. This is one of the lengthiest FARs I have seen in a long time, so it is to be expected that not everyone will notice everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LQ review needed, sample "Texas A&M University," SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Review complete. Let me know if you see anything else. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is cited to a 2007 source (!!). “The university consistently ranks among the top ten public universities each year in enrollment of National Merit scholars.[68]”. This is precisely the sort of thing that should have been detected and updated in the course of this FAR. (It is also original research.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    updated Buffs (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are we talking about 2008? “ In the fall 2008 semester, the Dwight Look College of Engineering had the largest enrollment of 20.5%.” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated info for all colleges. Buffs (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is cited to 2012 (almost ten years old): “ About 80% of the student body receives about $420 million in financial aid annually.” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated + new ref Buffs (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still copyedit needs, samples:
    The Washington Monthly ranked Texas A&M ranked 21st nationally in 2021 based on their criteria … ) and please find ways to vary the word ranked throughout (eg placed etc).
    In the lead: Many students also observe various university traditions, which govern daily life, as well as special occasions, including sports events.
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed Buffs (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • “According to the College Board, the fall 2008 entering freshman class consisted of 54% students in the top 10% of their high school graduating class, … “ followed by a lot of text cited to the College Board, but the College Board gets their data from the universities, so this is not independent. And, why are we even mentioning the 2008 class? Has this article been updated to 2020 data? When using promotional data (54% in the top 10%), should we be using the university’s own data ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be happy to deal with the rest of this once we resolve the underlying complaint: I'm completely perplexed as to what data you would expect us to use? These are the official records. Of course A&M produced them. They are required to do so. By the same logic, every article about the content of the Bill of Rights is based on the same government source...the primary source. By that logic, none of the official US government records can be used in articles about the US government...which is absurd. Buffs (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed this with A&M data. If that is insufficient, I'm not sure what to tell you. Buffs (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (moved/duplicated/consolidated from above) The student body section is lacking a bunch of demographic information. There should be coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least.
    What would you like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    “Demographic information: coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Demographic information added. Buffs (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check throughout that promotional claims are not made based on the University’s own sources, that reliable sources are used, and that all old data (from when this FA was promoted) is updated. This article has not been adequately updated from the FAC version. Regardless of the time this article has been at FAR, it has serious issues and is nowhere near FA quality. These items I have noted are only samples, just from bouncing around the text, not a complete read-through. A considerable and sustained effort is needed to get to the bronze star here. I can revisit when a top-to-bottom rewrite has been undertaken, comprehensiveness is addressed re outstanding comments from both Sdkb and OldAg, Research is rewritten to independent sources, all content is rewritten and updated to include close scrutiny to more recent sourcing, and incorporation of “as of” dates throughout (see the error cats at the bottom of the article, that don’t even capture all of the old data that has no “as of” date listed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "Promotional" is in the eye of the beholder. As a government entity, they are the creators of many of these numbers. They are presented as facts from a reputable source, not boosterism. If you find them to be "promotional", then please point them out and I will see what else we can find, but every article will be based on those figures. 4 of 5 people that have commented disagree with your assessment of the status of the article. Just because a source is old doesn't mean it is wrong or needs to be updated. A "considerable and sustained effort is needed to get to the bronze star" is absurd. It already has the star. Buffs (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni"...how exactly is that a complaint? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect in an Alumni section? If you want it to be alumni and notable faculty, we could consider a change, however, most notable faculty are famous for their contributions prior to coming to A&M, not their work while at A&M. As such, it's fame/notability by mere association and the primary reason such people were removed from such a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talk • contribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    This concern is unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't "unaddressed". It just isn't what you want. I'll see what I can do to address at least some of these issues. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added faculty. Buffs (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (moved/duplicated/consolidated from above) The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni. I'd like to see its scope expanded to "noted people" to also include notable faculty members. SandyGeorgia (Talk) noted by Sdkb above
    I did not write the statement above. Buffs you have repeatedly moved text from where it was, and in this case, removed the sig attached to it to put it over my sig as you moved it.[14] The constant moving around of text and comments and unsigned posts and sectioning in this FAR have rendered it lengthy, difficult to read, hard to know where to respond, or even determine if my original comments have been left or removed. I hope the @WP:FAR coordinators: will provide some guidance on talk for how to proceed next. A large portion of what is on this page could be better dealt with on talk so that reviewers can determine what remains to be addressed. Please start respecting proper threading of posts and signatures, and please continue off-topic discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Texas A&M University/archive1 to minimize the length of this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The attribution was an unintentional error and has been corrected. I didn't "move" anything. I clearly annotated where it came from and have responded directly after each one exactly as you have requested. However, given the verbosity/breadth of the voiced issues, it is nearly impossible to track what has/hasn't been done in the insanely long wall of text/easy to make errors. As such, I consolidated those that were not completed. Otherwise things can be missed. However, if you feel it's an egregious error, I'll simply undo it all and we will be stuck with a wall of corrections and miss each other's replies left and right. If you want a conversation elsewhere, please start it there. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed above. Buffs (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b Comprehensive is also failing, per Sdkb comments in FAR phase. Article organization is odd, and Sdkb’s concerns should be addressed (branches at Qatar and Galveston are mentioned in the Academics section— organization, administration is lacking as a separated section per Sdkb, and the grouping of several sections under “Academics” is odd). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I've got them all with the most recent changes. Buffs (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FARC points still under review[edit]
Buffs, could you please stop duplicating information in new sections that you add? That is unnecessarily chunking up this FAR, where it is near impossible to see what has been addressed, and is adding to the overall length of the FAR. Also, please sign your entries to help avoid confusion about whether work is ongoing (you added answers to Sdkb in the FAR section 13 days after they were entered, and without signing). There remain many unaddressed issues in the FAR section. I have organized my points above so that you can directly respond under each, without the need for creating a separate response section, duplicating my commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did sign my entry...once, SandyGeorgia, rather than several dozen times as you've now added. I did not add answers to Sdkb without signing; it was signed at the bottom upon completion. To jump in here after 4 months and now complain I'm doing it all wrong is getting very tiring. I'm simply trying to address each point the best and clearest way I know how. Of note, you don't seem to have the same irritation toward Sdkb's list or anyone else's and I'm not sure why my list is unacceptable but others are fine. You certainly don't need to accuse me of "chunking" up the FARC multiple times. Very perplexing.
As for the rest of your comments, I'm well aware of the effort needed to have an article reach FA status (as are others). However, if we are strictly discussing personal preferences, then I'm not sure anything will ever make FA status. Objections need to be substantive. "I don't like the phrasing" (I'm paraphrasing from prev remarks) is not something that can be addressed beyond guesswork. Criticism needs to be clear, substantive, and addressable, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. OldAg07 stated that nothing he wrote would keep it back from FA. As such, I see little need to waste time in this forum to address those points, but will be happy to address points of others as able. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am out for the evening, and will catch up tomorrow. If you will put your lengthy comments unrelated to actually resolving items on talk, the FAR will be much less burdensome for all to review. (No, you did not sign most of your entries, which caused great confusion and makes it look like I asked to move to FARC over responses that you only made later: this is easily verified by reviewing the diffs.) I did say that some of OldAg's comments would be concerns for me (eg the Research issue). I don't find any of the comments to be of an IDONTLIKEIT nature, so we are at a point where we need to know if you intend to address issues, or if we should move forward with Keep and Delist declarations. I will catch up as I am able tomorrow, but am at the point of family arriving for Thanksgiving, and suggest focusing on addressing each item on this page, while keeping discussion about the process on the talk page of this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I appreciate the constructive feedback that SandyGeorgia and the other editors have given this page. I just don't want my feedback to be the thing that is holding the closure of this FAR. I can understand Buffs' frustrations with the process after putting in over four months of work into this page to try to "save" its FA status. Wikipedia is project maintained by volunteers. Ultimately I would like to remind everyone involved with this review why we are here. Because we enjoy it. Oldag07 (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TAMU FARC Break[edit]

In the FARC phase, editors should declare Keep or Delist. They should not post comments in other editors' name. Thank you, Nikkimaria, for moving commentary to the talk page. DrKay (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The FARC phase never should have begun in the first place and there was ample support opposing such actions. No one posted comments in other editors' names. Comments were indeed moved to provide clarity (as you have done as well). Jumping in 4 months after the start and saying we've done it all wrong is not helpful. I don't oppose reasonable breaks, but labeling them something more useful than "Break" would be helpful; please be mindful that others disagree. Buffs (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had to introduce the break because it was the only way I could edit this page. I have difficulty editing any page over 100kB in size because of bandwidth issues. DrKay (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with adding breaks here and there so we have a chance to edit sections and not the whole page/LARGE sections. SandyGeorgia has expressed the opposite opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some breaks are helpful and some are not; they are generally discouraged, and should be used carefully. This one is helpful. As an example of those that are not ... Duplicating entire editor commentary in a new section, and then responding there, just adds unnecessary length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TALK would indicate otherwise. Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#INTERPOLATE which is what I was trying to follow. You injected my signature everywhere I made a comment. Had you asked, I could/would have done that. Buffs (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep None of the issues are severe enough to warrant delisting and any issues are actively being worked. This never should have been listed in the first place. By some people's standards, apparently every article that was FA is nearly immediately noncompliant and should be listed here as soon as the standards change. There is a process and it has not been followed every step of the way. None of these issues were asked on the article's talk page so it shouldn't have even gone to FAR and it was moved to FARC after just 9 days of "waiting" despite ample evidence of consistent work during FAR. Throughout FARs, some people are adding personal preferences as if they are the gatekeepers to WP:FA rather than focusing on objective standards. Buffs (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep My feelings are the same as Buffs Oldag07 (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a quick glance only. MOS:ALLCAPS. WP:MOSNUM who won 3 Super Bowls, ... There are still bare URLs in the citations; we can't record an article milestone for an FA with bare URLs. MOS:CAPTIONS "should be succinct; more information can be included on its description page, or in the main text." Alumni has not yet been trimmed to the truly outstanding (eg former "Austin Mayor Will Wynn are all graduates", I didn't look beyond that). The Corps of Cadets still has an entire paragraph cited to 2004, with no time context mentioned in the article for a reader to know if the facts remain true. There is still purely promotional content cited to the University itself, including press releases, eg "Texas A&M works with both state and university agencies on various local and international research projects to forge innovations in science and technology that can have commercial applications." There is still promotional content either uncited or cited to a 2002 (!!!) source, eg "Texas A&M has led the world in several fields of cloning research."
    Based on this quick glance, I can see that issues raised have not yet been addressed, so I haven't revisited yet line by line. I will revisit the article thoroughly once all issues raised have been addressed, including those raised by Sdkb. While good progress is now being made, and I have never before entered a "Delist" while work was progressing, I am contemplating breaking that tradition out of concern that there are several more A&M articles that have the same issues, and with the absence of Karanacs, I hope the updating of those articles will not result in such an arduous FAR as this one has been. It would be optimal to get things moving here so this can be closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not just do this and expect a revisit; prune all of the alumni to the most significant. Same here; the entire article needs to be checked (lots of CAPS left, eg in citations, and I haven't done an exhaustive MOSNUM check). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (ECx2) I've now mentioned to you 3 three times that I will do the urls at the end and it is still in the "to do" pile (see above) and you acknowledged it; there is no need to repeat it yet again. Why you've added more corrections here is beyond me. As for which alumni are the "most significant", all were added because they were significant to someone. You tell me which ones/groups are not significant and I'll prune them. You've made it clear that you don't like old references (which is bizarre...the facts haven't changed and don't need recent publications to verify them. For example, Texas A&M was the first to clone half a dozen animals. They will not become more "the first" as the years change and a more recent article isn't necessary). Indeed, the Corps of Cadets section has a paragraph cited to 2004. That doesn't make any of the information incorrect. For example, the law hasn't changed: we still have 6 SMCs. Citing another source for that is simply unnecessary busy work and I've addressed that above. I added "as of" to the prose and added a few of references anyway. Buffs (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, give me a chance to address each point. I make one edit and your response is "Please do not just do this and expect a revisit"? Really? I just started on it. Give me a chance. You are also being very nonspecific. Buffs (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Down to 3 paragraphs from 5...smaller paragraphs too. Buffs (talk) 20:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    LOTS of updates, if you'd just given me the time to finish them before assuming I'd only do a little. Buffs (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    “Still working” would suffice, while minimizing the length of this page. My apologies for jumping the gun. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Been done for almost a week now. Buffs (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not found any additional references with all caps. after correcting three of them. Buffs (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have never before entered a "Delist" while work was progressing, I am contemplating breaking that tradition out of concern that there are several more A&M articles that have the same issues... What? Wait, your logic is that you are going to mark as delist (despite progress) because there are other articles which need work? That makes no sense. Why would you ever downgrade one article because of the status of another article?Buffs (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's all the MOSNUM issues. Buffs (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now been ~2 weeks. At this point, with no further objections, let's call it done and move on with our lives. Buffs (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In previous FARs I've worked on, I pinged the reviewer if they haven't responded to ensure that they saw my comments. I think it is very clear that Buffs wants to close this as keep, but I think it would be quicker to ping reviewers who have not commented yet instead of continuing to ask that this be closed. Pinging @SandyGeorgia:, and please ping me once Sandy's review is complete. If there are other reviewers that need to weigh in, please ping them below and I apoligise for missing you. Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping, Z. Buffs, feel free to ping me when everything is finished. On a quick glance, I see it is not. https://www.nationalmerit.org/s/1758/images/gid2/editor_documents/annual_report.pdf?gid=2&pgid=61 is a bare URL; I do not intend to keep revisiting until you are done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You've responded many times without a ping. Didn't realize you needed one. I'll just ping you on every reply from now on, once my response is complete.
    I explicitly said I'd do references last, multiple times. No one else has had an issue with that until you. Currently through reference 140; will do the rest later. If someone sees an issue now for 1-140, it'd be appreciated if you mention it now before I get through the next ~140. Buffs (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: Complete. Please review. Buffs (talk) 00:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will get to it after Christmas guests leave; thanks for letting me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With this being a bit of a pause, I'll give this a review, at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Texas A&M University/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 20:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - having made it through only the lead and the history, academics, and campus section, this needs a massive amount of work to correct source-text integrity issues, replaced obsolete sources, and updated outdated numbers. Hog Farm Talk 21:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the source for basic reliability, we still have issues with: Largest.org, which was challenged all the way back in July, and there doesn't seem to have been given a justification for why this is reliable and Tomahawk Nation falls in the unreliable range of sports blogs. Hog Farm Talk 15:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, regretfully. Many editors, on both the nominator and reviewer side, have put in a Herculean effort over the past five months to try to save this, but when there are still major issues (per HF, multiple instances of text in lead but not body, severely outdated figures, etc.) this far in, it's time to call it. At FAC, nominations are archived if consensus to promote does not begin to form within two weeks or so, and while there is considerably more leeway at FAR, it cannot extend indefinitely. Even though ongoing work has been done in response to individual issues, and I hope will be in response to this latest round too, it's unfair to continue placing the burden on reviewers to point out every issue rather than on those who would like to see this be an FA to first bring it up to standard and only then have others review. I very much hope to see this (and many other education articles) reach FA again someday, and in the nearer term, I think it would have a relatively easy time passing GAN given all the work done during this review. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. As HF reviewed Lead, History and Academics, I decided to skip those and look at a few other sections. My first stop was the "Student life" section. The first sentence
    As of 2021, approximately 23% of the student body lived on campus, primarily in one of two distinct housing sections located on opposite ends of campus.
is "as of 2021", but the first citation given is to the enrollment profile of 2015 (with a plural pp to a single page, pp. i.) There is no p. i; what is this citing? The next citation, [15] says that 20% live on campus in 2020, not 23% and not 2021. So we have confusing citations, or inaccurate citations, or dated citations, and citation formatting issues. Considering the amount of effort that has gone in to this FAR, and that this is the very first thing I checked, I think it time to call this and move on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sample sourcing problem:
Texas A&M has participated in more than 500 research projects in more than 80 countries and leads the Southwestern United States in annual research expenditures. The university conducts research on every continent and has formal research and exchange agreements with 100 institutions in 40 countries.[16]
Cited to a 2007 press release from the University. First, this would need independent sourcing. Second, it needs updated sourcing. This has been typical of this article for months now, and issues like this have not been corrected. Reviewers cannot be expected to keep going back, again and again, to check the same problems. (By the way, some numbers have commas, others don’t, eg 1000 compared to 1,000.) And it was not “TAMU researchers” on the volcano; check the source; that’s a misrepresentation (Sager was once a prof there, no longer.)
With two first sentences in two sections I checked failing verification, it seems unproductive to dig deeper. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 26 December 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) 0:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC) [17].

Irish phonology[edit]

Notified: Mahagaja, WikiProject Linguistics, WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Celts, 2020-12-30, 2021-10-26

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited paragraphs, uncited notes, and inline parenthetical referencing. Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What parts of the article are uncited? What exactly do you mean by "inline parenthetical referencing"? After a quick skim I was able to find only a single instance of the type that is now deprecated. Could you give examples please? – Uanfala (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Uanfala:, answering your questions below:
  • To quote, Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing, "Inline parenthetical referencing is a citation system in which in-text citations are made using parentheses." An example can be found with this sentence: "Dissertations examining Irish phonology from a theoretical point of view include Ní Chiosáin (1991), Green (1997) in optimality theory, and Cyran (1997) and Bloch-Rozmej (1998) in government phonology."
  • Some sections that are missing citations include the whole notes section (each note should have a citation), the "Hiberno-English" section, in which only the first sentence is cited, the first two paragraphs of "General facts of stress placement", and the final paragraph of "Post-vocalic consonant clusters and epenthesis". There are many others, but at a minimum, a featured article should have one citation at the end of every paragraph (except for the lede and other exceptions). Z1720 (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The notes only point out unusual pronunciations of some of the words, and this information is already present within the text where each note appears (and where it is already cited). Isn't the "Hiberno-English" section cited to Wells 1982 (the ref at the end of the first sentence)? Likewise, the first paragraph of "General facts of stress placement" cites a source and I presume it may also apply to the second paragraph (though yeah, that's not clear). Maybe we could ask the article creator to clarify that? Apart from this one possibly uncited paragraph, what others are there?
As for parenthetical referencing, the type that is deprecated is of the form Some statement (Smith 1989). There was only one such instance that I could spot in the article. What you give examples of are mentions of the sources within the article text. These are used in the overview of the literature and, elsewhere in the article, for the occasional in-text attribution. Should these be removed? Or the mentions unlinked from the bibliography so they look less like refs? I don't believe either of these would be an improvement. – Uanfala (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responses below:
  • The notes should also have refs at the end of their sentences. If the information is already present in the prose, the note should be removed. If the notes are using the refs from the prose, a ref should be added to the end of the note, too.
  • Refs should appear at the end of the sentences that they are citing. If a ref verifies information that is subsequent to the ref, then the ref should be moved. Please ensure that the ref does, in fact, verify the information before moving the ref.
  • Re:"Apart from this one possibly uncited paragraph, what others are there?" There needs to be a citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum (except the lede, see WP:CITELEDE). I was going to mark all instances with a "citation needed" template, but it became very numerous.
  • I took another look at the parenthetical referencing. It seems to be used a lot in the "History of the discipline" section to reference researchers who have published research on this topic. However, there doesn't seem to be a secondary reference to verify this information, and I'm concerned that this section is WP:OR, or at the very least relies on WP:PRIMARY sources, a practice which is discouraged on Wikipedia. This section will need a rewrite using secondary sources that talk about the discipline's history. When this rewrite is conducted, the "Some comment (Smith 1989)" statements will be replaced with footnotes, as they will be cited to another, secondary source.
Please ping when the above have been resolved. Thanks for adopting this article, Uanfala Z1720 (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have not adopted this article (I don't know anything about the subject), I was only responding to what seemed – and continue to seem – like bizarre reasons for requesting a review. If an explanatory note is based on the same sourced information as the text, it would be silly to repeat the reference from the text. Similarly, if you start a section with the explanation that it's going to be based on so-and-so's analysis, you don't need to cite this person at the end of every paragraph in that section. As for the "History of the discipline" section, is there any particular statement there that will need a specific in-line secondary source? If e.g. de Búrca (1958) is a study of the dialect of Donegal, do we really need a secondary source confirming that it is indeed a study of the dialect in Donegal? – Uanfala (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The concern about the notes is that it is currently unclear what is verifying the information in the note, that why it needs a reference after it. A reference in the article body doesn't verify a note's information because the notes are presented at the end of the article, so it is unclear which source is used to verify the note. Also, it was stated "if you start a section with the explanation that it's going to be based on so-and-so's analysis, you don't need to cite this person at the end of every paragraph in that section." The reference is not just about who is saying the information, but where the information was said, which includes the source (the book/article the information comes from) and the page number. This information cannot be presented as, to give an example from the article, "This was followed by Quiggin (1906)..." because that is a parenthetical reference, which was deprecated in 2020, and also does not include a page number. The citation, including author, source, and page number if applicable, should be placed in an inline citation at the end of the last sentence that the source is verifying, as stated in the Wikipedia policy about verifiability. Z1720 (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding this a bit frustrating. In-text attribution (with in the prose of the article) had not been deprecated, and because it comes with a link to the full bibliographic entry at the end it's more than enough to satisfy the verifiability policy. You don't always have to give page numbers, and to do so would be silly if you're referring to the whole of the work. I'd be happy to discuss actual problems with the article (so far in this subthread there's been one: the unclear souring for a single paragraph), rather than its apparent failure to meet one set of inexplicably narrow expectations of how sourcing should be formatted. – Uanfala (talk) 13:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On a more substantial level, I notice that the article's content was largely complete by 2008 (with subsequent changes mostly confined to style and presentation). The most recent sources in the bibliography are Stifter 2006 and Carnie 2002. Now, I don't think Irish phonology is a particularly trendy field, but some relevant research will certainly have been done in the last decade and a half. I can see for example Hickey's 2014 The Sound Structure of Modern Irish doi:10.1515/9783110226607, or McCullough's 2020 Escaping siloed phonology: Framing Irish lenition in Emergent Grammar hdl:10150/641487, or the 2017 From phonology to syntax — and back again: Hierarchical structure in Irish and Blackfoot hdl:11023/4161, or.... Of course, not all of this will be relevant, but still, some new developments will have taken place, new analyses brought forward, or new descriptive data presented. A wikiedia article can't be at the cutting edge, but it will still ideally keep abreast with what's going on in the field. 15 years probably isn't a lot here, but at some point in the future this will need to start getting up to date to meet the expectations of a featured article. When is that point? – Uanfala (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also noted on the talk page that there is a big gap in covering the phonology of second-language speakers and the effect of language attrition and bilingualism. As these phenomena affect virtually all Irish speakers these days it seems like a major omission. (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Uanfala: It's subjective of how much current research should be included in the article. If there has been academic literature on this subject in the past 15 years, at least some of that should be included, especially if it brings new ideas to the topic; its omission would cause this article to fail WP:FA? 1c. If there has only been one or two high-quality sources in the past 15 years, then they should be included. If there has been dozens of sources on the topic, we would have to figure out which sources are the most notable. Z1720 (talk) 03:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC little or no movement in favor of addressing the issues discussed above (t · c) buidhe 03:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 11 December 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) 0:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC) [18].

European Parliament[edit]

Notified: JLogan, Rossella Vignola (OBC), Boson, Arkhandar, WP EU, WP Politics, Noticed in April 2021

Review section[edit]

There's a little bit of uncited text, some dated material/statistics/sources, and a lack of scholarly assessment. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe noted on talk:

  • Beyond unsourced statements, the article relies too much on official sources and news reports without much in the way of academic analysis.
  • Balance also seems to be an issue. While it has a long paragraph on "European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction" there is nothing to be heard about Euroskepticism,[19][20][21] or the many other issues discussed in academic sources[22]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 11 December 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) 0:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC) [23].

San Francisco[edit]

Notified: DaveOinSF, Minesweeper, Paul.h, Kurykh, WikiProject California, WikiProject Transport, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Technology, diff for talk page notification 2021-03-21

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unresolved issues of sourcing—both unsourced content and sources that are not high-quality RS. (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geography articles are among the hardest to keep up to date, but San Francisco has been a particular chore for as long as I can remember, and has never been well enough tended to maintain criteria, or well watched. As I wrote on talk, “This article has extreme MOS:SANDWICHing throughout, considerable dated text, uncited text, and short choppy sections.” Samples only (there is much more):

  • Jam up of images in History section.
  • Uncited text sample Media section (but its everywhere).
  • Dated text sample, look at the first line in media, which breaches MOS:CURRENT and is cited to a 2007 source. Similar is found throughout the article, and it appears the article has not been updated since its 2008 FAR.
  • Short choppy sections, see Early education, Vision Zero, there are also sections that breach MOS:HEAD (repeating words, eg Transportation is an empty section followed by Public transportation). Buidhe you mentioned sources that are not high quality or reliable, but did not provide any samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[24], [25], [26] are just 3 examples, there are more. Also a lot of the sources are outdated, not having been updated/replaced since 2007 or earlier. (t · c) buidhe 11:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article certainly is suffering from years of Wiki-junk-accretion, but it seems that fixing it fairly easy and is mostly a matter of deleting things. It has been previously suggested that in the majority of cases where there is an assertion of fact without a reference, just delete it. As for all of the pictures, they can be fixed the same way. One item I'm confused about, however, is the complaint that "a lot of the sources are outdated." if a source truthfully backs up a fact in the article, why should we care that it dates from 2007? If a fact is outdated, I can see that it should be updated with more recent information, but I don't understand how the date of a source has any bearing on accuracy by itself. We are dealing with a contemporary geographical place here, not using the 1912 Encyclopedia Britannica for a source on nuclear physics. Paul (Talk)

What it means is that you need to go through every bit of text cited to an old source and determine if newer data is available; it usually is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with you regarding long-standing facts (i.e., the population in 1890), but not with readily-changeable facts and figures like the current population and demographics. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, currency, and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:16, 11 December 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) 0:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC) [27].

Vijayanagara Empire[edit]

Notified: Arajakate, Ms Sarah Welch, Pied Hornbill, Dineshkannambadi, WP Indian history,‎ WP Karanatak, ‎ WP Andhra Pradesh, WP India, WP Hinduism, WP Former countries, talk page notification 2020-08-20

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because this FA from 2007 appears to want for the comprehensive and well-researched FA criteria, as identified by Tayi Arajakate in the talk page discussion from a year ago (1b/1c). I would additionally identify the citation style as something of a mess, which I did some work on to bring it closer to consistent (2c). Izno (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have notified the editors active within the past year that are reasonably relevant to this page based on XTools and the talk page discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Izno I’ve done a lot of the bookkeeping for you, but you still need to notify all the Wikprojects linked on talk, and there are several recent editors who have not been notified. If you could do those it would help, as I am iPad typing. The objective at FAR is to cast a very wide net to try to find someone who might address the article deficiencies. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Ok. Izno (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I took care of the WikiProjects as listed on the talk page as well as the original nominator. The other bookkeeping you seem to have done is not listed in the official instructions, which is why I did not take care of it, though I was aware of at least one of those pages you pinged me for. As for recent editors, they too are not listed as being necessary parties, and I'm not totally certain any would be interested in knowing. There's a lot of reverted edits, a locked account, someone with copyvio notices on their talk page... Izno (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have been following this article for a long time. Having read up several books, visited several historical locations pertaining to the empire, I feel that content itself has remained fairly accurate (despite several attempts to corrupt it), given the limitations of a summary style article. Improvements are always possible but Tayi Arajakate never really specified what was wrong with the article. So I disregard it as personal dissatisfaction more than gross violation. It is impossible to fully reflect the on goings of an empire that lasted 250 years in a summary article. I will read this article once more in a few days and see if I see any issues.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did specify quite a few issues with the article? I can see that the history section has been expanded since I left the notice but it is still far from comprehensive. For one it completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees. It's not impossible to fix these issues, it's just going to take a lot of work. There is still a significant amount of text with no inline citations, comparatively poorly sourced material and material with peacocky wording which I wouldn't call accurate, some of which I have already specified in the notice and the rest I'll bring up here shortly. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the talk page notice isn't ideal, but it's plain to see that the article has issues. There is uncited text, the citation style is a mess, there is stuff that is mentioned in the lead but never in the text and that is OR (such as Paes, Nunes, Kingdom of Bisnegar, from a very quick check), I see several citations that lack specific page numbers, I don't see how this Youtube channel can be considered as a RS, I can't see any of Gadyana, Varaha, Pon, Pagoda, Pratapa, Pana, Kasu and Jital in the provided source (maybe it's the wrong page?)... So the article does need attention. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will address these issues and others that I see in the days ahead.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will start working on the "language" section to improve the content and provide better sources. I will do away with the web citations as I have good sources for topics such as 'language of inscriptions', the changing geographical patterns in use of these languages, and provide reliable info on monetization.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have improved the section on Inscriptions, sources and coins and denominations with info from numerous sources. By dwelling on the topic of sources and their authors I believe I have taken care of a concern that was raised about foreign visitors to the empire mention in the lead but not dealt with in the article elsewhere.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with the talk page notice? Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a matter of preference for more succint notices so they can be more easily dealt with, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Sorry if it came across that way. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate Tayi Arajakate concern about the article. But writing "still far from comprehensive" does not help because this is meant to be a summary article, not a comprehensive one. Creating subarticles that you mention on the talk page is a good idea but not an immediate requirement for a FAR. Also "completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees" does not help unless you specify how it can be expanded and what various aspects you mean. Please be aware this is a joint effort and your help in actively upgrading the article will be greatly appreciated. You may have sources on hand that others don't or cant access. Please be actively involved in this upgrade. Lets start with you listing out in the form of points what specifics you want to see improved.Pied Hornbill (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pied Hornbill, comprehensiveness (1b) and well researched (1c) are requirements of a featured article. I believe, I have already specified some of the aspects that had been completely overlooked in the talk page notice in a point wise manner and with resources which are freely accessible, for a start, something that you chose to disregard. I will need some time to thoroughly review the article to bring up other specific issues.
For an instance of a specific issue with the article which I didn't mention in the notice. The first 8 lines of "social life" which discusses caste appear to be entirely sourced from two colonial period books. In general, the article really needs more contemporary scholarship, if I remember correctly there is a WikiProject India prohibition on the use of Raj era sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have coped and pasted the first 8 lines that you have an issue with. Then I will paste lines from a more modern scholarship to point out how similar the content sounds when looked at from a birds eye view. The main points to note here are:a)The caste system was based on craft production b)The artisans consolidated their rights by having leadership to represent each castec) Competition existed for rights and privileges between castes.
  • Source:FA
"Most information on the social life in the empire comes from the writings of foreign visitors and evidence that research teams in the Vijayanagara area have uncovered. The Hindu caste system was prevalent. Caste was determined by either an individuals occupation or the professional community they belonged to (Varnashrama).[74] The number of castes had multiplied into several sub-castes and community groups[74] Each community was represented by a local body of elders who set the rules that were implemented with the help of royal decrees. Marked evolution of social solidarity can be observed in the community as they vied for privileges and honors and developed unique laws and customs.[74"
  • Source: The Political Economy of Craft Production Crafting Empire in South India, C.1350–1650 By Carla M. Sinopoli · 2003, ISBN 978-113-944-0745
"Craft producers were linked by caste memberships into collectivities of various geographic extent, that could, in some cases, act as corporate units; producers also formed large inter-caste affiliations which also served regulatory roles in acts such as social protests...." (pp21-22). There is plenty more to read ofcourse and get the same general idea.
  • Source:Chopra, P.N.; Ravindran, T.K.; Subrahmanian, N (2003). "Medieval Period". History of South India. New Delhi: Rajendra Ravindra Printers. ISBN 81-219-0153-7
"There were many other communities such as Astisans, Kaikkolas, barbers, dombaras, etc. Artisans consisted of blacksmiths, goldsmiths, brasssimths, carpenters, etc. All these classes were fighting among themselves and wanted some social privileges particularly some honors in public festivals and in temples. These quarrels sometimes led to the allocation of separate quarters in the city...."(pp156, part II)
Point I am trying to make is, we could change the sources, but I don't see the content really changing. The issue of year of publication of the book should matter only in cases where the content also has changed.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FAs are expected to use the highest quality sources. The year of publication does matter accordingly. Izno (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I Understand. I have identified a few points in first paragraph of the 'Social Life' section to work on. It will take a few days given my other commitments.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have re-written the top half of the 'Social life' section with better, newer sources of reserach as requested by Tayi Arajakate. Tried to keep it concise though to avoid a run away process. Interested users can create a sub-section under this and expand it.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have tred to focus on the period Tayi Arajakate had content issues with and tried to improve on it. Looks better now. Will try to deal with this one issue at a time. Inputs such as content, sources, copy edits are welcome from others.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Having dealt with the sections on "History", "Social Life" and "Inscriptions and Sources" I have improved the contents with numerous modern sources. I will continue to work on the article to improve citations by replacing older sources with newer ones and such. Please let me know if there are other specific concerns.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit of work needed here still; I haven't checked further than this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will start working on this from this weekend.Pied Hornbill (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some scripts for detecting HarvRef errors are at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have dealt with some of the above issues but lack experience handling HarvRef errors and duplicate links. Maybe someone more experienced can help out here.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Fritz & Michell 2001 source is included per individual section and also as an overall book. I have the feeling the overall book should be removed leaving the "Introduction" source only (in addition to various other sections with different authors), but that will have to be checked by someone with access to the source. CMD (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I own that book. I have removed the 'overall' book reference in the bibiliography section and just used the 'introduction' section reference.Pied Hornbill (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Harvref issues are solved, and have cleared up the image sandwiching a bit (may still need to remove one from in or around the "Epigraphs, sources and monetization" subsection). I've gotten rid of the bunch of overlinking, and this has brought to my attention the copious use of pipelinks throughout the article. They're fine where appropriate, but many here seem to serve to provide an alternative name for no clear reason, and this is sometimes even internally consistent. For example, Sayana initially appears as [[Sayana|Sayanacharya]], yet is later referred to in the prose as "Sayana". I do feel the Culture section may require a copywrite and perhaps some restructuring, but I haven't looked into it closely. No comment on the other issues mentioned. CMD (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will attend to the "endash" issue today and also fix couple of citations that need attention.Pied Hornbill (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment after a quick skim, I think this article is close to "Keep" status, but there haven't been substantial edits since mid-May and Nikkimaria's call for an update was unanswered. Some of my concerns include a "Further Reading" section that should be incorporated into the article for comprehensiveness, the history section should have subheadings, and the Alternate Name section is very short. If editors are still working on this article, please comment below and I will conduct a more thorough review. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will take a look at your comments sometime this weekend. If there were no more edits from me since mid-May it was because I did not see specific unanswered concerns.Thanks.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm glad there's still someone editing this article. Can you ping me once the sources in "Further Reading" are removed or incorporated into the article? I will conduct a copyedit then and give more thorough comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Z1720: none of the current Further reading sources should be included in the article. Michell, George (2008) appears to be a photography book about particular photographers. Oldham, C. E. A. W. (1936) is from 1936, it is not current literature. The third source is an old web page that may not even be an RS. The fourth is a poor webpage that appears to replicate part of South Indian Inscriptions, which appears to be a collection of inscriptions. Useful for academic research, but not secondary scholarly study on the Vijayanagara Empire. Rice, E.P. (1982) [1921] is from 1921, so also falls out of the scope of current literature. I would say perhaps the older sources and photography sources may be interesting further reading items, but if it's a choice between integrating them into the article or deleting them the better course would be to delete them. CMD (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Z1720

Consider me a non-expert. I conducted a copyedit of the article, so please review my edits to ensure I did not inadvertently change the meaning of a sentence.

  • It is unusual for an article to have citations in the lede. Are they necessary? Since info in the lede is expected to also be in the body of the article, we can assume that the information will be cited in the body of the article.
  • "the empire's power and wealth." Can this power and wealth be described a little bit? For example, were they powerful? How wealthy were they?
  • "literature to reach new heights in" Can we describe this a little more? This also sounds like an idiom.
  • The "Alternate name" section is really short. Can this be combined with an "Etomology" section explaining the origin of the empire's name?
  • The "History" section should be broken up with subheadings
  • "Differing theories have been proposed regarding the origins of the Vijayanagara empire. Historians propose two theories." Are there just two theories, or a variety of theories? One of these sentences can be removed.
  • "Historians such as P. B. Desai, Henry Heras, B.A. Saletore, G.S. Gai, William Coelho and Kamath in (Kamath 2001, pp. 157–160)" why is it important to name these people who support this theory, especially when some of them don't have wikipages and are possibly not notable? This origin story has four references, one of which is this footnote, which seems like WP:OVERCITE.
  • "Writings by foreign travelers during the late medieval era, combined with recent excavations in the Vijayanagara principality, uncovered information about the empire's history, fortifications, scientific developments and architectural innovations." What information was uncovered in this information? Either delete as it is not needed, or put it at the beginning of a paragraph that describes how we know information about the empire.
  • "Eight years later, from the ruins of the Kampili kingdom emerged the Vijayanagara Kingdom in 1336 CE" I am very confused by the origin story of the empire. Is everything above this line chronological? From my perspective, the first paragraph explains two origin stories, the second paragraph then talks about how the regions in the empire were raided by Muslims in the north, which I think happens before the origin stories of the first paragraph? Then the third paragraph explains the Kampili empire, which I also assume happens before the origin stories of the first paragraph? This should be rearranged so that it is chronological.

I'm going to pause there, because I think this is a lot to work on. Please ping me once this is complete. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • With regards to citations in the lead, I have come across FA's with and without them. There have been occasions when a FA did not have citations in the lead but later had to be added to avoid edit warring. I agree that most of the cited sentences in lead are also heavily cited in later sections but this does not satisfy some users. I am fine either way.Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Were there edit war concerns with this article? If there were, let's keep the citations. If not, I would like to consider removing them; in my opinion, articles are easier to read when there are less footnotes interspersed in the article and if the lede doesn't need them, they should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'empires power and wealth' has been described succinctly in later sections such as the "History" and "Economy" sections. All that has been merely summarized in the lead with a single phrase. Is there any need to describe that in the lead in detail?Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • After concluding a single readthrough of the lede, I do not feel that I have a sense of the empire's power or wealth. Many readers only read the lede and so it should summarise important aspects of the article. I think one sentence describing the geographical boundaries of the empire at its peak, and another describing its wealth would be appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have extended an existing line to describe its territorial reach. Its wealth is not a single physical quantity such as gems and precious stones but rather its vibrant economy which lead to construction of numerous fortifications, temples and monuments across south India and patronage to fine arts etc, none of which would have been possible without sufficient wealth. This is already explained in the last couple of lines of the 'History' section and in more detail in the economy, literature and architecture section.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Explained "fine arts and literature reached new heights" by naming specific (but not exhaustive) list of new genres of literature that gained popularity in this period. "..... such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, novel, musicology, historical and theater gaining popularity. The classical music of Southern India, Carnatic music, evolved into its current form". To get a full idea of all this one has to dwell on sub-articles listed such as Vijayanagara literature in Kannada (also a FA) Haridasas of Vijayanagar Empire etc.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Historians such as P. B. Desai, Henry Heras..." All historians cited here are notable. Just because they don't have wiki pages as yet does not mean they are not notable. Their names have been moved into footnotes precisely to ensure there names don't clog up the article. Only those readers who are really interested can refer to the inline citation and do further research if they want to. Just my opinion.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why is it important for a reader of this article to know that these historians support this origin story? Notable historians without articles should have a redlink. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added few more links for notable historians. Their names are very important because this is by far the most contentious issue for those who have been following this article over the years.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The "Alternate name" section.." Not sure how to handle this right now but the fact is in most books I have read on Vijayanagara empire, the authors use the terms "Karnata empire" or "Karnataka empire" along side its popular modern name. I have touched upon this in the section on "epigraphy".Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think an etymology section would be good to add. If people living in the empire at the time called it something else, it would be worth mentioning and describing when historians assigned a new name to the empire. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "History" section should be broken..." Please go ahead and split it. We can then make adjustments if necessary.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am hesitant to split it myself because I would be picking arbitrary places and titles. How do sources split up the empire? Is there anything similar to how Ancient Egypt's history is split? Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Initial sectioning done, please improve as required.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Moved the main templates at the top to their subsections, combined "Origins" with "Muslim invasion" into a new section called "Background and origin theories" (to put the information chronologically and avoid a one-paragraph section) Changed "Birth of an empire" to "Early years" (as the section starts with the empire having already been formed, so it is not about its birth per se), Changed "Empire at it's peak" to "Empire's peak" for succinctness. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Writings by foreign travelers during the late medieval era..". I moved this line to the end of the "history" section. Is that okay?Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue I raised above, of pipelinks and inconsistent naming, remains in the article. I would suggest it is addressing it would help Z1720 in their reading. CMD (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing copyedit:

I'm going to pause there, but so far I am deleting lots of editorializing statements like "astute general", "his able governor" and wikilinking names. Can someone readthrough the whole article and remove editorializing statements like these and help with the wikilinking? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that my comments are going to be numerous. In an effort to keep this FAR short, I am going to continue posting comments and questions on the article's talk page here. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a closer look at your comments in the talk page over the weekend.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: work got delayed because of people's schedules but I hope it picks up this week. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Improvements were made in the review section but the review seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Pied Hornbill: I would hate it if your efforts resulted in a delist. Are you still interested in fixing up the article? I think this is salvagable and I'm willing to help. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all. Sorry I was out of the country and just got back last night. Lets see what we can do from this week onward.Pied Hornbill (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please list further improvements you want. This has been going on for months with no one else interested in fixing the article, least of all the user who brought this to FAR.Pied Hornbill (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: could you please summarize any issues remaining? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article uses some harvnbs and some sfns for citations; one ends with punctuation, the other doesn’t, so citation is inconsistent. Which is wanted?
  • Is is part I and part II, or Part I and Part II in citations? Right now, we have a mixture.
  • There is considerable MOS:OVERLINK (I left a few sample edits, but it is a lot to fix). user:Evad37/duplinks-alt can be installed to review duplicate links (some are useful, but not when occurrinig just sentences apart).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for FAR based both on the previous comments (comprehensive/well-researched) as well as inconsistent citation style; I'll only take responsibility for the latter, but since you were kind enough to look already... it's still at issue. Izno (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have very little experience with citation types and styles and will be dependent on you guys to improve that.Pied Hornbill (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, the first thing is just for you all to look at the differences in formatting between the harvnbs and the sfns, and decide which you want. I can (although time limited due to Thanksgiving) help with making them consistent if you opt to switch to all sfns, but I have never used harvnbs— kind of a neophyte myself in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for having dropped this midway. I know the article was expanded during the FAR so give me a couple days, I'll take a look at the comprehensiveness/well-researched part. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Tayi Arajakate: Compare this section with Battle of Talikota (drafted by me.) This is far from a FA. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay so.. I am sorry to say this but the article needs a re-write. There are some fairly serious sourcing issues here.
  • Nilakanta Sastri 1955 (38 out of 176 citations) is definitely obsolete. It's a tertiary source largely based on colonial period historiography.
  • Kamath 2001 (36 out of 176 citations) is likely a fringe source, the author is a supporter of Indigenous Aryanism. In addition, it's another tertiary source which attempts to recount the history of Karnataka from "pre-historic times to the present". Why not use sources which directly address the topic? This issue exists with otherwise reliable sources in the article, many of which are tertiary sources featuring a simplified account of a "History of India/South India/Karnataka" that only briefly touch upon the subject.
  • Shiva Prakash 1997 (4 citations) is a primary literary anthology being used to source facts in the section on religion.
  • Rice 2001 (3 citations) is very obsolete. It's a reprint of a 1897 Gazette. Lewis Rice was a civil servant from the colonial period.
  • Mahalingam 1940 (3 citations) is again an obsolete source.
  • Sewell 1901 (2 citations) is an obsolete source as well. This is colonial historiography 101, Robert Sewell was a civil servant much like Rice.
  • Karmarkar 1947 (ref 30) is again an obsolete tertiary source based on colonial period historiography.
  • Rebel Sultans: The Deccan from Khilji to Shivaji (ref 53) is a popular history book written by a doctoral student.
  • Subhash Kak's History of Science and Philosophy of Science (ref 166) is fringe by all accounts. Kak, who has no training in history, is quite well known for making some extraordinary claims about Indian History.
In the end, at least 89 out of the 176 citations are to unreliable sources let alone high quality reliable sources. That said, there are some high quality reliable sources present in the article but for some reason they are barely used? For example, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara is a secondary source entirely about the subject but is cited on only 3 occasions. Though of course there are others which are not used at all; to give an example Stoker 2016 would have been quite useful for the section on culture. Without even going into comprehensiveness, the article at present is plainly not representative of the relevant literature. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your rejection of these two sources, K. A. Nilakanta Sastri and Suryanath U. Kamath is for reasons best described as weak (and hopefully not political). You claimed Sastri is British era though his last book was published in 1975. You claim Kamath is a Aryan theory revisionist (making it a post-British era issue) though it has nothing to do with this article and his last book was published in 2009 and pertained to his empire itself. Please make up your mind whether you are anti-British era or anti-post British era. Both are decorated historians and well respected. A quick look at the other sources you have issues with, they usually appear to be used as an 'additional source' and not the 'only source'. Can we expect you to get your hands dirty instead of sitting on a high perch? I would like to excuse myself from this article now.Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not very relevant when they published their last books unless those books are being used in the article. Sastri's work that is being used in the article is a tertiary source that extensively cites the likes of Sewell and Rice. There is not much difference in directly using them from using the book, note also that it's not just the British themselves but also their contemporary nationalist scholarship, that are obsolete now. On the other hand, Kamath's support for a fringe theory does indicate that he may deviate significantly from mainstream scholarship in general; it might have been useful if his book was published by a peer reviewed academic press but none of his works appear to have been. We need both recent and mainstream scholarship, one doesn't have to choose between the two. The remaining listed sources are sometimes cited alongside other sources in the article, sure but not most of the times and in many of the cases, the other cited source is Sastri or Kamath. Take for example Shiva Prakash 1997, where in 3 out of 4 cases it's the sole citation while in the remaining one it's cited along with both Nilakanta Sastri 1955 and Kamath 2001. I would suggest that you take a look at WP:HISTRS. This is a volunteer project, one doesn't need to do anything, I'm just pointing out the issues with the article and at present the article needs an overhaul to be of standards. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:28, 21 November 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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 6:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC) [28].

Rhodesian mission in Lisbon[edit]

Notified: WP Africa,WP MILHIST, WP International relations, WP UK Politics, WP Portugal, WP Zimbabwe, WP British Empire, WP Former countries, talk page noticed 2020-05-21

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest at WP:FARGIVEN, and concerns were mentioned on talk by @Nick-D, Buidhe, and Eisfbnore: including neutrality, sourcing, paraphrasing, and organization/prose (sprawling content). The original author is now vanished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D I'm travelling at the moment, so will start off with some limited comments, mainly reiterating the comments I left on the talk page. These are informed by my recent work on the roughly comparable Rhodesia Information Centre:

  • My main concern is that the article is much too dependent on referencing on what appear to be self-published works (or works published by a small/obscure press) by JRT Wood. Mr Wood has been professionally published on issues relating to Rhodesia, but does not appear to be such a clear cut authority on this topic that this level of dependence is OK, especially for self-published works.
  • As noted on the talk page, the article includes clearly unsuitable references to Ian Smith's memoirs, as well as a couple of other works that appear to be clearly sympathetic to his regime in ways that mean they are probably not reliable.
  • The article sprawls much too much, even allowing for the complexities of the issues relating to Rhodesia's foreign relations.
  • Oddly, there appears to be little coverage of the UN resolutions that targeted Rhodesia's diplomatic network. This is a prominent issue in the literature on the topic. The consensus in the literature is that Rhodesia's independence was illegal under British laws and UN Security Council resolutions, and its diplomatic network was also illegal due to it breaching several UN Security Council Resolutions.
  • Also oddly, the article is focused on the mission before UDI, and not how it operated when Rhodesia was operating as an independent country. As Rhodesia's relations with Portugal were hugely important (Portugal was one of few countries prepared to engage with Rhodesia diplomatically, and Portuguese rule in Mozambique was essential to Rhodesia's survival, with the country trying to prop the Portuguese there up), this balance seems off.
  • A possible solution to this might be to rework the article to be Establishment of the Rhodesian mission in Lisbon with an explicit focus on the role of these events as a step towards Rhodesia's UDI, but it would be better to broaden its scope given the importance of Rhodesian-Portuguese relations
  • There are some academic works on Rhodesia's foreign relations that have been published since this article reached FA status that could be useful. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nick-D: I've looked at some newer journal articles about Rhodesian-Portuguese relations, and worryingly none of them seem to mentioned the diplomatic mission in Lisbon, or only mention it in passing. This might be our best bet. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I've had to stitch together several sources to note how the Rhodesian Information Centre in Australia formed part of the Rhodesian diplomatic network, given that sources on Rhodesian missions other than that in the UK are limited. However, there are a fair few recent recent references on Rhodesia's foreign relations and the UN sanctions that provide useful coverage and context for this topic. Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comments:

  • I agree with Sandy's comments below about the overly dense construction of the article's wording. Between this and the excessive detail on pre-UDI issues, it would make the article difficult to unpick and rework to return to FA status I'm afraid.
  • Some of the text is sympathetic to the Rhodesian cause. In particular, it doesn't really grapple with the basic fact that the Rhodesian Government was determined to break the law by declaring independence. Instead, the article often depicts a false equivalence, where the British are portrayed as simply being too slow or too inflexible to respond to the Rhodesian Government's actions and as a result the Rhodesians were more or less in the right. In reality, the Rhodesian Government's actions were illegal, but there was nothing the British could really do about them due to a combination of domestic political pressures and the difficulty of projecting power into southern Africa. For instance:
    • The 'Britain refuses' section plays up supposed delays by the British as excusing the Rhodesian Government's actions. The problem is that the Rhodesian Government simply lacked the legal authority to do what it wanted to do, so it didn't matter if the British didn't react particularly quickly.
    • Similar issues crop up in the 'Rhodesian disillusionment; Britain adopts delaying tactics' section, which also falsely portrays the views of the white minority government as representing the views of all Rhodesians.
  • "The Unilateral Declaration of Independence was signed by the Rhodesian Cabinet on 11 November 1965, to almost unanimous international acrimony" - this is wrong in a couple of different ways. Firstly, no country ever accepted UDI as being legal or officially recognised Rhodesia as independent, so the "almost" is wrong regarding Rhodesia's formal international relations. Secondly, sizeable minorities supported the white Rhodesian cause in the UK, the white settler Commonwealth countries, the US and some European countries. It is likely that there was strong majority support for Rhodesia among white South Africans.
  • "Wilson therefore put all his eggs in the sanctions basket" - this is false. The UK adopted a range of strategies against Rhodesian independence, albeit none that were particularly effective in the short run.
  • The material on the impact of sanctions is flawed, in that it doesn't note that they made Rhodesia dependent on continued support from Portugal and South Africa. The end of Portuguese rule in Mozambique was a total disaster for Rhodesia as a result (the book 'The Rhodesian War: A Military History' that's cited covers this topic fairly well). The role of the mission in maintaining supplies via Portugese Mozambique and providing intelligence to Rhodesia of political developments on Portugal really needs to be covered.
  • The following articles from the Taylor and Francis database look very useful:
  • Deon Geldenhuys book Isolated States: A Comparative Analysis should be consulted as it is one of the main works on Rhodesia's foreign relations
  • To be comprehensive, the following sources do not appear to be reliable for some or all of the content sourced to them:
    • Berlyn, Phillippa (April 1978). The Quiet Man: A Biography of the Hon. Ian Douglas Smith (published in the last years of UDI-era Rhodesia, in which there was considerable political repression and censorship)
    • Binda, Alexandre (May 2008). The Saints: The Rhodesian Light Infantry (unclear why a history of a military unit published by a press of questionable reliability is being used to cite this material)
    • Petter-Bowyer, P J H (November 2005) [2003]. Winds of Destruction: the Autobiography of a Rhodesian Combat Pilot (ditto)
    • Smith, Ian (June 1997). The Great Betrayal: The Memoirs of Ian Douglas Smith (reliable only for Smith's account of his personal views/explanations, but used to reference other material and should be used with care, preferably being cross-checked against other sources)
    • Wessels, Hannes (July 2010). P K van der Byl: African Statesman (no book with a title like this can possibly be reliable: P. K. van der Byl was a notorious white supremacist and incompetent, and historians are scathing about him) Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by Indy beetle
    • In addition to what Nick has said, it looks like the section headers could be revised; some of them read like newspaper headlines.
    • I don't necessarily have a problem with so much pre-UDI Rhodesia material, since it was very much Rhodesian diplomacy at play here, though I do think it's incomplete of the article to simply brush aside those years in which Rhodesia was acting as a de facto independent country with Rhodesia's Lisbon mission remained open throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, providing a key link between the Rhodesian and Portuguese governments. More information on this area would probably be needed for this article to count as comprehensive.
    • Between the memoirs and the minutes of the British House of Lords, there seems to be to close a reliance on primary sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • An additional problem, which might explain the at-times confusing prose: There seems to be an element of editorialism in this writing that goes beyond what the sources actually indicate. See this edit, where I removed text which compared Reedmen's radio address to Smith's speech to parliament because the source (Reuters report in a newspaper) made no such comparison. Such editorialism i.e. low level SYNTH can lead to easy departures from NPOV, create UNDUE emphasis, and result in outright editor conjecture and opinion being placed in Wiki voice. This discovery bodes very poorly for this article's FA status. This is why spot-checks are important in the FA process. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments from SandyGeorgia. I've read the lead three times and can only scratch my head and rub my eyeballs. Sorry, but apparently not being European or British or familiar with Africa, or maybe just uneducated, but for starters, I had to click on Whitehall and Salisbury (and still couldn't figure out what was being said). The writing is just backwards, sentence construction is not straightforward or direct; the lead assumes a level of knowledge rather than explaining what this thing actually is, and rambles all over the place. (This is why we should always have independent, that is, not familiar with the topic area, reviewers.)
    So, after not being able to decipher the lead, I read only one line in the article, and found the same backwards construction and assumption of basics that left me trying to decipher the lead, eg:
    Having been governed and developed by the British South Africa Company since the 1890s, Southern Rhodesia became a self-governing colony within the British Empire in 1923, when it was granted responsible government by Whitehall.
    How about ... ?
    Southern Rhodesia was developed and governed by the British South Africa Company from the 1890s; it became a self-governing colony within the British Empire in 1923, <after something happened that took it from a company to a country ?) when it was granted responsible government by the Government of the United Kingdom (also known as Whitehall).
    Explain Whitehall (sorry, had never encountered the term). How do we get from a company to part of the Empire? What is the meaning of "responsible government" (jargon). I stopped there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly think it's bad form to use place metonymy instead of actually saying what is meant. The point of an encyclopedia is to be concise and straightforward. I'll only use place metonymy when it's a direct quote or when the source is unclear about a specific institution. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, now I know what Whitehall is, and I know what a metonymy is! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Funnily enough, I first learned about it in 2016 when Nick reviewed my work on Black Sea raid for GA. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indy beetle made some nice improvements, but unless they intend to continue and attempt a save here, we don't have enough progress, and we do have serious concerns, so Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Sandy, including regarding Indy beetle's good work, and a FARC is appropriate here. Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must concur with a move to FARC. I do not have full access to the Brownell book, and it would take time to integrate all more modern scholarship on this subject into the article. The use of dubious sources that Nick has pointed out, the dense and at times editorializing prose that Sandy and I have found, the tone of portraying the British like incompetent bullies, and the lack of coverage of the mission's activities post-UDI (when they'd arguably be the most important) mean this article is failing 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d of the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. This requires a complete re-researching and and verifying that the material cited here is actually supported by the sources provided. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Indy beetle has highlighted the major problems with this article, and these will require much more time than FAR/FARC will allow. I trust their judgement that this requires too much work for our process to save. Z1720 (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per above, needs significant rework. Hog Farm Talk 06:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness, coverage, prose, and neutrality. DrKay (talk) 12:45, 9 December 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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 6:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC) [29].

Alpha Kappa Alpha[edit]

Notified: User talk:Miranda, User talk:Ccson, User talk:Broadmoor, User talk:Grayfell, User talk:Gogo Dodo, User talk:Parkwells WP:AFRO, WP:WHIST, WP:SOROR, WP:CHICAGO, WP:USA, WP:WPDC, Notification Sept 2021

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is overwhelmingly sourced to the organisation itself. Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing. DrKay (talk) 12:40, 9 December 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) 4:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC) [30].

Sasha (DJ)[edit]

Notified: Wickethewok, Lazz_R, Coffeeandcrumbs, Ceoil, Outriggr, WP Biography, WP Electronic music, WP Wales, WP Rave, noticed in March

Review section[edit]

This 2007 promotion needs some work. Mild amounts of uncited text, and Sasha (DJ) discography reveals that Scene Delete, The emFire Collection: Mixed, Unmixed & Remixed, and several other albums, compliation albums, and EPs are not well documented in the text. The article also uses the user-generated Discogs, the dubious about.com (writers are not listed as okay at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources/About.com Critics Table), and relies very heavily on Progressive-Sounds, which looks like one person's personal website. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 4 December 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) 1:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [31].

Al-Kateb v Godwin[edit]

Notified: Stephen Bain , no other major contributors, WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Human rights, diff for talk page notification 2021-10-9

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues with updating and comprehensivess, discussed on the talk page. (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include currency and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 4 December 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) 3:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC) [32].

Bradley Joseph[edit]

Notified: Cricket02, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Classical music, WikiProject Composers, WikiProject Jazz, WikiProject Minnesota, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject United States, WikiProject American music, 2020-12-20

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as Toccata quarta pointed out on the talk page in December 2020, there are POV and UNDUE problems in the Yanni section. I am also concerned about the quality of sources used in this article, and that there doesn't seem to be information about him post-2013. No significant improvements have been made to the article since concerns were raised on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC - not much happening, cites an unofficial fansite and some blogs. Hog Farm Talk 15:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. In "Early life", I can't verify any of the info cited to https://www.bradleyjoseph.com/bio ... what am I missing? Also, some of what is cited to there needs to be attributed to him or seems unduly self-serving (eg, "One morning his father taught him how to play a boogie-woogie blues tune and by nightfall he could play the entire piece." might start with, "he says" if included at all). Another example, from the Yanni section, cited to himself is "In the band, Joseph covered a lot of the keyboard parts that Yanni could not for lack of hands in the shows." More independent sources are needed. There is a lot of info here that is not included in the article (using better sources would be required). Nothing since 2013? (I can't find any sources.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 27 November 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) 3:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC) [33].

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India[edit]

Notified: Shreshth91 [34], WikiProject Indian Law [35], WikiProject India [36], WikiProject Politics [37], 2021-05-19 talk page

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are quite a few serious issues with this article in compliance with current FA criteria. Per the issues raised at the talk page by @Bumbubookworm, and no major edits being made to resolve the concerns, I have created this review page. This article has lot of original research, random text is underlined, and only three major sources are used, with only one of them being a legal scholar. This also leads to be believe that the article is not as comprehensive as required for present FA standards. The "Criticism and analysis" section has random examples and laws listed, with no discussion as of how they are directly related with the topic. It has few vague sentences like "Children are now unemployed in hazardous environments, but their employment in hazardous jobs, prevalently as domestic help, violates the spirit of the constitution in the eyes of many critics and human rights advocates." (emphasis mine) and "Most of the fundamental rights are violated in courtrooms in either criminal cases or civil cases". The prose has few issues with linking and MOS. Needs a lot of work at present. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:DOCTOR and holy cow with underlining of text in mainspace (I think I removed all the underlining, but this shows it is not a well-watched article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include prose, neutrality and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 27 November 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) 3:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC) [38].

Yosemite National Park[edit]

Notified: Mav, Hike395, Pistongrinder, SandyGeorgia, Brian W. Schaller, Tadenham, D.Nino, WP Protected areas, WP California, WP World Heritage Sites, WP USA, WP USA History, WP Climbing noticed in 2020

Review section[edit]

A 2005 promotion kept at FAR in 2007, this one has not aged well. There's a couple unreliable sources (history.com is considered unreliable at WP:RSP, and IMDB is user-generated), and there's some uncited text, mainly in the activities section. Also some datedness issues - the Meadow Fire is only mentioned in an image caption, despite there being a section for wildfires, and the management issues section largely uses older sources and could use a revamp to get more up-to-date management stuff. Hog Farm Talk 07:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification, but I only figure in the stats because of considerable MOS and citation cleanup work I did when this article was at FAR years ago. I am too old for that kind of work now (that I last did in 2008 :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no engagement, two edits since FAR nomination in spite of talk notices dating back a year. This article was originally featured before inline citations were required, and at a time when it was considered acceptable to lift text extensively from public domain sources, without citation or quotation or attribution. It was reviewed in 2007 as part of the first WP:URFA. I put hundreds of edits into adding citations from public domain sources which, at that time, were quoted verbatim (many still are, but now with correct attribution templates). Almost none of that information has been updated, and we can see by looking at one example how much of a rewrite would be needed:
    • Current version. "Taken together, the park's varied habitats support over 250 species of vertebrates, which include fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals." Cited to a National Park Service page that no longer exists, but found at an 2007 archive.org page.
    • Update needed. The NPS website for Yosemite has been completely restructured and rewritten, and what was once on one page is now on dozens. From https://www.nps.gov/yose/index.htm, just one entry (on birds) says "An astounding 262 species of birds have been documented in Yosemite, including 165 resident and migratory species."
The 262 species of birds alone shows how far outdated the 250 species of animals all together is. The article would need a significant rewrite, and FA content taken verbatim from public domain websites is not viewed as favorably as it was before 2008, when this article was written. It is sad that we may lose them, but many of our old National Park articles have the same issue. This kind of article requires constant updating, and that is no longer happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 27 November 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) 2:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC) [39].

Paul Kagame[edit]

Notified: Amakuru, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Rwanda, 2020-11-11 talk page

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because I raised issues on the talk page about NPOV and comprehensiveness, but did not receive a response.

One of the major issues with this article is that it neglects recent scholarship that analyzes the post-war situation in Rwanda. I made a long list on the talk page of various sources, at least some of which ought to be cited in the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - In addition to the comments made by Buidhe at the talk page, I'll note that some of the info is straight up outdated. Under "Foreign Policy", the section on the Democratic Republic of the Congo gives a little too much detail on Laurent Kabila's death—why we need to know of its exact circumstances here befuddles me, as it's not as if Kagame was directly involved. There is also little talk of the rumoured deployment of Rwandan soldiers in Congolese territory, or of Kagame's efforts at a rapproachment with the DRC government under President Tshisekedi since 2019 (some detail on that here). For the Uganda section, there is no mention of the Rwanda/Uganda dispute of 2019. More on Kagame's personal relationship with Museveni could also be helpful (see previous source). American relations with Kigali have also improved since the 2012 freeze. His relationship with Burundi is also worth some exploration, considering the historical spillover of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict there and accusations that Kagame has tried to destabilize the country's government. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - whoah Buidhe, isn't it customary to do informal discussions before initiating a formal review? Please can I request that we close this FAR, and we can move to addressing issues more informally. This is what I've seen with other FAs I've been involved with. I'm sure we can deal with the issues raised, but I'm not very happy that you've sprung this on me out of the blue. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking now I see that buidhe only left their concerns about the Kagame article on the talk page less than a week ago, which makes the time between the first questions about problems to the FAR less than the standard time normally left for people to address concerns there. While I do think this article does have some major areas for improvement, I could see this being moved to the talk page for the time being. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru I did follow the instructions: "In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers 5–7 days to respond to concerns." I both made efforts to improve the article and waited the required period. (t · c) buidhe 14:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: how was I supposed to fix the issues you raised in 5 days? On fact I hadn't seven seen the talk page note until today, and as I said on the talk page today I am willing to work on the article and make the improvements you and Indy are suggesting, but this is likely to take months unfortunately as I don't have huge amounts of time to spare. Maybe SandyGeorgia can advise, as I've worked on other FAs with her, but generally in previous cases time is given to work through issues before FAR, something you haven't given me here. I can see where you're coming from on the article issues, but this bolt from the blue on an article I worked hard on, has honestly ruined my day and left me feeling quite despondent. Please let's come to an understanding on this. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru my apologies for iPad typing, long medical appts today. Nikkimaria put this on hold so you can have additional time. I have an advantage that Buidhe may not have which is 15 years of knowing who will do the work ;) I know if I ping certain editors or visit their talk, they will bring articles to standard. One thing Buidhe might do going forward is check whether past-FAC nominators are still active, but Nikkimaria has granted time here and removed the FAR from the WP:FAR page. Probably giving Nikkimaria an idea of what time you need will be good. Please do not let this ruin your day, as time is always granted at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I assumed that you had seen the post on the talk page but lost interest in the article, because you did not reply. However, as long as improvements are ongoing then please take as much time as necessary. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy and Buidhe. Unfortunately I did miss the talk page notification, and even the subsequent changes that you already made to the article. Probably a sign that I've got too much crap on my watchlist! I feel like it would be very useful to notify regular contributors and/or the FAC nominator at the time of the talk page notice, as well as when the formal FAR is opened. Maybe I'll propose that on the project talk page, unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Anyway, I'll do my best to make progress on updating and making the article more neutral, as time allows. Any tips or assistance from yourself would be gratefully received as well, Buidhe. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: Could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: apologies, I've lost momentum a bit on this one since January when Sandy last checked in with me but it hasn't slipped my mind. I will make it a priority in the next few days/week to carry on working through the article checking all the sections for updates based on the new sources. Once I'm done with that I'll check back in with Buidhe for any further suggestions or problems they may spot. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru and Nikkimaria: monthly check in. It has now been four months; can we please get this back on the page to get it moving? Buidhe how is it looking to you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the start of the review I have made updates to the sections on the civil war and the genocide, to bring in material mentioned in Caplan's paper. I've also added bits to the "domestic situation" covering the exile and death of Sendashonga , and the subject of RPF killings/Kibeho is reiterated there. In presidency, there's a decent discussion on the circumstances of Kagame's taking over from Bizimungu, with the predominant argument that the latter was forced out and mentioning his later address, but also giving a brief mention to the version of events of Kagame himself, as relayed to Kinzer. Additional things that I think will need doing:
  1. Maybe rework "Congo wars" a bit so that the motives behind the wars are more objectively described.
  2. In presidency, more discussion on the claims of domestic human rights infringements.
  3. Some reworking of "personality and public image" to remove bits that at this point look somewhat biased in PK's favour, and also discuss differing views about whether he's truly popular within Rwanda. (I don't think we can give a definitive answer on that one way or the other, so just have to present whatever evidence exists).
Obviously I'll be keen to hear Buidhe's views on what the next steps should be as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So ... it sounds like we can now bring it back to an active FAR, so we can get other opinions and keep moving forward (towards closing a four-month-old FAR)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the "elections" section could use more perspective. For instance, I don't think there's any reliable source which says that the elections aren't rigged, but that doesn't clearly come across. Scholarly sources explain why the elections occur the way they do:

Around the 2017 Rwandan election, many journalists phoned us to discuss the polls, and most asked the same question: Why does President Paul Kagame bother holding elections at all? He had already won a fantastical 93 per cent of the vote in the 2013 election, and he had eliminated presidential term limits in 2010 meaning that he was legally allowed to stay in power until 2034. So why did he go through the motions of organizing a national poll that he was predestined to win? Why not just get rid of elections altogether?

When Kagame went on to take 99 per cent of the vote, these questions became even more pertinent.18 Kagame had clearly not even bothered to try and manipulate the election in the clever ways described in previous chapters. Yet even in spite of this, he benefited from polls that had become little more than a political charade.

Most obviously, even the stage-managed 2017 contest was important to secure a base level of international legitimacy. While counterfeit democrats often behave arbitrarily, they like to be seen to be men – with a small number of exceptions they are almost always men – of order and responsibility. This means that leaders want to make it look as if they are following the rule of law even when they are not. Kagame is no exception. (Yale UP, How to Rig an Election, pp. 214–215)

Later on the same page, the authors mention that not even pretending to hold elections will get a country kicked out of the African Union. (google books link)

Waldorf also discusses how "the RPF ensures that elections are neither free nor fair", and the historical background on why:

As a rebel movement, the RPF had difficulty attracting Hutu recruits despite its inclusive ideology and its prominent Hutu spokesmen. The RPF conducted an electoral campaign for mayors in the demilitarized north in 1993 but Habyarimana’s party took all the posts. “The RPF realized then that it stood no chance in an open political contest"

With regards to vote-rigging he states the following:

Similarly, Simpser (2013: xv) points out how “[m]anipulating elections excessively and blatantly [i.e. beyond what is necessary to win] can make the manipulating party appear stronger”. This helps explain Kagame winning more than 90% and the RPF more than 75% of the vote. Such vote tallies are not meant to be convincing; rather, they are meant to signal to potential opponents and the populace that Kagame and the RPF are in full control.

In an article called Behind the Façade of Rwanda's Elections [40](you can access through TWL) Reyntjens states:

Rwanda is a de facto one party state. The RPF maintains its political monopoly through intimidation, threats, human rights abuses, and the elimination of dissent. The regime fully controls the political landscape from the national to the local level. This control is exercised by an elite composed of the minority Tutsi ethnic group, and causes resentment and frustration among the Hutu majority. The RPF is fully aware that opening up the political system would eventually lead to a loss of power.

There's another interesting article, "Entrenched Dictatorship: The Politics of Rigged Elections in Rwanda since 1994"[41] by Susan Thomson and Madeline Hopper

Right now the article is structured to focus on the campaigns, which is the correct structure if these are typical electoral contests where both sides have a chance to win. Instead, I would add an overview with scholarly analysis on the overall strategy and give less detail on the individual campaigns, because the outcome actually is decided in advance. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I've rewritten the elections section this morning - it now has two paragraphs of general discussion at the top, as you suggested. I've then reduced the discussion on each individual election to a couple of paragraphs each. I think it's still worth keeping those, as each election did receive widespread coverage worldwide and there were different players around on each occasion, even if the general narratives are similar. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted at FAR, over four months now since this FAR was opened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Right now I am seeing an issue with WP:FACR#4, length (well over 10,000 words, and the most obvious thing to trim would be the election section as each one has its own article) and some lingering false balance issues (#1d), such as "Assassination allegations" attributed to Human Rights Watch, when I'm not sure there's any reliable source that disputes that the Rwandan government has carried out assassinations. Most scholarly sources state that RPF carried out assassinations after the civil war as a fact, including [42][43][44] (not to mention the new book Do Not Disturb). (t · c) buidhe 12:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 10 April, Amakuru still working on this. I am concerned that five months is much too long to keep a FAR going, and hope that finishing the work here will be a priority. SandyGeorgia (Talk) `
  • Amakuru in glancing over the prose, I am finding considerable issues, and I am concerned that five months is stretching the good faith intentions of FAR beyond reasonable limits. The idea is to give editors time to work on issues, but the extensions do not seem to have resulted in work done here. Can we expect work on the sourcing concerns to finish soon? If not, I suggest we should think about proceeding to FARC. Once you finish sourcing work, a good deal of prose work is still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: sorry for late reply - I think I missed your 10 April ping I think because it doesn't have a date on the signature. I'm not really sure what more to do on the content front. I disagree with Buidhe's suggestion that we should do away with the individual election campaigns. Irrespective of whether they were competitive or not, they still garnered significant international coverage and are part of a standard layout for a president's article. Re the "assassinatino allegations" I have dropped the word allegations from that section. I did wonder if it needed its own section, but perhaps as it transcended both the VP and presidency phases it is sensible there. There is some tidy-up needed with the last paragraph of the lead, and as you say prose polishing to do, plus sorting out the refs. But in my opinion it's OK at this point. Probably Buidhe disagrees but would be good to have some specific consensuses! Obviously if you feel it's time to delist it then so be it... It's a shame that we haven't got more people coming in through the FAR process.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ack Amakuru, so sorry for the faulty sig-- probably an artefact of my frequent iPad editing. I am desperately behind after three days in the garden, so will catch up here as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find places where prose needs tightening:

  • There are five uses of subsequently, almost always redundant (and they are here). Looking at one sample:
    • Several Hutu politicians, including the prime minister Pierre-Célestin Rwigema, left the government at around the same time as Bizimungu, leaving a cabinet dominated by those close to Kagame. Bizimungu started his own party following his resignation, but this was quickly banned for "destabilising the country". He was subsequently arrested and convicted of corruption and inciting ethnic violence, charges which human rights groups said were politically motivated.
      • left ... leaving ... vary the wording ...
      • "subsequently" arrested ... could not have been arrested previously

Concern about representation of sources:

  • Text says: Since the end of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, Rwanda has enjoyed a close relationship with the English speaking world, in particular the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK).
    • The 2012 source mentions Clinton, saying that aid will be cut ... suggesting that large parts of this article may still be outdated or misrepresenting info based on current or broader sources (Clinton is not the US).
  • as well as supporting development projects.
    • Based on a primary source only, with no secondary source given. [45]

My concern is that wherever I look, I can find issues like this, so unless a top-to-bottom rewrite is undertaken, I think we are long past the time when we should proceed to FARC. Keeping an article of this nature updated requires constant vigilance, which this article does not seem to have had. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: - the point about the US is covered in the last paragraph of that section, detailing how they initially cut aid around 2012-13, but have subsequently revived it and remain close as of recently. And no problem with a primary source on a point of fact. But anyway, on the wider point, I'm obviously glad that this FAR has pushed me into updating this article, because I completely agree with the original assessment from l;ast year that it needed some updating based on later developments and the shift in scholarly POV. But I've done that, and I completely disagree that the idea that we now have to throw the whole thing away and start again. But anyway, so be it. I don't disagree that the prose could be polished in places and a few more updates made, but personally I'm satisfied that this article is a good and fair representation of this BLP and that's of more importance than whether it has a shiny gold star at the top or not. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Remaining issues include citations and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the FAR process has resulted in considerable improvement to the article, which is great. However, if this article came up at FAC I would definitely oppose it on the basis that it is not "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The article still has an overreliance on press articles compared to scholarship, which comes at the cost of privileging surface-level events to deeper analysis and understanding of underlying factors. I would also oppose on the lack of summary style and excessive detail in places. (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The article needs a thorough review of its prose to summarise and WP:SPINOUT longer sections. Discussion of Kagame's policies seems to be mixed with the Presidential section and should be given their own section. Amakuru had great edits on the article in April, but it still needs more work to bring it to FA standards. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720: obviously it's clear that this article no longer has the support of the community as an FA, so I won't quibble on that point, but I'm curious why you think policies don't belong in the section on his presidency? Per other FAs such as Barack Obama, Richard Nixon etc, policies are generally included within that section in an article. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amakuru: I was thinking of creating a "Political philosophy and views" section, similar to John Adams. However, I looked at other political bio FAs and I think a political philosophy section is not common. My suggestion was to put his personal philosophy into its own section so that the "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" sections would only contain what he did while in office and therefore be shorter. I still think those sections are too long and could use a trim. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's close, but I'm certainly leaning towards keeping. Paul Kagame is a current world leader, there is simply not enough written about him yet (and not enough known—consider what his policies and actions will influence in 50 years?) to split into sub articles, have a deeper understanding or even compare to figures like Nixon/John Adams. I am yet to see examples of the numerous pieces of relevant and significant literature that this article is supposably missing. The standards being held to this article are astronomical and not keeping with the reality of the situation; if this isn't an FA of the current leader of an African country, what is? Aza24 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • there is simply not enough written about him yet Really? I made a long, incomplete, list of scholarly sources on the talk page. There's enough to say to fill several articles, which is why it's important to use summary style on the top level one. (t · c) buidhe 05:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes really, "there is simply not enough written about him yet to... have a deeper understanding". What are these pertinent comments and observations that the article is missing? Are we sure these sources do not just repeat information already present? And are we sure that they offer unique insights that are notable enough to even include? Just because there are unused sources is not a fault in itself, notwithstanding the question as to if they will add anything in the first place. Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The article would look quite different if you started over again with the scholarly sources and used news only to flesh out details if necessary. Different emphases, coverage of different topics, deeper analysis of certain topics that are not covered in news with omission of surface-level information that doesn't belong in this article. To cite just one example, Waldorf discusses how the RPF strategy to maintain its power is to offer rewards to a larger segment of the population rather than relying on political repression alone. The article gives a decent overview of many of the relevant policies, but it does not explain why they were decided upon or what purpose it serves. So it cannot be considered to meet FA criteria 1b or 1c. (t · c) buidhe 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          @Aza24 and Buidhe: This process started with the request to update with latest literature, and make sure that the subject was presented from a neutral point of view. I spent considerable time doing that, with (per the original suggestion) strong reference to the Caplan paper, which is one of the latest balanced reviews out there and highlights all the major question marks around Kagame while also noting his achievements. All that is in the article, which now presents the timeline of his life with appropriate caveats everywhere regarding the different viewpoints. As I said before, you could read the latest book by Linda Melvern and you'd think Kagame's a saint, or alternatively you could read the latest book by Judi Rever or Michela Wrong and think he's the worst tyrant ever. This article doesn't take either of those two sides, as indeed it shouldn't per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and I'm just glad that someone has finally come out to defend it. That's not to say that it's perfect of course, but the goal of FAR is to save the star if possible; and the proposed solution of removing the election campaigns, despite the significant coverage they received, isn't IMHO the answer.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck my delist opinion above, and I'll take a look at this in the coming days. If I don't respond in a week, please ping me as I probably forgot. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry it took so long to take a look at this. I posted comments and questions on the article's talk page, and that is where I will do my review to avoid making the FAR co-ordinators read all of my comments. Please respond to comments there. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have conducted a first review and copyedit of the article to "Foreign policy", with comments placed on the talk page. Amakuru did a great job responding to my smaller comments, but some of the larger ones still need work (like updating the economy section). The last major edit was August 24. I'm happy to continue if someone is willing to help address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Z1720: I'm still working on it as and when I can, but I also have a lot other things going on and I'm aware I may be testing people's patience here. I'll be able to address more of the points in the next week hopefully.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Amakuru:I am also very busy, with real-life stuff happening for me, so I am not in a rush to review this. I'm happy to keep this open and review once edits are complete if the FAR co-ords are willing to keep it open as well. Please ping me once the article is ready for more comments. Other editors are also welcome to ping me if they are willing to help restore this. Z1720 (talk) 18:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:15, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Amakuru: and others: I have some unresolved comments on the article's talk page. When they are addressed I'll continue the review. Z1720 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Z1720: thanks for your comment here, and your patience. As may be obvious from my contributions, I have been concentrating quite heavily on generating content of late as part of the WikiCup, with quite a few new FAs and GAs. Perhaps I should have prioritised this FAR, I don't know, but obviously as a WP:Volunteer I can only do what I can do at the end of the day. So the upshot of all that is that unfortunately in recent months, as I still have a lot of other real-life commitments going on too, I haven't been able to invest the time in Paul Kagame. But there's light at the end of the tunnel - this year's WikiCup finishes in about two weeks, and after that I'm going to pause writing new articles for a little while and I anticipate that I'll be able to spend my Wiki-time concentrating fully on the points you've raised at the Paul Kagame talk page and getting that closed out. Will that be OK with you? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is completely fine with me. As a former Wikicup competitor, I understand wanting to do your best in that competition. There's no rush from my end and I'm ready to continue when you are. Z1720 (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A year in to this review, this is becoming an uncomfortable issue in terms of priorities; a widely viewed FA should not be neglected for so long. I recommend one more month, or we should move on with Delisting here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe and Z1720: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru:, as they are the expert editor leading this FAR rescue. I defer to them about how much time they can spend in this article's cleanup. Now that wikicup is over, are you returning to this? Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: yes, that is still very much the plan. I hope I can get through things by the end of November, I'll get back to fixing the economy and education issues raised by yourself in the next day or two. Obviously it depends a bit what else comes up in the review though, and how close we are to being complete. It would be great to be able to do the extensive re-sourcing and major rewriting suggested by Buidhe, but really I'd be lying if I said I could do all that in a month! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: - Could we please get an update here? Hog Farm Talk 05:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
At over a year now, this FAR is passing the British Empire record (which was just under a year), and that length occurred not because of lack of activity, rather lack of agreement among very active participants. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm, SandyGeorgia, and Z1720: OK, well with the deepest sadness I think I'm going to have to throw in the towel on this one and accept a delist. I apologise sincerely for stringing you along all this time, it was always my very genuine intention to address the points that were concerning Z1720 - points which I think could have led this article to keep its star in the end. Unfortunately, I've just found myself unable to commit the necessary time to working on the updates required. The reality of attempting to be a Wikipedian while also having a young family, keeping down a full-time job and committing to other extracurricular activities too! More recently, I promised to address the issues once I had finished my marathon WikiCup October, to tackle this in November, but once again I've found myself horribly busy in real life recently (to the extent that I can't catch a moment to just relax even though I've not been active on Wikipedia). So that's where we are. Let's delist this, because obviously it can't be kept going forever, and I'll hopefully be able to continue updating the out-of-date and less-well-structured sections at some point in the future. Z1720 I'll let you know if and when that happens, and while it is unlikely to be sufficient for this article to regain FA status in its current form - given the sentiments of Buidhe etc above - it would at least satisfy me that it's presenting something reasonably decent to our readers. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:39, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Amakuru. Sorry to see this, Amakuru, but I am increasingly worrying about what will become of the FAR page (relative to the template limits issue) with the WikiProject Cyclone issues in the pipeline, and have been concerned that we need to watch the length here. I hope you'll be able to bring it back to FAC in the future! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Amakuru, I trust their judgment expressed above. Hog Farm Talk 14:56, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Amakuru. Please ping me when this is ready for a pre-FAC PR. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 4 December 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) 2:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC) [46].

Chadderton[edit]

Notified: SheriffIsInTown, Jza84, WP Cities, WP England, WP Greater Manchester, WP UK geography noticed in 2020

Review section[edit]

As noted by Buidhe on the article's talk page in 2020, this 2010 promotion has fallen out of date. The 2001 census is the most recent described in prose, despite numbers for 2011 having been available for years. There are also a number of CN tags, the reference "http://richardjohnbr.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/chartist-lives-samuel-collins.html%7CChartist Lives – Samuel Collins. Retrieved 17 July 2013" doesn't look reliable, and some content is supported by dated references, such as the reference for "Other major businesses include Costco and Shop Direct Group" being from 2004. This is not an exhaustive list of issues. Hog Farm Talk 03:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 20 November 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) 2:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC) [47].

Akhtar Hameed Khan[edit]

Notified: Islescape, WP Pakistan, WP Bangladesh, WP Biography, WP India, WP International development, WP Muslim scholars, WP Economics, 2018-03-02 and 2021-09-18

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because a) it was the oldest listed at WP:FARGIVEN, and b) the talk page notices given indicate that the article is largely sourced to a self-published biography by a non-notable academic and a close relative of Khan. DrKay also mentioned prose and structure issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the first line, & one of the links! Eeek! Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my :) And it was that way when promoted … in early 2008 … when yours truly was a new FAC delegate. And that ran on the mainpage and no one noticed it! (How did you see that?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Me and my little cursor... You couldn't do that then. I was curious to see where development practitioner led, having a family member who would be one if such beasts existed - it's a nice idea though - would one lie on a couch?Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we did such things back then. Or maybe not :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Up to its last sentence, the paragraph about Lodhran is supported by Hasan (2002) p. 209. But I can't relate "The municipal partnership was itself a new initiative that ensured wider civic co-operation" to the source. The first part of the paragraph already states that the organization which partnered with the municipal committee was purpose formed in 1999, so it seems redundant to say the partnership was a new initiative. The rest of the sentence is vague enough that I'm not sure to what it is referring. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The premise of the FAR notifications on article talk were that “the article is largely sourced to a self-published book by a relative”. Glancing at the first parts of the article, the kind of text that is sourced to the relative is precisely the kind of information we would expect from a relative. Things like where he was born, who his parents were, and the like. I also do not find that the article is largely sourced to Yousaf; perhaps there were improvements made after the notice was left ??
    I think we need to take a closer look at each individual statement sourced to Yousaf; if something inappropriate is found, it can be removed or resourced, but at this point, I am not yet convinced that the problems here are insurmountable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @DrKay and Bumbubookworm:, I have trimmed some text cited only to his relative. Most of what is cited to Yousaf is personal biographical info that seem appropriate to be sourced to a relative. Yours were the talk page notifications that led to this FAR; could you please have a look and indicate what issues remain? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is very short. Google, google scholar, google books and google news all turn up usable (not written by Yousaf) sources, including scholarly, that could be used. It appears to me that the main problem here is not an overreliance on Yousaf, rather a failure to update the article to a comprehensive survey of the literature that would better cover Khan’s legacy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, the article uses exclusively sources from 2006 and earlier, and there is much more that can be used. The article has not been updated to incorporate newer sources, and is not comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 20 November 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) 2:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC) [48].

Armament of the Iowa-class battleship[edit]

Notified: WP MilHist, WP Ships, ‎WP US, ‎WP Iowa, talk page notification 2020-01-28 ‎

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because... the afd was inconclusive towards deletion, merging, or redirecting. This has grown fat and very bloated, not withstanding the fact that it is currently 100% unneeded its no longer written neutrally, contains what would be best described as original research, and is in need of featured article review to identify other areas that may be in violation of WIAFA as the community sees fit to judge. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81, please notify the three WikiProjects listed on the article talk page with {{subst:FARMessage|Armament of the Iowa-class battleship}}, and update the top of this page to indicate pages notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind; I see you did the notifications, but didn’t list them at the top of this FAR, which I have now done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I went to list this for FAR/C and then in the middle of filing he paperwork my computer decided it was time to reboot to finish updates so it came down to a contest of time between me and the paperwork. I got most of it, apparently, but this didn't take. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and length. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 20 November 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) 2:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC) [49].

England national rugby union team[edit]

Notified: User talk:Shudde, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England July 2021 notice
See this discussion; additional notifications to Rugby.change, BRACK66, Cvene64, Rodney Baggins SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced parts and more weight on recent events than the past, and repeats material in the history and then describes it in prose in the results section Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Coords, please extend FAR by one week, as notifications were incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Bumbubookworm:
"it has unsourced parts": mostly very well sourced, the main gaps appear to be in the Record section and a few other parts that should be {{cn}} tagged pending some urgent attention.
"more weight on recent events than the past": the "Early years" and "Professional era" subsections in History are pretty much of equal weight. Where else do you think there's too much weight on recent events? The Rugby World Cup only started in 1987, rankings only introduced in 2003, so these are naturally recent developments and described as such.
"repeats material in the history and then describes it in prose in the results section": when you say "results section", do you mean "Record" section? The "Rugby World Cup" subsection just focuses in on that tournament and may contain some slight repetition from the History as a result but I don't think that's a problem (lack of sourcing in that subsection is a bigger problem!) "Overall" subsection talks about the rankings and I don't think any of that is repeated stuff.
I certainly don't think the article deserves to be demoted without the chance for a thorough review which I would be happy to be involved in. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rodney Baggins templates are discouraged at FAC and FAR because they cause template limits to be exceeded, which chops the entire page. Would you mind replacing your tq templates above with straight quotes? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 20 November 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) 2:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC) [50].

Barack Obama[edit]

Notified: Gråbergs Gråa Sång ([51]), WikiProject Biography ([52]), WikiProject Biography ([53]), WikiProject Chicago ([54]), WikiProject African diaspora ([55]), WikiProject United States ([56]), WikiProject Politics ([57])
Tvoz should have been notified of this FAR; since they weren’t, I will go do that now. See this discussion; when proper notifications are not done, FARs can get stalled. And by adding notifications to more pages, we are more likely to draw in not only that editor, but editors who follow that editor’s talk, who may be willing or able to make improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because... the post-presidency section is too bloated and could use a spin-off article. This article suffers from bloat in that section and no longer meets the featured article criteria. I brought this up back in May 2021 [58] but unfortunately nothing has been done about it. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's it? You're nominating this to be reviewed because a single section (perhaps the least important section) is too big? Not only this, but your "FAR" talk page comment was a single message, that was merely a reply to an earlier thread. I don't really understand how this is acceptable and I imagine that if a substantial effort were given to alert editors to this (rather minor issue, in the grand scheme) on the talk page, it could easily be resolved. Aza24 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a quick skim of the article, and I don't think it should lose its FA status. However, there are still things that can be fixed: The Post-Presidency section is bloated, there's parts of the article with stubby paragraphs that I would like to see merged or deleted, and I want to try to incorporate the sources in "Further reading" as references. @Therapyisgood: do you want to create the spin-out article for Obama's post-presidency and copy-paste the information from this article (after checking for citations)? Once this is complete we can work together to cut down the bloating and do some general clean-up of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The ref " Howley, Kathleen (September 1, 2019). "Barack And Michelle Obama Are Buying Martha's Vineyard Estate From Boston Celtics Owner". Forbes." looks like a WP:FORBESCON issue, as does "Thompson, Loren. "Obama Backs Biggest Nuclear Arms Buildup Since Cold War". Forbes.". " "Wawancara Eksklusif RCTI dengan Barack Obama (Part 2)". YouTube. March 2010. Retrieved February 12, 2018." fails WP:COPYLINK unless the original broadcast was freely licensed. " "Barack Obama: Calvert Homeschooler?—Calvert Education Blog". calverteducation.com. January 25, 2014. Retrieved November 25, 2015." is poor sourcing for a statement involving Obama and the Calvert school. Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realize it's a massive topic to cover but I think the current article should be made more concise in order to comply with the length requirement. The post-presidency section is the one that suffers most obviously from bloat, although other sections could also use a hard look at what info is really due and what should be moved to sub-articles. It would also be great if the lead could be cut down somewhat to comply with WP:LEAD. This is the longest lead I've ever seen on an article rated "featured" and is longer than other leads of US president articles. Overall length of the article has ballooned from 8,000 words to 14,000 words since 2012, the last time it was reviewed. (t · c) buidhe 11:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am working on a complete copyedit of the article to remove unnecessary information (like proposals and intentions) and combining smaller paragraphs and sections. The images also need MOS:ALT; if someone could do that it would be great. The lede will be the last thing I check because I want to get a sense of what is in the article (and remove information that is not cited in the body). Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This amount of over-politicized off-topic content in the lead does not give me a good feeling about what I might find in the rest of the article:

  • Obama nominated three justices to the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were confirmed as justices, while Merrick Garland faced partisan obstruction from the Republican-majority Senate led by Mitch McConnell, which never held hearings or a vote on the nomination.
    That amount of detail in the lead is unnecessary. Something shorter would work:
  • Obama nominated three justices to the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were confirmed as justices, while Merrick Garland was denied hearings or a vote from the Republican-majority Senate.
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Interference in the 2016 U.S. elections” is stated as fact in the lead in Wikipedia’s voice, when numerous sources have had to back off on that claim, and indictments about those involved in the hoax have been issued.
    I was mistaken, see note below, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is not a single mention in the lead of anything other than success; Britannica.com might provide some helpful hints on controversial topics that might be briefly covered (or we may found them entirely left out— I hope not).
  • https://www.britannica.com/biography/Barack-Obama/Spring-scandals-and-summer-challenges

Criticism can be found even in a successful presidency.

At FA Ronald Reagan, we find the Iran-Contra affair in the lead, FA Hillary Clinton has the Benghazi affair, and the lead of Bill Clinton has his Lewinsky and other scandals, for example.
It is not clear why this book by Zelizer is not used, which leads to concern that the article has not been updated to reflect recent scholarship (this is a VERY old FA, which has never had an adequate review because so many of the previous FARs involved high levels of disruption— a much closer look at sourcing, POV and comprehensiveness should be taken.

The article appears unbalanced (POV), at least from reading only the LEAD. I haven’t gone farther, as this is not a promising start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: The article on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections still says that Russia did interfere in the election, so Obama's article saying that Russia interfered is entirely appropriate. I did fix the Supreme Court sentence in the lede, added basic information about how Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was received, and added info about Obama ending a ban on offshore oil and gas drilling prior to the oil spill, which in mentioned in the Britannica article as well. I do agree that sources and information from more recent scholarship should be added to the article. If there is anything else that can be done to make the lede and the rest of the article more balanced, then please let me know. X-Editor (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for a mistake made due to being rushed. I missed that the Steele dossier (a subset of the Russian interference issue) is a separate article, and have struck my point. Just as a note for future reference though; if it had been an issue here, we should not refer back to a different Wikipedia article to justify what we write in this article, rather make sure that everything in this article is sourced and cited here.
I have now taken more time to examine more of the article, so will detail issues next. I will mention upfront that I never support articles that are more than 10,000 words of readable prose, because they are so hard to get through and so hard to maintain. Neither would I oppose an article for being at 12,000 words of prose, but there is clearly a lot of bloat here, and it looks to be an issue related to how this article has been built over time. Because the article is so long, the comments I will post will be based on only very cursory spotchecks so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overdue for a rigorous Featured article review
This article passed FAC in 2004 with less than 1,600 words of readable prose. I gave the sourcing and formatting a thorough once over in the 2007 FAR, before Obama was even running for President, and when the article was 4,500 words of readable prose. The January 2007 FAR did not have high participation, and now at over 12,000 words of readable prose, most of the content in this article has not been reviewed against WP:WIAFA, as most of the FARs since January 2007 were closed because they were malformed, spurious, using FAR as dispute resolution, or POINTy nominations shortly before elections. We no longer have a problem of ongoing disputes due to elections; we have, in the spirit of URFA, an extremely old FA whose content has not been seriously reviewed for over a decade. Because of the out-of-process way many of those previous FARs were presented, issues raised have not necessarily been addressed over the years.
And problems are evident throughout. We need a rigorous review at FAR because the issues here are not of the type that can be addressed via copyediting, citation formatting, MOS corrections, and the like. The large problems result from how the article has grown over time (reflecting some PROSELINE), mostly relying on current news reports, not using any newer scholarly sources, and containing large amounts of text that are not placed in a historical or scholarly context. Getting through 12,000 words of prose in an article that needs some rewriting is a daunting task, and whether it can be successful will depend on how many editors have access to higher quality sources and know how to rebuild this to current FA standards.
Besides those larger problems, it is concerning that Z1720 found so many issues in only one section (some of which are suggestive of the same PROSELINE without context problem), and that Hog Farm also found a number of issues that would not pass FAC today.
Because this is likely to become a lengthy FAR, in the interest of space, at some point I will move commentary to the talk page of this FAR, but here is a very preliminary list:
  • This scholarly 2018 book (Julian Zelizer, The Presidency of Barack Obama) has not been used at all. Worse, when checking Google scholar and Google books, one can easily find a number of scholarly sources that have not been used (some of which I read through last night but without saving my notes). Another is Leadership and Legacy: The Presidency of Barack Obama, Lansford, 2021-- there are many more, although some of them are clearly hagiography and may not be very useful. This fails 1c. It is up to those wanting to salvage this star to do a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" to identify which books and scholarly articles should be used, and bring the article to WP:WIAFA sourcing standards. Hog Farm found text that failed verification, and in only a precursory check of the Russian text referenced above, I found unacceptable sourcing:
    • Obama's Russia policy was widely seen as a failure.[59] Yes, it was, but that kind of text cannot be sourced in a Featured article to one opinion piece (now five years old) in the New York Times. There are recent scholarly sources that discuss topics like this. If I found that in the one section I happened to be looking at, how much more deficient sourcing, or opinions lacking attribution, are to be found here? I found several more while reading just a few paragraphs last night. This article has 522 citations; checking them is not a worthwhile effort, because the article lacks historical context, and should be rewritten now to less NEWSY and higher quality scholarly sources.
  • In terms of bloated text and extraneous detail lacking in any historical context, I offer as but one example the section Barack Obama#War in Iraq. Pure PROSELINE apparently constructed from NEWSy sources, with almost nothing salvageable, and does nothing to address how history views Obama vis-a-vis Iraq. Almost all of the detail there is about things like numbers of troops, number of sorties, etc. Zero content relevant to Obama's bio and how history views his treatment of Iraq. This is what I found everywhere I looked, and has led me to the opinion that rewriting this article to FA standard will require a huge undertaking.
  • In contrast to the lack of attribution found above to the Friedman opinion in the NYT (which should have been attributed, but isn't an optimal source anyway), we find also the reverse problem:
    • George Robertson, a former UK defense secretary and NATO secretary-general, said Obama had "allowed Putin to jump back on the world stage and test the resolve of the West", adding that the legacy of this disaster would last.[60] Scholarly sources are broadly in agreement about Obama's legacy wrt Russia, and writing this statement as if it is an opinion held by only one individual is misleading. Even worse, the source used is very critical of Obama's handling of Putin, and yet this article has only one opinion attributed to one former UK defense secretary. This article is POV; even the source used (albeit outdated and not scholarly) is not adequately represented in the text here, and there are better sources that say similar. Writing this article correctly, five years after Obama's presidency, means replacing these old newsy sources with a balanced historical representation, with issues placed in proper context. That is likely to mean that the article will need to be restructured, because the sections now are more in accordance with how we organize political candidate articles, rather than how we place a past President in context, summarizing the most important aspects of that presidency.
  • Another issue is that this is Obama's bio, and that is Obama's presidency. A good deal of the unnecessary bloat here can be reduced by remembering that this article is not intended to be all about the Presidency. His life, legacy, personal info, leadup to and time after the Presidency all have a place.
  • How dated the article has become can be seen by looking at the dates in Further reading; this is an article in need of a thorough update and rewrite.
  • Similar bloat, dated sources, and failure to represent sources adequately can be seen in the economic policy section. A whole lot of "he did this, he did that" and numbers, but almost no then-current or historical context for what those numbers mean. This problem is also seen in the Legacy section,
    • Many commentators credit Obama with averting a threatened depression and pulling the economy back from the Great Recession.[61] The source is a link to an ABC news panel with three commentators; not a scholarly source as we would expect this many years later.
    • According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Obama administration created 11.3 million jobs from the month after his first inauguration to the end of his term.[62] It should not be necessary in 2021 to be using then-current news sources to write the Legacy section. Worse more POV, please read the context provided by the source given. In spite of being sourced to CNN, the text says that jobs gained under Obama were not as strong as under prior presidents. So POV again, and a failure to hew to what the source says.
  • Some of the sections covering current events may need to use appropriate news sources. I believe it is customary for the presidential library to be mentioned in pres articles, eg Barack Obama#Presidential library. But, as an example of how the article lacks balance, criticism of what Obama’s library has caused in Chicago is never mentioned. From perusing the talk page and talk archives, it is easy to see that there has been pretty extensive exclusion of criticism over the years. A POV or unbalanced tag might be warranted based on the number of issues I have found even with limited looking.
I saw much much more as I read through last night, but detailing it all would not be productive. Considering that I checked very few sections for this writeup, I am concerned about how much more of same there is, and the idea of checking over 500 citations is ... ugh. The article needs a solid, top-to-bottom rewrite after a thorough survey of better sources. The work will be daunting; I am not confident it can be accomplished in the course of a FAR. The prose is generally competent, but the article has serious structural problems, both in organization (as it doesn't reflect issues in historical context) and in faulty sourcing.
I will stop for now, but there is more; this is only a brief writeup of similar issues throughout. I advocated in almost every past FAR that the FARs were spurious or out-of-process or should be closed, and the last serious FAR (now almost 9 years ago) was rightly closed by Nikkimaria because it looked pointy during an election. That is not the case now; in the spirit of WP:URFA/2020, a rigorous review should continue here. These are samples only: I don't intend to continue reviewing/striking in a piecemeal approach to bringing this article to standard until a major rewrite is undertaken. Just adding newer sources will not address the problem that the article does not put issues and sections in context: per WP:WIAFA, it is time for a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and a rewrite to scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the number of serious issues found everywhere I look (now original research, too), I fear this will become an extremely large FAR, and have started adding my commentary at the talk page to keep this page from exploding.
I don’t see how this article can retain its star; the problems are pervasive, relating to poor sourcing and imbalance, and rewriting 12,000 words will be a huge undertaking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC) Moved commentary back to here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Original research and sourcing problems

Seeing that the article never mentions Obama’s huge negative gaps in “right track/wrong track” polling, I took a look at the Cultural and political image section where some polling is mentioned. This is yet another section that appears to have developed piecemeal, over time, and has not been rewritten to reflect scholarly articles or to place any of these numbers in context. This article does similar throughout: chock full of stats, data, and statements with no context. There is also original research and faulty sourcing in the polling content. (Aside: whether Obama’s huge gaps in “direction of the country”, “right track/wrong track” polling should appear hinges upon whether that “survey of sources” to upgrade the article to better sources reveals something useful, but “direction of the country” polling shows that Obama’s large negative gaps were only reached after his term once the pandemic set in (although Biden is now trending towards Obama’s lows.)
The article says:
  • According to the Gallup Organization, Obama began his presidency with a 68 percent approval rating [63] Improper use of a primary source, and no recent or higher quality or scholarly source used to place this number in context (those are easily found).
  • … a trend similar to Ronald Reagan's and Bill Clinton's first years in office.[64]. That is a dead link, and what makes “talkingpointsmemo” a reliable source, much less a high quality one? This statement can surely be sourced to a scholarly source by now.
  • His approval ratings rebounded around the same time as his reelection in 2012, with polls showing an average job approval of 52 percent shortly after his second inauguration.[65]. This is original research— using a primary source to draw a conclusion not stated by the source.
  • Despite approval ratings dropping to 39 percent in late-2013 due to the ACA roll-out, they climbed to 50 percent in January 2015 according to Gallup.[66]. This is more original research— using primary source data to reach a conclusion not drawn by the source.

So … again, I was only attempting to track down one issue (direction of the country polling) and in looking at only one paragraph, found four sourcing issues. This article fails 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further, at this point, the entire “Cultural and political image” section is poorly placed, and most of that text is not warranted. We should not even have blow-by-blow, PROSELINE polling numbers; we should have statements placed in the Legacy section summarizing his popularity/image/polling numbers based on high-quality, scholarly sources. The entire content about polling is yet another example of bloat that could probably be reduced to several sentences if better sources were used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Parts of the lead have the same issue as the rest of the article: long lists but no context for anything. It appears as if this article has avoided saying anything unfavorable about Obama by avoiding actually saying anything at all … just lists, numbers, no context, academic analysis, or historical perspective.
This sentence in the lead is much too long:

In foreign policy, he ordered military interventions in Iraq and Syria in response to gains made by ISIL after the 2011 withdrawal from Iraq, promoted discussions that led to the 2015 Paris Agreement on global climate change, oversaw and ultimately apologized for the deadly Kunduz hospital airstrike, continued the process of ending U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan in 2016, initiated sanctions against Russia following the invasion in Ukraine and again after interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, brokered the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal with Iran, and normalized U.S. relations with Cuba.

One big long list with no idea of how history views any of that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comments (HF)

Agree with Sandy that there seems to be some imbalance here. This is quite probably the most glowingly positive bio of a political figure I've seen on wikipedia. Will give this a start at looking at this, but this is gonna need a very close look-through. Hog Farm Talk 08:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "she was mostly of English descent,[11] with some German, Irish, Scottish,[12] Swiss, and Welsh ancestry.[13] " - and this is necessary detail because?
  • "Obama's parents met in 1960 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was a foreign student on a scholarship.[22][23]" His parent's "How I Met Your Mother" story is probably WP:UNDUE detail here
  • "At the age of six, Obama and his mother had moved to Indonesia to join his step-father." - duplication of material in previous paragraph
  • " supplemented by English-language Calvert School homeschooling by his mother." - Like I mentioned, above, we really should not be using the Calvert School's own blog for this.

The first part of that sources is "Calvert Education Services — once known as the the Calvert School’s “Home Instruction Division” — is proud to claim many accomplished, well-educated alumni such as William F. Buckley and Pearl S. Buck, but none more prominent than President Barack Obama!" Let's cite this to a source that isn't actively promoting the Calvert School

  • ""Wawancara Eksklusif RCTI dengan Barack Obama (Part 2)". YouTube. March 2010. Retrieved February 12, 2018." - probably fails WP:COPYLINK
  • "Zimmer, Benjamin (2009). "Obama's Indonesian Redux". Language Log. Archived from the original on March 3, 2009. Retrieved March 12, 2009." - Wordpress blog. Yeah, it's apparently run off a server in a college building, but do the writers have actual credentials here?
  • "During his time in Indonesia, Obama's stepfather taught him to be resilient and gave him "a pretty hardheaded assessment of how the world works."" - direct quote needs attributed
  • "graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1983 and a 3.7 GPA" - checked the sources didn't see where the GPA is (may have missed it). And is his GPA really a relevant detail, anyway?
  • "Obama's mother was survived by her Kansas-born mother, Madelyn Dunham,[60] until her death on November 2, 2008,[61] two days before his election to the Presidency. Obama also has roots in Ireland; he met with his Irish cousins in Moneygall in May 2011.[62] In Dreams from My Father, Obama ties his mother's family history to possible Native American ancestors and distant relatives of Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. He also shares distant ancestors in common with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, among others.[63][64][65]" - I'm thinking this is all undue detail, and the first two sentences are almost certainly so
  • "When they moved to Washington, D.C., in January 2009, the girls started at the Sidwell Friends School" - is what school their kids went to really that relevant? Carter's decision to put his daughter in public school still gets wide attention, but I don't think this is an automatic significant feature
  • "Per his 2012 financial disclosure, Obama may be worth as much as $10 million.[91]" - Hopelessly outdated; update or remove
  • "On his 2010 income of $1.7 million, he gave 14 percent to non-profit organizations, including $131,000 to Fisher House Foundation, a charity assisting wounded veterans' families, allowing them to reside near where the veteran is receiving medical treatments" - more undue detail; we don't need to know his tax details from 11 years ago
  • The whole section of tax detail from his first term just seems odd to include in a FA about a president
  • Should Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories be linked somewhere?
  • Am I the only one who thinks that the family life and religion material are stuck in a very odd place? They feel like they're just slapped in the middle of the chronological narrative
  • What does that external video involving Prof. Bell have to do with anything? It doesn't seem relevant to what is included in the body
  • I'm seeing little details sprinkled throughout here that I think are likely unnecessary. Why do we need to know that Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had 13 attorneys, for instance?
  • I've tagged an instance of failed verification in the section about his legal career. Between this and the GPA issue above, this likely needs some serious spot checks for source-text integrity
  • "In 1994, he was listed as one of the lawyers in Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 94 C 4094 (N.D. Ill.).[120] This class action lawsuit was filed in 1994 with Selma Buycks-Roberson as lead plaintiff and alleged that Citibank Federal Savings Bank had engaged in practices forbidden under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act.[121] The case was settled out of court.[122] Final judgment was issued on May 13, 1998, with Citibank Federal Savings Bank agreeing to pay attorney fees.[123]" - ummm, why so much detail about a fairly random court case that 1) makes no indication that Obama did anything truly significant here and 2) is sourced entirely to court docs

Ready for the material about his legislative campaign. This background material contains a ton of bloat and undue detail. Hog Farm Talk 08:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On "Should Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories be linked somewhere?"
Like
it's linked in the template at the bottom of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean in the text. It also occurred to me that in the section discussing religion, should the public perception of religion, e.i., that many on the right thought he was Muslim, be mentioned? Significant matters should be worked into the text for completeness, not relegated to see also links. Hog Farm Talk 16:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like the the other articles I linked, I don't think so, the template-link is proper "coverage" for this article, and there was more noise about citizenship than religion. They're on Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_primary_campaign (maybe not the "litigation" specifically) and somewhat on Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_campaign. They are due there, but not significant here. I'm not sure many on the right thought he was Muslim, but several of them had great fun writing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • JJE
No comments on the size of the page as I have a conflict of interest on the subject of page sizes. I can't help but notice that most of the article is sourced to news articles - often very recent news after the event discussed -, and that any kind of academic literature or biographies is omitted. I am inclined to say that this violates the comprehensiveness rules, and that assembling a NPOV-compliant article from news sources is going to be troublesome if not impossible - they almost never give a proper overview and thus you can't "gauge" what is due weight with them. And going by Sandy's sample, there is also some cherrypicking going on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Something to be improved upon, sure, but that is how these articles are made on WP, isn't it? George W. Bush ("only" GA, but still) is also often sourced to news articles. After the subjects leave office, the bulk of editors move on to the next president. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but that does not mean that it is a good idea to write an article in this fashion, let alone to try to get it to FA in this form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bush is not an FA, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a helpful argument or excusing factor at FAR. Obama is at FAR, and whether these issues will or can be addressed here is the focus of this page and our effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John McCain then, or Hillary Clinton. I'm not saying sources shouldn't be improved when possible, and there's probably some decent Obama-precidency books etc out by now. But he is still a fairly recent person, and "news" is a big part of it. FA:s about living people will have "news." as sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But they shouldn't be almost completely reliant on news sources. I haven't looked at the McCain and Clinton ones, but this one is almost completely sourced to news sources. By now, there have been several scholarly retrospectives on Obama (Sandy has pointed out a couple above). If scholarly sources are completely or largely neglected and news sources are relied on this heavily, then WP:FACR #1c is not met, as a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" is not present. Hog Farm Talk 15:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
McCain and Clinton are mainly sourced to news media but there are also some biographies cited. It does also not assuage my concern that you can't have a NPOV biography from news sources for methodological/procedural reasons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can guess that Clinton is as deficient relative to WP:WIAFA as this article is, for similar reasons. I can’t guess about McCain; one would hope it is better, since he has been deceased for a number of years. Nonetheless, this FAR is about Obama, not McCain or Clinton, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments won’t help us address the issues in this article. Those issues go beyond the faulty sourcing, and have already been documented (samples only— there is more). The focus of this page should be on those issues and this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrived here via a circuitous route from COP26. The environmental policy section of this article strikes me as woefully inadequate for an FA. The subsection is dominated by a single incident, and also includes brief mentions of other specific actions; there's no overview of his activities in this area. The lead mentions the Paris agreement, which isn't covered in the body at all; and I'm fairly certain sources do not support the current phrasing, which almost implies Obama was responsible for the agreement in its entirety. I do not have the time to review the rest of this article at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a specific reason Obama's invoking executive privilege over Operation Fast and Furious isn't mentioned? It really seems like the article tries to avoid anything that could be considered negative or a controversy. Hog Farm Talk 06:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HF round 2

Some other comments here, as well

  • "The countries' respective "interests sections" in one another's capitals were upgraded to embassies on July 20 and August 13, 2015, respectively" - Bad sourcing. We can't use a source from July 20 2015 to support that something happened on August 13 2015. Also, why is the accessdate for a source published on 7/20 given as 7/19?
  • "Polls showed strong support for Obama in other countries both before and during his presidency." - sourced to mainly two polls. And this doesn't even represent the second piece well, which states "And even in nations where ratings for Obama and the U.S. have been strong, there have been some signs of disappointment in the American president.". This is cherry-picked.
  • I'm generally skeptical of the use of polling stuff in the cultural and public image section. There was enough written about his image in general that we shouldn't be picking and choosing individual polls to discuss. You can get a poll to say anything you want to, there's much better sources for a president's public image than stray data points
  • "The family currently rents a house in Kalorama, Washington, D.C" - source is from during the Obama administration, got anything more recent to support this? It's been 5 years
  • Why are we calling out various Facebook posts in the post-presidency section? That whole paragraph just feels like a disjointed mess, referencing his beliefs on fairly random topics without presenting any sort of unifying theme
  • "The Obama administration asked Congress to allocate money toward funding the Iron Dome program" - the only reference to Iron Dome in the source seems to be a quote from Obama stating that they helped fund Iron Dome, without mentioning an allocation request

And that's just from a brief further look. This needs significant improvements. Hog Farm Talk 06:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Z1720: and @X-Editor: to see how far they've come in addressing these issues, and if they want to participate any further. They seem to be the page's most editors by edit count. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC seems like plenty to justify a move to FARC. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Diff of edits since October 30, when most FAR commentary was entered. Basically, nothing; no change, no talk discussion, no attempt to remedy issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, as there are no indications that the amount of effort required to restore this article to Featured status will be undertaken, or that the massive effort required would not be better suited to a new FAC should the issues be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - my comments about poor sources from October 20 have not been addressed, nor my first larger batch of general comments on October 30. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am very behind on my wiki-tasks because of real-life commitments. I was conducting a copyedit of this article, but I am hesitant to continue if the article has extensive sourcing problems, as that could cause the prose to change drastically. This article is now a lower priority on my to-do list, but I will give more effort to this if someone steps up and finds better sources. I think lots of the POV and bloating concerns will be addressed when the prose is organised and summarised. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little bit, but nowhere near enough to fix the issues with this article. X-Editor (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, neutrality and organization. 04:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist there have been some improvements during the FAR but progress seems to have stalled. It would probably need a fundamental rewrite to meet the FA criteria in my opinion. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above, little to nothing appears to be being done to the article at the moment. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It seems like most of the issues regarding source usage have gone unaddressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist unless someone steps forward who is willing to address the sourcing concerns, which will be a considerable amount of effort. Z1720 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Buidhe. I agree that this would require a re-write to meet FA criteria. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist sourcing and bloating concerns have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 20:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This article is not at FA standards, and should be tagged POV as well (per at minimum the exclusion of recent scholarship that provides a more neutral view of Obama's legacy, rather than just a list of alleged accomplishments, with no critique of them). In all its previous FARs, I noted that it was in decent shape, and Tvoz seemed to have a steady influence, but they have not edited the article for a year, and no one has made any attempt to address the issues raised in this FAR (diff since move to FARC). Besides the considerable problems with prose, neutrality/balance, original research, organization, and cherry picking already documented on this page (and much more could be written), there are also citations missing publishers, and some indications of talk page gatekeepers:
  • See this discussion of content deemed "not significant enough" and represented as "only [covered] in right wing sources" from October 2021. Yet, the same section where that content would fit (post-Presidential) has a sentence about a rental house (oddly in a paragraph where it doesn’t fit) and goes in to (cherry picked) detail with several sentences about something Trump said while neglecting to a) add the balancing response from the same source used, the BBC), or mention Obamagate, (as the Forbes source used does) to address what Trump meant. Just odd content, hanging out there unbalanced with no rationale for its inclusion: not FA standard.
  • Scrolling back through talk page archives, similar issues are found. There is not a systematic pattern representing WP:OWNERSHIP, rather a persistent reluctance to write a neutral biography representing both the good and the bad of Obama.
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 4 December 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/December_2021&oldid=1063189605"