Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sylvanus Morley/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 06:40, 7 March 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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 removed by User:Nikkimaria 21:34, 16 November 2013 [1].
- Notified: CoyoteMan31, WP Archaeology, WT MILHIST, WP Mesoamerica, WP Mexico, WP Biography/Science and academia
Review commentary
[edit]I'll copy here a portion of my talk page notification, several months ago:
- "This article needs a major re-vamp to be kept at FA status. It has not kept up to standards, and needs substantial work, especially with regard to adding and improving references. There are many paragraphs and at least one section that completely lack references, with unreferenced information that includes opinion and potentially controversial information. There has been a references needed banner on the article for over a year, without response."
There has been no response to this post. This article is significantly lacking in references, and is not up to FA standards. Dana boomer (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree. There are large sections without references (e.g. "Influences on other scholars", and key bits of his espionage work (which needs to be impeccably cited) is similarly uncited. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to the problems with sourcing, the structure of the article may need some work. While it's generally OK, the "The "other" Sylvanus G. Morley" section is a bit unusual for a FA, and I'm not a fan of the "Result summary" and "Summation" sections - this material should be integrated into discussions of his legacy and modern reputation. The "Espionage work" section should also explain why Morley decided to act as a spy and whether he was paid for this work, and any influence it had on US Government policy and his career. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These seem unreasonable demands, which may well not be covered in RS. One might think that simple patriotism would explain "why Morley decided to act as a spy". Observation of on the ground activity in Mesoamerica is more likely to feed into naval and military intelligence assessments than "US Government policy". Coverage of the "other" Sylvanus G. Morley may be unusual in an FA, but most FA subjects don't suffer from lifelong confusion with a cousin of the same name. I don't agree with the comments on the structure either. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible that much of this is covered in the Harris and Sadler biography of Morley, which is not actually used at all as a source in this article (it is referenced as a "recent investigation" once, and a quote from the book is used, but referenced to a review of the book). The biography appears to focus extensively on his espionage activities, and would probably cover a good deal of the information that Nick-D is requesting. The article itself says that the information he gathered "was of keen interest to the U.S. Government." - perhaps this needs to be adjusted to specify which branch of the government. The Brunhouse biography, currently used only 4x as a ref, may also be a good source of information, although it is older and appears to be focused more on his archeological work. Although the section on the cousin is unusual in FAs (or really, any class of article), I would suggest that in this article it is necessary, since it is is a very unusual situation. Two cousins, with the same name, the same profession, at the same school, at the same time? The section obviously needs to be better sourced, though. Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- They don't seem "unreasonable demands" at all to me - Morley's motivations for limiting his academic work for several years (which obviously also involved risks to his personal security and reputation) to become a hugely productive spy and the results of his apparently large output seem highly relevant, and is the kind of topic routinely covered in works on people who spent periods working as an intelligence officer. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is possible that much of this is covered in the Harris and Sadler biography of Morley, which is not actually used at all as a source in this article (it is referenced as a "recent investigation" once, and a quote from the book is used, but referenced to a review of the book). The biography appears to focus extensively on his espionage activities, and would probably cover a good deal of the information that Nick-D is requesting. The article itself says that the information he gathered "was of keen interest to the U.S. Government." - perhaps this needs to be adjusted to specify which branch of the government. The Brunhouse biography, currently used only 4x as a ref, may also be a good source of information, although it is older and appears to be focused more on his archeological work. Although the section on the cousin is unusual in FAs (or really, any class of article), I would suggest that in this article it is necessary, since it is is a very unusual situation. Two cousins, with the same name, the same profession, at the same school, at the same time? The section obviously needs to be better sourced, though. Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- These seem unreasonable demands, which may well not be covered in RS. One might think that simple patriotism would explain "why Morley decided to act as a spy". Observation of on the ground activity in Mesoamerica is more likely to feed into naval and military intelligence assessments than "US Government policy". Coverage of the "other" Sylvanus G. Morley may be unusual in an FA, but most FA subjects don't suffer from lifelong confusion with a cousin of the same name. I don't agree with the comments on the structure either. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am on the notification list for some reason but I have no opinion one way or the other as to whether this article should be featured or not. I believe it WAS featured several years ago. The author of most of this article is CJLL Wright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CJLL_Wright), who has not been active on Wikipedia for more than a year, at least under this name. He may still be around and would be worth contacting. My own research into Morley is focused only on his relationship to Chichen Itza and those sections are as accurate as far as my knowledge goes. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I notified you because you were the contributor with the second-highest number of contributions to the article and the highest contributing editor who was still active. This article is currently featured; this review is to discuss whether it should retain that classification. While I don't doubt you that the sections on Chichen Itza are accurate, they are under-sourced for a FA-level article. Do you have any time to/interest in working on improving the citations for this section? Your obvious interest in the subject would be helpful! Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand now. My opinion hasn't changed one way or another. The article is probably the best ever written about Morley and serves its purpose. It's up to folks like you I guess to decide about whether it should be featured or not. Sadly I have zero time to work on it. Good luck! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include referencing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Insufficient density of citations - numerous unreferenced paragraph - quickfail criteria for a new nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove my comments above haven't been addressed, and I agree with Piotr's view on this not being in a condition where it would be considered seriously at a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Unfortunately, the main contributor is not active and, without denser citations, the reliability/notability of the content is not immediately clear to a layperson. DrKiernan (talk) 17:56, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.