Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2024

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

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) at 15:16, 25 May 2024 (arc). 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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [1].

Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail

[edit]
Notified: Gyrobo, WikiProject Cycling, WikiProject Trains, WikiProject Hiking trails, WikiProject Hudson Valley, 2023-11-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has not been updated with post-2012 information. No response when I posted on the talk page, and the article has not been edited since 2021. Z1720 (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I find the pre-trail history to be quite lacking. We have all of 2 sentences for a rail line that operated for 111 years. The primary topic here is the trail, but it would not be a comprehensive article in my opinion without at least a little history of the corridor before it became a trail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not involved with the article at all prior to this, and only saw the review when it came up on WP Hudson Valley, and I concur with Trainsandotherthings. While I did just do a quick search and found coverage that can be used to update the article past 2012, since the repairs were done following a grant and planned work (as of 2023) is going to connect it to various other trails on the Hudson River through property related to the Wallkill prison, it really needs pre-trail history to be comprehensive. Reconrabbit 01:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the history of the trail before it was a trail, I'm not sure what exactly we're looking for here. I feel like anything more than a cursory view of the railroad would be more appropriate for Wallkill Valley Railroad, since this article is supposed to be a comprehensive and complete look at the trail and not the railroad.
    There is information in the article about the prisons that predated the trail, if we're talking about stuff that exists outside of the railroad. It's been a while since I wrote the article but I remember pouring through all the remaining local newspapers that still existed from that era in the Haviland Heidgerd Historical Collection as well as Listen to the Whistle to get what I could about the pre-trail era.
    If the goal of a featured article is to be as comprehensive as possible with extant sources then yeah there's a little that can be added about the last few years but I'm not sure any additional sources exist for the pre-trail history around this specific part of the railroad. Gyrobo (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wanted to post again to set expectations and give an update, I'm planning to spend some time updating the article over the weekend with more recent references. Gyrobo (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Providence and Worcester Railroad gives a paragraph to the preceding Blackstone Canal, for instance. The former rail line is intrinsically linked with the rail trail as they both occupied the same right of way, so I would expect more than 2 sentences of background to meet the featured article criteria, specifically 1b which says comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context (emphasis added). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. I've added some more about the railroad that I think might give the appropriate context for the rest of the article, and broke up the history section into subsections to make things a little more understandable. I'll take a pass through it tomorrow to finesse the content a little better, and I want to see if there are enough sources to buttress the more recent history a bit. But I think it's looking a lot better. Gyrobo (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey I was wondering how long this article review period can last? I've been trying to make improvements to this article but am pretty swamped with work and life, am hoping to take another pass through this weekend and see if there are any more recent references I can include. I think the biggest issues around historical context should be resolved though, I added a more full section on that, and a few more things on the prisons. Just wanted to give an update for transparency. Gyrobo (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaning retain at this point, the article is much improved from its previous state. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2024 (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) 3:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [2].

Galaxy

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Science, WikiProject Astronomy, Drbogdan, Abductive, SkyFlubbler, XOR'easter 2021-02-22

Review section

[edit]

Nominating for FAR per [3] and [4]. The article is probably not updated, and most of the sources are from before 2010; feels like there are so a lot of topics out there about the properties of galaxies that arent added or covered at the article yet. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 12:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I added a notice left by Hog Farm on the talk page in 2021, which was not responded to. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know if this will be an easy save, but I suspect it will be a straightforward one. The thing about science is that what's been really established stays established, so sources from 2007–2010 can still be fine. Things do get updated what with new telescopes and all, but I'm more worried about sources being mediocre (e.g., press releases) than I am about their being stale. I did a little tuning-up and will try to find the time to do more. It's the start of the semester, though, so no promises in that regard. XOR'easter (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the source age being less concerning - I left that comment in 2021 but several FARs in this topic area since then have convinced that research moves fairly slowly in this topic matter. Hog Farm Talk 17:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This would still be a lot of work to do. I do have a lot of free time and might be able to help, but we still need to explore a lot of topics since the current article still lacks details in key areas (how galaxies evolved, what are their inner workarounds, specific features like arms, bars, haloes, interstellar medium, hierarchy from groups to clusters). I would deduce that if we want to push for newer sources, we can include a separate section for "Current areas of research" or something like that, and would include sources newer than 2010. But established science should not be totally removed from the article; if anything, things should be added way more due to the lack of detail in its current form. SkyFlubbler (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, starting a review here:

  • Supermassive black holes are mentioned in two different paragraphs in the lead in a largely duplicated manner
  • Since the lead is suppose to only hit the most important points, is the size of the Milky Way black hole really relevant material for the lead?
  • " This includes the Milky Way, whose core region is called the Galactic Center" - I don't think italicizing Galactic Center here is compliant with MOS:ITALICS
  • "based on the assumption that galaxies follow Sérsic's law" - link Sérsic's law?
  • "Only about 5% of the galaxies surveyed are truly isolated." - since this is a specific statistics, shouldn't it have a source?
  • ""Circular and Fixed Elliptical Apertures: The Petrosian and Isophotal Photometry"." - reference formatting issues, should include the publisher as well
  • " "William Rosse". parsonstown.info. March 24, 2021. Retrieved January 11, 2024." - this looks like somebodys' personal website; what makes it a high-quality reliable source?
  • ""Discoveries - Highlights | Tracing the Growth of Galaxies". February 6, 2017." - citation information should include publisher
  • "SkyServer: Algorithms"." - should contain the publisher and other citation information as well
  • ""Signatures of the Earliest Galaxies". Archived from the original on August 6, 2020. Retrieved September 15, 2015." - also needs the publisher included in the citation
  • " "ATLASGAL Survey of Milky Way Completed". Archived from the original on March 24, 2021. Retrieved March 7, 2016." - ditto as above
  • " Rieke, George Henry (2012). Measuring the universe: a multiwavelength perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. ISBN 978-0-521-76229-8." - any hope for a more specific page range?

I think that's it for my review. Issues are mostly with reference formatting and the lead. Hog Farm Talk 02:29, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of bullet points 3 (removed italics), 4 (linked Sérsic's law), 10 (added ESA as publisher) and 11 (added ESO as publisher). Sgubaldo (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I condensed the lede to mention supermassive black holes only once. XOR'easter (talk) 05:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the "Circular and Fixed Elliptical Apertures: The Petrosian and Isophotal Photometry" reference issues (bullet point 6). Sgubaldo (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the issues with "Discoveries - Highlights | Tracing the Growth of Galaxies". February 6, 2017." (bullet point 8). Sgubaldo (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed issues with "SkyServer: Algorithms" (bullet point 9). Sgubaldo (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I redid the line about Rosse with better sources. XOR'easter (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Rieke book is one of those cases where the cited source spends many chapters backing up the statement we give very briefly, so I added the page number for the book's own brief synopsis in its preface. A couple potential sources for the topic of isolated galaxies: [5][6]. XOR'easter (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"For comparison, the Milky Way has a diameter of at least 26,800 parsecs (87,400 ly) and is separated from the Andromeda Galaxy (with diameter of about 152,000 ly), its nearest large neighbor, by 780,000 parsecs (2.5 million ly.)" - this specific information is only found in the lead (where it is not sourced). I would recommend removing or adding/sourcing in the body of the article. Besides that, I think the article has been improved enough for a keep. Hog Farm Talk 17:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced distance to Andromeda. Diameters are already sourced in the isophotal diameter section. I've clarified in a note that the diameter refers to the D25 standard, removed the Andromeda one from the lead and cited the Milky Way one. Sgubaldo (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2024 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:15, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [7].

Borobudur

[edit]
Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice noticed 2023-11-01

Review section

[edit]

The FAC nominator for this 2007 promotion has been gone since 2008, and the article has not been maintained to FA standards. Concern listed on 2023-11-01 include uncited text; inconsistent citation style; Wikipedia articles listed as sources; further reading and external links need pruning or to be worked in to the article; and incomplete citations. Much of the content is cited to dated sources and the article may be outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems in decent shape to me. Where are "Wikipedia articles listed as citations"? The dates of the cited sources seems broadly ok to me; there isn't a vast amount published in English, given the importance of the monument. We don't have many editors in this area, so I wouldn't hold your breath for "a top-to-bottom rewrite". Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia source was removed after my talk notice, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone is available to start working through the uncited text, MOS:SANDWICHing, inconsistent citation style, inflation adjustments needed on dollar amounts and other such, then the prose issues can be tackled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Internet Archive has two of the (six) source books, so I can start. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a progress report and preliminary assessment. It might be arrogant for me to attempt this topic without knowledge of it, but we seem to be making progress.

(Not done yet!)

  • failing verification. Maybe written by editor with subject knowledge.
  • for example, Raffles, who wrote an 1817 English text, is cited for saying something he did not write.
  • missing page numbers. Citations to whole books.
  • removed Gallery (wasn't there at FA promotion). Borobudur is a tourist attraction and people will stop by just to add their pics.
  • inflation is done (didn't repeat "equivalent to" over and over in one section. Cyprus is unsupported.)
  • MOS:SANDWICHs fixed.

Question. Is there any problem with me changing the citation style? This article used a list of refs (sometimes dereferenced with random strings like "4IUze"). I am slowly converting to sfns. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the change to sfns is an improvement. JimRenge (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, JimRenge. Today I am double checking sources I rejected. Found one alternate spelling so far. Most of the books are in the Internet Archive but money can't buy a copy of Imagine Buddha in Prambanan by Roy E. Jordaan. That one can be taken on faith based on a Google snippet and a HathiTrust page number. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I have to pull away for maybe a couple months for (my) priority FARs. We've made headway, and moved perhaps half of the list refs to sfns, and to a new section for Works cited. Any obvious mistakes in those refs are fixed. JimRenge is doing good work here; I agree with his edit summaries. Can he or someone else step in for a while?
Not ideal timing for me to move away. The HarvRef errors script reveals many unresolved mistakes. User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js -SusanLesch (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SusanLesch, I can continue the work on refs for a while. I intend to move refs to sfn, supplement page numbers, check text-source integrity and try to source uncited text. JimRenge (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, JimRenge. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, yes, Nikkimaria. I cleaned up recent changes but made no headway. We lost JimRenge for now.
Unless Gunkarta can do it, I am afraid this article must to move to FARC. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per SusanLesch above. Hog Farm Talk 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2024 (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) 5:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [8].

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

[edit]
Notified: The Epopt, TomStar81, Dual Freq, Bahamut0013, WP MILHIST, WP Ships, WP NRHP, WP Pennsylvania, WP Wisconsin, WP USA, noticed 2023-01-16

Review section

[edit]

This is essentially the same situation as Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1 - the modern MILHIST standard is to include some dimensions/descriptions material that is largely absent here, and the article is over-reliant on DANFS and a veterans' association website, when there is fairly detailed literature on the Iowa-class ships. Needs some TLC - the Missouri FAR should be a fairly good example of similar problems and improvements. Hog Farm Talk 21:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • As with Missouri, this article is still in reasonably good condition: the information hasn't changed much, the citations are stable, and while there is an over reliance of DANFS by current standards the material covered by DANFS is also present in other publications. On the whole this shouldn't be too hard to uplift, just needs a little TLC. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with comments above. The US Naval Institute has a number of publications on the Iowa-class which could be used to add information. I'd do it myself, but BBs aren't exactly my thing. I don't think it would take much work to get this upgraded.
Intothatdarkness 18:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a message at WT:SHIPS to try to get some help here (I don't have the needed sources to fix this), but move to FARC for now, although I'm still hoping for work to occur here. Hog Farm Talk 17:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have confirmed with the library that the two battleship book they have are not on Wisconsin, they are New Jersey and Missouri (and still in special collections or otherwise unavailable for check out at the moment - maybe COVID protocols are still in effect). That leaves the internet and what little I have here at the house, and between the the two of those position most of that is already in the article.

I've checked three libraries I can access near me, and while one of them has Sumrall's book on the Iowa class, it is in a noncirculating special collection, so not particularly accessible to me. Maybe @Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: would be able to spare some time for this, based on their work with Missouri? A slow save is better than a speedy delist. Hog Farm Talk 14:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on working on it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66 do you recommend Hold in FAR rather than Move to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked to see how bad it is, so I really can't say. I do know that it will probably be a couple of weeks before I can devote any significant amount of time to it.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sturm, are you still planning to have a look at this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope to start work on it later this week.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sturmvogel 66 I see you did a lot of work on 30 May; where does this stand? More to do? Progress to FARC? Ready for extra eyes ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's lot's more to do as I've only dealt with the description, modifications, and the introduction into service thus far. Further progress is going to be sporadic as there's no equivalent of Stillwell's book on Missouri for Wisconsin so it will be tougher to find substitutes for DANFS.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I helped at the USS Missouri rescue. As Sturmvogel 66 noted, this a less-famous of the Iowa class ships and so may be sparser on published secondary sources. So many of the arcane-but important details maybe only can come from places like DANFS and association websites. I'll also take a look for other sources. If they don't exist, I'd rather it lose FA status than delete large amounts of such material which rely on sources like DANFS. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO reliance on DANFS and veterans' association sources should not count against it when used for info on items that are specific to the Wisconsin (vs. on the Iowa class battleships in general) DANFS is about as expert and authoritative as a source can get and those "boring"/ enclyclopedic items are probably published only there. Unlike the more famous USS Missouri which had books published specifically on it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TomStar and North8000 above that we probably aren't going to find anything much beyond DANFS and the veterans' source. I still don't think navysite.de would cut it, but there's only four refs to it so it shouldn't be overly hard to replace it. There's been enough loose additions since the original FAC that a source-text integrity source for odds and ends should probably be conducted, but I think that Sturmvogel has improved the construction and WWII material significantly so it'll just be a polishing going forward from here. Hog Farm Talk 20:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at this specifically in detail, but in my experience, Rohwer can usually be used to replace a fair bit of DANFS citations, or can especially when paired with general histories of different naval actions.
I find it curious that Garzke & Dulin's book hasn't been consulted at all. I haven't read it myself, but I have used their volume on Axis battleships, and I have their volume on British/Soviet/French/Dutch battleships, and both have detailed histories of the ships they cover. While it's dated, it is certainly better than DANFS. Frankly, this seems like a glaring 1c issue. Parsecboy (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Parsecboy: - I've reviewed Garzke & Dulin via Internet archive; they devote less than a page to the history of Wisconsin, generally in less detail than is already in the article. I still don't think navysite.de should be being used as a source, and the source-text integrity issue I noted on October 7 is still present but this is probably getting close to about as good as we can get this one. Hog Farm Talk 19:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, that's disappointing - usually they go into great detail. Although in fairness, that book was published in 1976, so there's a fair bit of the ship's history that's not covered (and what there is largely consists of escorting carriers around the western Pacific, which isn't the most exciting thing to write about). I agree that navysite needs to be removed, and probably the material it supports, since it seems like no alternative source can be found. Parsecboy (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source-text integrity issue I noted above has been fixed using DANFS. I've also replaced three usages of navysite.de with a combination of the New York Times, Garzke & Dulin, and DANFS. The fourth use I couldn't find anything better than this Greenpeace report for, which I have doubts that that is high-quality RS for this topic so I removed the information. The article still copies DANFS heavily but I don't have the time or energy to address that right now and DANFS is public domain so we're fine on that front. Hog Farm Talk 02:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720

[edit]

In an effort to get this out of FAR, here's a review of the article from a non-expert. My initial impression is that the history section is very long, and there are very large sections. While I could go through it and start cutting information, I think many editors would find that disruptive instead of helpful. Is there anyone who is a subject-matter expert who can cut down this section, add headings so that each section is about 3-4 paragraphs, and ensure that none of the paragraphs are too long or too short? Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that the history section is actually too long; overall length of the article is quite manageable and with a topic such as this the history section would be expected to take up most of the article. I don't have a strong opinion on section length. Hog Farm Talk 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (pinged above) I think that the article is as good as it can be regarding sourcing which seems to be the main discussed area. Has lots of technical encyclopedic information that is unlikely to be covered by sources that meet tougher criteria being discussed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme give this a look in the next couple of days as my attention has been focused elsewhere these last few months.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delist While revising the remaining WW2 sections, I'm finding text credited to DANFS that isn't there anymore. I suspect that the editors used the original text of DANFS from the 1960s and didn't update the article when the DANFS was heavily revised in this millenium. This calls into question all of the DANFS-cited material, which needs to be edited for tone, if nothing else. I'll finish what I've started, but I won't have any time to rework the later material until next year.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:43, 29 March 2024 (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/May_2024&oldid=1225607563"