Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:FAR)
Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

  • 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 two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and removed from there once posted here).

2. Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article review coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article review coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Urgent reviews are listed here. Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator.
  2. No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article over at least a two-week period. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header.
    Relevant parties include
    • main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools),
    • the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and
    • any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified).
    The Notified:message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified and include a link with the date of the pre-notification given on article talk.

Featured article reviews[edit]

Redwood National and State Parks[edit]

Notified: MONGO, Tony1, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject California, diff for talk page notification

The issues about this article were raised one or two years ago, including sourcing and outdated info (or insufficient updates or coverage). Edits have been made since, but I think more work is still needed. George Ho (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Panic of 1907[edit]

Notified: notifications, Nov 2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because the well-researched and comprehensiveness concerns raised on talk have yet to be addressed. (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yellowstone National Park[edit]

Notified: MONGO, Mav, Mike Cline, Brian W. Schaller, Civil Engineer III, WP Protected areas, WP Montana, WP Volcanoes, WP Geology, WP World Heritage Sites, WP USA, WP National Archives, noticed in March 2021

Unfortunately, this very early FA needs some love and care. It looks like content throughout the article will need to be updated. While the article currently states "There are almost 60 species of mammals in the park,", the NPS park facts under wildlife lists today lists 67 species of mammals, and there are similar disagreements, such as 8 vs 9 species of conifers. Many of the animal population figures will also need updating. Extensive editing by editors unfamiliar with the featured article criteria seems to have damaged the article, as uncited text has accumulated and in several places where checked, the sources listed do not support all of the text they are backing up. Note: The #2 editor per Articlestats has not been informed, as their primary contribution is simply a giant bot run for referencing formatting and they do not normally edit in this topic area. Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Although I am very willing to work on aspects of the YNP FA review, some care must be taken when citing apparent “disagreements” in the article. For example the the 60 vs 67 species of mammal disconnect is cited by Hog Farm is not entirely accurate. The NPS Park Facts does not actually list the 67 species, it merely says there are 67 and only identifies 40 in the list. Indeed the phrasing can be improved, but the FACTs will be tougher to sort out as some mammal species are migratory (bats) and may only be transitory in the park. Just some thoughts to ponder. Mike Cline (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hurricane Gustav (2002)[edit]

Notified: Mass message send, talk page notice 2021-12-04

This 2006 FA has not been maintained to standard, and the nominating editor has not edited since 2008. Issues outlined on talk on 2021-12-04 include grammatical and comprehensiveness failure. If someone intends to attempt to save this article, a CCI check will be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nathu La[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject India / Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikkim Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet Wikipedia:WikiProject China, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains Article nominee not active.

I am nominating this featured article for review because there has been an extended discussion on the talk page about whether this article still meets the FA criteria. The discussion became stagnant with significant problems remaining. I also do not believe the article meets the FA criteria. Link to talk page here [1] Desertarun (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uranium[edit]

Notified: Mav, ComplexRational, Materialscientist, Double sharp, WP Elements, WP Physics, WP Mining, WP Energy, noticed in December 2021

This older featured article's nominator unfortunately hasn't been actively editing in several years, and some tuning-up work is needed. Two sections are orange-tagged as needing updated, and other material outside of these sections does not seem to have been updated since around the time of the FAC, including "This trend continued through 2006, when expenditure on exploration rocketed to over $774 million, an increase of over 250% compared to 2004. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency said exploration figures for 2007 would likely match those for 2006". Some of the uncited text is non-problematic, but others such as a claim about skin absorption in the human exposure section should be cited. The layout has also deteriorated, with images and charts crammed into the article, regardless of whether there was room for them or not. Can be fixed, but it'll take some work. Hog Farm Talk 18:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I agree that some cleanup and polishing work is needed. Recently, I reorganized, expanded, and added citations to the isotopes section, and my overarching impression is that similar work is needed elsewhere in the article – perhaps even a shuffling of the sections (e.g., why put isotopes after applications when a number of applications derive from nuclear properties?). However, I'm unsure how much time I'll have to commit in the near future – at the very least, I can't promise to be active enough to undertake this by myself. I could at least try to find some citations and do some minor copyediting. Complex/Rational 21:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have updated the parts that did need an update: 1) worldwide production and 2) post Cold War nuclear safety in Russia. Considering a strong decline in research and applications of uranium in the past decades, the article is still rather comprehensive. Materialscientist (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the article needs clarification and update in 'Human exposure'.
    • There are toxicity effects mentioned in the prose that aren't mentioned in the table about uranium toxicity. For instance, under reproductive effects, the table only mentions that Uranium miners have more first-born daughters, but there is a sentence above the table stating that Uranium is also a reproductive toxicant. It seems like the table should summarise all the toxicity effects, or perhaps be left out?
    • All of the human impacts relate to individual toxicity, but there is also a lot of research on social impacts. ("Uranium social impact" gets 181k hits on Google scholar – so that's nearly 10% of the scholarship on uranium overall.) All of the top hits relate to the social effects of uranium mining.
      It's likely that some of this scholarship should be covered in Uranium mining, but it appears to be absent from that article as well. I notice that The Extractive Industries and Society journal did a special issue on uranium in 2020. So some of those articles should probably be cited in this article if it is to keep its FA rating.
    • I have a few other notes, but this is the most glaring issue. I'm happy to help with some of this, but I don't see myself spearheading the effort to include this content. Larataguera (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've posted a request at WT:MED for someone there to look over the health effects sourcing to make sure everything is compliant with WP:MEDRS. Hog Farm Talk 14:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for that note, @Hog Farm.
    The unencyclopedic table (not present at the time the article was promoted to FA originally) has to go entirely. We strongly avoid all in vitro studies, and even animal studies, and laundry lists of "one time, one study found" is not an encyclopedic approach, even if you pull that laundry list out of a review article.
    That said, the main problem is that all the sources are out of date. In an ideal world, that section would cite only sources from 2018 or later. As this is not an area with rapid changes in scientific opinion, we might stretch that back as far as 2013. Instead, very little of it has been updated since 2007, and most of the sources are even older than that.
    I don't think that an update would be difficult. Sources should be readily available, and much of the content is likely to be accurate. It's probably a couple of hours' work for one editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just nixed the table with an edit summary pointing back to this FAR, hopefully the edit sticks. Hog Farm Talk 16:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for doing that. So far, nobody has reverted you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A link to the WT:MED thread with newer sources that should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alaska Mental Health Enabling Act[edit]

Notified: Prioryman, WP Medicine, WP Scientology (inactive), WP Alaska, WP Politics, WP Psychology, WP Law, WP Alternative Views, talk page notice 2022-11-20

This 2007 promotion does not meet FA standards. Concerns outlined on talk on 2022-11-20 include comprehensiveness, uncited text, overquoting, unattributed opinion, possible OR, and minor MOS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move to FARC concerns still not addressed (t · c) buidhe 07:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ed Stelmach[edit]

Notified: [2], Nov 2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because as stated in the talk page notice there has been insufficient updating and incorporation of newly available, higher quality sources, like this one. (t · c) buidhe 16:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move to FARC lack of improvement (t · c) buidhe 07:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)[edit]

Notified: Sceptre, WikiProject Doctor Who, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Television, 2023-01-06

I am nominating this featured article for review because I was considering nominating this article for TFA in April, to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the episode's airing, but I do not think it's ready for the main page nor do I have the background knowledge to fix it. One concern is sourcing: most reviews of the episode are from its airing in 2008 and do not include retrospective perspectives and information on its reception relative to other Doctor Who episodes. Other concerns include a "Donna's mime" section which I think should be removed (it was added after the article's FAC) and the "Critical reception" section falls into the X says Y trap. I'm hoping this FAR will inspire editors to fix up this article before a TFA run. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken a quick look and fixed a few blatent errors. I think the lede needs a bit tightening up and the reception also needs the modern cites that have been found, and also a bit of a c/e to make it flow like a traditional reception section. Otherwise seems pretty decent. Don't think it's a long way off. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paging User:Sceptre, whose original FA candidate this was back in 2008. SN54129 17:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC I agree with Lee above that the article is not far from a save. However, I am still concerned about the reception section's formatting and the lack of retrospection about the episode's placement in the wider programme (in terms of plot, comparison in "best episodes of the programme" and other information.) Z1720 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Psilocybin[edit]

Notified: Sasata, WikiProject Fungi, [3] WikiProject Neuroscience [4] talk page notice 2021-12-14

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are presently two big orange WP:MEDRS templates regarding the article leaning too heavily on primary sources. The last paragraph of the legal status section is entirely uncited and has two {{Citation needed}} templates. I just got done 86ing some poorly cited (and outright uncited) sentences the Mystical experiences section that conflates two medical journal articles with some guy's self-published blog; that usually doesn't bode well for such a densely-cited article. I have no experience with the Featured article process and am far from a subject-matter expert on pharmacology, but it's seems that this article has either fallen out of spec with WP:MEDRS or has somewhat degenerated in the decade and change since it was promoted. Another user on the Talk page has proposed starting a FA review on grounds of sourcing issues and scope creep, so I am not alone in this suspicion. DigitalIceAge (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have notified the remaining WikiProjects (WP Chemicals and Pharmacology) and added the talk page notice to the Notification line above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article was promoted in 2012 (by me, after a long MEDRS discussion). Sasata has not edited it since 2015, and has been gone since 2016. The article does not look salvageable from here without serious engagement from an editor familiar with MEDRS, and updated per WP:MEDDATE. (Please review the FAC discussion, as the unfortunate removal of the lay parameter from the citation templates might have been part-- but not all-- of the problem here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bon courage: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Zefr, Beland, and Smartse: (others who could have been notified). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies, thanks for pinging those people, @SandyGeorgia: XTools was broken last night, and I couldn't get a reading on any other main contributors from the article history. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DigitalIceAge Not to worry (most of the wiki is broken right now thanks to Vector 2022), and these editors would not have shown as top contributors by the tools anyway ... I pinged them because they are recent editors, and I queried some of the MEDRS stuff when I promoted the article, but the destruction of the lay parameter by subsequent changes to the citation template may have messed up the sourcing. This needs a closer look, but probably not worth it, as there should be newer sources that can be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belton House[edit]

Notified: WP Architecture, WP Lincolnshire WP Historic sites Lajmmoore, Guerillero, Giano, talk page notice 2018 and 2022-01-10

I am nominating this featured article for review. There are two talk page notices. The first discusses a lack of coverage by The National Trust. The second is a more extensive list of problems that I will list below.

  • There has been some coverage of the library in the academic literature over the past decade [5] [6]
  • WP:LEADCITE issues
  • Severe need for additional citations or trimming of uncited material
  • MOS:BOLD issues
  • Sourcing problems
    • Anon. The National Trust Belton House 1984
    • Moondial at IMDb.
    • "ALVA - Association of Leading Visitor Attractions". www.alva.org.uk. Retrieved 27 October 2020.
    • Christie's catalogue
    • Belton Park Golf Club
    • "History of the Royal Air Force Regiment"
    • John Harris, English Decorative Ironwork (1960)
    • Henry Williamson's Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight
  • Mixture of using a date and not in the SfNs
  • Footnote 2 provides no page numbers
  • Prices are not as of a date

Having read the article I think most if not all of the problems listed above are still present. In addition the article history does not discuss Belton House's links to the slave trade. So it is also failing coverage. Desertarun (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Desertarun see the instructions at WP:FAR. Please notify all of the WikiProjects listed at Talk:Belton House by using {{subst:FARMessage|Belton House}} with a section heading (something like Featured article review for Belton House). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KJP1 have you interest in helping out at this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Sandy, hope you are keeping well. Much as I’d like to, and much as Belton House merits FA coverage, I’m afraid real life is just too busy at present. Hopefully someone will pick it up. KJP1 (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image layout needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will see what I can do to save this Featured. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Excellent - I should be able to help out with references, if needed. I've some of the books currently cited, and a range of others, Pevsner etc., that have good coverage of Belton. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be my pleasure to work with you; I dread on account of my own inability (and dialect) the replication of Giano's prose. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m afraid I can’t commit working on a full redraft. As I mentioned to Sandy G above, real life is just too busy right now. But if you need cites for anything, I should be able to find them. As you say, Giano wrote beautifully, and their content is generally super-sound. But citation requirements were looser then than they are now. With Palladianism, I tried to keep the prose as far as possible, and focussed primarily on finding cites/sources, tweaking the text to match where required. I’ll watch this page, and chip in when/where I can. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Godspeed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you tell me what Pevsner has to say about the house in Lincolnshire? The best Google Books has for me is a preview and I can't find this tome on the Internet Archive. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 14:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vami IV if you're going to work towards a save, you can conduct the regular editing and questions on article talk, and keep this page updated weekly on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progress report, 1 February 2023 . The rewrite is more or less complete. The only section that hasn't seen rewriting, rearranging, and reordering wholesale now is #Interiors. It probably needs it, but I am burnt out. In the course of rewriting this article I have noticed a lot of failed verifications and removed or substantiated text as available sources allowed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've copied over Vami IV's update from the article talkpage for ease. We've gone from 70 cites and 14 published sources to 141 cites and 21 very sound published sources. As detailed on the talkpage, I think the specific issues raised in the FAR have been addressed. Vami's done the heavy lifting, but I they are now "burnt out" - understandably! If there are any remaining concerns, I'm happy to look to address them. Otherwise, this could be closed without the need for FARC. KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will have time for a read-through in a few more days, but I noticed this unsightly section, which is ugly reading with all those interspersed citations. Would a table format work better there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know what you mean, but I'm not sure a table's the answer. They do contain important information about the sheer number of listed features on the estate, and basically listing = importance in this context. I'll see if I can group them in a more pleasing way. KJP1 (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Have had a go, which hopefully makes it slightly less jarring to read. See what you think. KJP1 (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ack! How about using a bundled citation with a list of what goes to what ? See citation 452 here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sandy - this is making my head hurt! I think I can see from the example how to do it with a standard cite, e.g. take <ref>{{NHLE|num=1298447|desc=Two Garden Urns at the N end of the Italian Garden NW of Belton House|grade=II|access-date=28 January 2023}}</ref> and make it * Two Garden Urns: {{NHLE|num=1298447|desc=Two Garden Urns at the N end of the Italian Garden NW of Belton House|grade=II|access-date=28 January 2023|ref=none}}, all bundled with a <ref></ref>, but I don't know what to do when it's a shortened, repeat reference, e.g. <ref name="auto2"/>. Can you advise. KJP1 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC) Reply[reply]
I've tried one, 118, where there's no truncated referencing and it looks ok. But I still need to work out the shortened one. KJP1 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Think it's now sorted. Hope you like it, coz it was painful! KJP1 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, that is indeed beautious. If you think that was painful, imagine how Giano feels :) I will try to get to a read through, but can't make any promises, re my own current pain level. Thank you so much for digging in yet again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew Jackson[edit]

Notified: Display name 99, Cmguy777, Orser67, Elisfkc, Rjensen, WP Biography, WP Biography/Military, WP Biography/Politics and government, WP Military history, WP Tennessee, WP U.S. Congress, WP United States, WP District of Columbia, WP US Government, WP US Presidents, WP Politics, WP Politics/American politics, WP Indigenous peoples of North America, talk page notification 2022-08-22
Pre-hold content

It has been a few weeks since I raised concerns at Talk:Andrew Jackson about the neutrality of the Andrew Jackson article. In my opinion, this article should not have been promoted to a featured article. Since I first raised concerns, there have been some improvements, but I believe that there is a lot of work left to be done before this article meets the WP:FACRITERIA. Overall, I think that this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:NPOV. Though one editor has been arguing that there is "no bias," many parts of this article are still heavily skewed in Jackson's favor. In particular:

  • Some of the language is misleadingly MOS:FLOWERY. For example:
    • As FloridaArmy has pointed out, Jackson is hailed as an advocate of the common man and the working class. This terminology is misleading because Jackson's policies were known to help the white working class in particular. The way it is currently written, it makes Jackson seem supportive of the working class in general. This is especially misleading because Jackson ruled over a country where slaves were common and made up a sizeable portion of the working class, and Jackson's policies were explicitly Andrew Jackson#Reaction to anti-slavery tracts pro-slavery. Indigenous people were also significantly more common before Jackson's ethnic cleansing, but they are also excluded from the common man. It seems that the main justification for this language is that it was "the language of Jackson's supporters,", but this strikes me as extremely biased to use this language without significantly more context.
    • As Cmguy777 has pointed out, Jackson is described as an advocate for democracy. The word "democracy" is fairly vague to begin with, and the way it is written makes it seem like Jackson advocated for democracy in general, when Jackson's ethnic cleansing was in fact extremely disruptive to the existing democracies in the region. It is misleading to describe Jackson as an advocate for democracy when in fact he was systematically replacing non-white democracies with white supremacist Jacksonian democracy. This needs to be clarified.
    • Conflicts tend to be described mostly using language from the U.S. perspective. Jackson won, he lost, he achieved a decisive victory or suffered a devastating defeat. I've made some changes particularly to the Andrew Jackson#Creek campaign and treaty section, but it still seems unbalanced; Creek victory is known as the Fort Mims massacre, while Jackson's victory is described by some historians ... as a massacre, or at least as having some characteristics of one.
    • As Deathlibrarian has pointed out, some language seems to dance around Jackson's ethnic cleansing, using the term "forced removal" to avoid directly mentioning Jackson's goals of extermination and racial homogeneity. This has been discussed at length at Talk:Andrew Jackson#RfC on how to describe Indian removal in the lead.
  • There is WP:UNDUE focus on Jackson's positive impact on white men. For example, in the lead paragraph, Jackson's pro-white-working-class and pro-Union actions are each mentioned twice, while his ethnic cleansing is only mentioned once. Every source that I have read about Jackson has mentioned his ethnic cleansing. It is what he is known for, more so than his pro-white-working-class stance.
  • As Hobomok has pointed out, the cited sources are unbalanced. Most cited by far is work by Robert Remini, mostly from the 1970s and 1980s. Historians Fred Anderson and Andrew Cayton have described Remini as "Jackson's most thorough biographer and energetic champion." This article would benefit from a greater variety of sources, especially Indigenous authors, as they were some of the most affected by Jackson.
  • As ARoseWolf has pointed out, this article violates WP:WIKIVOICE by stating facts as opinions. Jackson's actions were ethnic cleansing. That's a fact, supported by lots of reliable sources. FinnV3 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The "Popular culture depictions" needs a heavy revise; its seems to be a trivia collection (you think for a such a figure as Jackson there would be a source which distills how he appears in movies, fictional literature, etc.) with some poor sources. With regards to the racial views, at a brief glance I think you're correct in that we could use newer sources, but on the whole I think the article represents this issue in a balanced fashion. There is a whole section devoted to his "Planting career and slavery" as well as "Reaction to anti-slavery tracts" and the whole "Indian removal policy" section. The Legacy section section also covers the contemporary shift towards a negative view of Jackson and his exclusionary actions. The lede itself is what needs work ("working class" is not even mentioned in the body text of the article). "Common man" is only mentioned once in the body of the article, I think the Legacy section could do a better job of describing how he became associated with that term
As for "Indian removal": it is simply the name of that historical policy/event. That does not mean it was not ethnic cleansing ("Holocaust" != "not a genocide of European Jews" because it doesn't say genocide). I have no objections to describing the Indian removal as an ethnic cleansing but of course, we should find a good RS which says such (preferably one which makes the direct connection to Jackson). Whether it is an "opinion" or a "fact" is a little more tricky. One or several scholars calling something a genocide/ethnic cleansing does not mean a consensus exists (my own experience) and thus cannot be treated as factual, so we should find a good RS which explicitly states there is a consensus (if one exists, I suspect so but do not know) that this was ethnic cleansing, then it can be treated as fact in Wikivoice. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Place on hold-As FA nominator and most frequent contributor. Before several weeks ago, when parts of the article were challenged and underwent revision, the article was not perfect but was mostly fine. The larger grievances are not justified and in my opinion largely motivated by POV rather than adherence to Wikipedia policy and what reliable sources say. Details can be found on the article talk page. I would rather FinnV3 waited for the discussion on the talk page to conclude to see if the issues would be resolved, but whatever. I want to ping some prominent contributors to the article to give them a chance to contribute here: Wehwalt, Hoppyh, Alanscottwalker. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase; please read the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. Let's first get sorted whether the notification wait period was respected, and a reminder that FAR is not dispute resolution. Please stay focused on WP:WIAFA, provide sources, and keep arguments at article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hold the talk page notice (FAR instructions step 1) was placed yesterday, and it generated a lot of discussion. I think that conversation needs to be resolved there (to keep everything in one place) before an evaluation of the article's merits can happen here. Z1720 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Procedural close This discussion is currently being handled at the article talk page, quite extensively. I did not realize the notice of problems was given only a week ago (isn't it standard that the FA criteria warning notice be given a week or two to be addressed before FAR is initiated?). This should be put off until things are resolved there (my points on the lede and the popular culture section still stand). I also advise caution to the OP, who has only really been an active editor for a month. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Place on hold for at least a month, to see if discussion is productive. Best I can tell, notification requirements were not followed. But ... a procedural close is not optimal, as it could record an inaccurate event in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS, with a whopping 17,000+ of readable prose, I hope that the excess has been trimmed and better summarized (to around 10 to 13,000 words of readable prose) by the time this FAR resumes, else I'll be headed for a delist declaration regardless of the outcome of the other issues. The size alone warrants we continue this FAR once the RFC closes. It is not hard to see why the size is so inflated, by examining any section where one's eyes happen to fall ... here's a sample of an entire paragraph that could be summarized in less than half that amount of words:
    • The first recorded physical attack on a U.S. president was directed at Jackson. He had ordered the dismissal of Robert B. Randolph from the navy for embezzlement. On May 6, 1833, Jackson sailed on USS Cygnet to Fredericksburg, Virginia, where he was to lay the cornerstone on a monument near the grave of Mary Ball Washington, George Washington's mother. During a stopover near Alexandria, Randolph appeared and struck the president. He fled the scene chased by several members of Jackson's party, including the writer Washington Irving. Jackson declined to press charges.
    Skipping further down the page for random samples:
    • Jackson appointed six justices to the Supreme Court. Most were undistinguished. His first appointee, John McLean, had been nominated in William T. Barry's place after Barry had agreed to become postmaster general. McLean "turned Whig and forever schemed to win" the presidency. His next two appointees —Henry Baldwin and James Moore Wayne —disagreed with Jackson on some points but were poorly regarded even by Jackson's enemies. In reward for his services, Jackson nominated Taney to the Court to fill a vacancy in January 1835, but the nomination failed to win Senate approval. Chief Justice Marshall died in 1835, leaving two vacancies on the court. Jackson nominated Taney for Chief Justice and Philip P. Barbour for associate justice. Both were confirmed by the new Senate. Taney served as chief justice until 1864, presiding over a court that upheld many of the precedents set by the Marshall Court. He was regarded with respect over the course of his career on the bench, but his opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford largely overshadows his other accomplishments. On the last full day of his presidency, Jackson nominated John Catron, who was confirmed.
    Goes off-topic in quite a few ways. If Joan of Arc and J. K. Rowling can be done at 8,000 words, this can surely be done in under 13,000. Or less. We'd have a much better shot at analyzing other issues if the size were reasonable. With this size, I am concerned that other problems may be lurking. I find it very odd that this FA, more than four years old, has never appeared as WP:TFA considering the severe shortage of suitable topics, where issues like this would have drawn broader attention and it makes me wonder if the TFA Coords avoided scheduling it because this problem is so apparent. Part of the art of writing is as much about what to leave out as what to include, and that art needs to be exercised here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I tend to wait for presidential FAs to be nominated by the person who's put the work in, rather than grabbing them without a nomination. Can't speak for my fellow coordinators on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering also the amount of verbosity reduction that is needed, along with the POV issues under discussion at talk, a one-month hold is probably insufficient; two months might be required to bring the FAR back with the article in a state that others can review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps for a future time, but we could definitely spin some of this off to more dedicated articles, especially his military career, in the style of Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, but spinning content off to reduce the size won't change the fact that the prose is just not tight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indy beetle and SandyGeorgia, I agree with you both about the length issues. The current dispute began about a month ago. Before then, the article was stable. It was already long, but the size was more manageable. Since then however, a group of editors has complained that the topics of Jackson's policies towards Indians and blacks has been underrepresented in the article. As a result, editors have been adding content to deal with that, and nothing has been taken out. The result is that the length has gotten a bit out of hand. I know that the article would benefit from trimming. Unfortunately, the atmosphere is so charged right now that, if anyone dares to try to extract anything having to do with slavery or Native American issues, it could create a firestorm. I also may be a bit too attached to some parts of the article not dealing with racial matters that I wrote, and so I haven't been willing to touch those either. You're welcome to try to cut down on that or anything else that needs it. Regarding creating separate articles, I'm a amateur Jackson scholar, and creating separate articles about Jackson's early political career and his military career has been a long-term goal of mine. However, in order to do so, I felt that I needed to read more about Jackson than I already have, and my attempts to do that have been bogged down with delays. Maybe in the next year or two I can get started on that, but we'll see. That's a great long term goal, but for right now, I think that the focus has to be on trimming this article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Display name 99, don't be discouraged; J. K. Rowling appeared at FAR under very similar circumstances, and came out wonderfully. After many months. Ditto for Joan of Arc, laboring under serious sockpuppetry. At this point, probably the best thing to do is to keep the FAR from sprawling, and keep the bulk of discussion on article talk, with only summaries back to here of matters relative to WP:WIAFA. Should the Coords decide to put this on hold, as instructions weren't followed, that should allow you some time to work. Have a look at not only Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, but Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 and its five talk archives. And the Joan of ARC FAR. FAR is patient, and editors who come here seeking a speedy delist are disappointed and tend to quickly disappear; a collaborative spirit prevails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep with hold also making sense. I think the editor who nominated this is sadly POV pushing and not giving the process a chance to work. Outside of the question related to forced removal/ethnic cleansing this seems to be an editor upset that their preferred phrasing/emphasis hasn't been used. This is not a case where a previously FA was slowly degraded by many poor edits over a long period of time nor is this a case where a trove of new information is forcing us to update the article. This is an editor who is unhappy with long standing phrasing and is now demanding the article be changed to match their preferred terms/emphasis. All of this could/should be addressed on the talk page without delisting. Certainly no delisting should occur so long as talk page discussions and the RfC are underway and the outcome of the RfC also shouldn't result in a delisting regardless of how it is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talkcontribs) 22:41, August 23, 2022 (UTC)
    Unsigned, please read the FAR instructions; it is a two-stage process, and keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would also suggest that these discussions play out on the talk page. I don't think FAR is a substitute for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Place on hold, this appears to be an attempt to use FAR as dispute resolution. Hog Farm Talk 00:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I also believe the discussions belong on the talk page, without the tags on the article. Hoppyh (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maintenance tags are a separate matter; they can't be removed until the issues are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Place on hold - As I stated on the article talk page, I believe the issues brought up there need to be addressed. If they are not addressed satisfactorily then I may agree with delisting but that's a big if. I appreciate the nominator for bringing up issues with this article but I disagree with the timing of this review. The discussion needs to be concluded on the article talk page first and this review should not be used as a form of dispute resolution or to force a speedy alteration to the article. There is no rush to do anything. --ARoseWolf 12:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, I thought I was following the protocol. It has been three weeks since I first raised some of these issues on the talk page, but little has changed, so the WP:FAR instructions (and a suggestion from Oncamera) made it seem like this was the logical next step. Maybe the WP:FAR instructions should be amended; is there some unwritten rule that articles with recent talk page activity are ineligible for FAR, or something similar? I'm not trying to cause problems. FinnV3 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Place on hold per Hog Farm. FAR is not dispute resolution and these issues are cropping up throughout the project on articles about presidents, with the same editors showing up. Take a look at George Washington and the associated talk pages/archives. Unfortunately editors with little to no understanding of producing and writing content, let alone featured content, tend to flock to the discussions. Best to resolve the issues on the talk page via a structured format. Even better, in my view, is to disengage and let the issues die out. Victoria (tk) 19:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Again, this is not an attempt at dispute resolution. I believe that this article does not meet the featured article criteria. It has been more than three weeks since these concerns were first raised on the talk page, and they have not been addressed, so the WP:FAR instructions seem to indicate that this is an appropriate review. If everyone agrees that this article is ineligible for FAR, then I think the WP:FAR instructions should be amended to be clearer about this. FinnV3 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It doesn't seem the problem is with the instructions; the page was clearly notified per instructions on 22 August by someone who read the instructions. Please avoid filling this page with off-topic discussion: WT:FAR is where you would go to discuss the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The instructions say to attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article, which I have been doing since July. It says to give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review, which I did, and the issues have still not been addressed. Are you saying that there's an additional unwritten rule that articles are ineligible for FAR if the talk page has been active recently? Or that the attempts to resolve issues must explicitly mention "FAR" two to three weeks in advance? FinnV3 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have clearly said you should raise your questions at WT:FAR and not disrupt this page. @WP:FAR coordinators: might we get this premature FAR put on hold (per consensus above) to stop the unhelpful use of this page, while work continues on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's no rule that articles with an active talk page cannot be brought to FAR. However, there are two intertwined issues that do impact whether this should be here right now. First off, the notification step is targeted to improvement rather than just starting a countdown timer. If you post a notification and get no response for two weeks, great, bring it here, but when there is an active response and efforts towards improvement (including an active RfC) then we want to provide an opportunity for things to get resolved there. Second, FAR is not dispute resolution - overlapping discussion here when there's already an RfC as well as a noticeboard thread in progress will confuse rather than improve matters. Let the RfC run, let the noticeboard thread run, address any behavioural concerns in a more appropriate venue, and then if issues remain relative to the FA criteria those can be dealt with at that time. For the moment this review is on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delist Considering that even the people above saying "Keep/Place On Hold" are all noting and largely agreeing with there being egregious issues with the article as it stands, along with major problems of bloat to the text and outdated sourcing, I see no reason why the article should remain listed as an FA. Trying to place a hold for months seems counter to the whole idea of this being FA quality as it stands. It should be delisted and, once all issues are fixed, it can be re-nominated. Otherwise, we risk the "one or two months" of waiting to instead be much longer with the improvements not being completed and the article not being in a proper FA-quality state that entire time frame. Delisting now and then re-nominating once everything is fixed seems like a much better option. SilverserenC 21:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Silverseren this FAR is already on hold; please don't add volume to an inactive page, and Keep or delist are not declared in the FAR phase anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notifying all previous participants of this FAR (who haven't already re-engaged) that the article has been re-worked and the FAR is no longer on hold. @FinnV3, Wehwalt, Indy beetle, Hoppyh, Silver seren, Victoriaearle, ARoseWolf, Hog Farm, Springee, and Z1720: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC the article has been improved somewhat, but some of the issues identified have yet to be rectified, such as article length. (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC or restore to last high quality version, preferably around here. The current version of this article is a massive downgrade over where the article stood several months ago before it was largely rewritten. In being reduced from over 15,000 words to just a hair over 12,000, the article has been gutted of much of its valuable content. 12,000 words is too small a size for an article of this importance. A little over 15,000 was close to ideal, and it should have been kept within that general range.
It is important to note what has been cut and what hasn't. The article, again, has been reduced from 15,000 words to 12,000, meaning that about one-fifth, or 20 percent, of the article's volume has been reduced. Yet the coverage of slavery is basically equal in volume as it was before. The section on Indian removal during Jackson's presidency prior to these revisions stood at 766 words. Not only has it not appreciably shrunk like most of the rest of the article, but it has grown to 798 words. Plus, there is a completely new 469 word section on Native American policy at the end of the article. So how is it, that when the article as a whole is cut by 20 percent, coverage of this subject matter not only is not trimmed like almost everything else but actually increases by quite a lot? I will try to be charitable here and not impugn the motives of the editors who made these revisions (although that is not the easiest thing to do given the environment at the article at the time, and the fact that a note that Jackson demonstrated concern for the care of his slaves and that the size of his slave quarters exceeded the standards of the time somehow got removed), but I cannot deny the impact that these changes have had in terms of creating a severe problem of WP:Undue weight, shifting coverage away from Jackson's important actions with regard to white Americans while unduly emphasizing aspects of his life and policies with regard to black and red people.
Even for those who disagree with my views about how racial issues should be treated in this article, and I know that there are plenty of people who do, I think that it should still be clear that the "Native American Policy" sub-section of the Legacy section is objectively terrible. It's mostly just needless repetition of stuff that's already discussed further up in the article. In a couple of cases, things are mentioned here which are not mentioned already (the Jackson Purchase and Jackson's justification of removal), but they should be mentioned earlier for the sake of maintaining a proper sense of chronology. Somebody could delete the whole four paragraph, 469 word section and nothing important would be lost that could not be summarized in a couple of sentences placed in appropriate points earlier in the article. I think it's ridiculous that people are saying that 12,000 words is too long, but if they seriously believe that, they need to start the trimming here.
The final short paragraph at the end of "Historical reputation" is completely unencyclopedic and needs to be entirely re-written.
Editors should vote to restore this article to where it was before recent changes ruined it or take the next step towards delisting this sad relic of something much better that came before it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur that the final short para at the end of Historical reputation is odd and unencyclopedic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are now three mentions of Native Americans in the lead; does the preponderance of reliable sources, and summmary of the article, justify this weight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I'm not sure if you're asking me, but I'll answer anyway. I'm fine with the lead. My issue is with coverage of Native American issues and slavery in the body. Whatever the reason, while the rest of the article was heavily shortened, coverage of these matters was not only not shortened but actually grew. The "Indian Removal Act" sub-section for Jackson's presidency is longer than any of the other sub-sections in the presidency section, and that's not including the special 469-word section on Native American issues in the Legacy section. The section on Jackson's war against the Creek Indians easily dwarfs all of the sub-sections on Jackson's presidency aside from the one on the Indian Removal Act. The Creek War is important, but it was one of many wars between the United States and Native Americans. That section has 924 words, whereas the section on the Nullification Crisis, which occurred during Jackson's presidency and probably marks the closest that the United States came to secession and civil war before the Civil War, has only 664 words. That's unacceptable. Plus there's still a 493-word section on Jackson's war with the Seminoles, which appears basically unchanged in size from before the revisions. I think it's clear that the article is heavily slanted towards coverage of Indian affairs in a way that damages its reliability.
The easiest thing to fix is the "Native American Policy" sub-section in the article. Like I said, it's mostly just needless repetition. I disagree heavily, of course, with your belief that the article is too long, but if you want to shorten it, here is what I recommend. Go to that section. Take the sentence about the Jackson Purchase and move it to the start of the "First Seminole War" section. Then take the sentence about Jackson's justification for Indian removal and move it to the section on Indian removal in his presidency. Condense into a short summary the historians' views of the matter and move them into "Historical reputation." Then delete the rest of the section. You'll save probably about 300 words of repetitive and overly detailed text. Display name 99 (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MY question was directly about the preponderance of sources. Confining your answers to discussion of sources, and keeping them brief, is helpful at FAR. There is zero discussion of sources in your very long response, which is mostly opinion, which renders it not helpful for FAR purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article could still benefit from trimming and verbosity reduction. Here is but one example:

Jackson had not fully recovered from his wounds when Governor Blount called out the militia in September 1813.[85] A faction of Muscogee (Creek) known as the "Red Sticks" had broken away from the Muscogee Creek Confederacy, which wanted to maintain peace with the United States. The Red Sticks, led by William Weatherford (also called Red Eagle) and Peter McQueen, had allied with Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief who was fighting with the British against the United States.[80][86][87] Earlier in the summer, a party of Red Sticks had gone to Pensacola to pick up supplies from the Spanish.[88] During their return, they defeated an ambush at Burnt Corn Creek by American militia.[89][90] On August 30, the Red Sticks avenged the ambush by attacking Fort Mims, a stockade inhabited by both white Americans and their Creek allies. They killed about 250 militia men and civilians.[91][92] The attack became known as the Fort Mims massacre.[93][94]

Jackson's objective was to destroy the Red Sticks.[95]

The article retells too much history (and this happens repeatedly); there is an article for Fort Mims Massacre, and we don't need all the background detail. A trim is still needed throughout.

"Known as" is used twice in the sample para above, and nine times throughout; it is often redundant. For example, the entire para above could be reduced to something like (this can be improved upon, but just a sample idea that it can be done in two sentences) ...

Jackson had not fully recovered from his wounds when Governor Blount called out the militia in September 1813 following the August Fort Mims Massacre. The Red Sticks, a confederate faction that had allied with Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief who was fighting with the British against the United States, killed about 250 militia men and civilians at Fort Mims in retaliation for an ambush by American militia at Burnt Corn Creek.

Jackson's objective was to destroy the Red Sticks.[95]

Sample only, cuts the words in half. Getting this article to a reasonable size is doable, if the weight and neutrality issues can be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should this be moved from Writings to External links?

  • "Andrew Jackson Papers". Library of Congress. A digital archive providing access to manuscript images of many of Jackson's documents.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progress is being made so I am not ready to declare move to FARC; Wtfiv has proven capable of working through disputes in the past, so we can give this more time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progress update based on FAR and Talk comments:

  • Ft Mims example shortened as per suggestion in FAR.
  • Seminole War section shortened to remove back story as per Ft. Mims example.
  • Native American Policy removed as per FAR suggestion. Treaties moved to text, final paragraph shortened and moved to other section of legacy.
  • Andrew Jackson papers moved to external links as per FAR suggestion.
  • Sections on Jacksonian democracy removed as per discussion on talk page. Some points reworded. Legacy reordered, awaiting reworking by another editor.
  • Final mention of issues related to Native Americans in the lead reduced to two. One in first paragraph of lead on general view; second specifically addressing the Indian Removal Act.

Current length of main body is 11603 words. Wtfiv (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

6 Feb 2023 Progress update: Still awaiting a possible further update of legacy from an editor. Otherwise, the article is unchanged. Currently, many of the first FAR concerns have been addressed (e.g., issues raised by FinnV3 addressed, attempts to address points from second iteraction of FAR editors, article length reduced by 4000 words; but is still 11.6K words long.) Wtfiv (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One new change from previous iteration: Clause and source added back in mentioning in legacy that the Indian Removal Act has been discussed in the context of genocide. Wtfiv (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diocletian[edit]

G.W., Iazyges, WP Bio, WP Milhist, WP Illyria, WP Greece, WP Classical Greece and Rome, WP Politics, WP Croatia, WP Rome, WP Roman and Byzantine emperors, talk page notices 2020-05-03 2022-10-30

This 2008 FA is the oldest listed at WP:FARGIVEN, with concerns about sourcing dating to 2020-05-03, and updated at 2022-10-30. The original nominator has not edited for two years. Sandbox improvements mentioned on talk have not materialized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Move to FARC Unfortunately I do not presently have the time to fix the issues on the page; I'll have to rewrite basically the entirety of the article at some point, and run it through FAC again. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Sorry to hear that ... Delist or Keep are not declared in the FAR phase; perhaps you meant Move to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are correct... I have amended above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Striking vote given interest and ability in fixing article from other editors. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From UndercoverClassicist on talk: [7] UC, if you intend to work towards improving this FA, please keep this page updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello - I posted the below on the page you just linked. Would anybody have any thoughts on it, particularly if it seems like a useful or worthwhile thing to be doing?
Please take this in the spirit of inquiry - checking to see that I've understood things correctly:
  • On the use of ancient sources - I've only given it a cursory check, but as far as I can see, most of the uses fall under one of the below:
  1. The article is explicitly addressing the reactions of e.g. Aurelius Victor to Diocletian's treatment of Carinus' officials, and so cites Aurelius Victor to do so. It seems to me there's a case-by-case check to be done about whether there's any value in referring to that person's reaction at all (in this example, Aurelius Victor is quite a lot later than Diocletian, so my instinct would say 'no'), but, at least in principle, can the article not cite ancient sources when explicitly talking about ancient authors' views of the matter under discussion?
  2. The article also cites modern scholarly literature, and the primary-source citation is really a matter of 'showing working' (and probably the entire evidence base on which the secondary author has based their claim). Should those primary sources be excised?
  • Looking quickly at the bibliography, it seems that a lot of the ugliness could be solved by imposing a uniform referencing system - most of the entries seem to have been entered manually. Personally, I quite like {{sfn}} with {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and so on. That would, at least, mean that information was presented in the same order, and perhaps be a useful first step towards going back in and tracking down missing details?
  • Some of the dodgy references seem to be used in support of other, less dodgy ones, and so could be cut out without causing any real problems.
Happy to have a go along those lines, if it would help?
UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article looks in good shape to me. Better than any of the FARs I have worked on.

  • With regard to the use of the ancient/modern dual references, I would vote forcefully to keep it this way. I often use a similar form with scientific articles, where both the secondary source and the original paper are cited so the reader can look up the latter. In the case of a reader who is researching the subject, this is extremely valuable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I haven't thoroughly read the whole article, but from going through the lead, the early life section and the references I would agree with Hawkeye and UndercoverClassicist that the article doesn't look in terrible shape. If UC does tidy up all the referencing it will hopefully be much clearer what is still problematic and needs addressing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My thanks to Tintero21 for standardising the citation style. There were several citation errors; I have left the ones dealing with ancient sources, until we are decided what to do with them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A couple of outstanding reference issues which hopefully you or Tintero21 will be able to fix more easily than me: the short footnotes to "Epit. Caesarinus, 39.15" (#52 at time of writing) and "Panegyrici Latini, 7(6)15.16" (#200) are throwing harv errors. The first I think is simply a typo for "Epit. Caesaribus"; I think the latter requires the bibliographic entry for the Panegyrici Latini wrapping in a {{wikicite}} template? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Demise of Carausius's breakaway Roman Empire" section is a bit problematic at the moment and I am thinking it might just be better removed entirely. I am not intimately familiar with this period, but the section does not even mention Diocletian so seems unneeded in his bio. In addition, it was a post-FAC addition and somewhat unsourced—the Harries 1999 refs appear to be dubious, since upon looking for page numbers I found that the entire publication does not even have the words "Boulogne" or "Allectus". Aza24 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SG review:

  • Harvref errors throughout that can be viewed by installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. [8]
  • Inconsistent citation formatting raised in initial comments as yet unaddressed, including missing access-dates.
  • With over 11,000 words of readable prose, opportunities for trimming are easily found. Taking as a sample the Level 2 section, Tetrarchy:
    "Upon his return" should be defined at the start of a new Level 2 section.
    The first paragraph in that section goes in to considerable detail on other individuals who have their own articles.
    Similar in first para of Invasion, counterinvasion

As knowledgeable editors have argued for the inclusion of the primary sources originally mentioned in the FAR listing, I will be a keep if the citation formatting can be cleaned up, and a trimming copyedit is undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto, Iazyges, AirshipJungleman29, and Aza24: I've completed what I could of my list above; are you able to review the remainder of my list and anything else needed, so we can move towards bringing this to a close? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: sorry that I failed to ping you with the rest! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I disagree with your assessment of the necessity and ease of trimming. Readable prose size is 68kB (if I've understood correctly), putting it in the second category of WP:SIZERULE, and I feel that the current size is sustainable considering "the scope of the topic". I also don't feel that the paragraphs you've outlined contain excessive amounts of detail, with the detail on the other individuals directly relevant to Diocletian, his reforms, and his imperial rule (I also can't find the "Upon his return" you mention). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Someone else has already copyedited, which may explain the difference in your view and mine, and the missing pieces ... I am now less concerned, but unsure if the copyedit is finished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I took out a bunch of the most obviously redundant stuff, and I think the article is rather better than it was, but I'm happy to have another go through the article if people are still concerned about excessive length. I think there are still some inconsistencies in citation formatting – will do another pass on that later this week when I'm at an actual computer if nobody else gets to it first... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Correct, things like missing access dates and other trivialities ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS, I didn't name you above as I can never remember how to spell your username :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A couple of observations from going through the citations to iron out some of the inconsistencies:
    • "BGU" referred to in footnote 93 is unexplained – what does this refer to?
    • footnote 101 (Rees, Layers of Loyalty) refers to an entire book; page range is needed
    • same with footnote 164 (Heather, Rome Resurgent)
    • same with Leadbetter, Galerius and the Rule of Diocletian, in fn.241
    Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Paul August might you be interested in looking in here? I see you in the page statistics, and an extra set eyes might help get this one wrapped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Aza24 and Caeciliusinhorto: are you ready for a new look, or still working? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I think I've made the citations consistent now, though my eyes glazed over somewhat at the end so if there's anything I've missed do point it out or fix it. But there are a few uncited claims that I've marked, and the missing page ranges I mentioned above; I can try to track down the relevant page ranges for those sources I have access to where we have a book already cited, but late antiquity really isn't my area so if someone knows the sources better than me to sort out the {{cn}}s that would be greatly appreciated! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed two tags, one remaining. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can topic experts pls opine whether the citation needed content is crucial to comprehension or comprehensiveness? It appears that no one is able to cite it, so do we need for that content to be holding up this FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I get the feeling some of the later content might be citable to Jones above it; I'll see what can be salvaged. If not, I feel the content already cited comfortably satisfied the explanation of his expansion of bureaucracy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unluckily, this was not the case. I've gone ahead and removed the content of "for an empire of 50–65 million inhabitants, which works out to approximately 1,667 or 2,167 inhabitants per imperial official as averaged empire-wide. The actual numbers of officials and ratios per inhabitant varied by diocese depending on the number of provinces and population within a diocese. Provincial and diocesan paid officials (there were unpaid supernumeraries) numbered about 13–15,000 based on their staff establishments as set by law. The other 50% were with the emperor(s) in his or their comitatus, with the praetorian prefects, or with the grain supply officials in the capital (later, the capitals, Rome and Constantinople), Alexandria, and Carthage and officials from the central offices located in the provinces." and added some more from Jones. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thx, Iaz; once I get through (that other current mess), I will find time for a full read-through. Hopefully others will do so as well here (@Buidhe, Z1720, Extraordinary Writ, and Aza24: and not Hog Farm because I know he's crazy busy this time of year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tulip mania[edit]

Notified: Smallbones, Ceoil, JayHenry (last edit was 2011), WikiProject Economics, WikiProject Finance & Investment, WikiProject Netherlands, WikiProject Plants, 2020-07-03 2022-11-06

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are multiple instances of statements without citations, short paragraphs that can be merged or reformatted, and references listed that are not used as inline citations. A secondary matter might be searching for academic literature that has been published since the article's original FAC and using them as sources. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm working on a background section to replace the one that was denied. It doesn't seem like any significant sources were published in the last few years. As far as De Rosa (2021) is concerned Garber (2000) and Goldgar (2007) are still the most comprehensive and important treatises on the subject. He also mentions Thompson (2007) while he conveniently ignores French. I think the article needs to include French (which it does) as a dissenting voice to achieve balance. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubt that significant academic literature has been published since the article's original FAC, unless the nominator is holding back for some reason. I'm not seening "multiple instances of statements without citations", and " short paragraphs that can be merged or reformatted, and references listed that are not used as inline citations" as very light-weight SOFIX stuff. Geez, an editor that supported an article back in the day could almost feel as being guilt tripped via frivolous clock them up noms. Ceoil (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added some cn tags to places where I think citations are needed. Some of the short paragraphs I think need to be reformatted are the paragraphs that begin with "In the Northern Hemisphere, tulips bloom in April and May for about one week." "Tulip mania reached its peak during the winter of 1636–37," and "The popularity of Mackay's tale has continued to this day..." While I do not know if significant literature has been published, I haven't done a search for it because I am not an expert in this field and so some of the sources I find might not be useful for the article. I am happy to do a search of various databases I have access to (WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, NYT, and others through my local library system) if someone is willing to evaluate and add information if applicable. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd just like to state for the record that I see nothing dubious about this FAR-nomination. The article has issues, even in the lede. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the paragraph with the cn-tag under "legal changes", beginning with: "Before this parliamentary decree, the purchaser of a tulip contract—known in modern finance as a forward contract—was legally obliged to buy the bulbs." this does not seem to be true. As stated in Dash (1999) and Garber (2000, p. 34) several laws limiting and banning futures trading had been passed in the preceding decades. The legal status of these contracts should have been at best unsettled. Can we strike this section? Draken Bowser (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Draken Bowser: Considering the lack of edits by others, I think its ok for you to WP:BEBOLD and make edits yourself. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll get to it, need to spend some time cross-checking page numbers. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lung cancer[edit]

Notified these, 2021 and June 2022 on talk page
Important article, not kept updated sufficiently, long list of concerns on the talk page not yet resolved. No medical articles at FAR currently so I'm nominating this. (t · c) buidhe 06:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Ajpolino has made a lot of improvements to this article recently, great. Are you planning to save this FA? (t · c) buidhe 10:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd like to, but there's lots of updating to be done. Give me a couple weeks to plug away at it, and we'll see how far I get? Ajpolino (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ajpolino is making good progress; we can probably "call in the troops" for further improvements whenever he is ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Improvements continuing, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alright, I'm feeling optimistic this article can be thoroughly updated without too much pain and suffering. Just a note, starting Tuesday I'll be traveling for two weeks and will have limited (or perhaps no) editing time/access. I'm hoping I can wrap this up with another week or two of editing. So if I could get a month extension on this, that would be much appreciated. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Holding still, and I see Axl surfaced (hooray!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to try updating some of the older references in the next couple of months. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slow but steady progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: further discussion at Sandy's talk (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of relevance, here (else will be lost in archives). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update, slow going but steady improvement heading in the right direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jefferson Davis[edit]

Notified: Omnedon, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject U.S. Congress, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject Kentucky, WikiProject Mississippi, talk page notice 2022-09-24

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been noticed for about a month with no changes. The sourcing has quite a bit of problems listed here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • From the bibliography, I have Davis 1996, Foner 1988, McPherson 1989, and Woodworth 1990. I can help push this over the line if somebody's going to take over, but I don't have the time, energy, or desire to do the massive resourcing that this will take. Hog Farm Talk 13:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lost Cause propaganda whispers regularly throughout the text. I believe it would require a full rewrite to replace the psudohistory with the current scholarly consensus. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If Vami_IV wants to take this on, I think that would work great. But, I'm wrapping up work on trying to keep Andrew Jackson out of the depths of FAR. If I'm successful, I'm willing to explore the life of Jefferson Davis, as his legacy is quite topical. It's not where I would've planned to have wandered, but it looks worthwhile and Jackson has already taken me into the former Choctaw lands of Mississippi anyway, so I feel like I'm visiting the neighborhood anyway. The sources Hog Farm mentioned are available on archive, and I think there are a lot of other supportive resources I can use. If I did take it on though, I think the second half of the article from "strategic failures" on would require a major overhaul. My preference would be to discuss his legacy in terms of the controversial issues: At first glance these look like: Role in Confederate defeat, attitudes toward slavery, post-war reputation (e.g., lost cause and the like). I suspect any work I did would be extensive enough that I'd need copy editing help when I'm done, and a couple of committed folk to give it a mini-FA-like look over. If it is best to leave it to another editor who feels more expert, I'm good with that. Thoughts? (I'll ping Guerillero too.) Wtfiv (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm fairly busy and am slowly working on a project in my sandbox to fix up Siege of Vicksburg, but I can help. We also need to factor in length concerns - prosesize tool is showing over 11,000 words, and the legacy needs more (and better) material. IMO the best places to cut fat are the death and burial section, the author section, and the gigantic mess of excess detail of all of court cases regarding him getting Brierfield back. We'll need more general biographies than just William C. Davis, but if there's going to be a push I can try to collect a few more together once I'm done with Vicksburg. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I appreciate that quick response! I'll wait to see how others weigh in, but it sounds like it'd be a worthwhile adventure just to get the opportunity to work with you. I've seen your style indirectly, and I admire it, but it would be very interesting to get a more direct sense of it. I think this is one of those articles where there is a chance of reaching SandyGeorgia's ideal of 9000 words or so. The article seemed filled with unneeded detail, and starts only at 11,000 words, so I think the odds are good. As to sources, I'm suspecting we'll be able to get plenty. (Though its possible I'd be wrong.) Wtfiv (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I won't be able to do a whole lot until after Thanksgiving - I'm traveling that week, and I'll be taking the third part of the CPA exam hopefully before then. I should have plenty of time after then, though. Hog Farm Talk 03:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Send me a bibliography and, let the record show, I can do some great things. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Sounds like Vami IV is on it! I'll be here if there's any need to pick up momentum later, just ping me, but it sounds like its in good hands! Wtfiv (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Wtfiv/Vami IV: I am not in a rush. Take your time. We can come back to this in December, since I am getting married in November and will be away for most of the month. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      If I'm understanding right, it sounds like you all have big projects right now, both life and wikiwise. (Hogfarm on finishing up the CPA; and Guerillo, marriage is a huge project, no matter what the context. To both of you congratulations!)
      I've got a little more time right now- though November may be more touch and go- so I can pitch in for now while you are taking care of the other issues, just starting on the citation sourcing the biography. If the narrative is already complete, it shouldn't be too difficult. That'll help build a bibliography for Vami's use when he's ready. Once someone else is ready to take over ping me on the talk page. Conversely, if I see major changes to be made I'll ping on the talk page as well. Wtfiv (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Work is ongoing on the legacy section; the rest has been largely rewritten. Hog Farm Talk 06:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I think I'm pretty much done adding content. I got done the first draft of legacy and am now just cleaning it up, but I think I'm feeling like I'm done with content at this point. I'm willing to to do whatever else is needed. Wtfiv (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Guerillero As nominator, what are your thoughts? Is it set? Does it need "next steps"? Here is my summary of how I've attempted to addresss the issues listed here.
      After I addressed them, I reworked the lead, mainly the last paragraph, to reflect the changes.
      • Family background: section rewritten. Removed much of the geneology, which was unclear.
      • Childhood: section rewritten and sourced.
      • Sourcing' is old and relies on Jim Crow era Southern Universities: have been brought up to date.(~45% of sources 21st century; ~40% 2000-1970; 15% earlier, not counting original sources.) Only two books are from Jim Crow era Southern Universities, Owsley's (1959) study on king cotton and Sulzby's (1960) book on Alabama Hotels.
        • Allen 1999 has a lost cause problem: Allen's biography is indeed quite different from the rest. Not used and has been moved to the "Bibliography" spin-off article.
        • Coulter's work has similar problems: Coulter is no longer used as a source.
        • Dodd 1907 is probably superseded by later work: Dodd has been moved to the "Bibliography" spin-off article.
        • Eaton 1977 was described as "admiring" by reviewers: Kept Eaton as third perspective in biography, but used less frequently. (For biographies: Cooper 2000 is ~107 times; Davis 1991 ~77; Eaton 1977 ~36). Eaton is sympathetic to Davis, but can be critical. His sourcing seems good, and sometimes he does a better summary than Cooper or Davis.
        • Patrick 1944's from 1945 makes me skeptical: Patrick has been moved to "Bibiography" spin-off.
        • Strode's three part biography is neo-Confederate hogwash and should be nowhere near a serious article about Davis: Strode's volumes have been move to the "Bibliography" spin-off.
      • The legacy section is choppy and glosses over the scholarly consensus on Davis. Further, without any criticism, it verges on being pro-Lost Cause: Legacy has been entirely rewritten. There are new sections at the end.
        • "Political views on slavery" summarizes Davis's views on slavery. The description of each is supported by academic secondary sources, and each one is accompanied by an accessible link to one of Davis's speeches so readers can verify for themselves whether the summary is correct. (Throughout the article, I reference Jefferson's public works. The summaries are based on secondary sources, but the original sources allow readers to determine for themselves if the summaries are accurate.)
        • "Performance as commander in chief" addresses the evaluation of his leadership by historians. It also separates the evaluation from the Civil War narrative. The article originally seemed to be emphasizing Pollard's points in the early "Lost Cause" mythology, embedding the evaluations of Davis in the narrative and implying that his actions lost the War. The section addresses the negative evaluations, the mixed evalutions, and even the relatively positive ones.
        • "Legacy" addresses the evolution of Davis's image into a lost cause hero and the controversies sparked by the symbolism of his image in the 21st century.
      • Citation style is inconsistent: Style is now sfn and sfnm (I like citing multiple authors when each describes the same point or facts from a slightly different perspective).
      Wtfiv (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Wtfiv: You did an extraordinary job! My objections have been quenched and I am ready to move to retain the article as an FA. Thank you for working on this. Having a balanced article on David goes a long way to improve our coverage of the American Civil War. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I'll try to read through it again this week. Hog Farm Talk 15:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reviewed on talk. Once the last few straggling comments are worked through, I'll be comfortable with the content here and I am comfortable with the sourcing used. It's a bit longer than ideal, but I'm too much of a nerd in this topic area to be good at suggesting things to pare down; I routinely read 500-600 page books on the Civil War for fun. Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Hog Farm. I appreciate your review. The care for Civil War articles is clear, as is your patience for editors who may be less expert. I think the issues you mentioned have now been addressed. And, I'm glad you are okay with the content. Wtfiv (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I'll make it clearer that I'm ready to close without FARC as well. The length isn't ideal, though, but I'm not sure what the best way to fix that would be. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My concerns have all been addressed here. Thanks for you hard work on this, Wtfiv. Hog Farm Talk 19:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read through the article and, after some minor copyediting, I think this is ready for a keep. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SG review

  • There are inconsistent p and pp throughout the citations (too many for me to fix), eg Davis 1991, pp. 4–5 but Cooper 2000, p. 12–14, and Cooper 2000, pp. 23–24 but Davis 1991, p. 23–24.
  • Jeff in Petticoats is an odd external link; if it's notable, why not it's own article?
    • I'm inclined to consider this EL useless, so I've removed it. There were many songs about Davis in the 19th century, no point to single out one. Hog Farm Talk 20:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Senator and Secretary of War" section (a level two heading) begins with: Davis took his seat in December and was appointed as a regent of the Smithsonian Institution. Readers selecting to skip down to read a section should not have to backtrack to guess which year and which seat.
  • There are about 20 instances of the word also which should be reviewed for almost-always-redundant redundancy.
  • For an 11,000 word article, it is unclear why this bit of what seems to be trivia makes it in to the lead: Only two survived him, and only one married and had children. (Perhaps this will be revealed as I read?)
    • Removed; I was unsure about the inclusion of this in the lead when I did my read-through. Hog Farm Talk 20:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • MOS:SEASON: In spring, Taylor had him assigned ...
  • Why do we need to know the final parts of this sentence? Davis gradually improved, and briefly traveled to Havana, Cuba, to restore his health and returned home via New York and Washington, D.C., where he visited his old schoolmate from Transylvania College, George Wallace Jones.[43]
  • What does it refer back to ? He made his first slave, James Pemberton, its overseer,
    • "It" here is Briarfield. Wtfiv - I have a greater concern here. I checked my print copy of Davis, and he refers to Montgomery as "virtually overseer", not that Davis appointed him as one. Because a black man as a plantation overseer would have been very odd for that time, I think it's best to reword this. Hog Farm Talk 20:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • updated. Wtfiv (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Hog Farm Pemberton's role as overseer is ambiguous: Cooper 2008, p. 128 states Davis decide to leave his lsave overwee, James Pemberton, in charge. I'll stay with Davis and added "effective" Wtfiv (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Advocating ... advocated ... vary wording ... advocating for the nomination of John C. Calhoun over Martin Van Buren who was the party's original choice. Davis preferred Calhoun because he advocated for southern interests
  • Vacancy ... vacated ... vary wording ... appointment by Mississippi governor Albert G. Brown to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate,[82] which had been vacated by the death

I am going to stop for now, as there are still copyedit needs. Also, as an example of how to cut down the excessive prose size, I offer this overly detailed paragraph:

  • Before his resignation, Davis had sent a telegraph message to Mississippi Governor John J. Pettus informing him that he was available to serve the state. On January 27, 1861, Pettus appointed him a major general of Mississippi's army.[137] On February 10, Davis learned that he had been unanimously elected to the provisional presidency of the Confederacy by a constitutional convention in Montgomery, Alabama,[138] which consisted of delegates from the six states that had seceded: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Alabama.[139] Davis was chosen because of his political prominence,[140] his military reputation,[141] and his moderate approach to secession,[140] which could bring Unionists and undecided voters over to his side.[142] Davis had been hoping for a military command,[143] but he accepted and committed himself fully to his new role.[144] Davis and Vice President Alexander H. Stephens were inaugurated on February 18.[145] The procession for the inauguration started at Montgomery's Exchange Hotel, the location of the Confederate administration and Davis's residence.[146]

The paragraph is a sample of wordiness that can be trimmed, and I suggest checking throughout for similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I think style issues may have to be addressed by another editor. Please see note on talk page.Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Confederate Congress ?? Clarify here ? In his opening address to Congress on January 12, ... no Wikilink? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Opportunities to cut down the excessive wordiness are easy to find. Do we really need, " He began writing his memoirs almost immediately"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why do we need the final clause here? Southern Historical Society has a link for exploring what it is. I suggest there are opportunities for trimming the prose throughout. In the 1870s, Davis was invited to become a member of the Southern Historical Society, an organization founded by Reverend J. William Jones with the former Confederate general Jubal A. Early as its president. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A wikilink review should also be conducted, as I found confederate congress and 1860 election unlinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article can easily be cut to under 10,000 words of readable prose. There is excess detail on the history of the Civil War everywhere one looks, and as but one sample, trimming off-topic detail from this one sample para cuts it almost in half. Hurricane Plantation (which belonged to Jefferson's brother) has its own article and need not be explored here, and BTW, if his brother retained the title to the property, he did not "give" it to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current (97 words) Proposed (53 words)
When Davis returned to Mississippi he decided to become a planter.[37] His brother Joseph was successfully converting his large holdings at Davis Bend, about 15 miles (24 km) south of Vicksburg, Mississippi, into Hurricane Plantation, which would eventually have 1,700 acres (690 ha) of cultivated fields and over 300 slaves.[38] He gave Davis 800 acres (320 ha) of his land to start a plantation at Davis Bend, though Joseph retained the title to the property. He also loaned Davis the money to buy ten slaves to clear and cultivate the land, which Jefferson would name Brierfield Plantation. Davis returned to Mississippi and become a planter. His brother Joseph provided him 800 acres (320 ha) of land from the large holdings he was converting into Hurricane Plantation at Davis Bend. Joseph retained the title to the property, which Jefferson named Brierfield Plantation, and also loaned Davis the money to buy ten slaves.
  • Suggested change above implemented, but was reverted by another editor. Subsequently change "give" to "provided", as per suggestion.

This article has actually grown in size during its FAR; it does not need to be over 10,000 words, and a second pass to eliminate fluff should be undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • See talk for expansion. I think other editors may have to edit fluff. Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A would audit would also be helpful. There are 35 instances of would, as in the sample para above, and this one: received a land grant near what would become Washington, Georgia ---> received a land grant near what became Washington, Georgia. See WP:WOULDCHUCK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wtfiv (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See talk
Wtfiv (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opportunities to trim verbosity remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heian Palace[edit]

Notified: User talk:Stca74, User talk:91.153.253.39, User talk:Ineffablebookkeeper (no other users with > 2% edits) WP:JAPAN, WP:ARCH Aug 2022 notice

I am nominating this featured article for review because, per the talk page notice, it has a large % of unsourced material, and the article is predominantly sourced to one author. One would suspect that an imperial palace would have been written about by quite a few people. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article has remained remarkably stable since being promoted to featured article status more than 15 years ago. During this time the featured article criteria regarding verifiability and citing sources have not substantially changed, as can be seen by checking the history of the criteria page. Also (as far as I am aware) no such new research literature that would materially affect the article has appeared (at least in English) since 2007.
The low number of cited sources is explained by the main reference (McCullough & McCullough 1980) being by far the most comprehensive English language source on the palace and its history, written by two leading experts and working as a comprehensive survey on the topic. It is itself thoroughly researched and cites both primary sources and very well established Japanese secondary sources (vol. 1 of 京都の歴史, an extensive general history of Kyoto). While writing what still remains the bulk of the article, a great care was taken to check that all statements are backed by the listed references - in practice McCullough & McCullough in most places.
During the original featured article nomination process the number of inline references to the sources was indeed increased to a level deemed adequate. In theory essentially every sentence could have inline reference to one of the listed sources, but such extreme citation intensity would not be normal for this type of well-established topic. There is also a fairly extensive discussion about this issue on the article's FA nomination discussion page, where the community consensus was that the quantity and scope of citations and inline references is appropriate.
The specific issue of citing a larger number of sources (such as Morris's book World of the Shining Prince) was covered during the original nomination process and the outcome was that inline references to multiple sources just for the sake of it is not necessary if and when the same information is found in the cited main reference(s). Instead, additional sources were added as a Further Reading section.
With this background, I do not think there is a substantial need to increase number of inline references or multiply the explicitly referenced sources simply to increase citation metrics.
But obviously if there are specific points where there is a consensus about a need for new explicit source references, such should naturally be added on a case-by-case basis. However, unless new material be introduced, such references would most likely again point to the already cited main sources. I would therefore suggest that any discussion be focussed on such specific questions about the article's content, if any. Stca74 (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the 15 years since the FAC, there have been substantial changes to the feature article criteria, and older articles haven't been grandfathered into the new standards. Hog Farm Talk 13:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is of course debatable what qualifies as "substantial". However, the 2007 version about citing sources is says:
  • (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c).
whereas the current version says:
  • consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
Apart from moving to footnotes only I see no real change.
Both refer to criterion (1c), which in 2007 was:
  • "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
whereas the current version is:
Apart from rewording and reordering most of the old version, the current one is a little less prescriptive. Both call for inline citations where appropriate, which as as pointed out above does not imply "for each and every claim". In any case it is very hard to see any tightening in these criteria as written since 2007.
It is also worth pointing out that verifiability (still) states a clear preference for English sources. And as stated above, the article already relies on the most comprehensive ones there are.
The reason to respond at length here and above is in particular to argue in general in favour of a reasoned approach to the use of source citations instead of an application of mechanistic citation counts. In this particular case I would argue that calls for significant changes should be made only after actually consulting the primary sources cited and comparing the article's claims to them. And then should any contentious claims be found, address those specifically and not the article in the abstract. Stca74 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think de facto nowadays people expect citations for more or less everything except primary school level stuff, even at generic things like T:DYK, WP:OTD and so forth Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that indeed so regardless of subject matter? I can see that the generally more and more polarised discourse on the web would have become reflected in more stringent citation standards for (the increasingly common?) contentious topics, while similar tacit reinterpretation of the criteria may not have taken place on more "placid" issues. (My primary activity here is on mathematics articles, where the nature of the subject matter leads to hardly any disputes regarding factual claims — style and level of presentation is another issue...)
In general, I would prefer that the criteria policies be updated explicitly if that is where the community wants to move, instead of a silent reinterpretation of unchanged rules slowly taking place and accumulating.
But be that as it may, in the interest of advancing the discussion on this specific article:
1. Regarding the issue of the low number of different sources cited: As I have written above, I am afraid not much can be done. I am not aware of any substantial newer English-language sources that would not just refer back to the sources used already — in particular McCullough & McCullough (1980). I think one should accept that this topic is niche (at the very least from English language audience perspective): an ancient Japanese palace that ceased to exist in visible physical form some 800 years ago, leaving almost no archaeologically accessible traces and being mainly covered by ancient Japanese literary sources. Having such detailed and well-researched material in English as the appendix of McCullough & McCullough is indeed a positive surprise if anything. I do not believe that this state of affairs should be a reason to declassify the article (it would be another matter if no reliable sources existed). On the other hand, should someone find new suitable sources they should obviously be used.
2. Regarding density of inline citations: It should be obvious from my comments on this page that, according to my old-school estimation, the article already cites its (few) sources sufficiently. If this is felt to be too little, then I would kindly ask for specific comments on what claims and/or sections should have inline citations added. And I remind that most if not all of these would point again to various pages of the McCullough & McCullough appendix. As the article stands now, almost all paragraphs have at least one inline citation (apart from the lead, where I believe it is still considered good form to have few or no inline citations). In proposing additional citation points, please also take into account
guidelines on bundling citations to same source(s) for entire paragraphs. Stca74 (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
An obvious point with a needed citation is " Its placement right next to the Inner Palace shows the influence of the Shingon sect during the early Heian Period.". Is this conclusion being drawn from a source, or is this original research? Hog Farm Talk 13:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would argue it is more of an extension of the preceding sentence, but added an explicit reference. Stca74 (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC, largely uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Now cited, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC citation needed issues. (t · c) buidhe 17:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Referring to Wikipedia:Featured article review (first two bullet points under stage 2 (FAR)), these are rather premature recommendations: proposals on actual concrete improvements (and implementation thereof) has hardly started (one proposed addition, completed). Stca74 (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC per above, older citation standards weren't grandfathered in when the featured article criteria were tightened. Low Memorial Library is an example of a recent building FA that follows the modern citation standards. Hog Farm Talk 19:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC Statements in Wikipedia articles should have inline citations that verify the information, and an article cannot run at DYK, let alone become a GA or FA, unless there is an inline citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum. Some statements that need citations are, "The Jingi-kan, the final standing section of the palace, remained in use until 1585.", "The Daidairi was a walled rectangular area extending approximately 1.4 kilometres (0.87 mi) from north to south..." and "The Heian Jingū shrine in Kyoto includes an apparently faithful reconstruction of the Daigokuden in somewhat reduced scale." If someone is interested in addressing these concerns, I am willing to add citation needed tags to the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Struck, due to comment below. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am happy to add references where deemed necessary according to the current interpretation of the criteria. As I wrote above, my old-time experience with the FA process supplemented by re-reading the criteria-as-written did not give me a good idea of what the current requirements would be in practice. Hence your offer to add citation-needed tags would be much appreciated. Stca74 (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Update: Requested inline refs added for Heian Jingū as replica and the Jingi-kan site remaining in use until 1585. Please notice that two inline references already existed for the dimensions of the Daidairi, at the end of the very sentence (McCullough&McCullough (1980) and McCullough (1999)). Stca74 (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Buidhe, Hog Farm, and Z1720: you have (above) either old or dated or duplicate statements for this FAR; could you strike/de-bold/update as needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Struck my move to FARC declaration above. Sorry for the delayed reply; I'm on the tail end of a nasty sinus infection. Hog Farm Talk 21:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the first paragraph of Primary sources, it seems improbable that all of that text is covered by Farris 188; pls confirm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed that is correct: the Farris ref covers only the last sentence. I will add references to earlier parts of the paragraph asap. Stca74 (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And thanks, I see you have added "citation needed" tags in a number of places. I will attend to those on Sunday; looks like all will get refs to McCullough&McCullough. Stca74 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thx ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: All "citation needed" tags as well as the need for additional citations for Primary sources section have been dealt with. Please do continue to add tags if current coverage remain unsatisfactory, and I will address them. However, I will be away from my library for the next week, so may not be able to react immediately. Stca74 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stca74, do you feel you've addressed all of the concerns raised above? If so, I'd suggest asking those reviewers to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think so, yes - indeed, my update of 30 Oct was intended to signal that. Should I do something beyond posting that request to revisit the issue here on this page? (I've been away from more active editing for a long time...) Stca74 (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bumbubookworm, Hog Farm, SandyGeorgia, Buidhe, and Z1720: ↑. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll try to get to this at some point in the next week. Hog Farm Talk 05:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've left a few comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Heian Palace/archive1#HF comments. My primary concern is a jargon issue, as several components of the palace structure are mentioned before they are explained. Hog Farm Talk 21:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for comments. Made changes and left reply at the subpage of the detailed comments. Stca74 (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Leaning keep here, although I'm so unfamiliar with the subject matter that I hope someone else can weigh in here as well. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment The image at the top of the article had a "image reference needed" tag that needs to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I reviewed the article: I made some prose changes, added alt text and changed px to upright. It looks like it's in good shape, and I'm leaving some notes below:
  • Image reference needed tags need to be resolved
  • There are some sources in "Further reading" that are not used in the article. Can they be used as sources (especially the 2014 source)?
Please ping when the above are addressed and I'll take another look. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720:Thanks for edits and comments. I've added the requested image references. In addition, I reviewed the "Further reading" section for use for further inline citations. Here's a summary (the first two have been added by me long time ago, the later two very recently by others):
  • The 1925 Ponsonby-Fane article is essentially covered by the the 1956 reference (used for one inline citation);
  • The Japanese reference (from 1970) is the most important reference for much of the cited English language work, but given the language issue and the fact that citation coverage already appears to be good, I see no reason to add direct citations;
  • I do not have access to the 2008 UNESCO publication (in French); it is cited in a few places in Stavros (2014) but not in a way that implies anything immediately useful for the present article; and
  • Stavros (2014) is an interesting summary of Kyoto's urban development over a 1000-year period. But as a consequence its wide focus it has rather limited material devoted to Heian period and even smaller part of that is devoted on the palace. Essentially everything (and much more) is covered in the already inline-cited sources. And indeed, McCullough's article in Cambridge History of Japan (vol. 2) appears to be the primary source for the palace (and much else relating to the Heian period) in Stavros's book. Additional inline citations to this book would become indirect references to the already cited sources (which themselves rely on much Japanese primary research).
In summary, the four listed "Further reading" items are best left as they are, not used for detailed citations. And in fact the 1925 article could be just as well removed: it is very hard to find and does not add much to what is said in the other sources. Stca74 (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Close as Keep. Thanks for resolving these. My personal opinion on Further reading in FAs is that, if it can't be used in the article, it probably shouldn't be listed in an FR section, but this is an opinion so it won't bar me from endorsing a keep for this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article needs a copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I see you have carried out a good number of copyedits (big thanks!) yesterday both before and after your comment here; do you consider this task now completed? If not, would be willing to carry it out to your satisfaction? Stca74 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No and no ... first, I'm not among our top copyeditors, second, I am running way behind because of a sprained wrist, and finally, I only corrected what I was able, but noticed that everywhere I looked I saw things that needed fixin. I hope a more able copyeditor than I am can get to it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: What would you propose? I can of course take another shot at copyediting myself, but given that it's mostly my own text, I'm likely to remain as blind to some issues as I have been before. Do you have in mind an active copyeditor to solicit to the task? Stca74 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to worry; someone will come along. I wonder if John or Firefangledfeathers would be interested; they both have very competent prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the compliment! I'd be happy to help. To the table, I can bring my currently erratic schedule and near-total ignorance of the topic! John, if you have more time, knowledge, or passion, feel free to brush me aside. I'll start coordinating with Stca74 at talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Awesome :) Even on a Really Sucky Day, FAR can be such a nice place! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SandyGeorgia and Firefangledfeathers: Thanks both! I'll jump to continue at the talk page. Stca74 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm going to decline on doing a copyedit either - I'm an Ozarks hick and pretty much everything I write needs significant copyediting. Hog Farm Talk 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Work ongoing on article talk: @Firefangledfeathers and Stca74: pls let this page know when you're ready for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will do! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Firefangledfeathers knocking on your door (recognize how busy you are :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Come on in! Sorry about the mess. Yes, my feet have been dragging a little. Give me another week to either push through the rest or wave my white flag (it's technically a handkerchief). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: First: big thanks for the help on the article!
I have now rechecked your notes and questions in the articles talk page. The ones I had not addressed and/or commented already were checking for definitions of Japanese terms and italicisation; I've now gone through both, and made a few edits. I also made some minor language edits and clarifications. Unless you (or someone else) comes up with new items or new comments on my edits & comments, I have for the moment no remaining edits to make. Stca74 (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caesar cipher[edit]

Notified: Matt Crypto, Hut 8.5, WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2022-09-01

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as pointed out by Hog Farm in September, this article has large amounts of uncited text and a history section whose prose is disconnected. I agree with this assessment, and I would add that I think the lede needs to be expanded, its usage needs to be updated (as the last entry is from 2011) and a search for additional sources might be warranted. Z1720 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm not going to try to address this, as I have basically no chance of doing so, but the idea that the usage section needs updating is laughable. The Caesar cipher is incredibly insecure and can be broken easily by small children. Caesar used it against people who largely couldn't read. Anybody who uses it to protect any information in the present day would have to be extremely stupid. While the cipher is often used as an introductory example in cryptography works, I doubt the kind of sourcing coverage expected actually exists. Hut 8.5 07:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the Caesar cipher has no practical usage, so there would be no relevant update to the usage section unless it was to include examples of inept conspirators/criminals using it. Simply doing an exhaustion with 26 attempts at trial and error will knock it down Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also agree. I'm not really sure what this FAR is about... there are a few unrerefernced statements, but I doubt it will be too hard to find verifications for those. Otherwise it seems like a decent well-written summary of the topic. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there's no expectation for updating because this isn't used anymore, but this if probably one of the least organized FA's I've ever read. We go from the Caesars to Al-Kindi to the mezuzah to personal ads to WWI Russia etc. I don't think something that's basically just a list of examples would ever pass FAC today. Hog Farm Talk 13:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's realistically possible to write a History section for this topic which doesn't jump around like that because that's all you've got to work with. The Caesar cipher doesn't have a continuous record of usage to describe, just isolated examples of where somebody used it for something. Hut 8.5 16:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the concerns when I was nominating the article was the lack of sources used. Bauer is listed in the bibliography but is not cited. Should it be added in? I have also found some other sources through WP:LIBRARY whose inclusion I think should be considered, especially because of the short length of the article:

Hopefully this will help expand the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all the mere fact the article is short is not necessarily a problem. It is a small topic. The features article criteria only say that the article needs to be comprehensive (neglects no major facts or details). I don't see any argument here that the article neglects major facts or details. Of the sources you've linked to:
  • "Historical Ciphers and Ancient Languages" is a brief overview of this history of cryptography which mentions the Caesar cipher as an example. It does not contain anything which is not in the article.
  • "Early Medieval Cryptography, Textual Errors, and Scribal Agency" is about several early medieval manuscripts which use cryptograms, and it mentions that some of them are encrypted with the Caesar cipher. For details on this readers are referred to David Kahn's The Codebreakers, one of the main sources used for the Wikipedia article. While we could mention these manuscripts as another example in this History section it's not something which could be used to deliver a substantial expansion of the article. The source is largely interested in fine textual details of the manuscripts and mistakes made by the scribes, which are well out of scope here.
  • "The Mathematics of Secrets Cryptography from Caesar Ciphers to Digital Encryption", to judge from the Google Books preview, uses the Caesar cipher as an introductory example. Books on cryptography often use it for this purpose because it's easy to understand and because it can be used to illustrate important concepts. I'm sure you could find quite a few other similar books which use it as an introductory example like this, but they don't add anything to what's in the article.
Hut 8.5 12:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hut 8.5: Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I agree that a short article is not necessarily a problem. When an article is short, I try to find additional sources to ensure that the article meets the 1b comprehensive requirements of WP:FA? If none are found, then I can be confident that the article is comprehensive. However, I found some sources after a quick search, outlined above, and there were some aspects that could be added to the article (like the Medieval information). Since it is a shorter article, adding information is not as much of a concern and I think should be considered. I also think a search for more sources should be made to see if there is information to add to the History section that could prevent the large gaps that currently exist in that section. Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may well be possible to come up with some more obscure examples of usage, like that one medieval manuscript, but that doesn't mean the article fails 1b, which says only that the article should neglect no major facts or details (not neglect any facts or details). I don't think the article is missing any major facts or details. Adding more isolated/obscure examples to the History section would also make it more disconnected, which is something else you've objected to. If you don't think the article meets 1b then I would expect you to at the very least point to aspects which should be covered in greater detail. Instead it looks like you Googled it and posted whatever came up. Hut 8.5 18:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close without FARC: the initial nomination raised problems of sourcing and comprehensiveness; I can see no remnant of these problems in the article. Perhaps I would recommend one or two more sentences in the lead, but I do not believe that to be any more than a personal preference. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hanford Site[edit]

Notified: Northwesterner1, WP Milhist, WP History of Science, WP Washington, WP Environment, WP NRH, WP Oregon, WP Science Policy, talk page notice 2022-07-01

This is a 2008 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; it's main writer has not edited since 2009. Other than DrKay, there are no recent active editors maintaining it. As mentioned on talk on 2022-07-01, the lead is too long, the article is dated, and recent scholarly sources have not been consulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am willing to take on the task of maintaining the article as it is part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/History of the Manhattan Project. However, I am on vacation at present and will not have access to my books for another week. List the issues that we have with the article and I will make the required changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The three main things are listed on talk:
  1. The lead is too long and needs a rewrite.
  2. There is very dated material and a new report out that hasn't even been consulted (basically, the main editor hasn't touched the article, so a top-to-bottom update is needed)
  3. A google scholar search is linked on talk, and recent scholarly articles need to be checked to see if further updates are needed.
No problem waiting ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Please feel free to ping me when you get to it. I would like to pitch in as well, I won't be able to work on it at all until Thursday, sounds like maybe we are on a similar schedule. Important article, I worked on it a bit during the FA push, and I readily concede that I haven't paid much attention to it for years. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will do! Thank you! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hawkeye7 and Peteforsyth: since the original writer wasn't following, I've gone through the talk page to archive the old, but there are several threads I've left on talk that need to be reviewed as to whether there is merit or those items were addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: I posted at Talk:Hanford_Site#National_Historic_Landmark_sourcing,_NRHP_docs my suggestion to cite the actual National Historic Landmark Nomination document, rather than just the "NHL summary" webpage (which has been taken offline anyhow, though there's a copy at Wayback machine). Content in the 48-page document should be used, I would think. It was written and edited by respectable persons, with credits to 2 writers and 2 editors on page 48. --Doncram (talk) 06:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update, Hawkeye7 is at work on this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Would anyone object if I altered the reference format to match the rest of the Manhattan Project articles ie put the books down the bottom and use {{sfn}}? I find the ref/rp format (not used consistently) creates very long citations that look like .[3]: 70–74 [4][5]: 2.4–2.6. The use of sfn also means that the software will verify that all the book references have page numbers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd go along with that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A series of chemical processing steps separated the small amount of plutonium that was produced from the remaining uranium and the fission waste products. Do we know what chemistry they used in those days? PUREX? It would be an interesting thing for the article to contain. John (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Three different processes were developed: the bismuth-phosphate process was used during the war; the REDOX process was developed during the war and deployed in 1947; and the PUREX process, which was used from 1952 to 1992. I have added this on my list of things to add to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update I have decided to split the article. I am creating a new subarticle (Hanford Engineer Works) that will contain the wartime period. This will match and have the same structure as Clinton Engineer Works. This article in turn will gain additional material about the Cold War period. The sources bemoan that Hanford has not received the same coverage as Oak Ridge or Los Alamos. On Wikipedia the fault is mine; because this article was already featured, it never appeared on my work list. But I did gather material on it, and am working on it now. This may take a bit of time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hawkeye7 progress update ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The new subarticle is progressing nicely, and should be complete in the next few days. I will return to this one, cut back the World War II section that I started to expand, and carry on with the post-war period, for which I have assembled the source material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The new article (Hanford Engineer Works) has been moved to the mainspace and submitted to DYK for review. I have now returned to this article. The World War II section will be rebuilt, references added and some factual errors corrected. The Cold War expansion will be expanded. The final section looks okay; it just needs some updating. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Further note on progress Finished World War II and Cold War should be done in a day or two. Down to Decommissioning. The rest of the article should proceed more rapidly. The main effort in the final sections will be bringing them up to date. I have added some new images, including a nice colour map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Finished Back to reviewers again. The major changes are:
    1. Manhattan Project section forked off into its own article
    2. Cold War section added, with deatils of separation processes
    3. Later operartions section rewritten
    4. Decommissioning section rewritten
    5. New images added, including a more colourful map
    6. New sources added
    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Weird thing with a caption: "Large bulldozers remove buried pieces of pipe filled with contaminated waste", which the source also phrases similarly. But the equipment pictured is fairly clearly backhoe loaders, not bulldozers. Hog Farm Talk 14:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Does this do the trick? (Clearly not a bulldozer.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I think that's a satisfactory solution. I'll try to revisit this article more in-depth after Thanksgiving week. Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we close this review now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finally back home; let me try to get a chance to read through this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 14:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same ... I have not read through and will have time in about one week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is there any way to update the data in the climate table? It no longer matches the record high noted immediately afterward ...
    I've updated the records to 2021 from a new source [13] Unfortunately, the source gives 118 as the temperature on 29 June 2021. As it seems that the record was officially updated in December, I have adjusted that entry in the table accordingly. All the other figures are from the source. Note that the new averages are for 1991-2020. This is normal these days, due to global warming. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " the PUREX plant in 1997, " - is this distinct from the PUREX facility closed in 1972? It isn't particularly clear
    Yes. I have added a bit to make it more explicit: "The PUREX plant reopened in 1983 to reprocess N Reactor reactor-grade fuel into weapon-grade fuel. This ended in December 1988, and it returned to standby status in October 1990... the PUREX plant closed for good in 1997" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "but electricity tariffs had to be increased to repay the bond holders" - tariff generally indicates an import/export situation. Are we sure that's the best wording here?
    Electricity charges are called tariffs. Linked to electricity tariff. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Less so in the United States (although I am from a different region than Hanford), but that's better. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Concentrations of radionuclides including tritium, technetium‑99, and iodine‑129 in riverbank springs near the Hanford townsite have generally been increasing since 1994. This is an area where a major groundwater plume from the 200 East Area intercepts the river ... Detected radionuclides include strontium‑90, technetium‑99, iodine‑129, uranium‑234, -235, and -238, and tritium. Other detected contaminants include arsenic, chromium, chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and sulfate - this is a direct quote from the (public domain) source. It's not a copyvio, but needs to be more clearly indicated as such
    Reformatted as a quotation, with page numbers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not seeing many issues besides these above, I anticipate supporting this being kept once the above are addressed. Hog Farm Talk 05:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm at a close without FARC here. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope to be able to get through this week, but at a quick glance, I don't understand the placement of Climate so predominantly (early in the article) ... is it necessary for understanding the rest of the article, or can it be moved down ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't move it; it is where it has always been. It seems to be in a logical place. The article starts with geography, the climate follows, and then the history. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still reading, but I cannot (yet) find where the article explicitly states (from the lead) that "Many early safety procedures and waste disposal practices were inadequate, resulting in the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River" ... would it be better as "Many early safety procedures and waste disposal practices resulted in the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prose:

  • "Treaties were signed, but were often ignored, as the reservation system was not compatible with their traditional food-gathering or family groupings" ... their refers back to treaties ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Do we need this decimal precision? "In all 4,218 tracts totaling 428,203.95 acres (173,287.99 ha) were to be acquired," SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:SIZE: at almost 11,000 words of readable prose, I'm watching for places to trim.

  • This passage seems wordier than necessary (a lot of space to say work was delayed to save crops in the field): "Most of the land (some 88 percent) was sagebrush, where eighteen to twenty thousand sheep grazed. About eleven percent was farmland, although not all was under cultivation. Farmers felt that they should be compensated for the value of the crops they had planted as well as for the land itself.[38] Because construction plans had not yet been drawn up, and work on the site could not immediately commence, Groves decided to postpone the taking of the physical possession of properties under cultivation to allow farmers to harvest the crops they had already planted. This reduced the hardship on the farmers, and avoided the wasting of food at a time when the nation was facing food shortages and the federal government was urging citizens to plant victory gardens.[39][40] The War Department arranged with Federal Prison Industries for crops to be harvested by prisoners from the McNeil Island Penitentiary.[41][42]"
  • Do we need this level of detail? "Barracks construction commenced on April 6, 1943, and" ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I always use specific dates when available. They help readers who are searching for specific information, and those who want to paraphrase the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can this be trimmed ? "DuPont put the contract for building the village of Richland out to tender, and the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder, G. Albin Pehrson, on March 16, 1943. " TO ... DuPont awarded the contract for building the village of Richland to the lowest bidder, G. Albin Pehrson, on March 16, 1943. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The point here is that DuPont let the contract, whereas at Oak Ridge (and elsewhere) the Army would have. This is an important difference between Hanford and the other sites. The reader could guess, but better to be explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done a fair bit of editing myself, but am not entirely comfortable doing so; it does seem that the prose could be tightened throughout. It might be good to have a new set of eyes run through and have a look for areas where prose might be trimmed and tightened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My suggestion would be that they are most likely to be found in the final three sections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment: I did a ce of the article. Some comments below:

  • The "Growth of Richmond" section is quite large, and I'm struggling to understand the connection between the demographics and incorporation of the city with the site. Perhaps this information would be better if it was in the city's article, and the information more effectively summarised?
    The Richland township was part of the Hanford Site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I suggest splitting up the larger sections to make easier reading, especially in the "Plutonium production", "Expansion" and "Cleanup under Superfund". I usually recommend 3-4 paragraphs per section.
    The MOS notes that there is no consensus about this. Split them up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some other thoughts below:

  • "Wahluke Slope" section starts with "Immediately outside the Hanford Site lay an area known as the Wahluke Slope." This makes me think that this section does not concern the Hanford Site and maybe can be removed. This would be like if the article on Toronto had a section describing Mississauga: the latter city is not within the borders of the former so I would be confused as to why it is there.
    As the article notes, it is flanked by the site. The bounds of the site are somewhat elastic, and there were issues about how safe the surrounding area was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Tritium, polonium‑210, thulium-170, iridium-192 and uranium-233 were also produced.[139][158][159][160][161]" Are all five citations necessary here, or can some be removed? If not, should it be WP:CITEBUNDLE?
    The first one covers the first four isotopes, so moved in. The last four remain, per WP:CITEBUNDLE; they are all about uranium-233 production. For some reason this was secret and very controversial. Uranium-233 is nasty stuff; ignore the people on the internet touting it.
  • "It was shut down in 2008.[196][199][200][201]" Are all of these citations necessary here? Can they be spread throughout the paragraph, or citebundled?
    I really weaved these together tightly. Split up a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "In 2016 it was announced that gravitational waves had been detected.[206][207][208][209]" Another possible removal or citebundle of the refs.
  • "It began producing power in May 1984.[199][211][212][213][214]" Another one.
    Split citation again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I encourage that the sources listed in "Further reading" be used as sources for inline citations, or removed if they are not high-quality or do not add contributions to the article.
  • All three are high quality works
    1. Findlay and Bruce (2011) is an updated version of their 1995 book, which is extensively used in the article. It would be easy enough to replace one of the 1995 citations with a 2011 one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    2. I haven't read Olsen (2020) but it has good reviews. It is also very recent, and so may be easier for the reder to obtain a copy. Another editor used it in the article but without page numbers so I moved it to the Further Reading. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    3. Pope is all about the Washington Public Power Supply System. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Z1720 and SandyGeorgia: What concerns remain outstanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep Comments above were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
responding to ping, while looking in to how to trim, I see there is a citation needed tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FFTF has its own article, so that para can be trimmed, but I can't sort this sentence, so aborted trim:
  • Nonetheless, the FFTF continued to operate until generating plutonium‑238 for nuclear power sources for NASA space missions and tritium for nuclear fusion research. Missing word ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another source of contaminated food is the first mention of contaminated food in this section:
  • Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish, an impact felt disproportionately by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets.[219] Radiation was later measured 200 miles (320 km) downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts. it was estimated that a person who had daily eaten 2.2 pounds (1.00 kg) of fish caught at Richland would have received an additional radiation dose of 1,300 millirems per year.[220] Screens and fish ladders were used to protect wildlife.[citation needed] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ah ha, we get cows in the next para ... These radionuclides entered the food chain via dairy cows grazing on contaminated fields ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opportunities to trim content remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Could we get an update on status here? Have Sandy's concerns been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

El Lissitzky[edit]

Notified: all wikiprojects, plus relevant editors,[14] talk page notice May 22, 2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because uncited text and other issues identified by Extraordinary Writ have not been addressed (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I will take a look in a week or so. I have several good sources, so this hopefully shouldn't be the problem. Will be updating here, though please do not expect a fast resolution of all issues, I'm really busy in RL now. (I made only few minor edits to the article before, so if someone who done more work is willing to do it, you are certainly welcome!) Artem.G (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sourcing here is probably the worst I saw in any FA! Half are not reliable (at least by my standards), half is too old, almost nothing available online. Will try to find newer sources, will take longer than I expected. Besides, a lot of sections need expansion and ce. Artem.G (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Artem.G you haven't edited this since 7 August; shall we proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm working on an overhaul in my sandbox, will update the article in the next couple of weeks. Artem.G (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: got two important lengthy sources through Resource Request, work is ongoing. I'm also planning to ask somebody knowledgeable in arts to look through the article after the rewrite, as it is generally not my topic. Artem.G (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Artem.G, could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still working on it. I got really busy irl, but expect to return to it in a week or two. Turned out I greatly underestimate how much should be reworked. Artem.G (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC: work seems to have stalled (last edit was early September, and the last significant progress was in August) and there are still uncited passages throughout. This move does not prevent a later "Keep" declaration, nor prevent further work from continuing in the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Move to FARC per above. (t · c) buidhe 17:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Artem.G seems to still be making plenty of progress in his sandbox, so I don't think it'll hurt if we hold in FAR for a bit longer. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the work is still in progress. I also asked Aza24 for help on further copyediting as they are much more experienced in FA than I am; hope to show the final draft to maybe few more people after completion. Artem.G (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Aza
Some comments on User:Artem.G/sandbox3
Thanks a lot!
  • Kamczycki 2003 & Druker & Kümmerling-Meibauer 2005 refs are broken
    • Will fix later today or tomorrow.
  • Infobox needs some works; he's known for his art, not specifically being a part of those two groups, right?
    • I didn't work on the infobox yet, was thinking to update it and the lead after the draft is finished.
  • I still don't find most of the quotes necessary, I think they can mostly be summed up in prose, particularly the early years quote, which seems undue
    • I think it can be reduced - will move part of it to note.
  • More soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The family quote is interesting but seems out of place and too specific for a general overview WP article. Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would remove the family quote (possibly put it in a note?) and then combine the first and second paragraphs of early life. Aza24 (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Will move it to note as I think that the quote is useful - it shows how his family was both religious (his mother) and secular (his father, who travelled to the US and translated Shakespeare), and how (probably) it affected Lissitzky. This quote is also used in many sources on Lissitzky, so it seems that many researchers find it important.
  • Is the "He also worked as a bricklayer..." line saying that he made drawings of the interior and decorations of Jewish historical sites in general, or the Worms Synagogue specifically? Aza24 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Worms synagogue is mentioned in all sources, so.e mention it among other unnamed Jewish historical sites. Artem.G (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status, work ongoing in sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Work ongoing in sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm looking through for the sandbox draft and will provide some comments. After which, we should be good to move Artem's new content to the mainspace and work from there. Aza24 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot! Artem.G (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments on finalized draft
  • Starting to read through—I'm not sure that any of the Japanese influence is connected directly with Lissitzky to warrant inclusion. Aza24 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea was to show that Lissitzky influenced not only Soviet and European artists, but also people much farther from Berlin and Moscow. One of the Mavo's members created works called "Proun D" and "Construction F", Lissitzky also sent Merz to Murayama Tomoyoshi. The paragraph can be trimmed, though I think the influence is direct - naming the work "Proun" in 1920s, for example. Artem.G (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Early years
  • If you're not going to include "22/23" in the lead for his birthdate, it should probably just be 23 in the prose and the note explains the discrepancy.
done
  • Anything you could link "trade agent" to?
I can think only of merchant or Merchant guild (Russian Empire), but I saw nowhere that he was a member of the guild.
  • Since it's a quote, the "earned extra money" line needs a ref right next to, even if its the same as Kantsedikas 2017, pp. 15–16
done
  • The last paragraph of Early years could use some work to sound less robotic ("In [year]... In [year]... etc)
kinda done
Jewish period
  • Shouldn't the "Lissitzky spent a lot of time" paragraph be built into the early years section? and indeed the next paragraph as well
it can be done, but I was trying to show here that Lissitzky's Jewish roots can be traced to his childhood and youth, so it seemed logical to place it here. If you think it'll be better to move it to Early years, I'll move it.
  • I feel that Perloff doesn't need to be directly quoted and that information can be rephrased and sourced normally
half-done. moved the Pale out of quote, preserve Perloff's quote on Pale's influence on Lissitzky
  • I assume "fix on photo" means document? I've changed it to such
thanks!
  • I don't think the large caption quote for the mural is warranted, there's already enough quoted material in the corresponding prose
moved to note
  • All the description on the yingl story (i.e. the info about the story specifically, unrelated to Lissitzky) does not seem warranted
trimed, quote removed, part of the description moved to note.
  • More soon—by the way, I'm thinking the Scholarly assessment and legacy sections should end up being combined (and less quotes there!) Aza24 (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot! I've got covid again, and will address all the comments later. (I may occasionally revert some vandalism, but wouldn't be very active for a week or so.) Artem.G (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, thanks a lot for great comments, Aza24! I'm back, and will try to finish the Lissitzky rewrite in a reasonable time - it took to much of my time and energy, but after a break I think I can proceed for a while :) I tried to address all your points, please let me know what do you think. Artem.G (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking better for sure, I'll try to read more this week. Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Somehow missed the message - I took a pause in that rewrite, but will continue the work. Aza is not very active now, but once they'll be back I'll be happy to work together. Artem.G (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

George F. Kennan[edit]

Notified: A. S. Brown, Nishkid64, 172 (banned), A455bcd9, WP Bio, WP International relations, WP Politics, talk page notice 2022-12-09

Review section[edit]

This is a 2005 promotion that is not maintained, and has considerable (contentious) uncited text (suggestive that deeper POV problems may be lurking), as well as MOS issues and HarvRef errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three recent sources: listed, but not used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, neutrality and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Satyajit Ray[edit]

Notified: Shmitra (last edit was 2009), LM150, Dwaipayanc, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject India, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Screenwriters, 2022-10-22

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous unsourced statements in the article and unused references. Secondary concerns include missing information in references (mostly author names in articles) and a long Careers section that can be more effectively formatted. Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will need a herculean effort to salvage the star but I am up for it, if somebody collaborates. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have rather a lot on my plate at the moment and don't want to make commitments I cannot keep, but I thought it worth mentioning that we have a lot of very active editors writing about Indian films; perhaps pinging them individually may help. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vanamonde93: I am not familiar with this area of Wikipedia. Any editors that you think can be pinged and made aware of this FAR? Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Utcursch and Cyphoidbomb: are the ones I'm familiar with, but I'd look for experienced and active contributors listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Participants. I could do this myself but not today, I'm afraid. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TrangaBellam:, interested to collaborate? I can try to rope in some others also. Can start slowly.Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:32, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Indian movies FA writers produce some of the worst claptrap there is on WP. They appear at each others' FACs and give easy passes. Doing it for years. Movies and media FAs are poor quality to begin with. This is a vital article, it shouldn't be inflicted to prose honed on Bollywood's bimbos. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Between @TrangaBellam, RegentsPark, Abecedare, Dwaipayanc, and Shshshsh:, there is enough experience and writing history to do a good job. Dwaipayan is the nominator of Pather Panchali. My only disagreement with him there is the fragment: "establishing Ray as one of the country's most distinguished filmmakers." for he is one of the world's greats, a "giant of world cinema," as the NPR tribute—that I heard on the car radio on the eve of his academy award—put it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know if @Ragib: is around. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:11, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also @Titodutta: Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:13, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And also @JohnWickTwo, Grapple X, and Casliber: whom I remember from the Kurosawa FAC, which to my abiding shame, I never got around to improving enough with my comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Z1720: Thanks for the nomination.The article certainly need improvement to maintain FA status. We are in the initial/pre-initial (!) stage to plan a collaborative effort to improve it. This project would need a lo...ng time. That's why I am writing this message. I'd expect 6 months, perhaps more. Let's see how we move along. Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dwaipayanc: I am fine with this remaining at FAR as long as the co-ords are OK with it and improvements continue. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Update Nov 2022 I am working slowly, starting from the "Background" section. Basically, adding/modifying material sourced from the biography authored by Robinson, making sure most sentences are referenced.--Dwaipayan (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Z1720 (talk · contribs), you mentioned " a long Careers section that can be more effectively formatted" as an issue. I have been thinking about how to re-format. Do you have any suggestions/idea? I looked at the article on Charlie Chaplin, in which the major films have been discussed in greater details. We do not have such degree of details in Ray article. So, not sure following Chaplin pattern would be good. Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, actually it may work. I a trying in this sandbox. Dwaipayan (talk) 21:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Dwaipayanc: This is great work. I would avoid the level 4 headings that are only one paragraph long, per WP:OVERSECTION and just merge those sections together. I like the split for "Song of the Little Road" Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC Work seems to have stalled, uncited statements are still present, no response to the above update requested. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Supernova[edit]

Notified: Lithopsian, Headbomb, RJHall, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Solar System, talk page notice 2022-02-06

Review section[edit]

Like what Hog Farm said. Just like Planet, this article also contains a lot of unsourced statements and is outdated. Nearly everything needs to be rewritten/expanded on other sections. BloatedBun (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. There are some instances of "a press release happened" (e.g., On 1 June 2020, astronomers reported...), and some paragraphs are uncited, but it looks in much better shape than Planet is or Solar System and Mars were. The uncited material looks like standard all-the-books-said-this stuff; it should be fairly easy to source and to update where necessary.
Unfortunately, with FARs of Solar System, Mars, 90377 Sedna, and Planet all ongoing already, our astronomy community is going to get spread pretty thin. Can't be helped, I suppose. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, the first step for a FAR is to raise the issues on the talk page at first. I don't see where that was done here. I'm not a FAR expert, but this seems like a premature FAR listing. I also agree with XOR'easter's caution about overwhelming the astronomy community. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talk:Supernova#WP:URFA/2020. I thought I'd replied that I would try to find citations if the problem areas were pointed out, but nothing there. Maybe I'm thinking of a different article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. With the cryptic title "WP:URFA/2020", I missed that section. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
URFA... Ultimate Robot Fighting Association? :-)
My current thinking on the citation front is to aim for the DYK standard of at least ~1 per paragraph, for convenience. A mix of textbooks and review articles would probably be adequate to cover the contents of an article like this, which is mostly about providing the kind of background knowledge that everybody in the field learns early on. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WP:FAR coordinators: and @BloatedBun, Lithopsian, XOR'easter, and Mark viking: - Given the concerns about overwhelming the astronomy project and the fact that this is the 5th (!) FAR on this subject matter area, would it be best to place this FAR on hold, and then re-open in a month or two once some of the others have (hopefully) been closed? Hog Farm Talk 19:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot to mention that there was also talk of bring Hubble Space Telescope to FAR, though we put in some work since then and the conversation seems to have fallen off. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. Putting this FAR on hold until some of the other astronomical FARs have concluded is a good option. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not fussed either way. If I see working being done at an FAR, we often leave the review open for months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Others and Hog Farm. Since XOR has retired, I seriously doubt this one will be improved, including Planet. BloatedBun (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's see if someone else would be able to pick it up before just slinging this one to be delisted; it's not going to be me since I know nothing of the topic and am at the verge of burnout myself. Hog Farm Talk 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I've made a second start with adding more references. I think every section except "Current models" is OK, with every paragraph except for a few introductions having at least one reference and usually several. Shame Current models is about half the article! Lithopsian (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm willing to volunteer to improve this article. The talk page criticsms are so vague that I can't make out what improvements are needed. Please detail the specific references or statements that need to be corrected and there are contributors willing to work through them. --mikeu talk 05:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not vague enough thou. There are too many unsourced statements and some short paragraohs should be formatted. That's all. BloatedBun (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
mikeu: there are a couple uncited paragraphs in "Type II", one in "Type Ib and Ic", one in "Light curves", six in "Energy output", and three in "Progenitor". Nothing leaps out at me as inaccurate — the people who wrote the text in the first place probably knew what they were doing! — but I'm not a specialist and may have overlooked something. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@XOR'easter: Yes, it does look like someone knowledgeable wrote this. Those notes you left are very helpuful. I've started working through the list.[15][16][17] --mikeu talk 23:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is image sandwiching and images placed at bottoms of sections. What date format is in use ? (I see three different ones). There is overlinking; user:Evad37/duplinks-alt can be installed to evaluate them (some repeat links are useful, judgment is needed). The prose does not seem to have deteriorated. That's all I've looked at so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed the duplicated links with a view to replacing some when the article is close to being FA standard again. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Praemonitus:

  • The "Observation history" section of the Supernova article discusses supernovae types before they have been covered by the "Classification" section. For this reason I think the "Observation history" section should be moved down below "Classification". It could possibly go before the "Current models" section. Praemonitus (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure why "Observation history" and "Discovery" are separate sections; they read like one big section that should be organized chronologically. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They even point to the same main article. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took a crack at merging the two sections, performing some re-organization in the process. Praemonitus (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good; thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I went through the references and performed various cleanups for consistency. An inaccessible reference was removed and another replaced. Praemonitus (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The inclusion criteria for the table with the caption "Historical supernovae" is unclear. It includes modern supernovae, supernovae outside the local group, but not the brightest modern supernovae. Praemonitus (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think drop the 1979 and 2014 entries. That leaves a fairly comprehensive list up to 1680, plus S Andromedae in 1885 and SN1987A. Maybe drop one or two of the uncertain old ones? The 386 event doesn't have an article and it is uncertain if it was even a supernova. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, for now I just constrained it to the Local Group. Praemonitus (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Observation history" section discusses the supernovae type of "SN 2016gkg" before types have been explained. I'm not clear that the last three paragraphs of the section are even needed here. They are more like "Recent findings" of a mildly significant nature. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People do like to tack on the latest piece of "exciting" news they read. Usually it isn't something of longterm of hirtorical importance. I agree it could be pruned. Or even better, expanded but with the emphasis on discoveries of more lasting significance, probably mainly older ones. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took the action of trimming back the last, rather bloated paragraph. Praemonitus (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good move. Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Non-standard Type Ia" section appears to need some work. It could use a proper introduction, not just a series of cases. Clarification is lacking in many paragraphs. For example, the sentence that begins "Abnormally bright type Ia supernovae occur" is a muddle. Praemonitus (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could be my fault. I don't really know a lot about Type Ias and even less about the peculiar ones, so that is a pretty weak area. Unfortunately type Ia supernova isn't much help. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I rewrote that particularly muddled sentence, but the subsection is still choppy. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A reference that may be useful: Gal-Yam, Avishay (2017). "Observational and Physical Classification of Supernovae". Handbook of Supernovae. Springer. pp. 195–237. arXiv:1611.09353. Bibcode:2017hsn..book..195G. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_35. ISBN 978-3-319-21845-8. OCLC 1016955731. Section 2.2 is about "Peculiar Type Ia Supernovae". XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing a common definition of the "Non-Standard Type Ia" supernovae. The double white dwarf model just appears to be the standard second model. Hence I changed the section name. Praemonitus (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the benefit of including the illustration with the caption "Artist's impression of supernova 1993J". What information is it meant to convey? Praemonitus (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice image, but there are lots of other nice, and real, images. Type IIb supernova in M81, so a little unusual, mentioned in the text, but the image doesn't really add anything. SN 1993J has an article, so I wikilinked the caption, but it is wikilinked in the text and the image is in the linked article. Lithopsian (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The statement, "Extremely luminous stars at near solar metallicity will lose all their hydrogen before they reach core collapse and so will not form a type II supernova" is then followed by the "Type Ib and Ic" where a supernova forms that has lost its hydrogen. This is ambiguous. Is the statement just saying it can't be a type II? Or that it can't form a supernova period? This and the following sentence are unsourced, it appears. Praemonitus (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just that any supernova won't be type II. The reference after the first sentence of the paragraph can confirm this. Also, it is something of an unsolved problem whether stars higher than the cutoff mass for producing a type II supernova will produce any supernova at all. Some or all of them may produce a type Ib or Ic, or neither. The referenced paper is dedicated to this problem. Lithopsian (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I rewrote it slightly so that is clear. Praemonitus (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Although the energy that disrupts each type of supernovae is delivered promptly, the light curves are dominated by subsequent radioactive heating of the rapidly expanding ejecta." Huh? The word "disrupts" doesn't quite make sense. Praemonitus (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is referring to the initial implosion/explosion. That is a *very* rapid event, with gravitational potential energy causing heating and photodisintegration followed by enormous neutrino generation and (somehow) the conversion of the initial inward collapse into an outward explosion all within seconds, but the material that is ejected into space then radiates for various reasons for months or years. Radioactivity from isotopes created during supernova nucleosynthesis in that very rapid implosion/explosion is one of the dominant sources of that electromagnetic radiation. Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I modified it slightly for clarify. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The intensely radioactive nature of the ejecta gases, which is now known to be correct for most supernovae, was first calculated on sound nucleosynthesis grounds in the late 1960s." What does 'correct' mean here? Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Correct" would presumably mean that it has been verified, observed, and become consensus understanding. It was none of these things in the 1960s. Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I re-ordered the sentence for clarity. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? What issues remain outstanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Frankly, an FAR by a blocked sock puppet is a bit of a stretch for a continuation. If nobody provides additional feedback, I motion to close the FAR. The article seems to be in decent shape. It's an active field though, so it may need to come back at some point. Praemonitus (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • An image in the Early discoveries section about 1414 text is uncited and contains text not mentioned in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Citation added by Lithopsian. XOR'easter (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are unspaced WP:EMDASHES in the text, yet a spaced WP:ENDASH in this section heading; which is used (consistency)? And I adjusted the section heading per WP:MSH to avoid repeating a level higher heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A random look at text (in a section my eyes fell upon only because it had a faulty use of Bolding):
    Because these supernovae arise from dim, common white dwarf stars in binary systems, it is likely that a supernova that can affect the Earth will occur unpredictably and in a star system that is not well studied. The closest known candidate is IK Pegasi (see below).[186] ... "not well studied", followed by a vague "See below" (no link or section name to indicate where or what below), and citation from 2007 .. still "not well studied"? This is followed by a sentence that starts with "recent estimates" (MOS:CURRENT) that is cited to 2003.

So just based on that very cursory look, this FAR should not be closed. I'm sympathetic to the problem of nominators who don't participate in the FARs they nom, but at the end of the day, we are sometime going to have to deal with dozens of non-compliant planet FAs in a WikiProject that has declined and become inactive, and I'd not like to start a precedent that we're going to accept deficient planetary FAs because of those circumstances.

Move to FARC, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "not well studied" applies as much now as it did when the line was written, because it's referring to a category of stars that are generally not well studied. I've tweaked the phrasing elsewhere in that paragraph. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by a455bc9:

Two of them now have in-caption attribution, and the third looks fixable but will need a little work. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I've just added the references to Commons as well (see File:SNIacurva.png and File:SNIIcurva.svg). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the third one, some curves are already on Commons and sourced, such as: File:SN 2002cx Lightcurve.svg, File:SAndLightCurve.png, File:SN1987ALightCurve.png, File:Sn2006gy light curve.jpg, and File:Supernovae lightcurves.svg. We could use one of those and/or "merge them" into one graph. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought about swapping out the image with the last one you mentioned, but I think I was able to find adequate sources for the plot the article currently uses. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Moving this as it appears to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's only "stalled" because the problems identified above have been fixed, and nobody has been pointing out more. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Schellenberg[edit]

Notified: Raymond Palmer, Gog the Mild, WP Milhist, WP Germany, talk page notice, 2022-12-2 and 2023-01-01

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion whose main editor has not edited since 2007. As detailed on talk, there are sourcing, comprehensiveness, prose, and MOS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose/style. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inner German border[edit]

Notified: [18], talk page notice Nov 2022

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of sourcing and comprehensiveness concerns outlined in my talk page notice. (t · c) buidhe 10:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Comment. I reserve the right to be wrong on this, but on inspection, I don't really see the issue? Responding to the four points raised on the talk page... Unsourced content is the biggest concern, but there doesn't appear to be any currently. Now, if you did some spot checks and it turns out that the citations are only covering one minor point and other unsourced info snuck into the paragraph, that is concerning, so if you did that feel free to say so - but just based on basic inspection, it seems fine. Older sources are fine to "flesh out" details, so that doesn't appear to be a huge issue either - there are substantive books cited written as late as 2008 (makes sense, since it was a 2009 promotion), so as long as the editors weren't citing old sources for claims that are in contention with modern sources, it shouldn't be problematic. (And they're not even *that* old, 1970 and some 1980s for the ones that get cited some, and the 1970 book is by a respected British journalist.) On the Cold War / Western Bloc angle, I don't see any wild bits of bias - Stacy 1984 is the US Army itself writing, but it's all talking about the very early history of East/West Germany, I don't see anything in that paragraph that looks controversial even to a diehard communist (at least as long as they grant that some people did indeed flee from the Soviet zone westward). And we're allowed to acknowledge the obvious, which is that censorship concerns means that any East German publication used would have to be used with some extreme caution. The concern about the possibility of using more German-language sources is interesting, but I think that's a dangerous criterion to impose. There appear to be some German-language sources cited already, but in general, on English Wikipedia, English citations should be preferred so that they can be verified and checked more easily. Sometimes there's no choice but to use other language sources, especially for more obscure topics, but this is a very well-covered topic, so it should be entirely possible to source the vast majority from English-language scholarship. If there's a specific German source that is just truly essential yet not available in translation, then sure, but that should be specific sources to call out not a general desire for more German-language sources. Finally, looking at the additional sources linked on the talk page, those don't seem so important to impact comprehensiveness concerns? The first is on economic impacts in one region after the border fell, which seems more like a "History of Bavaria" type local thing. The second on linguistics is on a topic that seems more related to the political effects of German reunification, not the border itself (i.e. an expansion of German reunification#Effects - really, there could be a summary-style spinoff article called "Effects of German reunification" or the like on the 1990-1995 or so period). They're relevant related topics, sure, but that's worth maybe a sentence at most or a link in the See also. The article is already at 70kb prose size, a little longer than recommended, so keeping it focused on when the border existed seems a way to keep the size in check.
  • As stated before, I did not do spot checks, so if there really are referencing problems, that's worth investigating and fixing. But the other concerns don't seem so dire as to be FARC-worthy. SnowFire (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is well known that many aspects of the Cold War, including East Germany, were not fully understood until the opening of Eastern Bloc archives. I just don't see how this article could be considered well researched or comprehensive without the examination of more recent, scholarly sources (the fact that most of the high-quality, recent sources happen to be written in German is inconvenient, but does not recommend citing inferior sources just because they are in English). The sources on linguistics cover how dialects diverged due to being located on opposite sides of the border, and are therefore affected by the border itself and not reunification. If length is a concern, it could be addressed by reducing the amount of content sourced to contemporary press reports, which do not necessarily indicate lasting significance, and possible overemphasis on Western, English speaking viewpoints compared to East German ones.
    Incidentally, there is still plenty of unsourced content in the article: it has not been fixed since my notice. I have not thoroughly checked for failed verification issues, but the article has many sentences like "The GDR implemented a variety of security measures along its Baltic coastline to hinder escape attempts. Camping and access to boats was severely limited" (cited to a 1962 news article). This could potentially tell us what the situation was in 1962, but only a retrospective source could verify this claim because policies could have been changed later. (t · c) buidhe 07:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that post-Cold War sources are required, but aren't they already being used in the article? I have to presume that they were examined and used. For example, there's a bunch of citations to a book from David Childs (academic) written in 2001, who appears to be an expert in German history. Gordon L. Rottman isn't from academia but rather the military, but this is a military topic too, and there's a book of his from 2008 cited heavily. Gareth Dale lived in East Germany during the period (perhaps addressing the worry about not giving sufficient deference to East German sources) and he's a Reader (if not a full professor), so at least not a nobody, and his book was 2005. To be sure, there appear to be some non-prestigious random authors thrown in (no idea who Michael Cramer is based on a Google, possibly an independent author; he's clearly written on the topic some based on Goodreads and he's cited a decent amount for his 2008 book, but can't tell his reliability easily), along with some reference spam. But it doesn't appear to be a major problem merely from inspection. (It would be a problem if pre-1990 sources are used to cite things that post-1990 sources disagree on, but that would require essentially reading all the relevant sources.)
    I still don't think the linguistic differences between West & East is on-topic. This article is mostly about the physical border, the politics behind it, and things like escapes / fortifications / guards. Linguistic differences develop across all borders no matter how they're made and no matter the politics for the natural and obvious reason of being in different states; the Inner German border wasn't special here. Checking, I don't see any mention in Canada–United States border about the difference between Canadian English and American English, or Germany–Switzerland border about the difference between German German and Swiss German. To be sure, that journal article sounds like a great source to use to expand Dialects of German or some sub-article on differences during the Cold War, but it is at most worthy of a single See also link in this particular article IMO. Especially given the article's length, it's just too peripheral.
    I don't have access to The Times of London archives so I can't comment on the claim about restricted access to boats. It doesn't sound particularly controversial (and the openly-accessible German site indicates that the observation towers part was definitely real) but sure, a better source would be nice there. (Less worried about the timing - even if they dropped the policy in the 1980s, which seems unlikely, it'd still be relevant - and more just the slant, that a Western paper might have exaggerated.) That said, I think chopping out less relevant parts sourced only to news reports might be a good change, sure (or perhaps moving them to some holding pen on the talk page). SnowFire (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Repetition of words in section headings breaches WP:MSH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I took a shot at fixing this (diff). I left two minor exceptions - "Crossing the border" (Just "Crossing" sounds like a noun/place, but it's meant as a verb in context) and "Fall of the inner German border" (Just "Fall" seems a little vague - it could be misread as the season it happened in, or the fall of the East German politburo, etc.), but open to suggestions on those two. SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC Considering that this is a historical concept at this point, I think the news sources should be replaced with academic sources as much as possible. I don't see any recent edits for improvements. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Move to FARC unless someone is going to start the article overhaul. (t · c) buidhe 01:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Per above, I'm still not convinced that any improvements or overhaul are actually needed. I guess it comes down to trust in the original editor - are the news stories just being used as "supplemental" sources and everything relevant is in the cited scholarly works as well, or are there major parts cited only to contemporary news stories? Because some editors just throw in supplemental "this is also here" references to buttress a claim, and this isn't necessarily problematic. The original FAC features some very effusive praise for the article editor, so I'm inclined to give him some benefit of the doubt. SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No there are entire paragraphs cited to news reports only and some are original research/insufficiently supported like the one I quoted above and another case I flagged in the article. (t · c) buidhe 23:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Specifics[edit]

These walls of generalized text are a bit frustrating. Could we get some specifics nailed down? The talk page notice said:

  • Heavy reliance on cold war era sources (all published in the Western bloc of course) causes potential for bias and/or errors, and not all these sources could be considered high-quality
    Could we have at least one concrete example of Western bloc bias? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Examples are quotes like this from a Western/Anglophone perspective. I removed this one but there are still a disproportionate quotes from anglophone journalists as opposed to German people. (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Which sources are not high quality? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would say that most or all of the pre-1989 news sources are not "high quality reliable sources". I also do not think it's good practice to cite offline museum displays that at best could be verified from one place in the world and at worst may have changed over time. And what makes "Baltic Border Tower in Kühlungsborn" or https://www.wearethemighty.com/ reliable sources? (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • German language scholarly sources (many of them post-1990) are neglected in favor of popular/news English language sources that are more dated
    Some specific examples of neglected German sources, and what they include that is omitted, would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Lack of coverage of economic and linguistic[19] effects
    Have these been added ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No. The aftermath section talks about environmental effects but does not mention any other longer term effects of the border, for example economic effects. That's covered eg. in this source. (t · c) buidhe 05:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am sympathetic to Buidhe's concern, as I have clearly seen similar problems when Spanish-language sources are overlooked in Latin American articles in favor of English-language news reporting, but I hesitate to advocate for FARCing without concrete examples on the page.

That said, I'm learning FARC as there has been extremely limited engagement so far, and it's highly unlikely that an FA this old–whose original nominator is disengaged–would not need updating and improvements as newer and better sources become available. And three of the original nominators six FAs have already been defeatured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • See also