Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 5–7 days to respond to concerns. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given).

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 removal 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 removal 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.

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. 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 message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews[edit]

Climate change[edit]

Notified: EMsmile, Dtetta, RCraigh09, Bogazicili, Dave souza, Efbrazil, Stephan Schulz, WikiProject Climate change, WikiProject geography, talk page diff

-

This featured article from 2006 was last reviewed in 2007. Since, it has been completely rewritten (twice?). While we have a very active community, I think it is important that this article is reviewed with outside eyes, given its controversial nature. Over the last couple of months, concerns on the talk have mainly been about neutrality: should the article focus more on worst-case scenarios (f.i. talk page discussion a). Should we mention that climate change is seen as an 'existential threat to civilization' by some scientists (cf. talk page discussion b)?

I'm not perfectly aware of everything in a manual of style, and would appreciate feedback on that topic, as well as on the images.

It would be brilliant if this article gets to be main page ready again, so that we can feature it if climate change becomes topical again. In March, when I asked whether it could be run at today featured article, it was indicated that the article wasn't quite ready and a peer review + featured article review would be beneficial.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SG
  • I have run the scripts to standardize dates and dashes (you can install them to keep the article in shape: User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates, User:GregU/dashes.js)
  • There is a considerable amount of duplicate links (some of which may be called for); please check them with User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
  • There are centigrade temperatures without farenheit converts throughout.
  • See MOS:SANDWICH: The first image of a section should be placed below the hatnote templates. ... I have corrected.
  • Sporadic inconsistent citations ... Brown, Oli, MRS No. 31 – Migration and Climate Change, International Organization for Migration, retrieved 8 October 2020 while the rest are Retrieved ... check throughout
  • Harvref error: Nat Commun, 22 November 2018 Harv error: link from CITEREFNat_Commun,_22_November2018 doesn't point to any citation.
  • When you do this in a citation: IPCC AR4 WG3 Ch1 2007, Executive summary (all blue linked), it is difficult to distinguish the actual citation from the page/location stored in loc=. You can solve that by adding the word "sec." before the loc, where only the loc is linked (blue) and the sec. is unlinked. IPCC AR4 WG3 Ch1 2007, sec. Executive summary. See Immune_system#References (search on sec.)
  • Harvref errors throughout, for example, Non-technical sources. Install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors to locate all of them, and see resolving errors.
  • On packed galleries, see this sample at Russulaceae and this sample at Mayfly for a technique to better keep them all together at different screen widths.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story[edit]

Notified: Neelix, Sadads, ජපස, Iridescent, WP Books, WP Christianity, WP Literature, WP Sex, WP US, talk page notices back to 2013, including 2020-06-26

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the concerns about sourcing and POV continuously raised on talk since 2013, unresolved after the 2013 FAR was launched out of process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Back in 2013, I guess, WP was more concerned with process than it was with quality. This is a terrible article and I stand by my assessment that I outlined then. Nothing has changed. jps (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I already said my piece on the talkpage. I don't have an issue with the 2013 FAR being closed—that rule against people immediately submitting new FAs to FAR existed for a reason, owing to a particular long-term abuse case who had exactly that as one of her preferred tactics for trying to bait editors into fighting each other—but this never met the FA criteria. Given that the only two editors who've ever shown an interest are both themselves long-gone long-term abuse cases, it's unlikely anyone is going to make an effort to improve this. ‑ Iridescent 18:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • It's nice to see the mucky-mucks stand up for process, I guess. I just miss the WP:IAR standard that could have been invoked to say, "hold on a second, maybe the nominator is making points that are not all about a rule we invented to deal with a completely unrelated problem." But, cha, better late than never. jps (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
John M Wolfson
  • This seems to have been subject to some WikiDrama back in 2013. For the record, I agree that the "3-6 month rule" exists for a reason and likewise have no problem with the old FAR being closed out of process. That said, I'll see what I can look at in the actual article. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Westgate-on-Sea[edit]

Notified: Epbr123, WP Kent, WP Cities, WP UK geography, notified 2020-11-5

This one is not particularly close, despite being a recent TFA. Questionable web sources, books without page numbers, but the largest issue is out of date. Newest thing in history in 2001. Demographics is missing the most recent census. Economy: 2001. Politics has one statement post-2007. This is so horrendously out of date that it is not close to FA standards. If the article can be brought up to date, the lesser issues shouldn't be too hard to fix, but there's about a decade's worth of new material that needs added. Hog Farm Bacon 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Daylight saving time[edit]

Notified: Eubulides, Time, diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because around a month ago, both Hog Farm and SG expressed serious reservations about whether the article continues to meet FA criteria. Among the issues cited was "significant uncited text". (t · c) buidhe 01:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Still several uncited parts, but Eddie891 did a lot of good work on this. It looks way better than it did when I noticed it. Some of the uncited stuff can probably be nixed, too. Hog Farm Bacon 01:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
I can do some further clean up tomorrow -- Eddie891 Talk Work 01:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Karnataka[edit]

Notified: KNM, Aviator423, Girth Summit, WikiProject India, Indian states, Talk page notification from April

This article was promoted in 2007 and has never been reviewed since. The article has a substantial number of unsourced statements, and a breakdown of the lack of references in the first 2 sections can be found in the article's talk page. There are many more throughout the article, though. Problems spotted:

  • Uncited information, in practically every section of the article;
  • Dated information (just examples):
  • some statistics from 2002, 2007;
  • "the state government intends to invest ₹700 million ... in a "Silk City" "" - this is sourced to two news pieces from 2009... is there a follow-up?
  • "Shimoga, Hassana and Bijapur airports are being built and are expected to be operational soon." - what does "soon" mean in this context?
  • The Climate section has a number of tables that a) do not add much to the article, since it's raw data; b) should be converted into text instead (if rainfall is that important that needs 3 different tables, there's something to be said about it in text); c) are duplicated from the respective sub-articles;
  • Ditto for the subdivisions, the whole section is unsourced with big tables that do not offer much;
  • References need clean-up; there's duplicated refs (The Hindu), inadequate formatting (Archived copy as title), bare urls, etc;
  • Puffery (X, Y and Z "are famous private universities in Karnataka.", this place "has of the rarest and unique collections of flora and fauna.").

Article does not meet the FA criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I've boldly removed all of those tables on climate and provided some concise information on climate change to the article. I cannot find the temperature records in scientific sources, and am insufficiently familiar with Indian newspapers to know which ones I can cite. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Discussion moved to talk page with a reminder to avoid personalization and WP:FOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
If FA status is going to have any sort of continued meaning whatsoever, it's important to make sure that articles claiming that status meet this criteria. This one doesn't by a mile. Hog Farm Bacon 16:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

European Commission[edit]

Notified: JLogan, WP European Union, WP Politics, notice

While this doesn't look terrible from a casual glance, this has definite issues the closer I look at this. Some of these aren't quite glaring, so I'll take more space to enumerate them here than I'd normally like.

  • The Delors Commission section is mostly a single quote
  • I suspect that Barroso Commission section may be undue weight
  • Juncker Commission may be too little weight
  • The commission sections don't have a clear chronological flow of when each one ends, IMO
  • Bits of outdated material and statistics throughout.
  • Some of the criticism stuff, like the IT bit, is rather vague.
  • Initiatives seems to just be cherry-picking two of them, it seems like the Commission has probably done more than two initiatives.

Looks to me like this needs significant work. Hog Farm Bacon 05:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Naypta, pinging you in the off chance you would be interested in saving this article. It would be a shame if it gets demoted. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami[edit]

Notified: NancyHeise, Student7, WP Florida, WP Miami, WP Catholicism, WP Christianity, talk page 2020-11-10

This is a 2007 promotion that has not been maintained to standard. Issues detailed on talk [1] include considerable dated information, possible POV because of omission of sexual scandals, some MOS cleanup needed, and inconsistent citations. Independently, the FAC Coord who promoted this article (ahem-- moi-- possibly my first promotion) appears to have misread the FAC, as there were not three supports (I did not promote articles on two supports). For that reason, I won't be entering a declaration and ask that others shephard this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

  • This is one I might normally try to work on, but I'm very busy in RL right now, and don't really have the time or energy. I will note that most of the article appears to be outdated, and the fact that Sexual abuse scandal in the Archdiocese of Miami is relegated to a see also link and is not mentioned in the prose is also problematic. It at least needs a short section. Hog Farm Bacon 17:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Hasekura Tsunenaga[edit]

Notified: Per Honor et Gloria, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Biography Talk page notice

This is a 2006 promotion that has never been reviewed since; the main contributor has not edited since 2011. Issues:

  • the article has several unsourced full paragraphs;
  • the article does not have a consistent citation style, with footnotes used as the main "style", and then random parenthetical citations in the text;
  • the article relies a lot on lenghthy quotes;
  • the prose in the "Hasekura today" subsection is not "FA-level";
  • "Timeline and itenerary" is not needed;
  • The notes and the references need work.

RetiredDuke (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I've started working on cleaning things up, but this one is going to take a while. Once the refs are cleaned up and consolidated (there are a number of duplicate refs that I haven't fixed yet), then we can see more clearly where issues are with existing refs and where we need to add in more. I'll slowly chip away at it as I can.
Regarding your points:
  • There definitely need to be more sources used, though some may already be in the article and not be used fully yet.
  • I'll be cleaning up the citation style so it's consistent and easy to read.
  • I've moved all the quotes into a notes section so they don't clutter up the actual references. If possible, it may be good to see if any of them are on Wikisource, and link to those instead of including large quotes here.
  • As you said, the "Hasekura today" section reads more like an "In popular culture" section right now. I think things could be converted to a "Legacy" section (or something like that), and the language can be cleaned up and made more encyclopedic.
  • I agree, the timeline and itinerary section can be sorted out into the appropriate sections of the article.
  • Already addressed the notes and references.
Thanks for your patience while I carve out time to work on this. You can see my recent work on Manzanar (diff) and Boshin War (diff) to see what I have done before. Diffs are from before I started to when I finished, though others also contributed during those times, so it's not entirely my doing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking on this article. I don't think we are pressed for time at FAR, as long as the article is being worked on. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
We are working on an AI to automatically identify statement issues around minor POV problems and missing citations. It has identified some statements that need citations on this article. They are given below:
  • He spent his young adulthood at Kamitate Castle (上楯城)[3] that was constructed in Hasekura Ward, Kawasaki City (ex-Hasekura Village), Miyagi Prefecture, by his grandfather Hasekura Tsunemasa (常正).
  • The embassy was probably, at that time, part of a plan to diversify and increase trade with foreign countries, before the participation of Christians in the Osaka rebellion triggered a radical reaction from the shogunate, with the interdiction of Christianity in the territories it directly controlled, in 1614.
  • The galleon, named Date Maru by the Japanese and later San Juan Bautista by the Spanish, took 45 days work in building, with the participation of technical experts from the Bakufu (the Minister of the Navy Mukai Shōgen, an acquaintance of William Adams with whom he built several ships, dispatched his Chief Carpenter), 800 shipwrights, 700 smiths, and 3,000 carpenters. The daimyō of Sendai, Date Masamune, was put in charge of the project.
If the predictions are relevant, and they could have eased the review burden, we appreciate more feedback here to help evaluate our AI and make it robust. More details can be found on the research page. Sumit (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've cleaned up the refs so they are all using appropriate templates and formatting. Now we can see where we are. @RetiredDuke:, if you will go through the article and add {{cn}} to every place that doesn't have a citation and you think it needs one, that will allow me to know exactly what I need to find. Please ping me here when you've done that. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my, what a layout, image, MOS:SANDWICH mess. Thank you, again, for taking on a big one, Nihonjoe. Once you are further along, I will volunteer to re-format all the image layout to resolve layout problems. Meanwhile, if you see any that can be deleted ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Went ahead and sorted what I could on the image mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it's definitely a mess (or it was, anyway). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold as work is being actively done, with some discussion on the talk page. Just to give the coords a heads-up. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I have now tagged the whole article like User:Nihonjoe asked above. However, I respectfully ask them if they are sure they want to do this. This FAR is going to be a major rescue job, and while I greatly admire the work done rescuing Boshin War and Manzanar, those articles were never this bad. Many of the sources in the Hasekura article are primary sources, documents and letters from historical figures contemporary to Hasekura. The article draws conclusions solely from historical documents in several sections of the article. Lengthy quotes from historical documents are used verbatim as part of the narrative, instead of being paraphrased. I've added 80+ cn tags to the article. At some point this will become a completely different article from the current one. It's like a new FAC. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
It may take some time, but I think we can do it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I will help in what I can, but I truly only realized the scale of the job once I read the article sentence by sentence. There's no rush though. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Istanbul[edit]

Notified: Tariqabjotu, WikiProject Turkey, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Ottoman Empire, WikiProject Asia

I am nominating this featured article for review because I posted on the tp more than 2 weeks ago:

The article needs substantial work to meet the FA criteria: better referencing (including citing the uncited content, as well as improving the quality of refs so that promotional claims are cited to independent sources), updating many sections that are out of date.

In fact the article was seriously out of date when it was run at TFA just under 2 years ago. No one responded. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm a new-ish editor who's interested in helping to preserve the featured article status. Are the out-of-date sections marked accordingly? I'm only seeing the header for the economy and demographics portion. Can you give an example of refs that you would consider promotional? Thanks! Portugal1337 (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Welcome, Portugal1337, thanks for your efforts! The economy and demographic sections are the worst in terms of being out of date. I know only a limited amount about the topic, so it's hard for me to tell if other sections such as Media or Public Services also may have changed from 2007/2008. The main issue with promotional claims are things like, "Turkish Offshore Racing Club also hosts major yacht races, such as the annual Naval Forces Trophy", sourced to their website. I suspect this information is not WP:DUE/the TORC is not sufficiently important to merit a mention on this major article. I flagged some issues with [citation needed] [better source needed] [needs update] [non-primary source needed] and [undue weight? ]. (t · c) buidhe 09:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the fast response -- I have already identified sources to be able to update the economy section. Demographics seems to be much harder. Do you know what kind of time frame I would have to make the relevant changes? I have a lot of free time this week and hope to dedicate some time to the article. I will post updates here Portugal1337 (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • The article can stay under review as long as improvements are ongoing. (t · c) buidhe 10:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Portugal1337 The article was promoted with 10,000 words of prose (long), but is now at 12. Once a Geography article sprawls like that, it just becomes harder to maintain. I recommend tighter use of summary style so you won't be right back here in two years, as editors chunk it one of everything. (Note that Edge cities was not in the promoted version.)
I don't want to overwhelm with a list yet, but for now, there are urgent MOS:SANDWICH issues everywhere, as editors have chunked in too many images. It is unlikely that most of those images passed an image review, and reducing them considerably would help.
Once you are through more of the basics, I'll look in again. There are still considerable other issues, like incomplete and incorrectly formatted citations. To get this one over the hump, it would help to have an editor familiar with FA standards on board; is anyone else helping you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
It might be worthwhile to email User:Tariqabjotu, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I have updated the Economics section of the article and have moved on to demographics & religious groups section, which seems to be in much worse shape. I'd appreciate your feedback on the Economics section so that I make fewer mistakes in other sections. Thanks for the support so far! Portugal1337 (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Thanks so much for your edits! There's been a definite improvement. I don't really know much about location articles but here's some thoughts:
  • Phrasing such as Istanbul is the business center of Turkey, or international gateway should generally be avoided because they don't really have a concrete meaning and come across as promotional.
  • "Istanbul is an increasingly popular tourist destination" is an issue for another reason: it's likely to become dated (I'm guessing its popularity among tourists did not increase between 2019 and 2020, for instance). Also, you would need a source which explicitly states that it is increasing, rather than just data from two years with the second being higher. I removed this wording.
  • Historical dictionary of Turkey is a good source to use, but ideally you would include the pages cited as well as the author of the entry on Istanbul if credited separately. (t · c) buidhe 12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Renewable energy in Scotland[edit]

Notified: SAMurrai, Ben MacDui, WikiProject Energy, WikiProject Climate change, WikiProject Scotland, talk page 15-04-2020

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is severely out of date. Because developments in renewable energy are very fast, even the structure of the article needs a complete overhaul. Just a few out of many examples:

  • Solar PV is only described under the section heading of microsystems, whereas this is a mainstream technology for electricity production even in Scotland.
  • The recent events section stops in 2014.
  • Wind energy is now massive in Scotland, but gets equal attention to smaller contributions.
  • The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report has further increased the profile of the issue. (two major IPCC reports have come out since).

Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Also some serious citation issues, as well. We've got bits of uncited content sprinkled in various areas. There's a book cited without specific page numbers given. There are multiple cites to the home page of Scottish Renewables, and as the homepage is frequently updated, that (out-of-date) information is no longer supported by the citation. There's a bare URL in the references. Ref 45 is an uncited footnote, not a reference. A sampling of online references finds multiple dead links. Many of the references are old enough they seem to be outdated. So there's much work needed here. Hog Farm Bacon 18:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Femkemilene: Thanks for alerting me - I can't fault your analysis. It was one of my first FAs and I quickly discovered that keeping a topic like this up-to-date is a fair amount of work. I kept at it for a few years but as the subject became higher and higher profile (which is good news) I became less involved in the industry than once I was and the pressure of life and work has also led to me being much less active as an editor herein. Can you give me a timetable for 'moving the article to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list' (per my talk page). It's not out of the question that I will find the time over Xmas to do a revamp and it would be good to keep the FA star for COP 26 - to be held in Glasgow - if possible. Ben MacDui 16:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
It's great to hear you might have time! I'm relatively new here, but I think waiting till Christmas is definitely okay. I might do some small updates in the mean time. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Time is usually granted, and considering my past experience with Ben MacDui, I recommend the wait. It is possible the Coords would put the FAR on hold (meaning they sometimes remove it from the page with a calendar note to bring it back ... in six weeks in this case). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I think we'll leave it live in case someone else is interested in helping out, but it shouldn't be a problem to extend the timeframe. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Wii[edit]

Notified: jhsounds, WP Video games, talk page 2020-10-25

This is a 2007 promotion that was last reviewed in 2012, with no major contributors still editing it. It has taken on some cruft since its review eight years ago, and should not be difficult to restore if someone will undertake improvements.

  • WP:NOTPRICE needs review.
  • There are citation needed tags.
  • A MOS review is needed. Samples only: WP:WAW ... The USPTO said they would accept Nintendo's trademark filing if the company disclaimed exclusive rights to the word "remote" in the term and if the word “remote” ... with curly quotes as well. Spaced WP:EMDASHes.
  • In the "Launch titles" section, MOS:DONTHIDE and a footnote
  • Incomplete citations everywhere.

This should not be a difficult restore if someone will undertake the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

    • I'm doing a quick scan related to the prices but I'm not seeing an issue. As a home consumer electronic and particularly with video game consoles, listing the base cost in major release regions is a common practice; the price is noted by most sources and used to compare to other consoles (at the time of its release), so the brief list in the infobox seems appropriate within the context of NOTPRICE. But perhaps I'm missing something elsewhere. Same with noting the typical game price. --Masem (t) 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • These citations are going to need a thorough going-over. I'm not familiar with video game sources, but there's a lot of malformed ones, and references such as "RawmeatCowboy (April 13, 2008). "Korea – Wii launch date confirmed, and more info". Go Nintendo. Retrieved January 17, 2015." look iffy. There's several others I suspect to be blogs. There's a handful of missing citations. I'm seeing sourcing as the primary issue here. Hog Farm Bacon 16:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yep. Big citation cleanup needed, obscuring the WP:NOTPRICE problem. I see at least one press release citing a price. Wikipedia policy (emphasis added) calls for

      An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.

      but with incomplete citations, it is difficult on a quick glance to determine if prices comply. And, while it is possible that mainstream sources do exist for some of these prices, it is not apparent that they have been used, as most use of prices seems to be either product reviews or press releases, rather than mainstream independent media sources. The use of the template:cite press release would be a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm working on a major rework that's addressing sourcing problems (lots of sources that today, we'd not accept at VG/S nor as RS) as well as lacking information we know now (eg after Iwata's death, a lot of his involvement in the Wii's development was better known). There's a bit of Nintendo-fanboy-ism in this which needs to be worked out as well. It is an important console to VG history and thus needs good documentation, but there's some of this that gets a little odd in some places, which I am slowly working through. And yes, I will fix the issues on the price sources, I know I can get third-party RSes for that. --Masem (t) 17:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Masem! Sorry to dump a big one on you; initially I expected this to be a quick save, but am relieved you are willing to do the work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • No, when I starting through, this clearly was a FAC from a different era. It's not terribly far off, but it is going to take more than just a few fixes. I am working on it though, so don't rush to demote, please. BTW, I have fixed the prices issue (press releases nixed, and have third-parties to even address the cheaper costs relative to other consoles). --Masem (t) 18:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Not to worry-- there is never time pressure at FAR, as long as progress is being made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: Obviously I'm still working on this to drastically improve it, but I do have a FAC question to ask related. The current Sales section is currently relatively duplicative (to an extent) of the Wii sales article, but in terms of notability, the latter really shouldn't be standalone. Now, across both there is some additional "fanboyism" elements to strip and focus on the big picture - something I've had to do over at the Nintendo Switch page for comparison. I am thinking of bringing in the Wii sales page into this article as to reduce redundancy, but is there any allowance for the table on the Wii sales page to be started in a collapsed state? Or (and I haven't investigated this in detail), collapsing the middle section and leaving lifetime sales (last row) visible. I know I can show the entire table but I'm curious if there's allowance for collapsing anything. --Masem (t) 22:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: I'm still working on this but one thing I noticed in trying to fix citations is that the Citation Bot link up on the template here (the one I recall using to check for missing/broken refs and to quickly find the ones missing information) is no longer present? Is there a replacement? (This and a MOS check should be all that's left, the CN issues are fixed as well as my overall rework to remove the fanboy-ish coverage). --Masem (t) 20:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, best I can tell ... most of that toolbox is now defunct, and we should probably ditch it. Sorry, not aware of a replacement. I will look in here in a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The external links thing still works for finding dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That's the tool I remember, for some reason I thought it was something else :P --Masem (t) 21:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Masem, do you have User:Evad37/duplinks-alt ? There are way too many duplicate links for me to get them all, and some of them may be needed ... hard for me to tell, but some serious attention to WP:OVERLINKing is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Many missing publishers and incomplete citations, sample, "Anniversary Bundles and Wii Remote Plus Confirmed for US". Too many for me to clean up.
  • Forbes all need to be checked. Older Forbes sources are not necessarily non-reliable, as they changed to a contributor model later, but some of the Forbes pieces used are not Forbes staff, rather contributor. WP:FORBES, WP:FORBESCON. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem that is all I have time for right now; I think cleaning up the citations before going in for MOS checks and copyediting is imperative. I am concerned that we might want to ask Miniapolis, who copyedited this article the last time it was at FAR, if they might run through it again, as I am finding too many prose issues. But cleaning up the sourcing and overlinking should happen first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, SandyGeorgia. Let me know when you're ready for the copyedit. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 23:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a prose check would help as I have had to take my hand to fix sections (putting in more reasonably appropriate material for an encyclopedia), and I know I suck at first pass writing. I'll ping VG to see if someone else can also check. I will be doing the source check with the EL tool tomorrow, there's too many to check through and verify right now in addition to completing incomplete references. But yes, it is far closer than it was. --Masem (t) 22:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Also will check the dup wikilinks (now have that script, very useful I see). --Masem (t) 23:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Masem, if you don't get any bites on the copyedit, let me know and I'll make time. My FA chainsaw is rusty but I bet it still works. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Jaguar

To compliment Sandy's initial points above I am concerned that this article doesn't meet any of the FA criteria and see that the issues are not restricted to its prose. I will list some broad issues found from a cursory scan:

  • The lead doesn't comply per WP:LEAD. It is far too long at the moment and is riddled with cruft. Are the model names "RVL-101" and "RVL-201" important enough to be chucked in there? While it does make a show of summarising the article the prose is not concise enough to allow for snappy information-taking
  • The main body of the article (particularly the history section) relies too much on quotes and doesn't flow well. It all needs rewriting from an historical viewpoint
  • The majority of the article still gives an impression of it being written in 2007 - reading it feels like we're locked in those dismal years of recession! The launch section contains too many precise dates, some sentences remain in the present tense and generally the focus gives too much weight to how much the console was sold for. This benefits nobody
  • The article contains inconsistent measurements and conversions. Even the prices aren't formatted consistently ($ - US$; £ - GB£). Lose the country prefixes if they are mentioned in the context
  • The hardware section is imbalanced and the whole structure far too choppy. Even discounting the cruft there are several unsourced parts
  • The specifications should ideally be in prose format, though I know how much of a pain this is. A FAC reviewer would most likely request it
  • "Built-in content ratings systems" just contains a list of national rating boards. This isn't necessary
  • The Media support subsection is trapped in time, littered with banalities like when things were released
  • The table list of launch titles shouldn't be in the article, if anything it should be in its own or in List of Wii games or the like
  • The reception section needs nuking and rewritten from scratch
  • I believe enough time has passed to warrant a legacy section in this article. The Wii had a profound impact on gaming and yet it's not clear if this article mentions anything
  • The latter half of the article isn't structured well. After the reception section it jumps to legal issues, and it doesn't feel right that the article closes with "Homebrew and emulation". The final stretch of the article should have a Legacy section, and in it could contain its successor and a few points regarding homebrew
  • The images contribute to the cluttering and general disorientation of the article. There are two images of queues outside and inside shops at seemingly random points, poor quality images like someone holding a remote to a TV (you can't even see anything!) and two bland photos of CPUs. I know there are better pictures out there
  • The sources are also formatted inconsistently, many are missing publisher fields and there isn't even a bibliography subsection - two unused references are lumped right above the citations

I think it's a big task to salvage this in the state that it's in right now. If this article was nominated at GAN it would probably be quick-failed. I am willing to help after I've finished with PlayStation (console) but for this to reach the standards of 2020 would require a lot of work, or a multi-editor project. I'm always sad to see an FA delisted, but if it does happen a better future for this article may await. JAGUAR 00:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

    • I did get a start on addressing some of these points (mostly on a structural standpoint). I *still* need to hit the sourcing issues. I mean, I rid the Forbes contributor pieces (there's a Forbes staff article in use though), but as I started to parse incomplete sourcing, I'm not very satisfied with the general sourcing used on some sections on the article, which may also be tied to how some of the sections were written. (That said I felt I did already try to re-write the history section beforehand from a historical standpoint, knowing what I knew we had from Iwata's death (his contribution to the Wii) and then what retroactively we knew based on the Switch's design back through the Wii U to the Wii.) But the article was in a far "worse" shape beforehand, while it was FAC passed in 2013, I dunno if standards were lower then or if it was edited since but it wasn't great at all. --Masem (t) 01:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

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.

East End of London[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject London, Wikipedia:WikiProject England, Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it no longer meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are unsourced paragraphs, unsourced statements, unattributed quotes, weasel words without attribution, a section consisting largely of quotes, inconsistent citation styles and short, stubby paragraphs that do not meet the prose criterion. DrKay (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

  • I've got some more sourcing concerns as well. At least one blog is cited, the books cited frequently lack specific page numbers, etc. This idea of the East End as lying beyond the pale of respectability was also emphasised by Jack London when he visited London in 1902, is possible WP:OR, as it's just cited to the specific book by London itself, so the editor is probably interpreting that into the article. One footnote is really just an unsourced inflation value of currency, and most of the books cited lack publishers. In addition to the many instance of uncited prose, this needs very substantial sourcing work. Hog Farm Bacon 05:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Some of the statements below may have violated the NPOV guidelines:
    • Bizarre events occurred when the River Lea burned with an eerie blue flame, caused by a hit on a gin factory at Three Mills, and the Thames itself burnt fiercely when Tate & Lyle's Silvertown sugar refinery was hit. ("fiercely" seems redundant)
    • They advocated focusing on the causes of poverty and the radical notion of poverty being involuntary, rather than the result of innate indolence. ("radical" seems redundant)
    • Great numbers, of East Londoners, perhaps 100,000, turned out to oppose them and there were three-way clashes between the Fascists, their East End opponents and the Police. (can be reworded to avoid "Great numbers" and just state the numbers)

These statement issues have been identified through an AI that can automatically identify statements having minor POV issues and missing citations. It is meant to ease the review burden for Featured Articles. If such predictions are relevant, we appreciate more feedback here to help evaluate our AI and make it robust to aid in article reviews. More details can be found on the research page. Sumit (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

How is "radical" redundant? Radicalism was a specific political movement; "the radical notion of poverty being involuntary" contrasts with the conservative belief that the poor were to blame for their own poverty.

Ditto with "great numbers"; just stating the number doesn't make it clear that in relation to the population at the time this was a significant proportion (nowadays, 100,000 people at a London event wouldn't be particular significant). It seems to me like you're looking for what you consider weasel words, without bothering to check if they're appropriate in context. ‑ Iridescent 06:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks User:Iridescent. These are good notes. I'm working with Sumit.iitp on this AI. Would you be interested in helping us test and refine this AI? Any suggestions for articles/categories you would be interested in seeing us test against?
This AI is trained using editor behavior from Wikipedia. In this case, the AI is telling us that editors tend to change sentences that look like this and include "POV" or "NPOV" in their edit summaries. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 18:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi EpochFail, this sounds like a cool project, but I'm not sure at this point that it is easing review burden here. I'm going to pull Sumit's post back from archive at WT:FAR for some more discussion. In the meantime, can I suggest you update the research page to reflect that the study is no longer solely observational? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Nikkimaria.  Done and thanks for pulling back the thread. I'm interested in learning more about the review burden here and what might help. A lot of the machine learning work I've done in the past is focused on reducing review burden (see mw:ORES and the editquality models for counter-vandalism and draftquality models for new page review). I think that, with the methods | and I are working on, we stand a chance of helping with FAR burden but I'm not familiar with the bottlenecks in the process we can target. --EpochFail (talkcontribs) 12:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I actually agree with the suggestions. "Fiercely" is redundant. It would be better to state the population of London rather than use the vague phrase "great numbers". If Radical refers to a specific political movement, it should be capitalized, otherwise removed as confusing. (t · c) buidhe 22:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks User:Iridescent, Nikkimaria and User:Buidhe for the valuable feedback here. I have posted my responses on the main discussion thread. Sumit (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Move to FARC, no engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nikki and Paulo[edit]

Notified: Thedemonhog, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Fictional characters, talk page notice
@Sceptre:, a frequent co-nom, not notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is quite far from meeting current day featured article criteria. The sourcing specifically is a very low quality, including nine citations to other Wikipedia articles in a citation to a blog. The original nominator is semi-retired. Maybe this article can qualify for the one week FAR and FARC. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

  • including nine citations to other Wikipedia articles is specious. These are convenience linking the Wikipedia article; the actual citation is the episode itself. (We've had that discussion in the past year or two.) No comment on the validity of the other concerns. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    Today I learned. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    That's just poor form, and should not be done. We don't cite Wikipedia in sources. If a plot summary is referring to additional detail in another Wikipedia article, that should be done via Wikilinking to those articles, or via hatnotes in those sections (further information at, etc.). It's also done deceptively, in a way that makes it look like ABC is being cited, not Wikipedia. Also mentioning that the FAC appears to have had considerable drive-by support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    While we are here, similar problems seem to exist in every one of the Lost FAs listed for thedemonhog at WP:WBFAN, including marginal sources as well as Wikipedia listed under references. Unless someone is willing to take on improving all of them, perhaps the lot should be submitted to FAR. @Ealdgyth: for a modern take on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Martin Keamy, for example. In other cases, even when Ealdgyth questioned sources, such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Other Woman, reviewers ignored the query. By the end of 2008, and the last FAC in this series, reviewers started paying more attention. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meet Kevin Johnson. Depending on the outcome of this FAC, there are nine more that may need FAR. And Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lost (season 4). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    If a plot summary is referring to additional detail in another Wikipedia article, that should be done via Wikilinking to those articles, or via hatnotes in those sections (further information at, etc.). It's also done deceptively, in a way that makes it look like ABC is being cited, not Wikipedia. Did you misinterpret my comment or miss it somehow? The reason it looks like ABC is being cited is because ABC is being cited, not Wikipedia. As I said, it is a convenience link only. It is equivalent to something like 'Malcolm Gladwell (2005). Blink. Back Bay. pp. 1–320. ISBN 0-316-17232-4.' (not that I would cite Blink being popular psychology...).
    That aside, the Duke has said below they are being used for interpretative/subjective statements rather than for basic plot (for which they are allowed on Wikipedia in general), which is a no-no. --Izno (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    I think I understand what we are each saying, but let's check:
    renders as:
    That is not a citation or sourced to ABC: it is entirely made up of Wikilinks. Not how we do it. No source material in that citation. IF you're saying it is sourced in the other article, well, that doesn't work ... it should be sourced here. And as the person who passed some of these FACs, it is not apparent to me that I knew these fake citations were happening. But then fourteen years back is a long time for me to remember ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    Not how we do it. Then either you, or FA, or both, are out of touch with the rest of the wiki. We are not citing the wikilinks, we are providing them for ease of access for the user to go and look at those articles (for w/e reason). To take my previous example, if I had wikilinked Malcolm Gladwell, would you believe that I was citing the wiki article about Gladwell? I did wikilink Blink; do you believe I was citing Blink or the article about Blink?
    IF you're saying it is sourced in the other article, well, that doesn't work I am definitely not saying that, and I agree that would be concerning (and I routinely remove such citations, though there is also an inline tag template for the less-bold editor; see also this search which may take 30-60 seconds to load, where the intent between citing a Wikipedia article and citing the work/author is not obvious; I'll let you ponder why there are so many :). To put my earlier comment another way, an editor intending to cite the article about Blink (for whatever reason) rather than Blink itself (as above), would instead make a citation that looks like this: 'Footlessmouse; WikiCleanerBot; 2606:6000:6c88:1800:111e:b66f:dc6c:dfd3; Blockandtackle42; et al. (12 October 2020). "Malcolm Gladwell". Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation.' (or provide no authors probably just due to practicality). --Izno (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    You are using the Blink example, I am using the Expose sample that I listed, which is not a citation. Perhaps we are still not understanding each other, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for Featured articles, and these have sources that are not, but are masquerading as if they are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    To use your example directly, yes, that is a citation to the episode "Exposé" in the show Lost published by ABC on March 28, 2007 as episode 14 in season 3. That helps me find where the information "Ted has a red hat." is and is accordingly a citation (if that a. needed citation, and b. was the fact we were citing). Citing the Wikipedia article about Exposé would be something like "Exposé" (18 November 2020). Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation., or in longer form the article "Exposé" as published 18 November 2020 in Wikipedia by the Wikimedia Foundation.
    Whether it is a reasonable citation for some information or another is a separate concern and I've already admitted that its use here per Duke below is undesirable, regardless of your apparent incorrect understanding of how citations can and will have wikilinks.
    That said, I'm done arguing with you about what is entirely a sidepoint in the discussion of whether to delist this article as featured, and will move along accordingly. If I haven't been sufficiently clear regarding what I'm saying (this post being the fourth time), I don't know what to say. --Izno (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
    The Wikilinks are not the problem; it's non-citations masquerading as sources. But I, too, will move on here ... obviously, this issue troubles me considerably as I cannot recall being aware this was going on in the few of these that were promoted by me, and I relied on source checkers to make sure reliable sources were used. So since I have a pony in this race, I probably won't be entering a Keep or Delist declaration, other than to observe that depending on what is decided here, we might submit the whole batch to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments

I think there are weak sources here. For a FA at least. For instance:

Then there's the issue that this article was promoted as an article on Paulo only. Now it's an article on two characters. Which is a problem because if you look at the "Casting" section, almost all of it is about Santoro, Paulo's actor. There are 2 sentences about Nikki's actress. (There's also the issue that this version about two characters has not been "FA-approved". Nowadays, if a significant merge was suggested at FAC, I imagine the nomination would be withdrawn, with the article being re-nominated after the merge.)
I also note that, despite using Wikipedia articles only as convenience linking, there's some speculation and opinion present in the article, taken from the episodes themselves:

  • "Paulo either resents or is indifferent toward..."
  • "does not try to improve his status in the survivors' hierarchy"

I was not aware of convenience linking to Wikipedia itself (I did not read that discussion), but I think that the only way that primary sourcing (ie. the episodes themselves) should be used in a FA about fictional characters, is on the plot/appearences sections. Here they're being mostly used on the "characteristics" section, which is subjective, in my view. Anyway, most of this is just my opinion, I'm happy to discuss it. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I have serious doubts about the use of some of the primary sourcing to draw conclusions about the characteristics. For instance, "Paulo either resents or is indifferent toward the often heroic actions of some of the survivors, spending much of his time golfing" is backed up to a single episode. This is phrased as to refer to his entire appearance in the series, but one episode isn't a good source to state that he's constantly golfing, unless it's directly said in the episode "Paulo spends all his time golfing." There are several other instances where a single episode is used to draw overarching conclusions about the character. To the list of iffy sources above can also be added BuddyTV, which looks rather questionable to me. And surely a better source exists than Zap2It, as well. Hog Farm Bacon 00:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Gilwell Park[edit]

Notified: Orcalols, WP England, WP Scouting, 6 November 2020

Review section[edit]

Per RetiredDuke's unanswered talk page comments about two weeks ago, this 2006 promotion is no longer up to par. Rogers is cited about 30 times with the same 40-odd pages page range, this appears to be just about the entire book based on an Amazon search. There is significant uncited text. There are one or two other books cited without a page range (the two Rogers books cited may actually be the same thing). I'm doubting that Pine Tree Web is particularly reliable, and Wood Badge.org may not be a high-quality RS. Personally, I find the extremely heavy reliance on Scouting Association-published materials a bit worrisome, since the organization runs this as a camp. We need some more independent sources for FA. Personally, I consider statements such as Ferryman Field is a split-level field located to the North of the site, suitable for 'back to basics' camping due to its wooded nature and distance from facilities to be flirting with promotionalism by stating what type of groups something is suitable for, especially since this is cited to the Scouts Association. Outdated statements throughout, such as Gilwell Park provides The Scout Association with over £1,000,000 a year through conference fees, accommodation fees, and sales of materials which is cited to a 2005 source. The statement of The site can accommodate events up to 10,000 people, and regularly does so at Scouting events throughout the year. in the lead does not appear to be mentioned in the body. In my opinion, this needs significant work to be brought back up to FA status. I did not notify the original FAC nominator as they are retired and their user talk page is admin-protected, so I cannot edit it. Hog Farm Bacon 03:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Let me start by saying that I, Bduke, am no relation or even known to RetiredDuke. I agree with the above criticism, but I want to point out that Gilwell Park is the centre of Scout Leader training in the world. People come from all over the world to attend Leader Training Courses there. A Wood Badge, which leader training gives you from a course there, is valued all over the world. The article does not reflect this. Gilwell Park is used by local scouts from London and scouts from across the UK, but the real importance of Gilwell Park is that it is the world centre of leader training. If it does not reflect this important role, it certainly is not a good article. --Bduke (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, one edit since nomination.[2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - Issues not being worked on, and are significant. Hog Farm Bacon 17:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised int eh review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The Orb[edit]

Notified: Wickethewok, Kingboyk, WikiProject The KLF, WikiProject The KLF, WikiProject Electronic music

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

The article's FA nominator and main contributor has edited Wikipedia very sparsely in the last years and their last contribution to The Orb was way back in 2011. The article is severely out of date and does not meet current FA standards. We have a Talk page notice from March with a direct ping to the nominator that went unanswered.

The Orb is a very prolific group with 16 studio albums to their name. Their last album to be covered in a significant way in the article (with analysis of the production, comparison to previous albums and commentary about the group's career progression - expected minimum) is their seventh, Okie Dokie, from 2005 - which roughly coincides with the article's promotion to FA. Then we have a subsection called "2007-present" that covers 13 years and at least nine studio albums (I imagine there is significant other work in the mix other than the studio albums, ie. collabs) in a very messy and superficial way:

  • stubby paragraphs (single sentences);
  • unsourced information;
  • no analysis whatsoever of several of their albums - "On 22 June 2018, The Orb released their fifteenth studio album No Sounds Are Out of Bounds." - The only mention of their 15th album in the article is this, the release date. There isn't a single mention of the 12th, 13th or 14th studio albums in the text. At all.

Then there's other (comparatively minor) stuff such as:

  • dubious websites used as sources
  • Ref 20 is not a ref, it's an unsourced note (/quote?);
  • Ref 77 is not formatted.

But yeah, the main issue here is the 13 years of career that are not documented in a comprehensive way. Failure of 1 b). RetiredDuke (talk) 11:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Lazman312

The Orb is interesting in the fact that the beginning of the article starts out pretty good. Throughout most of the history section, it is readable and well-detailed. However, the last sub-section of the history section is terrible. In the subsection, The Dream, Baghdad Batteries (Orbsessions Volume III), and The Orbserver in the Star House (Albums 8, 9, and 10) do have some analysis. But:

Besides the problems within the last subsection of the history section, some other problems include:

  • No personnel section
  • The last paragraph in the lead is one sentence long.
  • Citation 15's text before the acutal reference is improperly formatted.
  • Citation 20 is an unsourced footnote.
  • Citation 77 is incorrectly formatted.
  • Citation 97 is not a reliable source, especially for reviews.

Those are just my two cents on the article. I will be using the citation bot on the article. Lazman321 (talk) 18:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, not a single edit since nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I feel like this is rescueable as pop culture sources are readily available and it's easy to see where the article fell into disrepair. I'm willing to clean up the proseline, update the article, and address the other issues. I'm not going to hold my breath for help since Kingboyk hasn't edited in months, but if you happen to see this, are you willing to tag-team it? --Laser brain (talk) 17:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
@Laser brain:, nothing is happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Move to FARC, zero edits, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

British Empire[edit]

Notified: Chipmunkdavis, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Wiki-Ed, Snowded, Wee_Curry_Monster, Buidhe, Slatersteven, MilborneOne WikiProject British Empire, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Commonwealth, WikiProject British Overseas Territories, WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject WikiProject Colonialism

Review section[edit]

This article was promoted in 2009. It has inconsistently formatted citations. The article also violates MOS:SANDWICH quite heavily, with images on both sides of the text in several places. It also fails to be comprehensive, well-researched, or have a neutral point of view because of it doesn't cover the British Empire's negative aspects properly. Perhaps the most glaring example is that the article doesn't discuss the British Empire's relationship with indigenous people (the phrases aborigine and native american are never mentioned) and doesn't mention the word genocide. Every article about a state should cover genocides the state has been accused of by at least a significant minority of scholars.

The Genocide debate section of the History Wars article is a good example of the kind of discussion that should be in the British Empire article, but isn't. A lot of the information in that article should be in this one. Raphael Lemkin, the originator of the term genocide, considered the Tasmanian genocide perpetrated by the British Empire to be an example of genocide. The Autralian Museum carries articles on its website arguing Aborigines were the victims of genocide. Other editors have argued that such a tiny number of scholars support the idea of the British Empire perpetrating genocide that it should not even be mentioned. That is clearly an unsustainable view.

There are other examples of this article not being comprehensive in its coverage of the Empire's negative aspects. For example, it devotes 247 words to 18th century wars with Spain, but only 80 words to famines in India. It blames the famines on crop failures, neglecting to mention scholars such as Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen who argued that the undemocratic nature of the Empire was the most important cause of these famines. One author went as far as calling these famines the Late Victorian Holocausts. This is a clear WP:UNDUE problem.

In the talk page discussion, Wiki-Ed argued that the article already included all the facts, and my suggested insertions are simply moral judgements by historians that are not necessary. But the article actually omits many important facts about the negative aspects of the British Empire.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: here is the March 2020 talk page notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Quality posts here, could you please notify the other WikiProjects listed on article talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I have now notified all of the WikiProjects listed except version 1.0.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep I have serious concerns this is a bad faith nomination. See [3], there is evidence that this is a sock puppet of the long term disruptive editor [Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/HarveyCarter|HarveyCarter] who has long targeted the British Empire page. The claim it was "easier" to pass promotion in 2009 is demonstrably false. As regards neutrality the article is clearly treating the subject in a neutral manner mentioning topics such as the opium wars, the slave trade and topics such as the Indian famines. So the basis of this nomination is clearly to disrupt rather than improve the article. WCMemail 22:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
    Please see the instructions at WP:FAR; Keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying issues and addressing them. Also, please note that SPI issues are raised at the proper forum, not at FAR, where our focus is on content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Why are we wasting time on a bad faith nomination that isn't focused on content but is in reality about imposing the opinion of the OP. Having failed to force his changes into the article it has been nominated for delisting out of spite. It's a waste of time, if you wish to indulge a disruptive editor fine but I won't be wasting my time on this. WCMemail 15:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Where have I been disruptive?--Quality posts here (talk) 17:59, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Note to all. This type of discussion does not belong here. If anyone has credible evidence that the nominator is a sock, please take that to SPI; other potential behavioural concerns should also be addressed elsewhere. Please focus comments in this review on the article and how it does or does not meet WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Nick-D

This article needs very considerable amounts of work to retain FA status. Some comments on the sections I'm most familiar with:

  • The article seems weighted towards the last period of the Empire, with the section on 'Britain's imperial century' being shorter than that on 'Decolonisation and decline'
  • Language like "In 1770 James Cook discovered the eastern coast of Australia" needs to be replaced - the European explorers were venturing into populated lands, not "discovering" areas previously unknown to humanity
  • The section on the Second World War more or less ends in early 1942. The reconstitution of the Imperial forces and their successful campaigns are worth covering - this included genuinely Imperial efforts like the Empire Air Training Scheme (which underpinned the RAF), the Eighth Army in Italy, the Burma Campaign and the British Pacific Fleet.
  • " on the whole, Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were established to assume power. This was in contrast to other European powers such as France and Portugal,[186] which waged costly and ultimately unsuccessful wars to keep their empires intact" - totally false. The UK doubled down on much of its remaining empire during the late 1940s and 1950s, for instance by taking a serious interest in West Africa for the first time given it could produce valuable exports and encouraging Whites to move to the East African colonies. The UK also fought to hang onto its Empire when threatened in the 1950s and early 60s (e.g. Suez, Kenya, Cyprus and Aden). This material repeats a now-discredited myth, and acts to obscure the fact that like France the UK also fought dirty wars to try to stop independence movements.
  • The statement that the UK handed over to "stable" governments is also false as it implies that this was a tidy and successful process - the British in general did very little to prepare their colonies for independence, and most have been plagued by instability or single party rule since independence. Many of the African countries had only a handful of university graduates at the time of independence, for instance.
  • "The pro-decolonisation Labour government" - very simplistic. While Labour wanted to get out of India and was more sceptical of imperialism, it didn't oppose the Empire per-se.
  • " while New Zealand's Constitution Act 1986 (effective 1 January 1987) reformed the constitution of New Zealand to sever its constitutional link with Britain." - NZ only recently replaced appeals to the British Privy Council with its own court system.
  • The decolonisation and legacy sections don't describe or discuss the formal and informal arrangements which replaced the formal empire. For instance, UK companies continued to be very important in the economies of ex-colonies for decades, there are political links, and informal and formal diplomatic and military alliances.
  • More broadly, the article seems to more be a history of the British Empire rather than an article on the British Empire. The economy of the empire, how it was ruled, etc, aren't covered in any coherent way. The Roman Empire article's structure might be a good model.
  • I agree with the nomination statement here that there isn't enough on the impact of empire on the populations which had it inflicted on them.
  • The article is missing a discussion of the historiography of the Empire, with historians views on whether it was a good or bad thing evolving over time and continuing to differ.
  • If the nominator is potentially a sock puppet, especially of a notorious ban evader, this needs to be reported for an SPI ASAP. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
You actually commented on the SPI back in 2017, here. Alfie Gandon has since been banned as the sockpuppet of a different long term abuser, not Harvey Carter. But I haven't been.--Quality posts here (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Note to all. This type of discussion does not belong here. If anyone has credible evidence that the nominator is a sock, please take that to SPI; other potential behavioural concerns should also be addressed elsewhere. Please focus comments in this review on the article and how it does or does not meet WP:WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Buidhe
  • Regardless of whether the nominator is a sockpuppet and/or a POV pusher, I do not think that the article meets the FA criteria, per Nick-D's comments above. (t · c) buidhe 08:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Wiki-Ed

User:QualityPostsHere has been banging this drum for some time and has consistently failed to make a persuasive argument on the talk page.

  • Inconsistently formatted citations: I'm sure that's easily fixed. UserQPH could have done that in his/her spare time instead of writing the blurb above;
  • Too many pictures: Yes. But easily fixed. As above. I see someone has already adddressed that;
  • "fails to be comprehensive..." It covers a period of 500 years and geographically most of the world - there's a limit to how 'comprehensive' it can be - and generally speaking it reflects the way historians approach the topic. It is also written from the perspective of the central entity, not the other state/non-state entities which it interacted with, which is partly why moden perspectives (e.g. from India) are not a major feature.
  • "fails to be... well-researched..." It draws on at least 80 separate sources for the 262 in-line citations. Comparable articles have a similar amount (e.g. Spanish Empire). Other empires (e.g. Roman Empire) have more, but often multiple references for the same statement, so not sure that counts.
  • "fails to... have a neutral point of view" Which is actually what User:QPH is trying to get to - opinions. His argument seems to boil down to he just doesn't like it and wants the article to become a value-laden opinion piece focused primarily on genocide, famine and the relationship between Britain and indigenous peoples. In the past he has supported this argument with a small number of hand-picked sources -not necessarily reliable mind - to demonstrate that some people have views on this particular subject, but is unable to show that those views represent a sizeable minority (or even a fringe) within the historical community debating the British Empire. And arguably there is a case that analysis and opinion belongs in the separate (but linked) article on the Historiography of the British Empire, not the timeline-structured article we have here. To see the 'quality' - I use the word very loosely - of the language he would like to inflict on this article, one only has to look at the (now deleted) contents of the user's page.

User:NickD's comments are worthy of more considered discussion.

  • Without going through each one individually, I note he is challenging sourced statements with his own opinions. That's not a good enough reason to change the text - in particular I'm not sure NickD's analysis of 'Winds of Change' is correct, so maybe we shouldn't be jumping to change things. However, if the sources don't represent the majority of reliable sources then that's a different matter. And if they synthesise incorrectly then they need to be corrected. This should have been raised on the talk page before now.
  • Points of detail (Labour views; NZ constitution; role of companies) might deserve a mention - maybe half a sentence given relative important to topic itself. FA does not mean set in stone so User:NickD could have made these changes himself previously if he saw a gap.
  • Nuances in wording: Maybe a tendency to cherry pick rather than read the whole paragraph in context. For example, "In 1770 James Cook discovered..." - the previous line includes the relevant caveat ("discovered for Europeans"). And lines like "Britain adopted a policy" (of peaceful decolonisation) does not mean it succeeded in executing said policy or carrying it through successive political cycles/leaders;
  • Balance: No one is ever going to be entirely happy with this. User:NickD says in one line that 'Decolonisation' and 'Legacy' are too long compared to the section on 'Britain's Imperial Century', then in another line wants to add yet more content to them. The Second World War gets a few paragraphs, which is considerably more than the Seven Years War - a few lines - for a far, far more important episode (in my view!). Generally speaking I think it makes sense for more recent history to be recounted in more detail because it has more of an impact on the present, but it's a difficult balance to find. Again, I think this could be discussed on a talk page rather than FAR - it's something that can be addressed with comparatively small tweaks - condensing some sections and expanding others.

That brings me to his final point, that "the article seems to more be a history of the British Empire rather than an article on the British Empire" (drawing a comparison to the article on the Roman Empire). Like the articles on the French and Spanish Empires, this article is deliberately structured as a historical timeline, not an analysis of how 'it' (bearing in mind that 'it' in itself is contentious) functioned, nor is it a review of the historiography. A departure from this approach would be a major undertaking and would likely invite a huge amount of edit warring - something we have mostly resolved here after many years of argument. I note, also that the Roman Empire article is so thin in places that it has attracted 'misleading content' tags, so I'm not sure that's a road we want to go down. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"unable to show that those views represent a sizeable minority (or even a fringe) within the historical community debating the British Empire" - Are there more seminal scholars in their fields than Raphael Lemkin and Amartya Sen? Would the Australian Museum take a fringe position that is not at least a minority among scholars? What process do you suggest for establishing whether an idea is a majority among scholars, a minority, or fringe?--Quality posts here (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I've never heard of either of them and, it seems, neither have the authors of the books sitting on my bookshelf. They - (genuinely) seminal works about the British Empire - do not cite either of those two people. Establishing whether a view is held by a majority, by a minority or by a fringe was explained by Jimbo Wales himself. You can find his guidelines on the Neutral Point of View page under Undue Weight. In practical terms I think he means a source should be cited frequently by a large number of reliable sources (who themselves are cited frequently) on the topic in question. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's discuss the bit of WP:DUE you are citing then. We agree the article ought to discuss the views which are held both majorities and significant minorities of scholars, only excluding fringe ideas with little support. Wales' claimed "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Aren't the creator of the term genocide, a winner of the nobel memorial prize in economics, and the Australian Museum prominent adherents? Isn't the debate now whether these sources present views held by a majority or significant minority, rather than whether they present views which are fringe?
The article has a responsibility to represent views that are not mentioned in the books so far cited, if they are at least significant minority views in the academic literature.--Quality posts here (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
You may have missed the bit I italicised: on the topic in question. From the WP page on Reliable Sources: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable" [for the subject of the article]. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Amartya Sen doesn't mention the Indian famines in passing. He has devoted a number of academic papers and one book to the subject. If you want a summary of his views, you should look at his letter to Niall Ferguson attributing famines in India under British rule to the exploitative nature of the British Empire's governance. He argues the famines were not natural phenomena. The second paragraph is the most important one to look at.
Nor does Raphael Lemkin consider the Tasmanian genocide in passing. He planned an uncomplete 40-chapter book on the history of genocide. He got around to writing the chapter on the massacres of Tasmanians by the British colonissts in Tasmania. The thesis of the chapter is that this is an example of genocide. You can read a summary of the chapter here.
The Australian Museum devotes an entire article arguing the Aborigines were the victims of genocide here. Can you really argue they mention this only in passing, given it the main argument of an entire article?--Quality posts here (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)--Quality posts here (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I have to say that I find this response to my comments really troubling - to dismiss them more or less outright and to attack uninvolved reviewers as being biased is very bad form (I studied the British Empire at university, and have since read fairly widely on the topic). I suspect that we'll be moving to a FARC discussion sooner rather than later if there's no interest in improving the article, and I'd certainly support delisting if the article isn't considerably improved from its current state. @Quality posts here: I presume that you started this FAR as you were seeking external opinions, and continuing your disagreement with the other editor above is also very unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I have neither dismissed your comments outright nor attacked you personally. I've questioned your analysis where I don't agree with the substance, and I've questioned why you've raised these points here, now, rather than on the talk page previously. A FAR seems like an unusually formal way to raise a concern. The exception is your last line - that is an interesting challenge to involved editors and worthy of further discussion. Again I would argue that a proposition could have been put forward on the talk page, but apologies if my response seemed dismissive - not intended (although I have firm views on it and have expresssed them). Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
I have reviewed this article as an uninvolved reviewer in response to this FAR. Please read up on the process here - this isn't a continuation of talk page discussions. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Point taken.--Quality posts here (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Wes Sirius

Forgive me for my inexperience, but wouldn't the information on the impact on the subject peoples belong on the relevant pages of those groups? WesSirius (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, that would result in a main article with no "bad news." It would be all army, navy, generals serenely becoming Viceroys and then if you dug very deep oh horrors very, very bad things happened! Indeed that is what noted historian Barbara Tuchman found, see quote above. Germsteel (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia report "bad" news (or "good" news)? It isn't a soapbox. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. You can't write about, say, the British Empire in Australia without covering the dispossession and large scale deaths of Indigenous Australians which resulted. However, this article doesn't seem to even mention the topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
It's an article about the British Empire as a whole, not the British-in-Australia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Transfer of Tribute and the Balance of Payments in the Cambridge Economic History of India vol. 2
Was it really the case that the British came to India to build railways and telegraph, stimulate economic growth through their demand for primary commodities (which, we are told, it was in India's interest to specialise in given her factor endowments), initiate large scale industry, promote a reduction in land concentration, and withdraw gracefully, after incurring sterling debts which were of benefit to India?

Utsa Patnaik, Social Scientist, Vol. 12, No. 12 (Dec., 1984), pp. 43-55

Comments by Germsteel

Could people interested in this page take a look at: British_Raj#Economic_impact and offer any suggestions?

There are better pages: History_of_the_British_Raj#Finances, Economic_history_of_India#British_rule or Economy_of_India_under_the_British_Raj

WP Ownership?

Germsteel (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure User:NickD will be rushing in to tell you this doesn't belong here and you should follow the procedures. (The correct place would be the talk page, as with the entirety of the discussion above). Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments by SandyGeorgia

To the original issues:

  • I do not see any MOS:SANDWICH.
  • See also could be pruned.
  • Ditto External links.
  • The Spoken Wikipedia link is six years old; should it be moved to talk, or is it still close enough?
  • Could we please have a clear and simple bullet list of what sources the original poster wants to see included? I am seeing some requests to use museum websites, but I may have missed a piece.
  • The Further reading section contains all harvref errors, so something is off there. And why such an extensive Further reading list; does it need pruning? Oh, turns out that Further reading is supposed to be the source list, so there is a problem there with MOS:APPENDIX naming, and a problem with the citation linking.

Note: since I promoted this article, and there is controversy, I won't be entering any declaration-- just listing things to fix. With a reminder that this article averages 6,000 views per day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the sandwiching a few days ago and have now pruned the See Also and External Links. On your point about Further Reading could you clarify where the harvref errors are? I can't seem to see any and no-one has made any changes to the article since you posted. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Harvrefs are still a mystery to me. DrKay could you explain why simply doing this made all the red Harvref error links go away ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, no. I don't see any red error links on the previous revision. DrKay (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Yep, they are gone now ... as if the software did not recognize refbegin and refend before my edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:MOSNUM review needed, sample, British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to five million, three million of whom were in Hong Kong ... switches from digits to spelling out digits mid-sentence. Sample only, pls check all.
  • MOS:DATERANGE, pick a style, all four digits is preferred ... 1904–05 also limited its threat to the British ... but later all four digits ... the South African Republic or Transvaal Republic (1852–77; 1881–1902) and the Orange Free State (1854–1902).[125] In 1902 Britain occupied both republics, concluding a treaty with the two Boer Republics following the Second Boer War (1899–1902).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

    • I've fixed the daterange issues I saw. CMD (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Georgethedragonslayer

I agree with the nom that the article has deliberately omitted all of the negative aspects of the empire despite the global condemnation of colonization, genocide and exploitation. It needs to be speedily delisted as FA. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

I note that in the decade since the last FAR (version), the article has expanded about 20% (past the WP:SIZE guidelines) and gained a few short sections. "Transformation into British Empire" in particular, stands out as something that should probably be removed outright, especially given it only has a primary source. CMD (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Another note is that the lead contains sources not used anywhere else (most were added since the last FAR but some were there then too), implying there is information there not in the rest of the article (eg. "Workshop of the world"). CMD (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Those references are there because those statements seem to attract tendentious/IP editors. I'd argue the very high level summary stuff should not be replicated in the rest of the article, so long as it doesn't imply a conclusion that a reader would not come to anyway. The "Workshop" point is - I think (?) - perhaps the exception that proves the rule (since Britain's industrial progress isn't covered). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is it doesn't need to be replicated directly, if as you say it's a summary of the article's information. My experience however is that a source used solely in the lead (as opposed to used in multiple places) is often indicative that this is not the case. If that is wrong for this article, that would be great, but it does need to be checked in my opinion. CMD (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist I agree with Nick-D's analysis in that the article is not comprehensive of all aspects of British rule. Focusing on political and military aspects leads to neglect of economy, society, and other important topics: "More broadly, the article seems to more be a history of the British Empire rather than an article on the British Empire. The economy of the empire, how it was ruled, etc, aren't covered in any coherent way." (t · c) buidhe 18:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist The article is clearly not of featured standard, as it fails to adequately cover its topic, and the editors most involved with the article seem to have no interest at all in improving it. Nick-D (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist assuming noone (Wiki-Ed?) will be implementing changes detailed above in the near future.--Quality posts here (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Note, I have removed a Keep declaration and reminded the editor who entered it to do so without casting asperions. I will be opening an WP:ANI if anyone else continues to cast aspersions on this FAR. WP:SPI is that-a-way. WP:FOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Keep The comments made by Nick-D and SandyGeorgia could have easily been dealt with on the talk page of the article. They certainly do not justify delisting. Other comments on the article are not relevant and are classic examples of WP:GREATWRONGS and represent a historical revisionist agenda that violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This also does not justify delisting. Finally, the lack of significant outside commentary here is indicative that the article continues to meet FA criteria. WCMemail 02:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be grand if someone would deal with them, because we should be saving this star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
"classic examples of WP:GREATWRONGS and represent a historical revisionist agenda that violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR" which of the four sources I paraphrase do you argue your criticism applies to?
I disagree that there is a lack of outside commentary here. Taking a glance at FAR, this one has more people commenting in the review section (10) than any other open FAR, and I only recognize 3 from the talk page. It seems like there is significant outside interest in this FAR beyond the talk page regulars like you and I, making the discussions here more valuable than a talk page discussion would have been.--Quality posts here (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Question: If there is a consensus that coverage is lacking in non-history areas, could this article be moved to History of the British Empire, which is currently a redirect? That would preserve the work put into this format of the article. CMD (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It sounds like an acceptable idea. The article is not a comprehensive history of the British Empire, but it's certainly the foundation for one. But what would take the article's place? Is anyone willing to write a replacement article?--Quality posts here (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: In short, no. The article does not provide adequate coverage of its topic, and appears to have been written at present to evade coverage of key topics such as the impact of the Empire on indigenous peoples and the messy decolonisation process which are very prominent in the modern historiography on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
If you mean coverage within the topic of the History, I also feel given points made above that that discussion might make more sense within the framework of the moved article. A move will not solve all of the problems, but it sounds like it may solve some of them. CMD (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
If the article was moved to (say) History of the British Empire, I think that a new FAC would be needed to determine whether it's a FA on that particular topic. A move wouldn't solve my concerns with the article's unbalanced material on the nature of the Empire. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
A different title would create a coatrack for editors who want this title to cover their pet issue, be that the history of a specific region in great detail (India or Australia) or of some other aspect of the British Empire that this article only touches on. There are separate Content Forks on the British Raj the History of Australia, the Economy of the British Empire, the Demographics of the British Empire and the Territorial evolution of the British Empire etc etc. This article is an overview of a historical entity... so it should be about the history of said entity, not other stuff. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
So to clarify, you suggest the economy, politics, historiography and every other aspect of the subject that isn't history should be in a seperate article, and this one should solely be the history, without even mentioning the existence of the related articles? The more common approach is to give every aspect of the topic gets its own individual article, including history, and then the main article has a top level section for each related article, summarizing them. Why is history more important than the other aspects? A more immediate problem with the article is that the links to related articles are simply listed down at the bottom in the See Also section, without any of their content being discussed anywhere. How can the article be comprehensive if the contents of those articles are never even mentioned?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
By its nature this is an article about a historical entity, so of course it focuses on past events. There was no single economy or political system, and it evolved in different ways in different countries at different times over the 500 year period. Those are subjects in their own right and the links to those articles are in the sections that touch on those topics (not so much at the end of the article). Some of the BE books (of literally several hundred pages) on my bookshelf don't have the space to cover everything (even at a high level), so why would anyone think an article with an MOS size limit could possibly do differently? Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Well with limited space we should summarize everything at as high a level as necessary to fit it in. We can't arbitrarily decide to go into a lot of detail about one aspect of the topic (history) while not even mentioning the others. That is not giving aspects of the topic their due weight in proportion to how they are discussed by historians.--Quality posts here (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not artibrary, it's based on how reliable sources approach the topic. And the entire topic is history of one form or another; there are no other aspects. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist It's such a shame this article hasn't improved much up to now.
  • The legacy section contains one negative aspect as a belated comment, whereas it should be integrated into the section. The section also isn't structured well and should be divided into subsections, such as religion/culture and politics. I cannot find any logic in the paragraph order. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's really important the first sentence is understandable to basically everybody who speaks some English. The word comprised is a word I only properly learned when I was already C2 level. Consider replacing with 'was made up of' or something else.
  • Too many commas; had to read this sentence a few times before understanding. Two instances of then close together. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England and then, following the union between England and Scotland in 1707, Great Britain, the dominant colonial power in North America. It then ..
  • comma more appropriate I think. Alternatively, drop the so that: to transform Britain; so that by.
  • other territories throughout the world. Consider removing throughout the world. Where else would the territory be?
  • This sentence is cited to a 2000 source. Much of the discussion of atrocities of the British Empire have occurred afterwards. It would be good to have a more modern source confirming that this is the appropriate way of describing decolonisation: Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were established to assume power. This was in contrast to other European powers such as France and Portugal if appropriate based on more modern sources, some notable exceptions of peaceful disengagement should be mentioned. (I have no idea whether Kenya should be mentioned.
  • I didn't understand the following sentence without searching throughout the rest of the article. The "wind of change" meant that the British Empire's days were numbered, and on the whole, Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were established to assume power This is the first time the wind of change is mentioned, and the wikilink refers to a speech, which feels a bit like an WP:egg, as the sentence refers to the concept instead.
  • Is policing sufficiently important to be mentioned? My impression is that the American and British police system are as far apart as any Western policing system; British police being largely unarmed, whereas American police has become increasingly militarised.
  • The British Empire provided refuge for religiously persecuted continental Europeans for hundreds of years that sentence doesn't feel appropriate to the legacy section, as I presume it happened during the Empire. When balancing the section, this is a fact that could be removed or integrated into a different part of the article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Has anyone worked on the actionable items in Femke’s list? If so, it would be good to indicate that here for the Coords, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Femkemilene and SandyGeorgia: I've tweaked some of the English concerns, but I'm not sure where the balance is with accessibility. I find "comprised" to be an appropriate and concise word, so I think more opinions are needed on that. The Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya is mentioned, along with the Rhodesian civil war. I can't find that wind of change sentence referenced, so I assume someone else has edited it. The first mention is now "At first British politicians believed it would be possible to maintain Britain's role as a world power at the head of a re-imagined Commonwealth,[188] but by 1960 they were forced to recognise that there was an irresistible "wind of change" blowing", which I believe contextualises that the change is away from maintaining power. I have removed the line on policing as the sources cited didn't support the sweeping claim. I have not removed the religious persecution fragment for now, as I cannot access the source in question, but I would agree it does not feel appropriate to its context. CMD (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for your efforts! I think the legacy section is okay in terms of neutrality. I tried to get a bit more input about accessibility asking my partner (he agrees) and using automated tools. The Hemingway app indicates that the lead is now written at postgraduate level, and the Flesch–Kincaid readability test score (using [4]) is 32, indicating college level. The sentences I highlighted are also highlighted by those apps, but they indicate a more radical change may be needed to make the lede accessible. With these scores, I think the articles fails WP:EXPLAINLEAD, which I think is the most important aspect of criterion 1a. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm certainly not here to defend the current lead as a whole, I've got my own problems with it. As a comparative point, what do you think about this old lead? The first sentence is almost the same, but what about the rest? CMD (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
from an accessibility perspective, that lead was slightly better, but still scoring a 32. It doesn't contain the word hegemon, and A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (Britain, following the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland) the dominant colonial power in North America and India. is understandable at first reading. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Another difficult one in the first paragraph: to hold sway; just had to look it up in the dictionary, wasn't 100% sure of its meaning before. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment
    1. A lot of those commenting delist are stating that the coverage of the topic is inadequate. Please give specific examples, supported by citations of where coverage is inadequate. Bearing in mind point 3 below.
    2. There has been an accusation that the article is deliberately evading coverage of topics. That's a personal attack on the integrity of the editors who have contributed to this article. That comment has no place in a review and should be withdrawn.
    3. This article is intended as an overview of the British Empire, it's not intended to be a complete history. Those suggesting we need to cover additional topics, please can you explain how you intend to address that whilst at the same time reduce the size of the article? WCMemail 16:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


Comments by Kahastok

My reading of the original objection is that it is essentially trying to push a particular viewpoint into the article, emphasising particular negative caricatures and tropes rather than applying a neutral point of view. Turning the article into an editorial on how evil the British Empire was would not comply with WP:NPOV.

I find Nick-D's comments more persuasive. I do think we should be able to make more of a reference to the different treatments of indigenous peoples in the Empire, subject to WP:WEIGHT given to the point in reliable sources, the fact that this varied enormously from place to place, and the fact that there is a limit to how much detail we can sensibly cover in a single article. This is all stuff that really needs to be thrashed out at the talk page.

I think this is all much harder because the spirit of the process wasn't really followed - because stage 1 of the process at WP:FAR effectively didn't happen. The issue raised at stage 1 was effectively that the article didn't present the British Empire as an entirely evil enterprise, with the primary aim of killing as many people as possible. If the objections raised at stage 1 had been acted upon, then this article would have had to have been de-featured because it would have become horrendously biased.

The more reasonable concerns raised in this FAR were not raised at that time and so the opportunity to resolve them in a less pressured situation was lost. Kahastok talk 22:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

If work is actively being done on the article, we're happy to extend the timeframe of this process to allow for that. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Just to add, it's quite normal for articles to stay at FAR for quite a while if work is being done on addressing comments. I presume that this moved to FARC fairly quickly due to the hostile response to the comments from reviewers which indicated a lack of interest in improving the article. However, this is the third time that complaints have been made that my comments should have been posted on the article's talk page and, to be frank, this is totally mistaken. I have not been involved with this article previously, and have commented on it for the first time here, which is how FACs work. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Oh, no, I don't mean to suggest that you did something wrong by commenting here and I'm sorry if it came across that way. Only that it would have been better if the original phase 1 discussion on talk had focussed on the sorts of issues that you raised. The way the process actually went has meant that some people's hackles have been raised. And by the looks of things they need to be lowered if this article is to keep its star. Kahastok talk 22:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
User:NickD interpreted my comments that way too (although possibly my raised 'hackles' didn't help). I meant to criticise the process rather than his contribution which I would have rather had an opportunity to discuss. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that the last thing that people can complain about at WP:FAR is time pressure; articles typically stay months parked at WP:FAR if people are actually improving them in the meantime. I still don't see any discussion on the article's talk page about how the article can be improved following this nomination. If you want to see how a very difficult article has recently kept its star at FAR, check out Tyrannosaurus. That article needed an entire Wikiproject working on it, and a complete overhaul to make it reflect current scientific consensus. The difference is, WP:PALEO people jumped into action two days after the review started, whereas in this case people felt slighted that an old FA would even be considered for review (including a comment that thankfully has been removed). Nick's first comment in the Review section is very fair and extremely valuable as it comes from someone who knows very well today's FAC process and is completely removed from whatever issues were going on the article's talk page prior to the nomination. I think that the reluctance in even acknowledging that the article does not meet current FA criteria has led to this. FAs have to be reviewed from time to time, especially essential articles like this one, about subjects that receive a lot of scholarly coverage. Several of these issues were already raised 10 years ago, and the very first thing that is mentioned there is bias. I don't think anyone here wants the article to lose the star, we want issues to be addressed. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with User:Kahastok that there are two aspects to this: first, QualitypostsHere's objection to the existing neutral tone/content; second, some of NickD's suggestions, which deserve consideration, but ideally not in what feels like a time-pressured review environment (even if you're saying it's not). Asserting there is "reluctance in even acknowledging [need for change]" is incorrect: editors have been trying to fix legitimate issues when they've been raised. However, I note that most of these issues have been picked out by FAR administrators, not the OP and they're not clearly listed, which makes it somewhat difficult to identify what the problems actually are. And thank you for reminding us that we've been here before ten years ago: the same set of weak POV arguments (made by editors who subsequently earned themselves topic bans) with a few easily-fixed MOS issues. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You didn't reply to my comment summarizing the work of Amartya Sen and Raphael Lemkin on the British Empire, above. Do you call that a weak POV argument? I have done work explaining my argument to you.. You just dismiss it out of hand as a weak POV argument. Can you not explain what specifically about these authors' work means they shouldn't be included?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You can hunt down my comments all you like, but the onus is on you to understand the Undue Weighting policy and present a valid argument. How many historians have written about the British Empire in the last few centuries? How many of those authors have devoted how much of their page-count to the niche issues you want to refocus the article on to? Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Can we ask people to stop with the comments about the reaction to this review. People were upset about how this came about, for a good reason, but are now prepared to get on with it. WCMemail 16:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I was out most of yesterday for a medical app't and may have missed something. I am pretty sure that Nikkimaria is likely to be keeping a close eye on this FAR, and she may be willing to consider removing unhelpful or off-topic commentary to the talk page here. We do need to regain a focus on improving the article rather than commenting on contributors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep is what I would like to say but if that would mean introducing POV content and Synthesis then frankly we can do without the little star - adhering to the Core Policies is far more important. For background the article adopts a style used by many general works on the British Empire (many of which are cited), working forward chronologically and covering the most important developments in different geographic regions. Given MOS size limits it does/can not delve into the political/social/economic detail of what happened in each region - each of which was unique - nor provide much analysis of the impact (intentionally so since this would also introduce POV). Insofar as the article does provide analysis, it uses the views of mainstream reliable sources only - on this general topic - and in proportion to the amount of coverage they give those specific issues. In some contentious issues - which we probably shouldn't be touching under NPOV - RS coverage is often minimal anyway (terms like "genocide" don't appear, let alone occupy space) so given the summary style we are using it often means that some issues are condensed into one line (or not even mentioned). There will always be people who are unhappy with this and that is unavoidable.
Going forward I would propose:
  • We separate (a) the original vexatious demand to insert POV content from (b) any genuine issues with the article. And I would propose to the FAR administrators that they should find a more robust system for sifting review applications.
  • Editors with MOS concerns list them clearly and provide time for editors to fix them (it's difficult to track what is being asked for and what has been actioned);
  • Constructive proposals to change the design of the article need proper discussion - presumably on the talk if we cannot debate them here. NB those editors wishing to open a can of worms will need to defend their views, bearing in mind all the other contrary views that people have on this topic (or sub topics) which led to continuous disruption in the time before the article settled into its current, stable, state. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is already very long and there is a legacy section. It's not possible to fit everything into one article. This one needs to be a summary of the main points only, and a chronological history is the most sensible way of arranging the information. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
List
  • I asked at 00:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC) for a clear and simple list of reliable sources that are excluded or not given due weight. There is a lot of verbiage on this page, and I may have missed it, but do not see such list.
  • MOS:SANDWICH has been resolved; I have juggled some of the images right-left to address soldiers racing off the page and men gazing off the page.
  • The HarvRef errors and pruning needed in the appendices is addressed, except:
  • Why do we include a link to the British Empire at Encyclopedia Britannica? FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, with ELs only for items that can't be included. What does Encyclopedia Britannica have that we do not?
  • This is not an article about the art depicting the British Empire: why do we have three links to art collections? (Why do we have any links to art collections)?
  • I indicated at 11 Nov that a MOSNUM and DATERANGE review was needed. Best I can tell, no one has put a diff on this page indicating those issues have been addressed. I will re-check the entire article if I must, but the customary way to address issues raised at FAC and FAR is to indicate what has been addressed ... providing a diff is helpful. (But it clearly has not been done ... eg, the number of people under British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to five million, three million of whom were in Hong Kong ... in a list be consistent about digits or spelling out).
  • The image in "Loss of the Thirteen American Colonies" is confusing ... there is a parenthetical about the thirteen colonies, but the map includes all of British Northamerican colonies.
  • This is the dup links tool: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. Please run it to address the unnecessary and extreme WP:OVERLINKing everywhere.
  • "Current British Overseas Territories have their names underlined in red." Please review throughout for MOS:CURRENT, and see MOS:COLOUR.
Prose
  • With the outbreak of the Anglo-Spanish War of Jenkins' Ear in 1739, Spanish privateers attacked British merchant shipping along the Triangle Trade routes. In 1746, the Spanish and British began peace talks, with the King of Spain agreeing to stop all attacks on British shipping; however, in the Treaty of Madrid Britain lost its slave trading rights in South and Central America.
Why the "however" clause is attached to that sentence at all is not explained.
  • What does this "however" add?
  • In practice, however, American anti-communism prevailed over anti-imperialism,
  • There are eight uses of the word subsequent and most are redundant.
  • What does "ultimately" add here?
  • Britain's ultimately successful military response to retake the islands during the ensuing Falklands War was viewed by many to have contributed to reversing the downward trend in Britain's status as a world power.[233]
“By many” could use tightening.

These are examples of prose tightening that could help. I have focused on only the superficial and easily fixed items as I do not intend to enter a declaration on an article I promoted that has become controversial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed "by many" I saw it in two places, it was simply superfluous. WCMemail 11:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Tided up a couple of examples of WP:MOSNUM problems, I have gotten totally confused as it seems a comment I made as I did it has disappeared and I can't figure out where. WCMemail 12:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Prose tightening, removed "ultimately" again simply superfluous. WCMemail 12:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Prose tightening, removed most "however", I left one as the sentence required it. WCMemail 12:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Reviewed used of subsequently, most have been removed as superfluous. One left. WCMemail 12:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Reviewed external links, 3 removed, I am beginning to wonder if the other 2 should also be removed and eliminate the section altogether. WCMemail 12:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this list of minor items. Has anyone looked at Nick-D’s list posted here at ... Nick-D 03:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC) ? Still pending is for the complaints about POV to be backed by a list of sources excluded or not given due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes I responded to it at 11.51 on the same day. There are a number of contentious claims: these need to be supported with evidence that the majority of reliable sources agree and would need to be deconflicted with other articles which assert contrary positions (e.g. Wind of Change (speech)). He has also made some non-contentious proposals to add factual additions - these would need sourcing. His opinions on the balance of coverage of different historical periods... is his opinion. I disagree. No one else has commented. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Multiple people have commented, and you are rejecting all of these comments. I've never seen any requirement for FAR reviewers to provide sources, but would suggest John Darwin's recent major work Unfinished Empire which, as a book written by an Oxford academic and published in Penguin's history series, can be assumed to represent a pretty middle of the road modern perspective as key recent source which hasn't been consulted. Regarding my comments, it discusses how the British tried to double down on holding onto the Empire until the 1960s (a good summary is on pages 342-343) and the messy and bloody end of empire in Africa (pp 366-375). This book also describes in some detail the disastrous impact of the empire on Indigenous Australians (see the large number of index entries on page 458). I'd note that all of these topics were covered in a university history course I attended in the early 2000s, so are nothing new and are covered by many other works (the main work for this course was Bernard Porter's book The Lion's Share, which also doesn't seem to have been consulted here). For more specialised works, Caroline Elkins' book Britain’s Gulag led to a major reassessment of the end of empire in Africa, especially the myth that the the British didn't fight dirty wars like the continental Europeans did (see [5]), David Edgerton's work Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War makes the point that the British Empire was a superpower in the Second World War which played a major role in the Allied victory, John Buckley's Monty's Men describes how the British-Canadian 21st Army Group played a key role in defeating Nazi Germany and Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper's Forgotten Armies discusses the very complex, remarkably multi-ethnic nature of the Empire's war against Japan as well as the complex results of this campaign which together illustrate that the current text focusing on the disasters up to 1942 is inadequate and needs to be reworked. All of these are well known and standard works on their topics. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Please don't conflate my coments: Who else has commented on the balance of periodic coverage? At the time I'm writing this - and I insert this caveat because I've noticed at least three other editors retrospectively adjusting their comments above - you are the only one who's indicated a concern that it's too focused on recent-history or that the Second World War isn't covered properly. On the former I think it's natural that the article tells the reader about events which are more likely to be relevant to the modern day. But that's all based on MOS article-size recommendations. If those limits were removed then I'd agree we should be going into more detail on the earlier periods. On the Second World War: I agree it could say more, but again, if we have to make choices because of MOS limits on article size then we can't go overboard. And I'd argue it would need to focus on what the war did to the Empire, not what the Empire did for the war effort (not sure that's where you're going with the sources you've listed there?).
For the contentious claims: I didn't ask for sources, I asked for evidence that the sources being used to argue for change to the tone represent the majority view. And we should be careful with asserting certain sources support certain view points. I find it curious, for example, that you choose to refer to Darwin's 'Unfinished Empire' - a book in which the author is careful not to impose anachronistic value judgements (of the sort User:QualityPostsHere and his sources would impose). In particular, I don't agree with how you're reading the sections you've pointed us to. On Africa Darwin talks (page 366) about an intent to build a "wide zone of influence" - i.e. not an intent to "double down" on the empire through "messy" or "bloody" wars (Algeria, Vietnam, the Congo etc). But he is quite scathing about the thinking behind that approach - arrogant politicians, unrealistic ambitions etc - and its impact on those countries. This does not undermine the existing line in the article ("on the whole, Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement...") which is emphasising intent, not actuality. However, the article does not have space to go into detail on each country (and so it misses the impacts) and the linked article (which should do that) is very weak. So in that respect there's a need for a caveat explaining that although the British did not intend to cling on to a formal empire, the policy they pursued was both misguided and poorly implemented, potentially setting up a few more lines in the Legacy section. I'll have go at drafting something which brings this out neutrally. Wiki-Ed (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
As a quick note, this article explicitly contradicts the myth of a peaceful withdrawal, and highlights as an example the use of detention camps during the Mau Mau rebellion, among a few other conflicts mentioned. There's always room to shift things around within size limitations, but the suggestions raised that these sorts of topics are avoided by the article is incorrect. CMD (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Although I agree with the specific points you're making there, the line that appears to be drawing ire is making a contrast between the fate of the British Empire and of other historical empires - many (most?) of which were broken up by force. The British Empire's territories were not conquered by allied coalitions, dynasties were not overthrown, London was not sacked by barbarians. That's not a myth. Citation not needed. We should explain that withdrawal and disengagement was marked by conflict and persecution in many places, but it needs to be put into perspective, as the (balanced) sources do. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

For the bazillionth time, please focus on content and stop personalizing. Nick-D suggests the following "well known and standard works" should be represented:

  1. John Darwin's Unfinished Empire (including pages 342-343, 366-375 and index entries on page 458).
  2. Bernard Porter's The Lion's Share
  3. Caroline Elkins' Britain’s Gulag
  4. David Edgerton's Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War
  5. John Buckley's Monty's Men
  6. Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper's Forgotten Armies

(Yes, it has always been required at both FAC and FAR that we use sources to back up claims of POV, lacking comprehensiveness, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed seems to be questioning whether the sources we listed are representative of a significant minority viewpoint, the bar for inclusion in the article. WP:DUE outlines a simple test, naming a few prominent adherents of the view. Some prominent adherents of the view that the British Empire perpetrated genocide and unnatural famines:
Genocide
  1. Australian MuseumThe Museum carries articles on its website arguing Aborigines were the victims of genocide.
  2. Raphael Lemkin (creator of the term genocide) — He planned an uncomplete 40-chapter book on the history of genocide. He got around to writing the chapter on the massacres of Tasmanians by the British colonissts in Tasmania. The thesis of the chapter is that this is an example of genocide. You can read a summary of the chapter here.
  3. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada — From the article: "The Commission officially concluded in December 2015 with the publication of a multi-volume final report that concluded the school system amounted to cultural genocide."
Indian famines
  1. Amartya Sen (1998 winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences) — He has devoted a number of academic papers and one book to the subject. If you want a summary of his views, you should look at his letter to Niall Ferguson attributing famines in India under British rule to the exploitative nature of the British Empire's governance.
  2. William Dalrymple (2018 winner of the President's Medal of the British Academy) — From Great Bengal famine of 1770, "Historian William Dalrymple held that the deindustrialisation of Bengal[12] and the policies of the East India Company were the reasons for the mass famine and widespread chaos.[13]"
  3. Shashi Tharoor (former Under-Secretary General of the United Nations) — From Shashi Tharoor's Oxford Union speech: "the British never cared about the starving in India, directly mentioning Churchill and the Bengal famine as example.[2][16][14] Tharoor took the examples of Robert Clive as a colonialist who looted India, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and the mutilation of weavers by the British, and concluded that the infrastructure built by the British in India (such as the railways) was not a "gift" to India but a means to loot India even more.[17]" ... "The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, at an event in the Parliament of India in July 2015, responded to the debate by saying that "what he [Tharoor] spoke there reflected the sentiments of the citizens of India""
The above are no ordinary sources (e.g. random historians), they are prominent sources. Surely this satisfies WP:DUE enough for inclusion?
I have done some searches on Google Scholar, and a search for '"British Empire" genocide' brings up about 4% as many hits as a search for '"British Empire"'. Not all of these are in support of the idea the British Empire commit genocide, many of them specifically argue against it. But doesn't this imply around 4% of all research papers on the British Empire concern the topic of genocide? What possible tests would convince Wiki-Ed that this is not a tiny minority viewpoint unworthy of inclusion?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
A google hits count is not and never has been a means of establishing notability. As a means of establishing WP:DUE it is specifically excluded by policy, for many reasons including the fact that it is extremely vulnerable to confirmation bias due to the way searches are framed.
As regards, content, no I don't see anything there that would establish WP:DUE has been satisfied. The article already mentions the famines in India and the fact that the East India company policies contributed to that. Reflecting established scholarship for an overview article I would note we already have covered it appropriately.
As regards, genocide, no, these are fringe views and not included in mainstream literature. As noted at WP:RSN most of The New Republic pieces read as opinion pieces by the author, as such you could use them as sources for the opinion of the author but not as statements of fact. You need to separate fact from opinion. I don't see the space for a detailed treatise on the topic in an overview article about the BE. WCMemail 09:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The modern Australian literature on the history of Australia tends to have a strong focus on the impact of empire on Indigenous Australians, with this stressing that it was disastrous from the outset. 'Genocide' is a minority view, but not a trivial one. I can't think of any work covering the history of Australia since 1788 produced over the last 20-30 years which hasn't included a focus on Indigenous Australians and the devastating effects of the Empire on their society - this is also a strong theme in more specialised works, including regional/local histories, military history, etc. That this article doesn't note the topic at all is a significant omission - I find it really weird to read the material on Australia here and not see coverage of it. Stuart Macintyre's A Concise History of Australia is a good reference as a concise standard work, but literally any book on this topic covers similar issues. Richard Broome's Aboriginal Australians is also well regarded and up to its fifth edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
On Australia, I agree that the balance of its paragraph should be tweaked. Compare it with the subsequent New Zealand paragraph, which covers the interactions with the indigenous population. Inclusion could be balanced by removing some detail on, for example, Willem Janszoon and Joseph Banks in the three sentences dedicated to discovery and mapping. CMD (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you suggest Nick? I don't have the specific Australian texts you mention and having had a quick look they're not available locally to me. I tend to agree the balance of the paragraph could be tweaked but it could do with being drafted by someone with your level of knowledge on the topic - bearing in mind the brevity required for an overview. WCMemail 11:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest a line after the bit about the Australian colonies being profitable exporters etc - the counterpoint to 'success' being the impact on the indigenous population. However, neutral wording is crucial - it wasn't a policy of genocide from the government in London - rather a frontier/settler mentality also seen elsewhere (particularly the Americas - some historians would argue the colonists wish to take over indigenous land - i.e. in opposition to London's policy - was more important than "No taxation without representation" in leading to the declaration of independence). Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Such information should go prior to information on becoming profitable exporters, as the interactions with the indigenous population go back as far as Cook shooting a Gweagal man. The displacement of Aboriginal people was part of the expanding British settlement of Australia, which was what led to controlling the land needed to farm wool and dig for gold. I would agree it wasn't a single policy though, it was a combination of disease, individual violence, some policies, land change, and simple numbers. CMD (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
There has been a lot of objections to proposed changes based on the idea that there is no room in the article. The article still devotes 247 words to 18th century wars with Spain, but only 80 words to famines in India. This is indefensible.--Quality posts here (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Perfectly defensible. The Spanish Empire was the pre-eminent european empire until overtaken and surpassed by the British Empire. The conflict between the two largely shaped the British Empire for centuries. Please refrain from unconstructive comments. WCMemail 18:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, can an article regular please describe step-by-step in detail how they propose we verify whether a view is at least significant minority view which should be in the article, or a fringe view which should not? All attempts at doing this have simply been dismissed without an alternative method being advanced. I have described two different methods (listing prominent scholars with the view, and Google Scholar statistics), but you disgree with them. Please describe the method you would agree with. This is our most important disagreement. All of our other disagreements stem from this.--Quality posts here (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
We can't help you: The reason you are struggling to get your argument across is because you are taking a position at odds with the NPOV core policy. The relevant section says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic..." You are trying to bring disproportionate focus on to a particular set of events (out of all the things that happened across a period of several centuries) in a particular country (one of many that were part of the BE). Even with "verifiable and impartial" (not sure about the latter in this case) reliable sources supporting the position it is not of sufficient significance to this topic (and the main body of reliable sources covering it) such that it deserves more space than it already gets. And your word count is comparing apples and oranges; the relevant stat is that famine gets 80 words out of 430 on the Raj (just over 18.5%), which is a greater proportion than the 435 words (of 18000) in the actual article on the British Raj (2.3%). The argument above does not mean these subjects are unimportant or "minor aspects" (using the language above) of the history of particular countries, but there are separate articles on, for example Famine in India and the History of Australia. Complex and contentious subjects should be explained in detail on dedicated pages where the nuances can be laid out. Whether or not the two articles I've referred to achieve that is another matter. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
You mentioned earlier that you have on your bookshelf seminal works on the British Empire - what works are those and what proportion of them are devoted to which topic? The question of due weight is best addressed by comparison to standard reference texts rather than other Wikipedia articles, which as you note may or may not themselves be appropriately weighted. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I used the word "seminal" in relation to the use of the loaded term "genocide". So, for example, taking Darwin's "Unfinished Empire", which others have recommended: as far as I can recall + from the index + a quick scan of relevant sections he does not use this sort of wording even when he's talking about the "hard racist edge of settler society". To pick two others the article uses a fair bit: Ferguson's 2003 "Empire" is perhaps on the right wing end of the spectrum, so one would not expect him to use such a term; James's 2001 "Rise and Fall..." is more to the centre and also avoids it (I should caveat I've not done an in-depth search just to satisfy User:QPH's interest).
However, I think you're asking about the balance of topical coverage across a range of reliable sources? That's more difficult. I won't pretend to have read every single book or journal article on this subject and even if I had that wouldn't provide specifics of their exact coverage of each topic or the structure. To do that you'd need some sort of sophisticated data-driven analysis which measured frequency of key words, assessed related paragraph relevance and length, took account of (unnecessary) stylistic flourishes etc. Even if that were possible I'm not sure it would be meaningful. What we have to work with is our sense of the approach the authors are taking. My take on this is as follows: The article covers the whole period and the whole geographic extent, so it has a preference for sources which do likewise (e.g. Canny, Ferguson, James, Lloyd, Marshall, Smith), although it sometimes use more specific works for specific topics. The broad-ranging sources often have their own angles and return to similar themes, but structurally they generally work forward chronologically (sometimes jumping back) and almost always use the same marker points (e.g. 1776, 1815, 1914, 1956, 1997), but they don't provide exhaustive coverage of every single event; they usually incorporate new territories into their narrative at the appropriate point in time (but don't try to cover every single country's entry/exit); they all have a huge cast list of people and places, but even so, they do not mention every single country / person; and - most important of all - they rarely examine any one topic in great detail. Obviously the weighting of each topic in each book differs, and some of them are twice the size of others - they have the luxury of several hundred pages to explore issues; we do not. As WCM says above, this is an overview article so it provides headline reporting following the trend of general works, but without offering their analysis (such as it is). Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
"You are trying to bring disproportionate focus on to a particular set of events". My question was, what method do we use to decide how proportionate the focus should be? It seems Nikkimaria has provided the answer, above.--Quality posts here (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
No. The answer is: we already do that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I certainly don't want us to try to equal those works in length. However, short of doing a comprehensive survey of all literature on the Empire ever, referring to the standard works that cover the whole period and geography provides the best sense of relative coverage for subtopics. Given the scope I would then suggest going down a level from there, for example with Nick-D's standard works on Australian history, to ensure appropriate weighting of subtopics specific to a particular geography or time period. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that's where it gets tricky. So, for example, if we're writing an article on the History of Australia then we'll align it with the way in which the majority of reliable sources approach that topic. Presumably the ~6% of that article's 28,000 words which covers the impact of European colonisation on indigenous peoples is proportionate to the scholarship. However, in an article on the British Empire the emphasis has to be on how Australia fitted into the Empire, not how the Empire fitted into Australia: we have to give priority to basic facts (when Brits arrived, key events which affected Australia's position within the empire over time (e.g. Gallipoli, Fall of Singapore), and the point at which it became independent of that empire), because we have limited space. Important (localised) issues may well be prominent in all/most scholarship on Australia itself, but the weighting has to change if we're writing about a different subject. To my mind this is where wiki links come in - our advantage over published sources - and hence why I pointed out to those other articles earlier. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC) NB I should say that in this case I do think we have space to mention this particular 'event' - not doing so is not neutral given the rosy picture being painted - but I was talking about general principles of weighting.

Trying to work out where all of this is[edit]

Despite being listed at the top I never received a notification of this disussion so I am coming late to it and there is a lot of reading.

As far as I can see there are three questions:

  1. Should it remain as a featured article and to that the consensus seems to be yes
  2. Should it be renamed as a history and I can't see any consensus to do that
  3. The genoicide issue which comes up time and time again and where the discussion should move to the talk page of the article with this being closed? On that matter my own view is that Australia was defacto genocide, but the balance of sources do not say that so we can't use it. The Indian Famine debate has been going on for years and I can't see anything new here.

If I have it wrong apologies, but just trying to make sense of things -----Snowded TALK 11:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

welcome to the discussion!
  1. I don't think there is consensus for either outcome yet. I think however it is doable still to save this article .
  2. I agree with your assessment
  3. Dunno
  4. two more points have been raised. First the difficulty of language. If we get some people specialise in copyediting working with the regulars, the issue of using overly complicated language should be fairly easy to solve. I'm happy if only the lead is improved, I don't mind if the rest of the article is a bit too difficult.
  5. and the second point: the article may not be comprehensive in terms of governance and economics. More difficult to solve. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Elagabalus[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted in 2005, and it's now not up to FA standards. There are many unsourced sentences and paragraphs (for example the last paragraph of the Modern historians section doesn't have any proper source). There are also no uniformed source formatting. Then, the article relies too much on primary sources (Cassius Dio and Herodian), even the notoriously unreliable Historia Augusta (see for instance the section "Sexuality and gender controversy"; there are 9 citations to primary sources and only one to a RS (Grant)), despite the article saying this book is unreliable. I am not saying that these sources shouldn't be included in the articles*, but only with modern sources to back or criticise them. Therefore, the article patently violates 1.c (reliable sources) and 2.c (consistant formatting). T8612 (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

T8612 I cannot see where you gave talk page notification, per the FAR instructions, nor have you notified relevant participants or WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Here. I didn't use the template, perhaps that's why. Original author retired in 2006. T8612 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, so Mr rnddude’s 2016 post can serve as talk page notification. I guess. T8612 could you please use the template to notify all of the WikiProjects tagged on talk? The goal is to find someone who might be interested in improving the article, and the template explains how the process works. It would have helped to notify Paul August because the tools show he has a 15-year history on the article, which he edited this year. SandyGeorgia (talkcontribs) 23:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Done. Paul August and Llywrch who contributed on the nomination in 2005 are active on the Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome. I didn't want to add to their busy talk pages. T8612 (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@T8612: Done what? I don't see where you've notified me? Paul August 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, I didn't notified you. As I know you read the Wikiproject. T8612 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a note for future reference: our goals with the notification are to cast a wide net to hopefully find someone to update the article, and give a brief idea of how the process works to people before they pop in here to immediately register a Keep or Delist. It is best to notify everyone even if you think they are following an article or a talk page because we can't assume anyone is aware or sees the nomination, and by posting to talk pages of editors, we may pick up some of their talk page stalkers, who tend to have similar editing interests. Another reason for being sure to notify is so the process is not slowed down. This nomination was ten days ago: should Llywrch or Paul August decide to work on improvements, we would now need to slow down the initial two-week period because they just found out about the nomination. And a final reason is that it can be offputting for editors to realize a FAR is going on that they weren't aware of ... short story: please always broadly notify using the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, thanks. Paul August 10:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I made a comment to this effect in 2016: Talk:Elagabalus/Archive_1#Featured Article, serious concers (sic). I didn't take any action in regards to it at the time because I had limited experience with FA and its processes, though I knew there was a delisting process, and eventually it just slipped away. To summarize my comments then: 1) multiple unsourced passages; 2) over-reliance on primary sources; 3) use of unreliable sources (Historia Augusta in particular). Those comments are still applicable, particularly the last two. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note that ancient historians use "primary sources" to mean "sources published in ancient languages". By their standard, a book published today on Shakespeare would be a primary source, since he lived just four centuries ago and we're also writing in English. Needless to say, this is not the definition of "primary" that modern historians or Wikipedia use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Dio and Herodian are Elagabalus' contemporaries. They both lived during his reign. I have serious doubts you lived through Shakespearean times. The HA is plain unreliable. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Close discussion
  • I'll take this as a warning from you not to touch the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Huh? The article needs work. Contribute away. Your comparison to modern writers discussing Shakespeare just isn't applicable here, that's all. I'm not sure what part of my comment is warning you not to edit the article? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that ancient sources should be avoided because they don't necessarily follow WP:RS practices. Arguably there are some that have a reputation for accuracy (e.g. Polybius), but still, if it's true and due it has probably been mentioned in at least one source in the last 200 years. Anyway the HA does not have a reputation for factualness or accuracy, quite the opposite. (t · c) buidhe 06:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • At least some of these issues seem relatively easy to resolve. For example, I just went through and updated the section on Elagabalus's sexuality/marriages to replace the ancient sources with modern ones which provide more details (and which look to additional evidence for e.g. the timeline of the marriages and divorces, which I added based on those modern sources). In turn, I'll try to standardize the article to consistently use a single citation format and sfn templates later if I have time (or is there a gadget/script for this, like reFill?). -sche (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is possible to easily save the article, unless you want to rewrite it entirely. As I pointed out, several sections rely on primary sources, and once you dig a bit in secondary sources, you see that there are often many different interpretations among modern historians. Elagabalus was vilified in ancient sources and they make it especially difficult to tell what really happened. If you want to rewrite the article, the first step is to include information from Martijn Icks, The crimes of Elagabalus : the life and legacy of Rome’s decadent boy emperor, published in 2012 (seven years after this article became FA), and Andrew G. Scott, Emperors and Usurpers should be cited throughout the article [Icks and Scott seem to be the two main modern sources]. Imo, the section on religion should be expanded; there must be one on his "black legend", and another on the role of women (his mother and grandmother). I also don't think you should remove all the primary sources, but put them in context. T8612 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. I've now also revised and ref'ed the Family and Priesthood stuff, so it's supported by modern sources (including modern sources evaluating the ancient sources), removing a few things I couldn't find sources for, and adding some info where there's uncertainty among modern historians, e.g. over precise birth year. (I agree it wouldn't be appropriate to remove all mention of the ancient sources, but replacing the direct citations of them as <ref>s with citations of e.g. Scott's and others' summaries of them seems appropriate. In the section on marriage, I left in-text attributions i.e. "Cassius Dio states that...") -sche (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, (it's reasonable no-one notified me, since I had not previously done major work on the article that I recall, but) as far as the mention above of slowing down timelines: after I chanced to notice the FAR on the 14th, I've been revising the article, having at this point reworked the "Family" section, rewritten the first half of the "Rise" section, and revised the "Marriages" section, to cite modern sources and note places where there's uncertainty/disagreement among or noted in them. I'll probably make another pass later and trim a thing or two for which I was only able to find a single not-as-high-quality modern source to replace or compliment the period source it had been sourced to. -sche (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The FAR Coordinators will always relax time constraints when work is underway; please keep this page informed of progress ... thanks for digging in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I've almost finished revising the "Rose to power" section (I just need to update the last paragraph to follow and cite modern sources). I substantially rewrote the first paragraph of the "Emperor" section, which had simply parroted the loaded (unencyclopedic) language of the ancient primary sources, but now gives an overview based on Scott (who evaluates/discusses a lot of other literature). (The rest of the section will indeed need rewriting, as others noted above, which I will work on.) I also started to edit the section on Dio-as-a-source, to mention places where modern biographers like Scott and Icks note that Dio's accounts are wrong or internally inconsistent. -sche (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I will look in when you are closer to finished; thanks for the work and the update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure if he has time, but pinging Attar-Aram syria, who is knowledgeable Syrian/Roman figures. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Progress update, I rewrote more of the section on Elagabalus' emperorship (about half of the first subsection, having previously done the "Marriages" subsection). User Julia Domna Ba'al expanded the modern history section and added a bit to the section on the Augustan History, and replaced many of the primary source citations with Icks and other secondary souces. :) User Avis has made various improvements. The other half of first subsection on emperorship, the "Religious controversy" section and the "Fall" section remain to be redone (I am getting to them, or other editors are obviously welcome to beat me to it). (Once the body has been rewritten, I figure the lead can be revised at that point.) -sche (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold in FAR, good progress being made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Paul August and Llywrch: as others have been at work here, and progress has been made, might you be interested now in engaging or have time for a glance? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I've stayed out of this review because I disagree with one of the criticisms of this article: I have no problem with citing primary sources in history & biographical articles, as long as it is done properly. (And example of "properly" would be to present what the primary source says, then secondary sources to explain what needs interpretation or correction. Another would be to discuss the issues with the primary sources: not only their accuracy, but how thoroughly they cover the period; quality & quantity both need to be addressed.) After all, people access these articles to aid their research, which we can help by providing pointers to these primary sources.
And as I read this article, I see that this is not the direction this article is going, & from other comments believe that it would be a needless conflict to try to push this article in the direction I prefer. (After all, I am not a FA regular, & Wikipedia is not finished; there will be a time when I can prove that I am right on this with minimal conflict, & I am content to wait.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I didn't ask for the removal of ancient sources though, just the addition of modern sources to comment on them. Typically, I would prefer to see something like this: "The Historia Augusta tells Elagabalus did that, but modern historians have rejected this.(ref HA) Smith thinks Elagabalus did this instead, while Brown suggests it was that.(ref Smith)(ref Brown)." That said, it's just my preference too. T8612 (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The HA cannot be cited for 'modern historians have rejected this'. When modern historians state what the HA says, there is no need to rely on the (unreliable) HA. If modern historians don't state what the HA says, then it should not be cited, as it does not meet WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. This is simplistic reasoning. For one thing, the primary sources for Elagabalus include more than than the Historia Augusta. There is Dio Cassius, whose fragments is the principal authority for this period; he is augmented by Herodian, who is not as sound as Dio, but his text helps to fill in the gaps; & there is the evidence of coinage & inscriptions -- a quick glance at the Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae alone shows six addressed to Elagabalus, & a more careful survey of the corpora would doubtlessly reveal many more relevant items.
Another matter is that, despite modern research, the statements in the Historia Augusta continue to haunt the non-specialist conception of his reign. Edward Gibbon cites from the HA in his monumental work -- who recounts the emperor's hetrosexual promiscuity while keeping his homosexual activities to a passing mention in a footnote. (I have to wonder how much it influenced similar accounts in such popular accounts such as H.G. Wells' The Outline of History or the Durant's The Story of Civilization.) And the HA provided much of the material for Elagabalus' legacy.
Lastly, one cannot lightly dismiss the Historia Augusta with one word & ignore it. Students of this period of ancient Rome are faced with a deficit of materials, & are forced to look wherever possible to make up the difference: whether wise or not, they plumb its fantasies in hope of uncovering some fragments of information that might cast more light on the subject. Which is why the HA remains a controversial primary source, & not one on which judgment has been passed, found wanting, & condemned to the darkness. -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Just adding to what Llywrch said because of a notice on CGR's talk page. In historical topics, particularly pre-modern history, it's generally necessary to include everything of significance that the historians/chroniclers/antiquarians of the era had to say on the topic—except to the extent that some details are duplicated ad nauseaum by minor sources without any meaningful difference (i.e. Florus briefly alludes to something that Livy, Dionysius, and Plutarch cover in detail, without providing any additional information or a different perspective). After all, without these accounts, modern historians wouldn't have anything to discuss! All modern sources on important Roman figures begin with what ancient writers had to say, and move on from there. That includes the Historia Augusta, because as unreliable as it may be about many things, it also records a great many things that actually happened, and is frequently more expansive than any other source. To the extent that something in the Historia Augusta is contradicted by other writers or careful analysis of historical details, or dismissed by modern historians for other reasons (and there may be disagreement on such things), that in itself is extremely relevant to the article, especially to the extent that one's view of the subject may depend on which parts of the Historia Augusta one chooses to credit or dismiss. P Aculeius (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Sandy, I don't think I'm able to contribute much here. Paul August 12:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
One of the main things that I use wiki articles on Greek and Roman subjects for is checking what the primary source for a given fact is when I can't remember the reference. If you take the primary source references out, this article becomes substantially less useful to me. Furius (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist inconsistent citation format, does not consistently cite high quality RS as required by FA criteria. In the lead, questionable emphases are given to 18th and 19th century historians, and parts of the Legacy section do not have sources. (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you mean when you say 'questionable emphasis' given to older sources. There's two citations to older sources in the lede and they're both for quotes that support the statement that Elagabalus held a particularly negative reputation with writers of the early modern age. Ideally though, there shouldn't be citations in the lede. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Buidhe I think your first two statements are worth clarification here. I'm seeing ~5 primary sources, all used in reasonable context, where the author is quoted directly or referenced in the text itself. Likewise I'm see 3 citations from a 1911 source, 1 from 1966, and the rest from newer sources, at the moment your characterization fails to convince me. Aza24 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps some things have been fixed since I made my comment. However, the Legacy section still tries to give an excessive list of works mentioning him, most of which are unsourced. "In popular culture"/Legacy should be discussed in prose rather than listing (t · c) buidhe 00:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed, let me take a crack at that section later today and get back to you. Aza24 (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry this is going to take a few days, if that's okay with the coords; my irl schedule is getting busier, but should die down soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I've made some additions, adding the years of the consulships and adding some firm dates cited to Kienast. There's more to do on the various comings and goings of the imperial Julii Severi. GPinkerton (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with the classicists' complaints above. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Cell nucleus[edit]

Notified: Opabinia regalis, WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest in the template. More than six months ago, Graham Beards stated on the talk:

the standard of referencing for this article is not of that expected for a Featured Article. It has been over thirteen years since it was promoted and since then FA requirements have become far more stringent in this regard. Is there an editor prepared to update the citations? There are whole paragraphs that have no supporting citations.

Sadly, these issues have not been fixed in the interim. (t · c) buidhe 22:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

As a start, I have marked the journal citations as either "Review" or "Primary" (based on the PubMed "publication type" classification) by adding a |department=Review/Primary parameter to all the {{cite journal}} templates. It appears that the only paragraphs that are without supporting citations are in the lead and a few short introductory sections whereas the subordinate subsections all contain cites. Boghog (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
I have also deleted an obscure section on the "Fougaro System" that was only supported by primary sources. There may be a few more like this that could/should be removed. Boghog (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your tagging, but I don't think that all the information in the article is sourced. I've added "citation needed" tags (17 of them) wherever the source of information is not obvious. (t · c) buidhe 00:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
" Fixed, all citation needed tags have been replaced with cites to appropriate secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Thanks to Hanif Al Husaini for fixing many of these. Boghog (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section largely centre on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist. More than a dozen citation needed tags. DrKay (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
Working on it. Most are easy to fix. Boghog (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Replaced all but one citation needed tags with relevant secondary sources. For the last citation needed tag, deleted associated text since I could not find any reliable source to support that statement. Boghog (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! DrKay (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

There is an extreme MOS:SANDWICH problem everywhere. I suspect that attention to wikilinking is needed, but the topic is too dense for me to follow. Ajpolino would you be able to give this a quick glance to see if there are significant issues relative to WP:WIAFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry to say that in my opinion the article needs some serious work to meet the FA criteria. A few issues jump out as I read through the article:
    • Well-written - The prose is not engaging (and I love molecular biology!). It needs a serious copyedit. The fact that SandyGeorgia – regular editor of medicine articles – can't follow parts of the article suggests it could stand to be clarified. There are several places where factoids of varying levels of detail have crept in. The prose needs to be ironed out so they don't startle the reader.
    • Comprehensive - I'm by no means a nucleus expert, but it seems a few things are missing or could be tweaked to make the article comprehensive:
      • The "History" section should be expanded to include post-19th century material.
      • Several sections seem overly human-focused (I'm looking at the beginning of "Structures" now).
      • In Structures>Chromosomes maybe we could replace some of euchromatin/heterochromatin material with a more detailed description of chromosome structure?
      • It seems we have a lot more on the structure of the nucleus than the function of the nucleus. I'm not sure if the balance should be corrected by having less structure information, or more function information. I'm guessing the latter.
      • Here I'll show my biases since I'm a unicellular-eukaryotes guy, but could we spare a few more words for multinucleated eukaryotic cells? It's pretty common across eukaryotes. For instance ciliates typically have a quiescent germ nucleus and an actively transcribed expression nucleus.
    • Focused - on the flipside of the above, some material seems to have crept in that is probably better explained elsewhere (sometimes just in other parts of the article, sometimes in other articles). Examples include the small paragraph on lupus in Structure>Chromosomes, the level of detail on ribosome assembly in Structure>Nucleolus, and more. Also a huge amount of space is devoted to the 7 least important structures in the nucleus (the "Other nuclear bodies" subsection). I'm sure we can come up with a more concise way to describe these structures and their importance.
    • References - Could use an update. The most cited reference is the 5th edition (2004) of Harvey Lodish's Molecular Cell Biology. I have a PDF of the 6th edition (2008) that I'm happy to share, but I can reach out my tentacles and see if anyone has the current version (a quick Google suggest we're already on the 8th edition, out since 2016! My how time flies) and would be willing to share. I do have a more recent PDF of Bruce Alberts' competing Molecular Biology of the Cell, 6th edition (2015), which may still be the current version. Happy to share that as well. Otherwise, we'll just have to do some scraping for recent reviews et al. I've not kept up with broad literature on the nucleus, so I don't really have a head-up over anyone else.
The above isn't an exhaustive list, just first impressions. But I think this article needs more than just a dusting-off to meet the modern FA criteria. The good news is that there's tons of literature on the nucleus and it's an interesting topic. I think if a few of us have a bit of time to put in, we should be able to get this article shined up in no time. Boghog if you're interested, we can post at WT:MOLBIO and see if anyone else is willing to help out? I'm a bit swamped in real life at the moment, but I can certainly put some time into this article over the next couple of weeks. Ajpolino (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Ajpolino for your detailed review. I have asked WT:MOLBIO for additional volunteers to help. I will also work to update citations to the 5th edition (2004) of Lodish with the most recent editions of Alberts (2015)[1] and Lodish (2016).[2] My time is also limited, but I will see what I can do to address some of the other issue that you have raised. Boghog (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
There is actually a more recent cell biology textbook by Bruce Alberts, Essential Cell Biology, 5th ed. (2019).[3] Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@Hanif Al Husaini: Apologies for not pinging you above. I didn't check the page history before posting. I believe the Essential Cell Biology series are shorter introductory textbooks, where the Molecular Biology of the Cell series are hefty more detailed books. Certainly both could be useful here. Boghog, any chance you have a PDF of the more recent Lodish book you'd be willing to share? It'd be nice to see how both are covering the nucleus. Ajpolino (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hanif Al Husaini fixing ping, I typo'd it above. Ajpolino (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, I accidentally found it at some link of questionable legality (on academia.edu, which I hadn't previously heard of). The file I got seems to be safe. So if anyone would like it for this project let me know. Ajpolino (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Morgan D, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P (2015). Molecular Biology of the Cell (Sixth ed.). New York, NY: Garland Science. ISBN 978-0-8153-4524-4.
  2. ^ Lodish HF, Berk A, Kaiser C, Krieger M, Bretscher A, Ploegh H, Amon A, Martin KC, Darnell JE (2016). Molecular Cell Biology (Eighth ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman. ISBN 978-1-4641-8339-3.
  3. ^ Alberts B, Hopkin K, Johnson AD, Morgan D, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P (2019). Essential Cell Biology (Fifth ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393680362.
  • Delist (for now). I agree with Boghog's assessment (no expertise here though). Small additional comment: the second sentence has a word that may be too difficult for the lede (including osteoclasts..).
Boghog, Ajpolino any updates? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Ah sadly, just the usual – too much on the to-do list; not enough time on Wikipedia. I'd still like to work on this, but I can't promise a timeline. I suppose we've passed the "two to three weeks" suggested in the instructions, but a few more weeks would be much appreciated. If December comes, and BH and I still haven't gotten to most of this, I'm ok with the FARC moving along without us (of course, we can improve the article after de-listing; but FARC provides some nice motivation). Sorry to be the sticks in FARC's spokes! Ajpolino (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Great it's still on the to-do list . I'm patient with important articles like this. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
@Ajpolino, Boghog, and Femkemilene: we've left articles here for multiple months if there is some inclination there will be progress. Happy to leave this here till the New Year if folks feel they may have time in December to work on it. Otherwise folks can vote and we can archive or whatever Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)