Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reviewing featured articles

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

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

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and removed from there once posted here).

2. Featured article review (FAR)

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

3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

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

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

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

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

Featured article reviews

Notified: Thedemonhog, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Fictional characters, 2 July 2024

This article suffers from a lot of sourcing issues. It really relies mostly upon primary sources for the character's arc, development (some), and personality sections. It feels like the article has some grammar lapses and was tagged by IP for this and needs to be copyedited [1]. The lead also doesn't properly summarize what is in the article, including its impact. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Eric Corbett, Codename Lisa, Computer Science WikiProject, Software WikiProject, Microsoft WikiProject, Microsoft Windows WikiProject, diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article is effectively stuck in the early 2000s. While on the surface the prose might seem alright, this article does not feature any updated information about the software after 2011. This is somewhat alarming given that Windows 7, the last version to support this product only reached end-of-life in early 2023. I personally find it very unlikely that there has been zero commentary about the efficacy of this aging solution especially given that Windows 7's reputation for being a malware magnet nowadays.

Keeping that aside, the prose of the article relies very heavily on first-party sourcing in the Licensing and impersonation sections and devotes a dubiously large amount of space to one specific antivirus testing organization in the "Reviews and Awards" section. TLDR, I do not think this article represent's our best work in the security topic-area at this time. Sohom (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Maowang, Lingzhi.Random, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Taiwan, WikiProject Limited recognition, 2023-11-27

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several uncited sections, a bloated lede, and several sources listed that are not used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Gungadin, Elonka, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Soap Operas, 13 June 2024

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article suffers from a lot of sourcing issues, for example. It is cited as "Wiggins, p. 118" and it is not linked directly to the references at all. It has mostly been using inconclusive sources such as Sunday Mirror, The Stage, and Daily Record. Some sources might be reliable, but the contents are low quality. But sources like this [2] [3] are low quality, and most of them are pretty much dead like ref 3 and other BBC sources (there are other sources that are also dead) + questionable sources such as ref 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 81, 83 (unreliable), 88 and 89. So, this article definitely needs a lot of work in order to survive modern FA criteria. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with this FAR. I recently had to quick fail three GA nominations of characters from this same soap opera (Gray Atkins, Nish Panesar, Ash Panesar) for largely the same reasoning: poor tabloid sourcing. The nominator of those articles seemed convinced tabloids (mostly WP:METRO and WP:DAILYMIRROR) were an appropriate source for soap operas. It would be ideal if a clearer consensus emerged (here or at WP:RSN) on whether certain British tabloids are in fact RSs on soap operas. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, the 3 articles you've mentioned are way better than this one (multiple dead citations). Though, sources like Metro is already classified as unrealiable should definitely be removed. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how helpful the comments from Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d are in this reassessment. I think Boneless Pizza is taking issue with the amount of deadlinks rather than worrying about your own GA quick fails as part of a GAN backlog drive exercise. At a glance, Boneless Pizza highlights an issue with the use of BBC as a primary source numerous times. An issue likely linked to the BBC also producing EastEnders, making it a reliable source, but a primary source. There is an obvious need therefore of more secondary sources. The suggestion we discuss the blanket elimination of tabloid sources in soap opera articles here is preposterous. Successive quick failing three soap opera articles, mentioning them in an unrelated soap opera FAN and subsequently suggesting a RSN does not sound constructive, neutral or helpful. Back to the FAN, the least we can do is check if the deadlinks are archived in the Wayback Machine.Rain the 1 21:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I’m not sure why there’s such an aggressive tone in your comment. Among other issues, Boneless Pizza highlighted the fact the article uses numerous low-quality tabloids. I reviewed very similar articles that also used low-quality tabloid sources. The suggestion we discuss the blanket elimination of tabloid sources in soap opera articles here is preposterous—-I’m curious who suggested this? It certainly wasn’t me. All I said there should be a clearer consensus on such sources. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagreed with you. Aggressive is a preconceived notion. You suggested it when you advocated: "It would be ideal if a clearer consensus emerged (here or at WP:RSN)" - Consensus on sources being non-RS leads to deprecation and a subsequent blanket ban follows. This discussion is about Pauline Fowler and Boneless Pizza's concerns.Rain the 1 22:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t misconstrue what I said. A “consensus” on source reliability can have many outcomes: marginal reliability, general reliability, blacklisted, deprecation, etc. I have no dog in this fight. If the community wants to treat these tabloids as reliable that’s perfectly fine by me. If the community wants to deprecate such sources, I am also fine with that. Getting back to the Pauline Fowler article, I share many of Boneless Pizza’s concerns. The article, in its current state, clearly does not meet FA standards. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the usage of inconclusive sources seems to be fine at GA articles, as long as the content is not of low quality. But if it is FA, it is not. FA requires high-quality sources (the best examples of FA articles for me are Kes (Star Trek) and Jill Valentine). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Remsense, Theknightwho, WikiProject China, WikiProject Taiwan, WikiProject Writing systems, diff for talk page notification (2024-06-25)

I initially raised my concerns about the Featured Article's current quality two years ago, like in-depth coverage and sourcing. This year, there have been edits in attempt to address the issues, so I listed the article at WP:FARGIVEN. I was pinged to review what has been done so far. I gave the edit a good review, but I'm unsure how "satisfactory" the article is to this date because I've not been too thorough with the article amid my review. I really hope this Review ends without heading to the FARC. George Ho (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what else to say other than I think I've done a sufficient job maintaining FA status for this article, but if anyone has any concerns I'm glad to address them. Remsense 10:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems pretty close to FA criteria, but I notice a few things. 5 seperate sources listed in the bibliography appear to not be cited at all (Chen 1999, Ch'en et. al 2000, DeFrancis 1972, Lin 1972, Simon 1942.) Should these be incorporated or can they be cut from the bibliography?
Additionally, the article doesn't talk about its use by the PRC - neither the date it was adopted or the date it was superseded by the Hanyu Pinyin is mentioned or cited, despite the 1949–1987 in the infobox. Also, the UN used it from 1945–1971 according to the infobox, but this is also not elaborated on at all. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you for the observations! I'll cut the unused sources from the bib for now. Remsense 16:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I lived in Taiwan 20+ years ago, I found GR was not super rare among company names, so I am surprised we have so little examples of use in Taiwan between 1945 and 1986. Shiatzy Chen seems to be an example of a GR name? The "Tonal spelling" section could do with some examples; it is hard to understand the way it is and seems unreferenced. In particular, which sounds are considered sonorants in Chinese? —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have a much better sense of how to source this sort of information now, so it should be little issue incorporating it into the article. :) Remsense 16:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Ealdgyth, Johnbod, Reddi, Adam Bishop, Middle Ages, European history, Visual arts, Military history, History [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was heavily edited, partially rewritten and slightly restructured for various reasons since 23 December 2021 ([13]), so it needs a thorough and comprehensive new review. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the broad structure, it seems worth bringing up for discussion that the article seems structured as three separate topics rather than a single one, being set up as a summary of each period (Early, High, Late). There are 3 society subsections, 3 military and technology subsections, and 3 Art and Architecture sections. This gives the impression that the three periods are quite distinct with little connecting the historical division as a whole. This may be true (within usual historical fuzziness, although but then why is there only a two-fold division in Romance historiography?), but if so I'd expect something a bit more explicit about such disjunctions in Terminology and periodisation. Aside from that discussion, overall, it does not appear at an initial read through that the quality has obviously decreased since the linked version. Perhaps worth a note that the new version calls highlights a single historian (Miri Rubin) in Terminology and periodisation, while removing the highlighting of C. R. Dodwell in the second Art and architecture subsection. Best, CMD (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. (1) I did not touch the main structure of the article because it has been stable for more than a decade ([14]). I think the article follows a quite common scholarly practice, as its structure is based on chronology instead of topics. This is fully in line with most of the cited books. As I also noticed that the article failed to explain why the Middle Ages is discussed as one period in scholarly literature, I expanded it with two sentences about the period's main characteristics (I refer to the third paragraph in section "Terminology and periodisation"). If we ignore these common characteristics, we can indeed conclude that the three subperiods were quite distinct, as it is presented in the article. On the other hand, the article (I hope) also presents the links between the subperiods. (2) The sentence containing a reference to Dodwell presented his PoV about frescoes in churches in the west. As I prefer facts and wanted to expand the article about details of Orthodox architecture and art, I deleted the PoV sentence, and added a sentence about Balkan church architecture. (3) Miri Rubin is primarily named because I preferred to quote her words instead of paraphrasing them. Furthermore, she is a prominent contemporaneous historian of the period, who is specifically mentioned in John H. Arnold's cited book about problems of medieval history. Borsoka (talk)
  • Borsoka is correct. The rewrite in the last 3 years has been so complete that the usual FAR process is totally inappropriate, & the article should immediately be delisted so that the new owner can, if he wishes, reapply at FAC. The main contributors in the last decade per the page history (Borsoka, Ealdgyth and myself) have all said so in the past, so there should be no difficulty. The stats give Borsoka, who first edited the article 27 December 2021, long after it became FA in May 2013, 70.5% of the "authorship attribution", in 1411 edits. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: It's not so much about ownership as stewardship, and it's encased in policy. ——Serial Number 54129 15:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify - the below replies to a cmt now huffily blanked by the poster. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always the not-understanding with you! FAR is meant to be a much lighter process, and normally attracts far fewer reviewers and comments. That may be fine for an article that has already been through FAC, but is wholly inappropriate for one that has been changed as much as this one, in effect completely re-done. In the past Borsoka expressed the view very strongly that the previous version was absolutely terrible, and should never have been made FA. What is presented now is a completely new article, that has never been through FAC, as it needs a full review, for the first time. I hope this has clarified. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While one wouldn't expect great detail on military matters, the article does over-rely on a single generalist work (Nicolle Medieval Warfare Source Book), which means a single and perhaps slightly dated perspective. Conflicting views on the roles of cavalry and infantry or the importance of technology in works by Rogers, DeVries and the Bachrachs among others deserve mention. The later medieval section is rather weak on maritime advances, which are a very significant factor going into the 16th century as the reach of European ambition expands globally (economic motivation is fine but it needed the technology to achieve it). This should include advances in navigation (development of portolan charts and so on) not just shipbuilding.Monstrelet (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Bishonen, WikiProject Arctic, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Norway, WikiProject Sweden, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2023-05-24

I am nominating this featured article for review because many paragraphs do not have citations, as well as sentences at the end of paragraphs. Some low-quality sources should be replaced, and new sources mentioned on the talk page or in the "Further reading" section should be explored for its inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: DMacks,Ryboy42, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has had two cleanup banners for years now and a lack of updates for issues such as conservation, the potential new molecular compounds, and applications usage. Real4jyy (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Real4jyy, welcome! Per the instructions at the top of WP:FAR, please make sure to notify the original nominator and main editors about this FAR; you can add that to the notifications above once it's done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the banners was superfluous. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will comment that much of the updating requested is in the #Extraction and use section. One missing thing is green helium.
  • On the topic of compounds, I think that CsFHeO and N(CH3)4FHeO, are hardly worth mentioning as there are a whole collection of papers on computationally predicted molecules that have not been made. Similarly I don't think we should mention a whole lot of other theoretical molecules, but stick mainly to substances that have been made. So that means that potential new molecular compounds may just need to be pruned and not expanded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: CactiStaccingCrane, Nergaal, Headbomb, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Astronomy, [diff for talk page notification]

2006 listing, last reviewed in 2009. As taken note of in the talk page notice from the tenth of May, there are fifteen (and possibly more) unsourced paragraphs and sentences. @ArkHyena: noted that "Given that the last FAR for this article appears to have been done all the way back in... 2009?! I'd certainly agree on one being needed. It necessarily is not only unsourced text which may be an issue too; piecemeal revisions over ~15 years could potentially impact clarity, and I'm pretty sure FA criteria back in 2009 may have been different than they are now.", while @Sgubaldo: said that a lot of references were missing different fields. 750h+ 01:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a first reading, the uncited statements generally seem to be the sort of thing that is written in many books (Sirius being the second-brightest star in the sky, etc.), so fixing that up shouldn't be too difficult. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More of a nitpick, but in the 'Observational History' section, it seems to be that there's a tad too many images. I'm thinking the hydrogen-alpha and ultraviolet light ones could be removed or moved elsewhere? Sgubaldo (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have partially addressed this in diff. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Praemonitus:

I went through the remainder of the citations and tried to make them consistent and more complete. Beyond that, the article has built up a fair amount of fluffy padding and redundancy that can be tightened up so the writing is more crisp. Praemonitus (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter and Praemonitus: any updates? Some comments I have includes the lead section, you might consider removing the references (as that should be summarised in the article) and I think the lead paragraphs should be a bit more balanced in size. 750h+ 10:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing further to add. Praemonitus (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have (re)moved the references from the lead (see diff). CoronalMassAffection (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I don't really care about references being in the intro or not; it's a little more clean without the blue clicky linky numbers, but they weren't egregious. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAR coordinators: what are our thoughts? 750h+ 15:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the issues raised above remain unaddressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because over the past few months, I've added a considerably amount of additional information about the aircraft's design history gathered from multiple sources. The prose has doubled in length, so I would like other editors to review my work to ensure that it still meets FA standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve7c8, did you discuss this on the article's talk page at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. However, given the amount of content added since it was last listed as FA over a decade ago such that it has more than doubled in size, with much of the new prose written by myself, I believe that this warrants a FA review especially from a neutral party to ensure that it meets the quality standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please notify other editors and relevant WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Steve7c8, I've worked a little bit on the article. I believe you have the technical knowledge of the subject, while I can do source and reference formatting. I changed the sources to cite book or cite journal templates, and changed some of the references to sfn tags. Would this and any further work I do on formatting be okay with you? Matarisvan (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good. I'll notify some other editors and relevant WikiProjects to have another go at it. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, we need a link for the Aerospace Daily article, otherwise any reviewer doing spotchecks would fail the source review. Matarisvan (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original link from years ago is gone and I don’t think it’s ever been archived, but it’s transcribed in a forum post here, which I’m not sure is considered adequate. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post the link here, I can search for it on archival sites. Matarisvan (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have the original link. Perhaps search for key words and phrases in that article that's transcribed in the forum post? Steve7c8 (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll have to remove this reference, we already have another one (Chong 2016) at the same place. Is that OK with you? Matarisvan (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Steve7c8, do you have access to either of Sweetman 1991a or 1991b? I put in these in the sfn tags on a placeholder basis as I wasn't able to get access to them. This is the last thing left to do here, once it is done we can safely say the article is back again at FA level. Matarisvan (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I don't. I have limited access to these sources as I'm in the middle of an SLTE currently, but in a few days I'll check my shelves. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, @Matarisvan, a friend of mine has hard copies of these publications, I can borrow them if need be. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these, @Steve7c8? That would be great, we would be able to finally close this FA review. Matarisvan (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • What establishes that Speciality Press located at Forest Lake, Minnesota has a reputation for fact checking, etc? The article is cites several works published by this company, which appears to lack and internet presence.
  • If File:FB-23 Rapid Theater Attack.png is a Northrop Grumman image as stated, it's been wrongly uploaded. The source PDF doesn't establish that it was released under a creative commons licence.
  • I suspect that none of the external links are needed. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with Specialty Press overall and I believe they went under just recently. However, the cited books in this article are written by people with direct connections to the YF-23, namely Alfred "Paul" Metz, YF-23 PAV-1 test pilot, and Air Force Materiel Command researchers and archiver, Tony Landis and reputed aviation author Dennis Jenkins.
  • If that is the case, I can upload a non-free thumbnail version under fair use.
Steve7c8 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Nishkid64, Coemgenus, Billmckern, Tilden76, Devonian Wombat, -A-M-B-1996-, WP Politics, WP Chicago, WP Illinois, WP USA, WP Elections and Referendums, noticed in December 2023 with prior issues raised in 2015

As originally promoted, this 2007 FA included a number of references to varied sources. However, in 2015, it was discovered on the talk page that essentially the editor just read the Ackerman book and threw in citations from Ackerman's notes, even though those sources did not entirely support the cited content. I ran into a similar problem from this same editor when I rewrote Thomas C. Hindman, another old FA promotion, several years ago. Coemgenus resolved many of the issues in 2015 but the article is still very heavily reliant on Ackerman alone. I also, in December 2023, found that there are still a number of smaller source-text integrity issues and that the citation placement is messed up.

Awhile back, this article was suggested to potentially rerun as TFA with the upcoming Republican National Convention later this year, but I don't think that is a good idea given the sourcing history here. Given my experiences with Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. R. Richard/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lee Smith (baseball)/archive1, Talk:Thomas C. Hindman#Uncited paras/sentences etc, and Talk:Stede Bonnet#Featured article review needed I have grave concerns about the sourcing from any FA nominations by this nominator. Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC no major edits to address sourcing concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not write this one, though I have edited and have access to the sources. Is the concern here that some particular sources are inaccurate, or just that there might be problems? I'd be glad to run a spotcheck on the citations and see if it's good. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coemgenus - I compared passages to parts of Ackerman several months ago and have found that the big ideas are all supported, but a number of the smaller details are not. I'm also generally uneasy with the content here after my experience with re-writing Thomas C. Hindman, another FA by the same nominator, where the article was based only on one book to the neglect of information in other sources, omitted major information (Hindman being suspended from command for awhile), and contained factual errors (incorrectly claiming that Hindman was present for the Chattanooga actions after Chickamauga), in addition to the sources failing spot-checks. A spotcheck here would be greatly appreciated. Hog Farm Talk 14:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fn.10 -- Hesseltine p. 432 contains the quoted language and the sentiment it expresses.
fn.20 -- Ackerman makes both points on p. 74 and the quoted headline is there.
fn.30 -- Ackerman pp.66-67 does say this.
fn.40 -- Cites Ackerman p. 58 for two points. the phrasing is a little awkward, but it's accurate.
fn.50 -- Cites Ackerman p. 83 for two quotes, both accurate.
fn.60 -- Cites Ackerman p. 91 for three points and two quotes, all accurate.
fn.70 -- Cites Ackerman p. 103-104 for two points, both accurate.
fn.80 -- Cites Ackerman p. 116 for two points. Both accurate, but the parenthetical near the second point wasn't in the source (it is true, though). So I moved the citation to the right spot.
fn.90 -- I had trouble accessing this -- the Questia page wouldn't load. I found the book on the Internet Archive, though, and it's correct.
Since most of those random citations were to the same book, I picked out a few others to check.
fn.53 -- Cites Muzzey p. 169 -- the quotation and the meaning of the sentence are both accurate.
fn.59 -- Cites Clancy pp. 104-105 for two points including quotations. This is the first problem I found. Clancy and Ackerman both cite a letter from Joseph H. Geiger to John Sherman, but where Clancy summarizes the content, Ackerman quotes it directly. The author of this article uses the direct quote, as found in Ackerman, but cites it to Clancy, which is incorrect.
I think this article relies too heavily on Ackerman's book, but where it does so, it does so accurately. Where it cites other sources, in at least one instance, it does not do so faithfully. There's not much to fix here, but it should be fixed. I have nearly all of these books, so I guess I should be the one to fix it? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus, it does not appear anyone else is stepping forward - is this something you're willing and able to do, or should this proceed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I apologize, I've been swamped. I'll get started on it this weekend. The Ackerman citations are all good, it's just the others I need to clean up. Shouldn't take long. I hope! --Coemgenus (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Melchoir, Dedhert.Jr, JayBeeEll, Hawkeye7, WikiProject Mathematics; original nominator not notified as they have been inactive for over 6 years

This is the 1.999...nd FAR of this article. The 0.999...st was back in 2010 and FA status was retained. I placed a FAR notice on the article talk back in January and Dedhert.Jr, JayBeeEll, and Hawkeye7 have done some work on it, but the article has whole sections without citation, amounting to OR; while doing basic math isn't OR, there should be citations to the proofs since they're described as known proofs. Other editors have identified SYNTH in the article during the FAR listing. Hopefully more eyes on this can get it back to FA quality. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the only one to identify SYNTH during the previous discussion, and I removed it back in February. There is no whole section without citation; "Elementary proof" has only a single citation for a longish stretch of text, so that can be improved, but overall the situation is not bad at all. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some work on the "Elementary proof" section, and I think now it's in better shape. XOR'easter (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RIgorous proof has no citations. There are also statements that I think need citations, such as:
  • The series definition above is a simple way to define the real number named by a decimal expansion. A complementary approach is tailored to the opposite process: for a given real number, define the decimal expansion(s) to name it. Particularly since it's being described as "simple" (by whom? should that be in wikivoice?).
  • The first paragraph of "Proofs from the construction of the real numbers" has no citations.
  • In 1802, H. Goodwin published an observation ... There's no citation to Goodwin here.
There's also still the issue of deprecated citations being used in "Algebraic arguments"; {{sfn}}s were added, but they still need page numbers. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to fix these issues, but I have no math background and wouldn't feel comfortable in case I miscite something. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a Goodwyn cite. Feel free to cross that one off! Tito Omburo (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only {{sfn}}s in "Algebraic arguments" that I'm seeing without page numbers are to journal articles, which don't need them. (I mean, journal articles are short enough that giving a specific page number within them provides basically no value beyond giving the page in the journal where they begin. Standard practice around here is to omit the excess detail, as far as I know.)
I've added citations to the opening paragraph of "Proofs from the construction of the real numbers". XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been perennially disappointed that this article fails to make contact with modern mathematics. Points that could be made, but don't seem to be:
  • If one works in base-10, then any fraction whose denominator is power of 2 and 5 will have exactly two distinct expansions: for example, 1/8 has 0.125000... and 0.1249999...
  • Similar phenomena happen for base-N for any integer N. (there are always 2 choices)
  • For base-N with N not an integer, there may be 1,2, a countable number or uncountable number of such expansions. When there's only one, it is called univoke. For base-phi, with phi the golden mean, there are a countable number of equivalent expansions: basically, you can repeat a finite number of times, and then switch over, or not, at that point. This continues to be a topic of modern research; I read a paper published in 2010 or 2015 that explored this.
  • Whenever there are such "gaps" (two distinct reps) those two endpoints can be joined, ... or not. Joining them gives the de Rham curves, which are fractal curves.
  • Most or almost all or all fractal watsizz are due exactly to there being two or more non-unique expansions. Whether it's "all" or just "almost all" remains a topic of academic debate. There are "classification theorems" that try to sort out all of the cases; they're called "non-classification theorems" where there's an uncountable number of alternative expansions.
  • Something like this applies to chaotic dynamical systems. But there's argument about that.
  • Some philosophers have used this in arguments about free will: basically: "a hah, I can choose 0.999 ... or I can choose 1.000... and nature (or neurons, or physics or whatever) will automatically amplify this difference to finite size in finite time and this is how/why one has free will" Not that I beleive this argument, but it is out there, in the wild.
I do not have references fro most of the above, only for some (below). Failing to mention any of the above just misses an excellent teaching opportunity, to bridge some old ideas to modern, cutting-edge math. This is not some idea that sits in a heremetically-sealed vacuum; it continues to excite mathematicians and philosophers (and students) and should be presented as such.
Here's some references:
Hmm. Actually, it seems I have 20 more of these. Above is a random sampling. Some touch more directly, some touch less directly on the subject matter. I have no references for the philosophy claims. (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ahh, huh, Perhaps I have to partly retract. Closer review indicates the article does touch on some of this. I suppose I have ADHD and didn't notice on first reading. (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A different definition involves what Terry Tao refers to as ultralimit." Why is Terry Tao mentioned at all here? Would one say that Terry Tao is what Martin Hairer refers to as a professor? Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm not that active on Wikipedia these days, but let me know if there are particular questions about any old edits of mine. For example, if there's a cited reference that is hard for others to access, and we need the page number or the context of a quotation, I could look it up in my notes. Melchoir (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melchoir, thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress being made here? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spate of editing last month addressed the specific concerns that had been raised. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a lack of citations in the proofs sections. While WP:CALC says routine calculations are okay, I think those sections ought to have citations to show that they are common proofs in reliable sources. The "Algebraic arguments" section still has deprecated citations. There are also several sentences and paragraphs throughout that still lack citations. For example:
  • The argument here does not need to assume completeness to be valid, because it shows that this particular sequence of rational numbers has a least upper bound and that this least upper bound is equal to one.
  • The first two paragraphs of analytic proofs.
  • Such heuristics are often incorrectly interpreted by students as implying that 0.999... itself is less than 1.
  • These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although some may be valid in other number systems, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive counterexamples to better understand 0.999...
"Skepticism in education" also has a bulleted list that would be better presented as prose. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is deprecated about the citations in "Algebraic arguments"? As far as I can tell, it doesn't do what WP:PAREN actually says is deprecated. It uses authors' names and publication years inline to include specific publications in a way that flows with the grammar of the sentence. (Compare this with, e.g., Affine symmetric group, a recently-promoted FA that does the same thing.) And the little blue clicky linky numbers are right there, too. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough RE PAREN. I'm still concerned about the lack of citations throughout. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When we worked on this last month, my impression was that we'd ended up with it in a state where everything was, at worst, an expansion of something stated in one or more of the sources, i.e., saying something leisurely instead of curtly but without introducing anything new. Someone other than me should check that, however. XOR'easter (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Unlimitedlead, Dudley Miles, Ealdgyth, Usernamesarebunk, Lampman, Hchc2009, GoldRingChip, Gog the Mild, Surtsicna, Nev1, Mike Christie England, WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Scotland, Ireland, Jewish history, Middle Ages, Military history WikiProject English Royalty diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because, during the FA process the article went through, three large areas of historical research were omitted. Thus currently it does not meet the criteria that the article needs to be:

  • 1.b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context and
  • 1.c well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature

I have since addressed one of those, but had no feedback. I intend to address the other two but would like to ensure my work is reviewed as I do so.

The areas that were not addressed during the FAC process were

  1. Anglo-Jewish historical research: Edward's actions are a large subject of discussion in this literature, which contends that he has particular significance for the history of antisemitism and for English identity, which incorporated an antisemitic element as a result of the expulsion. (These topics were notably missed in Prestwich.) These issues have now been addressed to a minimum level by myself but need a check for FA standards.
  2. Welsh history: Edward I is of particular significance to Welsh history. Edward is typically seen by Welsh medievalists as a coloniser, someone who did immense damage to Welsh society, culture and self-confidence, which produced a lasting anger. These items need expanding in the "Legacy" section at least. The literature on Edward I from a Welsh perspective was unfortunately contended not to exist during FA review.
  3. Irish history: The literature on Ireland was not consulted; Ireland is not covered in the article at all, except to mention Edward governed it and it provided him income. Themes include the early takeover by Edward and some squabbling with his father; Edward treating Ireland as a revenue source and little else; corruption and incompetence in the administrators Edward appointed and repeatedly sacked; over-taxation to meet his war demands; speculation over food exports during the Welsh and Gascon wars; problems emerging from the Edwardian weak administration including a revival of the fortunes of the Gaelic areas' leadership, leading to regular wars in the period and following centuries. Thus although an absentee landlord, current Irish historical research sees him as signficant for the difficulties of Ireland that continued in the centuries following.

Additionally, a check should be made regarding Scottish sources and perspectives.

These areas should also be looked at:

  • Religious views: the article may not fully capture the nature of Edward's devotion. It covers his piety as actions, rather than as a belief system. There is commentary about his and Eleanor's piety giving them a sense that they were doing God's work, which makes sense as Crusaders, and explains better his sense of certainty while doing morally reprehensible things.
  • Relations with Eleanor: particularly, the support of and the psychological impact of the loss of Eleanor and some of Edward's key advisors around 1290 is often held to have impacted the latter part of his reign. This doesn't seem to be discussed. Also, Edward encouraged Eleanor to accumulate land wealth to reduce the call on his own funds, which was an important change for future queens but impacted a lot on domestic relations with the landed classes who were being dispossessed; it limited what he could do with taxation and was a driver in his policies towards the Jews. This is now touched on this but it could do with discussion earlier.

The reasons for several of these areas being missed appear to include an over-reliance on Michael Prestwich's biography. It received significant academic criticism for missing several of these areas, and being overly concerned with war administration and finance; which I have noted on his Wikipedia page.

Key texts that need consulting include:

  • For Wales, "The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063-1415" by RR Davies from 2001, and A History of Wales by John Davies.
  • For Ireland, "A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534", which contains a dedicated chapter on Edward's Lordship, "The years of Crisis, 1254-1315" and a further chapter on the wars that were provoked in the period "A Land of War", both by James Lydon. There is by Robin Frame, "Ireland and Britain 1170 to 1450", and other works

As mentioned, I would not like to see this article demoted and I am willing to do the work on Wales and Ireland particularly, and anything further on Anglo-Jewish matters. There is a question on structure for that section also. A point may emerge around article length and there may need to be cuts to meet FA criteria. This I would certainly need help with.

If it is better that I simply work on these areas, complete that and bring the article back to FAR afterwards I can do that. But I haven't got much feedback on the page and feel reluctant to do more work without a little guidance.

Jim Killock (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by KJP1


My view is that a FAR, a year after the article's promotion, is not needed. If I can try and summarise, you think there are three areas where something/more needs to be said;

  • Edward and the Jews;
  • Edward and Wales;
  • Edward and Ireland;

and two areas that may need a bit more coverage:

  • Edward's religiosity;
  • Edward and Eleanor.

My suggestion would be that you write brief, sourced, paragraphs on each of these, covering the additional points you think need to be made, and place them on the article Talkpage. Then, see what other involved/interested editors think. I stress brief for two reasons - firstly, your comments to date are rather long and this may discourage editors from engaging with them; secondly, there are always challenges around what to include, and not include, in an FA. Edward reigned for 35 years and packed a lot in, as well as being quite busy before his accession. Therefore, you're never going to be able to cover everything. Indeed, we already have spin-offs, e.g. Conquest of Wales by Edward I, Edict of Expulsion etc. and it may well be that further spin-offs, Edward and the Jews / Edward in Ireland etc. could be an answer. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that but I'd note the main reason for non-engagement AFAICT is probably that the main editor is in semi-retirement and no longer working on the page. There will be existing pages for all these topics, but for an FA standard, the page has to reasonably represent all the relevant literatures, AIUI, ie, other parts might need trimming, if it came to a question of overall length. As now the article arguably violates NPOV, through omission of some of the more uncomfortable aspects of his reign.Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that the OP has found sufficient deficiencies in the article to justify a trip to FAR. Per policy, if they attempted any major changes they could be reverted, while the talk page is quiet enough to suggest it would be an unprofitable exercise.
    In the meantime they have built a solid case. They have identified fundamental omissions which don't only breach WP:FA? but Wikipedia policy and pillar also.
    More broadly, it highlights the problem with a lack of expertise at FAC. There may not be always much we can do about that, but we must accept the consequences of it all the same. While the review of this article received an at first glance thorough examination, with the exception of a couple, most of the reviews were for prose and spelling and the source review lightweight. The latter, at least, could have e highlighted gaps in the scholarship.
    Still, it's not too late. I'm sure we're all grateful to JimKillock for highlighting these issues and for expressing willingness to step up to the mark and address them. Cheers! ——Serial 12:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, FAR or Talkpage, it would be immensely helpful if JimK could provide suggested paragraphs for inclusion, which would look to address the said omissions. I think that would greatly assist other editors in assessing the issues, and how they might be addressed in the article, having regard to weight, length etc. KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will crack on with this for sure. It may take me a few days to find time to start; altogether I would think probably 3-4 weeks are needed for me to find spare time to look at all the things I've mentioned. The Wales paras are the easiest for me. Jim Killock (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry and no problem! Edward I is not my period, but I do have some experience of compressing prose into tight, FA, pargraphs. If I can help at all in terms of reviewing the prose, I'd be delighted. Serial is your man for reviewing the content. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you for the kind words and offers of (potential!) help. Jim Killock (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1@Serial Number 54129Ping in case you are able to help: I've linked to the work I have already done for checking re Anglo-Jewish policies, and drafted the changes regarding Wales from Welsh sources below. Jim Killock (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JimKillock - Not forgotten this, just busy irl this week. Will take a look at the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward's Jewish policies: text check


Moved to talk page to simplify feedback

Moved to talk page as mostly resolved

Moved to talk page



Next steps


I will try to write up the section on Ireland next, once I have Davies 1998 British Isles book. I have access to the two volumes on Ireland, Frame 1998 and Lydon 2008a mentioned. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KJP1


With apologies for the delay in getting to this, a few comments. A caveat to start, Edwardian history is definitely not my period, and thus what I'm not able to judge is the weight that would be appropriate to give to the differing views on the Jewish and Welsh (and subsequently Irish) issues. That said:

  • In general, the suggested additions to the Jewish/Welsh issues seem quite reasonable.
  • In relation to the Jewish issue, we now have two, well-sourced, paragraphs, featuring a range of views. These seem reasonable. I'm not myself quite clear on the connection that is being drawn between the tomb of Little St Hugh and the Eleanor Crosses. The text says "is likely to have been an attempt by Edward"; it seems to be suggesting more than just a stylistic similarity, but some form of connected political aim. Is it possible to make it clearer?
    • The background is that they were built in the same style by the same craftsmen working for the Royal household. This has led historians to pick up on a linked political purpose, as both are political objects. Since Eleanor had an "unsavoury" reputation regarding Jewish loans and land seizures, it is most likely that she was being associated with the cult of St Hugh, in order to "clean up" her reputation, as someone who venerated a Christian child supposedly ritually murdered by Jews. However, although the evidence is quite clear, it is also historians making educated calculations, not a matter of simple fact. At the same time, Edward's promotion of the cult is absolutely established and his purpose entirely clear. I'll take another look as the point re Eleanor is a difficult point to convey. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking, I had placed this information into an end note, regarding the link between the Eleanor crosses and the tomb design. I could edit the main body, to say something like "creating a visual association" or "probably to associate Eleanor's memory with the cult". --Jim Killock (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I can't judge is whether the emphasis given to this issue by historians would warrant it being a separate section. It would, of necessity, still be quite brief. That said, a 4.4. would not seem too problematic?
  • Wales - moving the coverage of the 1287/1294 rebellions further down seems reasonable, and creates a better chronology. The other changes don't seem controversial to me.
  • Legacy - losing the sentence on contemporary English views of the Welsh campaigns again doesn't seem controversial, it's not directly sourced. Where I would diverge from JimK is in ditching Morris and having only the views of Welsh historians, Davies/Davies. Include them, certainly, but not exclusively.
    • Just quickly on this: the current "Legacy" structure is "views on Edward, from an older English; modern English; Scottish; Welsh; Ango-Jewish perspective", rather than dealing with aspects of his reign.
    • I think more fruitful that pro contra on each aspect may be to bring the question of Edward and the English Crown as either an English or British phenomenon, and the associated power dynamics into focus, as this has been an area of active discussion (there's 3-4 histories written like this, not yet consulted, noted below). The question raised by Morris (was it justified) isn't really discussed in the literature (much?) AFAICT, it was just used as a proxy answer to "Do we have information about Welsh historians' view of Edward?" as a reviewer noted this was missing. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I would tweak the clause "R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', being 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King'" to read something like "R. R. Davies considered Edward's repeated and 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', to have been 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as king'".
  • Character - following on from the above, it would seem reasonable to reflect something of this in the "Character" section. It doesn't currently have anything on how he was/is seem from a Scottish/Welsh/Irish perspective, and that would be useful to have. But it would again need to be quite brief.

I hope that editors with much greater knowledge of Edward will be able to chip in, particularly on the issue of DUE which buidhe notes above. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this @KJP1. I'll wait some further feedback before making edits. Jim Killock (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nikkimaria; I have been busy with other things but want to do the Ireland section next. This won't be so much work as looking at Scotland, and the British context, both of which need me to do significant reading. I think I may as well transpose the edits re Wales at this point. Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irish section drafted Jim Killock (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested


I've done most of what I hope to do now, I might tidy up some Scottish points later but for me the FAR changes are done. If @KJP1 or @Serial Number 54129 or anyone else has feedback I would be very grateful. Pings to @Unlimitedlead, @Dudley Miles, @Ealdgyth, @Usernamesarebunk, @Lampman, @Hchc2009, @GoldRingChip, @Gog the Mild, @Surtsicna, @Nev1, @Mike Christie --Jim Killock (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Killock, could you move your notes and resolved commentary to the review talk page? This one's getting a bit hard to follow at this point, and that may be discouraging others from weighing in. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria I've moved the notes and commentary I can move and linked to them. Hope that helps. Jim Killock (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Scartol, WillowW, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women scientists, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Women in Green, 2023-08-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous citation concerns, including an orange banner at the top of the "Contributions to mathematics and physics" section and an uncited "List of doctoral students" section. There's also a lot of great prose describing math concepts, but much of this does not describe how Noether contributed to these concepts and I don't think much of it is necessary for the reader to understand how Noether contributed to the ideas. I think this would need a math specialist to help improve the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source for the entire doctoral students section. Also, far be it from me to ignite another "anti-intellectualism" GAR/FAR firestorm, but the line "I don't think much of it is necessary for the reader to understand" rubs me the wrong way. Yes, to understand Noether's accomplishments it is necessary to understand the mathematics and physics concepts she worked with. That said, I agree that the contributions section could be better sourced; we used to allow unsourced background material that we would expect any student of the subject to have some familiarity with, but those days are gone. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand upon my comment about what the reader needs to understand: after reading the article when making the nomination, I found that some sections did a great job explaining the math, but struggled to connect it to Noether. For example, in the "Background on abstract algebra" section, Noether is not mentioned until paragraph 4. I would expect Noether's contributions to be more prominent and mentioned first, then the mathematical principles explained by connecting it to Noether's contributions. I think the "First epoch (1908–1919): Physics", all the second epoch, and all the third epoch sections do this well; I think the other sections need to feature Noether more prominently, which might involve removing some information, and will probably involve moving around some information. Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We get an issue with accessibility or focus whichever way you slice it: either there's maths explanations with nothing to do with Noether, or the descriptions are only accessible to those familiar with elementary algebra. If you don't understand what a group is, it's impossible to understand Noether's contributions to maths. I don't think you can reverse the order of it.
The subject matter is necessarily extremely technical. What might not be obvious to layreaders is that (e.g.) the group representations paragraph is child's play compared to the statement of Noether's problem. This is the dumbing down as far as possible without distorting the facts. I can wax lyrical about group representations but Galois theory makes my head hurt. By focusing on big picture ("it's all about symmetries", "like prime numbers") and toy examples (the discriminant, polynomial splitting fields), but also giving the full statements of what Noether studied, I think the article does quite well. I feel it's best left as is unless someone is jumping to make it a big project of theirs.
My comments at Talk:Emmy Noether#WP:URFA/2020 were to indicate that I do not think there are major citation issues—it's more a style issue, as convention has changed since 2008. I do feel this article would benefit from a mathematician giving it a full copyedit, with an algebra textbook to hand for some inline citations. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv said more or less what I was going to. The ordering in the "Background on abstract algebra" passage makes sense because, well, it's background. It has to cover concepts that were introduced a half-century before Noether was even born. That's just how math works: it's a cumulative subject, and we can't always take a thin slice out of it and hope for a meaningful result.
Much of the uncited material can probably be found in any textbook on the area (e.g., the definition of a ring or a group representation is standard stuff). I did what I could with the books that I had near my desk, but I am too tired to do more and need a very very long break. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the "List of doctoral students" section is necessary in the first place. "All" (i.e. those with wikilinks) the notable students are in the infobox and a table list of their dissertations and defenses seem somewhat superfluous. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to remove the section. Feel free to revert or add it back if you disagree. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also realised there were two separate "Recognition" sections, which I merged together. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this removal. Everything in the infobox should be a summary of main-article text. The infobox should not supplant the article. See MOS:INFOBOX: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. If you include the list of doctoral students only in the infobox, then readers looking for a non-superficial summary will not find that information. Or, to put it another way, if it is so important to the article that it needs to be summarized in the infobox, so that even low-attention-span readers skimming the infobox find it, then it is also so important to the article that it should be covered properly in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know the infobox shouldn't supplant the article. My reasoning was that the infobox could have the names of all her notable doctoral students while the article went into more detail (which it does, in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section; I recognise it's in need of some more sentences about her doctoral students specifically). I still don't believe a list of their dissertations and defense dates is of benefit to the average reader, but I'll leave it. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wedded to the specific table format. A more prose-like format such as a bulleted list might be better. The titles of the dissertations are less important than their overall topics and what happened afterward to each student. And the placement of the list of students in the article would make more sense in the section you mention than as an appendix at the end. But if one is looking for a complete list of her students (or, what the infobox lists, her bluelinked students) one won't find anything resembling that in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section in its current state. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. After the citation issues are resolved, perhaps the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section can be expanded to include more information about her doctoral students, but I don't think it should make or break the article's Featured status. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with David Eppstein that the doctoral students should be mentioned in the body. An exhaustive list makes sense to me, with dissertation topic (e.g. p-adic numbers) and anything the student was later known for. It would also make sense to incorporate them into the chronological account of her life, but the issue might be that she had so many notable students that it could overwhelm the rest of the section's focus. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with ensuring they are mentioned in the body. My reasoning was that dissertation titles and defense dates are not that important. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the dates are worth keeping. The titles, if we have topics instead, can go. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've added an initial mention of the two Erlangen students in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section. They don't seem too notable though and could probably be moved up to the "Teaching period" one instead. Unfortunately, I don't think I'd be of much help with the citation issues. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Work seems to have slowed down, but several sourcing problems remain. Are editors still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have the time to properly sit down and crack on with this until towards the end of March. After that, I'm happy to continue working on the doctoral students part. As I said above, the citation issues in the "Contributions to mathematics and physics" section may require someone with more expertise than me in the area. Besides, beyond those two issues, I think the article is worthy of FA status, and I made some structural changes that made the article (in my view) neater. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements have definately been made (thanks everyone!) but I still have citation concerns, as there are some paragraphs which do not have any inline citations. Would it be helpful if I tagged the areas that I felt needed citations for others to address? Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note a seems to use inline references, which should be converted to inline citations (footnotes). Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working my way through as many of those as I can. Will update when I stall out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now we're forbidden even footnotes from having parenthetical citations within them? So we need a separate footnote inside the footnote to be the reference? No. Just no. This blind fanaticism serves no encyclopedic purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misindented my comment. I've been working through the cn tags. Haven't looked into the note. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reply was aimed more at Z1720 than you. Going through cn tags and finding citations for them is a very useful thing to be doing. Putting nested footnotes into footnotes because of an aversion to mixing footnote text with footnote citations, less useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inline reference issue in Note a has been fixed. Two cn tags remain, and the section on her second epoch might need some citations too. The rest of the article seems good. Beyond that, I had the idea of making her doctoral students part of the prose rather than an explicit table at the bottom of the article, but that shouldn't make or break FA-status. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sgubaldo. Haven't given up on the last few cns. Just been busy. I'll either fix them soon or throw in the towel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found something in Page 99 of Emmy Noether: The Mother of Modern Algebra by Margaret B. W. Tent for the phrase 'Her family paid for her room and board and supported her academic work' as mentioned on the talk page, but i'm a little skeptical of using it as a source since it's mostly aimed at teenagers and the author takes some literary creativity and makes up conversations between historical figures. No luck on the other cn tag yet. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "Her family paid" line. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Lurker (last edit was 2008), Ben MacDui, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject Scottish Islands, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Islands, 2023-11-01

I am nominating this featured article for review because of uncited passages and the article has not been updated with much post-2008 information. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC It needs a lot of work to bring it up to current FA standard. The economy section alone does not really explain much about the island's economy and is mostly focused on transport. That is ok given its an island but then there is little explanation of the transport infrastructure eg ferry terminal and no detail about the ships Iona, Klydon and Clytus which must have had a major impact for the economy and socially for the island over the last century. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Not easy to know what else can be said about the economy - https://www.orkney.com/explore/shapinsay for example has little or no new detail. Omand (2003) has a few more historical snippets I think but I don't see anything new on Google books. I can have a look for some info about the ferry terminal etc. There's an interesting article here about electric ferries for example. However, I wouldn't expect a great deal of noteworthy information to have been accumulated since 2008. I have not been there since before that time but the last time I looked across the sound from Kirkwall it still seemed to be essentially the farming community of 300 folk it was then. Not sure about the 'uncited passages'. It's a while since I spent any time on the article but (unless you think every sentence needs one so that a single para might have several duplicate refs) I don't see any big problems. Any specifics gratefully received. As a jocular aside I find it amusing that the island has been inhabited for 4,000 years or more but an FA about it from 15 years ago is described as "very old". We all have our different perspectives I suppose. Ben MacDui 12:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ben MacDui happy to see you on board! If you can add those bits you mention above, I'll have another look (as I was the author of the original concerns). Let me know when you think it's ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear from you Sandy. I hope to take a look this coming weekend. Ben MacDui 18:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a bit about the Klydon and Clytus which had rather undistinguished origins. There does not appear to be a ferry terminal as such as the image suggests. I'll have another stab as soon as I can manage. Ben MacDui 16:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good additions. I added a bit on agriculture too as an update. I think the economy and now transport sections are much improved already. Coldupnorth (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia et al. I have made some references more detailed, tweaked the lead and added a short section that covers some of the downsides of the Balfour improvements. (I might add a short note to this as well.) I can't seen any egregious examples of missing citations. Please let me know what you think. Ben MacDui 11:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben MacDui: While waiting for Sandy to respond, I'll note some things below:

  • The demography section needs an update with 2021 data.
    • The census in Scotland was undertaken in 2022. To the best of my knowledge there is no data yet for the islands – I beleive this is likely to appear in 2024. (The updates for all islands is a substantial task.)
  • The history section has nothing post-1980. Are there any notable events from the past 40+ years?
    • I met someone once who was from Shapinsay and had been appointed to a short-life government advisory board. Not sure this is super notable. I wonder when history ends and the modern economy begins. To me at least 1990 isn’t yet ‘history’. There is a bit of breaking news here I can add.
  • I see references in the lede, which is sometimes a sign that information has been added to the lede that is not in the article body. Is this information in the article body? If so, these references are not needed.
    • MOS:CITELEAD seems to be a bit wishy-washy about this sort of thing. I'll take a look.
  • Many references are not of the highest quality, with many primary sources and tourism sites used. Can these sources be replaced?
    • It is a recurring feature of encyclopedic work in relation to Scottish islands (and, I imagine, rural areas elsewhere in the world) that these resources are often called into question – but that none other are available. Undiscovered Scotland for example is often grumbled about – yet it is an excellent source of information and I have never found it to be inaccurate.
  • Many sources have incomplete information, such as author, name of the website that is publishing this information, and archival information. Can each of the sources be looked at and information added?
    • Perhaps we are more ADHD now than we were. I will have a look.
  • Has a search been done of academic sources that could be added to the article, particularly ones published after this article was promoted?
    • How often do get published about modern Shapinsay? I am no longer as assiduous as I once was in seeking academic-style books or articles out but my guess is that Omand (2003) was the last one. In short I am not aware of better sources.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks Ben MacDui 10:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Z1720: I have now:
      • Added the minor bit of breaking news referred to above.
      • Removed the citations from the lead.
      • Done a first pass at tidying them up. There is a dead link but no sign of a wayback archive being available. Ref #80 has a funny little ‘note’ that could arguably be removed or moved to the notes section.
    • I also note that:
      • There are a certain number of newer academic publications about local prehistory, history and some detailed work on local seabirds and seaweed but nothing at all that I can see about the modern political economy or anything in the former categories that (at first sight) suggests they have importance for this article.
      • It is a feature of Shapinsay that although many the larger Orcadian isles – and some of the smaller ones such as Papa Westray - have archaeological sites of world importance Shapinsay has a relative paucity of them. I can’t see anything new on Canmore or JSTOR that needs to be added. Ben MacDui 11:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recent news is typically harder to find academic sources for. Therefore, it might be better to look at local sources for information to add to the History section. I would suggest at least a sentence on the island's votes on the Scottish independence referendum and Brexit. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orkney voted 63.2% 'Remain' and 67.2% 'No' but this data is not broken down by individual island. I am pretty sure this doesn't happen even for local authority elections, Shapinsay being part of the North Isles ward. See also Constitutional status of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Ben MacDui 13:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was doing some tidying up and came across Irvine's Blaeu's Maps of the Northern Isles. I'd rather forgotten about it - I purchased it a few years after the Shapinsay FAC and used it on a few other articles. There are some snippets about the 17th century I can add. Not much perhaps but "happy is the land that has no history". Ben MacDui 12:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any further issues needing attention. Please indicate any I may have missed. Ben MacDui 17:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much improved. I would now rate it as Keep as FA. Coldupnorth (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything more that can be added about the flora - the two reserves? Is the island all grassland and meadows? Are there any trees? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orkney has very few stands of trees other than at Happy Valley on the Mianland and Shapinsay is pretty much all grass. I will however have a hunt for some more info soonest. Ben MacDui 17:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber There is a decent picture here. If you scroll down you can see a woman with a red jacket walking through the landscape described as “a patchwork of lush grazing interspersed with fields of barley”. The summer wildflowers are a sight but there is nothing particularly special about Shapinsay from that point of view, at least afaik. The list of flower species is borrowed from the main Orkney article. The nature reserves seem to be shy about the details of the flora. I added some bumblebee info too. Ben MacDui 10:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ben MacDui: are you still working on this article? The last edit was in January. I think there's still some information that can be added in the "History" and the Demography section can be updated with the latest census figures. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I'd be happy to continue working on this but (1) per the above the new census data has not yet appeared and (2) if you can make a suggestion or two about what aspects of the history are worth adding I can look into that. Ben MacDui 17:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ben MacDui: I am not too familiar with this topic, so I am not sure what to specifically suggest. However, there must be some post-1980 events that have happened at this location. Is there anything significant in terms of natural disasters, political events, the completion or discontinue of major infrastructure projects, and political events might be information that you could add to the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: There are numerous references to 21st century events under the economy, transport, education and culture headings. I'll have another look but bear in mind that this is an island with a population of 300 (roughly equivalent to Camden East), many of whom are farmers. I doubt there are too many political events of note to record. Ben MacDui 14:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a trawl through the BBC website again. We have

There was also a story about a jailed rapist who lived on the island – although the crimes were committed elsewhere and I am not keen on an inclusion. Ben MacDui 20:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Ben MacDui: These stories feel like routine articles and I'm not sure if any of them are notable. Instead, I think some of the events listed in other sections that you mention above should be moved into the history section. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I moved the bit about the seocndary school closing in 95 and the improved commuting generally. I don't think it makes much sense to discuss the history of the ferrys under "history" and then come back to the same topic again later under "transport". Ben MacDui 11:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720


Reviewing this to hopefully get this out of FAR:

  • The demographics in the lede, infobox and Demographics section are from 2011. Can these be updated with the latest census data?
    • Per the above, the census in Scotland was undertaken in 2022. There is no data yet for the islands – it looks like it may now be 2025 before this is published.
  • The "Economy" section uses some citations and information from 2007, when the article first went to FAC. These should be updated with more recent sources to show that the economy remains as described in the text, or updated to reflect more recent trends.
    • It is a recurring theme of the review that somehow a small farming community of 300 ought to produce reliable data on a regular basis about such things. It's not really clear to me where this would be obtained. I will take another look at the development trust website.
  • "Education and culture" also needs to be updated with the latest figures.
    • I note that the primary school now has 23 pupils rather than 26. I'll make the change asap.
  • I did a copyedit of the article. Feel free to revert anything, but please note it below.
    • I may add back one or two of the bits you removed - e.g. about the unusual field pattern which afaik is unique in Orkney.

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notices 2020-11-21 2022-12-10

This 2001 FA which dates to Refreshing Brilliant Prose days was last reviewed at FAR more than 10 years ago, and its most significant contributors are no longer active. The talk page notifications from 2020-11-21 and 2022-12-10 barely scratch the surface; the article is riddled with maintenance tags and there are concerns about image licensing, uncited text, prose, MOS compliance, and a good chunk of the very large article has never been vetted in a review process, as it was added after the last review. I believe the problems here are too deep and wide to be addressed at FAR, and the article should be delisted and re-submitted to FAC if it improves, but maybe someone is up to the task. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree that FAR is an unlikely solution for this, unless someone seriously commits themselves to this daunting task. This has been one of the big impending FARs for many years... I think the biggest length issues are in the history section, which should be 3/4, maybe even half as long. On the other side, the Literature section seems embarrassingly brief. From my understanding of Byzantine music (I created the List of Byzantine composers article), the emphasis on instruments is hugely undue and much more discussion of composers, genres and music rituals should be instead substituted. Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant to commit, given other constraints, but with a day in the library I could seriously improve the bloated history section. We shall see. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SandyGeorgia. Even if it were thought that a very long article would be needed even to summarize this topic well, this is not in any shape to be considered featured article class. As Sandy points out, there are too many deficiencies for a featured article. It will be a big task to make the needed improvements and, I think, few if any reviewers available to undertake it. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of the above. If there's a collective push to save this article I would chip in but it's way too modern for my usual area and I'm in no position to lead it. Aside from all of the valid criticisms already made, I am surprised to see not a single mention of slaves/slavery in the article. We have Slavery in the Byzantine Empire which seems to suggest that there were major changes to the institution of slavery from how it had been in classical antiquity... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caeciliusinhorto-public it looks like work is progressing; are you in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping SandyGeorgia. Between Christmas and other real-life stuff I probably can't commit to much but I'll watchlist the page and poke my nose in if I have anything useful to contribute. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, it looks unlikely anyone can or will take this on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per the above. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC it seems like even basic maintenance tags are unaddressed. Apropos of nothing, I am surprised that this article manages to be even longer than my own African humid period. I caveat though that I see though that Biz is doing a bit of work on the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been taking a break due to life, but before I touch this topic again I want to read Anthony Kaldellis's The new Roman Empire and complete my research on a draft I'm working on. I think there are some easy improvements that could be made. I prefer to collaborate with people and take a section by section approach as I go deep into the sources and more interested in factual accuracy as it supports a narrative than word smithing. Biz (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also reading this book, and I would like to contribute to improving this article the best I can. If I can help you in an adequately directed way, I would be happy to. Remsense 13:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Biz and Remsense: What is your timeline like - are you hoping to work on this within the context of FAR? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure. I don't have time to commit due to life circumstances, have not finished Kaldellis yet because I'm 4 deep in other books, but throw me a bone... @Future Perfect at Sunrise @Furius @DeCausa what do you think is best to improve the article? Biz (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversely, I do have time, but I am intimidated in the task and would feel most comfortable as the "junior partner" in an article cleanup where I'm possibly doing tasks specifically requested by others with more intuitive expertise, like I am presently doing at the other FAC Battle of Red Cliffs. This is a big topic of my interest, but it's not my specialty.
    If anyone else wants to help and knows exactly what to do, but doesn't have the time to do it—I have that time at present. I hope that's useful. I've been grabbing the sources cited so I have them on hand. Remsense 15:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have time, and like to read sources, then I have a project that will prepare us for productive editing. It's the approach I would take and if we set this up right, I'll happily involve myself as well when I find a minute as this is the fun bit for me but also the most time consuming. This can be a parallel process to any editing that occurs. It will align people and can be used to settle Talk disputes. If more people want to involve themselves, it gives a common reference point for editing.
    1. Read all the sources referenced to statements and document with quotes and/or bullet points what they say.
    • Check they actually say what was written
    • Check for patch-writing
    • Use this an opportunity to identify historians who might have written more research that updates our knowledge. Bruno Rochette on language is a good example of that, as he wrote a more recent paper (2018) that, I think, responded to misinterpretations of what he wrote in 2012 (and that Wikipedia used as the basis of its narrative in the Roman Empire article section).
    • Documenting this means you can have other people help with the evaluation
    2. Read the article and sources in Roman Empire and see if there is anything there we can use.
    • There should be synergies between these articles
    • When these articles talk about each other as different empires, we should probably understand why.
    3. Finish reading Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire. See if anything he introduces supports the sources, the narrative or challenges them (the Iconaclasm is an example).
    • If you want to take this article to an even higher level, chase down Treadgold’s 1990s work and see where he and Kaldellis agree or differ in views.
    • In my view, this article should read with what Treadgold and Kaldellis have written in their books as the primary sources as they are the most recent academic historians to write about the topic at length.
    • Specialist historians on sections should be used of course to delve into issues but as we are looking for consensus what Kaldellis and Treadgold have said should be the test for consensus.
    The act of doing this will give us plenty of inspiration to start editing and improving the article on what substantively it needs. As it’s a large topic, I suggest this is done in sections to make this less over-whelming. If there is a way to set this up as a project, other people can contribute. By reading the sources, the edit prioritization will just naturally emerge.
    Further, by doing this, copy editing I think will be more informed and it will allow us to make the article more concise with the content that matters. Biz (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that this shouldn't be an FA. It would be good to get a clear summary of why it's not and of what needs to change.
I have a lot of respect for Biz's work and especially for their careful section by section approach, but that does mean that the talk page tends to focus on points of detail and nomenclature.
Thus, we don't currently have a holistic overview of how the article should change. It would be good to have that. If FA review could give us that, it would be worth doing. If there is another, better venue, we should do that. Furius (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That said, I do think Kaldellis’s book — the first new academic narrative since the 1990s — should be a standard for us to measure the current article beyond the maintenance tasks. Despite some issues, it’s remarkable well written. If we have a group of people commit to reading it before editing we will be all on the same page and the article will be all the better because of it.
One suggestion on approach is we understand this is a big project and do drives every so often on sections. It will make this a sustained effort then (and action will breed other action). If a regular group of editors have experience working together, they can just jive off each other’s edits. If people revert and becomes a problem, we take it to talk. What’s key is we set the expectation that we are blowing up a section and ask for people’s collaboration in edits rather than hash it out on talk. Biz (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently already reading it as I've said above, and I agree with your praise. Also with your methodology, I am fully onboard. Remsense 05:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can work with Kaldellis as a foundation, I also have access to the relevant Cambridge history; I can get going in around a week, if that's acceptable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Word counts by major section
  • Lead: 571
  • Nomenclature: 307
  • History: 10,090
  • Government and bureaucracy: 924
  • Science and medicine: 528
  • Culture: 3536
  • Economy: 418
  • Legacy: 416
Lead can be done last (and where Talk wastes the most time so let's stay away from it). Nomenclature has undergone a major review recently so no need to focus on that now. The Language section in Culture is 519 words, a good 1/7th of that section and larger than the two sections after it -- the languages section in Roman Empire has undergone a recent deep review by me so we can lean on this to re-evaluate this section. Oh, and history, let's look at that as clearly this needs work:
  • Early Byzantine history: 1026
  • Justinian dynasty: 1081
  • Arab invasions and shrinking borders: 1312
  • Macedonian dynasty and resurgence (867–1025): 2170
  • Crisis and fragmentation: 491
  • Komnenian dynasty and the Crusades: 1694
  • Decline and disintegration: 1282
  • Fall: 309
  • Political aftermath: 725
Was hoping to finish Kaldellis before editing again -- with my travel and other commitments, optimistically it won't be before January -- but hey, throw a dart and we can start. Biz (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, my non-binding pick is Crisis and fragmentation, it may be easiest to identify the article's broader shortcomings with a short cut from the middle. I can also take a closer look at Language.
Oh, also, the presence of File:Bizansist touchup.jpg seems fairly...not for this decade. It needs to be replaced or likely removed, I'll see what I can source. Remsense 04:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the most interesting section! Crisis and fragmentation, or rather that time period, is something Kaldellis will be key for as there is a lot of new research since Treadgold.
It's worth introducing the historian Roderick Beaton (with his very excellent, The Greeks: A Global History) who's book tries to make a case that every generation of Greek-speaking regime collapsed when central government was no longer useful. So in the case of the Byzantine Empire, he said long before 1453 and even 1204 occurred. That is to say, this era of 800-1204 is very sensitive how we edit it. Howard-Johnston, Treadgold and Kaldellis are the leading experts on this 'middle' period so I hope you understand my reluctance to have an opinion on this section until I get further with Kadellis. Biz (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start at the beginning? (I should note that when this FAR was opened a month ago, I trimmed the original six paragraphs into the current two). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also fully support this approach. Remsense 14:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Logical. Ready to roll. Biz (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With three "Move to FARC' declarations, I'm unclear which way this FAR is headed. If you all are intending to save the star, it will be a very long effort, with work best conducted on talk with bi-weekly updates here, while a discussion of how you intend to tackle the size issue will be helpful. How will the article/work be divided, where will summary style be employed? Alternately, if the thought is that the article will be better served by having it delisted, and re-appearing at FAC once reworked, we need to know that, too, so we can move to FARC. I understand people are still reading the necessary new sources, but over a month in, we've seen very little actual article progress, so direction is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, it seems like we are going to keep it simple, starting with the history section and go over it chronologically. I've already earmarked several graphics that I plan on replacing or possibly removing. Remsense 14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm willing to work on the article within FAR, but not outside it. To be honest, the size issue is at the moment secondary to more immediate problems (OR, CLOP, etc.) History section first, then others, when we're all hopefully soaked through with knowledge. As we should be going section-to-section, and just move the comments on each to talk after it's satisfactorily completed. This will be a long job but I wouldn't expect anything else for such an important article (Genghis Khan took me 413 days on my lonesome). At the moment, I'm mildly optimistic—we have three competent and active editors, pretty much a blank sheet in front of us, and if it fails then. well, at least we tried? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support working within FAR though these frameworks for review is not something I have useful experience in. Will need to defer to someone else's lead on that. In terms of process, I'm amenable to suggestions.
If we exclude the Lead and Nomenclature, there are 9 history subheadings, 7 culture subeadings and 4 other major sections. By announcing periodic drives on a section and putting eyes on it, even with just 1-3 of us, we'll rip through and make Temüjin-like progress. If we want to do this right, and on balance of all the things needed, I'd say this a 20-80 week project (budgeting 1-4 weeks per section).
I'll put my hand up on the slowest part of this process which is validating existing sources, evaluating other sources people suggest or from other articles, and otherwise assessing current scholarship. This will result in addressing article issues like CLOP and OR, and by extension assist with condensing the narrative which will address the big billboard problem of size. Happy to document notes and note down direct quotes as I read sources which may assist in making this work more accessible so other people can leverage it. Biz (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Sandy is probably right that we should do all the nitty grity on this FAR's talk, so we don't clog up the main FAR page with all our scribblings. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. So if I understand this right:
  • this FAR page (or its talk?) is where we document a FAR review
  • this FAR talk is where we put notes evaluating scholarship and/or other notes
  • Issues from the above two processes will get posted on the articles Talk page
  • We announce updates here every two weeks
  • After (or in parallel?) of the FAR, we do section by section drives?
Anything else? Who will perform the FAR? And we officially start sometime-ish this month? Biz (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that everything happens on this page or its talk, and that the improving of each section is part of the FAR. At the end, some other editors will take a look at the article and see whether they think it meets WP:FACR. Is that right SandyGeorgia? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Biz's question: the FAR is open, the instructions are at the top of WP:FAR, but there is no time pressure. Other editors will evaluate on this page whether the article meets WP:WIAFA, but it is typical for them to wait until after you all are ready for a new look and as long as you keep this page informed and that work is steadily progressing in the right direction. (I am quite concerned that I haven't seen much progress yet, particularly in terms of re-organizing the content towards a trimmer version.) Where you coordinate the work doesn't matter; it can be on the article talk page, or on the talk page of this FAR, but to avoid clogging this page, the nitty gritty need not be conducted here, unless you need broader feedback beyond the day-to-day improvements. This page is for others to eventually declare Close or Move to FARC in the FAR phase, and Keep or Delist if it moves to the FARC phase. Considering there is a very large amount of work to do, my suggestion is that work proceeds on article talk, and that you let this page know bi-weekly how things are going. If progress stalls, editors are likely to suggest Move to FARC to keep the process moving forward. Perhaps an understanding of FAR functioning can be had by reading through Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 (which I I believe is the biggest rewrite at FAR to date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pointers.
I've started the review with some structure on how we approach it in this article's talk page. Open to feedback to do this differently (in the Talk page, of course). Biz (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of approaches may also take place on the article's talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm continuing the rewrite, aided by the others here; @Z1720 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: as the two remaining !votes, is there anything in particular you want to see addressed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one section without a source at the last sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll get to that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still see lots of uncited sections. I am happy to cn tag the article if this is requested. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, that would be a great help! Biz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate feedback on two sections I've been focused on: Transition into an eastern Christian empire and Language. I still want to do more source work (last paragraph of languages needs verification; waiting for a new book on slavery which may improve the narrative) but I thought now is as good a time than ever to ask if I am rewriting this article to the standard that is expected. (I'm finding it a challenge to balance summary prose with comprehensiveness and neutrality...I've never brought an article to FA standard so I apologise for what may seem obvious to others.) Biz (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christmas Day update: Biz has been working on the language section, while my grand reduction of the history section has gotten slightly distracted; I will be back there shortly, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've completed my read (40+ hours) of Anthony Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire which was my precondition before I start work on this article.
    • I'm currently focused on "society". It's two-thirds done. @AirshipJungleman29 is taking point on History and it's not an easy task.
      • Languages: need to validate last paragraph sources and final review of copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
      • Transition into an eastern Christian empire: need to validate two sources still and final proof read to make sure I'm happy with the copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
        • when I thought I had finished this, someone added a paragraph on slavery, and as I validated the sources, I ended up reading a book Slaveries of the First Millennium by Youval Rotman which helped rewrite it and which is also helping with a lot of other content (like marriage which sits in women right now)
      • I've asked for feedback on the above because I'm not confident in my ability to meet FA standard, and before I embark on the rest of the article.
      • I'm currently reviewing the "women" section and have more literature to read as it's a topic I have no expertise in
        • I'm drafting a new section on socioeconomic and legal rights, that will incorporate sources from the women section I'm reading and that will reduce that section but also make the content stronger I hope (ie, combined with other sources, broader perspective).
        • I'm still evaluating if there needs to be something on "gender" (as part of women or separate) which is something that is coming up in modern scholarship. Can only resolve this by reading a book by Leora Neville
    • Due to life commitments, I expect to be slow moving until February 5th.
    Biz (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    History rewrite is ongoing...slooowwwwly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, Biz, and Remsense: How is it going? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halted, and probably will be for the next three weeks due to RL responsibilities. Working on adjacent topics, however, and intending to return. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same with me. IRL challenges, but have every intention to continue. Appreciate the follow up. Time has flown this past month… Biz (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I copy-edited the "Society" section, does that section look better. CosXZ (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you! @AirshipJungleman29 added that copy editing tag because I wanted feedback on my writing and actually I've been waiting for this and is partly why I paused my contributions. I would appreciate your continued involvement in copy-editing as we re-write sections. Personally, I'm trying hard to write a balanced and modern narrative supported by stronger sources but it's easy to get caught in detail that another editor can easily correct. Biz (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biz please try to iron out your additions in drafts, before adding them to the rewritten article. Take for example the second paragraph of this edit—none of the three sentences make grammatical sense, and I additionally don't see what relevance it has to a section titled "Central government". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By second paragraph, you mean the sentence starting with Phocas?
I'll review the two new sentences on nomos empsychos and re-evaluate which seems to be the only thing you cut from the revision I made. Biz (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, came across this a few days ago and thought I'd offer my help if there are any particular sections that could do with editing/sourcing improvements? @AirshipJungleman29@Biz & co.? Jr8825Talk 21:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! We are working our way down the article, @AirshipJungleman29's driving the history rewrite and also worked on Nomenclature which I also previously worked on, I've completed my work on Society and recently finished Governance. I've gone into a rabbit hole understanding one statement about nomos empsychos and related the impact of Justinian's code, which probably won't belong on this article but reflecting on its relevance still, and plan to focus on military, diplomacy, law after that which has some overlap on the work I've already done.
Economy, architecture, Daily life, Science and medicine, Religion would be next after that so that would be a great place you could pick up on. Arts @Aza24 has previously said they would work on, but otherwise open field! Biz (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting work on literature in my sandbox. Should get to Art and Music after – Aza24 (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed a draft for a new literature section, see User:Aza24/sandbox (perma link: [16]). @Biz:, does it seem too long? I was going for as concise as possible, but don't know if I've overstepped. I'll paste it in after I copy edit and go through the sources once more. Should get started on the art section in a few days. – Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded with feedback. @AirshipJungleman29 should also take a look. Biz (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've made some adjustments (moved your comments to the bottom of the page with replies). Aza24 (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't have much time to take a look at this at present. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! The Byzantine Empire will be waiting, since you can't go back to Constantinople anyways. Aza24 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My new literature section has been added. Thanks again Biz for your feedback! I'll look towards doing Art next sometime soon – Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. I've updated the status of the article here: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3. Let's use that page to coordinate on the work, and keep this page for general updates. Biz (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Nice system you got there Aza24 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After 8 and a half months, this article is still not close to meeting the FA criteria. There are still uncited sections, including the entire "Military", "Clothing", and "Relationship with Western Christendom" sections. Progress also seems to have stalled, with information added recently getting reverted several times. While I appreciate the work done to try to save this, it might be better if it goes to FARC so that it can be evaluated for delisting. Z1720 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the three sections until more work can be done on them.
    If there is a list of specific issues you want done by a certain time period, I'm happy to prioritise this over the line by line by section review that is currently occurring (albeit at a leisurely pace as I did not think there was a rush and it requires readings and reflection)
    As for the reverting of some of my edits, this has not been a problem for me, as it keeps me to a higher standard when done respectfully. And of the litany of other editors where this occurs, it's been appropriate as we've had talk page consensus on these issues. But I can understand it does not look good. Biz (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern is not about specific sections: it's that FAR is about evaluating whether the article should still be considered an FA. Having extended comments on a review makes the FAR page difficult to load, and discussions on article improvements should happen on the article's talk page, while small corrections should be discussed on nomination pages such as FAR. If the article is so far away from the criteria that it cannot be fixed in a couple of weeks, my opinion is to delist it and work on it without the time pressures of FAR, and it can be renominated at FAC when it is ready. Since this has been open for 8 months, and citation problems still exist (even after the above sections were removed) my opinion is that the article probably needs a lot of work to get it back to FA status, which should happen on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I defer to yours and others judgement. Personally, I like the idea of keeping this as the oldest FA on Wikipedia so would prefer a process where I have time to improve it which is how I understand FARC with extensions is.
    I do want to say that the articles talk page has been inhibiting progress on this article these last few years. Since this FAR started, I've become along with others one of the top authors in the articles history. The work I do is not superficial and will take months. For example, the previous FAR editors added citations but when I checked one, it was to the contents pages (as I read all the sources); and this Bleicken book I've hunted down that is referenced in modern scholarship I've come across is referenced in other articles (ie, Principate) and now that I've read half of it says something completely different to what people think it says (ie, terms like principate/dominate need to be dropped, it was the same legal system since Augustus, there was no hellenistic autocracy change in the emperor which nomos empsychos has been used to represent, etc). Biz (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went down a nomos empsychos rabbit hole, reaching out to academics as it's a multi-disciplinary issue across history, jurisprudence and philosophy. As for why, I've come to realise it's important for this topic, as it underpins narrative bias historians have (ie, Prinzipat und Dominat, Bleicken 1978, 22–24 uses it for periodisation of the Roman Empire that others refer to; Kaldellis all together rejects it; and it separately has had a huge impact on medieval and modern law but that's beyond the scope of this article though it does link to the section about law as it was in Justinian's code). If someone can help me obtain access to Bleicken which I've had trouble with, I would appreciate that. UPDATE: it only took a few hours and two months but I found this out-of-print book that all the scholars reference; now I just need to learn German...
Military is a complex topic I'm reading about now and plan to draft new copy hopefully this month when I get some free time. Biz (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-01-28

I am the nominator of the 2007 Minneapolis FAC and have been working to bring it to current FA standards since at least 2020 through several talk page archives, with SandyGeorgia looking in. I believe it is at today's FA standard, and ready for review at FAR. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I never did finish my pre-FAR review on article talk; will try to get back to that by leaving comments here this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't forgotten about this; I've just been much busier than expected this week. Hog Farm Talk 18:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I need to give the new Turnpike album a second listen anyways, so might as well start going through this tonight. Saving the lead for last ...

  • I know that newer style of interactive map has its benefits, but is there any way to also show the reader at a glance where Minneapolis is located in the country, rather than making them get into the interactive map, fiddle with the zoom system which is kinda balky on mobile, and then try to figure out that information?
Yes. I guess WikiProject Maps added the interactive maps recently. I placed an old style pushpin map under theirs. Is this OK?
  • "The US Army Corps of Engineers built a concrete dike that held in 1876" - needs rephrased somehow. Current phrasing implies that there was some sort of particulalry important holding that happened in 1876
Restored an old version with more details, thank you. It took the Corps of Engineers 6 years or more to stop the Eastman Tunnel leak.
  • So do the sources indicate why exactly the milling and logging declined? From what I can tell the milling seems to have taken over about the time the logging went down, but it's not obvious from a quick skim of sources if the milling directly supplanted the lumber, or if the local forests had been extirpated, or something else altogether
Excellent point. I added a sentence in two places, demarcating the demise of lumbering and flour milling. Does it make better sense now?
  • "With the Fuji-Ya restaurant leading the way on the west bank," - is this a particularly important detail to note? I had noticed when I was doing my informal review on the talk page several months again that the article had a tendency to make unnecessary name drops
Not absolutely necessary and has been removed.
  • Susan, I'd like to hear your and Sandy's thoughts on this, but I have some tone concerns here. Stuff like "formidable Institute of Technology", "in the end, to the nation and the globe", and others.
My shorthand, and no problem to omit.
  • The Institute of Technology was indispensible, which the source suggests, but was perhaps overrepresented (say, in comparison to other institutions) by the word "formidable" (we had that discussion before about "fabulous" which I removed).
  • Again a shorthand way of saying "nationally and internationally", opting for shorter words. Omitted.
  • " and supplied about half the electrical needs of the US military during World War II" - the sources actually says "during World War II the firm produced nearly half of all the electric plants used by the American military during the conflict". There is an important distinction between "electrical needs" which implies all electricity usage, and then producing half of all generators, which doesn't really equate to half of electricity usage
Good catch, Hog Farm. Reworded that sentence to reflect the sources, and say more precisely, "and supplied about half the generator sets the US military used during World War II."

Stopping here for now. Hog Farm Talk 03:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either of those examples of tone are necessary, and they should be omitted unless the source specifically supports them, in which case they should be quoted and attributed. Thanks for reviewing, HF; it's been several months since I last took a deep dive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Hog Farm. I was looking forward to your comments and they didn't disappoint. Everything done as indicated inline above, with one exception. Looking for an alternate way to say "nation and the globe." -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'm embarrassed to say the phrase is a too-close paraphrase of William Lass. Much better to omit it. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question. I found a few more adjectives (extraordinary, extraordinary, diverse). Are you all recommending they be omitted?

  • "The truck drivers union executed strikes with extraordinary "military precision"". I read Walker's book and it was astonishing but may be better unsaid.
  • Ditto for the post-Floyd, "The local insurgency resulted in extraordinary levels of property damage in Minneapolis".
  • Ditto for "the park board owns the city's canopy of trees,[389] and nearly all land that borders the city's diverse waterfronts."

-SusanLesch (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On those three: my thoughts would be to attribute use to attribute the "military precision" quote to the author and then leave off the extraordinary if the source doesn't use that language, the damage would be best to attribute to the author, and I'd recommend ommitting "diverse" in the waterfronts example. Hog Farm Talk 23:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you, Hog Farm. Hope I'm learning to identify some of the "tone" problems you point out. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another. In the lead, "—the only natural waterfall on the entire length of the Mississippi River." Maybe shorten to, "the only natural waterfall on the Mississippi River"? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one is fine, unless you really want to trim down the article word count. I haven't forgotten about this review; I just haven't had time - June through August/September is just probably going to be a hectic time for me at work most years now. Hog Farm Talk 04:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good, we'll keep it. No worries, I'll hold on until you are free again. Best wishes, SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resuming - I'm skipping the structural racism section for now as that is probably going to be the trickiest section to write and review and I'm simply too tired for that now.

So you know, that section is fairly tightly written and has been through WP:RSN.
"Sources disagree on the exact location and elevation of the city's highest point, which is cited as being between 965 and 985 feet (294 and 300 m) above sea level" - is Soper's 1915 figure really relevant anymore? The city has grown so much in the last 108 years that it's not surprising at all that more recent sources give a higher peak as the city expands
There's no reason to doubt Soper, the academic. Soper's estimate was 2 feet less ("965 feet, or thereabouts") than John Carman gave in 1975. And his location, identified by placenames that still exist, is loosely the same as contemporary sources. However, you have a good point. We can simplify the article by removing one old journal paper. So now we begin the disagreement in 1975 instead of 1915.
"Shaffer, Scott (February 7, 2018). "Low-density Zoning Threatens Neighborhood Character". Streets.mn. Retrieved March 13, 2023." - community blog, I don't know that this meets the high-quality RS bar for featured articles
Streets.mn was checked out at WP:RSN. So were several other sources, archived here. Everything passed (except one that had no comment) for noncontroversial use here. We only use it to define the term "non-conforming".
Would it be worthwhile to provide a sentence or two about the history of neighborhood development in Minneapolis? Right now the section is heavily weighted towards the zonining issue and a brief overview of neighborhood development would provide balance
For now, I resurrected the Neighborhood Revitalization Program that ran from 1991 to 2011, for which I have a book source. Brought this up to date with a combination of sources.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue, hopefully soon. Hog Farm Talk 16:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The least-snowiest winter was 1890–91, when 11.1 inches (28 cm) fell" - cited source is [17] which doesn't seem to support this at all
Topic is over my pay grade. Inquired at WikiProject Weather.
Comment. The National Weather Service can't give me a URL. I submitted a data request to the Midwest regional office but the answer was they don't have a URL. So we're using Minnesota state DNR records which are up to date.
  • "who claim no religion[255] but among whom one third nationally tend to think a God exists." - I don't know that it's necessary to define that non-religious people claim no religion
Agreed. Removed that and combined two paras. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minneapolis became the first major American city to allow broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer" - recommend rephrasing. This implies that there is a general ban on the call to prayer itself in its entirety, but the source indicates that Minnesapolis was actually the first to allow all five daily calls (for noise ordinance reasons), rather than the first to allow it at all. It surprises me a bit that this was considered a noise ordinance issue; I lived for awhile in a small town that sounded the danged emergency siren on the hour for every single daylight hour
I found a history (probably not an admissable source) and you are correct. Reworded, and cut the "major city" stuff. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it is the only exchange as of 2023 for hard red spring wheat futures and options" - recommend dropping the reference to options as the source is only really calling out that it's the only source for hard red spring wheat futures
The source mentions options on futures, but not specific to Minneapolis. Cut, thank you.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Ready for arts and culture, apologies this is taking so long. Hog Farm Talk 00:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The center expanded in 2005 with an addition by Herzog & de Meuron.[283]" - I'd cut this sentence; this is more relevant to the Center article than to the overall article on Minneapolis from the more high-level view we need to take with articles on major cities like this. I have similar thoughts to the extensive description of the enlargements to the Mia. The idea is to give a general overview of the topic of Arts in Minneapolis, and I don't know that a blow-by-blow description of building renovations is necessarily part of a general overview of that topic.
Extra architects cut for both the Walker and Mia, thanks.
  • "helped make First Avenue and the 7th Street Entry the heart of American popular music" - "the heart of American popular music" is quite a strong statement to be made in Wikipedia's voice, I'd recommend using some form of direct attribution to a source here
Good thinking. Removed the footnote, refocused the statement, and attributed to Pitchfork, a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC.
  • I'm unsure of mentioning apparently non-notable concert venues by name. Theoretically any bar with a stage could be considered a concert venue, and we should only really be hitting the highlights here
Removed venues that don't have Wikipedia articles.
  • "After refugees explained the old name was a reminder of their most dreadful days, the American Refugee Committee changed its name to Alight. Alight helps millions of refugees in Africa and Asia with water, shelter, and economic support" - this needs significant work. The connection to Minneapolis is not at any point stated, and the discussion about the name change is not relevant to the city of Minneapolis. I'm sure the organization does good work, but this isn't the place to elaborate too much on a single organization.
Agreed, better to reduce the elaboration. Leave the name change to the Alight article.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the historical museums section, also pinging in SandyGeorgia for another opinion on these points. Hog Farm Talk 01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in disagreement on any point you've raised so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minneapolis hosts the world's only Somali history museum as of 2021" - The Somali government re-opened its national museum in 2020, and our article on the Somali Museum of Minnesota indicates that it's only possible its the only Somali history museum in the world. This seems to be an awfully strong claim to support with only a website seeking to highlight Minnesota tourism opportunities
Yes. Used a better source and trimmed that claim away.
  • "In 2016, following the killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, Lynx captains wore black shirts as a protest by Black athletes for social change.[370]" - I'd argue that this belongs more in the article for the Lynx
Took it out.
  • "enabled Horace Cleveland to create his finest landscape architecture," - finest should be attributed to the specific author unless you can find a source indicating that this is a consensus view
Rewrote intro. At first attribution stood out like a sore thumb, but now it's better.
  • "Ruhe stopped the state from building a highway through Minnehaha Park, a conflict that the park board appealed to and won in the US Supreme Court. During Ruhe's tenure, the board learned to accommodate growing public participation, and it became an environmental steward when faced with Dutch elm disease and improving water quality.." - is this from those pages in Smith?
Yes. It's a summary not a quote.
  • "In 2022, 500 participants[386] ages 14 to 24 served as Teen Teamworks recruits for on-the-job training in green careers[387] or as future park employees.[388] " - I don't know that this is actually relevant to include; it's not unusual at all for cities to involve teen park workers in things
I was impressed by the numbers during a pandemic, and reluctantly removed.
I'm not going to be dogmatic about having this removed, if you feel strongly it can be re-added. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In my latest rewrite, this brings a short historical intro up to the present, so I added it back in.

I'm open to discussing any of these as they could well be controversial; ready for the government section coming up next. Hog Farm Talk 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saving my powder for the Media section, the only place I anticipate pushing back. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm have you been through Parks and recreation yet? I don't understand this edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had reviewed that section before that edit and had no objections to the sentence in question; the disputed sentence seems like a reasonable attribution of a subject matter expert to me. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is my impression as well; I don't understand the edit summary about a "non-notable book" when it's a notable author, and relevant information. I suggest the content be reinstated; the content is not UNDUE and there are plenty of sources speaking to status of Parks in Minneapolis. We may be excluding rankings from the article, but we know nonetheless where Minneapolis stands on its system of parks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Volunteer missionaries,[439] the Pond brothers got permission at Fort Snelling to teach new farming techniques and a new religion to Chief Cloud Man and his community on the east shore of Bde Maka Ska.[254]" - the first question is when this was occurring, and the who gave them permission is unclear as well. Is this from the Dakota, the US Army at Fort Snelling, or the territorial government?
Clarified. Permission was granted by the Indian agent at Fort Snelling (that's the US government). Added citation and year.
  • "divided between community and magnet" - is it worth linking magnet school here?
Good idea, done.
  • "Some of the magazines published in the city are [...] Artful Living" - we shouldn't be sourcing this to the magazine's own "advertise with us" page
Changed to a third party site. It's only a directory listing but is likely better.
  • I also don't know that we should be listing the magazines for which we don't have an independent source noting its existence; I've found that independent RS sourcing is usually a good test as to if mentioning something is due weight or not
Can of worms. I like your idea of RS sourcing but lacking that in general this section has become self-sourced which I know is a red flag for Sandy. I have been through this list for Media now maybe four times and am nearly burned out trying to defend every title. Past discussions were with SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm. I tried asking WikiProject Minnesota to try to track down the now-defunct Minnesota Magazine & Publishing Association (which had 95 members in 2007). Some of these passed WP:RSN where Banks Irk said "There are a lot of these community-based local news organizations that are basically replacing local newspapers." Wikipedia depends so much on these periodicals I cannot bear to cut them. Next to go would be Architecture Minnesota but who are we to choose winners and losers?
  • Removed Restaurant Franchise Monitor, The Tower, and in newspapers, Dispatch.
  • "about five bus rapid transit (BRT) lines" - cited source lists 6?
Changed to "about six". Considered saying "several" because at least two more are under construction.
  • "Racially discriminatory federal housing policies starting in the 1930s "prevented access to mortgages in areas with Jews, African-Americans and other minorities", and "left a lasting effect on the physical characteristics of the city and the financial well-being of its residents."" - extensive quote should be attributed inline
Source identified inline.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've now skimmed through pretty much the whole article except for the lead, although chunks of it only rather light skimming because I am rather worn out. Once this last batch reaches resolution and I've gone through the lead, I would prefer to have a fresh and more energetic set of eyes look over it before I take a fuller pass through the article. Hog Farm Talk 01:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "As of the 2020 census the population was 429,954, making it the largest city in Minnesota and the 46th-most-populous in the United States" - this feels like something that should be mentioned in the body
Added to Census and estimates.
  • Several of the nicknames/motto provided in the lead are not sourced there or anywhere else and should be sourced
You're right. Everything has a source now.
  • "and, to the present day, preserved its financial clout." - ideally we should be sourcing this major claim to something better than a commission apparently run by the city to show how great the city is
Agreed. The citation is only there because of the sockpuppet farm that plays with our lead.
  • Because this is covered in Economy, omitted the citation altogether.
  • "The city's reputation for high quality of life notwithstanding," - I'm not seeing this general claim made directly in the body; for a statement as strong as this it should be worked into the body of the article and not just the lead
Since rankings were discouraged by RfC in 2021, it is tough to quantify "quality of life". For the metro area and sometimes by city, the state had a good source.
  • File:Log Drivers-by Michael Nowack-1881.jpg - Buidhe can explain this better than me but the licensing isn't as straightforward as it would seem here. The image may be from 1881, but we'd need proof of when it was first published because theoretically it could still be under copyright (the 1928 tag requires publishing by then). See Hirtle chart on Commons; I've had a painting from the 1860s rejected at a FAC or A-class image review before
Answered below to Buidhe.
  • File:Lake Calhoun MN.jpg - not sure on this one. The licensing claims that the copyright holder has released it, but the uploader to wikipedia doesn't seem to be the copyright holder and the file page indicates in multiple places that it would be copyright Larry Kanfer photography 2003. The original source link appears to be gone forever, so it may be better simply to replace this with another image of the lake. File:Minneapolis Skyline (234868322).jpg maybe?
OK. Unfortunately Internet Archive only captured the source after that long-standing photo was gone. I am happy to replace it.
  • Picked a scenic one because this is the Geography section. Turned out beautiful, Hog Farm, thank you.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look back later, but this is it from me for now. Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on when the 1881 photograph was published it could still be under copyright.
The Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) claims its website would be done last summer. I called them a few months ago and there is no recourse except to wait for them. ("Access to Collections online is temporarily unavailable for remote and in-person researchers.") We know that Michael Nowack, the photographer, published something in 1881 that MNHS states is public domain. I can't speak for the log drivers.
  • Removed until MNHS comes back online.
Another issue I've noticed in excessively long sections such as "Lumber, waterpower, and flour milling" and single sentence paragraph in the demography section. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. That single sentence was to differentiate between people from India who appeared in close proximity to American Indian reservations. Turns out that fixing chrono order was what we needed.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you recheck the what the source said on "In 1871, of the thirteen mills sawing lumber in St. Anthony, eight ran on water power and five ran on steam turbines" I believe that the steam turbine was not invented until 1884 and didn't come into real use until the 1900's. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Surely. From page 146 of Agnes Larson's The White Pine Industry in Minnesota, A History: In 1871 thirteen mills were cutting lumber at St. Anthony Falls, giving employment to 831 people. Of those thirteen mills, eight were run by water power and five by steam turbine. The author mentions a "first-class" steam powered sawmill owned by Hersey, Staples and Company in Stillwater, Minnesota built in 1854 (page 17). Around there she writes, "Steam was beginning to come into its own." Her source is a book I've never seen: Hotchkiss, History of Lumber and Forest Industry of Northwest, p. 525, that is unfortunately not in the Internet Archive as far as I can see. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HathiTrust has a copy here. It appears Wikipedia's article on steam turbines needs updating, no? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC) P.S. I double-checked another book The Falls of Saint Anthony by Lucile Kane. She says on page 108 that Another factor which contributed to the decline of sawmilling at the falls was steam power. As early as the 1850s and 1860s seven steam mills had operated at different times in the falls district. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that the author made an error and should have said steam power or steam engines rather than steam turbines. I.E steam engines / steam power was prevalent then, steam turbines were still in future. But if the source said it, that's good enough from a Wikipedia standpoint. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the article to say "steam power". Thank you.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SG Review

As the article is getting close to Keep territory, it may be helpful to scrutinize the lead more closely. Does it truly summarize the high points? At WP:TFA, would the lead provide the material that would be highlighted in a blurb? Examples I suggest addressing

As of the 2020 census the population was 429,954, making it the largest city in Minnesota and the 46th-most-populous in the United States.
Too much detail for the lead, and not really worthy of being the second line in the lead. I suggest removing the 46-th most bit to the body, and only mentioning in the lead "With a 2020 population of 429,954, it is the largest city in Minnesota."
Extra detail removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is tangled with nine mentions of Minneapolis and Minnesota; I suggest that Dying might find a way to smooth this out.
Hi. The lead was constructed for the most part here and here by a sockpuppet farm. I threw up my hands some time ago but am happy to help if I can. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Minneapolis has its origins as the 19th century lumber and flour milling capitals of the world, and, to the present day, preserved its financial clout -->
Minneapolis was the 19th-century lumber and flour milling capital of the world and has preserved its financial clout into the 21st century.
waterfall on the entire length of the Mississippi River --> on the Mississippi River
on a section of land north of Fort Snelling.
Its growth is attributed. --> its growth was ? In the 19th century ?? Early growth was ??
metropolis located far from competing neighbors,[15] Minneapolis is the birthplace of General Mills, the Pillsbury brand, and the Target Corporation. ... No relationship between these two clauses

Part done. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Dying, well-versed in fine-tuning leads towards writing the TFA blurb, will have a look and lend a hand. I think the lead could be much better. First pass only, will continue, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll continue my review on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


thanks for the ping and praise, SandyGeorgia! SusanLesch, this will admittedly be the first time i contribute to either fac or far, so please let me know if there is anything i am doing incorrectly or if you have any suggestions for improvement.

Greetings, Dying! Excited to work with you.

offhand, three things about this lead jump out at me.

  • a decent number of statements appear to have been made as if minneapolis has something to prove. i think, to a neutral reader, this makes the city less impressive than it really is.
Wonderful comment (in line with some of Hog Farm's ideas and SandyGeorgia's work to eradicate false claims). Maybe you can help tone it down.
  • the lead seems to be a lot longer than those of comparable articles. because minneapolis is 46th on the list of u.s. cities by population, i also specifically looked at the articles for oakland (45th) and tulsa (47th), and both of them have leads that are roughly 20–30% shorter, even though they have longer article bodies.
Maybe four paragraphs should do it per WP:LEAD. You're right we've gone over. One point, I would try to compare cities that are featured articles (Wikipedia doesn't have many). Boston, Cleveland, Washington, DC, Ann Arbor, Michigan (although I don't know which ones are recent FAs). Our guidelines at WP:USCITIES has more info.
  • considering that minneapolis has recently been highly prominent in world news due to an incident that sparked a worldwide protest movement, it seems strange that this only seems to be referenced obliquely in the lead. (full disclosure: i started a few of the articles related to the protests.) for comparison, the article leads for the cities of wuhan, beirut, and mariupol all not only explicitly mention the unfortunate events that have recently brought them international attention, but also provide links to articles that cover the events in further depth.
I agree with you but sadly lost an RfC on the subject.

would you prefer to address these points before i perform a more in-depth copyedit? dying (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that's enough to start. Good to meet you, Dying. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest Cleveland is the better example for comparison for the direction of the lead; it's a continuously maintained FA, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using non-FAs for guidance. SusanLesch are you comfortable then with having dying work directly on the lead? I see good room for reduction in the third paragraph and fifth (current city appointments are also recentism). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed. -15:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Grand; dying, one way to make work at FAR easier on other reviewers and the Coords who have to close is to start a sub-section on the talk page of this FAR, as you can see I've done. Then, when you're done, you can summarize back to this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on SandyGeorgia's review on talk in my sandbox. Making progress every day. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia and Dying: Done with SandyGeorgia's review. A couple questions and a note are marked. Dying, you could do our lead now if you can find the time. Sandy said she's busy elsewhere until at least Friday. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will get on it this weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I have to be out tomorrow early and need a day or two to complete an item I had thought was done. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Section done. Dying do you have a plan to go ahead with this lead? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for the delay, SusanLesch! unfortunately, another incident on wikipedia took up a good deal of my time recently. i have been working on the lead intermittently, but recently realized that it might be easier to start with the draft of a tfa blurb and then work backwards. i should post something on the talk page within a day or two. dying (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my! Interruptions in hardware (and email) are the worst. When your stress level recovers, yes, please have at the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Climate -- the new growing zone map (https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/) has the entire city and much of the surrounding suburbs in zone 5a now. Can someone make this change?

Done. Thank you, Sanctacruce21. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, my understanding is that Hog Farm and SandyGeorgia's reviews are done (both were lengthy, detailed reviews). Dying had a machine failure so the lead remains about the same, but they were able to write a TFA blurb (on talk). I made a couple more improvements to the article and ran IABot last week. Generally we had no status change since November. A couple questions are outstanding on Sandy's review (on talk). Is anyone available to !vote keep? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take a look but have no idea when I can get to it. I just moved last weekend; I'm not sure which box my primary laptop is in and we don't have reliable internet access set up yet. Hog Farm Talk 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am working our polls for the presidential primary in the next two weeks and turn into a pumpkin tomorrow until March 7. In the meantime I tried to recruit a weather expert at the WikiProject. (Outdated climate data seems to be a hurdle with lots of old FAs.) -SusanLesch (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing, again apologies for the dely

" renamed it the Falls of St. Anthony of Padua for his patron saint" - was this literally named "Falls of St. Anthony of Padua" as the text suggests or should this just be "Falls of St. Anthony" using a piped link for St. Anthony?
"After closing in 1858, the University of Minnesota was revived using land taken from the Dakota people under the Morrill Land-Grant Acts in 1862" - this seems more relevant to an article on either the University of MN or to some other article than one about the City of Minneapolis
  • Hog Farm, I don't understand. Why remove this? The main campus of the U of MN is in Minneapolis (as the lead says). It's enormous and contributes to the local economy. I found this morning: The university owns 30% of the city's publicly-owned land (about 84 acres) that is zoned for industrial uses (page 34). -SusanLesch (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only major concerns I had with the early history material as rewritten. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update to anyone worried about the climate box, I updated the data so it goes back to 1873, with a note explaining where the weather station is. I also removed some unnecessary parts of the table that aren't accessible in the NOWData source. Thanks SusanLesch (talk · contribs) for reaching out to the weather WikiProject. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful, elegant job. Thank you so much, Hurricanehink. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worked out on Minneapolis talk page. I was mistaken that 2020 climate normals are outdated. Next update will be 2030. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dying and all, I wrote a new lead for discussion on the Minneapolis talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is done. My understanding is that's the last step of FAR. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720


Comments after a quick skim:

  • "Minneapolis has cold, snowy winters and hot, humid summers, as is typical in a continental climate. The difference between average temperatures in the coldest winter month and the warmest summer month is 58.1 °F (32.3 °C)." Needs a citation, especially for the first half of this sentence.
Good catch. I asked for help in WikiProject Weather.
  • I don't think the charity section is needed: the first paragraph can be merged into another section if it is to be kept, but the sentence about Alight seems promotional for the charity and I'm unsure why this is highlighted when there are probably several other charities in the Minneapolis area.
Removed, although I don't know of any other Minneapolis charity of Alight's proportions.
  • I think the "Annual events" section can be redistributed to other sections. For example, the information about the marathon can be in the sports section, and the Fringe Festival can be in the Arts section.
I did this reluctantly because WP:USCITIES recommends a separate section for recurring events. I removed the section, and as you suggest, distributed the most important six or so, and omitted about ten. It looks all right.
  • "Krista Tippett, awarded a Peabody and the National Humanities Medal, produced the On Being project from her Minneapolis studio." This feels like trivia and should either be expanded upon, incorporated somewhere else, or removed.
  • I suggest reworking the "Transportation" section as there are lots of short paragraphs at the end.
  • The George Floyd information seems bloated and off-topic for the "Government" section. I suggest that much of this information be moved to "History" and trimmed.
Because oversight of both consent decrees was approved in February, I was able to cut a whole paragraph. Sorry I must push back on your comments. Mr. Floyd is not off topic, nor does it all belong in History. His death profoundly affected the police force for at least the last four years and it will in the coming four to ten years.
I think Floyd is a significant event that needs to be mentioned in this article. When I skimmed through the article I saw the multiple paragraphs on this subject in the Government section and gave it a thorough read, which is what I used to base my opinion on. There was a lot of information in this section about police reform, which surprised me because usually government sections for cities concern the structure of their municipal government, who their elected representatives are, and significant changes to these structures. While the operation of the police could be part of this section, I am unsure if it should have the amount of space that it does in this section.
Furthermore, Floyd is a significant event in this city's history, but the city's history is hundreds or thousands of years old, and I'm concerned that there might be a recency bias to include this much information on the topic in this area of the article. Los Angeles has one sentence about Rodney King, though it probably needs to be expanded. New York City has a couple of sentences, mostly in its history section, about 9/11 and its aftereffects. As of posting this comment, this article has two significant paragraphs about Floyd: one in the history section and one in government. Considering the length of the article, I would ask that editors consider if that information would be better on daughter articles and if it can be summarised even more in this article. Z1720 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We have only one sentence about Mr. Floyd in Government, followed by crime statistics and the consent decree.
  • "The Indigenous Dakota people believed in the Great Spirit, and were surprised that not all European settlers were religious." This feels like trivia and I think it can be removed.
  • This is a long article. While this is to be expected with an article about a city, I think work can be done to reduce the number of words by moving information to other locations and removing promotional language throughout. I suggest that a subject-matter expert do a readthrough to see what can be moved.
Good idea. Asked editors in WikiProject Minnesota.
  • I added alt text to some of the images.
Thank you.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, thank you very much for your review. Every point you raised is attended to above, with the exception of the two weather citations that I deferred to the WikiProject. You were right, the Floyd paragraph in History has been trimmed. Waiting for help, I made about 6K of article cuts but stopped after this one hurt. It might have done damage (by omitting hydroelectricity and revitalization of the riverfront).
Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting prose is tough but I think it's for the best, as it helps with load times and makes it more likely that the article will be read by our readers. I hope you will consider moving this information to a daughter article so that the sources are not lost, especially information in the history section. Are you ready for me to take another skim through the article? Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. I'll move that chunk to History of Minneapolis. Thank you again. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer read, so this will take more time. I am performing a copyedit while I go, so feel free to revert and discuss below anything I change.

  • " After closing in 1858, the University of Minnesota was revived using land taken from the Dakota people under the Morrill Land-Grant Acts in 1862." When reading this sentence, it seemed too specific for what the rest of the paragraph was saying. Why is information about the university here?
The year, 1862, is in chrono order. Removed this.
Restored it. Do you agree it works better in the Education section?
  • "In 1855 with a charter from the legislature, Steele and associates opened the first bridge across the Mississippi; the toll bridge cost pedestrians three cents" Why is this important for the history of the city, or can it be removed?
  • "1989 Minnesota Archaeological Society analysis of the Minneapolis riverfront describes the use of water power in Minneapolis between 1880 and 1930 as "the greatest direct-drive waterpower center the world has ever seen." This feels more like commentary and less like history, so I think it can be removed to decrease the wordcount here.
  • "Minneapolis earned the nickname "Mill City."" This comes before the information about the mills. If the mills gave the city its nickname, I suggest putting this afterwards, adding information about when the nickname was used, and stating that the mills gave the city this nickname.
Sourced. Kept as part of intro.
Cited founding of Washburn-Crosby and General Mills.
  • I don't think the first paragraph of the "Other industries develop" section is necessary, as the information is intended to be humorous, not factual, or the information is present later in the article.
Removed the whole paragraph.

Those are my thoughts for now. Stopping at "Other industries develop" and hope to continue later. Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done so far. One question above for you. (I think the university is too big to ignore that its land was more or less stolen.) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  • There are a lot of businesses listed in "Other industries develop". This section struggles to connect the businesses with the history of the city: how did these businesses affect the city? Also, lots of the information is cited to the company's website. Do secondary sources think these businesses are notable to Minneapolis's history? If not, they should be removed.
Onan has one company citation, however Onan's notability is cited to Stipanovich. (There aren't "lots of" these, only one.)
  • The first paragraph of "Social tension" seems to be a list of facts, with no cohesion to it.
You removed the topic sentence of that paragraph.
Interestingly you seem to remove topic sentences and transitional sentences. Even though that kind of edit logically cuts the word count, I prefer to have the breathers. They're like asides that don't require hard thought.
I undid deletions of topic sentences twice in History. Topic sentences are needed! They are designed to unite "a list of facts, with no cohesion". I added one topic sentence "Disparate events defined the late 20th century." which will function once as a catch-all.
  • I think the second paragraph, talking about the Black population of the city, might be better in the demographics section.
It's about any non-White race (not only the Black population). Agree this can be done. Still I wonder if having the topic here helps the reader understand Structural racism which now comes first. Does it work in the new spot?
  • The biggest problem I see in the history section is that it is divided by theme instead of a timeline. In addition, subsections within the History section are also divided by theme or just randomly placed in a new paragraph. This makes the section difficult to read and hard to find information, especially in the later parts of the section. Looking back at the 2007 version that passed FAC, I think editors added prose randomly into this section, causing it to become bloated and filled with non-notable information with low-quality sources. I suggest that this whole section be re-written and organised chronologically. This will greatly help with reducing the amount of text in this article. For an example of how a history section of a city can be organised, take a look at Hamilton, Ontario.
  • Disagree with what you say here. No low-quality sources or non-notable information was added. If anything the quality of sources has improved since 2007. The Works cited section is new.
  • The entire History section is already in close-to-strict chronological order, proceeding from 1000 A.D. to 2020. Yes, there are a few exceptions, likely to be found at the end of a section to bring that topic up to the present day. (See note below about removing everything after Mr. Floyd.)
  • Ways to solve what you're finding:
  • One, omit or footnote information that doesn't strictly follow a timeline, we hope reducing work for the reader. (For example, remove "The city's first commercial sawmill was built in 1848, and the first gristmill in 1849.")
  • Second, rewrite to eliminate awkward jumps in the timeline (for example, drop the first date: "In 1886, businessman George D. Munsing built a textile business called Munsingwear to sell wool underwear covered in silk. The business lasted a century and in 1923 it was the world's largest manufacturer of underwear.").
  • Third, the Structural racism section is undated and could be moved away.

Those are my thoughts. Finished with the history, will move on to other sections later. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My husband and I are sick with the flu (not COVID). I'll try to work at your other comments ASAP. Hamilton history looks nice! Thanks for explaining your viewpoint. I was ticked off yesterday at the clearcut approach, but seeing that helps me understand. Thanks for your review. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, can you please sign off on the 3-point plan above? Two editors are waiting to execute it. (I am back 80+ percent.) Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SusanLesch: I think this is good! Most of the information is useful and has great sources, but would be better in other sections or articles. Examples include: the info about businesses, which can move to Economy, and the demographics information can go to the Demographics section. I look forward to reading through this when it is complete. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's possible to move the businesses to Economy where they'd stand out as WP:UNDUE, and we'd have to add origin stories for Target Corp, Ameriprise, Thrivent. The Economy section is better as it is—high level. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Z1720, the History section is down from 7000 to 4500 words. Please see what you think. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the History section. Are we good, Z1720? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720:Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you for your review. I'm not sure that we have your full attention. Some of your comments seem like guesses or just wrong. "Looking back at the 2007 version that passed FAC, I think editors added prose randomly into this section, causing it to become bloated and filled with non-notable information with low-quality sources.", "The biggest problem I see in the history section is that it is divided by theme instead of a timeline.", "lots of the information is cited to the company's website" Nearly a year went by since I brought this to FAR, Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, however, a whole month disappeared since you last posted. This article deserves better. It meets all Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, it is thoroughly researched with a stunning new Works cited section, not to mention that SandyGeorgia helped its development and it passed Hog Farm's painstaking review. I respect that you are busy improving the encyclopedia—but my time has value, too. Are you ready to close this out and declare keep? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments


Trying to consolidate keep !votes. Postponing seems more and more pointless.

  • SandyGeorgia, I'd like to see all your work bear fruit. Can you !vote to keep today? Thank you for questioning claims over the years.
  • Hog Farm, my teacher on MOS:PEACOCK, declared keep a month ago. Language was toned down throughout.
  • Buidhe, thank you for your image review. Do you think it is ever safe to assume a daguerreotype from the 1850s is public domain? If you don't, I will remove it. Pending copyright information from the Minnesota Historical Society (which they seem to have buried), we removed a log jam from 1881. Can you sign off on this article?

-SusanLesch (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  1. In §Health care, it would be worth all the downsides of passive voice to start the first sentence with "The city is served by ..." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Can the list of hospitals be cut down? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Readers will take "Cardiac surgery was developed ..." to mean that such surgeries were first done in Minneapolis. I think it's worth spending some words to clarify what exactly was accomplished. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Our article on Hennepin County Medical Center suggests that's the name for the hospital, with Hennepin Healthcare being the name for the org that administers it. Whatever we land on, there should be consistency between the prose and the caption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too much attention given to alt names for Hennepin County Medical Center/Hennepin Healthcare. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Should consistently use either "percent" or "%" in prose. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In §Transportation, why the about in "about six bus rapid transit (BRT) lines"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The part about scooters/bikes needs an update. A glance at this source suggests they were available again in 2024 and implies they were available in 2023. This was the first source that came up, and a better one may be available. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • News coverage stops in 2023 for Minneapolis. As far as I know, these companies are on a one-year contract extension. I sent a query to the city and will update that sentence when I hear back. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It seems like the article trends toward the use of the serial (Oxford) comma. I've added it in a few places where it was missing, but a full pass is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I prefer the serial comma and thank you for the corrections. One more comma quirk: I generally follow the rule that years in numerals are followed by a comma. An example here: Minneapolis was incorporated as a city in 1867, and in 1872, it merged with St. Anthony. Doing a comma check pass now. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I've corrected a couple comma errors, where one was erroneously included to separate the parts of a complex predicate. Needs a full pass. I can help with this and the above item if you want me to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Compound adjectives like "15th largest" should be hyphenated. Current usage is mixed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Back in §Health care, "the university's Variety Club Heart Hospital": which university? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Since we go a bit into the history of U of M, mentioning the year of establishment would be nice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. "College rankings for 2023 place the school in the range of 44th (2024) to 195th for academics worldwide": the 2023 and 2024 seem to conflict. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Looks like new rankings are available from U.S. News & World Report. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "the state constitution included the provision: regents are in control": MOS:COLON would suggest against this sort of colon use. Replacement with a "that" would work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. "revived using land taken from the Dakota people under the Morrill Act of 1862" is unclear. I think maybe we mean "revived under the Morrill Act of 1862 using land taken from the Dakota people"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers, how are things looking here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still reviewing at the FAR talk page, and SL has (of course) been responsive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article removal candidates

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.
Notified: GoldRingChip, Bumm13, Guliolopez, DigitalIceAge, David Fuchs, barrel of cheese, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Apple Inc., diff for talk page notification (2024-02-23)

Review section


Issues of adequacy, detail, sourcing, and consistency with other articles about PowerBook 1XX series were raised two years ago. Since then, edits have been made but did very little to resolve those issues, especially within the last few or several weeks. More work is needed before the article would potentially lose its FA status. George Ho (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed my URFA notes and the state of the associated articles, I'm left with the opinion that working on this article and improving it via FAR is a poor use of time; the entire landscape of this and associated articles needs a rethink. I think the best solution is some sort of consolidation: I've gone poking at some of the extant sources from the time and it feels like separating the 100 from at least the other machines in the series is a bad idea since there's a lot of overlap. Right now there's the overarching PowerBook page, the PowerBook 100 series, and then PowerBook 100, PowerBook 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, and 190. I'm not entirely sure if it makes sense to lump this 100 article and what are essentially SKUS released three or four years later into a single PowerBook 100 series article, but most Wikipedia articles on Apple products lump them together in larger categories (such as processor generation) than this. At the very least the 100, 140, and 170 articles, talking about commonly-designed, released, and marketed products, make sense when combined since most of the information on development and marketing would be redundant between them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the idea of merging any of the PowerBook 100 series articles, especially the PowerBook 100. Not only is it very different from the other 100 series models (it's effecitvely a proto-subnotebook whereas the 140 and 170 are more standard notebook-notebooks), but the 100 in particular has had significant coverage in several hundred reliable sources, with many retrospectives detailing both its influence as well as the tensions between Sony and Apple that this particular model engendered (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), which this article doesn't even get into. This was very early days for mobile computing, and even seemingly small changes between the different models had ripple effects across the rest of the industry and were discussed widely in not only tech magazines but mainstream newspapers too. Not at all like the ho-hum landscape of today's mobile devices. DigitalIceAge (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: FDW777, WikiProject Irish republicanism, 7 July 2024; the original FAC nominator (One Night In Hackney) has been inactive since 2013.

Review section


I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not, in my opinion, at the level that should be expected from an FA. There are several books sources missing, and several that are present are underused. There are almost no academic papers cited, and some events are not covered (including negotiations between the British government and the IRA. I think the only way to raise this up to current FA standards is a complete rewrite, rather than tinkering round the edges. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Underbar dk, Lingzhi.Random, talk page notice 2023-01-19

Review section


I am nominating this featured article for review because there has been no improvement since issues were raised in March 2022 (Talk:Battle_of_Red_Cliffs#FA_sweeps). Issues include: cn issues, questionable sources, and unsourced images. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9 you should also notify the four WikiProjects listed on the article talk page. While you are doing that, would you please also notify Lingzhi.Renascence on their talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications should have also included @Applodion and Gog the Mild:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done: User_talk:Lingzhi.Renascence#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chinese_history#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Three_Kingdoms#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is missing de Crespigny 2010, Imperial Warlord (Brill), his biography of Cao Cao. I read it in the springtime this year; I'll see what I can do with it. I'll have a look at this article sometime this week, but probably not right after work today. Folly Mox (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to actively throw my hat into the ring to help save this FA. I'll start with grabbing this Cao Cao biography. Remsense 00:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone else wants to peruse the source I mentioned above, a recent English-language treatment by an expert in the field, direct TWL link. I'm currently searching for more sources. The only real bad ones live at the article have to do with pop culture stuff, and the last time I was forced to cite material like that (at Sima Yi) it made me want to cry, like I had called my dentist to make an appointment and ended up filing taxes over the phone instead. Folly Mox (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sourcing issues (like maps about the engagement) are not going to be resolveable, since there's no uniform reconstructed narrative. A455bcd9, I've never been to FAR before. Do we discuss sourcing issues here or on the article talk page? Folly Mox (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea either... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever works best, Folly Mox. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox longer discussions can be put on the talk page of this FAR page, or on article talk. Just provide a link back to here, and if improvements are occurring and more time is needed, please keep this page informed weekly; otherwise, we proceed to declarations (Move to FARC, Close w/o FARC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops ok I was not aware of the time limit. I guess I'd better get going on this. Folly Mox (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox; no time limit as long as things are progressing in the right direction-- just keep this page informed weekly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started in on this yesterday. I've resolved a few of the "easy issues" brought up: improved the sourcing for two claims and removed a third claim that was not adequately supported; I think all but one of the {{cn}} tags has been resolved, but I've also been adding them as I go. Most of these were of the genre "actually already supported by sources cited in the article, which the tagger didn't check."
The maps are probably sourceable, and may even be accurate for the leading historical reconstruction. I have a question for the reviewers: if I find a suitably RS map that is similar to the unsourced ones in the article, is it ok to cite the article maps as "after Source S"? or just cite the map to an appropriate source even though the graphical style or level of detail varies?
Apart from the obvious issues raised at Talk:Battle of Red Cliffs § FA sweeps, I see more serious problems that are not evident to people without a background in the subject matter. One is that the historical narrative that has grown up around the battle is blandly accepted without balance by opposing critical viewpoints. It even gets a shout out in the infobox, where "Cao Cao fails to conquer lands south of the Yangtze River". This is not wrong, but we don't actually have evidence this was his intent. Another major issue is the impoverished postface. The § Cultural impact section is a measly two paragraphs, which is inadequately representative of the state of the field.
Overreliance on certain sources is present, and I'm probably not going to be able to do better than de Crespigny for the English language ones. He's been the preeminent English language scholar on early mediaeval Chinese history for decades. At the time of promotion fifteen years ago, the article leaned heavily on freely available internet sources, some of which have since been paywalled and I'm not readily able to verify. The source I mentioned in my initial comment on this page was published post-promotion. I've begun incorporating information from it.
The § Location section closely follows the major English language treatment of the question, the author of which holds a view distinctly outside the mainstream, which he acknowledges. We'll have to make sure that is balanced out at some point.
I haven't started looking at Chinese language sources yet (apart from the early ones I have at home). I haven't scraped zh:赤壁之戰 for its sources, or even read it or the subject's baidu to see what sorts of things we're not mentioning that I haven't thought of.
Surface level issues include citation style irregularities and slightly incomplete full citations. User:Remsense has kindly standardised the shortened footnote templates already, which I threw out of balance in my first several edits. There is also copyediting to do, and almost certainly other things listed at WP:FACR that I'm unfamiliar with.
I'm happy to take point on this effort, but I do work full time, so except for the band between about 1130–1400 UTC, I won't be able to do much on weekdays. Thanks everyone for your patience. Folly Mox (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox, if you are willing/able to see this all the way through, time is always allowed. But you should probably know going in that you and Remsense may be doing the work alone, as no one else has shown up. I'd be fine with using a map to source a map. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that characterisation of the workload was pretty anticipated. I'm down. Folly Mox (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a bibliography of a couple zhwiki sources that appear additive for our purposes from first skim:

  • Zhang Zuoyao (张作耀) (2000). 曹操传 [A biography of Cao Cao] (in Chinese). Beijing: Renmin chubanshe. ISBN 978-7-010-03216-0.
  • Wang Wen-Chin (王文進) (2010). 論「赤壁意象」的形成與流轉-「國事」、「史事」、「心事」、「故事」的四重奏 [The Formation and Transformation of Images of the Battle of Red Cliffs: A Quartet of National, Historical, Mental and Narrative Matters] (PDF). Chengdu University Journal of Chinese Literature (in Chinese) (28): 83–123. doi:10.29907/JRTR.201004.0003. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-12-06. Retrieved 2019-01-18.
And a couple I happened to find while searching:
Remsense 18:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some sourced downloaded already, and more set to go once I get back on wifi. I'll copy them over to the § Further reading subheading or the talk page when I get time. `Folly Mox (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox, do you mind if I sometimes endeavor to do some work you plan on doing in your (always very elucidating) edit summaries? When you mentioned Tian 2018 could be useful, I was excited because that's something I could help with easily, but I don't want to step on your toes. But I also also don't want to leave you with all the particularly difficult work in this article refresh, so let me know if you have any particular preferences with me taking the initiative with things you specifically mention, or if you'd prefer your own particular sequence of editing, as it were. :) Remsense 05:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please by all means, Remsense, do whatever excites you! I'm glad for any help!
I think we should probably do any necessary coordination on the talkpage though, to spare the reviewers the watchlist hits, and just report in periodically as advised. Folly Mox (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary update 03 December

(I guess this is transcluded somewhere, so lvl 4 subheading here).

Improvements to the article thus far have been slow. We've identified and added some additional sources, and cleared out all the {{cn}} tags but for the two maps (which Remsense may have to recreate? but if new maps based on sourced information look substantially similar to the existing maps, did we need the new maps? still characteristically confused on this point) – and a {{cn}} tag that is essentially there because something was stated in prose rather than framed as part of article structure.

I am working on (read: sometimes thinking about) replacing all the sources I'm not able to verify personally, chiefly two offline Chinese news sources, but also two de Crespigny sources. Overreliance on de Crespigny will seem less serious once the "cultural legacy and impact" section is filled in a bit more. I knew de Crespigny was unavoidable for historical treatments of this time period, but I didn't previously understand how he's basically the Amazon of English language Three Kingdoms period history. The monographs are all him, and even the Cambridge History chapters are him too. Will have to look in different disciplines for other authors to include.

Most of my work thus far has not resulted in edits: finding and reading (or rereading) sources. Problems remain with framing, coverage. Remsense has been making a lot of positive technical and copyedits, which of course I'll let them report about.

At this point it's no longer my intent to replace all the statements sourced to Chen and Pei 429 (三國志注) with modern sources, but instead to quarantine them in their own section, alike but unalike to the "Fictionalised account" section about the Romance of the Three Kingdoms variant narrative. Reason being that the earliest sources are already disparate in their accounts, and providing these to the reader should assist encyclopaedic understanding. Folly Mox (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My addendum: my work has been decidedly less meaty than Molly's, a large chunk of it being presentation-oriented, copy edits and template work and citation formatting and the like. I'm assembling all the sourcing I think I may need to either secure or redesign the maps into one place. Overall, I think we are doing well.
On the map sourcing question: If the information presented in a map indeed lines up with the written description in a source, I fully believe that this qualifies as verifiability. To me, it is not qualitatively different from adding a source to text, even if that text may not have been originally written according to said source. Remsense 23:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary update 14 December Hey—I've done a bit more work behind the scenes and working on the graphics, but haven't directly edited the article in the past week. Folly is busy, and my attention has been elsewhere for the most part, in part on the simultaneous FAR over at Byzantine Empire. But now my attention is turning back here, and I'll be sharing some updates and doing some of the cleanup I can still see in the article in the next couple days. Cheers. Remsense 16:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that I am indeed busy and have updates planned but not committed to databases. Organising thoughts is not my forté. Might be my dump stat (I appear to have many). Stupidly, I've acquired 三國志集解, the standard annotated edition. This has not been an efficient use of focus. Folly Mox (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, @Folly Mox—this is my present understanding:
  • Nothing in the battle map itself requires additional/better sourcing
  • The main unsourced/SYNTH bit in the candidate sites map is the special "fourth region", and a replacement would essentially just replace this.
Remsense 18:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense, yeah the battle map is definitely sourceable. I feel like I linked de Crespigny 2010 p. 267 somewhere already, which is a partial match, showing Cao Cao's movements (unlike the map presently in the article, it's possible to see that his naval forces came downstream rather than overland; the green arrow is almost entirely hidden by Zhou Yu's advance to Jiangling in the aftermath of the battle).
I'm certain I used to have a book with more maps about this, but that hard drive was lost in the past two years in either a move or a breakup. The other movements on the battle map can be sourced to prose records, either Zhang 2006 or Generals of the South, which reminds me I still haven't converted the multifarious de Crespigny cites to author–title for ease of use.
The "fourth possible region" in the battlefield locator map is probably sourceable to Zhang 2006, given how closely that section follows the arguments in that source, but highlighting modern Jiayu county seems to have been a convenience for the original mapmaker, and I'm not sure "possibly somewhere other than these spots" is adequately supported in the literature to add to the map. We could put "not an exhaustive list of possibilities" or something in the caption.
Meanwhile, on the historical research side of things, it should be obvious that I haven't been active in updating this article during the past couple weeks. Apart from offwiki responsibilities, which have consumed most of my energy, the main blockers have been 1. wanting to do a full rewrite of the article because I'm even worse at organising others' ideas than I am my own, and 2. hesitancy with accepting de Crespigny uncritically whilst being unable to locate any broader consensus or lack of it.
The situation with that is de Crespigny has been at the top of the field of English language Three Kingdoms period history for five? decades, and doesn't really have competitors or even collaborators in a narrow sense (I've seen maybe two or three mentions of his work that engage it thoughtfully, rather than just citing it as authoritative). There's really no one else. While I can read Chinese language sources on the topic, I've been running into a lot of dead ends trying to access sufficiently reliable Chinese sources, which are poorly represented in the TWL corpora.
The problem here is that although de Crespigny has become more cautious with age, some of his earlier work is pretty conclusive about questions that don't seem conclusively answerable based on his sources at the time (although I'm certainly missing some of those). For example, the idea for Sun Quan and Liu Bei to ally is credited originally credited to all three of Lu Meng, Zhou Yu, and Zhuge Liang. Pei Songzhi and de Crespigny each pick one. Cao Cao's ships being burnt is originally credited to Zhou Yu, Liu Bei, and Cao Cao himself. The earliest record we have is actually Cao Cao's claim that he burnt his own navy on the way out so his opponents couldn't make use of it, but scholarship tends to accept the Zhou Yu story because it's also early, and it's there and it's compelling. I haven't seen any sources that really address this question other than by mentioning Cao Cao's claim, but it's ultimately unanswerable due to lack of contemporary sources, in a way that even the Battle of Fei River can be more clearly seen.
Anyway, this has been a me problem. Folly Mox (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Remsense: You are correct about the above sections missing citations. There's also two other sentences that need citations, which I have just indicated in the article with "citation needed" tags. Also, "Taiping Chang (2014)" and the two sources in "Dien, Albert E." do not seem to be used as inline citations in the article. Should they be, or should they be removed as references? Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Z1720 et al.—I apologize for my lack of diligence in this FAR. Folly Mox is busy and I've been either elsewhere or wiped out, so now I will now take it upon myself to do what needs to be done to save this. Thank you very much for the additional tags. I am taking a look as we speak and will do what needs to be done. — Remsense 00:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: Sorry for the late response. What prose in the article are you referring to? Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense:, I'm a bit late to this, what are we still looking for? Sources beyond Crespigny? Although he is a wonderful scholar. Aza24 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the one clear thing is the map showing the candidate sites. I think everything else is sourced. I have done a bit of looking, but honestly I am not sure that there is other scholarship to include, save maybe for cultural impact. Remsense 00:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Afaik, the Eastern Han is not nearly as popular as the Western in English-language academia. I'm not surprised that Crespigny is dominating the subject here. We could possibly use more from the CHC, but just skimming it now, I don't see much. Unless anyone has access to some Chinese sources, this might be the best it gets.
I'm think Folly is right above that much of the map can be sourced by Zhang 2006. It looks like pages 215–216 cover it (I've just added a citation there). Aza24 (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720


Comments after a review:

  • "Battle of Red Cliffs and Cao Cao's retreat.[26][additional citation(s) needed] " This tag needs to be resolved in the image caption
  • The "Fictionalised account" sections confuses me. It seems to only talk about the historical differences between fictionalised and historical accounts, but does not describe what these fictionalised accounts are (plays, operas, folk songs) and when/how they were developed. Of particular confusion is what "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" is: this needs to be described so that I don't need to click on the wikilink to discover what this is.
  • "Since then, cultural festivals held by the city have helped to dramatically increase tourism to the area." How are these cultural festivals connected to the battle?
  • The "Cultural impact" section could probably be organised better to remove the small paragraphs. I would also consider merging this with "Fictionalised account" as these seem to be related.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Embarrassingly, I completely passed over Z1720's comments until now. Will add this back into my rotation, though at this point I don't expect people to wait up for me. Remsense 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: SNUGGUMS, Heartfox, WikiProject Mariah Carey, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section


I have nominated the article for TFA, but it was unsuccessful. It stated: "article would not pass FAC in current state. Suggest waiting until 60th birthday (which is a more notable anniversary than 55th) to re-run the article as TFA, after which improvements would have been made." On the talk page, I asked for article issues, but no response was made in the past 2 weeks. Please take your time to review and I would like to address the article's concerns. ScarletViolet (talkcontribs) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE March 23, 2024 This FAR has been reopened and please take your time to re-review this featured article. According to Heartfox, some of the article's sources are not high-quality reliable.

@ScarletViolet: As was noted in the TFA discussion, if there is to be an FAR for this article, specific concerns have to be identified on the article's talk page as a first step - I don't see that that was done? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: There are some concerns in the article, like it does not follow some of the Manual of Style. Featured articles follow all style guidelines. ScarletViolet (talkcontribs) 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but were these concerns raised on the article talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. ScarletViolet (talkcontribs) 04:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let's do that first. This will be on hold for the moment to give that a chance to happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScarletViolet, I do not see that you have posted to the talk page - are you still intending to move forward with the review process? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: You say so. This has been reopened. ScarletViolet (talkcontribs) 10:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of reviewers, I'm going to copy Heartfox's comment from the talk page here: "Mainly issues with WP:FACR 1c, and probably others would take issue with 1a. There are some websites that aren't high-quality sources for a biography (or really anything) like TheThings, Fame10, Nicki Swift, Daily Mirror, Gossip Cop, Daily Express, etc. Also, the most significant scholarly work on Carey (Why Mariah Carey Matters by Andrew Chan) isn't cited, as are two recent academic book chapters (ISBN 978-1538169063 and ISBN 978-1-5013-6825-7)." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, it looks like the sourcing definitely needs some work. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll at least start work on citations within the next 24 hours, though with regards to linking terms, I thought it was common practice to only link the first one to use a term and that subsequent uses of that publication didn't need linking per WP:OVERLINK. From a glance at this version of the page, it would for example mean The New York Times is just linked in ref#5 and Toronto Star in ref#27. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE it looks like all the subpar sources have been removed, and I've linked some more terms. Before I make additional changes with linking (or lack thereof) for publications used more than once (such as multiple MTV News or Entertainment Weekly articles), does anybody know for certain whether it's expected to be a first-mention-only or all-instances ordeal? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: It depends on what you choose. Would suggest that improvements should made in due time, otherwise its status will be gone. ScarletViolet 💬 📝 12:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry; typically an FAR stays open as long as there are people willing to work on it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: The sections too are very long, unlike the Regine Velasquez and Taylor Swift articles, which are very concise and short. Consider splitting it into subsections in a similar fashion to The Beatles and BTS. Improving while its FA status is active not enough. Would suggest removing the status first, then once the article meets the FA criteria, then the article can be ready for re-promotion. ScarletViolet 💬 📝 01:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not be so hasty; I've cleaned out lots of duplicate links from the article body and Heartfox has helped me in improving citations. How much splitting would be adequate? In the meantime, I also have touched up some of the prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I boldly went ahead with some splits and here is what the article looks like afterwards. Hopefully it's a step in the right direction. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: You're right. Let's think positive, not negative, shall we? I'm also planning to write major changes in the sandbox first before revamping it in the article itself. This time, I would also split Carey's cultural status to its own article: like Cultural impact of Mariah Carey. Title follows other articles like Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, Cultural impact of Madonna, Cultural impact of Taylor Swift, Cultural impact of BTS, etc. ScarletViolet 💬 📝 11:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea at all. Before you implement the sandbox changes, please do show what they look like. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section


Nominating the article for review as the article has a few conspicuous issues that this process may assist with:

  • Firstly, in terms of research, the article features overuse of quote citations from the game to evidence plot and gameplay mechanics. Secondary coverage should be preferred, other than WP:PLOT which tends to be viewed as self-evidently sourced from the work itself. This approach is arguably WP:EXCESSIVE - over half the article's citations are for quotes as trivial as 'The End' just to evidence that the game ends! Without these, the article is not particularly broadly cited - not that this is any barrier to FA status.
  • Secondly, in terms of comprehensiveness, the article has no actual development information that may shine a light on who made the game, how they made it and what they thought of it. The section relies on pre-release promotional articles that are purely early impressions of the game. This leads to unclear statements - that the game is a "spiritual successor" to Hey You Pikachu! and that it was developed for the purpose of promoting the e-reader - are likely the case but this is assumed from how an IGN preview describes it rather than the developer. Investigation into WP:NONENG sources and the potential for Japanese development interviews could significantly improve this section.
  • Thirdly, this may be a matter of personal opinion about comprehensiveness, but for a game titled Pokemon Channel with gameplay oriented around the channels, the gameplay section is well-written but does not go into much detail about what each channel is and what it features. I understand the channels are a bit superficial, but a list or more detailed description rather than a sentence that says Other channels include X, Y, and Z may be more helpful for readers to know exactly what content is offered in the game's channels. VRXCES (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vrxces. Unless I missed something, you have not yet brought these concerns up at Talk:Pokémon Channel. Per the instructions at the top of the page, talk page discussion is the first requisite step in this process. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm not familiar with the FAR process. I'll do that. Happy to take this down if the FAR is inappropriate at this time. VRXCES (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries on my end either, and I hope you stick around FAR! I know sometimes the coordinators will just put the discussion on hold while talk page discussion occurs, so you should leave this up and let them handle it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your guidance - I've added this feedback on the talk page. VRXCES (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold recommend that this FAR is place on hold while the notice period (step 1 above) is conducted. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1 is now complete (with no response) so hold is off. VRXCES, could you please notify relevant editors and WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant WikiProject has been notified; I will also reach out to key editors when I can. VRXCES (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote-citations of the game are pretty strange, but since the material would be fine even without citations per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, I'm not sure there's really an FAC criteria issue (although I'm not averse to just removing the citations). Comprehensiveness, on the other hand, is definitely a valid concern, but does anyone have a few examples of good sources that aren't currently being cited? The reason there's no development section may just be that the sources don't talk about it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No work has been done on the plot section, which should be reduced and all of the inline citations to quotes of the game should be removed. I searched for sources per Extraordinary Writ above and found one source, [18], but struggled to find others in my quick search. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nomination rationale confuses me. Most of the errors in the article seem to be text-based (Which can be easily fixed per MOS:PLOT and some expansion on the gameplay section) and easily fixable, with the only real concern being the development section. Per Extraordinary Writ, if no additional sources can be found for the development, then it's very likely sources just don't talk about that aspect while talking about others. If more sources per Z1720's Polygon source are found, then those can be added to the article and used to expand the section. This FARC feels very forced when most of the issues could have been fixed with simple edits and research to the article by the nominator (Some of which have already been done by Sjones23). I'm willing to do a search for additional sources + adding anything found to the article if this works best, but as it stands the rationale for delisting this article is very weak and easily fixable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback. This nomination was made when I had a weaker understanding of the FAR process under the misapprehension it was a vehicle to escalate quality issues on FAs. I think at this point the nomination can be comfortably closed. VRXCES (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-02-10

Review section


This 2006 FA was nominated by an editor who has made one Wikipedia edit since 2013, and has not edited the article since 2007. The article has no main watchers and has not been maintained to standard. The article was notified last year for original research, over-reliance on single sources, MOS issues, and citations needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did some urgent fixes and will park these lists of sources to use here. It seems like Newcomb 1980 is available at a local library. That's for sourcing & completeness; someone more adept that me will need to handle MOS problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did some expansion. Newcomb 1980 seems to be the most comprehensive source on the group, so I can see why he would be the main source. Stras 2018 seems to be a bit more generally discussing the music scene in Ferrara, rather than a detailed analysis of the concerto delle donne. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, starting to try to catch up ... where does this stand; do you think the article meets comprehensiveness? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it passes on comprehensiveness, keeping in mind however that I only considered sources that show up on Google Scholar. There are some bits in the page source that need further thought. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The additions look great, thanks Jo-Jo! I recall working on this for a bit but stepping back due to time commitments. Hopefully I can look throughout it more next week... am thinking that the biggest issues right now are source References formatting and the rather poor lead. Aza24 (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 are you going to be able to look at this, or should we be moving to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think so. Give me till the end of the weekend—if I don't get to it by then we can move it FARC. Aza24 (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this today – Aza24 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at it a bit today. I still have more cleanup to do, but at the moment these are the issues I see remaining (this list is for my own personal use as well)
  • Needs many more reference to Stras
  • A few missing citations still (one is marked), about cross dressing, the ballet etc.
  • Probably need a collage pic of the Duke and Duchess in the beginning of history
  • Emphasis on Luzzaschi and near absence of anyone else may be undue, I'm not sure
  • Note b needs to be expanded to include the similar contradiction from Pendle and Grove
  • Music section is a bit of a mess; badly organized and laid out. The composers
  • Really needs an image of sheet music (which I can engrave and then upload)
  • I don't think Yarris is a "high quality source"
  • Similar doubts about Kuhn
  • There is a great long-ish quote from Vincenzo Giustiniani (in Burkholder) which could go in quote box for the Influence section
  • Lead needs a complete rewrite, including the names of important composers and singers
  • Minor clean up matters regarding linking first mentions (& overlinking) and giving translations to Italian terms
  • Overall, I think there are two main issues:
    • Rewrite of the music section
    • I think the whole article will have to be recontextualized a little. Too much emphasis on the Ferrera court and practically none in comparison for the equivalent ensembles at Mantua, Florence, etc. Britannica's article is (surprisingly) a good model in this regard Aza24 (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like the Wikipedia Library is down, so I can't do anything about Stras or the other concerti or the citation tag at the moment. I looked for an image of Duke and Duchess, but apparently there are only separate images. It seems like Monteverdi is more commonly mentioned than Luzzaschi in sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries! I have a PDF of Stras (which I can send?—email me if so) that I'm planning to add from. For the Duke/Duchess I meant a collage (double) image, which I've just added. – Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't do anything before tomorrow, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Began to work a bit with Stras. I am going to warn folks that since musicology is very far from my areas of knowledge/interest, I am perhaps not the person to ask for a proper due weight evaluation. I got as far as p.167 in Stras. I've asked at WP:RX for one source for the crossdressing thing. Does anyone have access to this book? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found a PDF. If you email me I can send it to you. Aza24 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you up for rewriting the music section? This is a topic on which I understand essentially nothing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I think so. Was looking into what that would consist of earlier – Aza24 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aza24 where does this stand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should hopefully be able to work on it this week. Back from vacation now. I think its definitely trending towards a positive direction