Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [1].

Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery[edit]

Notified: Johnbod, Z1720,Bishonen, Buidhe, Fannybriceii, Giano, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women in Green, 2022-03-23, 2022-04-28

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, to quote from the talk page, it's a long, well-written article with many citations, yes. It's also riddled with POV statements -- many unsourced -- as well as a lot of meandering to cover up the truth that there is just not a lot of fact out there about the subject, and double-checking, I've already found several statements unsupported by the cited sources (and have removed or corrected fifteen citations so far). Much of the article is a coatrack for her husband's political career. While her notability is not in question, I certainly question whether enough is known (as opposed to conjecture, innuendo and gossip) about Lady Rosebery to make this a genuine, viable FA article. Several editors, besides myself, have questioned whether the article meets current FA criteria (it was promoted in 2007), as the article's talk page demonstrates. Ravenswing 02:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see one - I can't see "several". Johnbod (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well ... that's after I spent an hour excising a few, and I'm less than halfway through the McKinstry cites; if you've already found one I missed, fair enough. I have two others of the books used in the references on order from my local library.

But if you'd like the specific examples of statements unsupported by the listed cites I've found just so far, [2] [3] [4] [5] Ravenswing 02:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was referring to "Several editors, besides myself, have questioned whether the article meets current FA criteria (it was promoted in 2007), as the article's talk page demonstrates." Johnbod (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, some t8me over the last few years, refs have been muddled, I’ve no idea why this [6] is listed at as 112 which is odd as it’s fully referenced to McKinstry page 211. If you want to check facts accurately, just look on the glossary at the back of the book, to find refs to Mrs Humphrey Ward. Giano (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent the last couple of hours restoring a little of the information which has been wrongly removed by Ravenswing. I own all the books mentioned in the references, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend hours reverting all his edits. There is nothing in the original page which isn't sourced or able to be sourced, but if Ravenswing doesn't stop his vandalism there will be little left to read. Perhaps that's his intention? This is a very strange nomination. Giano (talk) 17:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You really do seem to have an ownership problem with this article, don't you? First it's accusations of anti-Semitism and misogyny on the talk page, and now this. The changes I made in the article were removing statements unsourced by the listed citations, or ones that were uncited in the first place. You should have spent the time to do your work properly in the first place for a FA article; if you claim you lack the time now to clean up your own errors, well, you're the best judge of your own time. But the sheer hysteria you're displaying (a byte count shows that I removed less than a twentieth of the content) is unbecoming. Ravenswing 19:01, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please take any further personal commentary to someone's talk page rather than here - this kind of back-and-forth isn't helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Giano for making improvements on this article at the end of May. There are still a lot of statements that do not have references. Are you continuing to work on this article? Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point, I call for the article to be listed as a Featured article removal candidate. I posted this here over three weeks ago, and short of Giano filling in some references, my concerns set forth in the initial listing have not been addressed, save for ad hominen attacks by Giano for "vandalism" and "anti-semitism." I maintain that this article is long on speculation, innuendo and gossip and short on fact, that much of it is a coatrack for her husband's political career -- the section, for example, of Lord Rosebery's career after the Countess' death is over eight hundred and fifty words long -- and that this is not a viable subject for a FA-level article. Ravenswing 23:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is uncited text (I tagged some, but there is more) and an inconsistent citation style; I intended to clean up all citations, but cannot discern what style is intended, as there is a mix. A fascinating article, I hope someone with sources will work towards saving this FA; I will help with citation formatting if the article is cited and a style is established. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, improvements have stalled and there are still unresolved issues (sourcing and citation consistency). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no improvements since June 18 and citation concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, considerable uncited text remains. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:10, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Beyond the uncited text, my concerns remain that large sections of the article are coatracks for her husband's political career, and that too much of the article (however sourced) involves gossip, editorializing and innuendo to a degree that we would never tolerate in a contemporaneous BLP, and certainly should not in a FA. Having raised these concerns back in April, and despite some work on mine and SandyGeorgia's part, the article should be delisted until such time as involved and willing editors can fix them. Ravenswing 19:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No opinion on delisting/not delisting since I find the whole FA process giggle-inducing. However, I'm constantly amazed at the kind of writing that passes for FA-worthy:
    • For over thirty years following her death, he wandered in a political wilderness, directionless and exceedingly eccentric... – While the Biblical allusion is charming (if somewhat misplaced), Wikipedia doesn't talk of wilderness-wandering in its own voice -- unless of course someone did, in fact, literally wander in a literal wilderness. If there's an RS using that image in a striking way, quote it; otherwise, no.
    • Widowhood changed Rosebery, both mentally and physically: he aged overnight – People don't actually age overnight, so (again) it's startling to see an article saying this in its own voice. As before, if e.g. a sympathetic friend said that he seemed to age overnight, then we should attribute that characterization to that friend.
    • Rosebery seems to have disliked his first son, who he claimed looked "Jewish." On seeing his son for the first time he remarked Le Jew est fait, rien ne vas plus, which must have been disconcerting for the child's Jewish mother. – A severe case of WP:ELEVAR. Given that this is the article on the child's Jewish mother (that is, Hannah -- and I believe by this point the reader has picked up that she was Jewish), why in the world can't it just say ...which must have been disconcerting for Hannah, or (come to think of it) just leave the whole "must have been disconcerting" bit out, since readers would have to be especially dense not to get that on their own.
EEng 20:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Uncited text remains, the article needs a copyedit (as indicated by Eng) and no major edits since June. Z1720 (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per EEng. Hog Farm Talk 04:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Hannah_Primrose,_Countess_of_Rosebery/archive1&oldid=1100050560"