Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harriet Arbuthnot/archive1
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) 3:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC) [1].
- Notified:
ALoan(has not edited since 2007?), WikiProject Biography, WikiProject London, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Women in Green, 2023-07-02
Review section
[edit]I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements in the article, very long and very short sections, dubious sources that need to be checked, and additional sources that I posted on the talk page that might be included in the article. There was no response or edits to the article when I posted the notice on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Came here from OTD (have scheduled this as a death on August 2). The list of comments is pretty large, such that it's unsurprising nobody responded to them all in three weeks. I've consolidated the death and legacy, which also shortens the relationship section. Most of the sources look fine at a glance; #29 is dead, so hard to see what's going on with it, but I imagine the fairly basic material it supports could be re-cited somewhere or other? (It's also obviously true from the photo.)
- I'm not an expert on this subject, so can't speak for the additional sources or cn tags. One of the tags is in the middle of a paragraph, which is a red flag for tagbombing; the other is at the end of one. A lot of FAs of this era are a little bit loose with inline cites but, upon trivial investigation, are 'solved' just by reproducing a cite from earlier in the paragraph that covers the whole thing. I agree it does intuitively look like there could be more added to the legacy. Is there any particular reason you think the additional books might have more info? As noted in the original FAC, it doesn't seem very much was ever written on her, and it's not like history as a field is currently being poured infinite amounts of funding to write all-new analyses of all-new information. Vaticidalprophet 10:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vaticidalprophet: I think your question refers to the sources that I placed on the talk page of the article. This was a sample of sources (with I think more than a passing mention of Arbuthnot) that I found after a quick search, which causes me to wonder if the article is still comprehensive. When I posted my message on talk, I was hoping that someone would offer to take a look for sources and add to the article. Is anyone willing to ensure that this article is still comprehensive? Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not exactly my area, but it's not exactly not my area either; I will try to have a look at the sources you mention on the talkpage soon. I am concerned with some of the sourcing currently present in the article: for instance the following does not seem to be explicitly supported by the cited source: "Marriage to such a pillar of the establishment as Charles Arbuthnot opened all doors to his young new wife, who, as one of the 14 children of a younger son of an aristocratic family possessed of no great fortune, would otherwise have been on the periphery of the highest society. However, as the debate and wrangling over her dowry proved, money was tight." Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:41, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Vaticidalprophet: I think your question refers to the sources that I placed on the talk page of the article. This was a sample of sources (with I think more than a passing mention of Arbuthnot) that I found after a quick search, which causes me to wonder if the article is still comprehensive. When I posted my message on talk, I was hoping that someone would offer to take a look for sources and add to the article. Is anyone willing to ensure that this article is still comprehensive? Z1720 (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Caeciliusinhorto: Are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC, no edits since 2 August, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to FARC progress has stalled and concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section
[edit]- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:50, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: No edits to address concerns in several weeks. Z1720 (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - stalled out with issues still outstanding. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.