Wikipedia:Featured article review/Natalie Clifford Barney/archive1

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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC) [1].

Natalie Clifford Barney

Notified: Celithemis, Caeciliusinhorto, WP bio, WP LGBT studies, WP France, WP Ohio, WP US, WP Women's History, WP Women writers, WP Women, talk page notificatoin 2021-12-20

This 2006 promotion, whose original nominator is gone, has some uncited text that will hopefully be easily addressed for a FAR save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've sent a notice to WP:WIG as they have expressed interest in improving FAs under their purview. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few {{citation needed}}s have already been resolved. Various sources I can see snippets of say that Barney and Brooks met in October 1916, not 1914. XOR'easter (talk) 07:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing the same, though I'm also seeing 1915, and most of the sources I've read comment on there being uncertainty. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 12:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note mentioning the dispute; if someone has a source for a claim that it was as late as 1916 (the biographies of Barney all seem to say late 1914 or 1915) feel free to add it... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rapazzini estimates October 1916, on page 17. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've resolved a few further {{cn}} tags; four of the main sources are available through the Internet Archive's library if anyone else wants to help work on this... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the work. When finished with CNs, could you all please check that all of the Other references are actually used as citations, and if not, please trim or remove to Further reading as appropriate? I would not be opposed if you switched to SFNs, as that makes it easier to see what is used and what is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A bunch of stuff was here that I've now moved to the talk page due to SG's reply below. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR pages are not usually sub-sectioned until/unless they become extremely long. The fixes needed here are simple enough that discussion could be on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me. I moved it all to the talk page and left a note in its place. 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good improvements ongoing, discussion on talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good progress, still two citation needed tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the two remaining tags can't be resolved, should that text be deleted? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both tags include some info that's definitely true, and I'd love a bit more time on resolving without removal. 48 hours? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry, just checking! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, you are a vicious taskmaster. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:36, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did what I could! There's still one cn tag. Maybe C and X want a crack at it? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to catch up from the car, iPad editing. I thought I had fixed this, but MOS:SANDWICH is back big time ... either images need to be removed, or they need to be moved or combined to multiple images ... I can't do that from the car. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:LEAD is underdeveloped and not an overview/summary; we go straight from a one-sentence intro para to mid-life, nothing on early life, and is Legacy covered enough? Lead needs expansion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Returning after a few weeks away, the lead is still underdeveloped, and MOS:SANDWICH is everywhere. I can work no the sandwiching if no one else does, but we need a proper lead before the FAR can close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. SandyGeorgia fixed up the sandwiching and I'm poking away at the lead. I keep being distracted by shiny new content for the body. As far as I know, we're one good lead rewrite away from most of the major issues being fixed. I'd hold out for a second opinion from SG. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree and will do a full read-through after lead is done ... but have seen no major problems otherwise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, my concerns have all been satisfied; @Buidhe, Hog Farm, and Z1720: for a fresh look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Still trying to get caught up on quite a few things, will try to get to this before the week's out. Hog Farm _Talk 02:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep; I've read through it and didn't note any sizable issues. Hog Farm _Talk 17:15, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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) 02:42, 11 June 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.