Wikipedia:Featured article review/Thomas C. Hindman/archive1

Thomas C. Hindman

Featured article candidates/Thomas C. Hindman

Featured article review/Thomas C. Hindman/archive1

Notified: Nishkid64, Lieutcoluseng, WP Bio, WP MILHIST, WP USA, WP US Congress, WP Politics

This is perhaps a bit drastic step, but one I've been thinking about for several years now. When this was promoted in 2007, this was 22kb long. In early 2022, I rewrote this article after noting sourcing issues. The article is now 47kb long, and uses a number of sources not used in the original. According to xTools, I'm now the author of 81.6% of this article. The relationship between this and the promoted version is essentially a Ship of Theseus question. At the time, I was counseled to not take this through FAR and to seek reviews through WP:URFA/2020, but I've had trouble getting those. It's been over two years now, real life is forcing me to become less and less active with on wiki, and I really just want to have closure on this before either a) I lose the residual familiarity with parts of the sourcing material that remains or b) my career finally gets so hectic that I'm not active enough to push this over the finish line anymore. Hog Farm _Talk 01:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a note - after this was rewritten, there were some concerns about prose quality brought up (which seems to be a hallmark of most of my writing). The main Neal & Kremm source is on the Internet Archive, and I own all of the other book sources except for Woods (which I have been looking for an excuse to buy off of eBay anyway if it becomes needed), so I should have the source access needed to resolve any concerns. It'll just be a matter of squeezing in any work on this around my job and household responsibilities. Hog Farm _Talk 01:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(groan) - I understand but...yeah...time....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To note, it was a 2007 promotion, with 4 minimalist supports. These are Hog's updates. Obviously it needs a review. My advice would be to ask for a look at GOCE, and then update here. I doubt that the new version will have factual or sourcing issues, given the nominator's form, but it would be good to do those checks after any prose issues (haven't properly looked) are largely dealt with. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can come up with - I just don't trust the average GOCE to produce FA-quality prose. I'll post a request at the WT:FAC talk page; that'll hopefully get a better-quality copy editor. The link above also undersells the scope of the changes a bit - this is a fuller demonstration of the changes. Hog Farm _Talk 16:03, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie has kindly taken a pass through the prose and has addressed a number of issues. Hog Farm _Talk 22:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its an exhaustive review, enough that I'd be happy to close this if you resolved the issues raised....you have enough audited form that trust can be made on use of sources. Commend your diligence in raising this here. Ceoil (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have just taken a quick look at this. FWIW, I think Hog Farm and Mike Christie have resolved the issues and the review could be closed without reassessment of the article. Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]