Wikipedia talk:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured article removal candidates
Sound film Review it now
Mount Tambora Review it now
See also: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination, Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles and the Toolserver listing of featured articles with cleanup tags.

Procedural note[edit]

As we work through the new WP:URFA in sandbox, I'm (negatively) impressed by the number of FAs we saved at FAR in 2006 thru 2008 that are showing up again with issues. I'm thinking we might do more of this, to have a record of who is taking over when the old nominator is gone. Thanks, Laser! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)


I think that FAR regulars might want to take a look at Talk:Michael Jackson#Request for comment on citation style. The citation formatting had degraded over time, and then someone tried to fix it by introducing his/her own made-up format based on the {{wayback}} template. He claims to have done this to multiple articles, including other FAs, so a more comprehensive review might be necessary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


I've noticed that User:SandyGeorgia has been inactive for a couple of months. Sandy is usually the most active participant in FAR discussions, and I'm worried that things have ground to a halt without them. Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia, are you aware of this? Cordless Larry (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Sandy's been coming and going for a bit. I've just looked here after a while and will get back into it soon. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Cas. Beyond the implications for FAR, I always get concerned when a frequent editor suddenly disappears, so I hope Sandy is OK. Hopefully it's just a case of coming and going, as you suggest. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
I was mostly gone for several years.

Partly because every time I tried to edit, I was chased off by a certain FA writer's hounding of me. The last time was when I was in the Cayman Islands on vacation, with almost no internet access, but when I could get a connection, I found him (and the same usual supporters) once again going after me at ANI-- that was what made me decide what the heck, and stopped me from continuing to pursue the sweep of FAs that needed FARs. It seems that, those people who chased off the FA director got what they wanted-- no more do we have a complete process, where we promote and demote to maintain standards, and where TFA is part of the process of maintaining standards. Instead, we have little turf wars, TFA going one way, FAC another, and no one caring about FAR. Without a director overseeing that the whole thing works, FAs have lost value. Just, everyone wants their glory, unlike when we all worked together to maintain standards across the board.

Partly because I just grew tired of how really bad our medical articles were (and remember, I left FAC to turn my attention to medical articles, so that felt like a Really Stupid Decision). I cannot say now for how long I am back. That depends, day-to-day, on what happens with my husband's cancer.

For now, while dealing with health issues, I am happy to spend some "waiting room" time among people I genuinely like and have for years. If the nasties take over again, I will decide if this time I will stand up to them, or if this time I will leave again. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, SandyGeorgia, and best wishes to your husband. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:45, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Ace Books[edit]

@WP:FAR coordinators: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ace Books/archive1 is on hold, has been worked on outside the FAR process and now needs a decision on what should be done with the FAR page. I'm thinking of deleting the review page and not archiving but am happy with any other choice. DrKay (talk) 19:00, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Personally I think it would be worth archiving for record-keeping purposes...see Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Coordination#On_hold_2 for related discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
OK. I'll bring it back to FAR for any final comments in the same way as that earlier case. DrKay (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with Nikkimaria on that one. It is worth recording for record-keeping. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship[edit]

Participants here often create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a content is neutral, determine if sources are reliable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, I think you might be at the wrong page? FAR has nothing whatsoever to do with content creation, and is only tangentially related at best to sourcing and BLP issues. Did you mean WP:FAC? ‑ Iridescent 23:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello Iridescent. :) I think you are right. It just goes to show how involved I am in this area. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

longstanding bias on the Jesus page[edit]

It may come as little surprise that a controversial topic such as Jesus gets treatment that reflects the experiences and beliefs of the editors more than published sources. The most prominent section is a summary of the Gospels based primarily on primary sources (the Gospels themselves). RSs don't treat the topic this way, but several vocal editors say that we're under no obligation to follow RSs and we should follow our own judgment instead. Since these editors won't refer to RSs or policy, it's hard to reach a compromise or forge a consensus with them. Maybe I should bring the page up for FA review. Currently these editors resist changes on the basis of the article's FA status. Since it's a featured article, they say, it must not require substantial changes. Ideally, the review would solicit the right input we need to improve the article. Alternatively, I could undertake a dispute resolution. Any idea which route I should take? This dispute has been popping up in various ways for years. Thank you. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, based on your description of your concerns, I wonder if WP:NPOVN mightn't be the best place to start - it is specifically designed to address concerns about bias. FAR is broader in scope, though it could be used if NPOVN does not work; conversely, RfCs are generally more targeted than your concern seems to be. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
I've tried the NPOVN and an RfC. It sounds like my best bet is dispute resolution. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

WT:FAC#New Featured Article coordinators[edit]

Just a pointer. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)


Last year, Chris and I ran across a stinker that was promoted in 2014 at FAC. (I'm linking the cleanup page for ColonelHenry just to point out how difficult it's been to clean up after him.) The discussion is at User_talk:Crisco_1492/Archive_64#Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 27, 2016‎. Note that Iridescent suggested it might be best to just FAR all of ColonelHenry's FAs, on the assumption that they probably won't survive FAR. I'm not taking a position, just noting that unless new information comes to light, I don't intend to run this one at TFA, ever. Also pinging @WP:TFA coordinators: . - Dank (push to talk) 14:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

err, that wasn't it. Tell you what. I think we should go through them one by one, so nominated it here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Fixed the link. Thanks Cas. - Dank (push to talk) 14:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
I think just methodically listing them, one at a time, and outlining the specific faults is a way to start. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:00, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the WP:ANDOR guideline[edit]

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Severe and irreconsilable content disputes on Werner Mölders (and other articles)[edit]

Judging by the ongoing discussions on Talk:Werner Mölders which are part of a wideranging dispute as seen at ANI [1], which doesn't look like finishing soon, the article probably should be delisted. Can someone start FAR proceedings?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Maralia's status as coordinator[edit]

Maralia is listed as one of FARC coordinators but has been inactive for two years. I notified her about this, but she's not yet responded. I emailed her as well, but I've not received one reply. What to do about it? --George Ho (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

...before the end of the year...[edit] would be great to have some eyes...any eyes...on any articles listed on the flip side of this page.....@John:...@Dank:....@Ceoil:...@Ealdgyth:...Beuller...Beuller....just concluding a could would be great. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Quick question[edit]

Is it possible for me to have one nomination for FAR and another for FAC in the same time? I say this because there is an article I think should be delisted but, seeing as most FARs drag on for months, I wouldn't want it to interfere with an FACs that I'd nominate (please ping in response). -Indy beetle (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Yes, you can do both. The restrictions on one nom apply at each place separately. DrKay (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sock issue[edit]

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DCGeist/Archive

There are likely other socks, which will lead to other FACs and FARs. Perhaps whenever socking by the nominator is discovered on a FAC or FAR, they should default to DELIST. That could stop the problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Wow that FAR for Sound film was one of my first reviews. I'm rather stunned and appalled by this revelation. GamerPro64 02:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Well I guess I haven't been paying attention as much as you have. GamerPro64 03:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I sorta had to :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
You think there are other DCGeist/DocKino socks? I'm interested in knowing more... you always had a better nose for this than I. I'd had my eyes on these two accounts for a long time, but he fell off my radar when he stopped editing. Coming back with both accounts simultaneously to renew activity at Elvis Presley was rather bold/reckless. --Laser brain (talk) 04:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I would say, someone should go through every one of his FACs and FARs. The type of editor that does this kind of thing ... well, does this kind of thing, keeps doing it, and I just doubt that there is only one sock. DCGeist always showed a certain confidence that he did not have to play by the rules ... because he wasn't. Bold/reckless? Look how many years he got away with it; it was business as usual for him.

But the real reason I posted here is to talk about whether we should have a policy of what to do with these kinds of FAs. Since I was not a fan of DCGeist's work anyway, I wonder why his articles should remain FA. If we had an active FA director and an active FAR page, every one of them would be reviewed, with a default DELIST unless proven otherwise.

We have case after case now of older FAs that we know need review, and are not getting it ... so what does it mean to be a Featured Article any more? This highlights another factor in the latest line of, it no longer means anything to be an FA, because there is no demotion happening. WP:FAS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm working on it, just not ready to list here yet. I'm trying to decide if I want to expend the energy on building consensus to automatically demote these articles because of the abuse of process (vs actually building a list of what might be wrong with them). I'm not sure where the community's appetite lies or if anyone even cares that much considering the lack of commentary here. --Laser brain (talk) 02:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Yep. That's the new culture. Getyer stars even though they have no meaning anymore, because we no longer demote. Once an FA, always an FA, so FA means nothing anymore. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Some of the articles listed had entirely different nominators. I don't think it is fair to those nominators to automatically delist those ones. --Rschen7754 02:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, notice that my proposal specifically said "socking by the nominator". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I think they should all automatically and immediately be listed at FAR. It may actually be that some are actually fine. But they all undoubtedly need to be reviewed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
For whatever it's worth, socking and related bad behaviour by the nominator should, IMO, lead to automatic delisting, but, obviously, without prejudice to renom by any good-faith editor. If there is socking and related bad-faith and deceptive behaviour involved it is very hard to determine just exactly how the reviews and reviewers' judgements have been manipulated. Editors assuming good faith are easily led far afield by someone not playing by the same rules. Listing such cases at FAR—ignoring for now that process' apparent comatose state, and its lack of a sufficient preventive effect—shifts the burden of proof: the process and its participants must untangle the manipulation and any effect on reviews. Delisting with a possibility of immediate renom places the burden on the article's editors only with a clean slate for reviews. --Xover (talk) 09:58, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I tend to disagree. Right now all I can say is that I don't know which are worthy to be FAs or not. Looking at the noms there are degrees of double-dipping and it is hard where to draw the line and might look a little arbitrary. I do feel for a poor nominator who unfortunately had two socks support, but am trying to separate out process. Hence the first step for any current FA is a Review. Anyone at FAR should look at the current state of the article and work from there. If they are not up to scratch they will be de-featured. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Good on you, Cas. Listing them is good, because if no one identifies issues in the FAR phase, it is possible to close the review without moving to FARC. On several of them, I noted that the image reviews might need to be re-done by an independent party. I hope this will work as a deterrent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Xover: in fact, why not take a look at one or two and comment on whether they fulfil FA criteria or not? One of the annoying things about being given this FAR coordinator role is it makes it hard for me to comment on or fix articles listed here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:35, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, I can certainly take a look, if it'll help, but I'm nowhere near sufficiently up on the criteria to be competent to do a review. I haven't been involved in a FAC since 2008, and haven't even kept up on WT:FAC since Raul and Sandy regained their sanity. --Xover (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
@Xover: FA reviewing does not have to be that complicated. Just looking at an article and pondering, "how could it be better?" is a great place to start - getting an overall feel for the prose, balance, comprehensiveness and factual accuracy and going from there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


All listed for review now. I can't see anything else that we can do except review them on the pathways we have. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Cas, it's way past bedtime here, and I am out most of tomorrow, but if you don't have the time, and if no one else gets to it, I can finish filling in all of the notifications tomorrow afternoon when I am home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
That'd be great. It's Sunday evening here and tomorrow is looking really busy for me. Plus some stuff before bed to do here as well....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, I will look in tomorrow. If someone else gets to them first, good, too. Doing that many notifications creates too much burden on you. 'Night! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
It was my reaction to the sock-puppet investigation that lead to Sandy's uncoveries. For the record, am disappointed by what she found, and agree 100% with Cas's listings. For now am treating case by case, unless systemic issues are found, which atm, doesn't seem impossible. Let's see. Ceoil (talk) 18:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

(possibly deliberate) copyvio issues with images[edit]

Apologies for this kinda hasty and half done handling. I'm out of time right now and will be travelling / otherwise busy IRL at least until wednesday, but felt this might be urgent enough that it can't wait. Sorry about dropping this half-chewed on everyone.

In any case, at Casliber's request above, I started looking at the FARs listed here, and started with images. On Elvis there were a couple of red flags in light of the socking (wouldn't have raised any flags for me without that context); but on Film noir I found at least possible copyvio issues that look like they may be deliberate. I hasten to add that this isn't my normal beat and I may well be misjudging here, but with that caveat, it looks pretty bad to me. The two examples I've had time to look into so far:

  • File:JackBlinds.jpg. Uploaded by DCGeist with a PD claim based on publication between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. However a Tineye search leads to a copy at Getty with a clearly visible copyright notice (meaning it's still in copyright). It looks to me like the uploader deliberately cropped the image to hide the copyright notice. There are possible scenarios that could explain this, but I don't find them plausible. I've nominated it for deletion at commons which will hopefully bring out editors with relevant expertise that can correct me if I've misjudged the evidence here.
  • File:SorryWrongNumber2.jpg. Uploaded by DCGeist with a PD claim based on publication between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice. However a Tineye search leads to this higher-resolution copy where you can clearly make out the copyright notice. It looks to me like the image was deliberately scaled down to make the copyright notice illegible (flyspeck). Especially since the uploader claimed the source was "Scan from private collection"; meaning there was no reason for the low resolution, and the copyright notice would in any case have been clearly visible on the physical object.

These were the first two I looked at in detail (two for two), but just looking superficially at the images in these two articles, a lot of them (those uploaded by DCGeist) have the same PD rationale and the "Scan from private collection" source. In other words, this looks to me like, potentially, relatively massive deliberate copyvio. I hope I'm wrong, for several reasons, but it doesn't look good.

As I'm unable to follow up for a couple of days I'm dropping a note here and dumping the problem in y'all's lap. Sorry `bout that! (PS. @Nikkimaria: I seem to recall this sort of thing is your forté at FAC. Perhaps you could take a look? At least enough to be able to tell me I'm way off base, if that's the case, here, if you don't have time to dig into details?) --Xover (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick comment, will look in more detail later: just because Getty claims something as their copyright, doesn't mean it is. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
On balance though, having a bit more time to look into things, I think it's likely in this case that Xover is correct and there is a (potentially large) copyright issue with uploads here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't like the sound of that, but it fits with my long-standing concern. I don't want just yet to commit my ideas to public print, but if anyone has access to hard print sources, I suggest a thorough POV and verifiability check on at least one article would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
How about checking the images at Kinetoscope? Now there is a FAC support I should be ashamed of. Just based on what is said above, this looks like a good target to check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Actually, as far as images that one isn't too bad - there are improvements that could be made but on first look none of the images stand out as obviously suspect. Most are legitimately pre-1923 publications. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Timeline: Geist's 2006 FACs got through easily (Sound film, Kinetoscope with an embarrassingly deficient FAC);

he had a harder time in early 2007 with B Movie and Mutual Broadcasting System, and RKO Pictures failed;

in April 2007, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Leo Ornstein was another non-review FAC, promoted on scant support;

in May 2007, DocKino was created and supports at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Film Booking Offices of America. DocKino enters the next three FACs (Film Booking Offices, Baseball, Film Noir - through Feb 2010 - and they pass),

and then in 2010, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/RKO Pictures/archive3 appears to pass without any agreement I can find that image issuess were corrected. RKO Pictures appears to be the crown jewel.

Which brings me to, Holy Cow, does Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Beatles/archive3 seriously need a FAR. It passed with 12,000 words, and is now almost at 14,000. I would expect more than that level of support (with outstanding opposes) for The Beatles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: The Beatles, I'm significantly less concerned with that one knowing JG66 has had eyes on it. Perhaps they can opine on its condition in recent years. The image issues on RKO and elsewhere are very troubling, as their seems to have been a concerted effort to deceive other editors about the copyright status of quite a few images. --Laser brain (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
We could easily cut down The Beatles if necessary, particularly as there are so many offshoot articles in the project. Just to check, though: is the 14,000 word count too much – is that a concern in itself? I appreciate Sandy's point that it's grown considerably since October 2009, but a) the article's watched like a hawk, and b) the Beatles-related events covered in 2010s are notable and proof of the band's continued popularity. The 2010s section is the first place I'd start. I imagine those items have been added as they were announced, yet in retrospect their importance diminishes with regard to the subject as a whole. Thank you for the vote of confidence, Laser brain, that's very kind of you ... JG66 (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Image license review for Film noir[edit]

Ok, I went through all the images currently used in Film noir, looking for licensing issues. Based on finding "two-for-two" with signs of bad faith, my expectations were pretty low. So the good news is that it doesn't appear to be as bad as I feared in terms of numbers. The bad news, of course, is that there are definitively issues, and my impression that there has been bad faith involved is only strengthened.

In summary, of the 18 images used, only 3 (including the two previously identified) are definitively problematic. There are a number of the remainder that raises red flags once the assumption of good faith has been compromised, but none that are clearly copyvios or otherwise unequivocally demonstrate bad faith.

I have not looked at any sound files used in the article as the rules for audio recordings are even more convoluted than for visual materials.

Note Where the Actions taken column says "None" it means that I don't think any further action is needed. The ones that are left empty are ones were I'm not yet sure: some could end up "None" and some could end up with deletion or fixed rationales and so forth. Also note that when I describe a Fair Use claim as "Valid" I only mean that it looks like a good faith rationale that adresses WP:NFCC. It's not really a judgement of whether that fair use claim would actually hold up if tested here or on in court. My "Valid" is a significantly lower bar than that.

Not as bad as I feared in terms of copyright problems, but my impression of bad faith on the part of DCGeist is reinforced. Several of the problematic images could be explained as as various forms good faith mistakes, but there are a few that I cannot reconcile with good faith, and combined with the socking it seems unlikely.

In the edit histories here there are intersections with various editors blocked for socking: Clcx~enwiki (sock of Ludivine, who was a sock of Thomp), Tantalizing Posey (sock of Jaiwills), and Daddy Kindsoul. Any of these match your spider sense SandyGeorgia? There is no obvious connection except intersecting edit histories on these images, and for a couple of them these other blocked editors appear to challenge DCGeist's image descriptions etc., so I see no particular reason to suspect the connections are anything but incidental.

@Nikkimaria: If you want to double-check my reasoning on these I'd be grateful. Images and licensing isn't my normal beat, so while I feel reasonable certain for my own purposes, I'm a little uncomfortable putting it up where others might rely on it.

Everyone: would it be useful for me to do a similar run through of any of the other articles involved here, or is this just cluttering up the discussion? --Xover (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Awesomely thorough and incredible work. I don't speak images, and I'm glad Nikkimaria does :) The other issue is that, given the image problems uncovered, I am concerned that we have a thorough source check of hard-print sources at least once. Since much of the body of DCGeist work points ultimately to an existing company (RKO), we should check for POV ala paid editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, very nice work. One other important note: While individually the fair use images may be supportable, the number is excessive - as a rule, the more non-free images in an article the harder each is to justify. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Rather than agonise and given the circumstances and volume, I suggest a purge Ceoil (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Image license review for Kinetoscope[edit]

I went ahead and checked over Kinetoscope too. No real copyright issues found (short version: everything is pre-1923 and public domain), but a couple have some issues that make it hard to determine definitively. The images' licensing information (source, evidence of expired copyright) are however deficient for a FA (in a FAC review I would have expected these to be flagged as needing fixing before promotion).

I note that the one file that bugs me here is another DCGeist upload claimed to be a "scan from private collection", but I've found no actual evidence contrary to the claim, and the claim on its own is plausible. Boils down to whether one is able to assume good faith. --Xover (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a real non-answer. I could scan all sorts of non PD images with that rationale. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:42, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Image license review for Sound film[edit]

Image license review for Sound film too.

No real copyright issues found, but a couple have some issues that make it hard to determine definitively and a few appear to be non-PD but no obvious red flags leads me to think these are more honest mistakes than any indication of bad faith. The images' licensing information (source, evidence of expired copyright) are however deficient for a FA (in a FAC review I would have expected these to be flagged as needing fixing before promotion). --Xover (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Image license review for B movie[edit]

Image license review for B movie.

No real copyright issues found. The images' licensing information (source, evidence of expired copyright) are however somewhat deficient for a FA (in a FAC review I would have expected these to be flagged as needing fixing before promotion). --Xover (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Image license review for Mutual Broadcasting System[edit]

Image license review for Mutual Broadcasting System.

No real copyright issues found. The images' licensing information (source, evidence of expired copyright) are however in some cases somewhat deficient for a FA (in a FAC review I would have expected these to be flagged as needing fixing before promotion). --Xover (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Notifications, other socking concerns, and recusal question[edit]

I am still plowing through the nominations, and have emailed Laser brain about other socking concerns that we should look into as soon as we have time. I am trying to notice on each FAR what was done re image and source reviews, and I am trying to also ping some of the reviewers on those FACs if they are still active.

One question: I did not promote Elvis Presley, and I did archive it once. Could we get some consensus as to whether I should recuse myself as a reviewer on Elvis? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that's water under the bridge and any reviewer is welcome. If you're concerned about it, just disclose the prior involvement in your review. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, thanks ... I will still recuse on any article I promoted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah I would have thought a non-issue. But all comments are welcome! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Non issue; full disclosure has been made. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

article on Ronald Reagan controlled by handful of pro-Reagan partisans[edit]

The Ronald Reagan article currently:

  • States in the lead "when he defeated incumbent Jimmy Carter in an electoral college landslide, winning 44 of 50 states." I attempted to add "although the popular vote was much closer with Reagan receiving 51% and Carter with 41% (with independent candidate John Anderson receiving the bulk of the balance)." Massive opposition and insults on the talk page. One partisan even wanted to add the figure 90.9% for the percent of the electoral vote Reagan receive.
    Basically my point is that we should either add both the electoral college numbers and the popular vote numbers, or neither.
  • Our lead also states "Foreign affairs dominated his second term, including ending the Cold War, the bombing of Libya, and the Iran–Contra affair. Reagan publicly described the Soviet Union as an "evil empire", . . . " Reagan in fact described the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" in his first term.
  • Our lead states " and fought public sector labor." Reagan fired the air traffic controllers. But I don't know if there's anything else which justifies us moving from a specific to a general conclusion.

Please take a look at the article history and/or the talk page. It really is controlled by a cartel of pro-Reagan partisans. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Another example, I added (→‎Second term: adding new section on Staff concerns regarding Reagan's fitness for duty in early 1987. Please see "staff raised questions (2nd term) . . . " on our Talk page.)
It's an important topic, backed up by good references, but no, one of the cartel members removed it.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 01:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

FriendlyRiverOtter is (of course) misrepresenting what is happening. All you have to do is look at the talk page. For starters, look at the RFC that voted unanimously against his proposed addition on the Bitburg cemetery deal. (Which included someone who voted against Reagan twice.) His latest escapade is trying to minimize Reagan's beating a incumbent in a 44 state landslide as being anything but a "landslide". After other editors provided sources calling it exactly that.....the story shifts to "I view it as more an anti-Carter landslide, rather than a pro-Reagan landslide". Now it IS a just has to be characterized to suit him. In any case, this is the disingenuousness we have been dealing with. Cheers.Rja13ww33 (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
I think we should include either the electoral college numbers and the popular vote numbers, as I made in this edit:
or we should include neither set of numbers. A lot of Wiki users only read the lead, and this is where it's most important to get it as right as we can make it.FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
FAR is not part of the dispute resolution process. --Laser brain (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Article on Barack Obama is controlled by handful of pro-Obama partissans
What Laser said: FAR is not dispute resolution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay, what do you recommend for dispute resolution process? FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

A long walk in the park? This is Wikipedia-- there is none. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Frustrations showing through a bit there, Sandy? :) @FriendlyRiverOtter: Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is described at WP:DR. It does not always work very well, but it is the prescribed way to resolve disputes on the project; and it works best when everyone involved participate in good faith with the aim of reaching a consensus. --Xover (talk) 08:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. And I agree that it's important to pursue it with a good sense of patience. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Allright, I got over my bad mood and took a look, FriendlyRiverOtter. I see that the article prose size is 50% bigger than it was when it last passed FAR, that the lead is bloated, and that, just from citation and MOS cleanup during those FARs, I am still the third top editor by edit count, while Happy (who had several FAs) is long gone. That the article has grown by 50%, without someone versed in FA criteria on board, is not a good sign. If I had an opinion, it would be that the lead is already bloated, and adding more isn't the way to go. If you want the dispute addressed, you go to WP:DR. If you want its star removed, you come to FAR, and you sit here for several months, but don't get dispute resolution 'cuz that's not what we do here. We tell you if the article meets WP:WIAFA or not. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I do appreciate you giving me a realistic idea of what to expect from WP:DR. That's good to know going in. And on the one of the specific topics here, if the lead is already bloated, then maybe we should include neither the electoral nor popular vote numbers for the 1980 election. In the body of the article, yes, but in the lead, it sounds like probably not. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Here is the version that passed FAR many moons ago. You can explore other political bios that are FAs at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Politics and government biographies, but careful with what you see there, because many of them may have fallen below standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:59, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I hope there's some dispute resolution process! :-) By the way, you'd be welcome to take a look at the Reagan article if the topic at all interests you. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

But then I might have to trade in my Reagan Governor's Scholar Award. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't want you to do that! FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
PS and which president often began an answer at a press conference with "Well . . . " ;-)

Speedy delist for ROT13?[edit]

Can we invoke IAR or SNOW to immediately delist ROT13, or at least skip some parts of the lengthy delisting process? The article is 16,000 bytes long and has 17 references, which makes it unlikely that the article could satisfy 1b or 1c, and even at a glance I can see that most of the references are not reliable (#2,4 are Usenet links, #11 is a blog, #13 is raw code so doesn't verify the text it's attributed to, #17 is a random website). It seems silly to wait a minimum of 6 weeks, assuming I understand the FAR/FARC process correctly, given that this article was promoted in 2004 (and last reassessed in 2007), and is nowhere near 2018 standards for FAs. Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Permission to do another FAR simultaneously[edit]

Hi, I have just nominated Rudolf Vrba, but I notice that another editor has requested a FAR for Werner Molders, a page for which the content dispute appears to be still ongoing. I was wondering if I could have permission to nominate a second article given that I wasn't the one who requested it. Also, if someone else would be willing to nominate it, I would help in any way I could. Catrìona (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Catrìona: yes, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Albert Kesselring[edit]

I'd just like to mention this here as an article badly needing an FAR. Promoted in 2009, it contains too many references to Kesselring's memoirs and is full of NPOV language. Catrìona (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Belton House[edit]

I'm wondering how to proceed with Belton House, it is obviously a nice article, but it appears to have gotten stuck in the past and is presented as an old fashioned museum piece. The house gets almost half a million visitors a year but the events and occurrences get virtually no mention. It appears to have been promoted over 10 years ago and doesn't reflect the house as a 'living thing'. National Trust properties work very hard at attracting visitors and the article just doesn't reflect that. If you look at their webpage here [2] you can see what visitor attractions they offer. I don't think i'm personally capable of updating the article with a "visitor attraction" section and would unlikely have a consensus to do so even if I could. What to do? Szzuk (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Cannae[edit]

I need some advice about just how much work I should do on this article in order to keep its FA status. In short, my question is this: do I make the minimum needed changes, or do I rewrite it to be the best possible article I can make it?

Here is an organized paraphrase of the issues raised at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Cannae/archive1. Addressing them is what I consider "the minimum needed changes".

  • DrKay points out the lead needs to be expanded. (This I have done.)
  • DrKay also believe the sources need to be improved, by reducing the reliance on primary sources, providing more citations as well as using more recent articles & books. (This has been addressed to various degrees, & is a work in progress.)
  • Monstrelet notes that the discussion of primary sources is unsatisfactory, & either needs to be placed at the beginning if important (IMHO, it is) or deleted.
  • Monstrelet also notes the sections "References", "Bibliography" and "Further reading" need to be sorted out, & a consistent bibliographical citation format used. Since the original nominator shepherded this thru FAC, it's been reworked by many hands.

For the most part I could address these four points relatively quickly; finding & integrating more secondary sources will take a little longer, even if I restrict myself to publications in English. However, as I familiarize myself with the topic further, I find there are at least these aspects needing attention:

  • The effect the Battle of Cannae has had on military theory has been, I'm sure many will be surprised to learn, relatively recent. Until the 19th century, students of this battle thought of it only as Rome's most crucial defeat which they managed to not only weather but overcome & win the war.
  • A proper, & detailed discussion about Hannibal's failure to march on Rome. As the article currently stands, this is covered by one paragraph; I believe this should be covered in a much longer section.
  • The fact that when the Romans were surrounded, they either refused or were unable to surrender to the Carthaginians -- so each defeated soldier had to be killed. It's a brutal yet important fact that this article elides over: at least 50,000 men were killed by the hands of their victors using swords & spears. As one recent secondary source admits, "war is truly terrible, and to turn our eyes away from its results is in itself an act of cowardice. Hannibal's great victory, his tactical masterpiece celebrated through the ages, produced, in the end, little more than corpses."

Addressing these last points to Wikipedia standards will take much longer than the first batch. Maybe months. But IMHO I don't feel this article is FA quality unless they are addressed. Doing so may force me to extensively rewrite the article, thus introducing new issues. (For example, I have my own approach towards using primary sources in historical articles that FA regulars may not condone.)

Thoughts? -- llywrch (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Some remarks:
  • I really don't like the "further reading". All the books in this section should be merged with "printed sources" in a single "bibliography" section. Ancient sources can be kept separate.
  • "Varro, in command on the first day, is presented by contemporary sources", which one (there are only two)?
  • Link for note 66 is broken.
  • I think the paragraph on Scipio Africanus is out of scope here; his campaign happened much later. I have reservations regarding the whole subsection "Effects on Roman military doctrine", because the Manipular reform took place much earlier (during the Samnite Wars). There was however an effect on the property requirement for serving in the army after Cannae, since there were not enough men. You can look at Structural history of the Roman military.
  • In the Cambridge Ancient History 8 there is an interesting chapter by John Briscoe "War and Politics at Rome" on military strategy, where he shows that there were two "factions", one -- the war faction -- led by the Scipii, the other led by Fabius Cunctactor and Claudius Marcellus. I would add it there and sort the Roman leaders according to their political allegiance. The immediate effects were the adoption of the Fabian strategy for 8 years and the domination of Fabius' allies at the consular elections.
  • I would make a list of the Romans who died at Cannae.
  • Primary sources must stay. Livy and Polybios are everything we know on the battle!

T8612 (talk) 20:47, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

    • T8612, you make some excellent points about the article. However, my primary concern here is whether to simply address the points raised in the FA review, or the many more points -- such as those you raised -- in order to keep this a FA article. (I'm beginning to think it's best to let this fail, become a B class article, then improve it thru the steps to become a FA article once again.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)