- 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) 6:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
[1].
-
G.W.,
Iazyges,
WP Bio,
WP Milhist,
WP Illyria,
WP Greece,
WP Classical Greece and Rome,
WP Politics,
WP Croatia,
WP Rome,
WP Roman and Byzantine emperors, talk page notices
2020-05-03
2022-10-30
This 2008 FA is the oldest listed at
WP:FARGIVEN, with concerns about sourcing dating to
2020-05-03, and updated at
2022-10-30. The original nominator has not edited for two years. Sandbox improvements mentioned on talk have not materialized.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 18:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
Move to FARC Unfortunately I do not presently have the time to fix the issues on the page; I'll have to rewrite basically the entirety of the article at some point, and run it through FAC again.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 19:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry to hear that ... Delist or Keep are not declared in the FAR phase; perhaps you meant Move to FARC?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 20:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- You are correct... I have amended above.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 21:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Striking vote given interest and ability in fixing article from other editors.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 23:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
From
UndercoverClassicist on talk:
[2] UC, if you intend to work towards improving this FA, please keep this page updated.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Hello - I posted the below on the page you just linked. Would anybody have any thoughts on it, particularly if it seems like a useful or worthwhile thing to be doing?
- Please take this in the spirit of inquiry - checking to see that I've understood things correctly:
- On the use of ancient sources - I've only given it a cursory check, but as far as I can see, most of the uses fall under one of the below:
- The article is explicitly addressing the reactions of e.g. Aurelius Victor to Diocletian's treatment of Carinus' officials, and so cites Aurelius Victor to do so. It seems to me there's a case-by-case check to be done about whether there's any value in referring to that person's reaction at all (in this example, Aurelius Victor is quite a lot later than Diocletian, so my instinct would say 'no'), but, at least in principle, can the article not cite ancient sources when explicitly talking about ancient authors' views of the matter under discussion?
- The article also cites modern scholarly literature, and the primary-source citation is really a matter of 'showing working' (and probably the entire evidence base on which the secondary author has based their claim). Should those primary sources be excised?
- Looking quickly at the bibliography, it seems that a lot of the ugliness could be solved by imposing a uniform referencing system - most of the entries seem to have been entered manually. Personally, I quite like {{sfn}} with {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and so on. That would, at least, mean that information was presented in the same order, and perhaps be a useful first step towards going back in and tracking down missing details?
- Some of the dodgy references seem to be used in support of other, less dodgy ones, and so could be cut out without causing any real problems.
- Happy to have a go along those lines, if it would help?
-
UndercoverClassicist (
talk) 08:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
The article looks in good shape to me. Better than any of the FARs I have worked on.
- With regard to the use of the ancient/modern dual references, I would vote forcefully to keep it this way. I often use a similar form with scientific articles, where both the secondary source and the original paper are cited so the reader can look up the latter. In the case of a reader who is researching the subject, this is extremely valuable.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 19:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I haven't thoroughly read the whole article, but from going through the lead, the early life section and the references I would agree with Hawkeye and UndercoverClassicist that the article doesn't look in terrible shape. If UC does tidy up all the referencing it will hopefully be much clearer what is still problematic and needs addressing.
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk) 08:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- My thanks to
Tintero21 for standardising the citation style. There were several citation errors; I have left the ones dealing with ancient sources, until we are decided what to do with them.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 02:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- A couple of outstanding reference issues which hopefully you or
Tintero21 will be able to fix more easily than me: the short footnotes to "Epit. Caesarinus, 39.15" (#52 at time of writing) and "Panegyrici Latini, 7(6)15.16" (#200) are throwing harv errors. The first I think is simply a typo for "Epit. Caesaribus"; I think the latter requires the bibliographic entry for the Panegyrici Latini wrapping in a {{
wikicite}} template?
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk) 21:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- The "Demise of Carausius's breakaway Roman Empire" section is a bit problematic at the moment and I am thinking it might just be better removed entirely. I am not intimately familiar with this period, but the section does not even mention Diocletian so seems unneeded in his bio. In addition, it was a post-FAC addition and somewhat unsourced—the Harries 1999 refs appear to be dubious, since upon looking for page numbers I found that the entire publication does not even have the words "Boulogne" or "Allectus".
Aza24
(talk) 00:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
SG review:
Harvref errors throughout that can be viewed by installing
User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js.
[3]
- Inconsistent citation formatting raised in initial comments as yet unaddressed, including missing access-dates.
- With over 11,000 words of readable prose, opportunities for trimming are easily found. Taking as a sample the
Level 2 section, Tetrarchy:
- "Upon his return" should be defined at the start of a new Level 2 section.
- The first paragraph in that section goes in to considerable detail on other individuals who have their own articles.
- Similar in first para of Invasion, counterinvasion
As knowledgeable editors have argued for the inclusion of the primary sources originally mentioned in the FAR listing, I will be a keep if the citation formatting can be cleaned up, and a trimming copyedit is undertaken.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 12:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Also,
MOS:SANDWICH and
WP:ACCESS, images at bottom of section, to be addressed.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 15:43, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Done,
[4]
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 18:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Is Youtube necessary in External links?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 15:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- No answer, so removed:
[5]
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Inconsistent use of p. versus pp. eg:
- Barnes 1982, pp. 30–31; Williams 1985, pp. 22, 238. But ...
- Southern 2001, p. 134–135; Williams 1985, p. 38; ... pls check throughout.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 15:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I believe I got all of the p to pp inconsistencies and the
MOS:PAGERANGE breaches,
[6] but this work requires manual eyeballing, so I could have missed some.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I couldn't find any more.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 17:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Thx, struck.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 17:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
See also trim/check ? FAs should be comprehensive already; can some of those be incorporated into the text or the need for them in See also be explained?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Done, mostly. Moved some to disambiguation page, removed others. Have added annotated links to two remaining; they can be removed/incorporated at the discretion of others.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 17:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Thx, struck.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 17:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Issues with inclusion of
Template:Simplified Tetrarchs family tree and
MOS:COLLAPSE. Can it be moved to the foot of the article, and can the
MOS:ALLCAPS in it be reduced ?
- Done,
[7]
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 17:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
@
Caeciliusinhorto,
Iazyges,
AirshipJungleman29, and
Aza24: I've completed what I could of my list above; are you able to review the remainder of my list and anything else needed, so we can move towards bringing this to a close?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 15:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
UndercoverClassicist: sorry that I failed to ping you with the rest!
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 04:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I disagree with your assessment of the necessity and ease of trimming. Readable prose size is 68kB (if I've understood correctly), putting it in the second category of
WP:SIZERULE, and I feel that the current size is sustainable considering "the scope of the topic". I also don't feel that the paragraphs you've outlined contain excessive amounts of detail, with the detail on the other individuals directly relevant to Diocletian, his reforms, and his imperial rule (I also can't find the "Upon his return" you mention).
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 20:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Someone else has already copyedited, which may explain the difference in your view and mine, and the missing pieces ... I am now less concerned, but unsure if the copyedit is finished.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I took out a bunch of the most obviously redundant stuff, and I think the article is rather better than it was, but I'm happy to have another go through the article if people are still concerned about excessive length. I think there are still some inconsistencies in citation formatting – will do another pass on that later this week when I'm at an actual computer if nobody else gets to it first...
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk) 21:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Correct, things like missing access dates and other trivialities ...
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- PS, I didn't name you above as I can never remember how to spell your username :)
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- A couple of observations from going through the citations to iron out some of the inconsistencies:
- "BGU" referred to in footnote 93 is unexplained – what does this refer to?
- footnote 101 (Rees, Layers of Loyalty) refers to an entire book; page range is needed
- same with footnote 164 (Heather, Rome Resurgent)
- same with Leadbetter, Galerius and the Rule of Diocletian, in fn.241
-
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk) 21:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Paul August might you be interested in looking in here? I see you in the page statistics, and an extra set eyes might help get this one wrapped up.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
@
Aza24 and
Caeciliusinhorto: are you ready for a new look, or still working?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 12:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
SandyGeorgia: I think I've made the citations consistent now, though my eyes glazed over somewhat at the end so if there's anything I've missed do point it out or fix it. But there are a few uncited claims that I've marked, and the missing page ranges I mentioned above; I can try to track down the relevant page ranges for those sources I have access to where we have a book already cited, but late antiquity really isn't my area so if someone knows the sources better than me to sort out the {{
cn}}s that would be greatly appreciated!
Caeciliusinhorto (
talk) 20:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Fixed two tags, one remaining.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 14:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Can topic experts pls opine whether the
citation needed content is crucial to comprehension or comprehensiveness? It appears that no one is able to cite it, so do we need for that content to be holding up this FAR?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 18:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
SandyGeorgia: I get the feeling some of the later content might be citable to Jones above it; I'll see what can be salvaged. If not, I feel the content already cited comfortably satisfied the explanation of his expansion of bureaucracy.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 18:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Unluckily, this was not the case. I've gone ahead and removed the content of "for an empire of 50–65 million inhabitants, which works out to approximately 1,667 or 2,167 inhabitants per imperial official as averaged empire-wide. The actual numbers of officials and ratios per inhabitant varied by diocese depending on the number of provinces and population within a diocese. Provincial and diocesan paid officials (there were unpaid supernumeraries) numbered about 13–15,000 based on their staff establishments as set by law. The other 50% were with the emperor(s) in his or their comitatus, with the praetorian prefects, or with the grain supply officials in the capital (later, the capitals, Rome and Constantinople), Alexandria, and Carthage and officials from the central offices located in the provinces." and added some more from Jones.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 18:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Thx, Iaz; once I get through (that other current mess), I will find time for a full read-through. Hopefully others will do so as well here (@
Buidhe,
Z1720,
Extraordinary Writ, and
Aza24: and not Hog Farm because I know he's crazy busy this time of year.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 18:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Article is looking great now and I am finding little to no issues. I do wonder about the rather strange (and small) "Social and professional mobility" section and whether its inclusion is essential
Aza24
(talk) 23:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
Aza24: I think it should be included, it's fairly important for world history (enough so the edict could probably have its own article), as a precursor to feudalism, and its small enough that it doesn't bump into UNDUE.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 00:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Perhaps, but can we incorporate it better into the article? Bizarre as it stands right now
Aza24
(talk) 05:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I've appended it to the end of the legal section rather than giving it its own section.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 17:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Wikisource ??? "Genesis Rabbah 8" (in Hebrew). Hebrew Wikisource. Retrieved 24 January 2023.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- What is the objection here? It's citing a primary source with Wikisource.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 17:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Wikisource is a wiki (user-generated content); how do we know what is there is accurate?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 18:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Compare it a real source, is usually how it's done; and then someone else confirms it on-wikisource, for English. Not sure about the Hebrew wikisource, but
this link seems to confirm the contents, anyway. Mayhps just switch it for the link?
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 19:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I'm not familiar enough with Wikisource to know; wouldn't it be easier just to use the real primary source?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:26, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- It's usually always stuff that's very easy to find on the internet; it mostly exists cross-wiki for ease of access and citing, I think. I can change it to the URL if you'd like, however.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 19:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- How about a combined reference, where you cite it to the original and then attach a comment within the ref tags to also see Wikisource, so that Wikisource is only an aid for the reader, but not the actual citation?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 20:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The URL provided links directly to the section, in a more readable way than the Wikisource (given that the website is in English, with Hebrew and English text, and the Wikisource is in Hebrew, with both texts); I think the most useful options are either to keep Wikisource on principle or make the switch completely; whichever we prefer.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 20:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Switch completely then? Sorry to be so piecemeal; still toiling on
that other thing, which requires supreme concentration.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 20:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- No problem at all; done now.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 22:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Trans-title in the citation template, pls ... Đorđe Janković (6 September 2007). "О називу Диоклeје пре Немањића".
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:42, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Done.
- @
Iazyges and
Aza24: can anyone fix the two issues I listed just above this?
Hog Farm if you have time this weekend, this is another one ready for a new look.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 13:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I'll take a look. Given the rambling nature of this FAR and the fact that it'll take me multiple sittings to get through this review, I'll leave comments at
Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Diocletian/archive1
Hog Farm
Talk 03:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
Aza24,
Iazyges, and
UndercoverClassicist: I've finished with leaving a running of comments on the talk page of the FAR - generally minor points (a few prose items, one sourcing things, and a couple clauses I think ought to be removed).
Hog Farm
Talk 00:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
Aza24,
Iazyges,
UndercoverClassicist, and
Caeciliusinhorto: progress on Hog Farm's comments at
Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Diocletian/archive1? Would be nice to get this one wrapped up.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
SandyGeorgia, I've addressed the rest, just waiting on HF's response now.
Aza24
(talk) 23:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Close w/o FARC - I'm still not sold on the inclusion of the sentence about Virgil given where the only ancient attestation of that comes from, but that's an editorial decision and shouldn't hold up the FAR.
Hog Farm
Talk 14:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The Virgil quote has now been removed by Caeciliusinhorto.
Aza24
(talk) 22:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Close without FARC – now has FA standards of formatting, thoroughness and comprehensibility.
Aza24
(talk) 22:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Close without FARC per Aza.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk) 01:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Close without FARC.
Iazyges
Consermonor
Opus meum 01:49, 16 March 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.
- 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) 6:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
[9].
- Notified:
WP Architecture,
WP Lincolnshire
WP Historic sites
Lajmmoore,
Guerillero,
Giano, talk page notice
2018 and 2022-01-10
I am nominating this featured article for review. There are two talk page notices. The first discusses a lack of coverage by The National Trust. The second is a more extensive list of problems that I will list below.
- There has been some coverage of the library in the academic literature over the past decade
[10]
[11]
-
WP:LEADCITE issues
- Severe need for additional citations or trimming of uncited material
-
MOS:BOLD issues
- Sourcing problems
- Anon. The National Trust Belton House 1984
- Moondial at IMDb.
- "ALVA - Association of Leading Visitor Attractions". www.alva.org.uk. Retrieved 27 October 2020.
- Christie's catalogue
- Belton Park Golf Club
- "History of the Royal Air Force Regiment"
- John Harris, English Decorative Ironwork (1960)
- Henry Williamson's Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight
- Mixture of using a date and not in the SfNs
- Footnote 2 provides no page numbers
- Prices are not as of a date
Having read the article I think most if not all of the problems listed above are still present. In addition the article history does not discuss Belton House's links to the slave trade. So it is also failing coverage.
Desertarun (
talk) 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
-
Desertarun see the instructions at
WP:FAR. Please notify all of the WikiProjects listed at
Talk:Belton House by using {{subst:FARMessage|Belton House}} with a section heading (something like Featured article review for Belton House).
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 23:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
-
KJP1 have you interest in helping out at this article?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 23:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Hi Sandy, hope you are keeping well. Much as I’d like to, and much as Belton House merits FA coverage, I’m afraid real life is just too busy at present. Hopefully someone will pick it up.
KJP1 (
talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Image layout needs work.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 23:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I will see what I can do to save this Featured. –
♠Vamí
_IV†♠ 09:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Excellent - I should be able to help out with references, if needed. I've some of the books currently cited, and a range of others, Pevsner etc., that have good coverage of Belton.
KJP1 (
talk) 10:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- It would be my pleasure to work with you; I dread on account of my own inability (and dialect) the replication of Giano's prose. –
♠Vamí
_IV†♠ 10:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I’m afraid I can’t commit working on a full redraft. As I mentioned to Sandy G above, real life is just too busy right now. But if you need cites for anything, I should be able to find them. As you say, Giano wrote beautifully, and their content is generally super-sound. But citation requirements were looser then than they are now. With
Palladianism, I tried to keep the prose as far as possible, and focussed primarily on finding cites/sources, tweaking the text to match where required. I’ll watch this page, and chip in when/where I can. All the best.
KJP1 (
talk) 10:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Godspeed. –
♠Vamí
_IV†♠ 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Could you tell me what Pevsner has to say about the house in
Lincolnshire? The best Google Books has for me is a preview and I can't find this tome on the Internet Archive. –
♠Vamí
_IV†♠ 14:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
-
Vami IV if you're going to work towards a save, you can conduct the regular editing and questions on article talk, and keep this page updated weekly on progress.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 14:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
Progress report, 1 February 2023 .
The rewrite is more or less complete. The only section that hasn't seen rewriting, rearranging, and reordering wholesale now is #Interiors. It probably needs it, but I am burnt out. In the course of rewriting this article I have noticed a lot of failed verifications and removed or substantiated text as available sources allowed. –
♠Vamí
_IV†♠ 22:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I've copied over Vami IV's update from the article talkpage for ease. We've gone from 70 cites and 14 published sources to 141 cites and 21 very sound published sources. As detailed on the talkpage, I think the specific issues raised in the FAR have been addressed. Vami's done the heavy lifting, but I they are now "burnt out" - understandably! If there are any remaining concerns, I'm happy to look to address them. Otherwise, this could be closed without the need for FARC.
KJP1 (
talk) 07:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I will have time for a read-through in a few more days, but
I noticed this unsightly section, which is ugly reading with all those interspersed citations. Would a table format work better there ?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 11:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I know what you mean, but I'm not sure a table's the answer. They do contain important information about the sheer number of listed features on the estate, and basically listing = importance in this context. I'll see if I can group them in a more pleasing way.
KJP1 (
talk) 12:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Have had a go, which hopefully makes it slightly less jarring to read. See what you think.
KJP1 (
talk) 12:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Ack! How about using a bundled citation with a list of what goes to what ? See
citation 452 here.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 12:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Sandy - this is making my head hurt!
I think I can see from the example how to do it with a standard cite, e.g. take <ref>{{NHLE|num=1298447|desc=Two Garden Urns at the N end of the Italian Garden NW of Belton House|grade=II|access-date=28 January 2023}}</ref> and make it * Two Garden Urns: {{NHLE|num=1298447|desc=Two Garden Urns at the N end of the Italian Garden NW of Belton House|grade=II|access-date=28 January 2023|ref=none}}, all bundled with a <ref></ref>, but I don't know what to do when it's a shortened, repeat reference, e.g. <ref name="auto2"/>. Can you advise.
KJP1 (
talk) 14:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
replyI've tried one, 118, where there's no truncated referencing and it looks ok. But I still need to work out the shortened one.
KJP1 (
talk) 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Think it's now sorted. Hope you like it, coz it was painful!
KJP1 (
talk) 15:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Oh, that is indeed beautious. If you think that was painful, imagine how Giano feels :) I will try to get to a read through, but can't make any promises, re
my own current pain level. Thank you so much for digging in yet again.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 18:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I don't know what is going on here, either grammatically or in terms of the duplicate wikilinks:
- For about three centuries until 1984, Belton House was the seat successively of the [[Brownlow baronets|Brownlow family]], which had first acquired land in the area in the late 16th century, and of its heirs the [[Earl Brownlow|Cust family]] (in 1815 created [[Earl Brownlow]]).
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Fixed that myself; please check.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Which "above"? (There are several similar.) "John Egerton-Cust, 2nd Earl Brownlow (1842–1867). Grandson of the above."
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Removed.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Why do we give dates on one image caption (Alice Brownlow, née Sherard (1659–1721) by John Riley) but not on another (Adelaide, wife of the 3rd Earl Brownlow, in a portrait by Frederick Leighton)? Whichever is chosen, be consistent throughout.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Now parallel.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Why is this citation commented out ? Although the 3rd Earl preferred to live at Ashridge or at [[Carlton House Terrace]] in London, he spent the rest of the 19th century reverting Belton House to its 17th-century appearance.<!--{{sfn|Tinniswood|1992|p=30}}-->
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:33, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Answered below.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- This statement is begging for attribution; since it makes it into the lead, begs even more ... At the same time, the main façade of the house is reputed to have been the inspiration for the modern British motorway signs (HH icon.png) which give directions to stately homes.[37]
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Not done yet,
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- SG - Had a go at this one. Unfortunately, I've not got the book, but it is clearly cited, down to the page number.
KJP1 (
talk) 06:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I had to skip down and read the body of the article to understand why the word significantly was used here, and why windows and staff were mixed in the same sentence. It's clear after reading the body, but needs to be better sorted in the lead. "The new house was fitted with the latest innovations such as sash windows for the principal rooms, and more significantly, with completely separate areas for the staff."
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Not done yet.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- And had a go at this one. It's wrapping two concepts into one sentence - the use of innovatory designs, such as sashes, and the use of innovatory planning, which split the servants from the masters, in contrast to the early period where they all mucked in together in the great hall. I hope the re-wording works.
KJP1 (
talk) 06:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Desertarun might you continue reading from this point to pick up any miscellaneous copyedit needs and to check whether all the issues you raised have been addressed?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Overall the article is in pretty amazing shape considering how it started. All of the issues I mentioned were addressed; regarding the library, from
[12], it would be interesting add that the books were lent to the wider community - this wasn't a private library. I will have a read through for other issues, but I'm more of BOLD editor, the details of copyedit often go over my head.
Desertarun (
talk) 20:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Well, I am not known as a copyeditor, so we need others to read through.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 20:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I'll have a read through tomorrow and see what I can find.
Desertarun (
talk) 21:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Re. the above point, I've put in a footnote referencing the journal article.
KJP1 (
talk) 18:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
KJP1 and
Vami IV:
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 23:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I have made some more copyedits according to your comments above. The reference to Tinniswood 1999, p. 30 is commented out because the following citation is just more Tinniswood; I commented it out in case someone found another citation to stick there and break up the page spread of the following Tinniswood citation. At some point this week I'll dig up the energy to finally tackle #Architecture. –
♠Vamí
_IV†♠ 02:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Some thoughts below, will add more later.
Desertarun (
talk) 09:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The lead needs updating to reflect changes to the body in this FAR
- I updated the lead, it looks acceptable to me now, although others may want to alter/spruce it up
- Is it usual to call a section "interiors"? to me this means decor and furniture, but that section also discusses the room design, would something like "Room design and interior decor" be better?
- I think this is fine. It's a pretty standard way of distinguishing between the inside and the outside of a building. But don't take my word for it - Pevsner's section on the inside of the house is titled "The INTERIOR". (p=136)
KJP1 (
talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The interiors section starts: "The plan of the rooms at Belton was outdated for a grand house of its time." That paragraph then goes on to argue the house should have been designed to suit infrequent VIP guests. This is a negative architectural judgement and the owners doubtless didn't want to build the house for others.
- I take the point here. I think the original author is likely quite right, but they wrote at a time when Wiki was less source-focussed than it is now. I've not been able to find a source to fully support it, so have trimmed what can't be supported.
KJP1 (
talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC).
reply
- "The principal room is the large Marble Hall (1)" , what is special about the hall?
- It's the main room of the house which, as was common, was designed to impress from the outset. Hence the marble, and hence the elaborate carving.
KJP1 (
talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The word "principal" is overused.
- Have trimmed.
KJP1 (
talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- "The second of the principal reception rooms" is contradictory, I'd think there should be only one principal reception room.
- Trimmed.
KJP1 (
talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- "the Tyrconnel Room (10), was transformed into the principal or state bedroom during the occupancy of Lord Tyrconnel in an attempt to create a more fashionable suite of Baroque state rooms on the first floor. After his death in 1754, it became a Billiard Room, until the 3rd Earl Brownlow had it refurnished more than a century later." What did it change into? It looks a bit of a tease to not say.
- Neither Pevsner nor HE say. Tinniswood will. I shall check.
KJP1 (
talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- "The Great Staircase to the east of the Marble Hall is unusually placed at Belton, as in a house of this period one would expect to find the staircase in the hall" could this be reworded?
- Have tried.
KJP1 (
talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- What is a "procession link"?
- I've re-worded and changed it to processional route. It basically means "the way the great and the good moved from one room to another". I'm slightly suprised there's not a bluelink, but there you go.
KJP1 (
talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- "The Great Dining Room, now the Library, has been greatly altered and all traces of Carolean decoration removed, first by James Wyatt in 1778 when it was transformed into a drawing room with a vaulted ceiling, and again in 1876, when its use was again changed, this time to a library." Can this be reworded?
- Have tried, and put in a cite.
KJP1 (
talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- "the Windsor Bedroom (directly above the School Room), so-called following its use by Edward VIII during the 1936 abdication crisis. Today, Belton has a permanent exhibition devoted to that event". Why is there a permanent exhibition other than the obvious, are there any interesting stories?
- I've not seen it, but the Abdication Crisis was a big deal and Perry Cust's part in it reasonably major. Hence the exhibition. We could expand on it - I've just been rereading the section in Philip Zeigler's Edward VIII biography. Basically Cust fell badly between two stools, supporting Edward until the Abdication, and then refusing to go to his wedding afterwards. Edward and Mrs S never forgave him for the latter, and George VI and Queen Elizabeth hated him for the former, and he was abruptly sacked as a Lord in waiting by the new king. Do you think it needs more?
KJP1 (
talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I don't think from what you've said there is enough to warrant any more being added.
Desertarun (
talk) 19:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I've finished reading through the article and can see no other problems. Its a very nice read apart from the interiors section and the lead.
Desertarun (
talk) 10:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Apart from the few points above i'm ok to keep and close this.
Desertarun (
talk) 19:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
-
Desertarun - Profuse apologies for reverting earlier. That, and the Previous button, are just too close when I try to edit on the iPad. Glad you found the article a better read, and thanks for your comments and input which have definitely brought it closer to current FA standards. I'll look to address SandyG's two outstanding comments tomorrow and then, if it can be closed as a Keep, that will be a good job of work.
KJP1 (
talk) 22:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- While I've got you, I noticed you have an interest in
slave ships. I don't know if you do GA, but I have
Penrhyn Castle up for GAN. It's quite a powerful example of the links between the British country house and the slave trade, and I've tried to cover it in some more depth than is perhaps usual. It might be of interest.
KJP1 (
talk) 22:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I was there a few years ago on an amazingly sunny day, the views from the walls were spectacular. I was aware of its links to the slave trade. I'll have a read tomorrow.
Desertarun (
talk) 22:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
KJP1 when you get to it, there are still two not yet done things in my list above.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 17:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I've been
busy! But I'll get to them.
KJP1 (
talk) 18:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Sandy - now had a go at rewording these two. Let me know what you think.
KJP1 (
talk) 06:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Those two look good.
Vami IV mentioned somewhere wanting to expand something, so I'm unclear if we are done here.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 07:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I'll try to look over this during the weekend.
Hog Farm
Talk 14:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- "built between 1685 and 1688" - the body indicates the interior was finished in 1687, so it's not entirely clear to me why 1688 is given as the completion date
- Done - by correction.
KJP1 (
talk) 09:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- "Cust died in 1751, because of the "unusual fatigues" of his office," - how did Cust die in 1751 if he was still Speaker in 1770?
- Done - by correction. A clear error.
KJP1 (
talk) 09:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- "the home depôt"- I don't think the diacritic in depot is needed, especially since depot is used without the diacritic later in the article
- Done - by correction.
KJP1 (
talk) 09:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Ready for the architecture section, will resume later this afternoon.
Hog Farm
Talk 17:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- "The principal room is the large Marble Hall (1) at the centre of the south front" - the paragraph beginning with this sentence I can't tell what it's sourced to - the wording of the footnote suggests that it may only be supporting the quote from Winde
- Done - by addition of a Pevsner cite.
KJP1 (
talk) 09:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Is Wyatville or Wyattville the correct spelling? Both are used
- Done - by correction. It's the former, and I hope it's now right throughout.
KJP1 (
talk) 09:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Sources look fine, I think this is very close to being keepable. @
Vami IV and
KJP1:
Hog Farm
Talk 21:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Hog Farm - Thanks very much. I hope I’ve addressed everything and that it may be possible to wrap this up. I think Vami may have been planning to do a bit more on Architecture but, for the purposes for this FAR, I think the criteria are met. It’s always capable of further improvement, of course, but in terms of whether it should keep the FA status, I think we’re there.
KJP1 (
talk) 11:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- If Vami thinks the additional work is non-essential, than I think this one is good to close.
Hog Farm
Talk 14:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I'd have composed that section differently, but it's perfectly functional now. I no longer think I need do any more work to this article. If reviewers disagree, though, Giano helpfully sent me some pieces of books he used for this a little while ago. –
♠Vamí
_IV†♠ 21:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Close without FARC
Hog Farm
Talk 23:43, 27 February 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.
- 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) 6:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
[13].
- Notified:
Northwesterner1,
WP Milhist,
WP History of Science,
WP Washington,
WP Environment,
WP NRH,
WP Oregon,
WP Science Policy, talk page notice
2022-07-01
This is a 2008 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; it's main writer has not edited since 2009. Other than DrKay, there are no recent active editors maintaining it. As mentioned on talk on
2022-07-01, the lead is too long, the article is dated, and recent scholarly sources have not been consulted.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 01:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I am willing to take on the task of maintaining the article as it is part of
Wikipedia:Featured topics/History of the Manhattan Project. However, I am on vacation at present and will not have access to my books for another week. List the issues that we have with the article and I will make the required changes.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 02:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- The three main things are listed on talk:
- The lead is too long and needs a rewrite.
- There is very dated material and a new report out that hasn't even been consulted (basically, the main editor hasn't touched the article, so a top-to-bottom update is needed)
- A google scholar search is linked on talk, and recent scholarly articles need to be checked to see if further updates are needed.
- No problem waiting !
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 03:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- @
Hawkeye7: Please feel free to ping me when you get to it. I would like to pitch in as well, I won't be able to work on it at all until Thursday, sounds like maybe we are on a similar schedule. Important article, I worked on it a bit during the FA push, and I readily concede that I haven't paid much attention to it for years. -
Pete Forsyth (
talk) 05:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Will do! Thank you!
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 09:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- @
Hawkeye7 and
Peteforsyth: since the original writer wasn't following, I've gone through the talk page to archive the old, but there are several threads I've left on talk that need to be reviewed as to whether there is merit or those items were addressed.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 14:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Update, Hawkeye7 is at work on this.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 12:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Would anyone object if I altered the reference format to match the rest of the Manhattan Project articles ie put the books down the bottom and use {{
sfn}}? I find the ref/rp format (not used consistently) creates very long citations that look like .[3]: 70–74 [4][5]: 2.4–2.6. The use of sfn also means that the software will verify that all the book references have page numbers.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 18:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I'd go along with that.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
A series of chemical processing steps separated the small amount of plutonium that was produced from the remaining uranium and the fission waste products.
Do we know what chemistry they used in those days?
PUREX? It would be an interesting thing for the article to contain.
John (
talk) 17:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Three different processes were developed: the
bismuth-phosphate process was used during the war; the
REDOX process was developed during the war and deployed in 1947; and the
PUREX process, which was used from 1952 to 1992. I have added this on my list of things to add to the article.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I posted at
Talk:Hanford_Site#National_Historic_Landmark_sourcing,_NRHP_docs my suggestion to cite the actual National Historic Landmark Nomination document, rather than just the "NHL summary" webpage (which has been taken offline anyhow, though there's a copy at Wayback machine). Content in the 48-page document should be used, I would think. It was written and edited by respectable persons, with credits to 2 writers and 2 editors on page 48. --
Doncram (
talk) 06:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Update I have decided to split the article. I am creating a new subarticle (
Hanford Engineer Works) that will contain the wartime period. This will match and have the same structure as
Clinton Engineer Works. This article in turn will gain additional material about the Cold War period. The sources bemoan that Hanford has not received the same coverage as Oak Ridge or Los Alamos. On Wikipedia the fault is mine; because this article was already featured, it never appeared on my work list. But I did gather material on it, and am working on it now. This may take a bit of time.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
-
Hawkeye7 progress update ?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 14:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- The new subarticle is progressing nicely, and should be complete in the next few days. I will return to this one, cut back the World War II section that I started to expand, and carry on with the post-war period, for which I have assembled the source material.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 17:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
reply
- The new article (
Hanford Engineer Works) has been moved to the mainspace and submitted to DYK for review. I have now returned to this article. The World War II section will be rebuilt, references added and some factual errors corrected. The Cold War expansion will be expanded. The final section looks okay; it just needs some updating.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 00:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Further note on progress Finished World War II and Cold War should be done in a day or two. Down to Decommissioning. The rest of the article should proceed more rapidly. The main effort in the final sections will be bringing them up to date. I have added some new images, including a nice colour map.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 20:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Finished Back to reviewers again. The major changes are:
- Manhattan Project section forked off into its own article
- Cold War section added, with deatils of separation processes
- Later operartions section rewritten
- Decommissioning section rewritten
- New images added, including a more colourful map
- New sources added
-
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Weird thing with a caption: "Large bulldozers remove buried pieces of pipe filled with contaminated waste", which the source also phrases similarly. But the equipment pictured is fairly clearly
backhoe loaders, not
bulldozers.
Hog Farm
Talk 14:18, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Does
this do the trick? (Clearly not a bulldozer.)
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, I think that's a satisfactory solution. I'll try to revisit this article more in-depth after Thanksgiving week.
Hog Farm
Talk 02:08, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
Can we close this review now?
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 06:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Finally back home; let me try to get a chance to read through this over the next couple days.
Hog Farm
Talk 14:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Same ... I have not read through and will have time in about one week.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 16:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Is there any way to update the data in the climate table? It no longer matches the record high noted immediately afterward ...
- I've updated the records to 2021 from a new source
[14] Unfortunately, the source gives 118 as the temperature on 29 June 2021. As it seems that the record was officially updated in December, I have adjusted that entry in the table accordingly. All the other figures are from the source. Note that the new averages are for 1991-2020. This is normal these days, due to global warming.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- " the PUREX plant in 1997, " - is this distinct from the PUREX facility closed in 1972? It isn't particularly clear
- Yes. I have added a bit to make it more explicit: "The PUREX plant reopened in 1983 to reprocess N Reactor reactor-grade fuel into weapon-grade fuel. This ended in December 1988, and it returned to standby status in October 1990... the PUREX plant closed for good in 1997"
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- "but electricity tariffs had to be increased to repay the bond holders" - tariff generally indicates an import/export situation. Are we sure that's the best wording here?
- Electricity charges are called tariffs. Linked to
electricity tariff.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Less so in the United States (although I am from a different region than Hanford), but that's better.
Hog Farm
Talk 20:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Concentrations of radionuclides including tritium, technetium‑99, and iodine‑129 in riverbank springs near the Hanford townsite have generally been increasing since 1994. This is an area where a major groundwater plume from the 200 East Area intercepts the river ... Detected radionuclides include strontium‑90, technetium‑99, iodine‑129, uranium‑234, -235, and -238, and tritium. Other detected contaminants include arsenic, chromium, chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and sulfate - this is a direct quote from the (public domain) source. It's not a copyvio, but needs to be more clearly indicated as such
- Reformatted as a quotation, with page numbers.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
Not seeing many issues besides these above, I anticipate supporting this being kept once the above are addressed.
Hog Farm
Talk 05:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
I'm at a close without FARC here.
Hog Farm
Talk 20:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
I hope to be able to get through this week, but at a quick glance, I don't understand the placement of Climate so predominantly (early in the article) ... is it necessary for understanding the rest of the article, or can it be moved down ?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 16:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I didn't move it; it is where it has always been. It seems to be in a logical place. The article starts with geography, the climate follows, and then the history.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 17:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
reply
Still reading, but I cannot (yet) find where the article explicitly states (from the lead) that "Many early safety procedures and waste disposal practices were inadequate, resulting in the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River" ... would it be better as "Many early safety procedures and waste disposal practices resulted in the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River"?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- That would imply that the objective of the safety procedures was to contaminate the air and water, when the opposite was the case.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Prose:
- "Treaties were signed, but were often ignored, as the reservation system was not compatible with their traditional food-gathering or family groupings" ... their refers back to treaties ?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:25, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Yes. Made this more explicit.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Do we need this decimal precision? "In all 4,218 tracts totaling 428,203.95 acres (173,287.99 ha) were to be acquired,"
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Part of our mission to provide a compendium of knowledge. My source has precise figures, and accuracy allows the Wikipedia to be easily paraphrased.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
WP:SIZE: at almost 11,000 words of readable prose, I'm watching for places to trim.
- This passage seems wordier than necessary (a lot of space to say work was delayed to save crops in the field): "Most of the land (some 88 percent) was sagebrush, where eighteen to twenty thousand sheep grazed. About eleven percent was farmland, although not all was under cultivation. Farmers felt that they should be compensated for the value of the crops they had planted as well as for the land itself.[38] Because construction plans had not yet been drawn up, and work on the site could not immediately commence, Groves decided to postpone the taking of the physical possession of properties under cultivation to allow farmers to harvest the crops they had already planted. This reduced the hardship on the farmers, and avoided the wasting of food at a time when the nation was facing food shortages and the federal government was urging citizens to plant victory gardens.[39][40] The War Department arranged with Federal Prison Industries for crops to be harvested by prisoners from the McNeil Island Penitentiary.[41][42]"
- Do we need this level of detail? "Barracks construction commenced on April 6, 1943, and" ...
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I always use specific dates when available. They help readers who are searching for specific information, and those who want to paraphrase the Wikipedia.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Can this be trimmed ? "DuPont put the contract for building the village of Richland out to tender, and the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder, G. Albin Pehrson, on March 16, 1943. " TO ... DuPont awarded the contract for building the village of Richland to the lowest bidder, G. Albin Pehrson, on March 16, 1943.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- The point here is that DuPont let the contract, whereas at Oak Ridge (and elsewhere) the Army would have. This is an important difference between Hanford and the other sites. The reader could guess, but better to be explicit.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
I've done a fair bit of editing myself, but am not entirely comfortable doing so; it does seem that the prose could be tightened throughout. It might be good to have a new set of eyes run through and have a look for areas where prose might be trimmed and tightened.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- My suggestion would be that they are most likely to be found in the final three sections.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
Comment: I did a ce of the article. Some comments below:
- The "Growth of Richmond" section is quite large, and I'm struggling to understand the connection between the demographics and incorporation of the city with the site. Perhaps this information would be better if it was in the city's article, and the information more effectively summarised?
- The Richland township was part of the Hanford Site.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I suggest splitting up the larger sections to make easier reading, especially in the "Plutonium production", "Expansion" and "Cleanup under Superfund". I usually recommend 3-4 paragraphs per section.
- The MOS notes that there is no consensus about this. Split them up.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
Some other thoughts below:
- "Wahluke Slope" section starts with "Immediately outside the Hanford Site lay an area known as the Wahluke Slope." This makes me think that this section does not concern the Hanford Site and maybe can be removed. This would be like if the article on
Toronto had a section describing
Mississauga: the latter city is not within the borders of the former so I would be confused as to why it is there.
- As the article notes, it is flanked by the site. The bounds of the site are somewhat elastic, and there were issues about how safe the surrounding area was.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- "Tritium, polonium‑210, thulium-170, iridium-192 and uranium-233 were also produced.[139][158][159][160][161]" Are all five citations necessary here, or can some be removed? If not, should it be
WP:CITEBUNDLE?
- The first one covers the first four isotopes, so moved in. The last four remain, per
WP:CITEBUNDLE; they are all about uranium-233 production. For some reason this was secret and very controversial. Uranium-233 is nasty stuff; ignore the people on the internet touting it.
- "It was shut down in 2008.[196][199][200][201]" Are all of these citations necessary here? Can they be spread throughout the paragraph, or citebundled?
- I really weaved these together tightly. Split up a bit.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- "In 2016 it was announced that gravitational waves had been detected.[206][207][208][209]" Another possible removal or citebundle of the refs.
- "It began producing power in May 1984.[199][211][212][213][214]" Another one.
- Split citation again.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I encourage that the sources listed in "Further reading" be used as sources for inline citations, or removed if they are not high-quality or do not add contributions to the article.
- All three are high quality works
- Findlay and Bruce (2011) is an updated version of their 1995 book, which is extensively used in the article. It would be easy enough to replace one of the 1995 citations with a 2011 one.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- I haven't read Olsen (2020) but it has good reviews. It is also very recent, and so may be easier for the reder to obtain a copy. Another editor used it in the article but without page numbers so I moved it to the Further Reading.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Pope is all about the Washington Public Power Supply System.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
Those are my thoughts.
Z1720 (
talk) 14:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
@
Z1720 and
SandyGeorgia: What concerns remain outstanding?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 16:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Comments above were addressed.
Z1720 (
talk) 21:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- responding to ping, while looking in to how to trim, I see there is a citation needed tag.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- FFTF has its own article, so that para can be trimmed, but I can't sort this sentence, so aborted trim:
- Nonetheless, the FFTF continued to operate until generating plutonium‑238 for nuclear power sources for NASA space missions and tritium for nuclear fusion research. Missing word ??
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:26, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Another source of contaminated food is the first mention of contaminated food in this section:
- Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish, an impact felt disproportionately by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets.[219] Radiation was later measured 200 miles (320 km) downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts. it was estimated that a person who had daily eaten 2.2 pounds (1.00 kg) of fish caught at Richland would have received an additional radiation dose of 1,300 millirems per year.[220] Screens and fish ladders were used to protect wildlife.[citation needed]
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Ah ha, we get cows in the next para ... These radionuclides entered the food chain via dairy cows grazing on contaminated fields ...
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- The light dusting of strontium-90 isn't much of a health hazard for living there, as the radiation is negligible compared to the natural background. However, it turns out that if you graze dairy cattle on the grass, the concentration will be a hundredfold in the milk.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Opportunities to trim content remain.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 12:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Could we get an update on status here? Have Sandy's concerns been addressed?
Nikkimaria (
talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I am caught up elsewhere at FAR now, and should be able to take this on tomorrow and the next day (to answer Nikkimaria, there have been improvements, but now I need to just plug on for a full read-through).
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 00:15, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Just reminding myself that there are two Keep/Close without FARCs recorded above (it's been so long I had forgotten where we stood :)
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 00:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Two things:
- I made some
small copyedits to the top part of the article only, but since copyediting is not my strength, I am still uncomfortable that after all this time, others have not had a look. I stopped halfway through Production process.
- There was one error; you stated that the site is not open to tourists. It is! (see the last paragraph of the article) Book your tour
here!
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I continue to feel like there is more physics here than needed, because individual parts have their own articles. As examples, we have
N Reactor and we have
B reactor; how much of the physics do we need to cover here, and is necessary to go into detail when different parts have their own articles?
- My reaction here is "what physics?" Look at
Tamper (nuclear weapon)#Physics for an example of what it looks like when I put physics into an article.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
I am hoping to impose upon
ComplexRational, who is very good at copyediting, and also for an opinion on the physics parts of the article that I haven't yet delved in to. I am concerned that FAR shouldn't be just patching up dated articles and pushing them through;
Hawkeye7 has rewritten this article, and deserves the same prose scrutiny expected at FAC.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 00:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I think FAR can handle that.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Headbomb's reliability script is calling this source a no-no:
- "Washington Gov. Inslee's office: 6 more tanks at Hanford site are leaking radioactive waste". Breaking News. Retrieved February 22, 2013.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 00:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Replaced with a CNN reference.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- This is just about there, but I'll feel more comfortable when a topic expert (ComplexRational) has looked it over ... sorry for the errors ...
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 01:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the ping. I can look it over, though I'm somewhat busy IRL at the moment and won't be able to do more than basic copyediting until Friday at the earliest.
Complex/
Rational 02:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
-
ComplexRational sorry to pester :) Are you still able to look this one over this weekend?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 13:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
SandyGeorgia: I have a lot going on, so unfortunately I don't think I'm able at the moment.
Complex/
Rational 16:32, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Close without FARC. I had really hoped someone else would help out here, but since that hasn't proven possible, it's well past time to close this up.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 20:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
-
Nikkimaria, that's three (Hog Farm and Z1720 earlier).
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 20:09, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Comment: I
made a suggestion about referencing early on in this review, perhaps too early for it to be useful. The suggestion was partly to drop use of a bad URL, which is still used in the article, and also to use a 48 page source on NRHP listing and National Historic Landmark designation. That is given as an inline reference at article's Talk page. It's okay for the suggestion not to be taken in part or full (but why not fix the bad URL, if not use the replacement?), but I am just noting it was not. --Doncram (
talk,
contribs) 20:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- My apologies. I have made the change you suggested.
Hawkeye7
(discuss) 21:48, 3 March 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.
- 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) 3:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
[15].
- Notified:
WikiProject Aviation,
WikiProject Washington,
WikiProject Disaster management
WikiProject Military history Nominator is blocked. Talk page notice
2022-11-15
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has had a page needed template for over 6 months and various page needed tags are placed throughout the article. Having read the article I can see myself that the article is also lacking inline citations and I have little confidence in the content. The article was noticed
here.
Desertarun (
talk) 09:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Noting this is a
Cla68 FA. His content was always highly trustworthy, so hopefully someone can add the page numbers. Also, somewhere along the line, this article's sourcing was damaged; the
promoted version had page numbers. It should be possible here to step back through to see what happened and restore the page numbers. In 2015,
it still had most of its page numbers. Could MILHIST editors suggest if a revert to an older version might be in order here?
Page numbers that were provided have been removed, and other damage has occurred; Cla68's articles were typically sound, so a revert might be the best option here.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 11:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- It appears from the conversation below we're confident more inline cites aren't needed, so i'll remove that suggestion from the FAR.
Desertarun (
talk) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Propose revert to
this 2018 version, the best I can find before the damage and the tag bombing started.
Ian Rose kept an eye on the article for a long-time after Cla68's last edit, and cleaning up from that version doesn't look too hard.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 11:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Either we're gonna need to let the page numbers slide or someone's gonna have to get ahold of Kern - even the 2007 promoted version lacks page numbers for Kern.
Hog Farm
Talk 14:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Indeed. The
two versions aren't dramatically different. The biggest change to the referencing is that bundled citations have been unbundled, which makes the lack of page numbers more obvious and someone has subsequently tagged them all {{
pn}} but we don't ever seem to have had page numbers for Kern, Tony T. (1999) Darker Shades of Blue: The Rogue Pilot, even
when it was promoted.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 14:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- If MilHist editors agree the star might be salvageable, and are willing to do the rest, I will strive to get a copy of Kern to address page numbers. In honor of Cla68-- a very fine editor. In the version I suggest reverting to, Kern is not the only citation for the text, and there are only four missing page nos.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 14:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Articles on events like this are fairly easy once they've been written so it should be salvageable. The scholarship isn't likely to change dramatically and necessitate significant rewriting year on year like a science article, for example. The book is ~£50 on Amazon UK, which is out of my price range, especially for a side project, but if you can resolve the page numbers I'm willing to look at prose and formatting and any updates it might need. A quick look through Google News and Books shows a few new bits, especially around the 25 anniversary, but nothing that couldn't be easily incorporated.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I might be able to ILL it if there's a consensus this is salvageable.
Hog Farm
Talk 15:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- If you or Sandy can get hold of the book and add the page numbers, I'll tackle the rest. Shouldn't be too taxing.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I just looked it up on WorldCat, and I can't get it within driving distance. But I could try for ILL.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 16:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I think I see a copy on the Internet Archive.
Hog Farm
Talk 18:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Beam me up, Scotty! I tried, couldn't find it ...
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 19:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I'll try to find it again and link it after work - I searched for "darker shades of blue kern" on there on my phone, which doesn't copy and paste well.
Hog Farm
Talk 19:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
-
Here's the IA copy of Kern.
Hog Farm
Talk 23:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Got it ...
User:HJ Mitchell, we're on. (I've got to first finish up Hawkeye7's Hanford Site, so you can plunge in and I'll catch up ... some of the Kern pages are already given). Thanks so much Hog Farm!
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 23:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
SandyGeorgia and
HJ Mitchell: - I am so confused on something here - so our article has the names of Arthur "Bud" Holland, Mark McGeehan, Robert Wolff, and Ken Huston. That copy of Kern has Arthur "Bob" Hammond, Mark McCloud, Robert Moulton, and Ken Wilson. The names in the article appear to be the correct ones. So is Kern masking surnames for privacy reasons, or has something gone terribly wrong with that source?
Hog Farm
Talk 23:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Will need to step back to check ... I remember seeing some edits to that effect that might have been vandalism.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 23:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Resolved - Kern's preface (p. xviii) says he's using pseudonyms. So we shouldn't use any personal names found in Kern.
Hog Farm
Talk 23:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- whew, thx!
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 23:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Oops, I guess you're suggesting it's not vandalism (sigh) ... will have to dig in ...
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 23:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
I'm not sure if I'm following the final demarcation of duties here but I'm happy to polish prose if someone else can tackle the referencing duties (I'm busy saving my own RAAF unit FAs from becoming FAR fodder, as several have changed their equipment in recent years). I've always had this on my watchlist but somewhere along the line I must've had my back turned because reading top to bottom it's not the article I remember. Did we decide in the end to revert to an earlier version and start from there? The same thought had crossed my mind when re-reading... Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk) 20:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I think Sandy and/or HF were going to sort the missing page numbers (though if the source is online I might get to some of that myself). I think I've agreed to help with any prose/formatting gremlins and anything else that crops up to make sure it's up to modern standards, though more eyes are always helpful. But I don't want to start making edits that would get lost if we roll everything back to a previous version. Btw,
Ian, I've always appreciated you watching lots of FAs; you must have a huge watchlist!
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
Ian Rose and
HJ Mitchell: I think this
2018 version the best to revert to; it's clear to me that Ian was following that far, and then wonky stuff starting happening and refs got messed up. It might be worth stepping forward a bit more from there to see if there's a later good version-- I just ran out of time. I have the kids here visiting this week, so can't start in yet, but that version has all page nos except four, and I'm happy to clean up refs and such after you all have resurrected content. Realistically I can't do much in the coming week, so you all feel free to advance without me!
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Thanks
Harry, near as I can figure it I have about 1,700 articles (articles, not pages) watchlisted -- is that a lot? Blame much of it on tweaking something in just about every FAC I promote... Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk) 12:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- No, it doesn't. The citations are bundled so it's not as glaring but none of the Kern references citations have page numbers in that version. One ref, for example is "Piper, Chain of Events, p. 136, Kern, Darker Shades of Blue, and USAF, AFR 110-14, pp. 2–3. Kern in red so he stands out.
This diff shows all the changes since then so if we're happy with the 2018 version, we can pick through that and restore any improvements, which are probably mostly ref formatting as the citation templates have been changed since then.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Whatever you all decide ... I can comb through Kern later ...
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I can comb through Kern as well if needed (thankfully the relevant chapter is only about 20-25 pages long). I will have limited time next week though - lots of driving around to client sites for work + studying for the final portion of the CPA exam, which I'm taking in a few weeks.
Hog Farm
Talk 22:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I'm going to go ahead and revert to Sandy's suggested revision, with an edit summary pointing to this discussion. If a couple days go by and the edit "sticks", then I can began adding page numbers for Kern. Someone can then go through the changes between that revision and the current one and reflect any improvements. A bit of a personal preference thing here, but I truly believe that use of sfns have benefits, so I'd suggest we consider a possible changeover to sfns in the process. I found a similar switchover to be very much worth the work at
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Blenheim/archive1.
Hog Farm
Talk 20:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Reversion done, and have
made some edits to cleanup some changes to templates/portals/categories that had been made between the old revision and today. Hopefully this didn't start any drama with the page.
Hog Farm
Talk 20:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
Starting to go through the page numbers for Kern, and I guess there's one additional thing we'll need to do. Kern doesn't support all of the details found in the article, and Thompson is paywalled for me and I can't find a copy of AFR 110-14 online, so I can't verify all the details here. I'm assuming we can trust the original FAC-passed text, but we'll still need to compare the two to find any sneaky additions between then and now.
Hog Farm
Talk 03:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- This will take some plugging away -
the way the refs are bundled will require creating a bunch of new citation names in order to fix this.
Hog Farm
Talk 04:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- @
HJ Mitchell and
SandyGeorgia: - I'm going to be largely out of commission until the first week of March - I have the final part of the CPA exam coming up.
Hog Farm
Talk 16:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Had visitors, will start catching up this week.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Arthur "Bud" Holland = Arthur "Bob" Hammond
- Mark McGeehan = Mark McCloud
- Robert Wolff = Robert Moulton
- Ken Huston = Ken Wilson
Guessing at real name = pseudonym used by Kern, but how do we know if this is the actual correlation?
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 22:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I can't sort Capotosti, because Kern uses pseudonyms and the dates don't match. We will need another source to sort the Capotosti issue.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 00:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I'll try to find something for Capotosti - my exam is this afternoon, so I'll be much less busy once that's out of the way.
Hog Farm
Talk 15:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
-
Hog Farm good luck! Based on what you can find, we might revisit whether this is really saveable :( :(
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 15:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
-
I'd had similar issues previously in the article and had just removed the specific names sourced only to Kern, but in hindsight that probably wasn't the best editorial decision.
Hog Farm
Talk 15:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Sandy, it's apparently from
this, the Kern thing linked in the ELs, which does use real names. It notes that Capotosti was to take over a week after the airshow and that Capotosti gave Holland the riot act after taking over. The one week appears to be reading in between the lines there. As to "Capotosti did not document his warning to Holland or take any other kind of formal action" that appears to be based on the EL version of Kern's statement that "there was no documentation of the reprimand or counseling given to Lt Col Holland in any form.".
Hog Farm
Talk 22:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
So I'm beginning to wonder if the reason why there was never any page numbers for Kern in the FAC-promoted version is because Cla68 was primarily relying on the web version of Kern, not the print version. And the web version doesn't have page numbers, which would explain the lack of them.
Hog Farm
Talk 22:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- OK, perhaps I'm not focused enough, but I'm still befuddled. Are you able to sort the remaining pieces (that is, should we keep the fAR going)? I was pretty discouraged when I stopped trying to figure out who was who with the pseudonyms ...
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 23:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- For now, I'm feeling reasonably confident I can fix the rest of this, if
this version of Kern is okay with reliability and
WP:ELNEVER. It uses real names, not the pseudonyms, and was listed as a web source at the time it passed FAC, so I suspect it was what Cla was using, as opposed to the hard copy that's been befuddling us.
Hog Farm
Talk 23:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
I suspect much of the Kern can be sort out like
this edit, but ... I just flagged some failed verification. The original 2007 version had another citation for the material (not sure why it was removed), but it's that USAF report that I haven't been able to find a way to access. Starting to have some doubts here on this one, it's apparently been very badly damaged since it passed FAC.
Hog Farm
Talk 00:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
@
SandyGeorgia and
HJ Mitchell: I'm afraid I've hitting a sticking point. It's been too badly damaged, and I can only do so much with access only to Kern and the web version of Kern. Have noted several issues
- Four page needed on Kern remaining
- Our article states "During the first practice session, on 17 June, Holland repeatedly violated these orders. Brooks witnessed this, but took no action. Pellerin flew with Holland on that flight". Kern doesn't say that Pellerin was on the flight - do we have confidence to support that section to Kern and trust that Pellerin's presence on the flight is supported by the USAF AFR source?
- Failed paragraph in the investigation section - previously had another source (which I cannot access) when it passed FAC. I do not know why the USAF AFR source was removed - do we feel comfortable just adding that source back?
- One of the web sources is probably unreliable, but should be fairly easy to replace
The final paragraph about the 2015 film is a post-FAC addition to a permanently dead website. Do we trust the verifiability there?
- "After witnessing the flyover, Colonel Weinman and his deputy commander for operations (DO), Colonel Julich" - the Kern web source which uses real names doesn't mention Weinman. Do we trust this is supported by the inaccessible USAF source?
- "Holland's aircraft flew at altitudes below 100 feet (30 m)" - Kern has 100-200 ft. Do we trust the USAF source supports below 100 feet?
If the answer to 2, 3, 6, & 7, is "yes", then this one isn't too far from fixed. If the answer is "no", I don't think it's saveable.
Hog Farm
Talk 00:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I was able to find a working link for the #5 web source, and have verified that content. Unfortunately, we can't just plug-and-play Kern for #4, because Kern doesn't state that the crash is used both in military and civilian contexts.
Hog Farm
Talk 00:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- I'm uncomfortable with the whole thing, and willing to let it go. It is, after all, outside of Cla68's normal Pacific Theatre WWII range of expertise.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 00:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Move to FARC I don't think this one can be resolved without better access to the sources.
Hog Farm
Talk 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Move to FARC. Problems with sourcing as discussed above.
Desertarun (
talk) 12:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Move to FARC, sourcing issues.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 20:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
FARC section
- Sourcing.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 04:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delist - I think it's time for this one to go quietly into the night. Inactive nominator, and weird sourcing situations per above.
Hog Farm
Talk 18:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delist. A shame, but if large chunks of the article are sourced to an official report, that's an issue in itself, apart from the accessibility of the report.
HJ Mitchell |
Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delist. Unfortunately, sourcing problems can't be resolved.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 21:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
reply
- Delist sourcing concerns remain.
Z1720 (
talk) 12:50, 24 March 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.