Reviewing featured articles Shortcuts WP:FAR WP:FARC This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute. 1. Raise issues at the article's talk page In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and removed from there once posted here). 2. Featured article review (FAR) In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed. The featured article review coordinators— Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage. 3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC) An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies. Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed. The featured article review coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly. The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list. To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{ @FAR}} notification template elsewhere. Urgent reviews are listed here. Older reviews are stored in the archive. Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

v t e Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC) Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR) Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating an article for FAR The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows: No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator. No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator. Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article over at least a two-week period. Articles in this step are not listed on this page. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes". From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes". Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes". Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header. Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The Notified:message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified and include a link with the date of the pre-notification given on article talk.

0.999...

Notified: Melchoir, Dedhert.Jr, JayBeeEll, Hawkeye7, WikiProject Mathematics; original nominator not notified as they have been inactive for over 6 years

This is the 1.999...^nd FAR of this article. The 0.999...^st was back in 2010 and FA status was retained. I placed a FAR notice on the article talk back in January and Dedhert.Jr, JayBeeEll, and Hawkeye7 have done some work on it, but the article has whole sections without citation, amounting to OR; while doing basic math isn't OR, there should be citations to the proofs since they're described as known proofs. Other editors have identified SYNTH in the article during the FAR listing. Hopefully more eyes on this can get it back to FA quality. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I was the only one to identify SYNTH during the previous discussion, and I removed it back in February. There is no whole section without citation; "Elementary proof" has only a single citation for a longish stretch of text, so that can be improved, but overall the situation is not bad at all. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I did some work on the "Elementary proof" section, and I think now it's in better shape. XOR'easter ( talk) 14:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Looks much better. Thanks. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

RIgorous proof has no citations. There are also statements that I think need citations, such as:

• The series definition above is a simple way to define the real number named by a decimal expansion. A complementary approach is tailored to the opposite process: for a given real number, define the decimal expansion(s) to name it. Particularly since it's being described as "simple" (by whom? should that be in wikivoice?).
• The first paragraph of "Proofs from the construction of the real numbers" has no citations.
• In 1802, H. Goodwin published an observation ... There's no citation to Goodwin here.

There's also still the issue of deprecated citations being used in "Algebraic arguments"; {{ sfn}}s were added, but they still need page numbers. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 22:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I would try to fix these issues, but I have no math background and wouldn't feel comfortable in case I miscite something. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Added a Goodwyn cite. Feel free to cross that one off! Tito Omburo ( talk) 14:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The only {{ sfn}}s in "Algebraic arguments" that I'm seeing without page numbers are to journal articles, which don't need them. (I mean, journal articles are short enough that giving a specific page number within them provides basically no value beyond giving the page in the journal where they begin. Standard practice around here is to omit the excess detail, as far as I know.)

I've added citations to the opening paragraph of "Proofs from the construction of the real numbers". XOR'easter ( talk) 16:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• I've been perennially disappointed that this article fails to make contact with modern mathematics. Points that could be made, but don't seem to be:

• If one works in base-10, then any fraction whose denominator is power of 2 and 5 will have exactly two distinct expansions: for example, 1/8 has 0.125000... and 0.1249999...
• Similar phenomena happen for base-N for any integer N. (there are always 2 choices)
• For base-N with N not an integer, there may be 1,2, a countable number or uncountable number of such expansions. When there's only one, it is called univoke. For base-phi, with phi the golden mean, there are a countable number of equivalent expansions: basically, you can repeat a finite number of times, and then switch over, or not, at that point. This continues to be a topic of modern research; I read a paper published in 2010 or 2015 that explored this.
• Whenever there are such "gaps" (two distinct reps) those two endpoints can be joined, ... or not. Joining them gives the de Rham curves, which are fractal curves.
• Most or almost all or all fractal watsizz are due exactly to there being two or more non-unique expansions. Whether it's "all" or just "almost all" remains a topic of academic debate. There are "classification theorems" that try to sort out all of the cases; they're called "non-classification theorems" where there's an uncountable number of alternative expansions.
• Something like this applies to chaotic dynamical systems. But there's argument about that.
• Some philosophers have used this in arguments about free will: basically: "a hah, I can choose 0.999 ... or I can choose 1.000... and nature (or neurons, or physics or whatever) will automatically amplify this difference to finite size in finite time and this is how/why one has free will" Not that I beleive this argument, but it is out there, in the wild.

I do not have references fro most of the above, only for some (below). Failing to mention any of the above just misses an excellent teaching opportunity, to bridge some old ideas to modern, cutting-edge math. This is not some idea that sits in a heremetically-sealed vacuum; it continues to excite mathematicians and philosophers (and students) and should be presented as such.

Here's some references:

• Nikita Sidorov, “Almost every number has a continuum of β-expansions.”, The American Mathematical Monthly, 110, 2003, pp. 838–842, URL http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/nikita/amm.pdf.
• Martijn de Vries and Vilmos Komornik, “Unique Expansions of Real Numbers”, ArXiv, arXiv:math/0609708, 2006, URL https://www.esi.ac.at/static/esiprpr/esi1810.pdf.
• Karma Dajani, et al., “The natural extension of the beta-transformation”, Acta Math Hungary, 73, 1996, pp. 97–109, URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2257842.
• Vaughn Climenhaga and Daniel J. Thompson, “Intrinsic ergodicity beyond specification: beta-shifts, S-gap shifts, and their factors”, Israel Journal of Mathematics, 2010, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.2780.
• P. Erdős and V. Komornik, “Developments in non-integer bases”, Acta Math Hungar, 79, 1998, pp. 57–83.
• Nikita Sidorov, “Universal β-expansions”, Arxiv, 2002, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0209247v1.
• Daniel J. Thompson, “Irregular sets and conditional variational principles in dynamical systems”, , 2010, URL https://people.math.osu.edu/thompson.2455/thesis_thompson.pdf.

Hmm. Actually, it seems I have 20 more of these. Above is a random sampling. Some touch more directly, some touch less directly on the subject matter. I have no references for the philosophy claims. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 20:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh, ahh, huh, Perhaps I have to partly retract. Closer review indicates the article does touch on some of this. I suppose I have ADHD and didn't notice on first reading. 67.198.37.16 ( talk) 20:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

"A different definition involves what Terry Tao refers to as ultralimit." Why is Terry Tao mentioned at all here? Would one say that Terry Tao is what Martin Hairer refers to as a professor? Gumshoe2 ( talk) 17:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

FYI, I'm not that active on Wikipedia these days, but let me know if there are particular questions about any old edits of mine. For example, if there's a cited reference that is hard for others to access, and we need the page number or the context of a quotation, I could look it up in my notes. Melchoir ( talk) 18:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Melchoir, thanks. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because... Pharaoh496 ( talk) 10:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) It was full of cruft, fake infobox, etc. Have merged it into parent article. reply

No opinion • Merge discussion. • Article just before merge. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Pharaoh496 does not appear to have followed WP:MERGE in any meaningful way, so the merge should be reverted and a proper discussion should take place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

There is a merge discussion ongoing that seems to be headed for a merge result; will leave this open for the moment in anticipation of a likely procedural delist. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Mariah Carey

Notified: SNUGGUMS, Heartfox, WikiProject Mariah Carey, [diff for talk page notification]

I have nominated the article for TFA, but it was unsuccessful. It stated: "article would not pass FAC in current state. Suggest waiting until 60th birthday (which is a more notable anniversary than 55th) to re-run the article as TFA, after which improvements would have been made." On the talk page, I asked for article issues, but no response was made in the past 2 weeks. Please take your time to review and I would like to address the article's concerns. ScarletViolet ( talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

UPDATE March 23, 2024 This FAR has been reopened and please take your time to re-review this featured article. According to Heartfox, some of the article's sources are not high-quality reliable.

@ ScarletViolet: As was noted in the TFA discussion, if there is to be an FAR for this article, specific concerns have to be identified on the article's talk page as a first step - I don't see that that was done? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Nikkimaria: There are some concerns in the article, like it does not follow some of the Manual of Style. Featured articles follow all style guidelines. ScarletViolet ( talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Okay, but were these concerns raised on the article talk page? Nikkimaria ( talk) 01:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Nope. ScarletViolet ( talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

So let's do that first. This will be on hold for the moment to give that a chance to happen. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

ScarletViolet, I do not see that you have posted to the talk page - are you still intending to move forward with the review process? Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Nikkimaria: You say so. This has been reopened. ScarletViolet ( talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Edward I of England

Notified: Unlimitedlead, Dudley Miles, Ealdgyth, Usernamesarebunk, Lampman, Hchc2009, GoldRingChip, Gog the Mild, Surtsicna, Nev1, Mike Christie England, WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Scotland, Ireland, Jewish history, Middle Ages, Military history WikiProject English Royalty diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because, during the FA process the article went through, three large areas of historical research were omitted. Thus currently it does not meet the criteria that the article needs to be:

• 1.b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context and
• 1.c well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature

I have since addressed one of those, but had no feedback. I intend to address the other two but would like to ensure my work is reviewed as I do so.

The areas that were not addressed during the FAC process were

1. Anglo-Jewish historical research: Edward's actions are a large subject of discussion in this literature, which contends that he has particular significance for the history of antisemitism and for English identity, which incorporated an antisemitic element as a result of the expulsion. (These topics were notably missed in Prestwich.) These issues have now been addressed to a minimum level by myself but need a check for FA standards.
2. Welsh history: Edward I is of particular significance to Welsh history. Edward is typically seen by Welsh medievalists as a coloniser, someone who did immense damage to Welsh society, culture and self-confidence, which produced a lasting anger. These items need expanding in the "Legacy" section at least. The literature on Edward I from a Welsh perspective was unfortunately contended not to exist during FA review.
3. Irish history: The literature on Ireland was not consulted; Ireland is not covered in the article at all, except to mention Edward governed it and it provided him income. Themes include the early takeover by Edward and some squabbling with his father; Edward treating Ireland as a revenue source and little else; corruption and incompetence in the administrators Edward appointed and repeatedly sacked; over-taxation to meet his war demands; speculation over food exports during the Welsh and Gascon wars; problems emerging from the Edwardian weak administration including a revival of the fortunes of the Gaelic areas' leadership, leading to regular wars in the period and following centuries. Thus although an absentee landlord, current Irish historical research sees him as signficant for the difficulties of Ireland that continued in the centuries following.

Additionally, a check should be made regarding Scottish sources and perspectives.

These areas should also be looked at:

• Religious views: the article may not fully capture the nature of Edward's devotion. It covers his piety as actions, rather than as a belief system. There is commentary about his and Eleanor's piety giving them a sense that they were doing God's work, which makes sense as Crusaders, and explains better his sense of certainty while doing morally reprehensible things.
• Relations with Eleanor: particularly, the support of and the psychological impact of the loss of Eleanor and some of Edward's key advisors around 1290 is often held to have impacted the latter part of his reign. This doesn't seem to be discussed. Also, Edward encouraged Eleanor to accumulate land wealth to reduce the call on his own funds, which was an important change for future queens but impacted a lot on domestic relations with the landed classes who were being dispossessed; it limited what he could do with taxation and was a driver in his policies towards the Jews. This is now touched on this but it could do with discussion earlier.

The reasons for several of these areas being missed appear to include an over-reliance on Michael Prestwich's biography. It received significant academic criticism for missing several of these areas, and being overly concerned with war administration and finance; which I have noted on his Wikipedia page.

Key texts that need consulting include:

• For Wales, "The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063-1415" by RR Davies from 2001, and A History of Wales by John Davies.
• For Ireland, "A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534", which contains a dedicated chapter on Edward's Lordship, "The years of Crisis, 1254-1315" and a further chapter on the wars that were provoked in the period "A Land of War", both by James Lydon. There is by Robin Frame, "Ireland and Britain 1170 to 1450", and other works

As mentioned, I would not like to see this article demoted and I am willing to do the work on Wales and Ireland particularly, and anything further on Anglo-Jewish matters. There is a question on structure for that section also. A point may emerge around article length and there may need to be cuts to meet FA criteria. This I would certainly need help with.

If it is better that I simply work on these areas, complete that and bring the article back to FAR afterwards I can do that. But I haven't got much feedback on the page and feel reluctant to do more work without a little guidance.

Jim Killock (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment by KJP1

My view is that a FAR, a year after the article's promotion, is not needed. If I can try and summarise, you think there are three areas where something/more needs to be said;

• Edward and the Jews;
• Edward and Wales;
• Edward and Ireland;

and two areas that may need a bit more coverage:

• Edward's religiosity;
• Edward and Eleanor.

My suggestion would be that you write brief, sourced, paragraphs on each of these, covering the additional points you think need to be made, and place them on the article Talkpage. Then, see what other involved/interested editors think. I stress brief for two reasons - firstly, your comments to date are rather long and this may discourage editors from engaging with them; secondly, there are always challenges around what to include, and not include, in an FA. Edward reigned for 35 years and packed a lot in, as well as being quite busy before his accession. Therefore, you're never going to be able to cover everything. Indeed, we already have spin-offs, e.g. Conquest of Wales by Edward I, Edict of Expulsion etc. and it may well be that further spin-offs, Edward and the Jews / Edward in Ireland etc. could be an answer. KJP1 ( talk) 08:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm happy with that but I'd note the main reason for non-engagement AFAICT is probably that the main editor is in semi-retirement and no longer working on the page. There will be existing pages for all these topics, but for an FA standard, the page has to reasonably represent all the relevant literatures, AIUI, ie, other parts might need trimming, if it came to a question of overall length. As now the article arguably violates NPOV, through omission of some of the more uncomfortable aspects of his reign. Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• I suspect that the OP has found sufficient deficiencies in the article to justify a trip to FAR. Per policy, if they attempted any major changes they could be reverted, while the talk page is quiet enough to suggest it would be an unprofitable exercise.
  In the meantime they have built a solid case. They have identified fundamental omissions which don't only breach WP:FA? but Wikipedia policy and pillar also.
  More broadly, it highlights the problem with a lack of expertise at FAC. There may not be always much we can do about that, but we must accept the consequences of it all the same. While the review of this article received an at first glance thorough examination, with the exception of a couple, most of the reviews were for prose and spelling and the source review lightweight. The latter, at least, could have e highlighted gaps in the scholarship.
  Still, it's not too late. I'm sure we're all grateful to JimKillock for highlighting these issues and for expressing willingness to step up to the mark and address them. Cheers! ——Serial 12:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Either way, FAR or Talkpage, it would be immensely helpful if JimK could provide suggested paragraphs for inclusion, which would look to address the said omissions. I think that would greatly assist other editors in assessing the issues, and how they might be addressed in the article, having regard to weight, length etc. KJP1 ( talk) 15:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I will crack on with this for sure. It may take me a few days to find time to start; altogether I would think probably 3-4 weeks are needed for me to find spare time to look at all the things I've mentioned. The Wales paras are the easiest for me. Jim Killock (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

No hurry and no problem! Edward I is not my period, but I do have some experience of compressing prose into tight, FA, pargraphs. If I can help at all in terms of reviewing the prose, I'd be delighted. Serial is your man for reviewing the content. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks both of you for the kind words and offers of (potential!) help. Jim Killock (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ KJP1@ Serial Number 54129Ping in case you are able to help: I've linked to the work I have already done for checking re Anglo-Jewish policies, and drafted the changes regarding Wales from Welsh sources below. Jim Killock (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

JimKillock - Not forgotten this, just busy irl this week. Will take a look at the weekend. KJP1 ( talk) 08:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Edward's Jewish policies: text check

Could I suggest that @ Serial or others take a look at the content I added about Edward's Jewish policies as a first step? These are to be found at:

• Edward I of England#Diplomacy and war on the Continent: short sentences about his fall and the expulsion in Gascony. (On Easter Sunday 1287, Edward was standing in a tower when the floor collapsed. He fell 80 feet, broke his collarbone, and was confined to bed for several months. Several others died. Soon after he regained his health, he ordered the local Jews expelled from Gascony,seemingly as a "thank-offering" for his recovery.)
• Edward I of England#Finances, the expulsion of Jews, and Parliament: the two enlarged paragraphs on his Jewish policies. The prior version can be read here. As well as underplaying the issues, there were some factual / inferential errors I noted on the talk page.
• Edward I of England#Legacy: here I added a paragraph setting out views of Edward from an Anglo-Jewish studies perspective.

There are also some efn's I added where the material didn't belong in the main text, eg regarding Jews being banned from the new towns in Wales. I'm happy to help with any source checking needed. A lot of it should be easy to access and is frequently available online, eg with Stacey's articles.

Some quick notes on the emphasis: I think the section on Edward's Jewish policies would sit better under its own heading. It is strange to read about these events in between currency reform and how good Edward was at setting up Parliaments.

The Edict of Expulsion seems to run as the destination of about a significant group of the readers of the Edward I page (the figures track that way at least) and is the most popular Edward I related page after the main page - it is a topic that people seem to want to find out about from this page and regard as important.

The Henry III of England page has much more content on his Jewish policies, and its own section, for comparison.

I am starting work on the other additions here. I've identified some other missing information regarding Edward's character that needs to be looked at later. Jim Killock (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• I'm not sure page views a good guide to what is WP:DUE—we would usually look at coverage of Edward I eg. in reliable sources, especially those focused on him personally. One might also consider that the number of Jews expelled was a few thousand, compared to the population under Edward's rule—as many as five million (according to England in the Middle Ages). ( t · c) buidhe 05:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes, except:

  • The Jewish policies dominated Parliamentary politics to 1290 so were clearly a major concern of the time
  • There is a similar level of concern and activity in the Church (see John Peckham, Thomas de Cantilupe, Richard Swinefield) much directed of it at Edward.
  • The impact of these policies was to make England a nation with a consciously antisemitic identity for several centuries (the unique nation that is unique because it is free of Jews)
  • Edward's impact on anti-Jewish sentiment included giving decisive credibiity to blood libel and setting a precedent for the later Spanish expulsions
  • There is a large historiography which points out that the older mainstream sources on Edward has consistently underestimated the importance of these matters (see review summary at Michael Prestwich#Biography of Edward I).
  • Newer sources are rebalancing the emphasis

  This is outlined at Edward I of England#Legacy. Assuming that Prestwich or biogs in general get the balance right is perilous, the minimum that needs to be done is to check other relevance literatures to see if they agree. Prestwich got a lot of criticism for the things he left out, and concentrating too much on admin and warfare. Morris' more recent work is closer to the mark, but according to the FAC checks said little from the perspective of Wales, and none of the biographies seem have looked at the Irish literature at all.

  From a WP:DUE policy perspective it is quite simple: "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Biographies of English Kings are not the only potential reliable sources for English Kings. Anglo-Jewish, Irish, Welsh and Scottish sources are also important and may reflect a different emphasis on what is relevant.

  On the other hand, taking English biographers views as a definitive guide to what is important to emphasise about an English King, could understandably lead to a rather English and NNPOV - which arguably is what we currently have in this article. Jim Killock (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Wales I: Edward I of England#Conquest of Wales

Hi there, here's my first suggestions for amendments, regarding the section "Conquest of Wales". I've included notes from the sources to help show why I've selected what I have and to help with any source checking anyone wants to do. -- Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Paragraph Three

• current text: "For the Welsh, this war was over national identity, enjoying wide support, provoked particularly by attempts to impose English law on Welsh subjects. ^[1]"

Notes from sources: See endnote. ^[a]

Suggest: "For the Welsh, this war was over national identity and the right to traditional Welsh law, enjoying wide support, provoked by attempts to abuse the English legal system to dispossess prominent Welsh landowners, many of whom were Edward's former opponents. ^[2]"

-- Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• current text: "For Edward, it became a war of conquest rather than simply a punitive expedition, like the former campaign. ^[3]"

Notes from sources: See endnote. ^[b]

Suggest:"For Edward, it became a war of conquest aimed to "put an end finally to … the malice of the Welsh"." ^[4]

-- Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Paragraph Three and Four

• current text: Further rebellions occurred in 1287–88 and, more seriously, in 1294, under the leadership of Madog ap Llywelyn, a distant relative of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. ^[5] This last conflict demanded the King's own attention, but in both cases the rebellions were put down. ^{[6] [7]}

Notes from sources: See endnote. ^[c]

suggest: Move this sentence to after the legal reforms and admin paragraph four. Add to that paragraph: The Welsh aristocracy were nearly wholly dispossessed of their lands. ^[8] Edward was the greatest beneficiary of this process. ^[9] and then place afterwards: Further rebellions occurred in 1287–88 and, more seriously, in 1294, under the leadership of Madog ap Llywelyn, a distant relative of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. ^[10] The causes included deep resentment at the occupation, poor, colonial-style governance, and very heavy taxation. ^[11] This last conflict demanded the King's own attention, but in both cases the rebellions were put down. ^[12]

-- Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Paragraph Five: on castles

• current text: These included the Beaumaris, Caernarfon, Conwy and Harlech castles, intended to act both as fortresses and royal palaces for the King. ^[13]

Notes from sources: See end note. ^[d]

Suggest: These included the Beaumaris, Caernarfon, Conwy and Harlech castles, intended to act as fortresses, royal palaces and as the new centres of civilian and judicial administration. ^[14]

-- Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Aftermath: missing content

• current text: Nothing substantial after the revolt, except in the final paragraph regarding making Edward II Prince of Wales; The King seems to have hoped that this would help in the pacification of the region. (This is clarified as heading a system of patronage rather than symbolic act in the Welsh history sources, as below.)

Notes from sources: See end note. ^[e]

Suggest: After the section on the revolts: The revolt was followed by immediate punitive measures including taking 200 hostages. ^[15] Measures to stop the Welsh from bearing arms or residing in the new boroughs probably date from this time, and the Welsh administration continued to be nearly wholly imported. ^[16]

Suggest: At the end of the Conquest section, after the detail about Edward II as PoWales: Edward began a more concilatory policy to rebuild systems of patronage and service, particularly through his son as Prince of Wales, but Wales remained politically volatile, and a deep divide and distrust remained between the English settlers and the Welsh. ^[17]

Suggest: In the para here about Edward II as PoWales: cut "The King seems to have hoped that this would help in the pacification of the region, and that it would give his son more financial independence"; replace with hoping to give his son more financial independence attached to prior sentence.

NB I moved David Powel, a 16th-century clergyman, suggested that the baby was offered to the Welsh as a prince "that was borne in Wales and could speake never a word of English", but there is no evidence to support this widely reported account.[122] to an endnote.

-- Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Wales II: Edward I of England#Legacy

This short section on Wales needs replacing. No other part of this section refers to contemporary views, so that should go. Morris is a general medieval not a Welsh historian, although presumably he has family connections; his views are not relevant to Welsh historiography. Whether the conquest was "justified" isn't a discussion point in the Welsh literature; it is rather why and how it was done, and the consequences of it that are discussed.

• Current text: Modern commentators have conflicting opinions on whether Edward's conquest of Wales was warranted. Contemporary English historians were firmly in favour of the King's campaigns there. Morris takes the position that the poor condition of Wales would have allowed England to dominate it at some point or another, whether by direct conquest or through natural deterioration.

Notes from sources: Taking queues from the commentary in endnotes especially ^{[a] [c] [e]}

• Suggested text: Welsh historians see Edward's reign and conquest as a disaster for Welsh national confidence and culture. R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the "gratuitous belittling of his opponents", being "one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King", and views his methods in Wales as essentially colonialist, ^[18] creating deep resentment and an "apartheid-like" social structure. ^[19] John Davies noted the "anti-Welsh fanaticism" of the English colonists introduced by Edward's conquest. ^[20] They acknowledge Edward's eventual attempts to rebuild some kind of co-operation with native Welsh society, but state that this was insufficient to heal the trauma of conquest. ^[21]

-- Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ireland

Next steps

I will try to write up the section on Ireland next, once I have Davies 1998 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDavies1998 ( help) British Isles book. I have access to the two volumes on Ireland, Frame 1998 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFrame1998 ( help) and Lydon 2008 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLydon2008 ( help) mentioned. -- Jim Killock (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Questions arising

• There is a strand of literature looking at the history of the "British Isles" in this period (as with others, cf the revaluation of the English Civil Wars as the " Wars of the Three Kingdoms". With Edward I this would draw the threads together of the commonalities between the England to Ireland, Scotland and Wales relationships. Needs a check starting with Barrow 1976 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarrow1976 ( help), Davies 1998 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDavies1998 ( help) and Frame 1995 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFrame1995 ( help).
• Some of the positive assessments in the "Legacy" section belong to a group of authors (Spencer and Burt) whose work focuses narrowly on Edward from an English law and administration perspective, their conclusions are notably in tension with the authors from the "four nations / British Isles" perspective. This could do with sourcing and commentary.
• The "character as King" section will need rewriting to take account of the more negative perspectives, regarding abuse of law, going back on his word, acts of petty vengeance, contempt for the Welsh, for example

Comments from KJP1

With apologies for the delay in getting to this, a few comments. A caveat to start, Edwardian history is definitely not my period, and thus what I'm not able to judge is the weight that would be appropriate to give to the differing views on the Jewish and Welsh (and subsequently Irish) issues. That said:

• In general, the suggested additions to the Jewish/Welsh issues seem quite reasonable.
• In relation to the Jewish issue, we now have two, well-sourced, paragraphs, featuring a range of views. These seem reasonable. I'm not myself quite clear on the connection that is being drawn between the tomb of Little St Hugh and the Eleanor Crosses. The text says "is likely to have been an attempt by Edward"; it seems to be suggesting more than just a stylistic similarity, but some form of connected political aim. Is it possible to make it clearer?
  • The background is that they were built in the same style by the same craftsmen working for the Royal household. This has led historians to pick up on a linked political purpose, as both are political objects. Since Eleanor had an "unsavoury" reputation regarding Jewish loans and land seizures, it is most likely that she was being associated with the cult of St Hugh, in order to "clean up" her reputation, as someone who venerated a Christian child supposedly ritually murdered by Jews. However, although the evidence is quite clear, it is also historians making educated calculations, not a matter of simple fact. At the same time, Edward's promotion of the cult is absolutely established and his purpose entirely clear. I'll take another look as the point re Eleanor is a difficult point to convey. -- Jim Killock (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Checking, I had placed this information into an end note, regarding the link between the Eleanor crosses and the tomb design. I could edit the main body, to say something like "creating a visual association" or "probably to associate Eleanor's memory with the cult". -- Jim Killock (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• What I can't judge is whether the emphasis given to this issue by historians would warrant it being a separate section. It would, of necessity, still be quite brief. That said, a 4.4. would not seem too problematic?
• Wales - moving the coverage of the 1287/1294 rebellions further down seems reasonable, and creates a better chronology. The other changes don't seem controversial to me.
• Legacy - losing the sentence on contemporary English views of the Welsh campaigns again doesn't seem controversial, it's not directly sourced. Where I would diverge from JimK is in ditching Morris and having only the views of Welsh historians, Davies/Davies. Include them, certainly, but not exclusively.
  • Just quickly on this: the current "Legacy" structure is "views on Edward, from an older English; modern English; Scottish; Welsh; Ango-Jewish perspective", rather than dealing with aspects of his reign.
  • I think more fruitful that pro contra on each aspect may be to bring the question of Edward and the English Crown as either an English or British phenomenon, and the associated power dynamics into focus, as this has been an area of active discussion (there's 3-4 histories written like this, not yet consulted, noted below). The question raised by Morris (was it justified) isn't really discussed in the literature (much?) AFAICT, it was just used as a proxy answer to "Do we have information about Welsh historians' view of Edward?" as a reviewer noted this was missing. -- Jim Killock (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• And I would tweak the clause "R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', being 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King'" to read something like "R. R. Davies considered Edward's repeated and 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', to have been 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as king'".

• Character - following on from the above, it would seem reasonable to reflect something of this in the "Character" section. It doesn't currently have anything on how he was/is seem from a Scottish/Welsh/Irish perspective, and that would be useful to have. But it would again need to be quite brief.

I hope that editors with much greater knowledge of Edward will be able to chip in, particularly on the issue of DUE which buidhe notes above. KJP1 ( talk) 07:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks very much for this @ KJP1. I'll wait some further feedback before making edits. Jim Killock (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Endnotes

Sources for convenience

• Prestwich, Michael (1997) [1988]. Edward I. English Monarchs (Revised Second ed.). Yale University Press. ISBN  978-0-3000-7209-9. OL  704063M.
• Davies, John (2007) [1990]. A History of Wales (Revised ed.). Penguin Books. ISBN  9780140284751. OL  7352278M.
• Davies, R. R. (2000) [1987]. The Age of Conquest: Wales, 1063–1415. Oxford University Press. ISBN  0-1982-0878-2.
• Morris, Marc (2009). A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain. London: Windmill Books. ISBN  978-0-0994-8175-1.

Not yet consulted

• Barrow, G. W. S. (1976) [1956]. Feudal Britain (Paperback ed.). Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN  978-0713156256.
• Davies, Norman (1999). The Isles: A History. Oxford: Macmillan. ISBN  978-0333692837. OL  39554M.
• Davies, R. R. (1998). The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles 1093-1343. Ford Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University press. ISBN  978-0198208495..
• Frame, Robin (1998). Ireland and Britain 1170 to 1450. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN  9781852851491. OL  697345M.
• Frame, Robin (1995). The Political Development of the British Isles 1100–1400. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198206040.001.0001. ISBN  9780198206040.
• Lydon, James (2008). "The years of Crisis, 1254-1315". In Cosgrove, Art (ed.). A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 179–204. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199539703.003.0008. ISBN  9780199539703. OL  9793047M.

not consulted in this round

• Davies, R.R. (1984). R. A. Griffiths; I. G. Jones; K. O. Morgan (eds.). Welsh Society and Nationhood. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. ISBN  0-7083-0890-2.
• Brears, Peter (2010). "Food Supply and Preparation at the Edwardian Castles". In Williams, Diane; Kenyon, John (eds.). The Impact of Edwardian Castles in Wales. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 85–98. ISBN  978-1-8421-7380-0.
• Hamilton, J.S. (2010). The Plantagenets: History of a Dynasty. Continuum. ISBN  978-1-4411-5712-6. OL  28013041M.

Citations

Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail

Notified: Gyrobo, WikiProject Cycling, WikiProject Trains, WikiProject Hiking trails, WikiProject Hudson Valley, 2023-11-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has not been updated with post-2012 information. No response when I posted on the talk page, and the article has not been edited since 2021. Z1720 ( talk) 01:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• I find the pre-trail history to be quite lacking. We have all of 2 sentences for a rail line that operated for 111 years. The primary topic here is the trail, but it would not be a comprehensive article in my opinion without at least a little history of the corridor before it became a trail. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 01:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm not involved with the article at all prior to this, and only saw the review when it came up on WP Hudson Valley, and I concur with Trainsandotherthings. While I did just do a quick search and found coverage that can be used to update the article past 2012, since the repairs were done following a grant and planned work (as of 2023) is going to connect it to various other trails on the Hudson River through property related to the Wallkill prison, it really needs pre-trail history to be comprehensive. Recon rabbit 01:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  For the history of the trail before it was a trail, I'm not sure what exactly we're looking for here. I feel like anything more than a cursory view of the railroad would be more appropriate for Wallkill Valley Railroad, since this article is supposed to be a comprehensive and complete look at the trail and not the railroad.

  There is information in the article about the prisons that predated the trail, if we're talking about stuff that exists outside of the railroad. It's been a while since I wrote the article but I remember pouring through all the remaining local newspapers that still existed from that era in the Haviland Heidgerd Historical Collection as well as Listen to the Whistle to get what I could about the pre-trail era.

  If the goal of a featured article is to be as comprehensive as possible with extant sources then yeah there's a little that can be added about the last few years but I'm not sure any additional sources exist for the pre-trail history around this specific part of the railroad. Gyrobo ( talk) 15:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Wanted to post again to set expectations and give an update, I'm planning to spend some time updating the article over the weekend with more recent references. Gyrobo ( talk) 21:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Providence and Worcester Railroad gives a paragraph to the preceding Blackstone Canal, for instance. The former rail line is intrinsically linked with the rail trail as they both occupied the same right of way, so I would expect more than 2 sentences of background to meet the featured article criteria, specifically 1b which says comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context (emphasis added). Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  That makes sense. I've added some more about the railroad that I think might give the appropriate context for the rest of the article, and broke up the history section into subsections to make things a little more understandable. I'll take a pass through it tomorrow to finesse the content a little better, and I want to see if there are enough sources to buttress the more recent history a bit. But I think it's looking a lot better. Gyrobo ( talk) 02:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Hey I was wondering how long this article review period can last? I've been trying to make improvements to this article but am pretty swamped with work and life, am hoping to take another pass through this weekend and see if there are any more recent references I can include. I think the biggest issues around historical context should be resolved though, I added a more full section on that, and a few more things on the prisons. Just wanted to give an update for transparency. Gyrobo ( talk) 01:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• The review period can be continued for a while as long as work is ongoing; let us know when you think everything's been addressed / more feedback is needed. Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Awesome, thanks. I will update here when I believe all feedback has been addressed. Gyrobo ( talk) 00:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I've looked at your improvements so far and you're doing a good job. I expect to support retaining this article once you're all done. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 17:25, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Awesome, thanks. Will update here when I feel like everything's been addressed, but if anyone had any feedback now I'd be happy to look into it. Gyrobo ( talk) 14:08, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Emmy Noether

Notified: Scartol, WillowW, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women scientists, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Women in Green, 2023-08-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous citation concerns, including an orange banner at the top of the "Contributions to mathematics and physics" section and an uncited "List of doctoral students" section. There's also a lot of great prose describing math concepts, but much of this does not describe how Noether contributed to these concepts and I don't think much of it is necessary for the reader to understand how Noether contributed to the ideas. I think this would need a math specialist to help improve the article. Z1720 ( talk) 20:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I added a source for the entire doctoral students section. Also, far be it from me to ignite another "anti-intellectualism" GAR/FAR firestorm, but the line "I don't think much of it is necessary for the reader to understand" rubs me the wrong way. Yes, to understand Noether's accomplishments it is necessary to understand the mathematics and physics concepts she worked with. That said, I agree that the contributions section could be better sourced; we used to allow unsourced background material that we would expect any student of the subject to have some familiarity with, but those days are gone. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

To expand upon my comment about what the reader needs to understand: after reading the article when making the nomination, I found that some sections did a great job explaining the math, but struggled to connect it to Noether. For example, in the "Background on abstract algebra" section, Noether is not mentioned until paragraph 4. I would expect Noether's contributions to be more prominent and mentioned first, then the mathematical principles explained by connecting it to Noether's contributions. I think the "First epoch (1908–1919): Physics", all the second epoch, and all the third epoch sections do this well; I think the other sections need to feature Noether more prominently, which might involve removing some information, and will probably involve moving around some information. Z1720 ( talk) 22:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

We get an issue with accessibility or focus whichever way you slice it: either there's maths explanations with nothing to do with Noether, or the descriptions are only accessible to those familiar with elementary algebra. If you don't understand what a group is, it's impossible to understand Noether's contributions to maths. I don't think you can reverse the order of it.

The subject matter is necessarily extremely technical. What might not be obvious to layreaders is that (e.g.) the group representations paragraph is child's play compared to the statement of Noether's problem. This is the dumbing down as far as possible without distorting the facts. I can wax lyrical about group representations but Galois theory makes my head hurt. By focusing on big picture ("it's all about symmetries", "like prime numbers") and toy examples (the discriminant, polynomial splitting fields), but also giving the full statements of what Noether studied, I think the article does quite well. I feel it's best left as is unless someone is jumping to make it a big project of theirs.

My comments at Talk:Emmy Noether#WP:URFA/2020 were to indicate that I do not think there are major citation issues—it's more a style issue, as convention has changed since 2008. I do feel this article would benefit from a mathematician giving it a full copyedit, with an algebra textbook to hand for some inline citations. — Bilorv ( talk) 22:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Bilorv said more or less what I was going to. The ordering in the " Background on abstract algebra" passage makes sense because, well, it's background. It has to cover concepts that were introduced a half-century before Noether was even born. That's just how math works: it's a cumulative subject, and we can't always take a thin slice out of it and hope for a meaningful result.

Much of the uncited material can probably be found in any textbook on the area (e.g., the definition of a ring or a group representation is standard stuff). I did what I could with the books that I had near my desk, but I am too tired to do more and need a very very long break. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't believe the "List of doctoral students" section is necessary in the first place. "All" (i.e. those with wikilinks) the notable students are in the infobox and a table list of their dissertations and defenses seem somewhat superfluous. Sgubaldo ( talk) 02:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm going to remove the section. Feel free to revert or add it back if you disagree. Sgubaldo ( talk) 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I also realised there were two separate "Recognition" sections, which I merged together. Sgubaldo ( talk) 02:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I strongly disagree with this removal. Everything in the infobox should be a summary of main-article text. The infobox should not supplant the article. See MOS:INFOBOX: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. If you include the list of doctoral students only in the infobox, then readers looking for a non-superficial summary will not find that information. Or, to put it another way, if it is so important to the article that it needs to be summarized in the infobox, so that even low-attention-span readers skimming the infobox find it, then it is also so important to the article that it should be covered properly in the article. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I know the infobox shouldn't supplant the article. My reasoning was that the infobox could have the names of all her notable doctoral students while the article went into more detail (which it does, in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section; I recognise it's in need of some more sentences about her doctoral students specifically). I still don't believe a list of their dissertations and defense dates is of benefit to the average reader, but I'll leave it. Sgubaldo ( talk) 20:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not wedded to the specific table format. A more prose-like format such as a bulleted list might be better. The titles of the dissertations are less important than their overall topics and what happened afterward to each student. And the placement of the list of students in the article would make more sense in the section you mention than as an appendix at the end. But if one is looking for a complete list of her students (or, what the infobox lists, her bluelinked students) one won't find anything resembling that in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section in its current state. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree. After the citation issues are resolved, perhaps the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section can be expanded to include more information about her doctoral students, but I don't think it should make or break the article's Featured status. Sgubaldo ( talk) 16:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with David Eppstein that the doctoral students should be mentioned in the body. An exhaustive list makes sense to me, with dissertation topic (e.g. p-adic numbers) and anything the student was later known for. It would also make sense to incorporate them into the chronological account of her life, but the issue might be that she had so many notable students that it could overwhelm the rest of the section's focus. — Bilorv ( talk) 21:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree with ensuring they are mentioned in the body. My reasoning was that dissertation titles and defense dates are not that important. Sgubaldo ( talk) 13:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the dates are worth keeping. The titles, if we have topics instead, can go. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

For now, I've added an initial mention of the two Erlangen students in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section. They don't seem too notable though and could probably be moved up to the "Teaching period" one instead. Unfortunately, I don't think I'd be of much help with the citation issues. Sgubaldo ( talk) 01:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment Work seems to have slowed down, but several sourcing problems remain. Are editors still working on this? Z1720 ( talk) 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I won't have the time to properly sit down and crack on with this until towards the end of March. After that, I'm happy to continue working on the doctoral students part. As I said above, the citation issues in the "Contributions to mathematics and physics" section may require someone with more expertise than me in the area. Besides, beyond those two issues, I think the article is worthy of FA status, and I made some structural changes that made the article (in my view) neater. Sgubaldo ( talk) 15:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Improvements have definately been made (thanks everyone!) but I still have citation concerns, as there are some paragraphs which do not have any inline citations. Would it be helpful if I tagged the areas that I felt needed citations for others to address? Z1720 ( talk) 16:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

That would be helpful. Sgubaldo ( talk) 16:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Note a seems to use inline references, which should be converted to inline citations (footnotes). Z1720 ( talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Working my way through as many of those as I can. Will update when I stall out. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 22:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Oh, now we're forbidden even footnotes from having parenthetical citations within them? So we need a separate footnote inside the footnote to be the reference? No. Just no. This blind fanaticism serves no encyclopedic purpose. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I misindented my comment. I've been working through the cn tags. Haven't looked into the note. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

My reply was aimed more at Z1720 than you. Going through cn tags and finding citations for them is a very useful thing to be doing. Putting nested footnotes into footnotes because of an aversion to mixing footnote text with footnote citations, less useful. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Firefangledfeathers? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:33, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The inline reference issue in Note a has been fixed. Two cn tags remain, and the section on her second epoch might need some citations too. The rest of the article seems good. Beyond that, I had the idea of making her doctoral students part of the prose rather than an explicit table at the bottom of the article, but that shouldn't make or break FA-status. Sgubaldo ( talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Agree with Sgubaldo. Haven't given up on the last few cns. Just been busy. I'll either fix them soon or throw in the towel. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 12:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I found something in Page 99 of Emmy Noether: The Mother of Modern Algebra by Margaret B. W. Tent for the phrase 'Her family paid for her room and board and supported her academic work' as mentioned on the talk page, but i'm a little skeptical of using it as a source since it's mostly aimed at teenagers and the author takes some literary creativity and makes up conversations between historical figures. No luck on the other cn tag yet. Sgubaldo ( talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I removed the "Her family paid" line. XOR'easter ( talk) 21:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Shapinsay

Notified: Lurker (last edit was 2008), Ben MacDui, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject Scottish Islands, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Islands, 2023-11-01

I am nominating this featured article for review because of uncited passages and the article has not been updated with much post-2008 information. Z1720 ( talk) 16:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Move to FARC It needs a lot of work to bring it up to current FA standard. The economy section alone does not really explain much about the island's economy and is mostly focused on transport. That is ok given its an island but then there is little explanation of the transport infrastructure eg ferry terminal and no detail about the ships Iona, Klydon and Clytus which must have had a major impact for the economy and socially for the island over the last century. Coldupnorth ( talk) 10:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads-up. Not easy to know what else can be said about the economy - https://www.orkney.com/explore/shapinsay for example has little or no new detail. Omand (2003) has a few more historical snippets I think but I don't see anything new on Google books. I can have a look for some info about the ferry terminal etc. There's an interesting article here about electric ferries for example. However, I wouldn't expect a great deal of noteworthy information to have been accumulated since 2008. I have not been there since before that time but the last time I looked across the sound from Kirkwall it still seemed to be essentially the farming community of 300 folk it was then. Not sure about the 'uncited passages'. It's a while since I spent any time on the article but (unless you think every sentence needs one so that a single para might have several duplicate refs) I don't see any big problems. Any specifics gratefully received. As a jocular aside I find it amusing that the island has been inhabited for 4,000 years or more but an FA about it from 15 years ago is described as "very old". We all have our different perspectives I suppose. Ben Mac Dui 12:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Ben MacDui happy to see you on board! If you can add those bits you mention above, I'll have another look (as I was the author of the original concerns). Let me know when you think it's ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Good to hear from you Sandy. I hope to take a look this coming weekend. Ben Mac Dui 18:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I have added a bit about the Klydon and Clytus which had rather undistinguished origins. There does not appear to be a ferry terminal as such as the image suggests. I'll have another stab as soon as I can manage. Ben Mac Dui 16:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Good additions. I added a bit on agriculture too as an update. I think the economy and now transport sections are much improved already. Coldupnorth ( talk) 23:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

SandyGeorgia et al. I have made some references more detailed, tweaked the lead and added a short section that covers some of the downsides of the Balfour improvements. (I might add a short note to this as well.) I can't seen any egregious examples of missing citations. Please let me know what you think. Ben Mac Dui 11:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Ben MacDui: While waiting for Sandy to respond, I'll note some things below:

• The demography section needs an update with 2021 data.
  • The census in Scotland was undertaken in 2022. To the best of my knowledge there is no data yet for the islands – I beleive this is likely to appear in 2024. (The updates for all islands is a substantial task.)
• The history section has nothing post-1980. Are there any notable events from the past 40+ years?
  • I met someone once who was from Shapinsay and had been appointed to a short-life government advisory board. Not sure this is super notable. I wonder when history ends and the modern economy begins. To me at least 1990 isn’t yet ‘history’. There is a bit of breaking news here I can add.
• I see references in the lede, which is sometimes a sign that information has been added to the lede that is not in the article body. Is this information in the article body? If so, these references are not needed.
  • MOS:CITELEAD seems to be a bit wishy-washy about this sort of thing. I'll take a look.
• Many references are not of the highest quality, with many primary sources and tourism sites used. Can these sources be replaced?
  • It is a recurring feature of encyclopedic work in relation to Scottish islands (and, I imagine, rural areas elsewhere in the world) that these resources are often called into question – but that none other are available. Undiscovered Scotland for example is often grumbled about – yet it is an excellent source of information and I have never found it to be inaccurate.
• Many sources have incomplete information, such as author, name of the website that is publishing this information, and archival information. Can each of the sources be looked at and information added?
  • Perhaps we are more ADHD now than we were. I will have a look.
• Has a search been done of academic sources that could be added to the article, particularly ones published after this article was promoted?
  • How often do get published about modern Shapinsay? I am no longer as assiduous as I once was in seeking academic-style books or articles out but my guess is that Omand (2003) was the last one. In short I am not aware of better sources.

I hope this helps. Z1720 ( talk) 00:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• • Thanks Ben Mac Dui 10:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Z1720: I have now:
    • Added the minor bit of breaking news referred to above.
    • Removed the citations from the lead.
    • Done a first pass at tidying them up. There is a dead link but no sign of a wayback archive being available. Ref #80 has a funny little ‘note’ that could arguably be removed or moved to the notes section.
  • I also note that:
    • There are a certain number of newer academic publications about local prehistory, history and some detailed work on local seabirds and seaweed but nothing at all that I can see about the modern political economy or anything in the former categories that (at first sight) suggests they have importance for this article.
    • It is a feature of Shapinsay that although many the larger Orcadian isles – and some of the smaller ones such as Papa Westray - have archaeological sites of world importance Shapinsay has a relative paucity of them. I can’t see anything new on Canmore or JSTOR that needs to be added. Ben Mac Dui 11:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Recent news is typically harder to find academic sources for. Therefore, it might be better to look at local sources for information to add to the History section. I would suggest at least a sentence on the island's votes on the Scottish independence referendum and Brexit. Z1720 ( talk) 16:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Orkney voted 63.2% 'Remain' and 67.2% 'No' but this data is not broken down by individual island. I am pretty sure this doesn't happen even for local authority elections, Shapinsay being part of the North Isles ward. See also Constitutional status of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Ben Mac Dui 13:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I was doing some tidying up and came across Irvine's Blaeu's Maps of the Northern Isles. I'd rather forgotten about it - I purchased it a few years after the Shapinsay FAC and used it on a few other articles. There are some snippets about the 17th century I can add. Not much perhaps but "happy is the land that has no history". Ben Mac Dui 12:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I am not aware of any further issues needing attention. Please indicate any I may have missed. Ben Mac Dui 17:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The article is much improved. I would now rate it as Keep as FA. Coldupnorth ( talk) 15:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Is there anything more that can be added about the flora - the two reserves? Is the island all grassland and meadows? Are there any trees? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Orkney has very few stands of trees other than at Happy Valley on the Mianland and Shapinsay is pretty much all grass. I will however have a hunt for some more info soonest. Ben Mac Dui 17:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Casliber There is a decent picture here. If you scroll down you can see a woman with a red jacket walking through the landscape described as “a patchwork of lush grazing interspersed with fields of barley”. The summer wildflowers are a sight but there is nothing particularly special about Shapinsay from that point of view, at least afaik. The list of flower species is borrowed from the main Orkney article. The nature reserves seem to be shy about the details of the flora. I added some bumblebee info too. Ben Mac Dui 10:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Ben MacDui: are you still working on this article? The last edit was in January. I think there's still some information that can be added in the "History" and the Demography section can be updated with the latest census figures. Z1720 ( talk) 22:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Z1720: I'd be happy to continue working on this but (1) per the above the new census data has not yet appeared and (2) if you can make a suggestion or two about what aspects of the history are worth adding I can look into that. Ben Mac Dui 17:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Ben MacDui: I am not too familiar with this topic, so I am not sure what to specifically suggest. However, there must be some post-1980 events that have happened at this location. Is there anything significant in terms of natural disasters, political events, the completion or discontinue of major infrastructure projects, and political events might be information that you could add to the article. Z1720 ( talk) 14:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Z1720: There are numerous references to 21st century events under the economy, transport, education and culture headings. I'll have another look but bear in mind that this is an island with a population of 300 (roughly equivalent to Camden East), many of whom are farmers. I doubt there are too many political events of note to record. Ben Mac Dui 14:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I had a trawl through the BBC website again. We have

• a grounded yacht in 2018
• some stranded fish in 2023
• a false alert in 2010
• a rescued turtle in 2017
• stoat detection in 2021 (none were found)
• someone growing some tea plants in 2022

There was also a story about a jailed rapist who lived on the island – although the crimes were committed elsewhere and I am not keen on an inclusion. Ben Mac Dui 20:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC). reply

• @ Ben MacDui: These stories feel like routine articles and I'm not sure if any of them are notable. Instead, I think some of the events listed in other sections that you mention above should be moved into the history section. Z1720 ( talk) 14:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Z1720: I moved the bit about the seocndary school closing in 95 and the improved commuting generally. I don't think it makes much sense to discuss the history of the ferrys under "history" and then come back to the same topic again later under "transport". Ben Mac Dui 11:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:29, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Nikkimaria Not sure what to say - there have been about 60 edits to the article since it was nominated. I have run out of ideas to add anything further and I am not aware of anything that's been requested that has not been addressed one way or another. Ben Mac Dui 14:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Battle of Red Cliffs

Notified: Underbar dk, Lingzhi.Random, talk page notice 2023-01-19

I am nominating this featured article for review because there has been no improvement since issues were raised in March 2022 ( Talk:Battle_of_Red_Cliffs#FA_sweeps). Issues include: cn issues, questionable sources, and unsourced images. a455bcd9 (Antoine) ( talk) 15:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

A455bcd9 you should also notify the four WikiProjects listed on the article talk page. While you are doing that, would you please also notify Lingzhi.Renascence on their talk page? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Notifications should have also included @ Applodion and Gog the Mild:. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Done: User_talk:Lingzhi.Renascence#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chinese_history#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Three_Kingdoms#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR. a455bcd9 (Antoine) ( talk) 16:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This article is missing de Crespigny 2010, Imperial Warlord (Brill), his biography of Cao Cao. I read it in the springtime this year; I'll see what I can do with it. I'll have a look at this article sometime this week, but probably not right after work today. Folly Mox ( talk) 19:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I would also like to actively throw my hat into the ring to help save this FA. I'll start with grabbing this Cao Cao biography. Remsense 聊 00:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

If anyone else wants to peruse the source I mentioned above, a recent English-language treatment by an expert in the field, direct TWL link. I'm currently searching for more sources. The only real bad ones live at the article have to do with pop culture stuff, and the last time I was forced to cite material like that (at Sima Yi) it made me want to cry, like I had called my dentist to make an appointment and ended up filing taxes over the phone instead. Folly Mox ( talk) 18:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Some of the sourcing issues (like maps about the engagement) are not going to be resolveable, since there's no uniform reconstructed narrative. A455bcd9, I've never been to FAR before. Do we discuss sourcing issues here or on the article talk page? Folly Mox ( talk) 20:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I have no idea either... a455bcd9 (Antoine) ( talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Whichever works best, Folly Mox. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Folly Mox longer discussions can be put on the talk page of this FAR page, or on article talk. Just provide a link back to here, and if improvements are occurring and more time is needed, please keep this page informed weekly; otherwise, we proceed to declarations (Move to FARC, Close w/o FARC). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Oops ok I was not aware of the time limit. I guess I'd better get going on this. Folly Mox ( talk) 20:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Folly Mox; no time limit as long as things are progressing in the right direction-- just keep this page informed weekly. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I started in on this yesterday. I've resolved a few of the "easy issues" brought up: improved the sourcing for two claims and removed a third claim that was not adequately supported; I think all but one of the {{ cn}} tags has been resolved, but I've also been adding them as I go. Most of these were of the genre "actually already supported by sources cited in the article, which the tagger didn't check."

The maps are probably sourceable, and may even be accurate for the leading historical reconstruction. I have a question for the reviewers: if I find a suitably RS map that is similar to the unsourced ones in the article, is it ok to cite the article maps as "after Source S"? or just cite the map to an appropriate source even though the graphical style or level of detail varies?

Apart from the obvious issues raised at Talk:Battle of Red Cliffs § FA sweeps, I see more serious problems that are not evident to people without a background in the subject matter. One is that the historical narrative that has grown up around the battle is blandly accepted without balance by opposing critical viewpoints. It even gets a shout out in the infobox, where "Cao Cao fails to conquer lands south of the Yangtze River". This is not wrong, but we don't actually have evidence this was his intent. Another major issue is the impoverished postface. The § Cultural impact section is a measly two paragraphs, which is inadequately representative of the state of the field.

Overreliance on certain sources is present, and I'm probably not going to be able to do better than de Crespigny for the English language ones. He's been the preeminent English language scholar on early mediaeval Chinese history for decades. At the time of promotion fifteen years ago, the article leaned heavily on freely available internet sources, some of which have since been paywalled and I'm not readily able to verify. The source I mentioned in my initial comment on this page was published post-promotion. I've begun incorporating information from it.

The § Location section closely follows the major English language treatment of the question, the author of which holds a view distinctly outside the mainstream, which he acknowledges. We'll have to make sure that is balanced out at some point.

I haven't started looking at Chinese language sources yet (apart from the early ones I have at home). I haven't scraped zh:赤壁之戰 for its sources, or even read it or the subject's baidu to see what sorts of things we're not mentioning that I haven't thought of.

Surface level issues include citation style irregularities and slightly incomplete full citations. User:Remsense has kindly standardised the shortened footnote templates already, which I threw out of balance in my first several edits. There is also copyediting to do, and almost certainly other things listed at WP:FACR that I'm unfamiliar with.

I'm happy to take point on this effort, but I do work full time, so except for the band between about 1130–1400 UTC, I won't be able to do much on weekdays. Thanks everyone for your patience. Folly Mox ( talk) 12:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Folly Mox, if you are willing/able to see this all the way through, time is always allowed. But you should probably know going in that you and Remsense may be doing the work alone, as no one else has shown up. I'd be fine with using a map to source a map. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah, that characterisation of the workload was pretty anticipated. I'm down. Folly Mox ( talk) 14:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Here is a bibliography of a couple zhwiki sources that appear additive for our purposes from first skim:

---

• Zhang Zuoyao (张作耀) (2000). 曹操传 [A biography of Cao Cao] (in Chinese). Beijing: Renmin chubanshe. ISBN  978-7-010-03216-0.
• Wang Wen-Chin (王文進) (2010). 論「赤壁意象」的形成與流轉－「國事」、「史事」、「心事」、「故事」的四重奏 [The Formation and Transformation of Images of the Battle of Red Cliffs: A Quartet of National, Historical, Mental and Narrative Matters] (PDF). Chengdu University Journal of Chinese Literature (in Chinese) (28): 83–123. doi: 10.29907/JRTR.201004.0003. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-12-06. Retrieved 2019-01-18.

And a couple I happened to find while searching:

• Silbergeld, Jerome (1995). "Back to the Red Cliff: Reflections on the Narrative Mode in Earlyliterati Landscape Painting". Ars Orientalis. 25: 19–38. ISSN  0571-1371.
• Sparvoli, Carlotta (2023). "The Battle of Red Cliffs: From History to Transnational Identity". Transnational East Asian Studies. Liverpool University Press. pp. 45–60. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv30c9f9s.8. ISBN  978-1-80207-729-2.

Remsense 留 18:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I've got some sourced downloaded already, and more set to go once I get back on wifi. I'll copy them over to the § Further reading subheading or the talk page when I get time. ` Folly Mox ( talk) 21:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Folly Mox, do you mind if I sometimes endeavor to do some work you plan on doing in your (always very elucidating) edit summaries? When you mentioned Tian 2018 could be useful, I was excited because that's something I could help with easily, but I don't want to step on your toes. But I also also don't want to leave you with all the particularly difficult work in this article refresh, so let me know if you have any particular preferences with me taking the initiative with things you specifically mention, or if you'd prefer your own particular sequence of editing, as it were. :) Remsense 留 05:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Please by all means, Remsense, do whatever excites you! I'm glad for any help!

I think we should probably do any necessary coordination on the talkpage though, to spare the reviewers the watchlist hits, and just report in periodically as advised. Folly Mox ( talk) 05:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary update 03 December

(I guess this is transcluded somewhere, so lvl 4 subheading here).

Improvements to the article thus far have been slow. We've identified and added some additional sources, and cleared out all the {{ cn}} tags but for the two maps (which Remsense may have to recreate? but if new maps based on sourced information look substantially similar to the existing maps, did we need the new maps? still characteristically confused on this point) – and a {{ cn}} tag that is essentially there because something was stated in prose rather than framed as part of article structure.

I am working on (read: sometimes thinking about) replacing all the sources I'm not able to verify personally, chiefly two offline Chinese news sources, but also two de Crespigny sources. Overreliance on de Crespigny will seem less serious once the "cultural legacy and impact" section is filled in a bit more. I knew de Crespigny was unavoidable for historical treatments of this time period, but I didn't previously understand how he's basically the Amazon of English language Three Kingdoms period history. The monographs are all him, and even the Cambridge History chapters are him too. Will have to look in different disciplines for other authors to include.

Most of my work thus far has not resulted in edits: finding and reading (or rereading) sources. Problems remain with framing, coverage. Remsense has been making a lot of positive technical and copyedits, which of course I'll let them report about.

At this point it's no longer my intent to replace all the statements sourced to Chen and Pei 429 (三國志注) with modern sources, but instead to quarantine them in their own section, alike but unalike to the "Fictionalised account" section about the Romance of the Three Kingdoms variant narrative. Reason being that the earliest sources are already disparate in their accounts, and providing these to the reader should assist encyclopaedic understanding. Folly Mox ( talk) 23:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

My addendum: my work has been decidedly less meaty than Molly's, a large chunk of it being presentation-oriented, copy edits and template work and citation formatting and the like. I'm assembling all the sourcing I think I may need to either secure or redesign the maps into one place. Overall, I think we are doing well.
On the map sourcing question: If the information presented in a map indeed lines up with the written description in a source, I fully believe that this qualifies as verifiability. To me, it is not qualitatively different from adding a source to text, even if that text may not have been originally written according to said source. Remsense 留 23:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Arbitrary update 14 December Hey—I've done a bit more work behind the scenes and working on the graphics, but haven't directly edited the article in the past week. Folly is busy, and my attention has been elsewhere for the most part, in part on the simultaneous FAR over at Byzantine Empire. But now my attention is turning back here, and I'll be sharing some updates and doing some of the cleanup I can still see in the article in the next couple days. Cheers. Remsense 留 16:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Confirming that I am indeed busy and have updates planned but not committed to databases. Organising thoughts is not my forté. Might be my dump stat (I appear to have many). Stupidly, I've acquired 三國志集解, the standard annotated edition. This has not been an efficient use of focus. Folly Mox ( talk) 17:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC) reply

So, @ Folly Mox—this is my present understanding:

• Nothing in the battle map itself requires additional/better sourcing
• The main unsourced/SYNTH bit in the candidate sites map is the special "fourth region", and a replacement would essentially just replace this.

Remsense 留 18:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Remsense, yeah the battle map is definitely sourceable. I feel like I linked de Crespigny 2010 p. 267 somewhere already, which is a partial match, showing Cao Cao's movements (unlike the map presently in the article, it's possible to see that his naval forces came downstream rather than overland; the green arrow is almost entirely hidden by Zhou Yu's advance to Jiangling in the aftermath of the battle).

I'm certain I used to have a book with more maps about this, but that hard drive was lost in the past two years in either a move or a breakup. The other movements on the battle map can be sourced to prose records, either Zhang 2006 or Generals of the South, which reminds me I still haven't converted the multifarious de Crespigny cites to author–title for ease of use.

The "fourth possible region" in the battlefield locator map is probably sourceable to Zhang 2006, given how closely that section follows the arguments in that source, but highlighting modern Jiayu county seems to have been a convenience for the original mapmaker, and I'm not sure "possibly somewhere other than these spots" is adequately supported in the literature to add to the map. We could put "not an exhaustive list of possibilities" or something in the caption.

Meanwhile, on the historical research side of things, it should be obvious that I haven't been active in updating this article during the past couple weeks. Apart from offwiki responsibilities, which have consumed most of my energy, the main blockers have been 1. wanting to do a full rewrite of the article because I'm even worse at organising others' ideas than I am my own, and 2. hesitancy with accepting de Crespigny uncritically whilst being unable to locate any broader consensus or lack of it.

The situation with that is de Crespigny has been at the top of the field of English language Three Kingdoms period history for five? decades, and doesn't really have competitors or even collaborators in a narrow sense (I've seen maybe two or three mentions of his work that engage it thoughtfully, rather than just citing it as authoritative). There's really no one else. While I can read Chinese language sources on the topic, I've been running into a lot of dead ends trying to access sufficiently reliable Chinese sources, which are poorly represented in the TWL corpora.

The problem here is that although de Crespigny has become more cautious with age, some of his earlier work is pretty conclusive about questions that don't seem conclusively answerable based on his sources at the time (although I'm certainly missing some of those). For example, the idea for Sun Quan and Liu Bei to ally is credited originally credited to all three of Lu Meng, Zhou Yu, and Zhuge Liang. Pei Songzhi and de Crespigny each pick one. Cao Cao's ships being burnt is originally credited to Zhou Yu, Liu Bei, and Cao Cao himself. The earliest record we have is actually Cao Cao's claim that he burnt his own navy on the way out so his opponents couldn't make use of it, but scholarship tends to accept the Zhou Yu story because it's also early, and it's there and it's compelling. I haven't seen any sources that really address this question other than by mentioning Cao Cao's claim, but it's ultimately unanswerable due to lack of contemporary sources, in a way that even the Battle of Fei River can be more clearly seen.

Anyway, this has been a me problem. Folly Mox ( talk) 10:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Move to FARC No edits in three weeks and uncited passages remain. Z1720 ( talk) 23:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Z1720, I would happily participate in this process. However, could you confirm my understanding of the article?
    
    • Each map is tagged as unsourced.
    • There is one unsourced paragraph as such, admittedly an important one.
    
    From what I understand, one map doesn't have any actual citation issues, and the other could be easily modified to remove a singular citation issue. The paragraph, I could try my best to solidify or replace. —  Remsense 诉 00:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Remsense: You are correct about the above sections missing citations. There's also two other sentences that need citations, which I have just indicated in the article with "citation needed" tags. Also, "Taiping Chang (2014)" and the two sources in "Dien, Albert E." do not seem to be used as inline citations in the article. Should they be, or should they be removed as references? Z1720 ( talk) 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Z1720 et al.—I apologize for my lack of diligence in this FAR. Folly Mox is busy and I've been either elsewhere or wiped out, so now I will now take it upon myself to do what needs to be done to save this. Thank you very much for the additional tags. I am taking a look as we speak and will do what needs to be done. —  Remsense 诉 00:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• I'll strike my "Move to FARC" above. As long as work is continuing, I think the FAR co-ords will opt to keep this open.. Z1720 ( talk) 00:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Z1720, understanding every paragraph should end in a citation—does the "Wuchang-to-Chibi City" claim require an explicit citation in your mind, or is it WP:CALC? —  Remsense 诉 03:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Remsense: Sorry for the late response. What prose in the article are you referring to? Z1720 ( talk) 17:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Remsense:, I'm a bit late to this, what are we still looking for? Sources beyond Crespigny? Although he is a wonderful scholar. Aza24 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

So, the one clear thing is the map showing the candidate sites. I think everything else is sourced. I have done a bit of looking, but honestly I am not sure that there is other scholarship to include, save maybe for cultural impact. Remsense 诉 00:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Gotcha. Afaik, the Eastern Han is not nearly as popular as the Western in English-language academia. I'm not surprised that Crespigny is dominating the subject here. We could possibly use more from the CHC, but just skimming it now, I don't see much. Unless anyone has access to some Chinese sources, this might be the best it gets.

I'm think Folly is right above that much of the map can be sourced by Zhang 2006. It looks like pages 215–216 cover it (I've just added a citation there). Aza24 (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I believe all of the original complaints have been addressed. The lead could probably use something of a rewrite, it hardly covers the whole article. If only Folly were around right now! @ Remsense, where do you think the article stands? Aza24 (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I agree. I apologize for flaking again on this for a while—I really don't want to have people feeling like they have to track me down for follow-ups; I very much appreciate your diligence and support in getting this to the finish line, Aza. Remsense 诉 08:30, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Remsense, are you planning to take on a lead rewrite? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  I've done a CE sweep, does anyone thing any additional information is require to adequately summarize the article? Remsense 诉 17:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC) reply

7 World Trade Center

Notified: Aude, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Fire Service

I am nominating this featured article for review because, per the discussion at Talk:7 World Trade Center#About splitting the articles into two, there was a consensus to split the page into two articles. This article thus may seem to fail WP:FACR 1e ("its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process"), although I have not checked other aspects of the article. I think the split version of the article should be evaluated against other criteria to determine whether the article is still FA quality.

Noting for the record that I also posted URFA commentary for this article two years ago and tried to resolve some of these issues myself. Although this FA was promoted in 2007, I did not think it was overly deficient, though further input would be appreciated in case I missed something. Epicgenius ( talk) 16:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Discussion about how to handle a Featured article review after an article is split (added: and about the 1e stability criteria) moved to talk page here. The consensus was to proceed with a FAR on this article, and the new article would be processed through FAC when/if ready. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I have no opinion on the quality, but FWIW, I don't think that this fails 1e because I read that criterion as being more focused on edit wars or routine poor quality editing that isn't being addressed. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Correct (that is also covered in the discussion moved to talk, linked above). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

What if we keep it as a featured article? If you want to demote it make it a good article instead. but i recommend keeping it featured. It's a "forgotten" building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:10, November 13, 2023‎ ( talk) 120.28.226.197 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't go from WP:FA class directly to WP:GA class without a separate good article nomination. In any case, as the nominator of this FAR, I'm not recommending demoting the article at this time; I'm merely bringing it up for review. – Epicgenius ( talk) 14:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

IP 120, please have a look at the instructions at the top of the FAR page; there are several discussion phases in the FAR process, and being on this page doesn't mean demotion is the only outcome. Also, in the archives at WT:FAR, you'll see many discussions of the many reasons we don't/can't make delisted FAs into GAs. If you have other questions about that, we can help you out at WT:FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC) reply

My opniion of this article review:

Keep - A "Forgotten" 9/11 building, As a FA it'll make more people have knowledge of this building and structure on and after 9/11. Article may need some minor changes 120.28.224.32 ( talk) 00:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

FA status is not based on the merit or interestingness of the topic, but rather on whether the article meets the FA criteria. Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

What if we give the page some changes? 120.28.224.32 ( talk) 18:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC) reply

As the nominator of this FAR, to clarify, I nominated this article for FAR precisely because I wanted to know what changes need to be made for this article to retain FA status. I certainly want the article to keep its bronze star, but it is an old FA that has also just undergone a major split. This is why I'm asking for feedback. Epicgenius ( talk) 00:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Some thoughts here:

• "H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture (2007). The New York Academy of Sciences (brochure). H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture." - I don't like the idea of using advertising materials to support text about what this company added to the building; we need something secondary to ensure that we are avoiding puffery/undue weight issues
  • Removed, per another comment below. Epicgenius ( talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• I have a similar concern about the use of the Skidmore, Owings & Merrill book to support what Skidmore, Owings & Merrill added to the building; we don't want the article to contain essentially resume material for the designers
  • Hmmm. On the one hand, it is a primary source, but on the other hand this is basically just WP:ABOUTSELF information, rather than critical commentary added to the article. Nonetheless, I've tried to add secondary sources (mostly the NYT) where possible. Epicgenius ( talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• "From September 8 to October 7, 2006, the work of photographer Jonathan Hyman was displayed in "An American Landscape", a free exhibit hosted by the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation at 7 World Trade Center. The photographs captured the response of people in New York City and across the United States after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The exhibit took place on the 45th floor while space remained available for lease" - we can't really state that this actually happened using a source from August 2006 - it only supports that this was planned to happen
  • I haven't fixed this yet because I have not been able to find a reliable source that was published after this exhibit ended. Epicgenius ( talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) I have now fixed this. Epicgenius ( talk) 02:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• "By March 2007, 60 percent of the building had been leased" - ummm... the source for this is from August 2006 and says that the building was 10-percent leased then
  • I removed this and added detail about how the building was 10% leased in Aug 2006. Epicgenius ( talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• "law firm Wilmer Hale" - source for this is about a different law firm named Darby & Darby - our article on WilmerHale does not mention Darby at all; I'm not sure how this supports the content at all
  • I have no idea how that happened, but basically WilmerHale leased some space in 2011, and Darby & Darby (which does not seem to have an article here) leased space in 2006. I've removed Darby & Darby. Epicgenius ( talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• "After AMN AMRO was acquired by the Royal Bank of Scotland," - is this an error for ABN AMRO?
  • Yes; that was my fault. Epicgenius ( talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• " Silverstein Properties also has offices and the Silver Suites executive office suites[30] in 7 World Trade Center, along with office space used by the architectural and engineering firms working on 1 World Trade Center, 150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street.[31" - MOS:CURRENT issues
  • I changed it to "had", since this is no longer fully true. At least, not the second part of the sentence (1 WTC, for example, has been complete for nearly a decade now). Epicgenius ( talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• The whole paragraph beginning with "The space occupied by Mansueto Ventures has been designed to use the maximum amount of natural light and has an open floor plan ..." - is this level of intricate detail about the way a few individual lessees have arranged their space really due weight?
  • Not really. I moved this to the "Architecture" section and trimmed these sentences. Also, I removed the H3 reference - the entire building was designed with energy-efficient features, so there's no need to single out a specific tenant. Epicgenius ( talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

This does need to work to occur, and probably some additional spot-checking. Hog Farm _Talk 03:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Great idea! I have to go to bed. 120.28.224.32 ( talk) 03:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Let's start to fix this page up to keep it as a featured article. 120.28.224.32 ( talk) 06:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the comments HF. I've addressed most of these now. As you can probably tell, most of the article was written a long time ago, so it's highly probable that the article's text-source integrity has degraded along the way. Epicgenius ( talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

This indeed does need work to occur, Hog Farm, and What things also need to be changed? 120.28.224.32 ( talk) 05:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Epicgenius - Do you have access to the NYT articles? I generally don't, so that would hamper a comprehensive spot check from me. Hog Farm _Talk 00:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Hog Farm, yes, I do. I can check the NYT articles and fix any problems that I find. – Epicgenius ( talk) 00:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Late to this but is there any other problems that need to really be fixed? 120.28.224.22 ( talk) 07:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Epicgenius, are there still problems that need to be fixed? 120.28.229.213 ( talk) 15:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

From what I can see, some of the older sources may need spotchecks, and I still need to check the remaining NYT sources (I only checked about five at random and didn't record which ones I looked at). An uninvolved editor should check the prose as well; Hog Farm already conducted one check, but there may be something I missed. – Epicgenius ( talk) 16:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC) reply

What sources may need to be fixed and spotchecked? GabrielPenn4223 ( talk) 18:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

My apologies for the late response. I meant that someone would have to go through all of the sources, select some randomly (like 10-20%), and check to see whether they verify the text in question. – Epicgenius ( talk) 14:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I checked some of the other NYT sources and didn't find many problems (I corrected the issues I did find). I'm waiting for someone else to review the other sources, though. – Epicgenius ( talk) 16:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Haphazard selection of 7 refs to check:

• 3a - checks out to archived version (current version is just a picture of a building?)
• 40 - checks out
• 75 - article has "The building was promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. upon its completion"; the source (a promotional listing) has "The 52-story "green" tower is one of the safest office buildings in the country" which is a less strong claim than what we have in our article
• 2c - checks out
• 25 - article has "Prior to opening, in March 2006, the new building's lobby and facade as a filming location for the movie Perfect Stranger."; the source has "A floor of the Skidmore Owings & Merrill-designed building will be transformed into a futuristic office with flat-screen panel monitors" when discussing the use as a filming location for Perfect Stranger; "A floor" does not necessarily equal "lobby and facade". I will also note that the sentence in question in our article is a sentence fragment
• 59 - checks out
• 8 - article has "Opened in 1987, it was the seventh structure constituting the original World Trade Center building complex" - source supports the 1987 opening but I'm struggling to find where it has this as the seventh structure; the source mentions North Tower, South Tower/Two WTC, 5 WTC, 6 WTC, and 4 WTC, but that's only five before 7 WTC is opened

Hog Farm _Talk 17:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks @ Hog Farm. I have fixed these. I will likely have to take a more extensive look at the sources, since 3/7 refs not fully checking out is indeed problematic.

As for the original 7 WTC being the seventh structure in the original WTC, the first complex contained the Marriott World Trade Center, which was unofficially known as "3 World Trade Center". The buildings weren't completed in order, anyway, as 3 WTC was the sixth building to be completed. – Epicgenius ( talk) 18:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think the article is mostly fine, with the caveat that it's about the building that was completed in 2006 and is thus proportionally short. All that is really needed is for someone else to spot check the other sources. – Epicgenius ( talk) 14:40, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Move to FARC for now; I don't completely trust the source-text integrity yet and I don't have time/source access to resolve this entirely myself. Hog Farm _Talk 15:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Epicgenius: You mentioned above taking a more extensive look at the sources - are you intending to do that? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes, I still plan to do so. It won't be an easy or quick process, however. Epicgenius ( talk) 18:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Byzantine Empire

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notices 2020-11-21 2022-12-10

This 2001 FA which dates to Refreshing Brilliant Prose days was last reviewed at FAR more than 10 years ago, and its most significant contributors are no longer active. The talk page notifications from 2020-11-21 and 2022-12-10 barely scratch the surface; the article is riddled with maintenance tags and there are concerns about image licensing, uncited text, prose, MOS compliance, and a good chunk of the very large article has never been vetted in a review process, as it was added after the last review. I believe the problems here are too deep and wide to be addressed at FAR, and the article should be delisted and re-submitted to FAC if it improves, but maybe someone is up to the task. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I generally agree that FAR is an unlikely solution for this, unless someone seriously commits themselves to this daunting task. This has been one of the big impending FARs for many years... I think the biggest length issues are in the history section, which should be 3/4, maybe even half as long. On the other side, the Literature section seems embarrassingly brief. From my understanding of Byzantine music (I created the List of Byzantine composers article), the emphasis on instruments is hugely undue and much more discussion of composers, genres and music rituals should be instead substituted. Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I am reluctant to commit, given other constraints, but with a day in the library I could seriously improve the bloated history section. We shall see. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with SandyGeorgia. Even if it were thought that a very long article would be needed even to summarize this topic well, this is not in any shape to be considered featured article class. As Sandy points out, there are too many deficiencies for a featured article. It will be a big task to make the needed improvements and, I think, few if any reviewers available to undertake it. Donner60 ( talk) 06:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Agree with all of the above. If there's a collective push to save this article I would chip in but it's way too modern for my usual area and I'm in no position to lead it. Aside from all of the valid criticisms already made, I am surprised to see not a single mention of slaves/slavery in the article. We have Slavery in the Byzantine Empire which seems to suggest that there were major changes to the institution of slavery from how it had been in classical antiquity... Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 10:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Caeciliusinhorto-public it looks like work is progressing; are you in? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the ping SandyGeorgia. Between Christmas and other real-life stuff I probably can't commit to much but I'll watchlist the page and poke my nose in if I have anything useful to contribute. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 14:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Move to FARC, it looks unlikely anyone can or will take this on. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Move to FARC per the above. Z1720 ( talk) 14:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Move to FARC it seems like even basic maintenance tags are unaddressed. Apropos of nothing, I am surprised that this article manages to be even longer than my own African humid period. I caveat though that I see though that Biz is doing a bit of work on the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 10:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I've been taking a break due to life, but before I touch this topic again I want to read Anthony Kaldellis's The new Roman Empire and complete my research on a draft I'm working on. I think there are some easy improvements that could be made. I prefer to collaborate with people and take a section by section approach as I go deep into the sources and more interested in factual accuracy as it supports a narrative than word smithing. Biz ( talk) 20:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I am also reading this book, and I would like to contribute to improving this article the best I can. If I can help you in an adequately directed way, I would be happy to. Remsense 聊 13:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• @ Biz and Remsense: What is your timeline like - are you hoping to work on this within the context of FAR? Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Not sure. I don't have time to commit due to life circumstances, have not finished Kaldellis yet because I'm 4 deep in other books, but throw me a bone... @ Future Perfect at Sunrise @ Furius @ DeCausa what do you think is best to improve the article? Biz ( talk) 07:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Conversely, I do have time, but I am intimidated in the task and would feel most comfortable as the "junior partner" in an article cleanup where I'm possibly doing tasks specifically requested by others with more intuitive expertise, like I am presently doing at the other FAC Battle of Red Cliffs. This is a big topic of my interest, but it's not my specialty.
  If anyone else wants to help and knows exactly what to do, but doesn't have the time to do it—I have that time at present. I hope that's useful. I've been grabbing the sources cited so I have them on hand. Remsense 留 15:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  If you have time, and like to read sources, then I have a project that will prepare us for productive editing. It's the approach I would take and if we set this up right, I'll happily involve myself as well when I find a minute as this is the fun bit for me but also the most time consuming. This can be a parallel process to any editing that occurs. It will align people and can be used to settle Talk disputes. If more people want to involve themselves, it gives a common reference point for editing.

  1. Read all the sources referenced to statements and document with quotes and/or bullet points what they say.

  • Check they actually say what was written
  • Check for patch-writing
  • Use this an opportunity to identify historians who might have written more research that updates our knowledge. Bruno Rochette on language is a good example of that, as he wrote a more recent paper (2018) that, I think, responded to misinterpretations of what he wrote in 2012 (and that Wikipedia used as the basis of its narrative in the Roman Empire article section).
  • Documenting this means you can have other people help with the evaluation

  2. Read the article and sources in Roman Empire and see if there is anything there we can use.

  • There should be synergies between these articles
  • When these articles talk about each other as different empires, we should probably understand why.

  3. Finish reading Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire. See if anything he introduces supports the sources, the narrative or challenges them (the Iconaclasm is an example).

  • If you want to take this article to an even higher level, chase down Treadgold’s 1990s work and see where he and Kaldellis agree or differ in views.
  • In my view, this article should read with what Treadgold and Kaldellis have written in their books as the primary sources as they are the most recent academic historians to write about the topic at length.
  • Specialist historians on sections should be used of course to delve into issues but as we are looking for consensus what Kaldellis and Treadgold have said should be the test for consensus.

  The act of doing this will give us plenty of inspiration to start editing and improving the article on what substantively it needs. As it’s a large topic, I suggest this is done in sections to make this less over-whelming. If there is a way to set this up as a project, other people can contribute. By reading the sources, the edit prioritization will just naturally emerge.

  Further, by doing this, copy editing I think will be more informed and it will allow us to make the article more concise with the content that matters. Biz ( talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I think we all agree that this shouldn't be an FA. It would be good to get a clear summary of why it's not and of what needs to change.

I have a lot of respect for Biz's work and especially for their careful section by section approach, but that does mean that the talk page tends to focus on points of detail and nomenclature.

Thus, we don't currently have a holistic overview of how the article should change. It would be good to have that. If FA review could give us that, it would be worth doing. If there is another, better venue, we should do that. Furius ( talk) 07:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree. That said, I do think Kaldellis’s book — the first new academic narrative since the 1990s — should be a standard for us to measure the current article beyond the maintenance tasks. Despite some issues, it’s remarkable well written. If we have a group of people commit to reading it before editing we will be all on the same page and the article will be all the better because of it.

One suggestion on approach is we understand this is a big project and do drives every so often on sections. It will make this a sustained effort then (and action will breed other action). If a regular group of editors have experience working together, they can just jive off each other’s edits. If people revert and becomes a problem, we take it to talk. What’s key is we set the expectation that we are blowing up a section and ask for people’s collaboration in edits rather than hash it out on talk. Biz ( talk) 05:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I am currently already reading it as I've said above, and I agree with your praise. Also with your methodology, I am fully onboard. Remsense 留 05:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I can work with Kaldellis as a foundation, I also have access to the relevant Cambridge history; I can get going in around a week, if that's acceptable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Word counts by major section

• Lead: 571
• Nomenclature: 307
• History: 10,090
• Government and bureaucracy: 924
• Science and medicine: 528
• Culture: 3536
• Economy: 418
• Legacy: 416

Lead can be done last (and where Talk wastes the most time so let's stay away from it). Nomenclature has undergone a major review recently so no need to focus on that now. The Language section in Culture is 519 words, a good 1/7th of that section and larger than the two sections after it -- the languages section in Roman Empire has undergone a recent deep review by me so we can lean on this to re-evaluate this section. Oh, and history, let's look at that as clearly this needs work:

• Early Byzantine history: 1026
• Justinian dynasty: 1081
• Arab invasions and shrinking borders: 1312
• Macedonian dynasty and resurgence (867–1025): 2170
• Crisis and fragmentation: 491
• Komnenian dynasty and the Crusades: 1694
• Decline and disintegration: 1282
• Fall: 309
• Political aftermath: 725

Was hoping to finish Kaldellis before editing again -- with my travel and other commitments, optimistically it won't be before January -- but hey, throw a dart and we can start. Biz ( talk) 04:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

For some reason, my non-binding pick is Crisis and fragmentation, it may be easiest to identify the article's broader shortcomings with a short cut from the middle. I can also take a closer look at Language.
Oh, also, the presence of File:Bizansist touchup.jpg seems fairly...not for this decade. It needs to be replaced or likely removed, I'll see what I can source. Remsense 留 04:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Ah, the most interesting section! Crisis and fragmentation, or rather that time period, is something Kaldellis will be key for as there is a lot of new research since Treadgold.

It's worth introducing the historian Roderick Beaton (with his very excellent, The Greeks: A Global History) who's book tries to make a case that every generation of Greek-speaking regime collapsed when central government was no longer useful. So in the case of the Byzantine Empire, he said long before 1453 and even 1204 occurred. That is to say, this era of 800-1204 is very sensitive how we edit it. Howard-Johnston, Treadgold and Kaldellis are the leading experts on this 'middle' period so I hope you understand my reluctance to have an opinion on this section until I get further with Kadellis. Biz ( talk) 04:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Let's start at the beginning? (I should note that when this FAR was opened a month ago, I trimmed the original six paragraphs into the current two). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I would also fully support this approach. Remsense 留 14:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Logical. Ready to roll. Biz ( talk) 15:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

With three "Move to FARC' declarations, I'm unclear which way this FAR is headed. If you all are intending to save the star, it will be a very long effort, with work best conducted on talk with bi-weekly updates here, while a discussion of how you intend to tackle the size issue will be helpful. How will the article/work be divided, where will summary style be employed? Alternately, if the thought is that the article will be better served by having it delisted, and re-appearing at FAC once reworked, we need to know that, too, so we can move to FARC. I understand people are still reading the necessary new sources, but over a month in, we've seen very little actual article progress, so direction is needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Per above, it seems like we are going to keep it simple, starting with the history section and go over it chronologically. I've already earmarked several graphics that I plan on replacing or possibly removing. Remsense 留 14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)I'm willing to work on the article within FAR, but not outside it. To be honest, the size issue is at the moment secondary to more immediate problems (OR, CLOP, etc.) History section first, then others, when we're all hopefully soaked through with knowledge. As we should be going section-to-section, and just move the comments on each to talk after it's satisfactorily completed. This will be a long job but I wouldn't expect anything else for such an important article ( Genghis Khan took me 413 days on my lonesome). At the moment, I'm mildly optimistic—we have three competent and active editors, pretty much a blank sheet in front of us, and if it fails then. well, at least we tried? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 14:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I support working within FAR though these frameworks for review is not something I have useful experience in. Will need to defer to someone else's lead on that. In terms of process, I'm amenable to suggestions.

If we exclude the Lead and Nomenclature, there are 9 history subheadings, 7 culture subeadings and 4 other major sections. By announcing periodic drives on a section and putting eyes on it, even with just 1-3 of us, we'll rip through and make Temüjin-like progress. If we want to do this right, and on balance of all the things needed, I'd say this a 20-80 week project (budgeting 1-4 weeks per section).

I'll put my hand up on the slowest part of this process which is validating existing sources, evaluating other sources people suggest or from other articles, and otherwise assessing current scholarship. This will result in addressing article issues like CLOP and OR, and by extension assist with condensing the narrative which will address the big billboard problem of size. Happy to document notes and note down direct quotes as I read sources which may assist in making this work more accessible so other people can leverage it. Biz ( talk) 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Sounds good. Sandy is probably right that we should do all the nitty grity on this FAR's talk, so we don't clog up the main FAR page with all our scribblings. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 19:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Makes sense. So if I understand this right:

• this FAR page (or its talk?) is where we document a FAR review
• this FAR talk is where we put notes evaluating scholarship and/or other notes
• Issues from the above two processes will get posted on the articles Talk page
• We announce updates here every two weeks
• After (or in parallel?) of the FAR, we do section by section drives?

Anything else? Who will perform the FAR? And we officially start sometime-ish this month? Biz ( talk) 20:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I think the idea is that everything happens on this page or its talk, and that the improving of each section is part of the FAR. At the end, some other editors will take a look at the article and see whether they think it meets WP:FACR. Is that right SandyGeorgia? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't understand Biz's question: the FAR is open, the instructions are at the top of WP:FAR, but there is no time pressure. Other editors will evaluate on this page whether the article meets WP:WIAFA, but it is typical for them to wait until after you all are ready for a new look and as long as you keep this page informed and that work is steadily progressing in the right direction. (I am quite concerned that I haven't seen much progress yet, particularly in terms of re-organizing the content towards a trimmer version.) Where you coordinate the work doesn't matter; it can be on the article talk page, or on the talk page of this FAR, but to avoid clogging this page, the nitty gritty need not be conducted here, unless you need broader feedback beyond the day-to-day improvements. This page is for others to eventually declare Close or Move to FARC in the FAR phase, and Keep or Delist if it moves to the FARC phase. Considering there is a very large amount of work to do, my suggestion is that work proceeds on article talk, and that you let this page know bi-weekly how things are going. If progress stalls, editors are likely to suggest Move to FARC to keep the process moving forward. Perhaps an understanding of FAR functioning can be had by reading through Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 (which I I believe is the biggest rewrite at FAR to date). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the pointers.

I've started the review with some structure on how we approach it in this article's talk page. Open to feedback to do this differently (in the Talk page, of course). Biz ( talk) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Discussion of approaches may also take place on the article's talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm continuing the rewrite, aided by the others here; @ Z1720 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: as the two remaining !votes, is there anything in particular you want to see addressed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

There is at least one section without a source at the last sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

We'll get to that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 13:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I still see lots of uncited sections. I am happy to cn tag the article if this is requested. Z1720 ( talk) 16:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes please, that would be a great help! Biz ( talk) 16:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I would appreciate feedback on two sections I've been focused on: Transition into an eastern Christian empire and Language. I still want to do more source work (last paragraph of languages needs verification; waiting for a new book on slavery which may improve the narrative) but I thought now is as good a time than ever to ask if I am rewriting this article to the standard that is expected. (I'm finding it a challenge to balance summary prose with comprehensiveness and neutrality...I've never brought an article to FA standard so I apologise for what may seem obvious to others.) Biz ( talk) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Christmas Day update: Biz has been working on the language section, while my grand reduction of the history section has gotten slightly distracted; I will be back there shortly, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 20:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply
• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  • I've completed my read (40+ hours) of Anthony Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire which was my precondition before I start work on this article.
  • I'm currently focused on " society". It's two-thirds done. @ AirshipJungleman29 is taking point on History and it's not an easy task.
    • Languages: need to validate last paragraph sources and final review of copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
    • Transition into an eastern Christian empire: need to validate two sources still and final proof read to make sure I'm happy with the copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
      • when I thought I had finished this, someone added a paragraph on slavery, and as I validated the sources, I ended up reading a book Slaveries of the First Millennium by Youval Rotman which helped rewrite it and which is also helping with a lot of other content (like marriage which sits in women right now)
    • I've asked for feedback on the above because I'm not confident in my ability to meet FA standard, and before I embark on the rest of the article.
    • I'm currently reviewing the "women" section and have more literature to read as it's a topic I have no expertise in
      • I'm drafting a new section on socioeconomic and legal rights, that will incorporate sources from the women section I'm reading and that will reduce that section but also make the content stronger I hope (ie, combined with other sources, broader perspective).
      • I'm still evaluating if there needs to be something on "gender" (as part of women or separate) which is something that is coming up in modern scholarship. Can only resolve this by reading a book by Leora Neville
  • Due to life commitments, I expect to be slow moving until February 5th.

  Biz ( talk) 20:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  History rewrite is ongoing...slooowwwwly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • sloooooow progress. should be able to crack on next week, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 05:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Update: I hope to make some progress this weekend. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 12:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Life got in the way for me that I needed to depriortitise this. But I'm still committed. My current focus is on the government and military. Working on how to find a balance of what I can do with more consistent contributions so I don't disappear again. Biz ( talk) 22:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Wikitrivia comment: This is undisputedly the longest-lived FA on the English Wikipedia, going as far back as mid-November 2001 (or rather, August 2001 per Wayback)—a total of ±22½ years. Given its tenure and current longstanding rescue mission, it'll already be too soon if the star gets taken down. (Having typed this out, I now feel really old.) Details and backstory at WP:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-07-21/Dispatches. -- Slgrandson ( How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 05:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply
  • According to Wikipedia:BrilliantProse, 26 May 2001, 08:00:45 Slgrandson. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Minneapolis

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-01-28

I am the nominator of the 2007 Minneapolis FAC and have been working to bring it to current FA standards since at least 2020 through several talk page archives, with SandyGeorgia looking in. I believe it is at today's FA standard, and ready for review at FAR. Thank you. - SusanLesch ( talk) 21:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I never did finish my pre-FAR review on article talk; will try to get back to that by leaving comments here this weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 00:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I haven't forgotten about this; I've just been much busier than expected this week. Hog Farm _Talk 18:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I need to give the new Turnpike album a second listen anyways, so might as well start going through this tonight. Saving the lead for last ...

• I know that newer style of interactive map has its benefits, but is there any way to also show the reader at a glance where Minneapolis is located in the country, rather than making them get into the interactive map, fiddle with the zoom system which is kinda balky on mobile, and then try to figure out that information?

Yes. I guess WikiProject Maps added the interactive maps recently. I placed an old style pushpin map under theirs. Is this OK?

• "The US Army Corps of Engineers built a concrete dike that held in 1876" - needs rephrased somehow. Current phrasing implies that there was some sort of particulalry important holding that happened in 1876

Restored an old version with more details, thank you. It took the Corps of Engineers 6 years or more to stop the Eastman Tunnel leak.

• So do the sources indicate why exactly the milling and logging declined? From what I can tell the milling seems to have taken over about the time the logging went down, but it's not obvious from a quick skim of sources if the milling directly supplanted the lumber, or if the local forests had been extirpated, or something else altogether

Excellent point. I added a sentence in two places, demarcating the demise of lumbering and flour milling. Does it make better sense now?

• "With the Fuji-Ya restaurant leading the way on the west bank," - is this a particularly important detail to note? I had noticed when I was doing my informal review on the talk page several months again that the article had a tendency to make unnecessary name drops

Not absolutely necessary and has been removed.

• Susan, I'd like to hear your and Sandy's thoughts on this, but I have some tone concerns here. Stuff like "formidable Institute of Technology", "in the end, to the nation and the globe", and others.

My shorthand, and no problem to omit.

• The Institute of Technology was indispensible, which the source suggests, but was perhaps overrepresented (say, in comparison to other institutions) by the word "formidable" (we had that discussion before about " fabulous" which I removed).
• Again a shorthand way of saying "nationally and internationally", opting for shorter words. Omitted.

• " and supplied about half the electrical needs of the US military during World War II" - the sources actually says "during World War II the firm produced nearly half of all the electric plants used by the American military during the conflict". There is an important distinction between "electrical needs" which implies all electricity usage, and then producing half of all generators, which doesn't really equate to half of electricity usage

Good catch, Hog Farm. Reworded that sentence to reflect the sources, and say more precisely, "and supplied about half the generator sets the US military used during World War II."

Stopping here for now. Hog Farm _Talk 03:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't think either of those examples of tone are necessary, and they should be omitted unless the source specifically supports them, in which case they should be quoted and attributed. Thanks for reviewing, HF; it's been several months since I last took a deep dive. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Hog Farm. I was looking forward to your comments and they didn't disappoint. Everything done as indicated inline above, with one exception. Looking for an alternate way to say "nation and the globe." - SusanLesch ( talk) 23:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Done. I'm embarrassed to say the phrase is a too-close paraphrase of William Lass. Much better to omit it. - SusanLesch ( talk) 00:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Question. I found a few more adjectives (extraordinary, extraordinary, diverse). Are you all recommending they be omitted?

• "The truck drivers union executed strikes with extraordinary "military precision"". I read Walker's book and it was astonishing but may be better unsaid.
• Ditto for the post-Floyd, "The local insurgency resulted in extraordinary levels of property damage in Minneapolis".
• Ditto for "the park board owns the city's canopy of trees,[389] and nearly all land that borders the city's diverse waterfronts."

- SusanLesch ( talk) 22:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

On those three: my thoughts would be to attribute use to attribute the "military precision" quote to the author and then leave off the extraordinary if the source doesn't use that language, the damage would be best to attribute to the author, and I'd recommend ommitting "diverse" in the waterfronts example. Hog Farm _Talk 23:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Done. Thank you, Hog Farm. Hope I'm learning to identify some of the "tone" problems you point out. - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Another. In the lead, "—the only natural waterfall on the entire length of the Mississippi River." Maybe shorten to, "the only natural waterfall on the Mississippi River"? - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I think that one is fine, unless you really want to trim down the article word count. I haven't forgotten about this review; I just haven't had time - June through August/September is just probably going to be a hectic time for me at work most years now. Hog Farm _Talk 04:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Oh, good, we'll keep it. No worries, I'll hold on until you are free again. Best wishes, SusanLesch ( talk) 15:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Resuming - I'm skipping the structural racism section for now as that is probably going to be the trickiest section to write and review and I'm simply too tired for that now.

So you know, that section is fairly tightly written and has been through WP:RSN.

"Sources disagree on the exact location and elevation of the city's highest point, which is cited as being between 965 and 985 feet (294 and 300 m) above sea level" - is Soper's 1915 figure really relevant anymore? The city has grown so much in the last 108 years that it's not surprising at all that more recent sources give a higher peak as the city expands

There's no reason to doubt Soper, the academic. Soper's estimate was 2 feet less ("965 feet, or thereabouts") than John Carman gave in 1975. And his location, identified by placenames that still exist, is loosely the same as contemporary sources. However, you have a good point. We can simplify the article by removing one old journal paper. So now we begin the disagreement in 1975 instead of 1915.

"Shaffer, Scott (February 7, 2018). "Low-density Zoning Threatens Neighborhood Character". Streets.mn. Retrieved March 13, 2023." - community blog, I don't know that this meets the high-quality RS bar for featured articles

Streets.mn was checked out at WP:RSN. So were several other sources, archived here. Everything passed (except one that had no comment) for noncontroversial use here. We only use it to define the term "non-conforming".

Would it be worthwhile to provide a sentence or two about the history of neighborhood development in Minneapolis? Right now the section is heavily weighted towards the zonining issue and a brief overview of neighborhood development would provide balance

For now, I resurrected the Neighborhood Revitalization Program that ran from 1991 to 2011, for which I have a book source. Brought this up to date with a combination of sources.

Done. - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Will continue, hopefully soon. Hog Farm _Talk 16:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• "The least-snowiest winter was 1890–91, when 11.1 inches (28 cm) fell" - cited source is [1] which doesn't seem to support this at all

Topic is over my pay grade. Inquired at WikiProject Weather.

Comment. The National Weather Service can't give me a URL. I submitted a data request to the Midwest regional office but the answer was they don't have a URL. So we're using Minnesota state DNR records which are up to date.

• "who claim no religion[255] but among whom one third nationally tend to think a God exists." - I don't know that it's necessary to define that non-religious people claim no religion

Agreed. Removed that and combined two paras. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• "Minneapolis became the first major American city to allow broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer" - recommend rephrasing. This implies that there is a general ban on the call to prayer itself in its entirety, but the source indicates that Minnesapolis was actually the first to allow all five daily calls (for noise ordinance reasons), rather than the first to allow it at all. It surprises me a bit that this was considered a noise ordinance issue; I lived for awhile in a small town that sounded the danged emergency siren on the hour for every single daylight hour

I found a history (probably not an admissable source) and you are correct. Reworded, and cut the "major city" stuff. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• " it is the only exchange as of 2023 for hard red spring wheat futures and options" - recommend dropping the reference to options as the source is only really calling out that it's the only source for hard red spring wheat futures

The source mentions options on futures, but not specific to Minneapolis. Cut, thank you.

Done. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Ready for arts and culture, apologies this is taking so long. Hog Farm _Talk 00:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• "The center expanded in 2005 with an addition by Herzog & de Meuron.[283]" - I'd cut this sentence; this is more relevant to the Center article than to the overall article on Minneapolis from the more high-level view we need to take with articles on major cities like this. I have similar thoughts to the extensive description of the enlargements to the Mia. The idea is to give a general overview of the topic of Arts in Minneapolis, and I don't know that a blow-by-blow description of building renovations is necessarily part of a general overview of that topic.

Extra architects cut for both the Walker and Mia, thanks.

• "helped make First Avenue and the 7th Street Entry the heart of American popular music" - "the heart of American popular music" is quite a strong statement to be made in Wikipedia's voice, I'd recommend using some form of direct attribution to a source here

Good thinking. Removed the footnote, refocused the statement, and attributed to Pitchfork, a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC.

• I'm unsure of mentioning apparently non-notable concert venues by name. Theoretically any bar with a stage could be considered a concert venue, and we should only really be hitting the highlights here

Removed venues that don't have Wikipedia articles.

• "After refugees explained the old name was a reminder of their most dreadful days, the American Refugee Committee changed its name to Alight. Alight helps millions of refugees in Africa and Asia with water, shelter, and economic support" - this needs significant work. The connection to Minneapolis is not at any point stated, and the discussion about the name change is not relevant to the city of Minneapolis. I'm sure the organization does good work, but this isn't the place to elaborate too much on a single organization.

Agreed, better to reduce the elaboration. Leave the name change to the Alight article.

Done. - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Ready for the historical museums section, also pinging in SandyGeorgia for another opinion on these points. Hog Farm _Talk 01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not in disagreement on any point you've raised so far. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• "Minneapolis hosts the world's only Somali history museum as of 2021" - The Somali government re-opened its national museum in 2020, and our article on the Somali Museum of Minnesota indicates that it's only possible its the only Somali history museum in the world. This seems to be an awfully strong claim to support with only a website seeking to highlight Minnesota tourism opportunities

Yes. Used a better source and trimmed that claim away.

• "In 2016, following the killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, Lynx captains wore black shirts as a protest by Black athletes for social change.[370]" - I'd argue that this belongs more in the article for the Lynx

Took it out.

• "enabled Horace Cleveland to create his finest landscape architecture," - finest should be attributed to the specific author unless you can find a source indicating that this is a consensus view

Rewrote intro. At first attribution stood out like a sore thumb, but now it's better.

• "Ruhe stopped the state from building a highway through Minnehaha Park, a conflict that the park board appealed to and won in the US Supreme Court. During Ruhe's tenure, the board learned to accommodate growing public participation, and it became an environmental steward when faced with Dutch elm disease and improving water quality.." - is this from those pages in Smith?

Yes. It's a summary not a quote.

• "In 2022, 500 participants[386] ages 14 to 24 served as Teen Teamworks recruits for on-the-job training in green careers[387] or as future park employees.[388] " - I don't know that this is actually relevant to include; it's not unusual at all for cities to involve teen park workers in things

I was impressed by the numbers during a pandemic, and reluctantly removed.

I'm not going to be dogmatic about having this removed, if you feel strongly it can be re-added. Hog Farm _Talk 01:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you. In my latest rewrite, this brings a short historical intro up to the present, so I added it back in.

I'm open to discussing any of these as they could well be controversial; ready for the government section coming up next. Hog Farm _Talk 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Done. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Saving my powder for the Media section, the only place I anticipate pushing back. - SusanLesch ( talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hog Farm have you been through Parks and recreation yet? I don't understand this edit. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I had reviewed that section before that edit and had no objections to the sentence in question; the disputed sentence seems like a reasonable attribution of a subject matter expert to me. Hog Farm _Talk 03:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

That is my impression as well; I don't understand the edit summary about a "non-notable book" when it's a notable author, and relevant information. I suggest the content be reinstated; the content is not UNDUE and there are plenty of sources speaking to status of Parks in Minneapolis. We may be excluding rankings from the article, but we know nonetheless where Minneapolis stands on its system of parks. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Added. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• "Volunteer missionaries,[439] the Pond brothers got permission at Fort Snelling to teach new farming techniques and a new religion to Chief Cloud Man and his community on the east shore of Bde Maka Ska.[254]" - the first question is when this was occurring, and the who gave them permission is unclear as well. Is this from the Dakota, the US Army at Fort Snelling, or the territorial government?

Clarified. Permission was granted by the Indian agent at Fort Snelling (that's the US government). Added citation and year.

• "divided between community and magnet" - is it worth linking magnet school here?

Good idea, done.

• "Some of the magazines published in the city are [...] Artful Living" - we shouldn't be sourcing this to the magazine's own "advertise with us" page

Changed to a third party site. It's only a directory listing but is likely better.

• I also don't know that we should be listing the magazines for which we don't have an independent source noting its existence; I've found that independent RS sourcing is usually a good test as to if mentioning something is due weight or not

Can of worms. I like your idea of RS sourcing but lacking that in general this section has become self-sourced which I know is a red flag for Sandy. I have been through this list for Media now maybe four times and am nearly burned out trying to defend every title. Past discussions were with SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm. I tried asking WikiProject Minnesota to try to track down the now-defunct Minnesota Magazine & Publishing Association (which had 95 members in 2007). Some of these passed WP:RSN where Banks Irk said "There are a lot of these community-based local news organizations that are basically replacing local newspapers." Wikipedia depends so much on these periodicals I cannot bear to cut them. Next to go would be Architecture Minnesota but who are we to choose winners and losers?

• Removed Restaurant Franchise Monitor, The Tower, and in newspapers, Dispatch.

• "about five bus rapid transit (BRT) lines" - cited source lists 6?

Changed to "about six". Considered saying "several" because at least two more are under construction.

• "Racially discriminatory federal housing policies starting in the 1930s "prevented access to mortgages in areas with Jews, African-Americans and other minorities", and "left a lasting effect on the physical characteristics of the city and the financial well-being of its residents."" - extensive quote should be attributed inline

Source identified inline.

Done. - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I've now skimmed through pretty much the whole article except for the lead, although chunks of it only rather light skimming because I am rather worn out. Once this last batch reaches resolution and I've gone through the lead, I would prefer to have a fresh and more energetic set of eyes look over it before I take a fuller pass through the article. Hog Farm _Talk 01:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• "As of the 2020 census the population was 429,954, making it the largest city in Minnesota and the 46th-most-populous in the United States" - this feels like something that should be mentioned in the body

Added to Census and estimates.

• Several of the nicknames/motto provided in the lead are not sourced there or anywhere else and should be sourced

You're right. Everything has a source now.

• "and, to the present day, preserved its financial clout." - ideally we should be sourcing this major claim to something better than a commission apparently run by the city to show how great the city is

Agreed. The citation is only there because of the sockpuppet farm that plays with our lead.

• Because this is covered in Economy, omitted the citation altogether.

• "The city's reputation for high quality of life notwithstanding," - I'm not seeing this general claim made directly in the body; for a statement as strong as this it should be worked into the body of the article and not just the lead

Since rankings were discouraged by RfC in 2021, it is tough to quantify "quality of life". For the metro area and sometimes by city, the state had a good source.

• Added quality of life to Economy.

• File:Log Drivers-by Michael Nowack-1881.jpg - Buidhe can explain this better than me but the licensing isn't as straightforward as it would seem here. The image may be from 1881, but we'd need proof of when it was first published because theoretically it could still be under copyright (the 1928 tag requires publishing by then). See Hirtle chart on Commons; I've had a painting from the 1860s rejected at a FAC or A-class image review before

Answered below to Buidhe.

• File:Lake Calhoun MN.jpg - not sure on this one. The licensing claims that the copyright holder has released it, but the uploader to wikipedia doesn't seem to be the copyright holder and the file page indicates in multiple places that it would be copyright Larry Kanfer photography 2003. The original source link appears to be gone forever, so it may be better simply to replace this with another image of the lake. File:Minneapolis Skyline (234868322).jpg maybe?

OK. Unfortunately Internet Archive only captured the source after that long-standing photo was gone. I am happy to replace it.

• Picked a scenic one because this is the Geography section. Turned out beautiful, Hog Farm, thank you.

Done. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I'll look back later, but this is it from me for now. Hog Farm _Talk 23:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Depending on when the 1881 photograph was published it could still be under copyright.

The Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) claims its website would be done last summer. I called them a few months ago and there is no recourse except to wait for them. ("Access to Collections online is temporarily unavailable for remote and in-person researchers.") We know that Michael Nowack, the photographer, published something in 1881 that MNHS states is public domain. I can't speak for the log drivers.

• Removed until MNHS comes back online.

• Their reply today says "Unfortunately, due to unforeseen technical issues, we do not currently have a date for when Collections Online will be available again." - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Another issue I've noticed in excessively long sections such as "Lumber, waterpower, and flour milling" and single sentence paragraph in the demography section. ( t · c) buidhe 00:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Good point. That single sentence was to differentiate between people from India who appeared in close proximity to American Indian reservations. Turns out that fixing chrono order was what we needed.

• Demographics fixed.

Done. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Could you recheck the what the source said on "In 1871, of the thirteen mills sawing lumber in St. Anthony, eight ran on water power and five ran on steam turbines" I believe that the steam turbine was not invented until 1884 and didn't come into real use until the 1900's. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 16:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Surely. From page 146 of Agnes Larson's The White Pine Industry in Minnesota, A History: In 1871 thirteen mills were cutting lumber at St. Anthony Falls, giving employment to 831 people. Of those thirteen mills, eight were run by water power and five by steam turbine. The author mentions a "first-class" steam powered sawmill owned by Hersey, Staples and Company in Stillwater, Minnesota built in 1854 (page 17). Around there she writes, "Steam was beginning to come into its own." Her source is a book I've never seen: Hotchkiss, History of Lumber and Forest Industry of Northwest, p. 525, that is unfortunately not in the Internet Archive as far as I can see. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

HathiTrust has a copy here. It appears Wikipedia's article on steam turbines needs updating, no? - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC) P.S. I double-checked another book The Falls of Saint Anthony by Lucile Kane. She says on page 108 that Another factor which contributed to the decline of sawmilling at the falls was steam power. As early as the 1850s and 1860s seven steam mills had operated at different times in the falls district. - SusanLesch ( talk) 21:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

My guess is that the author made an error and should have said steam power or steam engines rather than steam turbines. I.E steam engines / steam power was prevalent then, steam turbines were still in future. But if the source said it, that's good enough from a Wikipedia standpoint. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 13:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Changed the article to say "steam power". Thank you.

Done. - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

SG Review

As the article is getting close to Keep territory, it may be helpful to scrutinize the lead more closely. Does it truly summarize the high points? At WP:TFA, would the lead provide the material that would be highlighted in a blurb? Examples I suggest addressing

As of the 2020 census the population was 429,954, making it the largest city in Minnesota and the 46th-most-populous in the United States.

Too much detail for the lead, and not really worthy of being the second line in the lead. I suggest removing the 46-th most bit to the body, and only mentioning in the lead "With a 2020 population of 429,954, it is the largest city in Minnesota."

Extra detail removed. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

The first paragraph is tangled with nine mentions of Minneapolis and Minnesota; I suggest that Dying might find a way to smooth this out.

Hi. The lead was constructed for the most part here and here by a sockpuppet farm. I threw up my hands some time ago but am happy to help if I can. - SusanLesch ( talk) 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Minneapolis has its origins as the 19th century lumber and flour milling capitals of the world, and, to the present day, preserved its financial clout -->

Minneapolis was the 19th-century lumber and flour milling capital of the world and has preserved its financial clout into the 21st century.

Fixed.

waterfall on the entire length of the Mississippi River --> on the Mississippi River

Fixed.

on a section of land north of Fort Snelling.

Fixed.

Its growth is attributed. --> its growth was ? In the 19th century ?? Early growth was ??

Fixed.

metropolis located far from competing neighbors,[15] Minneapolis is the birthplace of General Mills, the Pillsbury brand, and the Target Corporation. ... No relationship between these two clauses

Fixed.

Part done. - SusanLesch ( talk) 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I hope Dying, well-versed in fine-tuning leads towards writing the TFA blurb, will have a look and lend a hand. I think the lead could be much better. First pass only, will continue, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I'll continue my review on talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply

dying

thanks for the ping and praise, SandyGeorgia! SusanLesch, this will admittedly be the first time i contribute to either fac or far, so please let me know if there is anything i am doing incorrectly or if you have any suggestions for improvement.

Greetings, Dying! Excited to work with you.

offhand, three things about this lead jump out at me.

• a decent number of statements appear to have been made as if minneapolis has something to prove. i think, to a neutral reader, this makes the city less impressive than it really is.

Wonderful comment (in line with some of Hog Farm's ideas and SandyGeorgia's work to eradicate false claims). Maybe you can help tone it down.

• the lead seems to be a lot longer than those of comparable articles. because minneapolis is 46th on the list of u.s. cities by population, i also specifically looked at the articles for oakland (45th) and tulsa (47th), and both of them have leads that are roughly 20–30% shorter, even though they have longer article bodies.

Maybe four paragraphs should do it per WP:LEAD. You're right we've gone over. One point, I would try to compare cities that are featured articles ( Wikipedia doesn't have many). Boston, Cleveland, Washington, DC, Ann Arbor, Michigan (although I don't know which ones are recent FAs). Our guidelines at WP:USCITIES has more info.

• considering that minneapolis has recently been highly prominent in world news due to an incident that sparked a worldwide protest movement, it seems strange that this only seems to be referenced obliquely in the lead. (full disclosure: i started a few of the articles related to the protests.) for comparison, the article leads for the cities of wuhan, beirut, and mariupol all not only explicitly mention the unfortunate events that have recently brought them international attention, but also provide links to articles that cover the events in further depth.

I agree with you but sadly lost an RfC on the subject.

would you prefer to address these points before i perform a more in-depth copyedit? dying ( talk) 10:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Hope that's enough to start. Good to meet you, Dying. - SusanLesch ( talk) 13:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I suggest Cleveland is the better example for comparison for the direction of the lead; it's a continuously maintained FA, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using non-FAs for guidance. SusanLesch are you comfortable then with having dying work directly on the lead? I see good room for reduction in the third paragraph and fifth (current city appointments are also recentism). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, indeed. -15:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Grand; dying, one way to make work at FAR easier on other reviewers and the Coords who have to close is to start a sub-section on the talk page of this FAR, as you can see I've done. Then, when you're done, you can summarize back to this page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm working on SandyGeorgia's review on talk in my sandbox. Making progress every day. - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

SandyGeorgia and Dying: Done with SandyGeorgia's review. A couple questions and a note are marked. Dying, you could do our lead now if you can find the time. Sandy said she's busy elsewhere until at least Friday. - SusanLesch ( talk) 23:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Will get on it this weekend. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Apologies. I have to be out tomorrow early and need a day or two to complete an item I had thought was done. - SusanLesch ( talk) 23:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Section done. Dying do you have a plan to go ahead with this lead? - SusanLesch ( talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

sorry for the delay, SusanLesch! unfortunately, another incident on wikipedia took up a good deal of my time recently. i have been working on the lead intermittently, but recently realized that it might be easier to start with the draft of a tfa blurb and then work backwards. i should post something on the talk page within a day or two. dying ( talk) 22:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  apologies! my old machine recently gave up on me, and although i was lucky enough to be able to revive an even older machine, i've been falling behind in everything as a result, and i admittedly have not been able to prioritize this. i still intend to finish revising the lead, if that is okay. dying ( talk) 09:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Oh, my! Interruptions in hardware (and email) are the worst. When your stress level recovers, yes, please have at the lead. - SusanLesch ( talk) 18:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

RE: Climate -- the new growing zone map ( https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/) has the entire city and much of the surrounding suburbs in zone 5a now. Can someone make this change?

Done. Thank you, Sanctacruce21. - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Nikkimaria, my understanding is that Hog Farm and SandyGeorgia's reviews are done (both were lengthy, detailed reviews). Dying had a machine failure so the lead remains about the same, but they were able to write a TFA blurb (on talk). I made a couple more improvements to the article and ran IABot last week. Generally we had no status change since November. A couple questions are outstanding on Sandy's review (on talk). Is anyone available to !vote keep? - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ George Ho, Z1720, and Hog Farm: are you available? Sandy said in October "As the article is getting close to Keep territory...." She and I cleaned up this article over the past couple years. Sorry to ping you. Best wishes, SusanLesch ( talk) 15:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• I'll take a look but have no idea when I can get to it. I just moved last weekend; I'm not sure which box my primary laptop is in and we don't have reliable internet access set up yet. Hog Farm _Talk 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Thank you, Hog Farm. While we're waiting I'll try to update Climate. - SusanLesch ( talk) 20:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• I am working our polls for the presidential primary in the next two weeks and turn into a pumpkin tomorrow until March 7. In the meantime I tried to recruit a weather expert at the WikiProject. (Outdated climate data seems to be a hurdle with lots of old FAs.) - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Susan - apologies for the delay in getting to this; this is at the top of my priority list now. Hog Farm _Talk 14:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• I've started re-reviewing at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Minneapolis/archive1#HF Hog Farm _Talk 00:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• My concerns have been pretty much addressed, but there's an RFC ongoing with this now, so I'll hold off on making a declaration for now, until things stabilize out. Hog Farm _Talk 15:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• The RfC closed. Our perennial critic thanked me twice silently for the follow up so I think we're free to move on. - SusanLesch ( talk) 13:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Update to anyone worried about the climate box, I updated the data so it goes back to 1873, with a note explaining where the weather station is. I also removed some unnecessary parts of the table that aren't accessible in the NOWData source. Thanks SusanLesch ( talk · contribs) for reaching out to the weather WikiProject. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Beautiful, elegant job. Thank you so much, Hurricanehink. - SusanLesch ( talk) 03:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Worked out on Minneapolis talk page. I was mistaken that 2020 climate normals are outdated. Next update will be 2030. - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Dying and all, I wrote a new lead for discussion on the Minneapolis talk page. - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Lead is done. My understanding is that's the last step of FAR. - SusanLesch ( talk) 22:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

PNC Park

Notified: Blackngold29, Giants2008, Instaurare, PittsburghKid94, WP Baseball, WP Pennsylvania, WP Pittsburgh, WP Architecture, WP Event Venues, noticed 2023-12-17

Review section

As described in my talk page notice from December 2023, this 2008 FA promotion has not been maintained as well as it should have been - outdated material is present and there have been accretions of uncited material in the years since. Hog Farm _Talk 20:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Move to FARC no engagement, no edits to address concerns. Z1720 ( talk) 18:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm _Talk 23:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Pokémon Channel

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

Nominating the article for review as the article has a few conspicuous issues that this process may assist with:

• Firstly, in terms of research, the article features overuse of quote citations from the game to evidence plot and gameplay mechanics. Secondary coverage should be preferred, other than WP:PLOT which tends to be viewed as self-evidently sourced from the work itself. This approach is arguably WP:EXCESSIVE - over half the article's citations are for quotes as trivial as 'The End' just to evidence that the game ends! Without these, the article is not particularly broadly cited - not that this is any barrier to FA status.

• Secondly, in terms of comprehensiveness, the article has no actual development information that may shine a light on who made the game, how they made it and what they thought of it. The section relies on pre-release promotional articles that are purely early impressions of the game. This leads to unclear statements - that the game is a "spiritual successor" to Hey You Pikachu! and that it was developed for the purpose of promoting the e-reader - are likely the case but this is assumed from how an IGN preview describes it rather than the developer. Investigation into WP:NONENG sources and the potential for Japanese development interviews could significantly improve this section.

• Thirdly, this may be a matter of personal opinion about comprehensiveness, but for a game titled Pokemon Channel with gameplay oriented around the channels, the gameplay section is well-written but does not go into much detail about what each channel is and what it features. I understand the channels are a bit superficial, but a list or more detailed description rather than a sentence that says Other channels include X, Y, and Z may be more helpful for readers to know exactly what content is offered in the game's channels. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Vrxces. Unless I missed something, you have not yet brought these concerns up at Talk:Pokémon Channel. Per the instructions at the top of the page, talk page discussion is the first requisite step in this process. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 13:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

No worries, I'm not familiar with the FAR process. I'll do that. Happy to take this down if the FAR is inappropriate at this time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

No worries on my end either, and I hope you stick around FAR! I know sometimes the coordinators will just put the discussion on hold while talk page discussion occurs, so you should leave this up and let them handle it. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 22:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Appreciate your guidance - I've added this feedback on the talk page. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 00:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hold recommend that this FAR is place on hold while the notice period (step 1 above) is conducted. Z1720 ( talk) 18:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

On hold. Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Step 1 is now complete (with no response) so hold is off. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ, could you please notify relevant editors and WikiProjects? Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The relevant WikiProject has been notified; I will also reach out to key editors when I can. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ ( talk) 05:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Move to FARC no edits to address concerns. Z1720 ( talk) 18:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Unification of Germany

Notified: list, Jan 2024

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of Z1720's notice a few months ago. ( t · c) buidhe 17:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Noting that Auntieruth55 expressed interest in working on this on the article's talk page. Hog Farm _Talk 13:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Move to FARC no improvement after being at FAR for a month, uncited text remains. Z1720 ( talk) 19:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  What's the problem here? I don't see any cn templates to address. -- asilvering ( talk) 04:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  No tags but there are unsourced paragraphs, citation consistency problems, and some other presentation issues—eg the block quote in External expectations of a unified Germany" should probably be paraphrased or removed. ( t · c) buidhe 04:31, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Borobudur

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice noticed 2023-11-01

Review section

The FAC nominator for this 2007 promotion has been gone since 2008, and the article has not been maintained to FA standards. Concern listed on 2023-11-01 include uncited text; inconsistent citation style; Wikipedia articles listed as sources; further reading and external links need pruning or to be worked in to the article; and incomplete citations. Much of the content is cited to dated sources and the article may be outdated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The article seems in decent shape to me. Where are "Wikipedia articles listed as citations"? The dates of the cited sources seems broadly ok to me; there isn't a vast amount published in English, given the importance of the monument. We don't have many editors in this area, so I wouldn't hold your breath for "a top-to-bottom rewrite". Johnbod ( talk) 19:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The Wikipedia source was removed after my talk notice, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

If anyone is available to start working through the uncited text, MOS:SANDWICHing, inconsistent citation style, inflation adjustments needed on dollar amounts and other such, then the prose issues can be tackled. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The Internet Archive has two of the (six) source books, so I can start. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Just a progress report and preliminary assessment. It might be arrogant for me to attempt this topic without knowledge of it, but we seem to be making progress.

(Not done yet!)

• failing verification. Maybe written by editor with subject knowledge.

• for example, Raffles, who wrote an 1817 English text, is cited for saying something he did not write.

• missing page numbers. Citations to whole books.
• removed Gallery (wasn't there at FA promotion). Borobudur is a tourist attraction and people will stop by just to add their pics.
• inflation is done (didn't repeat "equivalent to" over and over in one section. Cyprus is unsupported.)
• MOS:SANDWICHs fixed.

Question. Is there any problem with me changing the citation style? This article used a list of refs (sometimes dereferenced with random strings like "4IUze"). I am slowly converting to sfns. - SusanLesch ( talk) 15:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I think the change to sfns is an improvement. JimRenge ( talk) 20:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you, JimRenge. Today I am double checking sources I rejected. Found one alternate spelling so far. Most of the books are in the Internet Archive but money can't buy a copy of Imagine Buddha in Prambanan by Roy E. Jordaan. That one can be taken on faith based on a Google snippet and a HathiTrust page number. - SusanLesch ( talk) 03:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Question. I have to pull away for maybe a couple months for (my) priority FARs. We've made headway, and moved perhaps half of the list refs to sfns, and to a new section for Works cited. Any obvious mistakes in those refs are fixed. JimRenge is doing good work here; I agree with his edit summaries. Can he or someone else step in for a while?

Not ideal timing for me to move away. The HarvRef errors script reveals many unresolved mistakes. User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js - SusanLesch ( talk) 14:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

SusanLesch, I can continue the work on refs for a while. I intend to move refs to sfn, supplement page numbers, check text-source integrity and try to source uncited text. JimRenge ( talk) 14:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you so much, JimRenge. - SusanLesch ( talk) 00:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 06:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• I still think this will make it but am an election worker until March 7. - SusanLesch ( talk) 19:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Any update now that we've passed that? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, yes, Nikkimaria. I cleaned up recent changes but made no headway. We lost JimRenge for now.

Unless Gunkarta can do it, I am afraid this article must to move to FARC. - SusanLesch ( talk) 16:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Move to FARC per SusanLesch above. Hog Farm _Talk 13:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delist - some of the sourcing issues are still outstanding. Hog Farm _Talk 14:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Delist Some sourcing work happened on April 1, but sections are still uncited and the yellow banner is still present. Z1720 ( talk) 18:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

William Wilberforce

Notified: [2], May 2022

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns I raised a year ago about the sourcing and comprehensiveness, which have yet to be addressed. ( t · c) buidhe 05:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Working. §  Lingzhi ( talk) 05:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Here is the link to Buidhe's comments. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 06:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with Buidhe there is an over reliance on one text and this does mean that perhaps all the relevant literature has not been explored. Bayne, Belmonte, Carey, Furneux, Hennell, Pura, Reed, Rodriquez, Vaughan texts appear in the sources list but have not been cited within the article. Article does appear salvageable with some work. MaxnaCarta ( talk) 06:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• I completely revamped the referencing system. Not saying it's perfect; just saying it is now much, much, much easier to work with. Replacing all the Hague stuff becomes easier (but still not easy), forex. More later. Hoping others will pitch in too. §  Lingzhi ( talk) 09:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Here's my plan: First I have to finish a Talk:Logic/GA1. After that, I'm gonna turn to Wilberforce (unless someone comments on my poor, unloved FAC). For Wilberforce, I'm gonna use my sandbox extensively. Others will be free to use it too, if anyone so desires. There I'll make a bullet-point list of all the Hague 2007 cited text such as "which at the time was headed by a young, dynamic headmaster, Joseph Milner, who was to become a lifelong friend.[11]" When I find it in a better source, I'll strike through that item in my sandbox and change the cite in article text... FAR is supposed to take 2 weeks? It is very possible I will not finish before then. Cheers. §  Lingzhi ( talk) 02:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC) reply
    • It can take as long as needed if work is still ongoing and doesn't stall for an inordinate amount of time. Hog Farm _Talk 13:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Oopsie, there are 95 (see User:Lingzhi.Renascence/sandbox). That's a task.... §  Lingzhi ( talk) 16:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC) reply

( ←) A cold-hearted and selfish thought has occurred to me: if User:Slp1 declines to help, then I should just let it be delisted. Then I can fix everything at my leisure (it's gonna take time!) and renominate. So that's what I'll do. §  Lingzhi ( talk) 01:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• very brief email sent. §  Lingzhi ( talk| check refs) 02:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  Great. By the way, a less "cold-hearted" possibility is to rework the article at FAR, where you will get ample attention without having to wait months for FAC reviewers to weigh in (see WP:FASA). There is no time pressure at FAR, as long as the article is proceeding in the right direction; see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lung cancer/archive1 as an example. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I suppose I can keep chipping away at it, but it won't be my highest priority. I have other things and that I want to work on. §  Lingzhi ( talk| check refs) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the direct email. I do not have email notifications enabled. I have had and continue to have a lot going on in real life at present, but I will try to answer the various points here tomorrow. Slp1 ( talk) 00:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I'll start by admitting that I have a jaundiced view of the FAR process based on an unpleasant past experience. It does not seem to be a collaborative process and that is a pity. In this case, it seems that I am supposed to fix up the problems that others identify, and if I do not respond, or "decline to help", the article will be delisted. Isn't this an encyclopedia anybody can edit? Why not do it yourself? However, since Lingzhi.Renascence has kindly shown some interest in helping, and indeed has already started work on the references (thank you!), I will try to put this behind me and engage.

The initial post states that there's too much sourcing from "the 2007 biography by politician William Hague." This is a biographical article and to get the detailed information required for this, the best sources are biographies. WP requires the use of reliable published sources: we looked at all the biographies published and the Hague article was the most detailed. It is published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and received generally positive reviews [3] [4]; [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. It has been widely cited according to google scholar [10]. Several of the others were Christian hagiographies that were thoroughly unsuitable (e.g. Belmonte, Metaxas). Tompkins was another option but is shorter and less detailed. Pollock was very old. The Hague book was used mainly to cite the life story of Wilberforce, the facts of which are hardly controversial/open to bias, even if yes, it was written by a former politician (who had incidentally also written another well-reviewed book about William Pitt). But many other books were used, including the highly contrasting Hochschild whenever possible- although his book is not a biography so does not cover major parts of Wilberforce's life.

There have been no biographies published since 2007. I guess it would be possible to change some of the citations to Tompkins, but I don't see the point unless someone can point out some examples of inaccuracies/POV in the facts cited from Hague. Many FA biographies cite mainly from one biography.

The original post links to some possible sources that "don't get enough attention":

• [11]-Teaching History for a Moral Purpose: Wilberforce as Evangelical Hero. That this happened is mentioned in the article already. The author is talking to a particular audience (Christian (evangelical) history teachers), pointing out that Abolition wasn't just thanks to Wilberforce etc, that he was not perfect etc, all of which is reflected in the article. The chapter has only been cited once since it was written but I guess we could be the second and use it to expand the article a bit about how Wilberforce continues to be portrayed by a certain segment of the world.
• [12] Freedom Burning Anti-Slavery and Empire in Victorian Britain. Wilberforce died before the Victorian era, and he is only mentioned once, very briefly in the book.
• [13] The Grand Object of my Parliamentary Existence’: William Wilberforce and the British Abolition Campaigns, 1783-1833 . A PhD dissertation. I haven't read it all but based on the abstract and a quick glance it is probably useful as another source for some of the detail of the parliamentary campaigns if somebody wants to switch in references for some reason. For what it is worth, it is has never been cited elsewhere according to googlescholar.
• [14] This is a very good find and WW's involvement in the capital punishment issue is something completely missing from the article. I will look into including this.
• [15] William Wilberforce and ‘the Saints’ in "Making and remaking saints in nineteenth-century Britain". I haven't been able to see the full text, but from the abstract it seems to be more about the creation of a new form of evangelical biography and of a new concept of "a practical saint", using the sons' bio of William Wilberforce as an example. From what I can see perhaps a brief mention is required here... likely more useful in the bios of his sons who actually wrote the books.

The original post also mentions "the legacy section needs expansion for Wilberforce's use in anti-abortion and other modern-day conservative/evangelical causes." This is really interesting and would be be great to include if there are sources. None of the sources given above mention abortion, and when I did a search in various scholarly search engines/databases, the only non-primary source I could come up with was this [16] which is rather old (2002) and perhaps not the the best source re editorial control. Maybe I am missing other reliable sources (I hope I am, to be honest) but if not I would worry about undue weight/original research issues with only this one secondary source.

That's all I have time for now. Slp1 ( talk) 22:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• I agree that worrying about whether an article is drawn too much from one source is a little (or a little more than a little) bit ticky-tacky, if that source is valid. Valid is as valid does, and if the facts can be verified, then what's the issue? [This is an evolved position for me: many years ago I would have been strongly on the other side of the fence here. I am mellowing just a tiny bit with age.] I personally do not agree with raising this FAR/FARC. But User:Buidhe did raise one valid point: Conservatives drew metaphorical connections between Wilberforce/slavery and the abortion issue. I personally did not know this. I do agree that at least one paragraph needs to be added about this. §  Lingzhi ( talk| check refs) 22:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments. I would love to add a section about Wilberforce/abortion, but as I mentioned, I could only find 1 semi-reliable secondary source about it. When I have time I will look again, but would welcome other eyes. -- Slp1 ( talk) 23:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• My main concern about sourcing has to do with WP:HQRS and the FA criteria. When I first looked at the article it did not seem to me that this source should qualify as HQRS according to the FA criteria. If it can be demonstrated to do so, as seems to be the case based on what Slp1 has written above, I am not so concerned. ( t · c) buidhe 23:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  Two questions, then: 1) Is the source valid or not? 2) If it is, is that enough to close this FAR, assuming that Slp1 and/or I promise to write a paragraph about abortion? §  Lingzhi ( talk| check refs) 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  There is no need or reason to close the FAR before changes are addressed; doing that assures a stamp of approval and provides a diff to that version in article history. It doesn't seem there is much remaining to do, and there is no resistance at FAR to keeping the page open if the intent is to make the (few) improvements that are indicated here. Closing a FAR is the equivalent of passing FAC, so any issues should be all sewn up before that is done. The idea that being at FAR is some sort of badge of shame is just not the case; it's a place where delisting only happens if improvements aren't being addressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  I also concur that sometimes we are forced to limited biographies; this certainly happened with both Kirk and Smith at J. K. Rowling, as she has not authorized a biography. It does seem that some things have been identified that could be addressed, so I hope both (lingzhi and Slp1) will engage to address those. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Buidhe: Is the source RS, or not? @ Slp1: You wanna write a paragraph about Wilberforce and abortion, or shall I, or us together? §  Lingzhi ( talk| check refs) 10:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The first step, per NPOV, is to find out if there are enough reliable secondary sources to write anything about it at all. One, very old, not-very-good source is not enough, unfortunately. I will look for more sources (perhaps newspapers?) this evening -though to be honest, I don't like the approach of searching for sources to justify the inclusion of something. It is the wrong way go research for an encyclopedia article. I will report my results on the talkpage of the article Slp1 ( talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Slp1, can you remember to summarize conclusions back to this page (with a permalink to article talk for archival purposes) when the time approaches for others to enter declarations? Else, the process here is for others to wait until you are done working, and to give you time and space ... My main concern is your statement above that "[13] This is a very good find and WW's involvement in the capital punishment issue is something completely missing from the article. I will look into including this.". SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, I will do. I have not forgotten the capital punishment article and will get to it at the weekend probably. Slp1 ( talk) 00:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Slp1, you seem to have this situation in hand. Ping me if you need anything. (I do mean that). I'm unwatching.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingzhi.Renascence ( talk • contribs) 12:22, May 24, 2023 (UTC)

Slp1 is this ready for a new look yet? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Not yet. Life is busy. Trying to finish it off soon. Slp1 ( talk) 20:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Comment: Slp1 made some edits the past few days, so work seems to be starting up again. Z1720 ( talk) 19:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Okay, I think I am pretty much done. Sorry that it has taken so long but I have many things going on in my life at present. A quick report:

In general, it was good to go over the text. Some errors and some unnecessary digressions had been introduced, so a freshen up was needed.

After considerable searching, I did find enough reliable sources about Wilberforce's name being used by conservative Christian groups in N. America, so I added a couple of sentences to the Legacy section. [17]

My memory was failing me when I said that the capital punishment issue was missing from the article. I It was already there, but I have expanded a bit based on the Devereaux article. [18] [19]

The main remaining issue is referencing. I would like to know what the rules are about this. When the article passed FA in 2008 we used Harvard for books (to give page numbers) and citation templates for other sources [20]. I guess the rules have changed since then? Lingzi very kindly changed everything to Harvard but I find this very difficult to work with. You have to add and delete references in two places. It is a buggy. I don't think it is ideal for readers as they have to look in two places to see a reference. It also increases the maintenance issues as people tend to use citation templates when they add material which somebody who knows how Harvard works (ie not me!) then has to convert to the Harvard system. Anyway, I gather people have strong feelings about this, but for what it is worth my preference would be either to have the old mixed system or to convert to the citation templates totally. I will do it, although I will be very sorry about Lingzhi's work going to waste. However, I think it will be easier to keep up to snuff. Please advise Slp1 ( talk) 08:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

The "rules" have not changed; an overall change to sfn was not indicated, a mixed system is still accepted, and you can change it back to what it was, as long as it is consistent. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:06, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I was waiting to see if other had comments on this, but it seems not. Okay, I will start the process of restoring the former mixed system. I continued to be very pressed for time due to family issues, but will make a start on a draft page today or tomorrow. Slp1 ( talk) 13:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Slp1, how's it going? Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I have pretty much done. It is here [21]. I cannot figure out how to make note b have a reference. If anybody can help that would be wonderful. I am also not sure about the names and order of the sections of references so welcome comments and suggestions about that too.. as well as about anything else of course. Slp1 ( talk) 13:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Slp1 Would it help to look at the notes at J. K. Rowling? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Great idea!! Sorry should have thought of something similar myself!! I don't have time now, but maybe later. Slp1 ( talk) 14:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Okay, I have finished my labours, for now at least. It is ready for others to take a look. Slp1 ( talk) 17:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Buidhe? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The article has been cleaned up a ton for which I thank slp1 and other editors who helped. Reading through the changes made since the FAR nomination, it's clear that most of the sources added are improvements. However, I did notice one source—Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce—that I just can't agree is a high quality RS. The author is not a historian, rather an evangelist and theologian, and I cannot find any independent sources attesting to the accuracy of the book. ( t · c) buidhe 02:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree. That source was in the article at the original FA and I agree it is not the best. It was supported in its entirety by Pollock, so was not actually needed. I have replaced it with Tomkins. -- Slp1 ( talk) 13:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

All right, I have no objection to keeping at this point. ( t · c) buidhe 14:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm having a hard time seeing how

• His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation ...

summarizes the content of this section. First, it reads as if conservatism = politically repressive legislation, which doesn't follow. Second, the section reads as if the issues were that a) he opposed unions, and b) he wasn't as active in advancing legislation on national relative to international issues, and c) he had (then) traditionally conservative religious views on women, but offsetting that we have the whole paragraph beginning with "More progressively, ... " which includes multiple issues as well as his philanthropy and seems overlooked in the lead summary. I'm concerned that the lead gives more weight to certain criticisms than to certain beliefs and achievements. Do the sources support the wording more progressively? Those words seem to indicate that those achievements were somehow at odds with his conservatism. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I don't think that your assumptions hold. In this case he supported legislation that was politically and socially repressive of unions, Catholics, and people trying to organize "seditiously". The supporters of the legislation were largely British conservatives. It does not require any assumption about different varieties of conservatism over time and in different countries. That said, if you have an idea of better phrasing you could propose it here. I deleted the phrase "more progressively" as I don't think it's necessary. ( t · c) buidhe 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I am not sure if there is a difference in what 'conservative/conservatism' means in different countries that is causing difficulties, but multiple reliable sources confirm that Wilberforce was (small c) conservative (in the sense that he did not believe in significant changes to society), and that as a result he often supported repressive legislation and did not support progressive reforms. A wide range sources mention this from (big C) Conservatives ( William Hague) to religious historians ( Andrew Walls to the more left wing American journalist/historian Adam Hochschild.

• Hague in the bio: "Such views were pure Wilberforce: for although he spearheaded the abolitionist campaign and led so many other endeavours on the basis of justice, fairness, and concern for the poor or destitute, he was no political radical. He was utterly conservative when it came to the defence of the constitution or the existing political order, seeing revolution or anything approaching it as hostile both to religion and to wise and considered leadership" p.255; "It is largely because of Wilberforce’s attitude towards domestic discontent after the war that he has sometimes been seen as having a narrow and unbending view of British society, confirming the impression made to history by his support for the Combination Act in the 1790s that he was the enemy of many progressive political causes."p.444 "The seeming contradictions of Wilherforce’s life have always made him difficult to unravel and understand: a man of conservative disposition who devoted much of his life to one of the great progressive causes of his time";p 505 . Note in particular how the word conservative and progressive are used by a Conservative.
• Walls 2023 "Although Wilberforce and his colleagues were vigorous campaigners on such issues, they were often conservative on domestic social issues. A Baptist like Carey might welcome the French Revolution, at least in its early stages; Wilberforce trembled at it and supported all the British goverment's repressive legislation in the wake of it. The political reflexes of Wilberforce were invariably conservative. He had no vision of a new society . He thought, indeed, that the British constitution already embodied all the excellencies….. This is no social revolutionary. He acknowledges inequality, even that inequality produces evils, but does not expect to these to change, does not seem to think of them within the sphere or public policy." p 70 pg=PT70&printsec=frontcover
• Hochschild "Within a few years of Bennet Langton’s dinner party, West Indian planters would be burning Wilberforce in effigy; later, it was reported, runaway slaves in the Jamaican backcountry would be praying to Saint Wilberforce. It was a most unlikely fate for a gentle, impractical man who, on almost every other major issue, was profoundly conservative. He was against increasing the tiny number of Britons with the right to vote, fearful of any attempt to mobilize public opinion, and dismayed by members of the lower classes or women who questioned their assigned places in the social order.” p 124 Slp1 ( talk) 00:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Stalled. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delist no recent major edits to address concerns. Z1720 ( talk) 22:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Can you explain what specific concerns have not been addressed? I have worked hard on this article over the years and I don’t see any that I or others haven’t addressed. Slp1 ( talk) 00:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Slp1: Sorry that I didn't respond before. I based my conclusion on the article history, which seemed to show a stalled nomination. Have buidhe's concerns about the overreliance on Hague been addressed? Has a search for more sources been conducted? Z1720 ( talk) 18:38, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  I said above that I don't object to keeping at this point. ( t · c) buidhe 02:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Polio

Notified: DO11.10, Robertpedley, WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Viruses, WikiProject Disability, 2023-12-24

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several unsourced statement, an "update needed" orange banner for the "Research" section added in 2020, and the "History" section seems to stop in the 2000s. There is also an extensive "Further reading" section that should be evaluated for its inclusion as inline citations or removal from the article. Z1720 ( talk) 14:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Move to FARC little or no progress since the nomination. ( t · c) buidhe 20:08, 6 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Move to FARC Minimal edits since its nomination, several concerns have not been addressed. Z1720 ( talk) 14:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delist concerns remain and there is little progress towards improvement. Z1720 ( talk) 21:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Concerto delle donne

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-02-10

Review section

This 2006 FA was nominated by an editor who has made one Wikipedia edit since 2013, and has not edited the article since 2007. The article has no main watchers and has not been maintained to standard. The article was notified last year for original research, over-reliance on single sources, MOS issues, and citations needed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Did some urgent fixes and will park these lists of sources to use here. It seems like Newcomb 1980 is available at a local library. That's for sourcing & completeness; someone more adept that me will need to handle MOS problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Did some expansion. Newcomb 1980 seems to be the most comprehensive source on the group, so I can see why he would be the main source. Stras 2018 seems to be a bit more generally discussing the music scene in Ferrara, rather than a detailed analysis of the concerto delle donne. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Jo-Jo Eumerus, starting to try to catch up ... where does this stand; do you think the article meets comprehensiveness? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I think it passes on comprehensiveness, keeping in mind however that I only considered sources that show up on Google Scholar. There are some bits in the page source that need further thought. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 12:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

The additions look great, thanks Jo-Jo! I recall working on this for a bit but stepping back due to time commitments. Hopefully I can look throughout it more next week... am thinking that the biggest issues right now are source References formatting and the rather poor lead. Aza24 (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Aza24 are you going to be able to look at this, or should we be moving to FARC? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes I think so. Give me till the end of the weekend—if I don't get to it by then we can move it FARC. Aza24 (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Looking at this today – Aza24 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Looked at it a bit today. I still have more cleanup to do, but at the moment these are the issues I see remaining (this list is for my own personal use as well)

• Needs many more reference to Stras
• A few missing citations still (one is marked), about cross dressing, the ballet etc.
• Probably need a collage pic of the Duke and Duchess in the beginning of history
• Emphasis on Luzzaschi and near absence of anyone else may be undue, I'm not sure
• Note b needs to be expanded to include the similar contradiction from Pendle and Grove
• Music section is a bit of a mess; badly organized and laid out. The composers
• Really needs an image of sheet music (which I can engrave and then upload)
• I don't think Yarris is a "high quality source"
• Similar doubts about Kuhn
  • Looked at this further and believe its high quality enough – Aza24 (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• There is a great long-ish quote from Vincenzo Giustiniani (in Burkholder) which could go in quote box for the Influence section
• Lead needs a complete rewrite, including the names of important composers and singers
• Minor clean up matters regarding linking first mentions (& overlinking) and giving translations to Italian terms
• Overall, I think there are two main issues:
  • Rewrite of the music section
  • I think the whole article will have to be recontextualized a little. Too much emphasis on the Ferrera court and practically none in comparison for the equivalent ensembles at Mantua, Florence, etc. Britannica's article is (surprisingly) a good model in this regard Aza24 (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  It seems like the Wikipedia Library is down, so I can't do anything about Stras or the other concerti or the citation tag at the moment. I looked for an image of Duke and Duchess, but apparently there are only separate images. It seems like Monteverdi is more commonly mentioned than Luzzaschi in sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  No worries! I have a PDF of Stras (which I can send?—email me if so) that I'm planning to add from. For the Duke/Duchess I meant a collage (double) image, which I've just added. – Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Can't do anything before tomorrow, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 19:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Began to work a bit with Stras. I am going to warn folks that since musicology is very far from my areas of knowledge/interest, I am perhaps not the person to ask for a proper due weight evaluation. I got as far as p.167 in Stras. I've asked at WP:RX for one source for the crossdressing thing. Does anyone have access to this book? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  I just found a PDF. If you email me I can send it to you. Aza24 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Are you up for rewriting the music section? This is a topic on which I understand essentially nothing. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 17:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Yes I think so. Was looking into what that would consist of earlier – Aza24 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Aza24 where does this stand? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Should hopefully be able to work on it this week. Back from vacation now. I think its definitely trending towards a positive direction Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Aza24? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  Uhhhhhhh, sorry I am getting v distracted. I assure you all this is still on my radar Aza24 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• @ Aza24: ? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply

  At work in my sandbox – Aza24 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  Need the music and lead sections rewritten, seems like. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  Aza24 could we get this one wrapped up soon? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  Going by the notice on their userpage, they won't be able to for a month. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 22:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Does anyone know about anyone else who is familiar with these music topics? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 18:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Not anyone well versed with FAR; Aza24 perhaps we should consider moving on here ? It's six months now ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ SchroCat and Ssilvers: might you suggest an editor who can take this on? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Sorry, no idea. Are there any musicians on WP who have researched different madrigal styles? You could ask at the classical music project. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 19:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  They were notified; only Aza24 came forward. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Tim riley would be a possible, except he's on something of a break at the moment. I'll drop him a line to see if he has either the knowledge or inclination. - SchroCat ( talk) 20:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Thank you so much; there is User:Aza24/sandbox to contemplate. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately not one for Tim. As he puts it, "music started with Bach, and anything earlier doesn't figure". - SchroCat ( talk) 20:33, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  I guess in that case we should wait until Aza24 is more active. If nothing's happening still, we should proceed to FARC. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• @ Aza24: Are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Will have another go in the coming days – Aza24 (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Looks like a rewrite is underway at User:Aza24/sandbox. @ WP:FAR coordinators: I wonder if we can collapse the aforementioned bullet points about who is available, for better readability. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Suggest moving to talk. Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Asked Aza about the sandbox. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Aza24:? Nikkimaria ( talk) 19:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Stalled. Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I've set aside some time next weekend to work on it. Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Almost done with refiguring the music section in my sandbox Aza24 (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  At work again this weekend Aza24 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Music section has been rewritten/reorganized; new paragraph added to the new "background section". At this point, the Roster and duties, as well as influence sections just need some touch ups—though more so on the former section. Aza24 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I've given a go at rewriting the lead. Aza24 (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Nikkimaria @ Jo-Jo Eumerus, I think I've given all I can to this article. The topic interest me, but I find too distracted by other WP commitments.

  I think the article is fine where it stands now, but am happy to hear the input of any others. Aza24 (talk) 06:09, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Is Yarris still a problem? Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 14:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think Yarris is okay. Most of her citations are used in addition to others, so if other reviewers disagree, they could be fairly painlessly removed. Aza24 (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  I don't see any obvious issue, but this is a topic I am not very familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• I decided to reach out to Laurie Stras, an expert on this topic, and she has kindly agreed to give feedback via email about possible improvements/errors. She said she's on vacation at the moment, but has promised to look soon. Looks like this should all be wrapping up soon. Aza24 (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  She pointed out some factual mistakes, which I've now fixed. She also said that although the article is heavily influenced by somewhat older scholarship (Newcomb 1980), it is generally suitable for a general encyclopedia. She expressed some hesitancy over citing Yarris, which I previously found questionable. I'm thinking all of the Yarris refs need to be replaced. Aza24 (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  It seems like many of the claims sourced to Yarris can be found in other sources, going by Google Scholar. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Galaxy

Notified: WikiProject Science, WikiProject Astronomy, Drbogdan, Abductive, SkyFlubbler, XOR'easter 2021-02-22

Review section

Nominating for FAR per [22] and [23]. The article is probably not updated, and most of the sources are from before 2010; feels like there are so a lot of topics out there about the properties of galaxies that arent added or covered at the article yet. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 12:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment I added a notice left by Hog Farm on the talk page in 2021, which was not responded to. Z1720 ( talk) 17:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment I don't know if this will be an easy save, but I suspect it will be a straightforward one. The thing about science is that what's been really established stays established, so sources from 2007–2010 can still be fine. Things do get updated what with new telescopes and all, but I'm more worried about sources being mediocre (e.g., press releases) than I am about their being stale. I did a little tuning-up and will try to find the time to do more. It's the start of the semester, though, so no promises in that regard. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with the source age being less concerning - I left that comment in 2021 but several FARs in this topic area since then have convinced that research moves fairly slowly in this topic matter. Hog Farm _Talk 17:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment This would still be a lot of work to do. I do have a lot of free time and might be able to help, but we still need to explore a lot of topics since the current article still lacks details in key areas (how galaxies evolved, what are their inner workarounds, specific features like arms, bars, haloes, interstellar medium, hierarchy from groups to clusters). I would deduce that if we want to push for newer sources, we can include a separate section for "Current areas of research" or something like that, and would include sources newer than 2010. But established science should not be totally removed from the article; if anything, things should be added way more due to the lack of detail in its current form. SkyFlubbler ( talk) 07:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:05, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delist. An image relating to the difference between observed and predicted rotation curves is tagged as needing references. DrKay ( talk) 15:24, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Image replaced. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Delist unreferenced passages remain. Z1720 ( talk) 21:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Everything explicitly tagged as needing a citation has been addressed now. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ XOR'easter: I have added additional cn tags for uncited text, which will need to be addressed. I have also struck my delist above because work is ongoing in the article. Z1720 ( talk) 16:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  OK. Those all look manageable. I took care of a few by re-using existing references and digging items out of linked articles. I don't think the others will be harder; I'm just ... tired. XOR'easter ( talk) 01:20, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  All sorted now, thanks to Johnjbarton. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: I find the criteria for this FAR are too vague and emotional, with wording such as "probably not" and "feels like". More specific global issues need to be provided that can be formally addressed before resorting to a delist. Praemonitus ( talk) 20:38, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I agree. It is not yet established that the top-level article Galaxy needs to have more detail than it currently does about, e.g., Galaxy formation and evolution, or any other topic where a whole sub-article could exist/already does exist. XOR'easter ( talk) 19:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• There seems to be some work taking place so I think holding off decisive action for the moment is prudent - alot has happened in 10 years, especially with JWST so not sure to what extent old theories have been updated and what new consensus is. If I get a chance will have more of a read. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• I feel like the article will look much better if all the citations are not in the lead just like other FAs. GreenishPickle! ( 🔔) 08:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Would it be useful if I gave this a non-expert review with an eye towards getting this in a state where it can be closed as kept? Hog Farm _Talk 17:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  That sounds like a good idea. XOR'easter ( talk) 18:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm busy tonight and this coming weekend so I can't guarantee when I'll be able to get to this (also have to finish up my own content project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Plum Point Bend) but I'll try to have a review posted within the next week. Hog Farm _Talk 19:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thanks. It might be a good idea to drop a reminder note at the WikiProject Astronomy talk page when you do (I'll try to do that if I'm online then). XOR'easter ( talk) 21:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

Notified: Gary King, Pagrashtak, WP Video games, 2022-12-11

Review section

Featured article that was first promoted back in December 2005 (current status is from 2008). This nearly two decade old featured article lacks citations in several areas, has a cleanup banner from as far back as November 2021 that addresses a lack of citations, some sources noted on the talk page are missing, and the article itself is largely abandoned. I also believe that it might violate the MOS:VG when it comes to the organization of the Reception section, and some images may not be necessary. No large efforts to improve this articles issues have occurred since they were pointed out, and all edits recently have been relatively small. I might not be too familiar with the featured article criteria, but I'm very certain that this article needs improvement and currently does not meet it. Negative MP1 21:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I don't see any of the people you said you notified were actually notified. GamerPro64 14:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

  I thought that the people would be notified automatically? Whatever, mistake on my part, fixing that when I can Negative MP1 15:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm interested in working on this when I can. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Had a busy week last week, still working on this. Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Marking as on my list to check over. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 17:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

The article definitely needs a lot of TLC...

• Gameplay section is pretty haphazard, and does a bad job explaining the gameplay to someone who hasn't already played Ocarina of Time. I'm not sure the gameplay makes sense to split into subsections about the masks and time cycle, but that might be just a cosmetic rather than important organizational quibble.
• The synopsis is much better than it was thanks to edits, but it still repeats itself a lot (the plight of the regions is mentioned in setting and again in the plot) and I think is missing a few details to make sense of it (why does Tatl have no other choice than to help Link?)
• The Development section has some IMO improper use of sources to synthesize conjectures (like Ura Zelda becoming Master Quest) and generally feels pretty slight for such a recognized and important game.
• Reception definitely needs beefing up and a rewrite. Likewise the Legacy needs a cleanup. Sourcing throughout is not up to modern standards (Screenrant refs, unreferenced statements, and the like.) Much closer to a B-class article than FA these days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Move to FARC It seems that work on the article stalled without much progress in about a month. Alex Titanium also seems to have gone inactive for now. While the cleanup tags were addressed and the article looks to be in a better state, specifically in Gameplay, but areas like Reception and Legacy still seem rough. Negative MP1 07:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Move to FARC (which does not preclude further improvements towards saving the star should engagement re-occur). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm _Talk 00:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delist per what I said above to move to FARC. Negative MP1 18:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Oops, I probably shouldn't have posted my last message before going on a monthlong trip to a country with limited (blocked) Wikipedia access. 😅 Well I'm back home now and ready to keep pecking at this... Seems quite surmountable. Axem Titanium ( talk) 19:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Just a quick update on this. I've been researching and gathering sources when I can but I've been running into some computer issues that have been hampering my productivity (i.e. crashing when I open a bunch of tabs). Hope to get it fixed soon and get back to work on this article. Axem Titanium ( talk) 22:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Hay @ Axem Titanium:, how are you going with this? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Computer situation isn't quite sorted but I'm going to get working on this this week just to clear it off my desk. Thanks for your patience! Axem Titanium ( talk) 20:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Fingers crossed you get some time to help out :) Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Alright, it's going to take a bit of time to finish archiving and unifying the formatting for 150+ sources but I'm done with largely all of my content edits. Thank you all for bearing with me all this time. I invite participants in this discussion to reevaluate based on the improvements. @ NegativeMP1, GamerPro64, Casliber, David Fuchs, Nikkimaria, Hog Farm, and SandyGeorgia: Axem Titanium ( talk) 23:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Ok, I've finished formatting and archiving all the sources. Phew! Axem Titanium ( talk) 02:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Some thoughts:

• N-Sider is used in this article as is marked as unreliable at WP:VGRS
• David Fuchs appears to have been questioned the use of Screenrant above
• FAs should be using high-quality reliable sources, which is a stricter bar than basic reliability. What makes the following sources high-quality RS: wccftech (marked as unreliable at VGRS), Zelda Informer (also marked as unreliable at VGRS), Game Kudos (not at VGRS, which appears to be a sign of definite obscurity), WWG (seems to be associated with comicbook.com, which is marked as inconclusive at VGRS), Nintendo Everything (marked as unreliable at VGRS - current citation does not name the publisher), Escapist (VGRS notes that this has had issues with insufficient editorial oversight in the past - while this is outside of the unreliable time range, is this really a superior source for FA purposes?), Noisy Pixel (marked as unreliable at VGRS, again the publisher is not named in the citation)

None of these sources are used heavily, but that's still 9 sources there's some reason to have doubts about them being up to the FA standard. I think more sourcing work is needed here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I have replaced all the unreliable sources. The two Escapist articles are from known reliable game critics ( Yahtzee Croshaw and Marty Sliva, formerly of IGN). They are high quality sources. Axem Titanium ( talk) 09:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• File:Clock town.ogg - licensing is problematic. The "own work" does really work because its a derivative copy of the video game music, which would be under copyright. I've nominated for deletion on Commons.
• "Link in his Goron form. The time limit is displayed at the bottom of the screen." - it's unclear what time limit this is referring to

That's all that stands out to me but I'm not very familiar with video games. Hog Farm _Talk 20:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't even realize it was filed under a CC license. Definitely not appropriate for Commons. I edited the caption for clarity. Axem Titanium ( talk) 21:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I've removed the .ogg file for now per the deletion request; I think we can keep now. Hog Farm _Talk 21:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments and feedback! Axem Titanium ( talk) 22:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Going to take another look this week or weekend. Thanks Axem for all your hard work thus far making improvements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 16:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• David Fuchs, are you still planning on looking at this? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes, thanks for the reminder. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• David Fuchs, any update on this? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• The prose still needs some work; I've started doing some edits. I think the major outstanding issue for me is the gameplay section, which doesn't seem like it's a great introduction to the actual gameplay if you don't know what Ocarina of Time is and can backfill in the information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Geography of Ireland

Notified: Filiocht (last edit 2013), Ww2censor, Moxy, Jacobfrid, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject Europe, 2021-10-10 2022-10-14

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of uncited passages and the need to update the information (like climate data and the "Oil, natural gas, renewables and minerals" section). Z1720 ( talk) 23:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Comment work seems to be ongoing but there's a paragraph in "Islands and peninsulas" that needs citations. Z1720 ( talk) 14:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Datasource missing for File:Ireland physical large.png (also of low quality). a455bcd9 (Antoine) ( talk) 06:48, 13 August 2023 (UTC) reply
• Move to FARC: work seems to have stalled again, with uncited sections remaining. Z1720 ( talk) 01:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• Move to FARC, no engagement since Z's last comment. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'm slowly trying to work on the issues mentioned but need more time to satisfy the delistes. ww2censor ( talk) 23:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria ( talk) 02:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delist, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply
• Hold: Ww2censor is working on it. Z1720 ( talk) 14:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm working on a new section on the renewable energy, that is completely unmentioned except for a title because I see the individual articles too are undersourced and/or somewhat outdated. Oil and gas are a bit more difficult but needs updating and sources which I am also finding with turf.

It seems to me that File:Ireland physical large.png is commons knowledge per many existing maps but not all in one place and not complete without a lot of research. Anyway, perhaps an svg would be better with references to existing maps: advise will be gratefully accepted. If lurkers know of anyone who can assist that would be appreciated. I've already added sources to the "Islands and peninsulas" section which seems the main culprit. ww2censor ( talk) 18:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:17, 25 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Ahead of Ww2censor answering, I will step up to help also, starting with bogs. I have a number of reference texts to hand, and will work during the week ahead (27-30 Nov.). SeoR ( talk) 02:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria: I've already added several sources to the "Islands and peninsulas" section as needed. Under the energy section, I've added some update information on oil and gas, as well as added a new renewables section where wind energy has been inserted and am working on the solar energy. If SeoR works on the bogs and peat I think this will well pass the review again. ww2censor ( talk) 13:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Ww2censor: I see that the article has not been seriously edited since late November and the "Islands and peninsulas" section still has unreferenced passages. Are you still working on this? Z1720 ( talk) 16:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Pending Ww2censor's reply, my update - I was offline most of December due to illness, but made some referencing and corrective edits 26/12, and will continue 27/12. SeoR ( talk) 02:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Z1720: The missing section on renewables was a main concern and has been added though that still needs a bit about hydro power. I hope to do that this week before travelling again. Other then that, I think it is well up to FA standard with little missing or passages needing citations. If not please specify, otherwise I think all concerns have been addressed. SeoR may add some more when he has time and is well enough. ww2censor ( talk) 11:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I've updated Mountains and other parts, and added citations a couple of days back, and I see other hands have been at work too, so I think there are no major referencing issues, at least. SeoR ( talk) 11:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Major citation concerns have been resolved. After reviewing the article, here are some other concerns listed below:

• The lede is quite short, and doesn't include information from major sections of the article like the climate and natural resources. Perhaps these should be added to the lede.

I have sourced text for this from two books, will add today.

 Done

• In the "Rivers and lakes" section, lots of information is given about specific bodies of water, but there isn't much general information about their composition of the geography of Ireland. How much of the island is rivers and lakes?

 Done

Has the location of these bodies of water influenced human settlement, animal or plant composition, or influenced/been influenced by other geographic features (mountains, oceans, land masses, etc.)

To come.

I had added a summary point about the overall (c. 2%, etc.), but will expand on the rivers and lakes, and the point about influence as far as my sources allow.

• Can the second and third paragraphs of "Rivers and lakes" be merged together?

 Done ww2censor ( talk) 22:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• The two images at the top of "Inlets" form a sandwich with the text; per MOS:SANDWICH, this is discouraged and one of the images should be moved or deleted.

 Comment: topographic image hidden for now to avoid sandwich. It could possibly be used as an intro file for a short topographic paragraph at the beginning of the "Physical Geography" section. Actually there are other island topographic type images in the article already so it may not be necessary to re-add this one. ww2censor ( talk) 23:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• The "Islands and peninsulas" just seems to be a list of islands and peninsulas. Any additional information to add to this, like do they cluster in a certain location on the island, how they were formed, or unique features that are different from the other geography of Ireland?

Can definitely add to this, as there is a distinct difference between coasts on this point (smooth east, jagged north and west, mixed south) - just need to match to a book.

• The fourth paragraph in "Climate", describing the mean daily temperatures, should be updated to 2023 numbers.

2022 found.

• The climate data for Belfast is from 2017. Are there more recent numbers?

Yes, will update.

• "The island's total population of nearly 7 million people" This is cited to 2013. Is this still accurate?

 Done The most current stats have be added. ww2censor ( talk) 22:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• "Plans are now in place in both the Republic and Northern Ireland to conserve most of the remaining raised bogs on the island." This is cited to a source from 1998. What is the status of these plans? What are the details of these plans?

There is a major update on this from last week, as the EU takes action over Ireland's slow action, and the government responds with an update; will cite and include.

• Ref 109: Per WP:STATISTA this is not considered a reliable source and should not be used in the article.

Will remove.  Done

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 ( talk) 17:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Great re general citation. Happy to work already today, with Ww2censor - who is recently back from Wikibreak - on the other concerns listed above. In particular re overviews and quick fixes to sandwiching and statista. SeoR ( talk) 19:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Z1720 Will try to work of some of the specific suggestions but I'm away for the whole month of March with no chance to do any wikiwork. I'm leaving "done" & "comment" tags as appropriate after the suggestion posts. ww2censor ( talk) 22:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 14:49, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ww2censor is away, but I'm returning from a trip, so I will answer during Sunday. SeoR ( talk) 02:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sorry for delay, sudden business trip. All points above checked, action still progressing on most, but I already have the books to answer some, and newspaper quotes for others, so will proceed with this this evening. SeoR ( talk) 10:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC) reply

And resuming, after an unexpected few days offshore. A curious challenge has been the lack of good all-island sources on some points, leaving me partly checking sources from the late 1800s and early 1900s (solid enough for some physical points) - the way the UK and Ireland even monitor and account land types has diverged, and it's remarkably hard to get a solid "% of island by land coverage", for example. But it advances. SeoR ( talk) 16:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Edward III of England

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-01-02

Review section

This 2006 Featured article was nominated by an editor who has not edited since 2018 (User:Eixo --> Lampman). It was noticed of several deficiencies in January 2023; not all of those issues have been indicated on talk as having been addressed, and there are other items that should be checked. Prose and sourcing need review, there may be unaddressed items on talk, there is uncited text and clutter at the bottom of the article including collapsed family trees, vague text, extraneous detail and dated sourcing that has not been addressed. Considering the change in standards since 2006, a top-to-bottom review should be undertaken. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for this, Sandy. I've access to the most recent scholarship—we shouldn't need to go back much further than 30 or 40 years, I imagine—so can get involved here. I'd also recommend shortened footnotes for an article this size, which I agree, per the TP, certainly needs trimming. SN54129 15:34, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  If you are planning to rewrite, I would support a citation style change to sfns. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:07, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  Yes, I think a rewrite's probably in order; Gog's list of problems is too severe just to be resolved by tinkering. SN54129 16:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  Are you planning to undertake a rewrite then? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  I think I could; as Gog says below, it would probably be quicker! Or does that cause problems for FAR? SN54129 16:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  Nope, works fine; just keep the page posted on your timing and progress. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Wearing my FAC coordinator hat, if the article were rewritten we would want the new version to go through FAC again. It may be neater to demote it here, rewrite it and then renominate; or was that what you had in mind? Gog the Mild ( talk) 17:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Gog, that's not how the FA process works. Discussion of historical FAC processes copied to FAR talk to be continued there. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

IMO a well-attended FAR can give the same level or better for cleanup as a FAC can (see the recent-ish FARs for climate change and J. K. Rowling, which were able to get levels of attention that would have been difficult at FAC). I personally don't see a reason to automatically send this back to FAC if it can get a high-quality review from multiple editors here, although obviously there are situations that would require a delist and then back at FAC some time down the road if it ever gets worked back up. Hog Farm _Talk 03:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• This is probably the worst FA I have ever looked at in detail. Among the numerous other issues, one which stands out for me is the high proportion of the small number of sources I checked which did not, even remotely, support the text. I ended up not trusting any of them and unsurprised that it never formally passed FAC. Among the many other things needed, if this were to be saved, every cite would need confirming, and given that most are to aging sources I am unsure why anyone would bother. It could be rewritten from scratch in less time. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  Discussion of historical FAC processes copied to FAR talk to be continued there. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ Dudley Miles kindly labeled me as the best person for this job, so I thought I would stop by for a look. Unfortunately I am quite swamped with school this month, so I will not be assisting with this FAR at this time. I actually think it needs to be delisted and completely rewritten. It’s current state is far from comprehensive, considering the subject matter. If it is delisted, I will gladly give it a complete overhaul this summer. That would give us the chance to take it through GA and ACR to make sure the article is appropriate for those who have a more complex understanding of English history. Cheers, Unlimitedlead ( talk) 18:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

  Unlimitedlead, articles can be rewritten during a FAR without being delisted; there is no time limit, along as work is progressing in the right direction. After at least a two-week wait period in FAR, the options here are to enter declarations like "move to FARC", or "hold in FAR, work progressing". If articles are moved to FARC, then whether to delist or keep is based on consensus of reviewers. You can jump in to help in the rewrite at any stage; for most rewrites, it is more typical for work to proceed on the article talk page, with more-or-less bi-weekly updates to this page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, ongoing work can take the form of building a completely new article in a sandbox, correct? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 18:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Correct; J. K. Rowling would be an example of a complete rewrite on talk (there are many, many others). Just keep the page posted on progress, keep work coordinated by letting others know where the work is happening, and when ready for a full independent review relative to WP:WIAFA, then others can be pinged in for a look. There's no time limit, and FAR Coords are patient as long as work is headed in the right direction. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply

More than happy to leave these broader articles open for an extended period to get it right Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Update: Serial Number 54129 has been away from Wikipedia for a few weeks <grumble, grumble>, Unlimitedlead has said they are unable to work on this at this time, and GoldRingChip has dabbled some. I suggest we Hold in FAR for a few weeks in the hopes that SN will return or Unlimited will be able to engage. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I've been watching this FAR page since its creation; I think it would be a shame for this article to lose FA status. I probably will not have the time to do a major rewrite, but if anybody wants to suggest improvements, I may be able to help. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 19:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC) reply

With SN's absence, it may be necessary for someone to take the lead, although I'm hoping SN will jump back in soon. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm making no promises here, as I've got two articles I'd like to improve first. I'll first need to read the article in-depth (I've already read it briefly, but I've not looked at the minutiae of referencing, ALTs, captions, copyediting, etc.). The sourcing, reading this FAR, seems to be the main issue. To- or over- morrow I might be able to read some of the sources to see if they verify the article text or not. Copyediting the text to achieve FA standard I also might be able to take up, although not all of it. Again, nothing is concrete yet. Regards, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 19:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia I've now found the time to look through the sources that I can freely access. Will do so now and then update you in an hour or so. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 15:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Progress is slow. Here's my first batch of reference checking, mostly of Ian Mortimer's book. I will do some of the others today or tomorrow.

Findings (accessed via the Internet Archive):

Ref 2: Simon Schama - verifies the article text

Ref 3: Ian Mortimer, p. 1 - does not verify the article text (page one of The perfect king : the life of Edward III, father of the English nation says nothing of the sort, so perhaps the "p. 1" means the book in its entirety, which I would say probably does verify it); I can't access Ormrod, so I don't know. Assuming good faith, I'd pass the sourced assertion (but the refs could do with a bit of work).

Ref 4: Ian Mortimer, p. 21 - does verify the article text

Ref 12: Ian Mortimer, p. 23 - does verify the article text

Ref 14: Ian Mortimer, p. 39 - does verify the article text

Ref 17: Ian Mortimer, p. 46 - does verify the article text

Ref 18: Ian Mortimer, p. 54 - does verify the article text

Ref 20: Ian Mortimer, p. 67 and p. 81 - do verify the article text

Ref 43: Ian Mortimer, p. 205 - does verify the article text (I would recommend the scope of the ref going from just p. 205 to pp. 203–205 though, as it gives a fuller picture; page 205 alone is slightly out of context.)

Ref 121 (part 1): Ian Mortimer, pp. 400–401 - does verify the article text - (will get around to the second part of the ref soon (assuming, of course, that I can access it.).)

That's that for now. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 16:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Additional comment: this is my first FAR that I've played any sort of a role in, so I'm not sure how we approach this, but I've seen other people declare their support or opposition to an FA proposal. Whilst I have only checked a small sample of the sources as of now, practically all of them do support the text, and I'm hopeful that this represents the rest of them. I think the article itself is well-written enough, and so if I can find that each source backs up each claim, and with some copyediting on each section, I would support this article as an FA. We just need to resolve some issues first. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 17:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Stuck inside due to the current British heatwave, so I'm doing another round of ref-checking instead.

Ref 5: Pierre Chaplais, p. 5 - does not verify the article text (page six does, page five does not. That's a simple fix).

Ref 6: Roy Martin Haines, pp. 36–39 - does verify the article text

Ref 7: Seymour Phillips, p. 9 - does verify the article text

Ref 8: Anthony Tuck, p. 52 - does verify the article text

Ref 13: Anthony Tuck, p. 88 - does verify the article text

Ref 87: Anthony Tuck, p. 133 - does verify the article text

Ref 102: Anthony Tuck, p. 138 - does verify the article text

Ref 124: Encyclopædia Britannica, Antwerp - does verify the article text

Not much, but going through each individual book and reading the relevant material takes a while. I'll need to pick up the pace if I want to complete all 128, though. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 16:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Tim O'Doherty templates like done and not done are not used at FAC and FAR as they cause errors in archives; could you pls remove them above? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Tim O'Doherty: Per discussion above, the article is almost certainly going to be effectively re-written from the bootstraps up; there's no point in checking source-text integrity now when the text itself is liable to immediate change. SN54129 18:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I still don't see why the text needs to be "effectively re-written". As long as the sources are good and everything's accurate and well-written, we should be good, no? Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 18:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC) reply

The discussion on the article talk page that started this FAR is also illuminating—"The worst FA I've ever seen", I think Gog called it, and being restricted to checking the internet sources is, well, restrictive. And proscriptive, for that matter  :) nice idea though, and feedback on the process is always useful. SN54129 18:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I'll try to diagnose all the sources either today or on Tuesday, which should be at least a good starting point. I seem to be alone in thinking the article, with some general fixes, could breeze past any FAR, as I do think it is, in balance, a high-quality article. I admire GtM as an editor, but I think that "the worst FA" is maybe a bit of an exaggeration, and we shouldn't be WP:TNTing this article just yet. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 18:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Sadly, I couldn't get around to it today. I guarantee that I will review at least some of the sources tomorrow. Apologies for my "flakiness". Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 21:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC) reply

No need to apologize; thanks for the effort so far! @ Serial Number 54129: are you still planning to work on this? With @ Unlimitedlead: also opining it fails to meet comprehensive, should we continue to hold in FAR for your (SN) work along with Tim O'Doherty'? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi Sandy, sorry to make you grumble! My hiatus is over, so yes, I was going to work on it this afternoon (UTC) if that suits peeps? SN54129 12:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Awesome! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm happy to work on some further source-checking over the weekend. If I just check one or two refs from each source, that should mean that every ref from that source verifies the text (it's not as if there'll be huge discrepancies between the same source). I can also work on some copyediting; if you'd like me to do that, just ask and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Not sure if I'd be able to do much on expanding the article's comprehensive field of view, so I'll defer to other editors on that front. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 12:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Ling

• Fixing refs format, which is yes kinda poor.... make that "very poor". §  Lingzhi ( talk| check refs) 15:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Missing publisher location
  • Davis, Virginia (2007). William Wykeham. Hambledon Continuum. ISBN 978-1-8472-5172-5.
  • Holmes, George (1975). The Good Parliament. Clarendon Press.
  • Jones, Dan (2013). The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England. Viking. ISBN 978-0-6700-2665-4.
  • Ormrod (2012). Edward III. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3001-1910-7. OL 25170147M.
  • Phillips, S. (2011). Edward II. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3001-7802-9.
  • Prestwich (1983). "Parliament and the Community of the Realm in the Fourteenth Century". In Cosgrove, A.; McGuire (also see below, missing pageneums)
  • Purcell, M. (2017). The Country House Library. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3002-4868-5.
• Missing pagenums for book chapter
  • Prestwich (1983). "Parliament and the Community of the Realm in the Fourteenth Century". In Cosgrove, A.; McGuire
• Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);
  • Berard (2016). "Edward III's Abandoned Order of the Round Table Revisited: Political Arthurianism after Poitiers". Arthurian Literature. 33: 70–109. [But.... are those Arthurian Literature sources journals or books? the template is cite journal... which may be wrong]
  • Myers, A. R., ed. (1953). English Historical Documents: 1327-1485. Vol. IV (1st ed.). London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.
  • Rogers (2002). "England's Greatest General". MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History. 14 (4): 34–45.
  •  §  Lingzhi ( talk| check refs) 02:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

As noted above, and as I suggested to Tim above, since this is undergoing a rewrite, it's jumping the gun to start working on the refs. Cheers, SN54129 11:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Also, publisher locations aren't always needed. Nikkimaria can explain better. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 11:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

OK, Thanks SN & Sandy. Unwatching. §  Lingzhi ( talk| check refs) 17:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC) reply

(And not @Ling) Mind you, I'm getting a bit tired of the fixation with refs on this page. What's all that about? As I've said here, there's no point doing them until the page is "complete" (in so far as it ever will be, of course), and in the meantime, it's a load of WP:COSMETIC busywork. That interferes with the actual important stuff, also re. WP:CITEVAR. Can we knock it on the head until the prose is finished? SN54129 14:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia: SN54129 13:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

GoldRingChip, I suspect that SN would really like to move forward with the article rewrite here, but citation and ref improvements may be impeding that work at this point. Would you mind holding off until SN has had a chance to rework the content as needed? There is no time pressure at FAR, which means there is plenty of time for clean up once content is more settled. Regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ SandyGeorgia and Serial Number 54129: Sorry for getting in the way. I'll hold off as long as you'd like. Hope the FAR process goes smoothly. Cheers. — GoldRingChip 13:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

@ GoldRingChip: thanks for understanding! One thing we tend to do at FAR is to ping in involved editors when ready to move to the next stage. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you GoldRingChip for being so understanding and I should've talked to you first, sorry. I just hate edit conflicts when I've written a thousand words. They... scare me  :) Pledge1: you can do what you want to the refs when I'm done, and Pledge2: that should be in a day or too; I can't go over 9,999 words, or it'll make Buidhe cross  :) Thanks! SN54129 18:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Well, it's my opinion that it isn't the 9999th word that counts but every one. An article that is 9,000 words but could be 8,000 words is equally bad as one that's 10,000 words and could be 9,000. ( t · c) buidhe 00:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Just so. SN54129 14:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Serial Number 54129 what are your thoughts? Is this saveable, are you aiming towards saving the star, or should we be thinking of progressing to FARC? If you are planning to restore the article to featured status, what is your time estimate ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

SandyGeorgia, well—I guess there's aways more I could do! but having by now added either 33% or 48% of the text in the space of around 10 edits, I'm not sure there's much more I really should. It's now comprehensive (previously missing sections on his family, personality, legacy, his mistress—almost everything that historians still talk about except the war!). In the course of doing so, I practically re-sourced the thing, going from 122 references to 257 and from using 53 sources to 114. Got rid of the genealogical charts, although that's catnip for fanboys, so god knows how long that'll stay out. I think it's fair to sat that most of the ta;lk page complaints have been sorted, and possibly a few from the original FAC too (!!!). I could probably tweak a bit more—there's a few 'Further reading' I was going to scan, and I think the sons/daughters needs finishing source-wise. And I can't reasonably copy-edit myself; Gog will tell you you wouldn't want that even if it was sensible! Unfortunately, I'm away next week; will have access to ye olde laptop, but might be too hit-and-miss for much beyond minor edits. TLDR, I'd say it was 95% done, and the only important thing was that Gog a collaborative colleague skim through with a copyedit. Oh, also quite I'm capable of doing the literally three things that need to be done to tidy the refs, but I suppose the Lords of Citation Banditry will have to be let loose at some time. What we all think? (Thanks for the ping BTW! I hadn't actually forgotten about Eddie3, but I admit getting distracted by a project as yet invisible to all...) SN54129 19:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Having been so thoroughly volunteered i shall get around to this, but it will have to wait a while. I am away for most of next week and when back I suspect that the FAC queue will be both large and pressing. Gog the Mild ( talk) 20:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

While having a quick skim of what I am letting myself in for I made the mistake of reading two paragraphs on the military side of Edward's reign. A horrible farrago of OR, unsourced statements, statements which flatly contradict the source they purport to be based on, comments so vague as to be meaningless and language so technical as to be all but impenetrable. And that just in two short paragraphs and based on sourcing where I know what it says without actually pulling the book off the shelf. Serial Number 54129, could you do something, anything, with the tosh in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences of "Sluys" while I am away, else I shall be tempted to back off and re-recommend that the whole thing be blown up. Thanks. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Blast! I assumed that the military stuff was the little that could be relied on safely as I believe that some of our Hundred Years War stuff is already of decent quality ;) but I'm also away next week (not with Gog!) so after that, yeah, I'll carry on—but we'll need this time. And i didn't mean to press gang you into copyeditig my stuff Gog but you've got form when it comes to making silk purses out of my pig's ears :) SN54129 21:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

A likely tale! Yes you did. Leave it, it is probably best for me to gut and rewrite it all in one go. I was just kicking against the pricks. Given that I have already taken 29 military articles from Edward's reign through FAC - I have just counted, I was a little taken aback - I may be able to cover a goodly part by cut and pasting from stuff I know to at least accurately reflect the source. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

So I will hold off on having a look until you all say it's time. Please give a weekly update if you remember. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

PS, if both/either of you think at this stage it would be easier or faster to rewrite off-FAR, and resubmit to FAC, you can declare "Move to FARC", where others will proceed to vote ... but in the time that takes, you may have already rewritten it. Your choice. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Come what may, I shall be rewriting the military aspects of the article in sandbox and incorporating as little as possible of the existing article, hopefully none - I don't trust a single word of it. Once I am happy I shall gut the article and replace with the new text. Then ask SN and the rest of the FAR team to run their eyes over it. I don't envisage starting for 10-12 days and I'll give you weekly updates once I do. Gog the Mild ( talk) 22:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Got it; thx! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

  Yo Nikkimaria, FWIW I am now the main author. SN54129 10:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Apologies for not getting back on this. Unfortunately I will not be able to do any work on it for the foreseeable future. (I have not even been able to get work done on my own articles for the past couple of months.) Apologies if I have raised hopes, but can I put this back into the FAR process. Gog the Mild ( talk) 21:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Serial Number 54129 see above, without Gog's work on the military bits, do you think we need to proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Move to FARC to keep the process moving forward. SN has not responded and moving to FARC does not preclude further improvements towards a save. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Apologies Sandy, I must've missed that ping; I've been reduced to minimal editing at the moment (only 50 edits in two weeks?!) and I doubt I could improve on Gog's military stuff. I'm more of a socio-politico bod with an econo-prosopographical persuasion  :) SN54129 18:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC) reply

• Keep - believe SN has now done enough to retain the star. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 12:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC) reply
• I started to review this and I do have concerns. I was making notes on some confusing chronology in the "Background" and "Early life" sections, but then the first two citations I checked (refs 14 and 15 in the numbering as of this post) had verification concerns. They aren't fatally wrong – the general ideas are supported if not the exact wording – but it makes me want to check more of the refs in addition to the commenting on the prose. So I'm posting this as a placeholder for more detailed comments to come. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  Has RL0919's concern been resolved? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  @ SandyGeorgia: That concern is not fixed, and now that I've gone deeper into the article, there are other issues. Since I have extensive comments without even going thoroughly through every section, I am going to follow your example and put them on the talk page here. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC) reply

  Since there does not seem to be any ongoing activity to address issues raised here, I guess I need to say Delist unless someone is going to take up the banner. -- RL0919 ( talk) 00:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

• To be fair, and in consideration of my earlier position, I'm not sure now that the military stuff needs much of a rewrite; it is reasonably covered here and is comprehensively covered in several other articles. UNDUE and FA?#4 are the considerations here, and while the HYW needs coverage, broad focus must be on the king and his reign, not just events taking place around it. While foreign campaigns defined much of the reign, the article's real weakness was in domestic coverage and general historiography, which I think has been satisfied with addition material. Serial 19:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

SG comments :

• MOS:ACCIM, point 8, images should not be placed at the end of sections-- I don't know how to fix the image ballup around the Government section. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Also, the map has no caption. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  Image removed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I'll put my other nitpicks and stupid queries on talk here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Review by Z1720

In an effort to get this out of FAR, I am going to review this article. I will make edits as I read, and feel free to revert if anything is not helpful. Comments below:

• Why are the sources listed in "Further reading" not used as inline citations in the article?
• The "Background" section confuses me: usually biographies start with the person's birth and their family background. I think this information can be interspersed within the article at its relevant points or removed. I don't think we need as much information about Edward II as the article provides.
• I cut a lot of information from the article. Many of the quotes repeat information already in the article and make this article read like a university essay instead of an encyclopedic article. Also, there is sometimes information that is not directly related to Edward III. While WP:SIZERULE only recommends a split of the article if it is less than 9000 words, this article could use a serious trim. Remember that the longer the article is, the less likely it is that a reader is going to read the text.

I'm going to stop there because I want to read others' thoughts about the cuts to the prose I have made so far. I hope that editors will continue the work of cutting the prose, and I am happy to continue making cuts if editors agree to it. Z1720 ( talk) 18:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Review by JimKillock

I'll drive by review to say this article doesn't yet have any coverage of Edward III in relation to either Wales or Ireland. It may be that his policies didn't centre on either, but it won't be the case that he did nothing of consequence for either of these territorial possessions. Scotland of course is featured because of wars; I would check the range of literature consulted for alternative perspectives, including that of the evolution of the four countries' relationship. These are quite well-developed. I could take this on, but note I've got a simultaneous job regarding Edward I above, so this may take a bit of time (I should finish I before III). For wider reference, this might point to an issue when relying on biographies to guide what should be included as per WP:DUE; biographies perhaps think from the perspective of their readership, or their subject, or tend to address what the field thinks are "traditionally accepted" areas that are relevant to discuss; this can lead to excluding perspectives present in other literatures that regard the figure as relevant to them. -- Jim Killock (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC) reply

USS Wisconsin (BB-64)

Notified: The Epopt, TomStar81, Dual Freq, Bahamut0013, WP MILHIST, WP Ships, WP NRHP, WP Pennsylvania, WP Wisconsin, WP USA, noticed 2023-01-16

Review section

This is essentially the same situation as Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1 - the modern MILHIST standard is to include some dimensions/descriptions material that is largely absent here, and the article is over-reliant on DANFS and a veterans' association website, when there is fairly detailed literature on the Iowa-class ships. Needs some TLC - the Missouri FAR should be a fairly good example of similar problems and improvements. Hog Farm _Talk 21:33, 9 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• As with Missouri, this article is still in reasonably good condition: the information hasn't changed much, the citations are stable, and while there is an over reliance of DANFS by current standards the material covered by DANFS is also present in other publications. On the whole this shouldn't be too hard to uplift, just needs a little TLC. TomStar81 ( Talk) 19:20, 10 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Agree with comments above. The US Naval Institute has a number of publications on the Iowa-class which could be used to add information. I'd do it myself, but BBs aren't exactly my thing. I don't think it would take much work to get this upgraded.

Intothat darkness 18:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC) reply

• Move to FARC per concerns outlined above, and that no one has stepped forward yet to address the concerns. No edits since March. Z1720 ( talk) 03:53, 22 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  Move to FARC no edits since FAR began ( t · c) buidhe 06:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  Move to FARC, the needed TLC hasn't (yet) happened. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply

  Sturmvogel 66 working as of 30 May. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 12:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I've posted a message at WT:SHIPS to try to get some help here (I don't have the needed sources to fix this), but move to FARC for now, although I'm still hoping for work to occur here. Hog Farm _Talk 17:09, 27 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I have confirmed with the library that the two battleship book they have are not on Wisconsin, they are New Jersey and Missouri (and still in special collections or otherwise unavailable for check out at the moment - maybe COVID protocols are still in effect). That leaves the internet and what little I have here at the house, and between the the two of those position most of that is already in the article.

I've checked three libraries I can access near me, and while one of them has Sumrall's book on the Iowa class, it is in a noncirculating special collection, so not particularly accessible to me. Maybe @ Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy: would be able to spare some time for this, based on their work with Missouri? A slow save is better than a speedy delist. Hog Farm _Talk 14:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm planning on working on it.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 15:57, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Sturmvogel 66 do you recommend Hold in FAR rather than Move to FARC? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

I haven't looked to see how bad it is, so I really can't say. I do know that it will probably be a couple of weeks before I can devote any significant amount of time to it.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC) reply

Sturm, are you still planning to have a look at this? Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:45, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I hope to start work on it later this week.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 20:07, 23 May 2023 (UTC) reply

Sturmvogel 66 I see you did a lot of work on 30 May; where does this stand? More to do? Progress to FARC? Ready for extra eyes ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

There's lot's more to do as I've only dealt with the description, modifications, and the introduction into service thus far. Further progress is going to be sporadic as there's no equivalent of Stillwell's book on Missouri for Wisconsin so it will be tougher to find substitutes for DANFS.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 12:10, 16 June 2023 (UTC) reply

I helped at the USS Missouri rescue. As Sturmvogel 66 noted, this a less-famous of the Iowa class ships and so may be sparser on published secondary sources. So many of the arcane-but important details maybe only can come from places like DANFS and association websites. I'll also take a look for other sources. If they don't exist, I'd rather it lose FA status than delete large amounts of such material which rely on sources like DANFS. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC) reply

IMHO reliance on DANFS and veterans' association sources should not count against it when used for info on items that are specific to the Wisconsin (vs. on the Iowa class battleships in general) DANFS is about as expert and authoritative as a source can get and those "boring"/ enclyclopedic items are probably published only there. Unlike the more famous USS Missouri which had books published specifically on it. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:34, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delist No major edits to add missing information since move to FARC, it might be time to let this go. Z1720 ( talk) 23:22, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply
  • @ Z1720: - I believe the issue is now less missing information (Sturm has greatly improved the description and design section), but more so the excessive reliance on DANFS in the later sections of the article. I recently bought a used copy of O'Hara's The U.S. Navy Against the Axis: Surface Combat 1941-1945 off of Ebay, so I should be able to work up some of the WWII content once that arrives. Hog Farm _Talk 00:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
    • Striking my delist above, since HF has said that they are working on this. Z1720 ( talk) 02:15, 23 July 2023 (UTC) reply
      • Well shoot - O'Hara arrived today, and they apparently consider the various activity Wisconsin was in to be outside of the scope of their work. Hog Farm _Talk 01:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC) reply
        • That’s the problem: the famous two are New Jersey and Missouri, which means there ain’t a lot on the other two. Piecing together the ship history is hard when DANFS is disqualified in this way other sources are not focused on Wisconsin per se. 2600:1011:B337:7059:D082:20EC:6616:A590 ( talk) 17:26, 31 July 2023 (UTC) reply
• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
  • Some improvement has occurred, and it is in better shape than when first nominated here. Some quick thoughts (I unfortunately have had to go to only minimally active to due IRL stuff):
    • "USS Wisconsin (BB 64)". Unofficial US Navy Site. Retrieved 26 November 2006." - I don't think navysite.de would be accepted as a source at FAC anymore
    • "Departing Valencia on 17 April, Wisconsin reached Norfolk on 27 May." - is not supported by the only source cited in that paragraph
  • I'll try to look further at this one and see if there's anything I can do once I get through reviewing Wikipedia:Featured article review/Minneapolis/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sex Pistols/archive2. Hog Farm _Talk 15:58, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply
• Weak Keep The issues raised are grounds for review, however all things considered the article is stable and sourced. Could it be better sourced? Of course. Is it required of our articles to have the absolute best sources? Not per se, so I think we can keep the star here - for now. TomStar81 ( Talk) 20:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I agree with TomStar and North8000 above that we probably aren't going to find anything much beyond DANFS and the veterans' source. I still don't think navysite.de would cut it, but there's only four refs to it so it shouldn't be overly hard to replace it. There's been enough loose additions since the original FAC that a source-text integrity source for odds and ends should probably be conducted, but I think that Sturmvogel has improved the construction and WWII material significantly so it'll just be a polishing going forward from here. Hog Farm _Talk 20:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I haven't looked at this specifically in detail, but in my experience, Rohwer can usually be used to replace a fair bit of DANFS citations, or can especially when paired with general histories of different naval actions.

I find it curious that Garzke & Dulin's book hasn't been consulted at all. I haven't read it myself, but I have used their volume on Axis battleships, and I have their volume on British/Soviet/French/Dutch battleships, and both have detailed histories of the ships they cover. While it's dated, it is certainly better than DANFS. Frankly, this seems like a glaring 1c issue. Parsecboy ( talk) 22:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Parsecboy: - I've reviewed Garzke & Dulin via Internet archive; they devote less than a page to the history of Wisconsin, generally in less detail than is already in the article. I still don't think navysite.de should be being used as a source, and the source-text integrity issue I noted on October 7 is still present but this is probably getting close to about as good as we can get this one. Hog Farm _Talk 19:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hrm, that's disappointing - usually they go into great detail. Although in fairness, that book was published in 1976, so there's a fair bit of the ship's history that's not covered (and what there is largely consists of escorting carriers around the western Pacific, which isn't the most exciting thing to write about). I agree that navysite needs to be removed, and probably the material it supports, since it seems like no alternative source can be found. Parsecboy ( talk) 10:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The source-text integrity issue I noted above has been fixed using DANFS. I've also replaced three usages of navysite.de with a combination of the New York Times, Garzke & Dulin, and DANFS. The fourth use I couldn't find anything better than this Greenpeace report for, which I have doubts that that is high-quality RS for this topic so I removed the information. The article still copies DANFS heavily but I don't have the time or energy to address that right now and DANFS is public domain so we're fine on that front. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Review by Z1720

In an effort to get this out of FAR, here's a review of the article from a non-expert. My initial impression is that the history section is very long, and there are very large sections. While I could go through it and start cutting information, I think many editors would find that disruptive instead of helpful. Is there anyone who is a subject-matter expert who can cut down this section, add headings so that each section is about 3-4 paragraphs, and ensure that none of the paragraphs are too long or too short? Z1720 ( talk) 18:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't know that the history section is actually too long; overall length of the article is quite manageable and with a topic such as this the history section would be expected to take up most of the article. I don't have a strong opinion on section length. Hog Farm _Talk 00:33, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - I don't think I would support this article in this condition for FAC promotion in 2024, but I'm not seeing anything to delist over. Pinging @ Z1720, Parsecboy, North8000, and Sturmvogel 66: - this has been at FAR for nearly a year now, the most glaring issues have been addressed, and I think it's about time we either close this as kept or identify further issues to improvement, rather than just holding this in FAR purgatory indefinitely. Hog Farm _Talk 15:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Moving to delist per Sturmvogel, regrettably. Hog Farm _Talk 01:24, 6 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Keep (pinged above) I think that the article is as good as it can be regarding sourcing which seems to be the main discussed area. Has lots of technical encyclopedic information that is unlikely to be covered by sources that meet tougher criteria being discussed. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 15:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Lemme give this a look in the next couple of days as my attention has been focused elsewhere these last few months.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 16:56, 28 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Delist While revising the remaining WW2 sections, I'm finding text credited to DANFS that isn't there anymore. I suspect that the editors used the original text of DANFS from the 1960s and didn't update the article when the DANFS was heavily revised in this millenium. This calls into question all of the DANFS-cited material, which needs to be edited for tone, if nothing else. I'll finish what I've started, but I won't have any time to rework the later material until next year.-- Sturmvogel 66 ( talk) 11:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Doolittle (album)

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2021-08-07

Review section

This is a 2007 promotion whose FAC nominator has not edited for five years. It was noticed in 2021 for uncited text and sourcing issues; those issues have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC) reply

It's improved somewhat since I left the notice in 2021, but there's still issues. Uncited text is present, and the sourcing isn't always up to code.

" Bie, Jean-Michel; Gourraud, Christophe. "Pixies Press Quotes". Alec Eiffel. Archived from the original on December 4, 2006. Retrieved January 28, 2007." is a probably non-RS site that has pulled a bunch of quotes from places; not adequate sourcing for FA

Have doubts about rocklist.net

The Genius links are duplicating lengthy proprietary lists from Rolling Stone. A WP:ELNEVER situation?

This is probably fixable, but it'll take someone with some time and interest in this sort of music; that's not me on both counts. Hog Farm _Talk 00:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC) reply

• Move to FARC, issues remain. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply
• Move to FARC while some edit were made in late May after the FAR, there is still uncited text and formatting concerns with short paragraphs. Progress has stalled. Z1720 ( talk) 19:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delist - this wouldn't have been a hard save, but work is needed (which I'm not prepared to do right now), so we'll have to delist, I guess. Hog Farm _Talk 15:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

• Hold, Coeil has expressed interest in working on this. Hog Farm _Talk 19:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Hog I'm done here for tonight and wont be back for a few days, but as nominator for the FAR (which should carry a burden so as to disprove the perception of drive-by) and to move this along, would you mind tag bombing the page with cn's needed, and list the sources needing to be replaced - that would be very helpful. Ceoil ( talk) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

And for others, there is an extensive copy editing also going on. Ceoil ( talk) 22:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Ceoil: - it looks like you've resolved the uncited text issues and have remove/replaced several of the dodgier sources. Am mainly concerned with now:

"albumvote reviews — Doolittle by Pixies". Archived from the original on February 11, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2007."

"NME's 100 Best Albums". Rocklist.net. Archived from the original on March 31, 2018. Retrieved March 16, 2007." - not sure that rocklist is RS, and it seems iffy for the website to be reproducing another source's possibly-copyrighted creative contest lists like that

"Bie, Jean-Michel; Gourraud, Christophe. "Pixies Press Quotes". Alec Eiffel. Archived from the original on December 4, 2006. Retrieved January 28, 2007." - unsure about this one

Beyond that, I think it's mostly reference formatting stuff, which should be more straightforward for a group effort once we've settled which sources are OK to use. Hog Farm _Talk 23:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ok thanks Hog this is very useful, much appreciated. Ceoil ( talk) 23:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Have addressed most of these, but as largely don't edit mid-week, few days pls, and may need a white knight to standardise ref formats, it that becomes a reason to delisting (I dont think it should be). Ceoil ( talk) 06:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I can tackle them as I have time ... but I don't know when that will be ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 06:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

No didn't mean you!!! Your already overworked, will I'll ask around, and maybe tackel for an hour or two next weekend. Thanks anyway, I think myself and Hog have this :) Ceoil ( talk) 07:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ceoil this is actually the mindless sort of work I can do when I have bits of time here and there or when I'm awake in the middle of the night-- what I'm not able to keep up with right now is work that requires sustained focus or large blocks of time.

But I ran into a stumbling block on converting to sfns. I can't sort Frank, Ganz. Some say 2005, some say 2006, and the ISBN given for both is the same, and neither match the publisher as listed at WorldCat. There are multiple versions of the book, so we could have a page number problem. Do you have the book or do you know which is used? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Fool the World is 2005. I wouldn't mind at all reading this, nice no brain pre-sleep zone out reading, so might get on Kindel and convert to that source. Obviously that will mean chapters rather than page numbers, but am personally fine with that. although if preferred, could just order the book - would prob be delivered early next week. Either is good for me. Ceoil ( talk) 07:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

OK, as I have time, I will convert all other books to sfn, but leave Frank, Ganz alone for now. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

PS, I suspect ordering the book and waiting will be easier, because my hunch is that the page nos will be the same and we won't have to convert to chapters as per kindle book. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Sounds like a plan. Ceoil ( talk) 07:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Done. There was a seller in Dublin (they are slow up there), so will have by next weekend. And might also mean can remove some of the less credible sources mentioned by Hog above, fingers crossed. Ceoil ( talk) 07:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Can we nail this down better ? Sisario 2006, blurb. What is meant by "blurb"? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ceoil both Sisario and Frank/Ganz are available online at archive.org; I've linked them in the sources, so if we can use the page nos from that version (2006), that enhances verifiability. And so far, I'm not able to verify the three things I've checked, so there may be serious source-to-text integrity issues lurking here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

• Delist, issues remain. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

  Ceoil at work, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ceoil, here's one example of source-to-text integrity issues:

Here is page 151 from Frank/Ganz.

Page 151 verifies the text cited to Frank/Ganz about PJ Harvey, footnote 63, in this version as being from page 120 (in a different version?)

But I can find none of the other information cited to page 120, footnote 63, on page 151 of this version. In fact, a search of the book finds no mention of the Philadelphia Inquirer anywhere in the book.

I'm afraid serious problems may be lurking here. That's along with three other citations I checked that fail verification; I'm afraid it may be a long trudge through Frank/Ganz with a rewrite needed, and now I'm worried that all sources need to be checked. Also, Frank/Ganz is interview format, and the article makes some statements that can't be made in wikivoice based on the opinion of one interviewee. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ok, and have also ordered the paperback of Sisario, which is extensively cited, so that an Frank/Ganz should arrive here soon. Lets see what they throw up and take it from there. Ceoil ( talk) 20:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Also took a 1 month sub to Rock's Backpages, which has a bunch of contemporary reviews and in terviews. Ceoil ( talk) 20:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Ceoil see my notes above; you don't have to wait for either Sisario or Frank/Ganz, as they are both available to read free at archive.org-- I have linked them in the Sources -- and we have real source-to-text integrity issues. Bst, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah, and will need to go deep to resolve...which is fine knowing the FA nominator, don't think he made anything up, but it is going to need a lot more untangling than had thought. Oh well. At the moment am re-familiarising, and trying to establish a few better sources Ceoil ( talk) 21:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC) reply

SandyGeorgia and Ceoil, as per our discussion on Ceoil's talk page, I've started working through the references and reworking the text to match the citations. I'm only two paragraphs in. My observation so far is that much that is cited to Frank and Granz (2006) is really in Sisario. As Ceoil mentions below, most of F & G, is more "talking head" interviews, but I still use it as a source if it specific enough and doesn't conflict with Sisario, which I'm treating as the main source. I've also corrected a WayBack Machine link to 4AD's 2011 site. The cited page did not support the text, but a search of Wayback showed the previous page did. Unfortunately, Ganz's (2005) review in Spin of Pixies-Doolittle and related text had to go since it has gone into Web limbo. I tried to track it in Wayback, but my search failed. If someone can find it or even has the original url, please let me know. I'll keep going, through progress may be irregular. Life being what it is... Wtfiv ( talk) 05:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC) reply

As an update to Hog and Nikki, have both the above book sources now :) — Frank/Ganz is "oral history" / talking heads only but checks out (my pg numbers are different again, but would like to use) although reliance could be trimmed), but Sisario (2006) contains A LOT on the individual tracks, that would like to expand on. Ceoil ( talk) 01:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC) reply

SandyGeorgia and Ceoil, I just want to let you know that I've completed my fairly quick edit of the article. Here's a summary of what I did.

• Verified all the book links in the text. For the books, added convenience links for future verification and help keep text-source citation less slippery during future edits.
• Verified the web and magazine links in the text. Put them in citation formats and added archival links when appropriate and possible.
• Moved citations from final paragraph of lead to legacy. Rearranged order of legacy to fit them in. Changed last paragraph of lead to summarize legacy and "sales" section.
• Deleted or changed text or citations to match things up. Sometimes this resulted in some major reworking of sections or paragraphs. I think I may have added a couple of new sources.
• I tried to hedge Frank & Ganz citations. I used it in wikivoice when it addressed a timeline issue (e.g., touring with Throwing Muses or time spent in studio), but attributed individuals when it gave opinions.

Please note that I didn't verify any of the links that went with the chart templates. I'm done for now. I think it is ready for any larger-scale reworking that is needed. I will probably check in now and then to do gnomish edits cleaning up c/e errors in my edit, but if you need further, more substantial help let me know! Wtfiv ( talk) 23:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Wtfiv, you are a life savor, and thanks so much for ref fixes/comments. Would very much like to save this page, but am travelling atm, so bear with me in a week or so delay in responding, but...tks! Ceoil ( talk) 05:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Ceoil, please let me know when you're ready for me to take another look. I should have several weeks in a row of less busy. Hog Farm _Talk 03:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Wtfiv! I am still buried in real life good and bad stuff, but will get to this when less busy. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Hog Farm: If you could look over and list comments/complaints in the next few weeks that would be great. Most of the work has been done, although I want to beef up the "music section" yet. Ceoil ( talk) 01:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm a bit behind right now; but this is on my list of things to review and I should have time to look at this before the end of the week. Hog Farm _Talk 02:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

No panic. I'm travelling for the next 3 weeks, and the book i need for the songs is at home. It would be cool if you could look, but don't stress. Ceoil ( talk) 03:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC) reply

So here we go:

• Based on the length guidance for fair use music samples at WP:SAMPLE, both of the song samples are too long by about 8 or 9 seconds

Replaced .oggs of both songs with shorter versions (17 or 18 sec., which is about 10% of song.)

• " to lines in Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí's 1929 film Un Chien Andalou." - does this need rephrased? Our article on the film says it's a silent film, so there wouldn't be line in the normally understood sense

shorten to: refers to Luis Buniel

• The Panorama list of The 30 Best Albums of the Year 1970–98 doesn't seem to be directly sourced anywhere and if this doesn't seme to be a notable publication is it really due weight anyway?

"Panorama deleted"

• The note about unordered lists does not seem to be necessary

note deleted

• " In the US, the album Billboard 200 at number 171. However with the help of college radio play of "Monkey Gone to Heaven",In the first week of its release in Britain,[64] the record reached number eight on the UK Albums Chart.[63] the album rose to number 98 and spent two weeks in the top 100.[65]" - something seems to have gone wrong here.

Reworked this to: In the first week after its release in Britain,[42] Doolittle was number eight on the UK Albums Chart.[63] In the US, the album entered the Billboard 200 at number 171. With the help of college radio-play of "Monkey Gone to Heaven", it eventually rose to number 98,[64] spending two weeks in the Top 100.[65]

• " "Juice All Time 50 Albums". Rocklist.net. Archived from the original on May 15, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2007." - is this RS?

I left this. I don't really know the music magazine field well enough to judge. I'll let Ceoil decide.

I think this article is fairly close to a keep. Pinging Ceoil and Wtfiv. Hog Farm _Talk 18:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks Hog Farm. I made the easy changes. I didn't do anything with the music samples, as I've not worked with them. And, I left the RS status of "Juice" for Ceoil. Wtfiv ( talk) 21:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm not concerned that Juice itself is unreliable. My concern here is a little more two-fold: is whatever this "rocklist.net" source is reliable enough that we can trust that it's reproducing the list right and is linking to basically a bootleg copy of a creative (and presumably copyrighted) list a WP:ELNEVER situation? Hog Farm _Talk 21:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Sounds like we should get rid of the "Juice" reference, then...Done! Wtfiv ( talk) 21:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Ceoil and Hog Farm. The sound files are now within the fair use guidelines (17-18 sec, about 10% of song length.) Wtfiv ( talk) 17:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Wtfiv - well, Iruka13 has now removed both samples on a bit of a technicality (the fair use rationale on the article did not provide an explanation for why this would be used on the album article). So I guess someone just needs to craft a fair use rationale for why the samples would be used in the article, which is a fairly standard use of song samples, and then that whole issue will be resolved. Once we get the samples issue figured out and Ceoil is satisfied with the musical content, I think we're good to keep FA status here. Hog Farm _Talk 01:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I saw that, but had no idea how to address it. Your post helped a lot! I realized I forgot to reduce the quality of the recording so I did that too. Wtfiv ( talk) 02:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I should have mentioned the obvious...after addressing the concerns you made clear (again thanks!) I put the samples back. Wtfiv ( talk) 02:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC) reply

I think we're at a keep here. Hog Farm _Talk 02:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks Hog & Wtfiv, very very much appreciated:) I'll be back home with the book sources in three weeks and will add to the songs sect then: can we keep open until then as pressure is good. To note the work by all since the nom [24]. Ceoil ( talk) 11:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC) reply

Ceoil? Nikkimaria ( talk) 03:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

This weekend. 03:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Ceoil? Nikkimaria ( talk) 04:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC) reply

As an apology and update NM am sandboxing a section on the music here [25] and expect to close out in a few days when finished. Ceoil ( talk) 03:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

As an update have done an expansion, but it needs a copyedit. Ceoil ( talk) 13:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Review by Z1720

In an effort to get this cleared of FAR, here's a review of the article. I will also be copyediting the article as I review.

• "while the layering of Francis' and Deal's vocal parts are considered a pinnacle of the pop music technique of girl/boy vocal interplay." Needs a citation

  Removed Ceoil ( talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• "The album appeared on several contemporary end-of-year "Best Album" lists. Both Rolling Stone and The Village Voice placed the album tenth, and independent music magazines Sounds and Melody Maker both ranked the album as the second-best of the year." This is still labeled as "citation needed". Has this been resolved?
• , not shouldnt be too difficult...its probably in an aniversry survey, best sources seeing from a quick search is [26], but wont use that; hang on. Ceoil ( talk) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• "praised for the quiet/loud dynamic set up between Black's vocals, Joey Santiago's guitar and the rhythm section." I'm not sure what a quiet/loud dynamic means: I don't think this is a musical term and, while mentioned several times in the article, it's never really explained. Considering that it is a major part of this album's success, maybe it needs to be explained in this article.

  Done...quite verse, loud chorus.. Ceoil ( talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• "the band's manager Ken Goes suggested two producers" Suggested them for what?

  Produce the album. Ceoil ( talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• A lot of the reception section and legacy section contains the "X said Y" sentence pattern. Suggest that the sections be restructured per WP:RECEPTION

  Agree...hold on Ceoil ( talk) 02:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Is there a citation for the personnel section?

  Not necessary, it was the classic line up for their first 4 albums. Working on this. Ceoil ( talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Any images of the Pixies from this time period that can be added to the article?

  Sadly no. Ceoil ( talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

  Added one from 2004. Ceoil ( talk) 14:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 ( talk) 17:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Great. Thanks for the review, all points helpful :) Ceoil ( talk) 20:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi Firefangledfeathers would you mind now also looking over...still need to address the reception sect but...gripes and demands much appreciated :) Ceoil ( talk) 15:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Soon! Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

FFFeedback

• The table in §Charts seems underinformative. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• The citations in §Personnel need a review. Presumably, most/all of this could be sourced to the liner notes or booklet. The citation to Rough Trade should probably be dropped. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Firefangledfeathers: Decided to tackle these. Double checked the liner notes on Discogs and they are correct, so I just replaced all of the references with the liner notes reference. As for the Charts section, I'm not quite sure what you mean by underinformative. I spruced up the table, and it seems to comply with Charts sections from other FA articles. Famous Hobo ( talk) 23:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Chart looks better, thanks. Any interest in adding a column for number of weeks on the chart. At least a couple of the sources give that info. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Famous Hobo added the column. Good stuff. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 01:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• In §Legacy, "established the Pixies' loud–quiet dynamic" makes it seem like Doolittle was the origin of that sound, but the citation says they used it before and "perfected" it with Doolittle. Later lines reference the influence of that sound, but the citations need another look to see if they support that influence coming from Doolittle in particular. For example, the Sunday Times source does not make such a connection. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 03:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Just a "nice to have", but there are a couple more Sisario citations that could us a page link. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 22:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• The "Accolades for Doolittle" table in §Critical reception would be better placed in §Legacy. The latter area is pretty crowded, but maybe still workable? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 01:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• There's a citation needed tag in §Critical reception that needs to be addressed. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 01:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Thanks Firefangled, all astute, working throug. Ceoil ( talk) 23:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply
• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep, By the looks of it, this article seems to be in good shape. Sources are reliable and plentiful throughout, the article has gotten a nice facelift from Ceoil, and I don't see any outstanding issues. Personally I would like to see more info about the side two songs, and considering how influential this album is I would have expected it to be longer, but the article talks about everything it needs to talk about concisely. I would have no problem keeping this article at FA status, but I also should point out I did help update this article during the FAR process (overall minor edits, but I feel like I should mention it). Famous Hobo ( talk) 05:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks Famous Hobo. Have beefed up the lead somewhat and your right about coverage on the side two tracks being a bit wanting. Working through. Ceoil ( talk) 04:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Ceoil

Update for coordinators (ie Nikki): Would like to expand the lead and coverage of the songs on side two, wile keeping Tony1's comments at the FAC in mind. [27] Stuff re the loud–quiet dynamic is met with sources for now but would like to explain further with time. I know this is long becoming tiresome, but getting there, slowly :( Ceoil ( talk) 00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC) reply

As an update, I believe Firefangledfeathers's concerns have been resolved, and have expanded the music/songs section, and while have put in a request at the GOCE's re any remaining instances of journalese, am now towards keeping. IOW, almost there. Ceoil ( talk) 14:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply