Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2022

Kept

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC) [1].

Elizabeth II

Notified: not done

I am nominating this featured article for review because this is one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia and it hasn't been reviewed since 2012. I would like to get consensus on whether this still qualifies as a featured article. Interstellarity (talk) 12:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the FA criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The article has been kept to a reasonable length, great work. Issues immediately apparent from a quick scan:

image sandwiching, which should be easy to fix

1 metro ref, not a good blp source

Should memoirs of other people be cited? It's not technically BLPSELFPUB but given that memoirs may have lower editorial oversight I would avoid it. I think better sources can be found to replace Thatcher & Trudeau refs if these details are actually important.

overreliance on news sources in place of higher-quality retrospective writings. There are some sources on Google Scholar that could be cited. (t · c) buidhe 13:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Nikkimaria,

The reason I nominated this is because it's been a while since the article has been reviewed. I don't have any concerns related to the article's content. I just think that since it's been a long time since the article has been reviewed and it's one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia that it would be due for a review. Interstellarity (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the

WP:FAR instructions? You also have not done the notifications. I suggest this FAR be removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello @SandyGeorgia,

This is my first time doing a featured article review and I skimmed through the instructions. I didn't realize that I had to leave a note on the talk page discussing the article issues beforehand. In my next FAR, I plan to do that from now on. Interstellarity (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close nom, out of process; this is not how FAR should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I can fix articlehistory via a move to archive0 should you remove this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SandyGeorgia; procedurally keeping this as out of process. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Nikkimaria, after FACbot goes through, I will adjust the articlehistory via moving this to archive0 so that it is not recorded in AH as a "real" keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC) [2].

J. K. Rowling

Notified:

WT:WPHP; talk page notification 2021-11-26; additional talk page notification

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because... it no longer meets

WP:FACR due to instability, length/unnecessary detail, and lack of summary style. ––FormalDude

^talk 10:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:FAR. Nikkimaria (talk

) 13:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Notifications still not done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]

I've taken care of this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What strikes me most upon skimming this article is the lack of literary analysis. Rowling is primarily known as an author; there's any amount of scholarly literature on the Harry Potter series; I would expect this to be represented. Conversely, at least a little of the blow-by-blow detail of her recent life ought to be pruned. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was coming here to write this very comment myself. To Formal's point, however, I'm not sure if there will be enough editor willingness to let such changes through (well the recent life stuff at least). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Especially knowing from teacher friends of mine and from some light academic reading I've done, there is both wide literary analysis of the HP books and use in some educational settings to great value. I understand most of that text would go in the relevant articles, but seeing how the current HP section reads like an award list more than analysis of the works I feel that is to great detriment to this article regarding its comprehensive description of the influence of Rowling. On a similar note, for such an influential author it seems UNDUE how extensive the sections on philanthropy and views are compared to how bare-bones the sections on her work's impact. There is barely any mention of critical analysis or reviews of her books.
Please ping me! 22:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

I have to concur with Vanamonde93 and A. C. Santacruz. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have made a proposal to split off the award list to its own article. I don't see the point in listing all the awards an immensely successfuly writer has received in the BLP and the major ones could be easily summarized (see

Please ping me! 23:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Some stats: there have been 8 reverts out of 34 total edits in December, and last month there were 18 reverts out of 48 total edits (diffs). ––FormalDude ^talk 08:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC doesn't seem likely that the issues discussed above will be fixed in the course of a FAR (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination for FAR. The BLP is currently unstable and a battlefield for POV warriors. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Move to FARC per above. – zmbro _(talk) 20:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Demote/move to FARC per the reasoning above. When somebody edits a featured article with an edit summary beginning with "Someone will no doubt revert this edit" and when there's a large a controversial RfC due to recent events, it is clear the article does not meet the stability criteria, and when there are indeed other content issues, it is clear it might not meet the rest of the FAC either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edit made remains unchanged, experience made me fear it would not be. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per Vanamonde's concerns, this really needs literary criticism in here to meet
WP:FACR. Hog Farm _Talk 16:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to FARC. Fixing the concerns I expressed above is not a trivial undertaking, and I see no effort being made to address them either. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC due to concerns about lack of literary criticism of her writing and general bloating, as outlined above. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review include scope, comprehensiveness, length and stability. DrKay (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist due to the issues raised above. Noah^Talk 03:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because of instability due to edit warring. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Delist as argued for above.
Please ping me! 12:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: Just noticed this. Would appreciate a few more days to look at the problems and see how to deal with them. Instability is a result of differing opinions and can be addressed. It is one of the most important woman's biographies. It is highly accessed with almost 60,000 pages views on 1 January. Take it easy!--Ipigott (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It just had one of the largest RfC in Wikipedia history with nearly 100 individual !votes.... you're not gonna fix that instability. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The topic may be unstable but to note, 100 ivotes is not a history-making RFC. Off the top of my head, here’s one with almost 250 ivotes, just for example. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Ipigott that this an important and prominent BLP. Unfortunately, it has become a battleground for POV wars between feminists and trans-activists. Its FA standing implies that Wikipedia endorses these wars, which I do not believe is the case. The conciliatory approach advocated by Ipigott is worthy in principle, but such editing will be bludgeoned off the page by the zealots. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
It should be clearly pointed out that most feminist do not agree with Rowling on this issue and not all people who support civil rights for minorities are trans activists. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 21:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:FAC when it is ready). Z1720 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@Z1720 How does this solve the more pressing concern about criteria 1E? It's clear from the RFC on the article talk page that stability issues are likely to remain a recurring problem. To my mind, we need to delist until the article demonstrates stability. The only way to demonstrate stability is for the article to actually be stable for a sustained period of time (ie 6 months to a year with no edit warring). In other words, while improvements towards FA in other areas could be made I don't think it will ultimately prevent the article from being delisted. Editors are still welcome to work towards content improvements, but with the caveat that it's not likely going to lead towards the successful preservation on an FA listing due to chronic edit warring within the article.4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me! 15:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@
A._C._Santacruz I agree that the current edit warring issues could be solved through a series of RFCs, but I am not confident that even that process will lead to longterm stability. Rowling tends to enjoy weighing in with controversial opinions on her Twitter account; which inevitably will lead to more media attention and subsequent edit warring on wikipedia. Rinse, Recycle, Repeat. Further, the timeline for solving these issues is unclear. That process could take months or even a year to work through. For FA purposes, it's best to delist now and let editors work towards solving instability issues outside of FA review. Once the article has become stable for a period of 6 months, then the article could be nominated for FA once again. Otherwise we have an FA review with an unreasonable open ended timeline.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@4meter4: I cannot see the future, so I do not know if the edit warring will continue in a month or two. It is easier for an article to be fixed up at FAR than it is to go through an FAC, which is why I prefer the former. I also do not want the precedence that an editor who wants to delist a FA can start an edit war and get the article delisted per 1E. When someone states that they are willing to fix up the article, I want to give them the benefit of making these improvements. There's no rush to delist now, and this discussion will probably not be closed until ~~Dec. 14~~ (EDIT: Jan. 14) at the earliest, as most FARCs last two weeks. If editors cannot make sufficient improvements in the next two weeks, I will propose that the article be delisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1720 (talk • contribs)
@@Z1720:The fear that somehow this is an isolated instability issue resulting from one editor trying to attack the FA status is not grounded in the facts. In this case we have over a year of edit warring in the article's history with many editors involved, and a contentious RFC with roughly 100 active community editors involved. This is a prolonged instability problem, and all indications from wide community input indicate that it going to remain so. At some point, we actually need to enforce criteria 1E as written. We are at that point. Further, in order to demonstrate stability we need time that extends beyond what is reasonable for an open FAR.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I share Z1720's concerns about how application of 1e has been (mis)used in this FAR, and point out that a well-attended RFC is quite the opposite of an indication of instability. Enforcement of 1e as written is not what is happening in this FAR, and the issues raised about literary analysis are what should be examined here. (PS, I believe Z1720 meant Jan 14 in the post above.)
Also, since I raised the issue of how to correctly position a FAR nomination back in November, I don't consider that this FAR has actually looked at the question of whether this article meets
WP:WIAFA at all, and is in fact a nomination that pointedly ignores the issues I raised in November, becoming an inappropriate attempt to make FAR part of dispute resolution or to extend a battleground. For that reason, I believe the FAR should remain open until someone actually lists the deficiencies by supplying reliable sources to, for example, missing literary analysis, and then explains why that literary analysis belongs in the author's bio rather than in the sub-articles about the works. FAR should not be allowed to become part of dispute resolution, as is happening here, and this FAR should refocus on application of the criteria before it is closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@SandyGeorgia I disagree and find your comment overly cynical. I'll point out that I have not participated in any other discussions surrounding the Rowling article and am basing my opinion entirely on article history and talk page history. If an FA rated article has had chronic edit warring for over a year and a well attended RFC was unable to find a resolution, how can you possibly argue that criteria 1E isn't relevant or hint that editors indicating that it is are somehow misusing FAR process? To my mind, this is an argument with a clear attempt to ignore and subvert FA policy.4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to respond to your insinuations.
If there are deficiencies with the article, start listing them please so that other reviewers (like Z1720) can discuss whether they actually are deficiencies and whether they can be resolved in the course of a FAR. The purpose of FAR is to identify deficiencies so they can (hopefully) be addressed, and this has not been done here. The purpose of FAR is not to enable editors who engage in editwarring to get an article delisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ SandyGeorgia Instability is a deficiency per criteria 1E. There are certainly other issues such as length and lack of literary analysis section as mentioned by others. However, I don't see that working towards those at this time will be useful at this FAR as the longterm instability problems (see article history) and failed attempts at dispute resolution (see RFC) indicate the need to delist immediately. I understand that you will disagree with this, and lets agree to just stop our back and forth for civility sake and our own well being. Have a good day.4meter4 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am still inclined to delist now, but I think
Please ping me! 15:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Typically "fixing" (as you say) an article (via focusing on sourcing) resolves the rest of the issues; that has not been done here, as no one yet has actually talked about sourcing and other matters of
WP:SS and what content belongs in sub-articles versus the main article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Delist as argued above. I think it unlikely that instability issues will be be resolved through dialogue, or that temporary abatements through talk page resolutions will result in long term stability. Rowling has chosen to engage in controversy repeatedly, and is likely to continue to do so. As such, similar issues are likely to recur and instability is likely to be an ongoing and constantly evolving longterm problem.~~4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delist for instability and length. ––FormalDude ^talk 01:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hold in FARC until someone lays out some reasoning to delist that relates to actionable problems with
WP:WIAFA, per my statement above at 16:02. (The idea that a well-attended RFC is an indication of instability is not a notion that should be allowed to go on record at FAR, nor should FAR be allowed to become part of a battleground or evasion of dispute resolution.) Neither were those reasons laid out on article talk via an actual notification of deficiencies, as I requested back in November, nor has that been done here on this FAR. Many have said it can be done, but no one yet has done it, and this FAR should remain open until someone complies with the FAR instructions to notice actionable deficiencies and provide concrete examples and reasoning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@SandyGeorgia I think you are overstating your case. FA status has no impact on dispute resolution, nor is FAR intended to involve itself in influencing or evading a dispute resolution process. On the contrary, delisting the article and allowing dispute resolution to continue through the normal channels is the best path forward in my opinion and the most congruent with FA and wikipedia wide policy. Our FA articles must be stable (ie free of edit warring). When they aren't, they get delisted until such time as they show evidence of stability and can re-apply for an FA rating.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have heard your case, which I find unconvincing, and I have no problem letting the FAR Coords decide whether I am "overstating my case", along with Ipigott and Z1720. (Since I am following this FAR, you may feel free to stop pinging me.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have been pinged in a couple of different places, with the possible implication that I have granted extra time to this FAR. (here and here by Ipigott). To avoid confusion, @WP:FAR coordinators: can one of you clarify possible timelines for this article, and specify if time has been granted? This looks like it might be a complicated FAR, so this might also need a dedicated FAR coord to be the only point-person for decision making, similar to how Cas Liber stepped up in British Empire and laid out timelines for closing that FARC. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Z1720 if I misunderstood you but on the basis of your previous comments I was fully prepared to see what I could do to sort things out in connection with the missing section on literary analysis. If this is no longer possible, please let me know as I have other important matters to attend to.--Ipigott (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ipigott: I am not an FAR co-ordinator, so I cannot grant extra time and don't want there to be the impression that I can. Hopefully the FAR co-ords can describe a possible timeline for this FAR. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been mentioned that there is drafting underway to address the concern raised wrt literary criticism; certainly we can give some time to see how that proceeds. I also want to be clear that the simple existence of an RfC, even a contentious one, will not result in delisting on its own, and that FAR is not intended to be a dispute resolution venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The claim that nobody has raised actionable concerns grounded in the featured article criteria is nonsensical. The points raised by myself,
A. C. Santacruz, which several other editors (including Buidhe and Hog Farm) have agreed with, have nothing to do with instability, and everything to do with comprehensiveness and representation of sources (criteria 1b and 1c). There is no independent literary analysis of Rowling's writing in this article. There are hundreds of sources available; their existence is not in dispute; neither is the fact that they are not covered in this article. If Ipigott wants time to work on these sources, that's fine with me, but the claim that there's no actionable feedback is meaningless, and if we were going to hold this up over procedural reasons of notification, we should have done it a long while ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
If I had more time I'd have been doing the work to add the literary analysis as I have access to the sources and subject expertise to do that work and agree that this is a highly visible page so having it be of the highest quality is a benefit to the encyclopedia. However, I don't have the time. If someone else does I would love for them to do it. But in absence of that content I agree with Vanamonde that it cannot be said to meet the standards expected of an FA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) My concern here is primarily that the article lacks any sort of literary criticism, which is problematic given the extremely influential nature of Rowling as a writer. I do disagree with the idea that this fails the stability criteria; a single content dispute that is being worked out doesn't warrant delisting. Hog Farm _Talk 17:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To all three; yes, there appears on the surface to be an absence of literary criticism, but a) we have no examination of what exists in sub-articles; b) we have no indication if high-quality reliable sources are excluded, and what those are; and c) we have had no discussion about how much of what would be included where in a
moving some content to here and some content out of here from the various sub-articles. Even if we fail, we at least leave a roadmap for future repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
"we have no examination of what exists in sub-articles" That is asking the reviewers here to prove a negative. Has anyone examined more specific articles and determined that there is enough material to cover all her themes? I have examined a few, and what's there isn't encouraging. It's heavily based on interviews with Rowling (which have their place, but aren't a substitute for independent analysis); and on media sources. Scholarly sources are few and far between. "we have no indication if high-quality reliable sources are excluded" yes we do; there's no substantive use of any high-quality literary criticism. I could easily provide a couple dozen sources; I'm not doing so because I'm not concerned about the exclusion of specific sources, but the exclusion of the entire body of literary/scholarly source material. "we have had no discussion about how much of what would be included where in a properly summarized main bio"; because, at the moment, we have no substance to discuss at all. We aren't at the stage where such a discussion is meaningful. Very few of us are giving any weight to any RfCs; I haven't bothered to read the one referred to above, as it has no bearing on my argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Examples might better illustrate my concern-- if not for the immediate outcome, but in terms of leaving a direction for future work at least, so that FAR is doing what it's supposed to do, and we're not leaving a precedent of a delisting based on faulty reasoning.
We have seen examples at FAR of a google scholar search being provided to justify "not comprehensive", but when examining each source returned by google, it was found that nothing was actually left out.
We have seen examples of "X is not included", but if there are no sources covering X, that cannot be a
WP:SS might address a lot of what ails this article. Even if the star is lost, it's nice to see an article leave FAR in better shape than when it appeared, or at least with editors having some knowledge of what needs fixing.
Barack Obama (which was suffering from the same unproductive POV-back-and-forth rants on talk, but little focus on sources) offers an example. It is insufficient to make the general statement that "X point of view is not included" in the absence of specifics and sample sources. At that FAR, I pointed out a recent and specific scholarly source from Princeton historian Julian E. Zelizer that included critical analysis of Obama's presidency but was scarcely represented in the article, along with Leadership and Legacy: The Presidency of Barack Obama, Lansford, 2021, that was not used at all. More than a month later, with not a single edit towards addressing those actionable issues, the article was defeatured. At least editors coming along in the future can read a FAR to see what they can do to restore the article.
FAR is failing to do its job if this article is delisted on 1e absent an actual analysis of deficiencies with specific examples. Providing those might also encourage someone to start addressing the real issues, and focusing on sources almost always ends the battleground. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Respectfully, I don't think you're hearing me. Examples are helpful when there is a dispute over whether sources are fairly represented. With this article, there is no dispute; literary criticism is absent, period. Even those who wish to preserve FA status, whose efforts I will do my best to support, recognize the obvious deficiency, and are working to amend it. If the people doing this work are able to see the validity and usefulness of my concerns above, I don't see why you are critiquing the reviewers here. If I have any more time for this article, I would rather spend it on the userspace draft that is being developed, and so I'm going to step away from this argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a large section on her literary output per the comments above and Special:PermaLink/1063766433#J._K._Rowling_delisting_as_FA. Hopefully this goes some way towards addressing Vanamonde93's, and others', concerns regarding the lack of such a section in this review. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me! 12:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
This link had a really interesting quote that doesn't merit being included but goes along the lines of what I was suggesting above: In becoming so, it seems to me, her intentions and responsibilities as author diminish and fade into irrelevance. She ceases to be the author of the phenomenon and simply becomes part of the phenomenon as author. Note this phenomenon of separating Rowling from HP is not necessarily based only on the trans controversy, but also on the merits of her being able to tweet that Dumbledore is gay and how that affects the canon, see this journal article.
Please ping me! 12:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

@
A. C. Santacruz For Legacy, you might be interested in this article on the book that paragraph is based on. It could be expanded in either direction (why the 80s were in decline, or what happened to the HP imitators - see the Synopsis), but perhaps that may better fit in a history of fantasy article than here. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks for the link,
Please ping me! 13:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

AleatoryPonderings Thanks for that; that's a substantive piece of work. I will try to review it in detail in a day or two. Three suggestions at the outset. 1) At the top-level article, we would generally want to treat her writing as a whole, rather than separated by series, because series-specific stuff is what you'd expect to see in articles about them. Obviously, with Rowling, >90% of the criticism is about HP; but I still think we could work on integrating commentary about anything else into the same section. 2) The Characters subsection, at the moment, reads like material about heroism as a theme combined with a throwaway piece about Snape. I'd suggest omitting the latter and reworking the former into the themes. 3) Similarly, ordinary vs extraordinary is also something I'd see as part of themes. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you, per VM93. It is encouraging that this addition was made so quickly, reinforcing my view that (at least some of) the needed work is doable, and the FAR should remain open for work to progress. It is unconscionable that we have a highly viewed BLP in such embarrassing shape, so that even if we don't end up saving the rusty star, we can at least help restore some balance. It might be worthwhile to begin laying out other work needed, and to determine whether a team of FA-experienced writers would take this on (Johnbod, I saw you somewhere in some discussion of this article, have you any interest?), but it is probably best to first allow some time for Vanamonde93's feedback to be worked on, and to see how that goes. If that piece is successful, and more editors are interested, we might move on to identifying other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no - I've done some little edits on talk and I think the article, but won't be doing major editing. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment, based on having read or skimmed a couple dozen sources to this point; the themes commented upon most often are death and heroism; religion is discussed both as a theme and in terms of critical reception; and politics and gender, at least, are also discussed in the latter category. When writing this material I would typically break it into "themes" and "reception" (always), and "style and structure", "influences", and "legacy" (depending on what the source material focuses on). This article does not need to follow my preferences, of course, but a couple of these broad categories feel mixed together at the moment, not to mention the duplicated "influences" section. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking quickly through the article now (for the first time) it seems in fair shape to me. I don't personally feel we need an enormous amount of lit crit analysis here. Let me know when it comes to a vote. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod and Vanamonde93, there's a bit that could be done before approaching a !vote, but history shows that when an experienced FA writer takes the lead, a
WP:MILLION in this case). Without an experienced lit FA writer on board, and taking the lead, not sure ... It seems that Barkeep49 is too busy, and I'm not sure what message VM93 is sending :) VM, would you take a lead role in a rewrite? Wtfiv is still busy at Joan of Arc, and there's Victoriaearle, who I hesitate to ask at this point, as this would be a big undertaking, and she has health issues. Who else is hiding in the woodwork? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not trying to send mixed messages, but I don't want to commit to something I don't have the time for. I will chip in with writing when I can: I cannot promise to take a lead role, unfortunately. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That much is encouraging at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, a little infelicity that might be corrected sooner rather than later is why we mention her friendship with Sarah Brown twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the article more thoroughly now, and find myself in agreement with
WP:FASA
of a literary giant), I found that:
after AleatoryPonderings addition of literary analysis, the percentage of the article devoted to career, analysis, critique and reception here is about on par with those articles;

the space given to Rowling's non-writing activity (views, politics, charity, etc) is about double the average percentage of Joyce/Jolie, and

the space given to Rowling's early, personal life health and death is about half of Joyce/Jolie (well, she hasn't died or had the health issues that Jolie had).
While these numbers can't be taken too seriously because neither Joyce nor Jolie strictly compare to Rowling, the straight biographical info about Rowling's life (this is a bio) might be beefed up somewhat, with some of the views/politics/charity sent to sub-articles. But this isn't an entirely useful analysis since the three figures are so different, and I can't come up with a more similar biographical article to compare to. The take home is that the size of the analysis of her writing seems to be about right here, as that can be covered in sub-articles, but there may be some imbalance towards views/politics/charitable and away from coverage of other biographical aspects of her life; again, this would depend on whether there is such info from high-quality sources that is left out.
I continue to recommend we hold in FAR in the expectation that someone will step up to do the work. If zealotry leads to edit warring, measures to address that more directly can be taken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look who’s on the job :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point you are making? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Time will tell, but the star may be salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of a talk page is to improve an article, not to comment gratuitously and ambiguously on other editors. I suggest you strike your comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]

I've had it on my watch for years. I didn't thinking the timing for the FAR was great and meant to get over here to comment earlier but forgot to watch the FAR, and now it's very long. I don't mind picking at the "themes" section but can't get access to all the pdfs I'd like. This one looks promising if anyone here has access to T&F and could send it on to me that would be helpful. Themes and style don't need a huge section here, really only summaries, whereas the individual book articles should have longer lit crit. sections. Will report back in a few days after taking a look at what else I can access. I've never thought the article itself is really bad; I've seen much worse. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the Coords agree the FAR can stay open for work to proceed, a lot of the length (above) was about making the case not to delist, and can be moved to talk to make way for the real work here, if others agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria might you get the source mentioned above and email to Victoriaearle? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have access to that one - suggest
WP:RX if no one else here does. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
No prob. I submitted a renewal at the TWL portal, and for Project Muse - which will probably be more helpful. Looks like things are moving. Victoria (tk) 03:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Victoriaearle: I believe I have access to that, but not in directly shareable form. I can give you a few individual pages, and can work on adding stuff from it myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the offer Vanamonde93. Last night I was only dipping in and hadn't noticed yet that it's being used quite heavily, so I don't think there's any need to add more from that source. It looks like I can get what I need from Jstor. 21:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE, for anyone not familiar with FAR, work here is not typically done in days, rather weeks, and sometimes takes more than a month. The LEAD is usually best addressed last. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: May I add minor points to your todo list? I'd rather not start a separate one for things that I haven't the time to fix, but are relatively easily fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Vanamonde93 Please do! I tend to raise larger issues in a separate talk page section, and link that from both here and article talk (in case the broader audience at article talk isn’t following major developments here), but the ToDo list is intended as a summary that we’ll all add to/strike from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To Do List

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 1 § To Do List
– SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 8 Jan

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 2 § Update 8 Jan
– SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 14 January

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4 § Update 14 January
– SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 1 February 2022

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4 § Update 1 February 2022
– SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update 15 February All items above have been addressed, work on the Transgender section is still deferred, editing has slowed, and we are working on a draft of the lead (with the exception of the Transgender portions). There has been no article instability since the brief edit war of 5 January. Aza24, Buidhe and Z1720 have looked at the article so far; this might be a good time for Barkeep49 and Johnbod to have a more thorough look, recognizing that we haven't yet worked on the TG people section, and lead work is in progress. Hog Farm might you look in now as well ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see. A bit busy for the next few days, so don't wait too long for me. As a heads up, I have no familiarity with Rowling and never read the books as a kid because my family considered them objectional. Hog Farm _Talk 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, no hurry, and no prior knowledge makes for a good reviewer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to Hog my time is limited at the moment but I'm adding a note to do a read through and anticipate getting to it later this week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry; I am pinging people for feedback in bits and pieces, so we aren't overwhelmed by too many comments at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will be starting some comments on the talk page. Hog Farm _Talk 01:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new to add; article remains stable, content improvement has slowed (basically finished except for TG people section), all commentary raised here has been addressed, and I'm aware of no MOS, prose, comprehensive or any other deficiencies, outside of the TG people section. Work on an interim lead has begun, with the idea to progress to the Transgender people section after some interim improvement to the lead is settled on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new lead was installed on 2 March with no kerfuffle; the article remains stable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update 17 March
The interim lead that was installed on 2 March has held up with no kerfuffle, and the article remains stable.
Rowling made some news during the last month because of long-standing involvement with orphanage advocacy reform in Ukraine, and a personal appeal for donations towards Ukraine relief, along with a tweet she made in March related to interpretations of UK laws on gender issues. A very minor amount of disruptive editing was seen at
Politics of J. K. Rowling and Featured List of awards and nominations received by J. K. Rowling
; all have been handled by normal editing and discretionary sanctions. Disruptive editing, misinterpreted sources, or otherwise fixed-through-normal-processes edits were:
IP blanking of text at the Awards sub-article

Misrepresentation of a source; content rewritten and moved to
Politics of J. K. Rowling. [3][4]

Content added twice that misrepresents a source on information already in the article; addressed without kerfuffle.

Disruptive editwarring to the lead by a now-blocked editor with a history of similar; that is, normal editing processes worked here.

The article is stable, the interim lead has held, and we should be ready to move on to cleaning up the issues remaining in the section on Transgender people. The issues to be addressed in that secion include:

WP:CITATION OVERKILL

inadequate use of
summary style
, trimming needed
All sections in the article except this one have been trimmed considerably to reflect summary style, while overall article size was maintained even as the missing literary analysis, about a fifth of the article now, was added

failure to use the highest quality most recent sources, eg, Pugh, 2020 which gives a good overview

unnecessary reliance on primary sources like tweets which are covered by secondary sources

excess detail on who agreed or disagreed with Rowling's statements regarding transgender issues; detail covered at the sub-article.

These adjustments should not be difficult, but when I asked on talk who was ready to begin, I got little response, so will ping people this week if there is no further feedback re addressing the remaining section. If other editors see other issues that need to be addressed, I hope they will list them and we can get moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current state of that subsection isn't ideal, but unlike with the literary analysis section, I do not think it is fatal to FA status; relative to the excess verbosity that has crept into other FAs, this is almost trivial, and while source improvements would be useful, what the best sources say isn't terribly different from what the article says at the moment. I would welcome further improvement, but have no time to make any myself, and in the absence of any rewrites would !vote to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are in violent agreement :) I believe that the work needed in this section should be minor compared to the literary work already done, but would like to hear from others before we get going! I also agree that the article is now essentially at FA standard, although the issues in the Transgender people do open the article to charges of
WP:UNDUE, as the length is not proportional. And the citation overkill just looks sloppy, particularly when we can use Pugh 2020 to say most of what is there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Basically agreed as well: the only issue I see as really serious on skimming the section is the obvious overcitation issues. I'd also like to get rid of detailed lists of who supports her and who doesn't: other than the actors of the main characters in the movies, I think most of these people aren't important to name. I'd also like to get rid of the lengthy quotes from Rowling: besides the general WP policy against lengthy quotes, Rowling's detractors usually don't accuse her of saying outright hateful things in plain text but of using dog-whistles. So, if we include the quotes, we would also need to include an explanation of why the quotes are objectionable, and that's way too much. Just say she's said things people objected to and don't dwell on the details. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Continued on talk page, where the work will happen. (This page is more of a summary of where we stand on the FAR.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this article. I don't have much to add that I haven't said a while back about that section, but feel free to ping me when more specifics are proposed. I do suggest coming up with a better name for the section itself; what her comments were on had more to do with policy or how to conceptualize gender itself rather than on "people" per se, and that framing could be argued to be biased in favor of the critics who rhetorically tend to equate comments on those matters with being against a group of people. Perhaps "transgender topics" (like the article Feminist views on transgender topics), "transgender identity" or "gender identity". Crossroads ^-talk- 23:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Crossroads I have been concerned about that distinction as well. Perhaps that should be our first order of business, if we can convene enough editors for a discussion. I wanted to allow some time for everything done so far to settle, to make sure it was stable. I'll wait a few more days to see who engages, and then start a section on FAR talk to address first the section name. Do you have anything else to add to my list of issues above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to keep it "transgender people" (or perhaps "transgender rights") for two reasons. Number one is that's pretty clearly the most common name for this, and number two is that I disagree that Rowling is talking about topics as airy as "how to conceptualize gender itself". None of her comments are academic, they're all situated quite firmly in a political context, and that political context is the acceptance of transgender people in the UK. She supported Maya Forstater who insulted and misgendered specific trans people. She opposes trans women in women's bathrooms and is for more gatekeeping against legal changing of gender. It's not just "sex is real" that she's arguing for; "sex is real" is rhetoric for a policy agenda that she outlines in the essay and which has much more concrete consequences than some academic argument about what exactly gender is. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My general sense is that if we trim the quotes and get rid of the "these people liked what she said and these people didn't" litany, it will be of acceptable quality. I am still unable to take the lead on this due to IRL commitments and general wiki-fatigue, but I will weigh in on specific proposals if pinged. Perhaps the easiest approach would simply be to trim specific sentences and cites that do not add anything useful, rather than trying to rewrite the prose wholesale? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this approach. As everyone else seems busy, I will work up a suggestion/start along these lines--perhaps by today, but first order of business is to sort the current dilemma wrt collaborative editing. [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I basically agree with this approach too. However, there's one set of reactions I think we ought to leave in, and that's the reactions of people involved with the movies (e.g. Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson, etc). I think that those reactions are an important part of Rowling's notability by themselves. It's not really notable that Julie Bindel supports her or that GLAAD doesn't, but I do think it's notable that a long list of people involved with her work don't support her. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LokiTheLiar, would you mind recording this with the discussions on the talk page instead of here? We use this page to summarize back where we stand on the work, and if long discussions take hold here, they can stall the overall FAR page. This is a point around which consensus will need to develop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable to me. I'm in the "I basically agree with this approach too" camp, but I'm pretty sure that Loki's idea will be controversial, because it will result in a bunch of negative coverage without balance. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed summary, SG. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Workshopping the transgender section is underway on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion has remained largely collegial and productive, advancing steadily to the third draft of the transgender section. Progress has been slower than anticipated as it turns out the RFC conducted on the lead in December revolved around some text that was not even sourced in the article, so there has been more re-writing than anticipated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JKR FARC break The article has been rewritten, with a new lead installed on 2 March and a rewrite of the material in the Transgender section installed on 7 April. Through four months at FAR, the article has remained
A. C. Santacruz, AleatoryPonderings, Aza24, Barkeep49, Bastun, BilledMammal, Bodney, Buidhe, Crossroads, Ealdgyth, Endwise, Extraordinary Writ, Firefangledfeathers, FormalDude, Guerillero, Hog Farm, Hurricane Noah, Innisfree987, Ipigott, Johnbod, LokiTheLiar, Newimpartial, Olivaw-Daneel, RandomCanadian, Sdkb, Sideswipe9th, Silver seren, SMcCandlish, Vanamonde93, Xxanthippe, Zmbro, and Z1720: Not pinging Victoriaearle per express request (she is following as able) and Ben MacDui, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Mike Christie, Peacemaker67, Rominchin who were only pinged here originally regarding specific questions in their specialty area (access to news archives, how to position military acronyms or college degree, how to interpret past RFC).
A post-FAR RFC is planned (if needed) to examine one section heading. No one has opined that the heading selection is fatal to FA status, FAR is not dispute resolution, and resolution can be handled through normal editing processes. That said, should participants have the time, it would be most appreciated if they could review Talk:J. K. Rowling/Section heading proposal with an eye towards helping winnow the list of possibilities and opine whether the planned RFC formatting is sound. Please enter your separate suggestions about winnowing and fine tuning the planned RFC at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1#Discussion of section heading proposals.
Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I anticipate entering a Keep declaration once others have reviewed, with the stipulation that it is anticipated that NEWsy sourcing will be replaced as scholarly sources become available. Should rewriting require new RFCs, it is hoped that the formatting will be vetted to avoid premature launch that can lead to faulty conclusions. This FAR has demonstrated that "slow and steady wins the race", and collaborative editing works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that Hog Farm, Aza24, Z1720 and 4meter4 have been through. For the @WP:FAR coordinators: noting that Aza24, Buidhe, Hog Farm and Z1720 did lengthier reviews in February, before the lead rewrite, now stored at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4. There are two unstruck delists from January based on instability; the article has not been unstable in the four months it has been at FAR; all changes have been in response to the FAR process or new developments (war in Ukraine) or disruptive editors subsequently blocked or topic banned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to take a look at this soon - I informally reviewed earlier in the FAR and thought it was looking in good shape sans a few areas that have been worked on since. Hog Farm _Talk 15:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed heavily to the rewrite so am not sure whether I should cast a formal !vote, but—with the exception of a few infelicitous sentences scattered throughout that I've been copyediting sporadically—I have no further concerns about the quality of this article. Reviewers should be aware that the article has indeed been totally rewritten since it was nominated: every section has changed substantially, vastly for the better in my opinion. Reviewers should keep this in mind. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can !vote, as long as your participation is declared (which I should have done as well; noting that the stats tool overstates my contributions relative to AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel and Vanamonde93 because I was the one to install many consensus versions and sources after FAR discussion. That is, a good deal of the text attributed to me was written collaboratively on talk, and only installed by me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given SG's note and Z's comments below re INVOLVED editors !voting, I will also register a keep (bearing in mind that this is the only FA-related project I've been involved in in ages and ages). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep—if this isn't at FA standard, then the standard we have set is too high. Fully sourced, good prose, formatted well and comprehensive. I will note that the dates in the bibliography don't conform to the established DMY dating throughout the rest of the article, but this isn't enough to prevent a keep from me (and I don't know that this is even an issue anyways). Aza24 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS says somewhere it's OK to use ISO dates in tables, and they are helpful, as they are sortable. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Kudos to SandyGeorgia who has spearheaded a successful FAR in my opinion. Issues related to stability have been satisfactorily addressed, and ultimately the revisions to the content on Rowling's views on gender have greatly improved the reliability and neutrality of the article. Sourcing is excellent, formatting and compliance with
WP:MOS are well done, and coverage of Rowling is as thorough as it should be for an FA article. Happy to see the expansion of critical commentary of her work. Nice work by all who assisted with improving the article.4meter4 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you, 4meter4, but the real kudos go to AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel and Vanamonde93. Could you please remember to strike your previous delist above, to help out the FAR Coords on the bookkeeping end? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.4meter4 (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Excellent save. One of the greatest achievements of FAR. Hog Farm _Talk 00:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm involved in this article and not usually involved in FAR, but the complaints of the OP have been addressed, a great deal of work has been put into the article, and to me it looks excellent now. I therefore say to keep it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing a readthrough now, and it seems to be in excellent condition. A couple of quibbles before I make a decision:

Can a date (even if it is a month and year) be given for the UK publication of Christmas Pig?

Same date, done [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note f needs a citation at the end of the note.

Done, [7] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Influences section, Lewis and Goudge are first mentioned by their last name, then wikilinked in the subsequent paragraph. Any particular reason for this?

Fixed those, and Nesbit, too, [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've read up to "Style and themes" and will continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cumulative adjustments: [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I finished reading through the article, made some minor changes, and can declare that I think this is a Keep. Z1720 (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I ought to enter a declaration, given how involved I was; but I do think the article meets our standards now, and it distinctly did not do so beforehand. The most serious concern was the absence of literary critique, which has been addressed; and the proliferation of trivia has also been addressed. Indeed I think more work was put into this FAR than into many successful FACs. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Just my opinion, but I think a declaration indicates to the FAR co-ords that the major contributors in fixing the article feel that the FAR is ready to be closed (and the editors don't plan on making further major changes). Z1720 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then, in that spirit. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caveat that I've contributed to the rewrite, but adding a !vote per Z1720. I believe the article meets the criteria and think this is a keep. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC) [10].

Shangani Patrol

Notified: Ctatkinson, Indy beetle, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject British Empire, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Zimbabwe, diff for talk page notification

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues with the sourcing and POV, see the talk page for details. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Nick-D

I also have concerns with sourcing:
I agree that the 1890s-era newspaper stories are clearly not suitable sources for a FA

There are also lots of jingoistic-looking sources from the early 1900s cited, which seem questionable at best

"Berlyn, Phillippa (April 1978). The Quiet Man: A Biography of the Hon. Ian Douglas Smith." - a biography of the Rhodesian PM published in Rhodesia during the later years of UDI cannot be assumed to be a reliable source given the extensive censorship of opposition to Smith's regime that was in place by then. The title alone raises concerns given Smith was anything but 'quiet'. This has been found to be unreliable in previous FARs.

There is no way that a book published in Apartheid South Africa called "Gale, W D (1958). Zambezi Sunrise: How Civilisation Came to Rhodesia and Nyasaland." can be a reliable source - the title alone is massively racist

"Gibbs, Peter; Phillips, Hugh; Russell, Nick (May 2009). Blue and Old Gold: The History of the British South Africa Police, 1889–1980. Johannesburg: 30° South Publishers." - I'm sceptical of anything published by this company, as they do not seem to exercise much if any quality control. Some works seem OK, but lots do not.
They're a specialty publisher for regional military history, but they've published some uncritical books on the Rhodesian Bush War written by the (white) participants, so definitely not the most ideal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Indy beetle (talk • contribs)
Yes, agreed. I've seen some good books published by this company, but also some terrible ones. I suspect that they don't edit or fact check the manuscripts they publish, so the quality of works is dependent on how good a job the author has done. Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They also have a partnership with Helion & Co (per their website) so that throws all of Helion's Rhodesia and South African books into question as well. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good find. Helion is a strange case: they seem to quality control works they publish themselves and have published lots of works by leading historians. At the same time, they've also published some total rubbish. I've looked at some of the volumes in the Africa @ War series via Scribd, and they were pretty bad. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I own a print copy of the Africa@War book War and Insurgencies in Uganda and have looked at one of theirs on Libya, the Congo, and some on Nigeria. All seem well-enough researched and have accompanying citations and bibliographies, but the Uganda book had some inexplicable typos and there seems to be a willingness to focus on more of the "military" side of things and less on the "history" part. They'll regularly cite the memoirs of mercenaries like
pulp nonfiction that sells because "oooh sexy [inevitably white] fighterboy adventurer doing cool things in oogum boogum jungle, killing commies". Unfortunately, that's what sells. Remove the white minority governments and mercenaries from the subject in question and the quality of their literature seems to improve. Really not much good for anything involving Rhodesia other than in-text attribution of opinion or strictly noncontroverisal things. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

"Lang, Andrew (1895). The Red True Story Book." - I really doubt that this is a high quality RS

"Lott, Jack (1981). Boddington, Craig (ed.). America – The Men and Their Guns That Made Her Great. Los Angeles: Petersen Publishing Company." - I doubt this is a RS, especially for this topic.

"Though much of the mythology surrounding the patrol and the site has dissipated in the national consciousness since the country's reconstitution as Zimbabwe in 1980, World's View endures as a tourist attraction to this day. A campaign in the 1990s to dismantle the monument and remove the graves met with strong opposition from both local residents and the Department of National Museums and Monuments, partly because of the income it brings from visitors, and partly out of respect for the site and the history surrounding it." - I can't see where this appears in the cited source. Nick-D (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC per above (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, poor sourcing. Hog Farm _Talk 13:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC @Indy beetle: made some significant edits on April 3, but unless they or someone else is willing to work on this, the sourcing problems outlined by Nick-D cause me to think this should move forward. Z1720 (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: no significant progress, concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist ditto (t · c) buidhe 16:27, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, issues persist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, no improvements since April 3. Hog Farm _Talk 14:51, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC) [11].

Hawksbill sea turtle

Notified: Shrumster, Lfstevens, WikiProject Southeast Asia, WikiProject Brazil, WikiProject Turtles, WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, talk page notice 2022-01-16

Review section

This article no longer meets the FA criteria. There are a lot of statements that need citations. There is an evolutionary history section that only contains a single paragraph that could be merged somewhere. Almost the entire article could be needed for rewriting and expansion, especially the anatomy and morphology, evolutionary history, etymology, and taxonomic history and conservation sections. There are also some questionable sources have been used at the article such as ref 2? ref 11, ref 12, ref 24, ref 26, ref 54? ref 56? and possibly others.
talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Certainly not up to par. The lead in 2007 covered more in the article. CMD (talk) 02:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of the refs mentioned in the nomination statement: Ref 2 looks fine, I'd say
ITIS). Sourcing could be improved, but the nomination statement seems to include some false positives on bad sources. Hog Farm _Talk 03:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Move to FARC HF has done a great job analysing the sources mentioned in the FAR nomination, and while some are acceptable others are not (particularly ref 24, which is to a Facebook page of what appears to be a tour guide company?). Other references need proper formatting (like ref 77). I'm also concerned about the "Conservation" section, which uses lots of websites of organisations as sources: is there academic literature on the conservation status of this species? I did a JSTOR search of "Hawksbill sea turtle" and the amount of results I got were staggering, so I think there's academic literature that is missing from this article and should be examined before non-academic sources are used. (examples: Foraging Selectivity of the Hawksbill Sea Turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) in the Culebra Archipelago, Puerto Rico, 2011, Efficient establishment of primary fibroblast cultures from the hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata) and A multistate open robust design: population dynamics, reproductive effort, and phenology of sea turtles from tagging data.) Z1720 (talk) 21:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, needed sourcing improvements have not occurred. Hog Farm _Talk 02:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC per above, no edits since 3 April. (t · c) buidhe 22:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC No improvements yet.
talk) 08:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no significant edits since FAR has been opened. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist the issues are still present. (t · c) buidhe 16:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, issues unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Casliber did some reorganization on April 16, but the sourcing issues are outstanding. Hog Farm _Talk 14:52, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC) [12].

Chad

Notified:
Countries, diff for talk page notification

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are major issues with datedness and citation issues, see the detailed list on the talk page. (t · c) buidhe 23:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well this has been due for awhile. I've done some updating and cleanup myself here and there, but don't have time for a more detailed undertaking. This article does reflect in a few ways the state of country articles in the early years of Wikipedia, and has not kept up with increasing standards since then. A shame though, as many areas remain quite good. CMD (talk) 03:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, dated text and other issues mentioned on talk unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC per Sandy. Hog Farm _Talk 16:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC per above (t · c) buidhe 21:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no progress (t · c) buidhe 19:55, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, issue unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - minimal progress to resolving issues. Hog Farm _Talk 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no significant edits since March, concerns still remain. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC) [13].

Tiridates I of Armenia

Notified: Eupator, WikiProject Armenia, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Iran, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Zoroastrianism, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Rome, 18-12-2021

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of disorganised references, with some media described in the inline citation and others placed in the bibliography section. There's also works placed in the bibliography that are not used as sources and their quality should be evaluated and considered for inline citation use. The "War with Rome" section has been expanded since its FAC and I think it should be trimmed and summarised. The "Visiting Rome" section has pretty much stayed the same since its FAC, but I also think it can be summarised and trimmed, especially Tiridates and Nero's interaction and the direct quotes. The "Cultural depictions" section is one sentence and uncited. Eponymous-Archon made some improvements after I noticed it in December, but these seemed to have stalled. HistoryofIran commented on the talk page that this article's FA status should be reviewed. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - sourcing needs improved in areas. "Nero was reportedly so impressed by this act that he ordered a gladiatorial games be staged in honor of his guest" should have a secondary source rather than Cassius Dio, the large chunk of a paragraph sourced to the 1842 "Penny Cyclopedia" needs a better source, etc. There's some other areas where Cassius Dio or Tacitus should be replaced by secondary sources and while Smith 1867 is considered useful at times, I would recommend using more modern references instead of the cites to him, as where Smith is dated, it's frequently badly sometimes. Hog Farm _Talk 17:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC per HF analysis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC per above. (t · c) buidhe 07:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no progress (t · c) buidhe 19:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, issues unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, nothing happened since FAR opened and sourcing issues remain. Hog Farm _Talk 15:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, no edits since March. Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC) [14].

Macfarlane Burnet

Notified:
WP Australia, WP Med, WP Viruses, WP Physiology, talk page notification 2021-12-20

Review section

This 2006 has not been maintained to FA standards. The issues listed on talk on 2021-12-20 include datedness, comprehensiveness, an overreliance on non-independent sources, prose and MOS issues. The article appears to be unwatched, and needs a tune up to retain status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, nothing really happening since Sandy's improvements back in December. Hog Farm _Talk 16:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, no improvements, appears no one cares. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC after an independent examination, I agree with most of the criticisms. (t · c) buidhe 07:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist no progress (t · c) buidhe 19:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Sandy, as nothing has happened here to improve the article. Hog Farm _Talk 15:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [15].

National emblem of Belarus

Notified:
Cukrakalnis, Zscout370, Nieszczarda2, Pofka, Valentinian, Mzajac, Cordyceps-Zombie, WP Belarus, WP Heraldry andvexillology, noticed over a year ago

Review section

This 2006 promotion needs a bit of touching-up to reach current standards. There are patches of uncited text throughout, and some spots appear to lack needed detail, such as an explanation of why the 2020 change occurred. Some of the image licensing needs checked as well: the image of the building in Minsk needs checked because there is no freedom of panorama in Belarus, and the book dust jacket image may well be copyrighted. Some of the sourcing needs upgraded as well, such as citing a statement about Pahonia Publishers (which may not even be all that relevant) to the publishing information of a novel. Hog Farm _Talk 17:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of W:NPOV issues here:

The article instead of explaining the history and the meaning of the Pahonia for Belarusians is trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem

The whole sentence "According to the formerly popular historian Arnold J. Toynbee, the pagan Lithuanians performed sweeping conquests of the Orthodox Ruthenians and this medieval greatness of Lithuania was conveyed in its heraldic emblem – a galloping horseman." is problematic (why Toynbee is the source here when there are thousands more reliable and recent sources to qoute? Toynbee wasn't an expert on Belarusian or Lithuanian heraldry)

ancestors of Belarusians are called "Russians", their culture is called "Russian". That's very close to hoax

Lithuanian mythologists presented as a reliable source of information (why they are even quoted here?)

The entire section should be rewritten based on reliable sources, written by professional academic heraldists. Marcelus (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia Britannica (possibly the most reliable information source in the entire world), no distinctive Belarusian national symbols were developed until the 20th century (see: Britannica's article). Also, Belarus had no statehood traditions until the 20th century and only in 1918 they created their first sovereignty (see: Britannica's article). Encyclopedia Britannica is the cornerstone of this article. That being said, I see no significant issues regarding Belarus' national symbols, but the "20th century" and "As a state symbol in the Republic of Belarus" sections certainly requires expansion with more details. I have strong doubts about this article's status as FP in 2022 because it certainly is not one of the finest articles in Wikipedia, thus I support its denomination from a FP status. -- Pofka (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think Britannica online is a very good source. I've seen uneven quality and accuracy in articles on other topics, and it's frequently out of date when compared to recent scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The Belarus-related articles in Britannica have not had major updates since being transferred online. So much has happened in scholarship since then. They are of a substandart quality nowadays. In addition, the articles on Belarus and the flag of Belarus do not deal with Pahonia directly anyway. Nieszczarda2 (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica is factually correct and ensures
WP:NPOV. It may lack further details, but its facts are simply unchallengeable. -- Pofka (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
There's a definite difference between the old print volumes (which will be out of date for some topics, but of reasonable quality), but the Britannica Online stuff is simply less good than Britannica's reputation would say. Hog Farm _Talk 15:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would reject britannica sourcing at the FA level, and probably other levels as well. Have a look at this trainwreck, which I encountered while peer reviewing nonmetal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Britannica is undoubtedly written in NPOV and it is trustworthy. These are the most important things. Britannica's article about Belarus was last updated on March 2, 2022, so it is certainly not outdated. -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and suggest the POV template placed. The Pahonia part of the article does not meet several WP:FA criteria.

It is not well-researched: instead of relying on the major scholarly publications on Pahonia in Belarusian history by Tsitou and Shalanda, it leans on a substandard article in the Britannica and a number of irrelevant publications not dealing with the Belarusian use of Pahonia directly. The article is not neutral, it has signs of disruptive editing reflected in its incosistent style and structure. It contains mistakes or requiries further clarifications ("The Pahonia derives from the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" - Pahonia was the coat of arms of GDL, unless the sentence is supposed to mean that the first state emblem of the Republic of Belarus derived from the coat of arms of GDL.) --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should have been a demotion of the article National emblem of Belarus from Featured-class to something lower already a long time ago, owing to the article's shortcomings.

Regarding what
talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Sources can be neutral, but their selection can create a non-neutral narrative. As in this case. It is obvious that the article is not written in a neutral way. And if the statement that Russian culture prevailed in Belarus comes from sources, it proves the worst about these sources and is a confirmation that they are not reliable. Marcelus (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

talk) 19:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to FARC, it seems that everyone is in agreement that this needs work. Hog Farm _Talk 14:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC. Cukrakalnis (Who says the article should be demoted) made one edit; there has been no other improvement, and the article still contains large amounts of uncited text, along with what now appears to be an NPOV dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC I haven't read the above, except for HF's original statement. However, I see that minimal edits have been made to the article in the past few months, and uncited statements, paragraphs, and sections remain in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Unsourced sections, paragraphs and statements. DrKay (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. It is clearly not one of the finest articles in Wikipedia. -- Pofka (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above, work is needed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no progress to fix concerns since it's move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [16].

Octopus card

Notified: HongQiGong, BrownHairedGirl, 香港分子, WikiProject Hong Kong, WikiProject Numismatics, WikiProject Finance & Investment, talk page notification 2022-02-18

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as stated on the talk page, there are issues with non-cited content, overreliance on primary sources, and lack of updating. (t · c) buidhe 03:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This is a FA that has been promoted, demoted, and then promoted again, so if the FAR closes as delist, then I think the record-keeping will be slightly different somewhere. Hog Farm _Talk 04:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC: Uncited statements remain, the last edit to the article was Jan. 17. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hove to FARC per above (t · c) buidhe 21:03, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - minimal engagement, issues unaddressed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:25, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Unsourced sections, paragraphs and statements. DrKay (talk) 12:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist issues still present (t · c) buidhe 23:00, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - unsourced material that should be sourced remains. Hog Farm _Talk 13:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist unsources material is still present, minimal edits since its move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [17].

Royal National College for the Blind

Notified: This is Paul, WikiProject Higher education, WikiProject Disability, talk page notification 2022-02-06

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues with datedness and comprehensiveness, which were raised last month at talk but have not been addressed. The state of FAs in post-secondary education is truly dire at this point—of the 15 FAs on contemporary post-secondary institutions from September 2020, this and United States Military Academy are the only ones remaining, and there's only been one new FA passed in the past decade. A save here would be really nice. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 03:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC History section's last event was 2009, Education section's last event was 2010, and I think the "Financial crisis" section should be merged with History and trimmed. The last edit to the article was Feb. 16. Z1720 (talk) 15:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no edits to resolve issues (t · c) buidhe 00:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - minimal/insufficient engagement; issues unaddressed. Hog Farm _Talk 14:26, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness/currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, regrettably. There has been no engagement with the issues. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. History section imbalanced and incomplete with a heavy focus on the first decade of the 21st century and no coverage of the second decade. DrKay (talk) 12:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per issues identified by Sdkb. Hog Farm _Talk 13:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no edits to the article since February, concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [18].

Cyclol

Notified:
WP Cell bio, WP History of Science, WP Chem, talk page notification 2021-03-11

Review section

This 2006 FA was noticed as having considerable uncited text a year ago, and there has been no progress. If someone engages, other deficiences can be listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone though the paragraphs that previously completely lacked refs. They mostly were supportable with reuse of refs already cited in the page, so I've favoured that for the most part.

The actual content and images are up to standard in my opinion. I'm not a big fan of figure numbering in Wikipedia articles, since in makes addition and removal of images more fiddly. However this article is stable enough that it doesn't make a huge difference so I've not removed them.

There's a few relevant recent papers that might be worth integrating.
Alkorta, Ibon; Sánchez-Sanz, Goar; Trujillo, Cristina; Azofra, Luis Miguel; Elguero, José (2012-06-01). "A theoretical reappraisal of the cyclol hypothesis". Structural Chemistry. 23 (3): 873–877.
ISSN 1572-9001
.

Mendoza‐Sanchez, Rodrigo; Corless, Victoria B.; Nguyen, Q. Nhu N.; Bergeron‐Brlek, Milan; Frost, John; Adachi, Shinya; Tantillo, Dean J.; Yudin, Andrei K. (2017-08-31). "Cyclols Revisited: Facile Synthesis of Medium‐Sized Cyclic Peptides". Chemistry – A European Journal. 23 (54): 13319–13322.
ISSN 0947-6539. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

MOS:CAPTIONS
"should be succinct"; the image captions are uncited paragraphs.

MOS:BOLDing
used inappropriately in text.

WP:LEAD
is not an accessible summary of the article, and is overly detailed; needs to be rewritten.

There are a whopping 22 uses of the word however. See Overuse of however and User:John/however.

Overuse of also should be reviewed: see User:Tony1/How to improve your writing

The lead refers to figures which are found much later, in the body of the article. (???)

Page numbers are missing on books.

The "Illustration of the Scientific Method" appears to contain original research (page numbers and quotes needed to determine if
WP:SYNTH
is present).

Statements that require independent sourcing are cited to Wrinch.

Editorializing, sample: "In her initial article, Wrinch stated clearly stated" (there is more).

"cyclol reaction itself" was verified, but
MOS:OVERLINK review as well ... beauty
?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disappointing topic. From my admittedly superficial reading (I am not expert on this field), this article pitches a largely discredited/ignored/niche set of papers as something significant, which it does not seem to be. Take the example of J. Am. Chem. Soc. 1941, 63, 2, 330–333. The article has been cited a grand total of 4x. Or "The Cyclol Hypothesis" by Wrinch, Dorothy in Nature, Volume 145, Issue 3678, pp. 669-670 (1940), which has been cited 3x. And "Nature of the Linkages in Proteins" D. M. Wrinch, Nature 139, 718 (1937). Cited 1x. The article also is sort of case study about the scientific method, I guess in a sort of harmless way. One might say that the article is a case study in
WP:UNDUE. Lots of famous people and papers cited (Bragg, Pauling, Einstein, ...), but those citations seem contrived and seem to be intended to add weight to a fluffy report. If one wants to discuss Xray crystallography, bonding, or quantum theory, modern sources should be cited IMHO. But no modern source would cite the cyclol hypothesis, because it didnt work out ("dustbin of history") just like most early work when scientists are muddling around, trying to figure things out. Apologies for my directness, which is intended to help. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
That confirms my impression; it also struck me that a lot of the content fits better at Dorothy Maud Wrinch, and that some sections are original research (like Scientific Method, relying on sources that don't even mention the hypothesis). And that one has to read too far in to realize it's in the dustbin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd disagree with this. I think that discredited theories warrant inclusion from a history-of-science perspective, especially since this page is clear that it's an obsolete model. I remember this topic being noted in my biochemistry undergrad as an example of the early wild west of biochem along with things like the pauling DNA triplex and the ox phos wars (both of which I would like to see have wp pages eventually). Indeed Category:Obsolete_scientific_theories is surprisingly slim. I agree with the 'Cyclol hypothesis' or 'Cyclol model of protein structure' or similar would be a better page name. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 06:06, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC would need a lot of work to be salvaged (t · c) buidhe 15:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to FARC~~ even if someone were to engage, I am unsure this is salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Move to FARC, accelerated process~~ per Sandy. Hog Farm _Talk 18:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could be Improved But of course I would say that, since I wrote it fifteen years ago, my second and admittedly imperfect Featured Article. But after reading these reviews, I expected the article to far worse that it actually is. Yes, the article has flaws, but they are IMO readily remedied, such as trimming the lead and captions and mentioning that the theory is discredited in the lead. Yes, it is an article about a discredited scientific theory, but that alone shouldn't disqualify it from Wikipedia; consider other "dustbin-of-history" examples on Wikipedia, such as the Steady-state model (physics), Lamarckism (biology) or Phlogiston theory (chemistry). Since the article is concerned with the history of the theory, it seems relevant to cite the contemporary literature, although modern articles (such as those cited above in this review) relevant to the theory should also be cited. The suggestion to add modern-day literature on crystallography and quantum mechanics seems anachronistic, since the article is concerned with the methods and ideas of protein structure almost a century ago. I would ask the reviewers to take the time to read the article carefully and to list other objective, well-defined shortcomings of the article besides those given above. I for my part will try to amend them. Willow (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A re-read and a few patches is not going to convince me this is or can be close to featured material, and
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument for the case. Some of it seems like material for Wrinch's bio, and the scope and name of the article are also problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm open to changing the name of the article; what about
cyclol reaction
, etc. also seem like good suggestions. And I have no objections to improving the writing, e.g., the overuse of "however" and "also". The figure captions can also be shortened. Some captions are long only to help the reader to understand what is being depicted.

The scope of the article is to describe this discredited scientific theory, which was the first three-dimensional model of protein structure, as well as its development and demise. Although others may disagree, I would argue that the histories of discredited theories (such as the three others mentioned above) deserve a place on Wikipedia and should not be barred a priori from becoming Featured Articles. Thought experiment: Would we strip Island of stability of its FA status, if it were definitively refuted?

Whether this article deserves to be a Featured Article is not within my power to decide. What is within my power is to improve the article in response to well-defined and actionable criticisms, which I politely request. Willow (talk) 00:31, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My objection is not because it's a discredited theory; it's how the article is put together. I suggest a sustained amount of work would be needed to address all of the issues. There's the lists of issues on the page already (just an overview, on closer examination, more is typically found), and there seems to be
WP:SYNTH in the "Illustration of the scientific method" section at least. Standards at FAC have changed considerably since this article was featured; page numbers and most recent scholarly sources are expected, and the two new sources listed above would need to be incorporated, as well as solving the naming and writing issues. I would not want to see this FAR stalled on the page unless there is truly a commitment from numerous editors to doing this work; it is quite a bit for one editor. Willow, you've been absent from Wikipedia for quite some time, and I'm unaware if you know how much standards have changed since 2006 to 2008?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, there are far fewer editors to collaborate on articles these days. Let's suppose the Gods smiled upon Wikipedia and the one-and-only
Tim Vickers returned to active editing: where do you think his efforts are most needed and would be best utilized? We need him on at about eight very highly viewed FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I will do what I can and if Tim and others can contribute, then I will be only too delighted. Of course the cyclol model is not the most pressing issue on Wikipedia. If you want to end this FAR in the interests of time and because the task seems too great for one editor, then I accept your assessment with good grace.

Nonetheless I ask a boon. According to my understanding, an FAR may last 3 weeks, especially if the article is being worked on actively, as we see on the current
WP:FAR. I request that editors be given until the 31st of March to improve the Cyclol article before sending it to FARC. Willow (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
FARs can last as articles are improving; that is not a problem. But because you have been long (mostly) absent, I just wanted to be sure you were aware of how much has changed in the standards of featured articles, but more significantly, that the kinds of collaborations that used to routinely happen in bringing and keeping articles at featured standard are now extremely rare on Wikipedia. There are fewer editors, and fewer FA-knowledgeable editors who have the time to help when a top-to-bottom rewrite is needed. That is, I wanted to be sure you understood the likelihood that you would have to a) do the bulk of the rewrite yourself, while b) perhaps not knowing that the standards today are much higher than they were when the article was first written. The expectation today is that everything will be cited to the highest quality and most recent scholarly sources; the days when FAs were an editor writing what they knew, and more or less attaching reliable sources to that text, are no more. And I'm not complaining that this article is somehow less important than the others, rather pointing out that very highly viewed and core articles are going without improvements for the very reasons I mention, so that you will go in knowing that getting help from others may not happen. I saw this, sadly, at History of Minnesota; Minnesota last decade had pretty much a featured topic, with almost everything about the state at FA level. That was when many editors collaborated and shared the work; today, the editors who attempt to save a rusty bronze star often find they are going it alone, and become discouraged and give up. Graham Beards and I, with a few others new since your time, have done our best in the biomedical realm, but much of Tim Vickers' work is now at risk. I am also worried that the one editor who can rewrite this article (you) has been fairly disengaged from Wikipedia; do you have the commitment to see this through? Those are things for you to ponder; as to how FAR functions, if you say you are willing to do the work, and productive work is ongoing, FARs are allowed to stay open. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, page numbers are now more typically expected on long journal articles for verification. For example, in the biomedical realm, have a look at the citations at the newer featured articles at Buruli ulcer, complete blood count, dementia with Lewy bodies, and menstrual cycle as well as others reworked by Graham such as introduction to viruses and immune system. Using sfns can be helpful, if you decide to go that way. I'm also concerned about the amount of content cited to Wrinch; some of it needs independent sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:57, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to help out Willow on this. She certainly knows the topic better than I do so I'll play the minor role, but a chunk of the issues are stylistic rather than substantive and I've sufficient background in the topic to not introduce errors when editing for style. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 22:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck my Move declaration then; please keep the page posted on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get consensus for a name change and scope of article, and if the article is moved mid-FAR, please ping me to fix this page to the corrected names and moves, etc. No changes are needed in the articlehistory template on talk, as it was designed to withstand article moves (I sometimes see editors moving all the old pages in articlehistory, which is not necessary). My choice would be
Cyclol hypothesis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Update, no edits, feedback or apparent progress after 22 March, since our last conversation, are not giving a reassuring feeling about extending the time on this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, and discussion of article scope needs to be resolved. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:15, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist in its current state (have been lurking during during this FAR, and made a few edits). Too many issue; esp re that the theory has been discredited; the article seems to be in a half way state and doesn't seem to know what it is trying to say / cover. Ceoil (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - the section with SYNTH issues was removed on March 22, but much of the rest of the issues identified by Sandy remain, and improvements haven't been regularly happening since late March. Hog Farm _Talk 13:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - stalled since 22 March, with no edits, progress or updates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no progress since March 22, uncited statements remain. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [19].

Pericles

Notified: Yannismarou, Konstable, Tpbradbury, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Politics, 17 Dec 2021

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of serious reservations in the quality of the sourcing, particularly the excessive use of ancient or dated sources. These were raised 2 months ago on talk without improvement. (t · c) buidhe 04:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC issues still present (t · c) buidhe 00:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, limited engagement, issues unresolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, sourcing needs overhauled. Hog Farm _Talk 18:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Issues still present (t · c) buidhe 01:47, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Lack of any significant improvements. --The helper5667 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Edits have been made to remove unused or unreliable sources, but the article still relies on ancient sources to verify the information. No significant edits have been made to rectify this problem. Z1720 (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, sourcing issues remain. Hog Farm _Talk 14:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [20].

J. R. Richard

Notified:
WP Houston, noticed on January 24

Review section

As noted on the article talk page, a read-through of just two sections resulted in the discovery of about 15 instances of original research and/or failed verification. The big problem here is the improper use of box scores to source details not actually found in box scores, as well as a few instances of editor-provided judgment of the quality of statistical results. Hog Farm _Talk 22:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC would need an overhaul to retain FA status (t · c) buidhe 00:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC; sourcing issues have not been addressed and this will require a line-by-line rewrite. Hog Farm _Talk 14:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, and wondering if we should expedite all fo this nominator's FAs per the issues found on others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include verifiability/sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist sourcing issues stlill present (t · c) buidhe 01:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: No edits since placed on FAR. Z1720 (talk) 13:09, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - sizable OR/failed verification issues still present. Hog Farm _Talk 13:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delist for all the reasons and issues found in previous similar FARs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [21].

Gyeongju

Notified: Visviva, B. C. Mayfield, WP Cities, WP Korea, talk page notification 2021-03-21

Review section

The issues I raised on talk a year ago are unaddressed. The main concern is datedness (the article appears unmaintained), along with MOS concerns, including external jumps in the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly unrelated comment, but am I the only one who thinks the infobox map image of File:North Gyeongsang-Gyeongju.svg makes South Korea appear to be an island? Hog Farm _Talk 17:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, no engagement. Hog Farm _Talk 16:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no improvement on the updating front, serious issues remain. (t · c) buidhe 00:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, nothing happening, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no effort to fix datedness concerns (t · c) buidhe 01:50, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist limited engagement, dateness still a concern. Z1720 (talk) 13:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - datedness has not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, this article is abandoned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [22].

Hippocrates

Notified: Zbxgscqf, Dwaipayanc, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject History of Science, talk page notification 2022-02-12

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns related to
FA criterion 1c: uncited claims, insufficiently high-quality sourcing, and lack of reference to recent high-quality reliable sources. I raised these issues on Talk:Hippocrates at the end of January; in four weeks no attempt has been made to solve any of these issues. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Notifications: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC lack of significant improvement, issues still present (t · c) buidhe 23:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, lack of sufficient engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, minimal engagement. Hog Farm _Talk 14:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist issues still present (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Lack of any significant improvements. --The helper5667 (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: No significant improvements. I'm not an expert in this area, so I can't comment on the quality of the sources, but there are numerous sources listed on the talk page that can be considered for inclusion in the article. Z1720 (talk) 13:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - uses lower-quality sources instead of key higher-quality ones. No engagement, only vandalism reversion. Hog Farm _Talk 14:09, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist what a pity, again, for WP:MED's decline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [29].

George Fox

Notified:
WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject England, WikiProject Religion, 17 Dec

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of Extraordinary Writ's talk page comment a month ago. The issue is that the article is not well researched or comprehensive due to over-reliance on self-sourcing at the expense of scholarship into Fox's life. (t · c) buidhe 21:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this analysis. Sourcing can't be slacked on, especially for a FA. Sawyer-mcdonell (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Swarthmore, Haverford, and Pendle Hill have published a wide-variety of books on the subject and it looks like nothing from any of them used. Those publishers are just from Friends General Conference and don't even cover the points of view of the more conservative Central Yearly Meeting of Friends. The legacy section in particular is lacking since there are still Friends around the world. (COI note: I am a Quaker) --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 18:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC: no significant improvements; the sourcing and comprehensiveness issues that I identified in the talk-page notice haven't been addressed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, a sourcing overhaul is needed, and not being undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, reliant on subject's personal writings at the expense of more modern scholarship. Hog Farm _Talk 15:15, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no edits, sourcing issues are still present (t · c) buidhe 19:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist no effort to fix issues discussed above, sourcing issues still present (t · c) buidhe 08:57, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~, no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold for Wtfiv. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delist~~ - sourcing needs work, no improvement. Hog Farm _Talk 14:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FARC, I just took a peek at the latest on the FAR list, as I need to just wait while editor requires time to work on sections of the Joan of Arc article, which is my current project. I saw Mr. Fox here about to go through the delisting, and teetering on the edge. Though the resources available to me look thin, I think it's do-able. I'm willing to take this article on, as long as you are okay that my recently-slowed editing pace. Would this adoption be okay, or should he just go the way of the delist? Wtfiv (talk) 00:53, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I, at least, am okay with waiting. Striking delist. Hog Farm _Talk 03:37, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My start on George Fox will be delayed. Joan of Arc suddenly needs a bit of attention. I'm hoping to get started here within two weeks. Wtfiv (talk) 23:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wtfiv, are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I think I'd enjoy this topic. But realistically, non-Wikipedia issues have grabbed my time and I doubt I'll be able to get to it within the month. What little time I have should be just cleaning up the Joan of Arc article. So maybe it is just best to delist it for now. Thanks for checking up on this. Wtfiv (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, sadly, per Wtfiv. Hog Farm _Talk 15:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, back to delist, per Wtfiv. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist hope this can be improved and brought back to FAC in the future. (t · c) buidhe 18:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [30].

United Nations Parliamentary Assembly

Notified: Captain Zyrain, the FAC nominator, has been blocked, Sarsaparilla is a major contributor who also has been blocked. WikiProject United Nations, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Politics 03-30-2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the extensive issues as noted on the talk page by Hog Farm. These include: original research, unverified statements, sources that should be replaced with higher-quality ones. SandyGeorgia posted concerns about canvassing in the original FAC, and the nominator is blocked as a sock. A peer review in 2015 identified issues with non-NPOV and comprehensiveness, problems which do not seem to have been resolved. Due to the extensive problems with the article, Nikkimaria (FAR co-ord) gave permission to wave the two-week notice requirement. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delist - is one of the most deficient FAs I've ever. Major POV issues, and/because the sourcing is a mess, relying almost exclusively on groups advocating this. IMO the Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shoe polish/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/ROT13/archive2 precedents would apply here. Hog Farm _Talk 14:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy per HF; too much to address at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delist agree w/above (t · c) buidhe 23:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sppedy delist I'll also note some SYNTH/OR issues as well such as One of the main purposes for the creation of a UNPA is enhancing UN accountability and legitimacy. The United Nations System spent more than $1.8 billion of public money in 2005[80] and its own auditors have pointed out that it lacks adequate internal controls to protect against waste, fraud and mismanagement.[81] One of those citations is a budget report, the other an audit report; neither discuss the relevance of a UNPA. And yes clear POV/unattirbuted opinion issues, not to mention outdated! -Indy beetle (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAR coordinators: - Is it time to move this one on to FARC or to close it? It looks like there's definitely a consensus forming to speedy this one. Hog Farm _Talk 02:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. for all the reasons above. Also so more time can be devoted to salvageable content Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [31].

Make Way for Ducklings

Notified: WP Children's literature, WP US, 2021-04-07

Review section This FA was promoted in 2006 by a nominator blocked since 2009 for sockpuppetry. Concerns about the article include comprehensiveness, need to reflect recent scholarship, and the need for a source-to-text integrity check related to the sock possibilities; these concerns are covered in the talk page discussion.
Because there are few Wikiprojects or editors to notify, I am also notifying literarature editors who might be willing or able to have a look here: User talk:AleatoryPonderings, User talk:Barkeep49, User talk: Olivaw-Daneel, and User talk:Vanamonde93. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have quite a hard time believing that this short article on a children's literature landmark is
well written, since to my mind being well written requires paragraphs to flow naturally from one to another and show a logical progression of ideas.) This is just a preliminary assessment and I will try to find some better sources soon. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Apologies, I'm far too busy to participate here. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, this article is so extremely under-developed that it fails
WP:WIAFA on nearly every level. Several sections are only two or three sentences long, some of the sources are the book itself or unreliable blogs. It's not quite as alarming as Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shoe polish/archive2 or Wikipedia:Featured article review/Alpha Kappa Alpha/archive1, but it's definitely going to take far more work than I think the scope of FAR requires. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:37, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Move to FARC - This is one of the most lackluster Featured Articles I have ever read. GamerPro64 07:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, issues have not been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, sourcing, and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - It needs a huge overhaul to make it presentable. GamerPro64 05:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - quite some distance from standards. Hog Farm _Talk 14:35, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, unimproved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. again. nothing happening, nominator blocked for sockpuppetry. let's move on Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

~~Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/April_2022&oldid=1085361665"~~