Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2020

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) 9:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC) [1].

---

Synthetic diamond

Notified: User talk:Materialscientist, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry, article talk 14 Jan and 8 Feb

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been tagged since June 2019, with no action taken to remedy the issues. Besides the issues mentioned, I suspect an update is overdue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

PauloDiCapistrano has tagged the article, without any explanation on the talk page and without notifying me. This would be a shortcut to a quick and silent delisting, but not to improving the article. The concerns are minor (there were very few updates in the field in the past decade) and unsubstantiated. I will address them anyway. Please bear with my slow pace these weeks due to the coronavirus-related obstacles. Materialscientist (talk) 01:34, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

No hurry, glad you are on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I've addressed the tags. There was never a problem with secondary sourcing of this article - sources were always there, fully supporting the content, just needed to be inlined more frequently over the text. Materialscientist (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Materialscientist I will go through in the next day or so; did you check if anything needed updating? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I can't recall any significant news in the (stagnating) science and history of the topic. A few updates on gem use had been added before this FAR. I will have another look though. Materialscientist (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Materialscientist, my apologies for the delay; back now. I see you have corrected most of the issues, but I have a few queries/comments:

• Are all of those "See also" necessary? Since an FA is presumed to be comprehensive, one expects most See alsos to be linked into the article.
• Ditto for WP:EL; do those links contain information that can't be/hasn't been mentioned in the article?
• Several errors categories (see the bottom of page) are still populated-- those are what caused this article to pop up on the FAs with errors list, and ideally, we should deal with them wherever possible. Particularly, the errors cats reveal several pieces of text that might need attention:

• This technique requires relatively simple equipment and procedures, but it has only been reported by two research groups, and had no industrial use {{As of|2012|lc=on}}.
• {{As of|2017|01|post=,}} synthetic diamonds sold as jewelry were typically selling for 15–20% less than natural equivalents, and the relative price was expected to decline further as production economics improve.

• I am unsure how to address the CS1 errors, but they will cause this article to continue to appear on the errors list.
• On a quick glance, I see incomplete citations here-- please doublecheck thoughout, as I did not do a thorough check:

• "16 CFR Part 23: Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries: Adoption of Revised Guides". July 24, 2018. (Missing publisher and accessdate)
• Ditto here, I didn't check throughout: "FTC Approves Final Revisions to Jewelry Guides". July 24, 2018.

• Could you juggle, reduce size, or somehow address the three images beginning with the "High pressure, high temperature" section, to avoid MOS:SANDWICH?

  I've fixed all the above issues. Images are set correctly and appear fine on my laptops, but I don't have access to a wide screen, and will hardly have in the coming weeks. Any experienced editor who sees a problem with text jamming, please adjust image placement at will. Materialscientist (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks, Materialscientist; unless someone else has issues, I am good to Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

If DrKay could also have a look, we should be close to being able to close this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• Close without FARC. I see no obvious problems. Thanks for the work done. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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) 19:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 9:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC) [2].

---

CM Punk

Notified: Article talk 2020-01-28, WP Chicago, ‎WP Mixed martial arts, WP Professional wrestling, ‎WP Bio/Sports and games, User:Prefall

Review section

This FA was promoted in 2007, and the original writer has been gone for more than a decade. The article has fallen out of FA standards. There are numerous maintenance categories, a convoluted TOC, and a MOS review is needed. There are also queries on talk indicating the article is outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The preferred way of going about this, of course, would have been to inform the relevant project of your concerns before nominating it. I see that there was a note on the article talk page, but notifying the project would be a much more effective way to reach people. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

See the WP:FAR instructions. More significantly, GaryColemanFan, are you aware of anyone willing and able to work on the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the wikilink. I've read the page before. Now, it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair. And a terrific smile. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the TOC could easily be fixed by {{TOC|3}}. I'm not sure I understand the concerns that the original writer being inactive, that's quite common, no? Without reading through the talk page, could we get a small summary of exactly what MOS issues there are? From what I see: I'd like to remove citations from lede and infobox, per WP:INFOBOXCITE (can be sourced in professional wrestling persona section), as well as clean up the tagged note & potentially unreliable source. Other than that - the article needs some better paragraphing, and going through with a comb for duplinks. I don't think that would take all that long to do though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are willing to do all the other updates, I will go through and fix MOS issues once you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment – I once saw that there was a talk page message listing a bunch of issues with the article, so when I noticed this pop up on the list of articles with FAR-related talk page notices, I went over to see what I could do. There were a few prose bugs that I was able to fix, but a good number of the past comments went completely over my head. You really need to know more about wrestling than I do to bring an article like this to the highest level possible, so I doubt I can help much. However, I am rooting for the article to receive the attention it needs to retain FA status. I'd suggest trying to resolve the tagged issues first, as most of the tags relate to an unreliable source, which is a no-no for an FA. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

*Delist to Good Article - CM Punk is well known as wrestler and lot hyped wrestling fans like to edit this page due to big user base leaving issues on the page. Indeed it has failed WP:FACRITERIA. Regice2020 (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Regice2020 please see the WP:FAR instructions. Keep or Delist are not declared during the FAR phase, which is where issues needing correction are identified and the article is hopefully improved. If the article is not improved, it moves to the FARC phase, where Keep or Delist is declared. Also, we don't re-assign GA status; that is a separate process. If an article is delisted FA, projects must reassess status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - It's unclear what needs to be done. There are a few "unreliable source" tags--almost all of these are used to cite unnecessary details. For example, if it can't be proven with a reliable source that he defended a title against Shad Gaspard, the article wouldn't suffer at all with the mention of Gaspard removed. There are edit requests on the talk page, but this the requested inclusions tend to be trivial or unreferenced (a list of famous friends, etc.). In the original post here, there is a reference to "numerous maintenance categories"--is this still an issue? If so, what categories? I see no problem with the ToC, so clarification would be appreciated here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for working on this GaryColemanFan. Almost an entire section is cited to an unreliable source, so that will need to be resolved. Perhaps, if no reliable source covered that issue, it is UNDUE; you might know better. Separately, I will look at the article overall and give a more comprehensive answer after sorting the next problem.
  Giants2008 mentions seeing a long list of problems with the article, which I went looking for in archives. I am unsure if he is referring to a previous FAR, which ARGGGH ... was deleted out of process rather than archived by the FAR Coords. Can the @FAC coordinators: please use their adminly tools to resurrect whatever was deleted here, and post it to the talk page of this FAR so the rest of us can see it? Giants2008, is that what you were referring to, or is there something else we should be looking at? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oh, fiddlesticks. My apologies, I meant to ping the @FAR coordinators: . But maybe a FAC Coord will get to it first :) Sorry ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• The thread that I saw was on the article's talk page, not on an FAR page, although it may actually be from the deleted FAR. It can be found here, if you're interested. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Yes, same thing I found, but that discussion links to an old FAR that was deleted. Perhaps some admin will tell us if there is other content in the deleted FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  @SandyGeorgia: I've restored the previous FAR to Wikipedia:Featured article review/CM Punk/archive0 as this review is occupying its previous title. There is content that may be of value. HTH --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

On the TOC, here is my attempt at removing extraneous wording and consolidating section, but as Giants2008 mentions, one really needs to understand professional wresting (and its manual of style, if there is one) to adequately address this. Are Post-retirement appearances all Professional wrestling, or are some Mixed martial arts? Same question for Persona. Should Mixed martial arts record be moved to that section? Championships and accomplishments is a list that might be better presented in table format, and the uninitiated don't know how those divide among Professional wresting and Mixed martial arts, so that might be added to the table. (Separately, way too many images crammed in to the Championships section, which don't add much to the article.) Please feel free to do/undo anything I've done on the TOC, as this was just my first stab. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a vague memory of an improperly formed FAR that went nowhere, so that list might be everything. I can work through some of it, although I don't watch wrestling, so I can't be much help outside of grammatical fixes. If the unreliable source you are referring to is WWFOldSchool (the one tagged as unreliable), most of it could go. I think two of the points may be worth keeping with a different source (although some of the remaining information would need to be trimmed--for example, I'm sure we could find a source for losing the tag team belts, but not for losing the tag team belts while injured). As for the persona section, I won't bore you with my ranting, but I think any fixes would be best handled by someone who doesn't view the section as a clunky, dense, trivial, reader-hostile eyesore. Thanks for the clarification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a problem for many of us; I can't tell what is trivia relative to what is important in this topic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I can try. I'm not familiar with the FA process and English isn't my first language. But I can try some thing. For example, I removed Hardcore holly and Matt Striker 2007 feuds. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, I would like to make the article more user-friendly to no-wrestling fans. Remove some in-universe stuff, for example. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I find it hard to understand what changes you are making because you don't use edit summaries. This makes it difficult to follow the article's progress. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A week later, no answers on my TOC queries, unreliable sources and maintenance tags still present, no recent edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, no change (except one typo fixing etc. by Iri). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include coverage/organization, sourcing, and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Tagged as lacking reliable references for over a year. DrKay (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - The unreliable references in question (wwfoldschool.com) have now all been removed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
    • Holding, it will be several days before I am able to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

GaryColemanFan if you are able (or know anyone else who can) to deal with my TOC questions above, and to get someone to cite this:

• Continuing to espouse his straight-edge philosophy, Punk began to present himself as a cult-like savior to the crowd, growing the hair on his head, face and chest in an allusion to Jesus.

I can re-read the whole thing in a few days and see how we're doing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I removed the uncited claim, as the article reads fine without it. As for the TOC, I have no concerns with your version. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, GaryColemanFan these are my outstanding TOC and other questions (they cannot be resolved by someone who does not know wresting):

• "Are Post-retirement appearances all Professional wrestling, or are some Mixed martial arts? Same question for Persona. Should Mixed martial arts record be moved to that section? Championships and accomplishments is a list that might be better presented in table format, and the uninitiated don't know how those divide among Professional wresting and Mixed martial arts, so that might be added to the table. (Separately, way too many images crammed in to the Championships section, which don't add much to the article.)"

If those can be resolved, I can do a complete read through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, the post-retirement appearances are all in professional wrestling. The championship list is in keeping with other professional wrestling articles. I don't love the idea of a table. All of the championships are from professional wrestling--none come from mixed martial arts. I have very little to do with images, but I'm sure removing some wouldn't hurt much. As for the persona section, I have no opinion that would be constructive in this discussion. I guess I could quickly say that I hate the very existence of "persona" sections in wrestling articles, but I don't think this is the place for debates about the section as a whole within the professional wrestling project. I don't know how much this all helps, but I hope it cleared up a bit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

@GaryColemanFan:, I moved sections so that Professional Wrestling vs. Mixed Martial Arts stayed together, cut two images per excess images causing text sandwiching, and slightly juggled the placement of other images. Please have a look if that is OK, so far, next I will read the whole article to see where we are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no problem with it, but the WP:PW editors sometimes get very concerned about consistency. I am less concerned about consistency (although, if I can be honest, I don't know that all of these changes are related to FA standards). I would guess that the page is watched by a bunch of WP:PW editors, and they haven't expressed concern about any changes, so I'm not going to press the issue. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

I saw the edits and I have 0 problems with MMA and Wrestling titles and record being separated in two different sections. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree with this series of edits, you have added text to the lead (which should be a summary of text that is already in the body of the article); the new text is not written to FA prose standards, contains bare URLs, and uses sources that I am unsure are reliable. If editors are actively moving the article AWAY from the Featured article standards while it is under review, it will not be productive to continue to evaluate whether the article can retain featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. As I said, English isn't my first language, so it's hard sometimes to write. I used the template for the sources, but I would apprecitate if somebody improver my text. it's just a small part, since Punk is credited as the first independent wrestler to have succes in WWE and he open the doors for others (Daniel Bryan, Seth Rollins...) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Are those reliable sources? The lead is a summary of the most important points in the body of the aricle; is that information in the body of the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

PWTorch and The Observer are reliable sources. 411Mania is limited, but it's mostly used in articles as opinion. I think the text can be included in the charactr section, but start a reception/legacy would be more appropiate. Other wrestlers has a similar section. If you have any problem, we can just delete it, but I think it's usefull. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment - Primarily two major concerns among wrestling (biography) articles in general I see: the line between reality and kayfabe is often blurred, sometimes incomprehensible, and the excessive, often unnecessary, fighting soap opera. This page is no exception, although the latter concern is relatively small. IW. (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• I don't know what the Coords want to do with this. Great strides were being made, and then text was added to the lead that was not in the body. I suspect we will see this article back at FAR regularly, because it has no main watcher. It's close enough now, but deterioration seems to happen fast. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• I think we have to judge an article on its content at the time it is reviewed, which would indicate that this article is now a keep. DrKay (talk) 11:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• I have been waiting for someone else to opine. If DrKay is okay with a keep here, than so am I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

• 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) 19:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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

Removed

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) 5:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC) [3].

---

Cædmon

Notified: Daniel.odonnell, England, Poetry

Review section

2006 promotion, FAR notice left by SandyGeorgia on 28 January, stating "There is a good deal of uncited text, and a MOS review is needed." with Dudley Miles concurring. There have not been substantial improvements to the article since then. buidhe 21:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

This article never was an FA according to current standards as it had considerable unreferenced text even when promoted in 2006. See [4]. Unless someone is prepared to embark on a major project to bring it up to FA standard, this seems to me to be a candidate for a quick move to be a removal candidate. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I concur. buidhe 15:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson

• Cædmon ... is the earliest English (Northumbrian) poet Right off the bat the writing's subpar. That "poet" is linked also doesn't help.
• Streonæshalch (Whitby Abbey) This identification is repeatedly made but never directly cited as far as I can tell.
• "the art of song" is never brought up in the body.
• Cædmon is one of twelve Anglo-Saxon poets identified in medieval sources... is brought up only in the lead and the following footnote.

And so on. This generally violates LEAD in that the lead serves as an introduction rather than a summary. Given Cædmon's importance I'd hate to see this be delisted; this looks like a possible rescue for those interested, but some effort is required. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Source review

• In ¶References but not in ¶Notes: Princi Braccini, G. 1988/1989; Bessinger, J. B. Jr. 1974; Fry, D. K. 1975/1979; Hieatt, C. B. 1985.; Klaeber, F. 1912; Miletich, J. S. 1983.; Morland, L. 1992.
• In ¶Notes but not in ¶References: Ó Carragáin 2005; Catalogus testium ueritatis 1562; Stanley 1995;
• Spotchecks: I checked Lester 1974, added p.no and reworded slightly to avoid CP; Ireland 1986: this is an unpublished source—can we use this one? I checked Dumville 1981 (bundled with Ireland): does not mention Streonæshalch or Hilda, but does support Cædmon's death and fire at Coldingham Abbey. Nicely paraphrased.

That's that for now. Eisfbnore ^(会話) 03:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, no progress, no one engaging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delist per issues raised above. buidhe 20:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist. Unsourced statements at the end of the "Dates" section, in the first paragraph of the "Sources and analogues" section and in footnotes 42 and 43. Style issues include the red links in footnote 12, which have been there since promotion even though those articles will never be written. DrKay (talk) 13:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist. As discussed above. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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) 15:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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) 5:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC) [5].

---

Ian Smith

Notified: Renamed user df576567etesddf, WP Africa, WP Aviation, WP Cold War, WP Milhist, WP Politics, WP Rhodesia

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's clear that it's doesn't abide by the need to represent a neutral POV. This is accomplished by the fact that the overtone window has been shifted away from the mainstream consensus which is overwhelmingly negative into a faux debate unrepresentative of mainstream academic discourse. Large portions of the article labour to try and explain away any one of his racist statements and there is little acknowledgement over the fact he presided over a segregated state. The wording of the article itself is designed to avoid emphasising that and to give a misleading impression regarding his government.

The mere feature of the article being thorough isn't enough to make it a featured article nor is the appearance of showing both sides of the debate when it's clear that fringe perspectives are overemphasized.

I have tried to notify users but am unable to figure out how to format the notification. Zubin12 (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Notifications done

Zubin12 I will do the notifications for you; you can follow my edits to see how it's done. First, though, there is supposed to be a week between notification on talk and nomination to FAR. The RFC closed only yesterday. The @FAR coordinators: will have to first opine whether it is too soon for this FAR to proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC) @FAR coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC) IDK the point of going through that. There are clearly entrenched disputes that won't be resolved any other way. buidhe 16:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC) After reviewing previous discussions on the article's talk page I think we can proceed with the review at this time; Sandy, if you're willing to do the notifications that would be very helpful. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC) Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

• I plan to comment further but am not sure at this time. I don't think that the web/news sources cited by SharabSalam on the talk page claiming that the article is biased are that good. The Rhodesian system was quite different from the SA system, or for that matter, Jim Crow-style segregation. Whether most sources actually describe him as a white supremacist as claimed is something that needs further investigation. buidhe 08:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not terribly impressed by the sourcing—it mostly seems like poor quality or out of date. Trafford Publishing is apparently a self-publishing outfit. The author probably qualifies under SPS but still not that great. It would be better to use recent academic sources, such as these ones. Onslow's work on Smith was described as "pioneering", but isn't mentioned here. buidhe 16:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

sources
References

• The remarkably well written, informative and unbiased article on Ian Smith was selected as a featured article *less than 20 months ago*. What has changed since such time? Not the quality of the article, or the reliability of its sources, and much less the "Overton Window" (for crying out loud); the only change has been in the success of the "cancel culture" on Twitter and other corners of the internet in bullying people into silence and imposing historical revisionism. Thankfully, Wikipedia largely has avoided such fate, and articles such as "Ian Smith" still maintain a NPOV and provide balance when informing readers about a complex figure who lived in a time that was diffeent from our own.

It is not "whitewashing" to present reliably sourced, contemporary views of controversial figures who happen to be white. The fact that the "Overton Window" regarding how people spoke about self-governance has (thankfully) moved over the past 50 years does not mean that we can gauge a Cold War political figure, who became the political leader of what then was known as Rhodesia back when countries as modern and progressive as the United States of America still denied the right to vote to most of its black citizens, as if he were a political leader in 2020. *Of course* someone who today espoused that the right to vote be reserved to citizens who pay considerble income taxes and have surpassed certain educational levels (which, in 1960s-1970s Rhodesia hapened to overlap fairly efficiently with Rhodesia's white population), with the majority racial group being limited to the election of a minority of parliamentary seats, would be a fringe figure with almost no support from anyone. But when presenting a historical figure, one must present him or her in context, without historical revisionism. Tha context includes what other countries of the world had been doing for decades, the affiliation of the main rebel group in Rhodesia with Communist countries during the apex of the Cold War, and the lackluster record of recently independent countries no far from Rhodesia that implemented universal suffrage from one day to the next and, in nearly all cases, fell into tyranny and economic misery (and, sometimes, Communism) within a few years. Observers of the time understood that context, and one of the things that makes the "Ian Smith" article so outstanding is that it provides contemporary accounts--with different (and non-fringe) viewpoints--from reliable sources.

Editors who have criticized the way that the article depicts Ian Smith have their real beef not with the editors who wrote the article (which, again, used reliable sources and presented the subject, warts and all, in a NPOV), but with the lack of "Wokeness" of society--both white and black--fifty years ago. It simply will not do to impose 2020 standards on 1960s society (whether African, European or North American), and it is circular to claim that contempraries who spoke positively about Ian Smith were all "white supremacists" whose views are ipso facto "fringe" and should be stricken from public memory, and to use as evidence of such supposed "fringe" "white supremacy" (which is particularly silly when the person admiring certain traits or actions of Ian Smith happens to be a black African) that the person showed certain admiration of Ian Smith.

No figure from the past, no matter how admired by contemporaries, will escape unblemished when viewed through the lens of 2020 society. That does not mean, however, that the historical record should be rewritten by ignoring context and the views of contemporaries. This is Wikipedia, not Wokeapedia, and our goal is to provide readers with complete, properly sourced, NPOV information. The way to do that is not to tear down sublimely writen articles just because the subject matter makes us uneasy. The "Ian Smith" article is as excellent today as it was when it was honored as a featured article in August 2018, and such an honor should not be removed in the name of Woke culture. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 12:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Ian Smith was firing figure even for his time being shunned even by western conservative leaders of that time and widely regarded as a racist. It is not workness to ask that an article represents a global view not the view of a small segment of the population and doesn't' attempt to explain away his flaws. Leaving meaningless words like claiming he "Understood uncomfortable truths about the African continent" without expanding on exactly what those uncomfortable truths is just attempting to white-wash his actions that were regarded globally as out of the mainstream. For god-sake his administration in Rhodesia was unrecognized by almost every nation on this planet barring Apartheid South Africa. The tone of the article is defensive to the man, acknowledging his faults only in rebuttal without sufficient weight and neglecting to account for the perspectives of Blacks who made up the vast majority of the populace who he presided over. Zubin12 (talk) 13:36, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Note to all. This is not the place to relitigate the recent RFC. Please confine your commentary to how the article does or does not meet the FA criteria. What would be particularly helpful with regards to assessing the article's representativeness/neutrality is supporting your viewpoint with reliable sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Assessment on FA criteria by Buidhe

• I'm concerned 1d (NPOV) due to cherry-picking in the sources.
  • For example, "While acknowledging the privileged position whites had under Smith, several commentators have latterly agreed with his claims that many black Zimbabweans preferred him to Mugabe with hindsight, albeit a very low bar" is cited to several sources, making it look like it has a lot support. However, if you look closer most of them are obituaries in right-leaning newspapers.
  • Comments like "If you were to go to Harare today [in 2007] and ask ordinary black Zimbabweans who they would rather have as their leader—Smith or Mugabe—the answer would be almost unanimous", Boynton asserted; "And it would not be Mugabe." show the overreliance on sources sympathetic to Smith. This is cited to an expat journalist of Rhodesian origin. But if it's true, why aren't today's Zimbabweans saying so? Also, obituaries aren't the greatest source, because they often tend to be more positive than other coverage due to people not wanting to speak ill of the dead.
• I don't think that it meets 1c given the overreliance on dated sources and lack of use of more recent, high quality sources (see above for a list of sources which could be incorporated).
  • One of the complaints made by AuH2ORepublican is that Smith may have been viewed more positively at the time than he is now. To give an example, Erwin Rommel was viewed more positively in the 1950s than today. However, we do not continue to rely on laudatory accounts in (out)dated sources when better research is available.
• To Zubin's point on the divisions in the Conservative Party at the time, the article by Stuart 2010 listed above would elucidate this and improve comprehensiveness.

Overall, I do think that the article needs improvement to avoid delisting. buidhe 01:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

• I read over this article a while ago, and was concerned about the overly positive tone. Smith led a brutal racist regime in a doomed and bloody attempt to stop the inevitable success of majority rule, but this is frequently excused away. The "bones" of the article are broadly sound, but it needs a lot of work to return to FA-level NPOV. It's concerning that Smith's memoirs are relatively frequently cited (including for a dubious claim that Henry Kissinger greatly regretted the downfall of Rhodesia). Nick-D (talk) 09:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've been covering African 20th century topics for some time, and I also have concerns about NPOV for this article and inappropriate use of primary sources. The comment in the lead about his supporters seeing him as someone who "understood the uncomfortable truths of Africa" is a copy and paste from the BBC article its cited to, which is unexplained. Sounds like an excusing euphemism for white supremacist ideology (I dare someone to figure out what these uncomfortable "truths" about Africa were). Notice the even more subtle implication of the larger sentence in its juxtaposition of different views of Smith: "supporters venerate him as a man of integrity...while critics describe an unrepentant racist". The use of the pronoun "him" is included in the first part, but excluded in the second, as if to imply his critics were describing someone of a character so removed from the real Smith that Wikipedia can't even identify this description with "him". This sentence in the lead, "As Mugabe's reputation thereafter plummeted amid Zimbabwe's economic ruin, reckoning of Smith and his legacy improved." is cited to an op-ed in The Daily Telegraph. Even though this claim has truth to it, using an op-ed to cite a supposedly broad factual analysis in the lead of a Featured Article - or any article, for that matter - is unacceptable. Down under "Retirement" it is mentioned that he praised Nelson Mandela in his autobiography. This information is cited directly to Smith's memoir, which seems like a violation of WP:SYNTH in an attempt to show him as a non-racist leader. If his comments about Mandela in his book were of importance, this should be cited to secondary sources which say so. Otherwise its cherrypicking through a primary source. Later the article characterizes ZANU members trying to steal his farmland as "invaders", which is a word usually reserved for people waging military incursions into sovereign territories. The article also says "State press reported that [Smith] had "automatically ceased to be a citizen of Zimbabwe" on the passport's expiry", and cites that directly to a state newspaper. This is also a problem. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC seems to be the inevitable conclusion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section including neutrality and sourcing/coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delist fails NPOV criterion, per above. buidhe 19:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist - my concerns about NPOV and primary sources is expressed above. The article requires cleanup and some good additional research of sources before we can call it Featured. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist due to NPOV and sourcing concerns. I would also add that William Harper (Rhodesian politician) and especially Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence, which rely on similar sources (including Wood 2005 and 2008) and were primarily written by the same user, may also need to be looked at. --Blemby (talk) 08:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your comment! I have put up an FAR notice at the UDI article but I am not sure about Harper. He is lower profile so there are fewer recent sources on him. buidhe 09:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I also just now found Roy Welensky, about the Rhodesia and Nyasaland governor, which has only four book sources, and is mostly sourced to Welensky's autobiography. Two of the other three are a Wood book from Trafford and Smith's autobiography, which have both already been talked about here. --Blemby (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Posted an FAR notice now; the degree of self sourcing there is not acceptable. buidhe 06:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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) 15:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

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) 5:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC) [6].

---

Asperger syndrome

Notified: WP MED. The main contributors are User:Eubulides, who has been gone for 10 years, and SandyGeorgia. Talk page notification 2020-01-16

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because its main contributor, User:Eubulides, left Wikipedia ten years ago and the article has not been updated significantly since. I am the second contributor, but my contributions were mostly keeping the citations, MOS issues, etc clean, and I have not significantly contributed for more than five years. I have no interest in continuing to maintain the article. No one else has taken on this article, and it is now considerably out of date. I have listed numerous reviews on the talk page that should have been incorporated long ago, and there are many more. The problems with datedness can be seen everywhere, but the Epidemiology section provides the best example. Perusing the few samples of new reviews I listed on talk gives an idea of the amount of update needed. The majority of the article is cited to sources well over ten years old, as no one has kept the article updated since Eubulides left. The talk page notification resulted in zero edits, and zero talk response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• Delist per nom. Research on this condition is ongoing meaning that a dated article cannot satisfy comprehensiveness requirement. I am also surprised by how short it is. Although summary style is used, some sections could stand to go into more detail. buidhe 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  Buidhe, please see FAR instructions, Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying problems and determining if someone is willing/able to work on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

• The condition has been merged into autism spectrum disorder per the APA. Would need to look to see were the ICD are at with things. And update will require a large amount of work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by John M Wolfson

• I'm surprised at the amount of LEADCITEs. They're certainly not prohibited by any guideline, but modern standard practice in FAs is to not use them.
• Speaking of citations, there are a couple of paragraphs that end in uncited sentences. I have marked them with CN tags as needed.
• The "Classification" section might stand to be expanded per DocJames; I'm also not sure it ought to be the first section, but I can go either way with that.
• The "Causes" and "Mechanism" sections should be merged.

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Usually I would keep the causes and mechanisms separate. Makes it easier for people to find what they are looking for and maintain due weight. This is an incredibly controversial topic and thus references are even more important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

@John M Wolfson:, yes, the lead is overcited, but more importantly, it is choppy and unpleasant to read. Here is the lead as it looked when this article was last reviewed for FA standards.

Causes and Mechanism are two different things; no, they should not be merged.

The bigger concerns here are comprehensive and outdatedness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I fixed both of your cn tags. One was an off-topic addition which I removed. The other resulted from paragraphing that chopped one sentence from its source. Both addressed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

• It looks like ICD-11 is going to rename Asperger syndrome to "Autism spectrum disorder without disorder of intellectual development and with mild or no impairment of functional language". Nevertheless, this is too cumbersome and "Asperger syndrome" is likely to remain the de facto name.

A number of sources are aging, notably these heavily-cited sources: Asperger syndrome fact sheet (2007), McPartland (2006), Baskin (2006), Woodbury-Smith (2009), Klin (2006) and Foster (2003).

While I suspect that the relevance of these older sources hasn't changed much, the article would really benefit from the scrutiny of an editor interested in Asperger syndrome, to go through it and update the sourcing as much as possible. (I realise that SandyGeorgia has already tried to find a suitable editor.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Concerns raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome, with a daily average of more than 10,000 hits, is among the medicine project's most popular pages, and yet no one at that project appears willing or able to undertake to update this article, which will fall into complete disrepair if it is defeatured. In the almost month since the FAR talk page notice was given, there have been two edits by John M Wolfson, and four edits by Axl; not even a minimum attempt by medicine project members to update.

• The problems with comprehensiveness and the need for an update are outlined on talk and on this FAR page, and updating the article would actually not be at all difficult, and yet, no one appears willing to take on the work. I am unable and uninterested in continuing to maintain this article, as working on the body of the article with a dreadful lead that does not reflect best practice for Featured articles holds no interest for me. Considering that most readers will not get past the lead, it should be a compelling and well written introduction to the subject; it is not.
  Examining the short, choppy, outdated, and overcited lead:

• Asperger syndrome (AS), also known as Asperger's, is a developmental disorder characterised by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests.

• This is a basic definition, unlikely to be challenged, and does not require citation in the lead. The article is written in American English, but the first sentence has British English. Right up front, we should be telling the reader this is a sub-type of ASD. Forcing leads to a specific order (not in compliance with any guideline or policy) forces critical information to a later paragraph in the lead, unnecessarily. Right up front, we should be telling our readers that AS isn't what it once was: now it's a sub-type.

• As a milder autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it differs from other ASDs by relatively normal language and intelligence.

• Because of the changing status of this diagnosis, it is helpful to cite this text, and yet, the text does not give the reader the information they need to know right up front. AS is a "disorder of uncertain validity", and the source does not characterize AS as "milder", it correctly states that AS "differs from autism primarily in the fact that there is no general delay or retardation in language or in cognitive development". That doesn't make it "milder", just different. Nor does the source say that language development and intelligence are "relatively normal"; it says there is no general delay or retardation. The attempt to shorten this concept has resulted in a loss of accuracy. Rather than using a 2015 source, the text could be more accurately updated to reflect PMID 29167722, which states that effects on cognitive abilities need to be better researched. When recent sources tell us the condition is "characterized by major problems in social and nonverbal communication", the word "milder" seems inappropriate. The word "high functioning" (used in sources) seems better; dumbing down language results in loss of precision. (While I'm on that source, the article does not mention "One of the main problems in diagnosis of autism and AS is the late occurrence of some atypical behavioral and cognitive changes, like impairment of social communication or alteration in occurrence of puberty" and the importance of recognizing this for diagnosis and treatment. Nor does the article mention the high comorbidity with ADHD, or the high rate of schizophrenia among relatives, or the rate of bipolar.) PMID 30736970 states that "cognitive development is not marked by an overall delay but by specific impairments in certain areas such as the executive functions".

• Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and unusual use of language are common. Signs usually begin before two years of age and typically last for a person's entire life.

• Even with the new categorization of AS, this statement is not in doubt and does not need to be cited.

• The exact cause of Asperger's is unknown.

• This is not likely to be challenged, is common fact, and does not need to be cited in the lead. Overcitation of basic factoids results in choppy prose, where these three sentences on cause could be better combined, with one citation.

• While it is largely inherited, the underlying genetics have not been determined conclusively. Environmental factors are also believed to play a role. Brain imaging has not identified a common underlying condition.

• Citing this information is useful, but citations should be updated. We are using a 2006 source to say genetics have not been determined.

• In 2013, the diagnosis of Asperger's was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), and people with these symptoms are now included within the autism spectrum disorder along with autism and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). It remains within the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) as of 2019 as a subtype of autism spectrum disorder.

• Should be mentioned early on. "People with these symptoms" refers back to ... what in this paragraph? That AS was removed from DSM is basic fact; not likely to be challenged, does not require citation.

• There is no single treatment, and the effectiveness of particular interventions is supported by only limited data.

• Limited data supporting interventions cited to a 2006 source ?

• Treatment is aimed at lowering obsessive or repetitive routines, and improving communication skills and physical clumsiness. Interventions may include social skills training, cognitive behavioral therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy, parent training, and medications for associated problems, such as mood or anxiety.

• This is the first time the reader encounters the word obsessive, but it is unlinked, leaving confusion about possible OCD comorbidity versus OC traits; what exactly do we mean here? We are citing all of this to a 2007 source; nothing new since 2007?

• Most children improve as they grow up, but social and communication difficulties usually persist.

• We are citing "most improve" to a 2009 source; still true?

• Some researchers and people on the autism spectrum have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that autism spectrum disorder is a difference rather than a disease that must be treated or cured.

• This is cited to extremely old sources, and what does it have to do with the paragraph it is placed in ?

• In 2015, Asperger's was estimated to affect 37.2 million people globally.

• No problem (although I am unsure if this data is current). (Noting here the absence of an WP:NBSP, and that a MOS review is needed throughout.)

• Autism spectrum disorder affects males more often than females, and females are typically diagnosed at a later age.

• Standard stuff, does not require citation. How much more often, and how much later? It should not be hard to provide a few simple numbers here, using updated sources. (Noting while here that the citation does not use the same style used throughout the article, and that a check for consistent citation style throughout is needed.)

• The syndrome is named after the Austrian pediatrician Hans Asperger, who, in 1944, described children in his care who were clumsy, and lacking in nonverbal communication skills and understanding of others' feelings.

• Unlikely to be challenged, does not require citation.

• The modern conception of Asperger syndrome came into existence in 1981 and went through a period of popularization.

• Holy overcitation batman. All old sources, and not one of them reflects the current conception of AS, so the term "modern conception" is outdated.

• It became a standardized diagnosis in the early 1990s.

• Obvious, does not require citation, but needs to be merged with the outdated statement in the previous sentence. Forcing text to conform to specific citations, rather than writing an overall summary of the article, results in this kind of disconnect.

• Many questions and controversies remain.

• This statement says absolutely nothing and the reader knows not to what it refers. This is the result of dumbing down and shortening sentences to the point of losing all meaning.

• There is doubt about whether it is distinct from high-functioning autism (HFA).

• Places in the wrong spot, by forcing the lead to conform to a certain flow. This information belongs with the whole sub-type, recategorization of AS as part of ASD spectrum in the first paragraph, and it is not helpful to cite this to a 2006 source.

• Partly because of this, the percentage of people affected is not firmly established.

• Dumbed down to the point of meaningless, and cited to a 2006 source.

So, overall the article needs an entire update, and the lead needs to be re-written in a logical flow that summarizes the overall well-known concepts. The overcited, outdated narrative in the lead, forced to a certain order that doesn't make sense or flow logically, needs to be reworked. Those who are able to update it are not going to work under conditions that force leads to be written in ways that do not reflect best FA practice. It is very sad that years of work by Eubulides on this article has been lost, as one of WPMED's top-viewed articles has fallen into disrepair. Unless the medicine project undertakes an update, I will !vote to Delist. There is still time to save this star, and I hope someone will undertake the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe would you like to revisit now? (BTW, I disagree with you on the length, which I think is just right.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Setting the length aside for now, I think you're otherwise mostly correct in your evaluation of the article. I also think we need a subject matter expert to look at high-functioning autism and see if they should be merged (especially with the removal from the DSM). In other words my delist endorsement still stands. buidhe 16:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Asperger's and HFA are different concepts. Many people are both, but it is possible to have one but not the other. Also, Asperger's was once a formal diagnosis. HFA is an unofficial assessment. It matters for things like planning for the future (people considered LFA are more likely to be institutionalized), but it's not "a medical condition". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

And since recent reviews consider it a subset of HFA or autism, it is still a valid term/article-- the article just needs to reflect ICD and DSM correct usage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A few days ago I posted directly over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine about the issues the article is having with keeping its featured status. No takers yet... Shearonink (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I would lean towards delist, given that it is not clear in places if the information in the article represents current thinking. DrKay (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist. No large-scale meaningful improvements, none of the needed updates since the various notices have gone up. Makes me sad...I wish I could take it on at the present time but I can't - getting this article back to present FA standards is going to be a long-term project for someone (or someones). Shearonink (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist outdated and makes oversimplified generalizations (i.e. "stereotyped and restricted patterns of behavior, activities, and interests" is a stereotype that might be featured in certain individuals with Asperger's, but not all as whoever inserted that seems to suggest, "A lack of demonstrated empathy affects aspects of communal living for persons with Asperger syndrome" downplays how there are times when people on the spectrum do understand how someone feels even if they aren't always sure what's appropriate to tell them). Perhaps the lack of more up-to-date citations led to overgeneralizations as not everyone with AS/autism was previously able to share their experiences and how they differ from others with the condition or other diagnoses within the austism spectrum. Needs extensive work that I unfortunately don't have the time or patience to carry out. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think we can delist an article for accurately reflecting what the diagnostic criteria are, even if we don't agree with them; "stereotyped and restricted patterns of behavior, activities, and interests" are not opinion, stereotypes, or generalizations-- they are restating the criteria and reflecting the sources. Ditto for communal living. That not every person on the spectrum reflects the same degree of impairment does not negate what the diagnostic criteria are. If other work is needed, it is more helpful to accurately reflect it here, because the changes you suggest would not be grounded in policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• What I meant is that the use of outdated criteria/citations used could be why it appears to rely on certain associations without factoring in more nuances. As for other ways to improve the article, I would recommend including more pieces like these featuring perspectives/experiences autistic people have shared for insight on what the condition is like for them. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• That is a possibility, but you haven't presented an example of that as your Delist rationale. For example, the very recent PMID 30736970 (2019) still states that: "Asperger's syndrome is a neurodevelopmental disorder which is part of the large family of autism spectrum disorders. People with Asperger's syndrome have difficulties in social interactions, verbal and non-verbal communication, and may display behavioural oddities, with stereotypies and limited interests. They show no language delay and their cognitive development is not marked by an overall delay but by specific impairments in certain areas such as the executive functions." I don't believe the text you singled out would change if this article were updated. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Apologies if I didn't give the best examples before (I might have to do some digging for something better and come back later with results), but I should point out that "may display" isn't the same thing as "will definitely display" and shouldn't be treated as such. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• 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) 15:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

References

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) 2:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC) [7].

---

Holden Commodore (VE)

Notified: OSX, WikiProject Automobiles

Review section

FAR notice left on talk page on 23 January by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) stating: "There is a good deal of uncited text, and this article is not in compliance with WP:NOTPRICE." These issues are still extant and there has been no effort to improve the article, so here we go. buidhe 00:57, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe The Ute section could probably need a few citations and the prices should be removed, the other two sections look fine to me. What's the quota of references to text you need?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: I've taken the liberty of copying your comment from user talk page. This is the proper place for such discussion. Per the FA criteria, inline citaitons are generally expected for all information. With an article this long, general references are not sufficient as the reader does not know where to find the info, violating WP:V. buidhe 04:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Review by RetiredDuke

• This article has 60(!) images, and I can't find justification to include them all. The "Models" section full-on looks like a car catalogue. More important than that though, these pictures were not in the article when it was promoted, so their copyright status need to be checked.
• I cannot find references for the fuel consumption and the production years data on the table at the end of the "Powertrains" section. Looked for it in the text and I can't find them anywhere. Also, this table has notes masquerading as references, such as "reference" 75: "Fuel consumption figures are measured in accordance with the ADR 81/01 (2006–2009) and ADR 81/02 (2009 onwards) standard. Fuel economy figures may differ between body styles and specification levels." Sources for all this data?
• Many, many unsourced paragraphs, particularly in the "Models" and "HSV range (E Series)" sections.
• The table at the "Production" section is largely unsourced.
• The table "Total production by colour option" is completely unsourced.
• Lots of price figures in the text, in violation of WP:NOTPRICE.
• Random spotcheck:
  • "Reportedly,[113] Holden Special Vehicles offered the pre-order of build no. 427 (uniquely painted in "Panorama" silver) to the Cairns Monaro collector Shawn Ryan, who purchased the 2002 HRT 427 coupe for $920,000 in 2008." - Reference 113 makes no mention of Shawn Ryan, it says "Chooka, who prefers not to reveal his real name".
  • "The HSV W427 will be noted in TWR / HSV history as the only car to which Tom Walkinshaw 'personally' attached his name. It was not the first Holden Commodore-based vehicle to be powered by a 7.0L LS7 V8 engine as that honour went to the more affordable Corsa Specialised Vehicles GTS.[114]" - The citation at the end implies that this full paragraph is covered. I read the link and there's no mention of Tom Walkinshaw anywhere to cover for the first sentence.
• "Will be available in North America in July 2015." - ??
• "The judges gave preference to the SS the second-time-round because .[90]" - That's it, that's the sentence.
• "The colours were Heron White, Sizzle, Karma, Nitrate, Alto Grey, Phantom and Mirage Glow. Satellite Navigation was available as an option." - This is full catalogue territory, in my opinion.

Summary: The main issue I have is with the severe lack of citations, but the prose also falls short of FA standards, I think. Lots of small stuff to be corrected and fluff to be trimmed. RetiredDuke (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Needing additional references. Unsourced statements, paragraphs and sections. DrKay (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist, issues raised on 23 January, nothing happening towards improvements needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist unless improvements are forthcoming for reasons discussed above. buidhe 17:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist - the article does not meet the FA criteria, as detailed above. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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) 12:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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) 4:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC) [8].

---

L. Ron Hubbard

Notified: User talk:MartinPoulter

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks inline citations (and those that it has are questionable with regard to reliability). It is suffers from weasel words and the prose is sub-standard for a contemporary FA. There were several unstruck valid opposes at the FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to be much more specific about your concerns:

• What citations do you think are missing?
• Which do you think are unreliable?
• What are the weasel words?
• Which prose do you think is unsatisfactory?

Without more specificity, I'm afraid there's not much for others to go on. Prioryman (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I think a review's a good idea given the age of the article, but it needs to be focused and specific. Prioryman (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have indicated using the {{fact}} where I think additional citations are needed. With regard to the citations, (which are inconsistently formatted) what makes this, for example, a reliable source; [9]? There are also single sentence paragraphs and the prose flows badly in places. Graham Beards (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I see from the article history that it's had a lot of piecemeal edits over the years, so it's no wonder it's a bit choppy. I'm happy to have a go at fixing the problems you've highlighted; in particular I should be able to supply the citations you suggest.

Regarding the source you mention, I note that it's from a veteran journalist and author who has a particular expertise on Scientology (and his own Wikipedia article). Per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Ortega certainly counts on both criteria (two books and multiple news articles). Prioryman (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Prioryman. I agree with your comments regarding Ortega - I had not heard of him before. The citations are the main issue IMHO, but the prose does need some attention. Graham Beards (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a look at the prose too. I have some skills in that regard. :-) I probably won't be able to do it before the weekend though, due to other commitments. Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

You are too modest. :-) There is no rush; this isn't FAC. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I've fixed all but one of the citation issues. The next step is to review the prose and see where improvements can be made. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I'd encourage a hard look at the sources used here. I was put in a position, as Graham Beards mentioned, of promoting over valid opposition because the editor who commented on sources basically disappeared and didn't participate in the discourse. As far as I can tell, the other opposition was over article size, which personally I don't care that much about. Most of the guidance written here about article size is based on research that's both 10+ years old and was of questionable validity even when it was current. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• As I mentioned to Graham above, I would encourage you to be specific about which sources you see as being problematic, as it becomes a bit of a guessing game otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't. I'm encouraging specifics from anyone criticizing the sources. --Laser brain (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

• The problematic sources are listed at the FAC, with good reasoning provided.

From the FAC

... too many citations to Bridge Publications and other CoS entities; ... our Mikael Rothstein source points in the Death and Legacy section the problems with that. ... also the Miller Source makes me nervous ... [http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb03/ivk/mjr/pdfs/1999/articles/frenschkowski1999.pdf This source indicate issues of reliability with Miller's Work on LRH Russell Miller's biography is a book-length treatment of the article's subject by a reputable investigative journalist, sourced to literally hundreds of end-notes. Reviews have praised it again and again for meticulous research. Frenschkowski's review that you cite (and which is cited and linked in the article) calls it "The most important critical biography of Hubbard". Yes, Frenschkowski raises concerns about specific statements in the book: let's discuss those specifics. Miller doubted the existence of "Snake" Thompson and his connection with Freud. Frenschkowski says that Miller was wrong, and that Snake's reality is backed up by additional documents. The article takes Frenschkowksi's position. And so on it goes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

We need to look at specific text cited to these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's about time to deal with Frenschkowski. His criticism of Miller is brief, vague and wrong. Frenschkowski states two specific points of criticism. The first is that Hubbard's assertions about his military career "have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show". That is quite wrong. I spent a year going through Hubbard's records to write a book on his military career, checked them with other material that Frenschkowski didn't have (because it hadn't been published then), and found not only that Miller had got it right but that he had actually understated the degree to which Hubbard made a mess of his military career. Frenschkowski is a theologian, not a military historian, and has no expertise in that area. He cannot be relied on as an authority on military history.

The other criticism that Frenschkowski states is that "Scientology has also been able to verify Hubbard's statements about "Comander [sic] Thompson". Yet Miller does not dispute Hubbard's statements. He only states (on page 25 of my 1987 edition) that "the Commander remains an enigma. He cannot be identified from US Navy records, nor can his relationship with Freud be established. Doctor Kurt Eissler, one of the world's leading authorities on Freud, says he has no knowledge of any correspondence or contact of any kind between Freud and Thompson." Miller states the limits of his knowledge; he doesn't anywhere reject the existence of Thompson. Subsequent researchers found more evidence of Thompson, who is discussed over 3 pages in Larry Wright's Going Clear. That's a perfect example of researchers building on each other's work – Miller identified a gap in knowledge that Wright was able to fill.

And that is it. Frenschkowski states no further criticisms of Miller's accuracy, nor does any other non-Scientologist publication that I'm aware of criticise Miller on the points that Frenschkowski raises. From my point of view, this is a very inadequate basis to imply that Miller's entire work is unreliable and needs to be reviewed. By the way, I contacted Frenschkowski during my research for my book to ask him: "I have been unable to find anything in [Hubbard's records] that contradicts Miller's assertions. Could you possibly clarify which records you refer to in your essay?". He declined to respond. If he is not interested in defending his own work I don't see why it is worth your while to do so.

I also have no idea what "our Mikael Rothstein source points in the Death and Legacy section the problems with that" is supposed to mean; it's unintelligible. Can you please clarify? Prioryman (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Is any progress happening here? I see no edits.

There is still a citation needed tag, the Daily Mail (deprecated) is used as a source, and there are duplicate citations (... unaccredited degree mill called Sequoia University.[165][166][165]) Why does a direct quote need three citations (The idea may not have been new; Hubbard has been quoted as telling a science fiction convention in 1948: "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."[140][172][173]) A good amount of the excessive size could be minimized by dealing with the excessive quoting throughout the article. There is an excess of images that add little to the article. Overuse of however abounds. In the lead, "1952, Hubbard lost the rights to Dianetics in bankruptcy proceedings, and he subsequently founded Scientology." What is that subsequently about; how are the two related? Several issues of problematic "subsequently" (sample, "he was arrested in San Luis Obispo, California, and subsequently pleaded guilty" ... unlike he would plead guilty before he was arrested). The article is tediously overquoted (the red hair, green eyes quote from Parsons gives a sample of the level of unnecessary quoted detail throughout) and does not appropriately use summary style to the many sub-articles available, which could be used to reduce the tedious detail. As an example, since there is a sub-article on his military career, why do we need to know in this article when a ship was commissioned? WP:DASHes need attention, as does WP:OVERLINKing (miscarriage as one sample, New York City, World War I, it goes on). Poor writing exemplified in the first paragraph, which tells us in the first sentence that he was the founder of Scientology and two sentences later that he subsequently (ugh) founded scientology. Here is the clean TOC at promotion, for contrast with the rambling long section names now. The same diff shows the deterioration in the lead.

If anyone is working on this article, they should get busy, and we should ask Ealdgyth to look at the sources, and Mike Christie to perhaps weigh in on the magazine sections. If not, move to FARC; this has already been here six weeks, and it's in rather bad shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The section that covers the material I'm knowledgeable about is this one. I've had a look through and fixed one minor error, and added a couple of links. A couple of comments about that section:

• I'd cut 'Science fiction newsletter Xignals reported that Hubbard wrote "over 100,000 words a month" during his peak. Martin Gardner asserted that his writing "[wa]s done at lightning speed."'; I don't know Xignals but doubt it's a reliable source for this, and Gardner's comment won't be from first hand knowledge, but taken from other sources. Both are from encyclopedia.com, which I'm not familiar with -- is it an RS? SFE3, which is an RS, has an article on Hubbard which mentions that his writing of this era was "composed with delirious speed"; that would be a better source if we want to reinsert a mention.
• I'm not sure about the assertion, cited to Stableford, that Hubbard was taken under Campbell's wing; Stableford is a respectable source, and I wouldn't oppose at FAC over something like this, but Hubbard's success as a writer predates his involvement with Campbell, and per SFE3 he was not one of the writers who, under Campbell, helped redefine sf's conventions in the late 1930s and early 1940s. It would be worth looking at other sources to see if Stableford's comment is a minority view. For contrast, there's no question that some writers (Isaac Asimov for example) benefited very much from Campbell's tutelage; I haven't heard that Hubbard was one of them.
• The source given for Buckskin Brigades doesn't support it being Hubbard's first novel; our article on the book has other sources that might work.
• The point about Hubbard being short of money is made twice, at different points in the section; one refers to Maryland and the other to Washington, but both refer to 1936 so it would make sense to combine the two points.
• The last two sentences seem disconnected and look as though they were dropped in without attempting to integrate them.

Generally the material in this section matches what I know about this part of Hubbard's career. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, zero edits since comments on 15 February from Mike Christie and me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• No change from my comments a week ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section mostly centred around sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Unsourced statements from January 2020. DrKay (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delist per DrKay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delist in addition to uncited content, there's a bunch overly short paragraphs (mainly in "Early life") that disrupt the flow of text and make it look choppy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
• 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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

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) 9:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC) [10].

---

Poetry

Notified: WikiProject Poetry

Note on closing—already listed at WP:FFA as re-promoted; if demoted, does not get added to tally, rather moved.

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced statements, statements needing verification, single sentence paragraphs and vague or ambiguous times. It has been tagged for expansion for 6 months. DrKay (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• This is a very important topic, but on the other hand it is currently very, very far from FA standard. I agree with the recent comment on the talk page by EmilyReNew that the history section is particularly unsatisfactory. buidhe 16:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

I dispute this nomination. Some An editor doofus walks off the street, in August, adds a "Subjects" section and an expansion tag, and we are to FAR it? The logical response is to remove the random addition which I have just done. As for the other issues, sure they are there, but they are easily fixed. I looked at some of them with inline tags, and there are many sources that can be cited for those statements. As for EmilyReNew's post, she says, Biblical Poetry is not represented? Does she mean Psalms, Proverbs and Job? I never heard anyone compare those in poetic achievement to Gilgamesh, Rig Veda, Mahabharata, Illiad, Odyssey, Aeneid, The Divine Comedy, Canterbury Tales, Faerie Queen, Paradise Lost, ... Where is Step 1: Raise issues at the article's talk page? Has Dr Kay made any attempt to improve the article him/her-self? There are some easy fixes anyone can make. Please remove this from FAR. Please first post on the talk page, and give the regulars there and others a month or thereabout to improve the article. I mean seriously we can't make these unilateral single-person judgments without attempting to discuss transparently and in some detail why we think the article does not meet the FA criteria. The article passed FAR in 2011. It is not even ten years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Updated with sincere and hearfelt apologies to the IP editor. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

To the contrary, I think proponents of keeping the article as a FA should make a case as to why it meets the criteria as interpreted in 2020. Default state of an article is not to be an FA. buidhe 03:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The article is an FA. Its every state is FA right now. Someone comes traipsing on the talk page and pronounces that it is not. Well, they have to tell me why, especially when they haven't lifted their pinky to figure out where that expansion tag came from. Then you come along and pronounce your agreement with a talk page post. Well, tell me what history, or are you too bemoaning the absence of Biblical Poetry? Which Bible and which poetry? Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Wycliffe, Tyndale, KJV, Quaker, RSV, ... Psalms, Proverbs, Job, like I've already asked? You guys have to do better than that, or do you have an inspector's badge certified by the Poet Laureate? We are all abiding by WP's rules. The rules are cited when an article enters FA-land; they need to be cited, when it is being pushed out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

If the default state is not to be an FA, i.e. every FA is presumed not to be an FA until and unless proven otherwise, then why would FAR be needed? What meaning would delist have when something is not on the list? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Please keep process discussions on FAR talk, so we can focus on improvements needed on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, I can see both sides - Buidhe and DrKay are correct in that Featured Articles have to fulfil criteria, and if there is a lack of consensus then they are defeatured. But that does not mean ZAP - defeatured, that means there is time given to review the article systematically to see if issues have arisen, which is where we are now. I note that the last FAR was in 2011, which is a fair while ago. It is a broad subject so let's just look at it neutrally and go from there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok comments - the article has 47kb of prose so some (slight) wiggle room for enlargement. Surely we can expand a bit on the first two sentences in History section - like some explanation underpinning the assumptions of the first two sentences. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Issues

• There are numerous maintenance tags, that have been there for almost a year. This 2006 FA has never had a serious review. Practically no one showed up for the 2007 review, and the review it got in 2011 was quite abbreviated. Attention to this article should then be as thorough as it would be at FAC.

Prose

• There is vague, unattributed writing throughout, sample: Some scholars believe that the art of poetry may predate literacy.[9][10] Others, however, suggest that poetry did not necessarily predate writing.
• There is a problem throughout with terms related to time ... recently, later, etc ... that need clarification.
• Overuse of however should be reviewed.
• There are throwaway sentences that could be better phrased, samples:
  • The types and use of differing rhyming schemes are discussed further in the main article.
  • See the article on line breaks for information about the division between lines.
  • Additional forms of poetry may be found in the discussions of the poetry of particular cultures or periods and in the glossary.
• In fact, there are entire unsourced paragraphs which aren't adding much. Could we not do a better job at not bouncing the reader around all over the Wikipedia?

Sourcing

• There are entire unsourced paragraphs and list of who's who and who is important or known for certain styles or factors that need some sort of citation or attribution as in "according to whom". Notable poets of certain styles according to whom? There should be ample textbooks for attributing these opinions.

Comprehensive

As indicated by a student editor on talk, the article does mention Biblical poetry but that is not covered in history; considering the number of universities that offer courses on same, sourcing something for History should not be difficult.

MOS

• There are too many images, they are sandwiching text, and their captions are inadequate. Considering how old this FA is, once they are pruned, the images should probably be reviewed as they would at FAC, and alt text checked.
• On layout, hatnotes in sections should go before images.
• MOS:LQ review needed.
• A hyphen used where there should be a dash, check throughout.

That's enough for a start. For all the defense this article has gotten it was a weak 2006 promotion, promoted over several Opposes, never seriously reviewed since, and IMO has never been an example of Wikipedia's best work. User:Nihil novi has been active recently at the article and should have been pinged. I suggest that unless someone is willing to seriously rework this article, it is not likely to retain its star. I don't know why DrKay brought it to FAR without notifying talk, but it is abundantly clear that a talk notification would not have yielded the needed improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, SandyGeorgia This is a much better critique. An editor with knowledge or interest can work with it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone reworking the article should probably take a look at Britannica's poetry page, written by Howard Nemerov, twice poet laureate of the US. Before they make significant mention of Biblical poetry, which is about the Hebrew Bible, they should add something about the English Bible (KJV, that is) which has had a profound effect on English literature both poetry (Milton, ...) and prose (Bunyan, ...). Nemerov alludes to this too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

And please don't neglect translations of the Bible into languages other than English, which translations have likewise influenced their respective languages! Nihil novi (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic poetry

That's a wise remark. @Nihil novi: Why don't you fix the article? You have the knowledge, the wisdom, and a long record of edits Between the conception And the creation Between the emotion And the response What shadow Falls? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC) A beautifully phrased sentiment! A quotation, or your own words? I'll be content to mostly kibitz, and defer to those with more systematic knowledge of the subject. Nihil novi (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC) No, its Eliot's The Hollow Men, with a twist, for making my point. I memorized it in middle school, along with Eliot's Preludes, Portia's "Quality of Mercy," Mark Antony's "Oh What a fall there was my countrymen," and "Friends, Romans and Countrymen," (speaking of which, it is the Ides of March today,) Brutus's "There is a tide in the affairs of men," long passages from Gray's Elegy, Shelly's Ode to the West Wind, Tennyson's Unwatched the garden bough shall sway, Hardy's Darkling Thrush, Masefield's Sea Fever, ... and lord knows what else. They mostly stay subliminal until "a fresh association blow"s (Tennyson). All this is off-topic, of course, but consider them traditional examples that the eventual restorer of this page might want to keep in mind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Outriggr and Casliber made a few edits, but most of the issues are unaddressed, and there has been little participation. Unless Outriggr thinks he can deal with this alone, Move to FARC for further discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

What is the hurry? I'm completely mystified by this relentless pace? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It is not a hurry, and it is not a relentless pace. At two weeks, we would hope to see someone engaging; no one is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

That's fine on second thoughts. I would have offered had it been English poetry (perhaps regretted it thereafter) as an excuse to dust off my late mother's English literature history and criticism books from her college and grad school days that lie neglected in one of our bookshelves. But the scope here is too wide. Even Howard Nemerov, in his Britannica article, clears his throat a few times, and apologizes a few more, before embarking ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delist this is a Level-3 vital article, so there should be a very in-depth treatment of the matter with top-notch sources and professional prose in order for this to meet the criteria (sure, that's for all articles, but something as important as this doesn't have the excuse of being "too niche" or neglected by sources). Unfortunately, this reads more like a C-class article than an FA. Here are but a few issues with the prose:
  • The lead has a whopping six paragraphs, some of which are quite choppy. The final one is A Western cultural tradition (which extends at least from Homer to Rilke) associates the production of poetry with inspiration – often by a Muse (either classical or contemporary)., which should either be expanded on in the lead or left out.
  • There are also LEADCITEs which while not fatal with the criteria are not needed given that they cite uncontroversial facts.
  • to panegyric and elegiac court poetry of the empires of the Nile, Niger, and Volta River valleys. is not brought up in the body.
  • In the "History" section there's a section for western traditions as well as 20th- and 21st-century disputes, but not anything else such as non-western traditions or pre-20th century disputes.
  • The citation format lacks internal consistency, with both shortened and unshortened footnotes to book sources.
  • Do we really need a "Further Reading" list for this? Most FAs lack them because most sources should be incorporated into the article rather than serve as a supplement. This, however, has the opposite problem; there's no way we'll ever incorporate every single source on something as broad as "poetry" into the article (nor should we), but that leaves an issue as to which sources to include in further reading and which to exclude. This might just be me and doesn't affect my overall result, but perhaps something better could be arranged.

These are just things I found in the first 10 minutes of looking through the article, the rest seems similarly disorganized. All in all, this article is a big mess right now and would take a rather Herculean effort to bring back to FA status, which looking through the history has been rather lacking. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

• Delist: tagged as needing factual verification and for vague or ambiguous statements. Unsourced statements, paragraphs and sections. DrKay (talk) 10:00, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• Delist: As per above the article fails many of the FA criteria, and improving the article—while a good deed—would take a lot of time and effort. It would probably be best to handle improvements outside of the FA process and come back to FAC when prepared. buidhe 20:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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) 19:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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) 9:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC) [11].

---

History of the City of Burnside

Notified: WP Australia notice board

Review section

This is a 2006 promotion whose main editor, Beneaththelandslide has not edited for ten years. It's second-highest editor, YellowMonkey (former FAR delegate) is also gone. Since the FAR needed notification on 28 January, there have been minor cleanup attempts, but the article still has uncited text, MOS cleanup needs, and Buidhe's comments on talk need to be looked into. If someone could take an interest in this article, it should be an easy FAR save; the work needed here does not seem insurmountable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I have advocated for trimming and merging the article to City of Burnside based on its short length and lack of independent RS. (Other users agreed with me on the merge). I disagree that it can be rescued under today's FA standards. buidhe 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• I would not oppose a merger with City of Burnside. That said, I'll see what I can do with copyediting. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• I still disagree with merging, particularly strongly if perfectly good history content is pruned to do so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• I am unsure here, and suggest that Casliber might provide guidance. There are four books listed in the sources. Only one of them has an ISBN, but all four are listed as being available through the National Library of Australia. But the publishers on all of them are the City or the Club, so not independent, and readers outside of Australia cannot verify text. So, yes, we seem to have very few independent reliable sources here. Need an opinion from both Cas and Ealdgyth on whether we can salvage this as an FA. On the history of a city, do we care if all sources are from that city, and cannot be obtained by readers outside of Australia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• The article is also using a 2006 archived version of the City's website, when we have an updated version. Frankly, I'd almost rather de-feature this than try to fix it, when we have no current active editor to help sort all of this out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I've got access to three of the four sources (not the golf club) if I'm willing to head across town to the specialist history library. It largely depends on how severe people think the problems with this are - it's not worth the time if it's not salvagable, and I'm not a great lover of long-form writing so I might need a bit more guidance than usual if I did. I would note that any decision that the sorts of arrangements where a municipality funds a historian to write a local history and then publishes the book are "not independent" and not usable in FAs effectively means that virtually any history on this or similar geographic place could never be taken to FA due to a lack of publisher interest. (For example, the history of anywhere in the entire region I'm from or it overall would be in exactly the same sourcing situation as this article.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I feel much better knowing that we can verify something to a source, then, if needed; if that is the case, then, I don't believe a merge is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I disagree that local history sources can't be used. All sourcing requirements are guidelines and WP:MED is alot stricter than other areas. To satisfy comprehensiveness there are many occasions we have to resort to primary sources in more esoteric areas, and a large number of fairly uncontroversial facts about a local district's history are not extreme enough to absolutely necessitate secondary sourcing 100% of the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Good enough for me; so unless we can cite the uncited portions to the City's website, we have to rely on Drover to cite the uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Could you perhaps run over the article with CN tags for anywhere that needs a cite in your opinion? (I don't know if the way I would do things usually meets FA standards and if I'm going to head across town I'd like to only do it once). Most of the "establishment of district councils" section actually probably doesn't need book sources (I'm the one who wrote most of our SA council articles) so I might try and fix that up a bit right now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I went through. We will need to get a consistent citation style when you are done, but this looks doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Ugh. I just had a crack at sourcing some of the district councils section and I think this article has bigger problems than I thought: I sourced one paragraph and found three minor errors of fact and one claim that's dubious (the original gazetted boundaries are more complex than the article suggests and as I'm not a local I can't really tell how far out they are). I expect the rest of the article is a bit better given the book sourcing but I don't know that I'm interested enough to through with that fine-toothed a comb: I don't think this is a case of merely double-checking the existing sources and filling in a few gaps. We have much better digitised sources than we did in 2006 (all legislation, all gazettals, an early Adelaide newspaper covering the area) and I'm concerned that enough liberties and assumptions were taken in their absence to make fixing this to FA standard a difficult job. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• I also went through and found some dubious sourcing. We have several choices at this point, since articles stay in the FAR phase for two weeks. We can fix it ourselves, or we can hope someone shows up who will. If not, it moves to FARC in two weeks. I am always willing to do cleanup, if someone else can do the text and sourcing-- otherwise … let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, beyond the attempts by myself and User:The Drover's Wife (which we both though insufficient), there has been no improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Yep. This needs too much work for a fly-by save from editors not interested in the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section mostly concerned sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delist unless issues are fixed. False information in a FA is very concerning. buidhe 22:15, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delist I have done some copyediting and removed some duplinks, and would be happy to do more copyediting and keep were this the only issue. However, the above raised concerns about sourcing give me pause. I do not agree that the sourcing being from the city is an issue, given the relatively niche nature of the topic. Furthermore, while I raise some note about the preponderance of Warburton in the references, it appears to be the main book on the topic. Bromell is mentioned in the bibliography but never in the references, however, and given the title it seems like it can be of use in the article. Furthermore, only 14 of at least 136 pages of Coleman, another book specifically about the City's history, are used in the article. Given all this, and the CN and clarification tags, I have no confidence that this would pass a modern FAC and feel that this should be delisted barring a large amount of work in the near future. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • One of the problems with the city sourcing is that we may have circular sourcing, via Wikipedia. It's hard to tell. The sourcing issues here are more problematic than the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
    • All of the books in the Bibliography predate Wikipedia's existence. Having said that, the sourcing isn't terribly available online so I can't do spotchecks; agreed that sourcing is the main issue here. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
      • I don't think there's a problem with the reliability of the sources used, but there enough issues with the accuracy of the article content (at least in the bits that were previously uncited) to make it too big of a job for me to save. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:26, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delist: tagged for unsourced statements, lacking reliable references and needing clarification. DrKay (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
• 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) 19:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

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