Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2022

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept

[edit]
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) 1:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC) [1].

Darjeeling

[edit]
Notified: Dwaipayanc, SBC-YPR, Yashthepunisher, Chandan Guha, Ssbbplayer, Antoshurel, WP India, WP Cities, WP Nepal, noticed in March

As noted by RetiredDuke, the article has some issues with source-text integrity, spots tagged as needing citations, and some datedness, as well as significant MOS:SANDWICH issues and a generally excessive number of images. Hog Farm Talk 06:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so. Unless there is an active group of editors maintaining the page, it is impossible to maintain the FA status, even if it was well-deserved once upon a time. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I had never really edited the article before I edited the lead a few weeks ago for coherence. What are the issues? Are they mainly citations? It looks like a nice, informative article. I don't see why it can't retain its bronze star. Are you willing to grant me the month of January? I don't know anything about the topic but I can fix the sourcing and the source-text integrity. Can I interpret the last to be poor paraphrasing of the cited text? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler: - the main issues are a few citations needed, some spots where the citations don't fully support the text, and some spots where it looks like the material does not fully reflect recent stuff, such as the tourism section containing nothing after 2015. At least on my web browser, there's some layout issues in one spot, with almost an entire screen's view of whitespace between the climate subheading and the table. And yes, this can stay open as long as work is actively occurring. Hog Farm Talk 17:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take a stab at it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hold in FAR, per User:Fowler&fowler. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About half of the images need to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler:, no progress since before your comment, shall we proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
user:SandyGeorgia Please allow me until the end of the month, i.e. January. It's true I haven't thus far demonstrated the kind of energy I may have implied, but I do want to get around to fixing this article. It's just that I was waylaid by some others. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No prob, just going down the list and checking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Fowler&fowler:, for taking the initiative. I am extremely short of time, but will try to help in the process. I do have the book mentioned below (Darjeeling Reconsidered: Histories, Politics, Environments), but don't have the time to read and use it :( Thanks again, --Dwaipayan (talk) 20:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been on my watch but about the remarkable depth of scholarship on the subject, lacking any mention in our article, consult Middleton, Townsend; Shneiderman, Sara, eds. (2018). Darjeeling Reconsidered: Histories, Politics, Environments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-948355-6. I am acquainted with scholarship on the region to some extent - ping me, if you need help on something. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Providing references, inline citations. Sections towards the end of the article (culture, education) not done yet. Certainly needs more time.--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dwaipayanc, happy to see you on this! Time is allowed at FAR as long as progress is being made. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've begun to work on the article. Sorry, it has taken longer than I had thought, but I'm improving the pictures while I read the history and will start rewriting the history sections in a few days. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is MOS:SANDWICHing pushed down into the third section of the article, caused by the excess of images in the infobox; perhaps lose a row of images in the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC) Fixed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One edit in ten days; shall we Proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sandy. Thanks for the timely reminder. I'm reading and making notes. I will start editing again in a day or two, starting with the history section. PS Please note that this is a vital topic. It is also viewed a lot. The article receives an average of 1100 page views a day. The recent TFAs on the other hand, have received an average of 50 (outside of the TFA day itself). If TFAs are a sample of what is coming into WP:FA, and if an article exists to the extent it has readers (some version of Schroedinger's cat), it means it takes three weeks of the inflow to match Darjeeling, and were it to constitute the outflow, something substantial would be lost (though I am by no means conflating popularity and vitality). To my way of thinking, this article is worth saving. My style of working is not linear. I don't know what else to say. Please allow more time. But please keep reminding us. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per my analysis, we are in violent agreement, but please keep the work progressing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
:) Amazing, how similar. Will do. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were some edits today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Active improvements still happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm updating the history with more modern sources. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update? Three months in, and the images in the article are at an alarming state of MOS:SANDWICH, making the article hard to read. Demographics (at least) are still outdated (I haven't checked other sections). And maintenance tags are still in place. Much more than History needs to be addressed here; F&f are you sure this is salvageable? Is there a plan for how/who/when to finish up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:04, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it very much is. Very sorry, but I was caught up with major POV issues arising from the Kashmir Files. Sorted out just this morning. All my attention will belong to that page. As for the plan, it should be done before the end of April, probably earlier. What if we revisit this April 15? If it is still in the doldrums, I will be the first one to propose the boot. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:25, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, thanks (it's depressing to view the FAR page weekly and find a growing number of unaddressed nominations; at least having a timeline helps know which are abandoned). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: I am not attending the History section or images (that is F&f's department); however, I am trying to take care of many other sections. As for demography, the data is actually not really outdated. The data from 2021 census is not available yet (census 2021 has been delayed due to the pandemic). So, the data there is the most recent reliable data, from 2011 Census of India. There is some data from 2001 census as well in that section, to give a comparative view. Once census 2021 data is available (perhaps in next 18 months), the 2001 data would be removed, 2021 data will be added, and 2011 data will remain (in a modified form) for comparison.
Also, I have tried to take care of most citation needed tags, updated sections such as civic administration, civil utilities, culture. . Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes me feel better as I know precious little about the demography or civic utilities ... and have only recently boned up on the history. Thank you @Dwaipayanc: ! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:39, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also I will replace the maps I have added in the history section with fewer but more focused maps Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a distressing amount of image clutter, and a gynormous infobox pushing well into the article, that contains lengthy text, a large map, and multiple photos. I haven't looked at content because of the visual assault effect from the infobox plus images. I assume this is still being addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen, it's awful with a giant amount of empty whitespace in the seismology section. As a note, there only seems to be freedom of panorama for sculpture, not 2D work, in India, so File:Proposed map of Gorkhaland, 2009, Singamari, Darjeeling.jpg may not be freely licensable. Hog Farm Talk 18:04, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead will increase in size, so the infobox will loom less large, relatively speaking. I'm using the local big boy for the model. Its lead is 400 words, compared to 250 for Darj. Part of the problem is that West Bengal, the Indian state in which Darj lies is thin and tall. I don't mind showing only part of the state but don't have a good feel for how others will react. Boston barely shows the Cape. Please give me something to model on. The image sizes are large only because it is easier for me to see them; they will be reduced to standard, thumbnails. The proposed map I'm happy to remove. In five minutes. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd take a multi-factorial approach; lose the map in the infobox, lose one row of the images, and lose some of the content (postal codes, really, Wikipedia is not a phone book). We can't have it all, and don't need it all ... there is just way too much happening in the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
:) I have no feeling (nor sympathy for the phone book). Just didn't want to step on toes. Will do Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reduced image sizes in History. How do they look? The Geography bit I'm clueless about. I mean in the mechanics of displaying. Not sure why the year-round temperatures are needed, but they seem to be a common feature of city articles. Please advise. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:17, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost done with the British Raj section of history; the last two parags are not mine and will change. I have texts line up for the postcolonial history section which should be done in a couple of days. Eventually, once the text is in place, I'll make it a little less discursive, more encyclopedically deadpan. Beyond history, I have sources and some text lined up for the modern tea-industry in economy; flora and fauna; and food (the picture with the little obligate carnivore bottom left is my addition) I've never been to Darjeeling, though I have to some other parts of the mountain ranges South Asia is blessed with. Have to run now, but these comments are very useful, and welcome! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm and Dwaipayanc:, see here re August 15. I am swamped at Palladian architecture re August 13. Is this on track? I can try to get here after I finish up at Palladian; have not heard yet if Gog the Mild is considering the switch. We can ping in Buidhe or Z1720 if/when Hog Farm is satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re Political history of medieval Karnataka: currently, no, they aren't. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See HogFarm's final comment in Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Darjeeling/archive2
I'm in the process of rewriting Municipality and Utilities. A saving grace or should I say blessing in disguise—but may even those are cruel characterizations—of the pandemic has been that some academics have been busy publishing like no tomorrow. Who would have thought Springer would be publishing articles on water shortage in the Darjeeling municipality? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler & Dwaipayan, once you get through all of these, I'll take another look. Hog Farm Talk 23:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone know if MATLAB plots are OK on WP? I have made a plot for the demography section using Matlab on which I am ramping up. The plot will get better in the next few days, but I just wanted to make sure. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do HF Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:30, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting F&f's progress in the further revision:
  1. Lead done}}
  2. History done}}
  3. Geography done}}
  4. Climate, done}} now "Climate and environment," and a labor of love. 04:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
  5. Flora and fauna
  6. Civic administration done}} 03:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
  7. Demographics done}}
  8. Civil utilities done}} 01:19, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  9. Economy
  10. Transport done}} 23:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
  11. Culture
  12. Education done}} 02:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:17, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fowler&fowler: I noticed your TFA nomination. Is this ready for additional comments from reviewers? Z1720 (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It should be ready for comments Friday evening (US time). Thanks. But I'd like to first have Hog Farm on board as they've been the one I've been working with. Once that happens, other comments will be most welcome. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, I've got a major exam on Saturday morning and might not be able to look at it for a few days. Hog Farm Talk 04:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'll aim for Monday, the 25th Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All the best HF in your exam! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies SG! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, please ping me when you're ready for me to take a look. Hog Farm Talk 23:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Hog Farm: I'm done with what I'd I had set out to do. The only thing that remains is the culture section which is a long list, it seems.
I can't find a reliable high-level treatment of the culture in Darjeeling. And I'm congenitally not suited for writing about things for which the sources are light weight (newspapers and so forth). Is a culture section needed? Alternatively, if we can reduce it to its cuisine section, I can expand that a little while you take a look at the the other sections. Let me know what you think. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The culture section consists of description on festivities (rather listy), cuisine, and tourism destinations. Since Darjeeling is notable as a tourism destination, mention of popular destination is appropriate, I think. Festivals include events that are slightly different from rest of West Bengal (the state in which Darjeeling is located) and India (although several pan-India or pan-West Bengal are also observed in darjeeling). I feel culture is an important aspect of a town, especially if it has a palpable difference from rest of the state/country. Hope the references are appropriate. As Fowler has mentioned, there is relative lack of high-level references cited for culture section, but there is low-level sources cited.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK @Dwaipayanc: So @Hog Farm: we are done and will await your comments. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:02, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will do my best to get through this tonight. Hog Farm Talk 15:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What's going on with date formatting? It's been templated as dmy for a long time, but there is now mdy in the article. Shall I run the script to convert back to dmy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do SG Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can install user:Evad37/duplinks-alt to examine duplicate wikilinks; a number of them can be justified, but some may be excessive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except for some links to unfamiliar names occurring long after they were first introduced I've removed the duplicate links Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:26, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the uses of the word also seem redundant; pls review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. :) Could be me, trying to be over precise. That next. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single one was needed. All gone. ty SG Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:PAGERANGE, chk throughout, sample: pp. 158–9. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done, ty SG Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping me after Hog Farm is satisfied and I will do a full read-through (I am not tickled pink about how close we are cutting this to the TFA deadline of 15 August, after it being here at FAR since December ... it kind of forces us all to scramble after wait wait waiting. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thanks for the review thus far. Very helpful Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing how these two thoughts are related? "Although their lingua franca, the Nepali language, was declared an official language of the state of West Bengal in 1961 and of the Republic of India in 1992, their economic condition has not improved as much as that of other ethnic groups in the town." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've just clarified. Tell me if it makes more sense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Struck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fowler, Sandy, I'm sorry I haven't been able to get to this but I've been fighting migraines the last day and a half. Hopefully I can get to this soon. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear. Those are terrible. Hope you feel better very soon, for your sake. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm I will prioritize this then ... hope you feel better soon ... but my sleep cycles are still a mess, and post-COVID fatigue. May not get through until tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear SG The whole world is going crazy. I hope you feel better soon. Don't worry about this article. It will get done. Your health is more important. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm better, just tired a lot, so have been poking around at WP:CCI since I can do some mindless checking there. For some reason, more tired than usual today, so won't try to focus on this just yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Feeling better today, hopefully the 4.5 hours of staring at a screen this afternoon for work doesn't make it recur. Hoping to at least start tonight ... Hog Farm Talk 17:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You may get there before me then; I have a social gathering tonight (which I may skip pending re-take of COVID swab). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Towards the end of the lead: " at the bottom of Darjeeling's hills, some of India's cheapest teas are grown. These upon being marketed domestically in "instant" versions in the 1950s, transformed India into a nation of tea drinkers". This needs to be mentioned somewhere in the body of the article. This is currently mentioned only in the lead. @Fowler&fowler:, i was not sure where to accommodate this. Perhaps in the post-independence history section? Thanks!--Dwaipayan (talk) 15:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had meant to write the tea bit in the economy section, but forgot. Thanks for noticing the lack of coherence. I will now add it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remaining I'm back to be able to look at this but I'm on a work trip and the internet isn't the best here so I won't be able to do much in the way of source digging.

  • "The rivers that drain the Darjeeling hills today are ancededent drainage streams" - is "ancededent" a typo? Yes, typo. Corrected.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " continues to be among the world's most expensive, but at the bottom of Darjeeling's hills, some of India's cheapest teas are grown. These upon being marketed domestically in "instant" versions in the 1950s, transformed India into a nation of tea drinkers" - not finding this in the body, recommend adding it to the paragraph in the economy section discussing tea
Will do it tomorrow AM, Hog Farm. Thanks for your comments. I will do a rigorous source and paraphrasing check later this week. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't see much still outstanding; it looks a lot better than it did even a month ago. I'm satisfied if Sandy is; I unfortunately couldn't dig into the sources heavily due to the internet situation on my work trip. Hog Farm Talk 00:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have started on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very close now to Close without FARC/Keep; there are a few image quibbles from Nikkimaria that are still being worked out on the FAR talk, and we need fresh eyes to look over the whole thing. I have no more issues. @Buidhe, Hog Farm, Z1720, Aza24, and Wtfiv:; this is scheduled for TFA in 10 days, so a quick appraisal would be most appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, Hog Farm, to the best of my understanding, everything you raised on talk (and more) has been addressed or answered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get to this again tomorrow or Saturday, running so far behind ... Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3 would you be able to revisit now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dwaipayanc your declaration is also welcome, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick look from Aza24

  • Many of the quotes in refs have a space after the quotation mark, not sure if this is intentional. One "Workers were needed to meet..." does not have quotes at all
    The ps= parameter used on sfns needs an nbsp to force a space; the quote parameter with ref tags does not. I've removed most of them; will finish History section when it is not in use. I believe Booth p. 10 is not a quote, but F&f should check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed History as well; F&f needs to verify whether Booth p. 10 is a quote. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Booth is a quote. I've fixed the cite. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps not pressing but the Culture scarcely contains any information on music or the visual arts (albeit a little on architecture) and I suppose dance
  • The section title 'Early history: up to 1835' is a bit odd, as the other history section titles are formatted 'Year: Event'
    Fixeed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The orders of 'Figure' labeling numbers in the images is a bit erratic, and not chronological with the article (when I assume it should be?)
    I think the only problem remaining is that there is no longer a Figure 2, but I strongly suggest that Fowler&fowler wait for everything else to settle before adjusting those numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I also suggest that this brings up one of the reasons that "See figure" is discouraged; images get deleted. Fowler&fowler when you rejig the numbers, please have a look at removing any non-essential references to figures from the text, for avoidance of this very problem in the future. Some of these are needed; not all are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops, not the only problem ... the numbers get out of whack afer 7. Again, remove any that are not necessary so this issue doesn't recur when text is juggled or images are removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Will do. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Fowler&fowler at the point in the article development that I said that it was OK to use the "See Figure", I think there were only three (or maybe five) of them; they grew and got out of control, and now you can see where/how/when/why they become problematic. Reduce them to only the essential or they will always be a maintenance problem, just like now, where they need to be re-juggled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aza24 Figures reduced to only 4; pls have a look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Flora and fauna images are far into the demographics section on my screen, being pushed by the images in the Environment section. I suggest one of the images in the smaller Environment section be removed, presumably the second.
    That happened late yesterday when most of the images were stacked along the right, which created this problem; I have changed the two graphs in Environment back to horizontal alignment, rather than vertical, to stop this pushing down. Fowler&fowler we are much too close to the TFA deadline to keep adding and fiddling with images; the vertical stacking late yesterday introduced problems. Let's focus on getting content finished and leave the images alone so we can finish this FAR on time, pls. History could benefit by returning images to a select few, horizontally aligned where needed; the overall is offputting now with so images running down the right-hand side. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, all horizontally aligned. The only extra image I added was in Tourism which I'm happy to take out. The two new ones in history as simply replacements which are old enough to satisfy Nikkimaria's quieries Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we're good now ... the problem was the vertical stacking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wikivoyage ext link can probably be put in the sister projects template—in fact, I would recommend all of the sister project links be put in the horizontal {{Subject bar}}, so that the white space in that section can be greatly reduced
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is far too many images in the History section, none of them (besides the first two) even line up remotely close to their relevant text on my laptop, and only barely so on my desktop. Being generous, at least three almost certainly need to be removed
    I agree with Aza24 on the image issues-- these were introduced yesterday (there are too many images, and a few days ago there were smaller pairs of multiple images horizontally aligned). About a third of the images can probably go, as they are now overwhelming the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have repaired now all but the History section, which is In use; the extreme vertical stacking of too many images in History has led to this problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:10, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aza24 have a look now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    See my reply above Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:05, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it for a quick pass, impressive and thorough work otherwise. Aza24 (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Aza24 for you fine comments. I've added some music in culture; some history, that is. Will look for some more. The caution about images, both yours and SGs, is clearly understood. Will address the image explosion and figure mis-numbering after I've addressed some outstanding content issues in Economy and Culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks much better, especially the images, thanks F&F and Sandy. I can appreciate that music information is not always as quickly available as other forms of culture (though certainly no less important), since part of its appeal is that it often transcends written analysis :) Aza24 (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Aza24, I think that's everything on your list now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I believe so—brilliant work. Close without FARC. Aza24 (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've added some more on music. We're now up to Bon Jovi. For the last 20 years, I will keep looking ... Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Observations on the History section by wtfiv

In my quick once over, it looks very good. Definitely something worth sharing for TFA. Here's my "take it or leave it" suggestions. I certainly won't jump in myself, as this article is too close to finish and an FTA deadline to have a someone new to it just jump in:

  • Early history: up to 1835, para 1: Tthe first sentence could be broken into two at the comma. Then, the third sentence starting with "It's native population...}} should be the second sentence. The third sentence would become It is in a larger geopolitical....ambitions.... All subsequent sentences about Sikkim, Gurkha and Butan are amplifications of this third statement. It's a clearer organization, but the downside is that it breaks the continuity of the citation, but that could be fixed easily if the suggestion is taken.

Done Very good points. Hadn't seen this. I did quick prose edits earlier and some of your suggestions were anticipated and adopted though not always precisely in your formulation. (A few days ago the History was drastically reduced and parts had become incoherent). Now to the individual suggestions.

  • 1835–1857: East India Company rule, para 4: "a dormant hostility" seems akward. I'm assuming, there's not outright aggression, but consider removing "a dormant" and just leaving hostility. or replacing "dormant hostility" with something like "friction", "rancor", or "latent".

Done changed to "a burgeoning hostility," and later to "came to a head."

  • 1835–1857: East India Company rule, para 5": Move sentence "It later became the summer capital..." to the end of the paragraph. This puts the sentences about "Hill Stations" together.
    :) Excellent! Done
  • 1858–1947: British Raj, para 1: Consider "when necessary" over "if necessary". The latter implies possible action; the former denotes irregular temporal application.
    Very good. Done
  • 1858–1947: British Raj, para 2: "significant stopping" seems a bit awkward. Consider just "stopping" or "frequent stopping" or "frequent stops".
    I think lengthy or protracted was meant, but it is not needed. Removed. Done
  • 1858–1947: British Raj, para 3: "Earlier after" seems a bit awkard. Also there seems no earlier, as this paragraph starts at 1833, and the previous ended in 1881. Consider deleting "Earlier"
    Good. Done
  • 1858–1947: British Raj, para 3: "Hill stations were" works, but the previous sentence is an imperfect tense, and "were", which logically links to the preceding sentence implies a perfect tense. Consider "Hill stations became"
    Yes. Done. I think the chopping down of last week might have caused it. Thanks for noticing.
  • 1858–1947: British Raj, para 3: "Just about prohibited" seems a bit awkward. Wouldn't it be prohibited or not prohibited? Consider possibilities like "almost all Indians were prohibited", "the majority of Indians prohibited", "the vast majority of Indians were prohibited" or "Indians were almost always prohibited"
    Preferred the last. Your best point. Thank you.
  • 1858–1947: British Raj, para 4: I think a comma after "Nepal and Sikkim" would be useful . It would trigger the reader that the following statement on migrants is a dependent clause adding description and not specifying a subset of Nepal and Sikkim. (Context makes it clear upon thinking about it, but I felt I had to do a double-take on reading the sentence.) Also, it may be useful to say "Nepal and Kingdom of Sikkim, to differentiate the kingdom from the Indian state founded in 1975..
    Done
  • 1858–1947: British Raj, para 4: For "Earlier, in the 1941 census of India," consider substituting. "The 1941 census of India.
    Done
  • 1858–1947: British Raj, para 4: Paragraph 4 could use restructuring. There is a contrastive structure here that is sequentially mixed up: Negative issue (Gorka lack rights; British reluctant to grant them for political reasons; positive reason to give rights (Gorka are a large part of the population; Gorka were recruited; Gorka make up 86%); negative issue (Ghorka suffer discrimination). I'd suggest reworking this. Here's one situation, but it opens the sentence with the dreaded conjuction "but". I offer this only to show the contrast:
    As the British Raj drew to a close in 1945, the Nepalese-speaking Indian Gorkha residents of Darjeeling had not been granted rights as British Indian subjects. These residents were at the bottom of the economic ladder, and their physical appearance was now the occasional object of racism by Indians from the plains. The 1941 census had shown that the Gorkha in Darjeeling constituted 86% of the population. They made up 96% of the labour force in the tea gardens. Many had been recruited to fight for the British in Second World War. But the British had been reluctant to displease the governments of Nepal and the Kingdom of Sikkim whose feudal labour regimes many original migrants had sought to escape.
    Implemented in full. Very good. Ty Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1947 onwards: independent India, para 1: consider adding an adjective preceding "cottages". For example "vacated cottages", as I think- but am not sure- that the referent is cottages vacated by the British exodus.
    Yes. Changed to ... the British cottage were snapped up by the ... (if you think it is too informal, I'll change it to bought quickly. Done
  • 1947 onwards: independent India, para 1: The role of the last two sentences is unclear. The first three lead to further marginailization of the Gorka. Then the last two suddently talk about recognition that was accepted. Was the demand for recognition of Nepali a result of marginalization? If so, how did a marginalized group get enough power to gain acceptance of a fairly strong demand? Or was this two separate issues evolving at the same time but independently? Because I'm unsure fo the context, I can't suggest an alternative.
  • 1947 onwards: independent India, para 2: Consider rewording this sentence "as porters, their fitness eliciting". Here's a suggestion "physical abilities and their fitness", eliciting..." This makes the Sherpas, exceptional physical ability, and fitness the topic of the dependent clause. The original just makes fitness in general the topic.
    Very good suggestion. Done
  • 1947 onwards: independent India, para 2: Consider rewording sentence beginning "The Himalayan Mountaineering" Tenzing has been the topic of the preceding three sentences, so culminating sentence could make him subject. Consider Tenzing became the first field director of the Himilayan Mountaineering Institute after it was established in Darjeeling in Novemeber 1954
    Again, excellent suggestion. Implemented.
  • 1947 onwards: independent India, para 4: The first sentence is unclear. The creation of Sikkim brought the Gorkhaland movement to the forefront. But why? Is it the creation of a threat to Ghorkas? Perhaps it can be inferred from mention of the (Kingdom of) Sikkhim in 1858–1947: British Raj, para 4, but it is not clear. Also, the status of Nepali is unclear. I think I can puzzle it out: It was accepted as a state language in 1961 (1947 onwards: independent India, para 1), but not a national language. But I think figuring this out puts a notable cognitive load on the reader. I can't offer a suggestion because it seems unclear to me.
    "The creation of Sikkim brought Gorkhaland movement to the forefront" I personally have some doubt over this sentence, don't know whether reference exist to support this. The sentence states the scenario simplistically. In reality, it was complicated and multi-layered. Sikkim, which was previously not a part of India, became a state in India through 1975 Sikkimese monarchy referendum. The relationship between India and Sikkim prior to that was also complicated (not in a negative sense). Anyway, with a not-so-large part of the neighboring eastern Himalayan hills becoming a full-fledged state, perhaps the pro-Gorkhaland movement got inspired (that the Gorka-predominant Darjeeling hills region can also become a state, a la Sikkim). I think that's the theme this sentence tries to convey. --Dwaipayan (talk) 01:49, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Dwaipayan for the insightful comment. I didn't see this earlier, but I did expand the history section in light of Wftiv's remarks. I hope I have addresses some of the issues you raised. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:14, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! The gorkhaland movement description is so good now! It nicely describes the grievances, historical neglect, as well as the fact that granting statehood to other agitating/non-agitating movements (in other parts of India) provided impetus to Gorkhlanad movement over the years. This article, as the experienced SandyGeorgia said, is truly a masterpiece, thanks to Fowler&fowler.--00:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1947 onwards: independent India, para 4: "fighting between different groups" is not clear. Gorka vs. Indian Government; Gorka vs. Gorka? Class struggles between lower income Gorkas and wealthier Indians? Sikkim vs. Gorka? I think a bit of clarification here, if just general, would help a reader.

I'm through the history section, so I'll stop here. I'm not even sure how useful this is but I'll post it. Again, these are only suggestions. I think this article would fly proudly in the TFA without addressing any of these. Wtfiv (talk) 07:50, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Wtfiv: Thanks for the excellent comments. I've implemented them all in one way or other. The last bit from "Creation of Sikkim", I did not write. I was already in the article, and I might have added some citations. But let me figure out how to fix that para. Thanks again. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv we can't use colored templates at FAC and FAR, as they cause problems with the template limits in archives. The few you have added here will be OK, no need to change them, but please don't add any more (if you need to use a lot of coloring, you can use the talk page of this FAR, because templates on talk pages don't figure in to the overall template limit once the FAR is archived. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
user:Wtfiv I don't know who you are or where you came from but your comments on grammar and meaning are some of the finest I've read on WP. So thank you. Might I importune you some more? If you have the time could you go through: Geography, Climate, Governance, Utilities, Transport, and Education? I have to pare down Economy and address some outstanding issues in Flora and Fauna and Culture. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:40, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv came from James Joyce, Joan of Arc, and other very serious hard work FARs :) I pinged Wtfiv to here for these very skills. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC) [reply]
I see. Excellent. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy and Fowler&Fowler. Fowler&Fowler, I'll reply to your request for further copy editing on your talk page. (My preferred style of supportive editing is a bit different than the FA reviewer style I used here to minimize misunderstandings in a novel configuration of editor interactions.) I have to agree with the review team: All of you who worked on this, and in particular Fowler&Fowler have done an outstanding job with this! It wasn't a topic I had thought much about, but its one whose global relevance I really appreciate now. Wtfiv (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FAR break
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) 2:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC) [2].

Enzyme inhibitor

[edit]
Notified: TimVickers, Molecular Biology, Pharmacology, talk page notification 2020-12-13

This was noticed near the end of 2020, there is a bunch of problems with the articles. Unsourced sentences, the images are laid out messily, the writing needs a overhaul. There are a lot of issues with this article that I don't think will be fixed. GamerPro64 23:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have reordered a few of the sections, corrected a few inaccuracies, improved the image layout, and have added a few citations. I will add more as I find time. Any additional problems? Boghog (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely looks improved from the previous version. Gonna need another take from someone more seasoned with medical articles at least. GamerPro64 04:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Boghog: I am not a medical expert (maybe SandyGeorgia can suggest a couple of editors to take a look at this?) but I'll give some general thoughts below as a non-expert reviewer. I noticed that there's lots of paragraphs that either do not have citations or do not have one at the end. When I write historical bios, I typically require a citation at the end of the every paragraph, minimum, to verify the preceding information. I'm not sure how it is with MED articles, as there are formulas involved, so instead I will post some of these paragraphs without citations below:
  • There's a couple of paragraphs that do not have citations that concern me. One place is the "Types" section (under "Reversible inhibitors"): uncompetitive inhibition has a citation at the end of its paragraph but the other do not. What is verifying the information in the other three paragraphs, and should there be a citation at the end of them?
  • Under "Quantitative description" there are paragraphs between formulas that are not cited. I am confused about which sources are verifying this information. Is there a way that citations can be added to these paragraphs?
  • The first paragraph in "Measuring" does not have citations. Is citation 33 verifying this information?
  • The first paragraph in "Applications" does not have citations. What is verifying this information?
  • The second paragraph in "Antibiotics" does not have citations. What is verifying this information?
  • The first paragraph in "Pesticides" does not have citations. What is verifying this information?
I hope this gives a good start in things to consider. Please ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Z1720 for your comments. I am gradually adding more citations to the sections that you mention. Under the Quantitative description section, the second half of the section was added after the the article was promoted to FA in this edit, is fairly technical, and the only support I could find was in a predatory source. Prehaps it would be best to delete this material altogether. Boghog (talk) 10:24, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have the subject-area expertise to comment on what should and should not be in the article, so I will defer to other's judgement. Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is too much text uncited that should be cited, inappropriate use of bolding, and while I am not easily frightened by biomedical topics, I can get no sense from the lead of ... anything. The lead needs to be brought down a level, into plainer English, less jargon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SandyGeorgia for your comments. Most material is now supported by citations, inappropriate bolding removed, and the lead has undergone signficant copyedits, so hopefully it is now more accesssible. Boghog (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read through yet.

  • Is interfers British spelling?
  • "For example, in the Lineweaver–Burk plots at the right, ... " nothing at the right ... so a complete read-through is needed.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the lead to make it more accessible for laypeople and corrected some minor misspellings and whatnot. Surprisingly, „interfers“ is not (yet) accepted British spelling. But I daresay it will be someday, as a posher variant of gofers — looks better on a résumé, no? ;)
I also clarified the text regarding the Lineweaver-Burk plots, to make it easier to recognize which diagrams are meant and how they illustrate the type of inhibition (competitive vs. non-competitive).
I've also done a quick scan through the article to find mistakes, but not yet a thorough read-through. Willow (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be traveling for my son's wedding, and won't be able to follow progress on this nom for several weeks, but on a quick final glance I see:

  • Paragraphing in the lead makes no sense and it is still not lay-reader friendly.
  • WP:CITATION OVERKILL ... maximum reaction rate catalyzed by the enzyme) and Km (the concentration of substrate resulting in half maximal enzyme activity) as the concentration of the enzyme's substrate is varried.[2][4][5][6][7]: 132–167 
  • Still some text that is uncited that needs citation.
  • Still some MOS:BOLD wonkiness.
  • A complete read-through is needed.

GamerPro64 I won't be available to help bring this one over the line. Perhaps you can enlist Graham Beards? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SandyGeorgia for your constructive comments. Concerning the lead, for context, it should brefily put in context what an enzyme is and why it is important, but perhaps it could be trimmed back a bit to focus more closely on inhibitors, and that might make it a bit easier to digest. Concerning the single bolded term that is not in the lead sentence, covalent reversible inhibitors is a redirect, and hence is an allowed exception to MOS:BOLD. I will work on adding more citations to other parts of the article and remove citation overkill. Congrats to your son and enjoy your trip! Boghog (talk) 16:15, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I can follow from iPad, but can't do much to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review throughout for MOS:CURRENT issues; time context is needed for statements like "More recently, an alternative approach has been applied: rational drug design uses the three-dimensional protein structure of an enzyme's active site to predict which molecules" ... something like ... since the 1970s, in the 21st century, etc. Similary, missing as of dates, sample: "currently approved drugs are enzyme inhibitor". Similarly, but also indicating the article is still dated: "repeated until a sufficiently potent inhibitor is produced.[95] Computer-based methods of predicting the affinity of an inhibitor for an enzyme are also being developed, such as molecular docking" is cited to 2003: "also being developed" still ??? Updates needed. Another example of a MOS:CURRENT, missing as of date, is: "An estimated 29% of currently approved drugs are enzyme inhibitors[74] of which approximately 1/3 are kinase inhibitors."
  • Concerning MOS:CURRENT, in this edit, I specified when. Concerning molecular docking which was mentioned in the Discovery and design of inhibitors section, the entire section was out-of-date and read like an advertisement for virtual screening. While virtual screening is useful, it is only one many strategies that are used in modern drug disocovery. Therefore I have completely rewritten this section based on more recent secondary sources. Hopefully the section is now more balanced. It needs some additional copy edits and I am working on this. Boghog (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This issues indicates that a top-to-bottom check for WP:WIAFA compliance and comprehensive rewrite has not yet been done. Shall we MOVE to FARC or is someone able to do a comprehensive check and update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your constructive criticisms. All issues that have been identified above have been fixed. The introduction section was not as accessibe as it should have been, but it has been extenstively rewritten and now it should be understandable to a wide audience. The Drugs section was also rewritten to bring it up-to-date and to broaden its scope. The Discovery and design of inhibitors section had some neutrality issues and also was not up-to-date. This section has been completly rewritten to adress these concerns. I have gone over the rest of the sections and in my opinion, they look like they are in good shape. Basic enzymology concepts that are presented in the Reversible and Irreversible inhibitor sections have not changed that much over the last 20 years. Furthermore I think these sections were well written and organized to begin with. Hence I don't think these sections require a comprehensive rewrite. The main problems with these two sections were lack of citations and jargon, but these has been fixed. Of course, if any additional issues are identified, I will work to correct them. Boghog (talk) 09:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article did a good job explaining what enzyme inhibitors do, but only in passing mentioned what they are. A new Structural classes section has now been added to provide a more complete description of what enzyme inhibitor are composed of (small molecules and proteins).Boghog (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting my queries above, @Z1720, GamerPro64, and Hog Farm: for a new look. Jo-Jo Eumerus are you satisfied ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it's summer and I have wound down my Wikipedia reading so I haven't done any deep reading here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the list for me. Although I should note that I'm not going to be very scientific-literate (my wife was shocked to find out that I don't know how many chromosomes a human has). Hog Farm Talk 23:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:COLOUR on the DFP reaction diagram; can it be redone to use a schematic other than color? See, for example, the maps at Great Fire of London. It should not be difficult to do that without dependence on color. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Technically challenging, but this may be a solution. I am working on it. Boghog (talk) 12:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great! I would not hold up a FAC or FAR over this, but we should try to fix it when it's doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The lead image has been modified to add a checkerboard pattern to the inhibitor binding site. The substrate and inhibitor can be described by their shapes (rectangle and rounded rectangle respectively). The figure caption has also been modified to supplement the color legend with pattern/shape descriptions. I experimented with adding pattern to the substrate and inhibitor, but the results were not very aesthetic. Hopefully the shape descriptions are adequate. Boghog (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This loses me:

  • The binding of an inhibitor and its effect on the enzymatic activity are two distinctly different things, another problem the traditional equations fail to acknowledge. It is further assumed that noncompetitive inhibition results in 100% inhibition of the enzyme, and fails to consider the possibility of partial inhibition.
    "Two distinctly different"? --> ?? --> Another problem the traditional equations fail to acknowledge is that the binding of an inhibitor and its effect on the enzymatic activity are distinct.
    --> ?? The equations assume that noncompetitive inhibition results in 100% inhibition of the enzyme, and fail to account for partial inhibition.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:14, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that this was ackwardly worded. The general idea is that binding ≠ inhibition. Binding of a molecule to an enzyme does not guarantee it will inhibit, and if it does inhibit, the inhibition may be less than 100%, even if the enzyme is completely occupied by the inhibitor. I have edited this paragraph and hopefully it is now clearer. Boghog (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This will not work on Wikipedia mirrors (which don't have Wikilinks); the "above" has to be explicitly named in text:

  • Proteins can also be natural poisons or antinutrients, such as the trypsin inhibitors (discussed above) ... imagine the text without wikilinks, how does the reader know what is being referred to above?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments posted at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Enzyme inhibitor/archive1#HF. Hog Farm Talk 04:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close w/o FARC, my concerns have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 13:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many anti-viral drugs are enzyme inhibitors. The article mentions this indirectly in the lead but it is not followed up in the body. I think the article needs a paragraph on this. Graham Beards (talk) 17:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See, I thought that many drugs period are enzyme inhibitors... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can write the section if you agree. Graham Beards (talk) 22:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I made a start. Feel to expand and edit. Boghog (talk) 12:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need much more. We should stress that the enzymes inhibited are mainly virus-encoded and not host ones. Also this citation, Kausar S, Said Khan F, Ishaq Mujeeb Ur Rehman M, Akram M, Riaz M, Rasool G, Hamid Khan A, Saleem I, Shamim S, Malik A (2021). "A review: Mechanism of action of antiviral drugs". International Journal of Immunopathology and Pharmacology. 35: 20587384211002621. doi:10.1177/20587384211002621. PMC 7975490. PMID 33726557. is not the best. It is poorly written, has numerous grammatical errors and is difficult even for me to understand. (Please forgive my immodesty). This one is much better: Bamford, Dennis; Zuckerman, Mark A. (2021). Encyclopedia of virology (4th ed.). Amsterdam. pp. 11, 129. ISBN 978-0-12-814516-6. OCLC 1240584737.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) - Graham Beards (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. The Encyclopedia of Virology comes in five volumes and I tracked down the chapter "Antiviral Classification" starting on page 129 to volume 5. I agree it is a much better source and as a bonus, that chapter is freely available, so I have updated the source. What volume/chapter does page 11 refer to? Boghog (talk) 16:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where I got "11" from. Graham Beards (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the "Antiviral Classification" chapter is sufficient. Boghog (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply but I'm perfectly fine with closing without an FARC. GamerPro64 06:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delisted

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC) [4].

Californication (album)

[edit]
Notified: Naerii, WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers diff, WikiProject Alternative music, diff, WikiProject Albums, talk page notification 2021-05-04

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because... as outlined by User:Hog Farm here, this 2007 FA has seen better days and is certainly the Chili Peppers FA (out of five) in the worst state. Outside of sourcing concerns that Hog Farm mentioned, all of the article's single release dates are currently unsourced, the entire outtakes section is sourced by one source (unreliable at that), the critical reception section is a mess, and the article in its current state doesn't really justify what it to the band themselves (i.e. being a fan of the band, it essentially saved them after the comedown that was One Hot Minute and proved they would succeed after Blood Sugar Sex Magik).

I feel like I could do some things to help, but imo the entire article needs a major revamp, and I unfortunately do not have the sources to be able to do that. So here we are. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Yeah, I knew this was gonna happen. All of the RHCP articles that got promoted to FA status are old, and most need some cleanup. I worked on Niandra Lades so I'll see what I can do for this article.
Side note, two RHCP albums (Californication and Blood Sex Sugar Magik) are in the Rolling Stone 500 project, and while realistically that project will never come close to being finished, I still think it's important to keep at the very least those two albums at FA status. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Hobo I could also help out as much as I can. I agree it'd be nice to at least keep this one and BSSM GA/FA. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro: I'll be slowly making my way through this article. Just cleaned up the background section, although I think I'll do another look over for copyediting. It seems the article doesn't make use of Jeff Apter's 2004 book about the RHCP, and fortunately that book just so happens to be on the Internet Archive. I'll keep you updated as I go along. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Hobo Nice. I can look for critical reviews and other stuff in rock's backpages and newspapers.com. That should help out critical reception at least. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:44, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Famous Hobo and Zmbro: - My instinct is just to nuke the outtakes out of existence. I'd do it boldly myself, but it's been there since about 2014 or so, so I'd thought I'd check in first. Hog Farm Talk 20:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm Yeah I agree. I doubt the liner notes would say anything. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Hog Farm Talk 01:08, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro and Famous Hobo: - Are there still plans to work on it? I see there hasn't been significant work since I removed the outtakes cruft on April 6. Hog Farm Talk 13:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Sorry about the delay, I'll get back on this article. Famous Hobo (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: It's slow and steady progress. So far I've revamped the background and promotion/release section (this includes moving the tour paragraphs to the promotion release section). What still needs to be done is add a recording section (I don't think it'll be too long given the fact that there's only one article I could find on the subject), revamp the composition section, revamp the reception section, and revamp the lede. There is one problem regarding comprehensive research. In 2003 Rolling Stone put Californication on their list of the 500 greatest albums of all time, but the 2003 version isn't available online (at least not from a reliable source). I've asked WT:ALBUM, and one user said they might be able to find the magazine and verify the information in a couple of weeks, but until then there's one piece of information that can't be sourced. Also the book Scar Tissue goes into significant detail about the Red Hot Chili Peppers, and more than likely has some important information about this album. I finally found a copy of the book through some slightly legally ambiguous methods, but regardless it's fine. It's a reflowable text ebook so I'll use the same method I used for Neutral Milk Hotel (cite the chapter, and a searchable phrase). Famous Hobo (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Hobo LMK if you need help with reception. I know I can be of assistance there. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: would this be considered reliable? – zmbro (talk) (cont) 01:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think according to WP:ALBUM/SOURCE the answer would be yes. The author appears to be a staff member. With that said, I'm not sure what the source would be used for? Is it used to further the claim that the album is derided for it's mixing? If that's the case, I think there are better sources out there. Also, thank you for the edits! I'm a slow editor if you couldn't tell, but I am working on a writing and recording section with the limited sources I've found for it. Famous Hobo (talk) 20:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the masters issue, because a quick google search indicates that Californication is particularly notorious for having poor mastering. And no problem! Happy to help. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote a short paragraph about the mastering issues in the retrospective commentary section. Admittedly, I'm not an expert in this topic, so I probably glossed over some important information. In this book Perfecting Sound Forever (here) the author goes into detail about the specifics of the terrible mastering on Californication, then talks about some history not related to the Red Hot Chili Peppers, then goes back to Californication around page 280. Figured I should mention this. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's definitely useful. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My observations:
  1. I think there are too many citations in the lead. The lead should summarize points verified elsewhere in the article, so having citations in the lead is redundant.
  2. Lots of overlinking. British Phonographic Industry is linked every time it comes up. Also lots of X's being used where times signs should be used.
  3. Ray Gun reference is missing a page number.
  4. Removed "prince.org" reference, which appeared to be a web forum. This is the only source I saw that didn't look reliable.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer We're still in the process of expanding, the lead section basically hasn't changed but will when Famous Hobo and I finish the rest. And the linking issue will fix itself once likewise once the rest is good. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 04:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hey guys, nice work on trying to keep the article at FA status. I have a few questions/comments about the article mainly pertaining to the Reception section. First off, for the "retrospective commentary," I think one addition that would be helpful would be to talk about Californication in comparison to the state of rock music during that time, specifically how it stood out amongst the nu metal and rap rock/rap metal albums and artists prevalent in the late 90s. RHCP in general has often been cited as the progenitors of the whole funk metal/rap rock movement which later inspired nu metal, and during the time the album came out, other bands both directly and indirectly inspired by them achieved mainstream success with their own albums, like Limp Bizkit's Significant Other, Korn's Follow the Leader/Issues, Incubus' Make Yourself and so on. I found a Washington Post source from the funk metal article that kind of touches upon this, mainly about how Korn and Limp Bizkit expanded on RHCP's style between OHM and Californication. But if you want, maybe you could find more sources/reviews as to how it has aged compared to the nu metal era/90s alt-rock scene as a whole, along with its influence on rock beyond it merely marking RHCP's musical shift? I think doing so would make its legacy a bit more comprehensive. Speaking of which, my other comment is if we could change it to a more general Legacy section instead, and maybe add some more music listicles where the album is featured. PantheonRadiance (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro and TenPoundHammer: Are you interested in continuing to work on this article? Is this article ready for a review from new editors? Z1720 (talk) 19:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had actually just remembered about this yesterday and was wondering the same thing. I'll ping Famous Hobo to see where their progress is as I believe they were doing the majority of the work. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 19:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro and Nikkimaria: Hi there, sorry for the late reply. I'll be honest, I don't have much interest in finishing this article. It's just not interesting enough to me to continue dedicating time to it. A good chunk of the article has gotten a facelift, so if someone else wants to step in and finish it, it won't be too much more work. What still needs fixing is the lede, the composition section (it needs more information about the music and lyrics, in addition to information about the individual songs), the reception section needs to include info about the Grammy nomination, and the legacy section still needs updating. Also it wouldn't hurt to look over the recording section since while I'm pretty sure it all makes sense, I am not an expert at studio recording and thus the vernacular might be slightly off at points. Famous Hobo (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC) [5].

Sarah Trimmer

[edit]
WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject England, WikiProject Women writers, 2021-03-03 2022-06-23

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are various statements in the article that are missing citations and may contain original research. I would also like the statement at the top of the Bibliography section to be reevaluated, as possibly removed. The primary author of this article is deceased, and there is not another editor with significant contributions. Z1720 (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The maintenance tags have been addressed. I removed the OR at the top of the Bibliography section. I don't know how we are going to find someone to opine whether all original research has been excised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC) [6].

Duino Elegies

[edit]
Notified: FAC nominator blocked, Khazar2, Curly Turkey, Johnbod, Gerda, WP Germany, WP Poetry, WP Switzerland, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord.

Review section

[edit]

This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see Gerda Arendt is combing through this one, making helpful edits. What is most urgently needed on all six procedural nominations is for someone who has access to the sources to do a source-to-text integrity check. What has been found in the other FAs is that the sources do not verify the text, and it appears that at no time did any FAC review scrutinize sources, which allowed the hoax articles to grow to seven FAs via FACs that only nitpicked the prose. It seems that none of the sources for this article are available online, so unless someone accesses a majority of them and does a through source review of most of the article, I envision entering a Delist declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda I have been invited and feel responsible as this is about German literature. I am not familiar with the elegies, though (but read Malte Laurids Brigge when growing up), and I have often trouble recognising what something given in English might have been in German. Often - in this article - only English is given, and even when there are both, there's this trouble, such as "aus der Engel Ordnungen" (from the legendary first line) which has no hint of "hierarchies".

I did a round of copy-edits, dropping some extra years of people with a link, removing links to common terms, such things. I tried to use the past tense for Rilke's writing process throughout, - a major change - thinking that this was clearly written in a past, and doesn't profit from a construed immediacy. I left the present tense for the writer of the last lines, - no idea yet who that is and what his evalution counts.

I did this today in fond memory of Brian Boulton whose birthday is today, and who supported the FAC in 2013, hoping that in the end, we can support his view. I plan to do a round of source-checking, and may also look at the equivalent German article. Both probably not today.

Last time I dealt with a poetry article by the same author, Victoria was very helpful, but I don't know about her availability and readiness for this subject. That article is now part of a featured topic, thanks to Eddie891 who might also be a good advisor here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I'm finding no indication of a Featured topic in the articlehistory template on talk; was that missed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, never mind ... I see you were referring to "that" (a different) article; sorry! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, no problem. This is my first FAR, so I hope for understanding that I am not familiar with the process such as "no sections". I don't understand it, though, because with several editors busy commenting, that just invites edit conflicts, no?
As for sources, while many were not given online, they may be available. Example #61 Gadamer: The Relevance of the Beautiful: Art as Play, Symbol, and Festival. Will take extra search for the position in the book because no page number is given in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The practice here is more typically to work on the article without listing each and every nitpick, or if there are many editors at work at once, to use the talk page associated with the FAR, and then ping in the broader audience when the article is ready for a new look. That is, we tend to leave you to work in peace, at the pace that suits you :). (I deviated from the usual practice of using the talk page in the Palladian architecture FAR, only because I'm the only editor entering commentary, but hesitate to make the changes myself, and didn't expect any edit conflicts.) As you find sources available online, hopefully they'll get linked in the article; thanks for working towards a "save" here. And I guess the missing page nos will also have to be dealt with ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kusma Not sure if I'll manage a full review, just wanted to comment on something Gerda said: I find the "hierarchies of angels" not implausible at all, and this translation also uses "angelic hierarchies" for "angelic orders". May check back later. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this. I'll work on verifying the integrity of text to source where I can. Though, the next three weeks will be touch and go until I have time to focus. I'll also edit as I go, hoping to keep it light as the article looks thorough on the surface. Gerda, if my edits get in your way, let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome; thanks, Wtfiv, as we know you have serious (albeit at times unpleasant :) experience when it comes to source-to-text integrity! As you know, the FAR Coords will allow all the time necessary ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update?

If this is trying to be retained as featured, it should probably also be updated. The last translation mentioned dates from 1981, but by now we have also 2000, 2013 and 2014, among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda pinged me here. All I have to add is that many years ago I made a few clean up edits to When Lilacs Last in the Dooryard Bloom'd (same editor) and did find some issues - though don't remember exactly what off the top of my head. The editor uses the "rp" citation style, so it's easy to find their additions. Victoria (tk) 19:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See the source check at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geology Hall, New Brunswick, New Jersey/archive1, which is similar to what has been found in every ColonelHenry FA looked at so far; every source will need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are two different topics. Duino Elegies is World Literature, with many relying on these same sources, compare example. I think we can work like this: we look at the sources, and those transformed to sfn have been checked as supporting the facts, or the wording has been changed to match a source better. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from wtfiv Working with Gerda and Grimes2, We've fully converted the article to sfn. Citation page numbers are now linked. Between Gerda and I, they have all been verified. (I looked at them all, but as you know Sandy, my work could use spotchecking. So one more pair of eyes wouldn't hurt). I checked sources for cite-text linkage. Removing both sources and text when it didn't align, and seeking out new sources to preserve the general form of the article. Overall, I think ColonelHenry did a pretty good job with this article. There were a few...how do you say...interesting non-alignments, but most could be saved with a new source. I even learned that some of the language in the article has taken on a life of its own, being published in multiple books without attribution, one even in an academic publisher!

In addition, I'm also suggesting deleting "Further Reading". That section always strikes me as problematic, as it can be used as an ever-growing source of promotion and even self-promotion that seems quite arbitrary from the outside. Beyond that and minor changes, I feel we've addressed the major FAR concern, and I've done what I committed to: cleaning up citation integrity and creating verifiable sources. Though, I'm still available if needed. Wtfiv (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wtfiv! See my comment on Gerda's talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Victoria

Chiming in re this discussion I noticed on Gerda's page. Short version is that the sentence should be deleted. Long version is that the evolution is interesting: the idea is added here, expanded here, cited to primary source, rewritten here, cited to Rilke, beauty/suffering cited to Gass here. What Gass says here is that angels, who embody perfection, fail to intervene in human suffering. I don't quite get "weigh beauty and existential suffering" from Gass's text. The sentence definitely isn't a quotation from Gass (and similar such artifacts should be checked), and in my view should not be presented in Wiki voice in the lead. I've not looked to see whether Gass is a Rilke scholar and definitely merits inclusion. If yes, then Gass should be properly paraphrased in the body and then those points distilled and maybe re-added to the lead w/ different phrasing. Victoria (tk) 15:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding: I just noticed that I thought I was following the link to Gass from this version of our article. But in fact the book is not at all Gass, so I have no clue what's going on here atm. Victoria (tk) 15:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither :) But this is a brilliant example of why we can't let any of ColonelHenry's work out of here without considerable scrutiny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the present version, the book by Gass (quoted by ColonelHenry but not accessible) is gone. And yes, intermediate versions had mistakes, and this one was by me, sorry about that. I'm sure the present version still has mistakes, please keep checking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is also important that Lindsey40186, who is working on another of ColonelHenry's articles at FAR (Alcohol laws of New Jersey) see this discussion and the level of scrutiny required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:24, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify (and I don't want to get too bogged down here). The phrase "that weigh beauty and existential suffering" is right now at this moment in the article, first sentence, second para. To repeat, the first iteration of the phrase (without source or attribution) was added here, shortly thereafter cited here directly to Rilke (primary source), then rewritten again, cited to Gass, without a page number. We can speculate, but in actuality we don't know the source for the phrase. It really should be deleted. Victoria (tk) 17:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So as not to give the impression I've not looked closely enough at the history, in this edit the phrase is made a quotation (it's not) and cited to Gass, but that citation goes to this book on German g-books. It's not Gass, although it was Gass before the cite became an sfn. In other words, the citations also need to be checked as well, because it's concerning and I can't figure out what's going here. Victoria (tk) 18:00, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I said already that I made the mistake. Not Colonel Henry. I used a wrong url when I transformed the ref, my fault, a url that Google gave me when searching for the phrase. I didn't inquire who copied from whom, again my fault. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, he introduced the phrase. Your edit, switched the url and added the quotations, which wasn't great. But the phrase was introduced years ago and we don't know its origin. The url you swapped out here went to this page - which is no more than a search for "translation" in a book, so that url was basically useless. Swapping it out for another source wasn't great either, which is the reason I'm concerned. These articles require more than wrapping refs in curly brackets. It can actually be a fair amount of work to figure out where something comes from and if it can't be found, then we delete. That's what source verification is. Victoria (tk) 20:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All I tried to explain wasn't the introduction of the phrase, but to answer "But in fact the book is not at all Gass, so I have no clue what's going on here". What went on was that I looked for the phrase which I expected only in the Gass book, found that url, which had the same page number, and was sure I was in the book. I wasn't, you pointed that out, and I am sorry. I saw the phrase on that page, so thought it was quoted from there, so added the quotation marks. I am sorry. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from wtfiv I think I need to reiterate a point I made and then respond to Victoria's point, as I raised the "weigh beauty and existential suffering" issue in the first place.

  • Citation to text integrity for all citations in this article should be good. All sfn's have been checked at least once: citations were added, changed, or points removed to ensure alignment. To help verification, all citations go to a linked page, webpage, or article.
This was the major issue of the FAR, and I believe it is addressed. I may have missed one or mis-pasted a link. But all cited points can be verified. A check or spotcheck would be much appreciated.
  • The source of the phrase "that weigh beauty and existential suffering" was the last issue in terms of source I could find, and it was unique both because of its editing history and it's influence on the Web. I consulted with Gerda on the six word phrase on her talk page. (e.g., discussing all the online citations I could find antedate it's unquoted occurence in this article, I discuss the citation in the e-book Victoria mentions, though I use the English Google Book cite; I checked every online reference I could find.) If it helps, I could cut and paste my point here.
My own vote is that "that weigh beauty and existential suffering" it is a good phrase that should be kept without quotes. It was originally put in the article without quotes, the quoted version was added later, and the evidence that it is a quote not existent online.
My reading agrees with Victoria, but the first citation appears to use all of Gass, and when I was checking the source, the phrase seems like a good summary of points Gass was making. So I saw it as it as a summary of Gass, not a quote. The quotes and incorrect attributions were added later (to Rilke and then to an actual page number). But web and books have been using it without attribution, and the context of those quotes clearly suggest the source is Wikipedia, though it is possible those sources are plagiarizing some unnamed ur-source preceding 2012. (Google Diuno Elegies and this phrase from Wikipedia is the first thing that pops up.)
In lieu of deleting, a compromise would be to just reword it without attribution, as it is in the lead and summarizes the criticism: "address beauty and the suffering of existence" or something similar. Clunkier, but gets the job done. But again, I think it erases the Wikipedia legacy. (Which is nothing new... the web and literature is full of unattributed Wikipedia quotes.) If the consensus is to delete, I understand. Wtfiv (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The possiblities are endless. Basically we don't know what the source is; it may be Gass, or it may not be. I can't find a viewable copy of Gass to look. Basically there are Wikipedia artefacts that we don't want to keep, especially not in an FA - for lots of reasons that I can spell out if needed but are best to leave in the past. From the very tiny bit of Gass that I can glean he's saying that angels are terribly beautiful but not interested in human suffering. But trying to interpret a source is moot if it's not available to check and we shouldn't be keeping it even if it's been in a article for almost a decade. More than ten years ago we had some serious problems with a serial plagiarizer and the only way to scrub the articles was a top to bottom rewrite and rev-del of the text but that was only done for the single FA we knew about. It's a tangential case, but the point is that we can't keep it if we can't verify it. Victoria (tk) 20:21, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to re-emphasize that except for this one phrase, the article's citation-text integrity has been checked and seems solid. (I rewrote a substantial part of the first half to ensure citation-text conformity. It'd be great if the links to both page citations and full book sources could be checked by others. A second pair of eyes is always good! That would address concerns about any other at-large plagiarism issues, (which I think there are few of at this point).
  • The entire Gass book can be checked via archive.org link here, which can be accessed in full if the reader registers for a free account. I looked it over while working on the article, and read through a bit of it. The quote isn't there but, I think the quote summarizes points made by Gass. If I had used Gass, I would've left the linked source in the article. To cite the phrase as a paraphrase of Gass would require multiple page references, and I'm don't like putting citations in the lead anyway...except for quotes... But the lines do summarize points made in the main text. Again, I will defer to other editors to decide what to do with those six words. Wtfiv (talk) 21:13, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link Wtfiv. I started to look, but I knew this would turn into quagmire that I don't want to drown in, so I stopped. Basically we should always let the sources lead, not the article. My fear is that here we're trying to find a source for a phrase that sounds okay, good, nice to have in the lead, but we don't know where it comes from so it should be deleted. The reason I used the example of the serial plagiarizer (knowing it would come back to bite me) is that there are problematic editors whose FAs shouldn't be enshrined. For lots of reasons, but there's history and maybe someone else will do better job than I am at explaining. I'm not impugning the work any of you are doing, though I realize it's coming across that way. What I'm saying is that these articles require digging and if something can't be verified, there's no good argument to keep it. Victoria (tk) 21:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Victoria, I'll let the other reviewers decide. It's a tough argument. There's two sides. I'm in favor of "innocent unless proven guilty" even in the case of problematic editors. I did a thorough search, but I fully recognize the line could be tucked in an inaccessible pre-2013 work somewhere. But we have no evidence at this point. If evidence emerges, we remove it. The alternative, is that we assume "probable cause" based on previous behavior and just delete (or modify). As to doing the digging, I hope it is clear that I've done a bit of it in this article. (I raised the issue about these lines in the first place, as part of my digging.) There may be more, but I think most problematic issues have been excavated. Wtfiv (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get that I'm coming across as a bitch, but it's not directed at you. You've done stellar work! I have issues with articles that need scrubbing, knowing backstories blah blah, (and probably am no longer cheery enough to agf, based on experience). Let's just leave it at that. I'm still seeing some issues in the article, but I need to stop now. Will try to get back to it. Anyway, please excuse my grouchiness :) Victoria (tk) 23:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Victoria! We just had an editing conflict, so I was writing below while you wrote above. I think it makes clear that you are not coming off negatively. Or, if you are, it is no more than my coming off as defensive. I'm just glad to see your presence, as the below edit shows! Here is what I was writing when our edits conflicted:
Victoria, I'm excited to see you editing this article! (It brings back thoughts of the James Joyce). Beyond the citation integrity issue, I tended to avoid almost any editing of the criticism section. I'm not fond of it, and am not sure I agree with some of the points. But, I didn't want to rewrite that section, as it would be a slog to do it the way I thought it should be done. I figured since it had passed FA review once before, I figured the prose should be okay "as is", as long as the citations- which were the given problem stated for the FAR- have integrity. But in my opinion, it could use a cleaning! If, during your adventures, you would like me to clean up any citaton issues, or I can be of use in some other way, just let me know.Wtfiv (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citations in themselves are not the issue. The issue is that the citations, which are fine, might/may/will cite material that is problematic. I've done a quick dipstick and what I've found is that either the sentences leading into quotations aren't in the cited text, the quotations aren't transcribed properly, or that the text is lifted from the cited source, or a combination thereof. That's what we need to be checking for. I really have to stop now, but take a look at the few edits I've made if what I've described is confusing. I'll try to write up tomorrow why I've had to make those edits. Thanks for the nice words! Victoria (tk) 23:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a look. I have no questions why the edits are made. Each one strikes me as an improvement (though I tweaked one slightly.) Wtfiv (talk) 00:31, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments (Victoria) This should have been a procedural FAR, the article delisted, and probably stubbed back to its pre-Col. Henry, 5 Dec. 2012 version, per the account's original ban discussion and per today's comment from the blocking admin (Risker who says "I'd suggest taking the article back to bare bones of what can be sourced with confidence and then delisting it," (diff). Instead there have been 300 or more edits, the referencing style has been overhauled and made robust, attempts have been made to match text to references, all of which is a tremendous amount of work that shouldn't be overlooked and cast aside. That said, the questions now are a.) are there still textual problems; and b.) is it FA quality? From a brief look I believe there are lingering textual problems, and despite the robust citation syntax the article fails Wikipedia:Featured article criteria.

I've found the following issues from looking at "Publication and reception" and only portions of "Symbolism and themes" and "Influence".

  • Although titled "Publication and reception" the section only has a single sentence about publication. The reception portions are filled with quotations (the section comes in at 296 words, 165 if the quotations are stripped away. In other words it's a WP:quotefarm.
In some instances the citation doesn't support the text introducing the quotation and needed fixing or deleting, e.g. here where an adjustment was made, and and here. In some instances the quotion doesn't match the source's text, i.e. here where something is inserted that's not in the source and again in the same quote here a sentence is left out mid-paragraph, not indicated by an ellipsis as is customary.

In the second para about Adorno, the first sentence cites Adorno for an extended quote; the next sentence has a double citation to an abstract at "Philipine e-journals"? Why? If we have access to Adorno, then we should be paraphrasing him; otherwise suggest deleting. Only a single page of Adorno is viewable - the page with the quote - so it's impossible to contextualize what he's saying. My interpretation is he thinks the elegies are poorly written, bad poetry, not actually literally evil. But again, without the full text it's impossible to tell. Adorno is 1964, so the reception section spans immediately post-publication in 1923 and stops in 1964. Seems there should be more?

  • "Symbolism and themes": section comes in at 831 words, 571 with quotations removed, again a quotefarm. Note, I've only looked at the first two paragraphs. End of first para the long sentence starting with "Rilke explores the nature of mankind's contact with beauty ..." is uncited. That paragraph has a citation to Dash's article in Language in India and one to Martin Heidegger, which seem weak sources. Second paragraph, first sentence about the angels appears to be cited to Campbell or only to this FreeLibrary abstract. Note the abstract url has a search string for "Duino+angels+the+angels+of+islam", which is problematic. Fourth paragraph, the text that starts with "Rilke used the images of love and of lovers as a way of showing mankind's potential and humanity's failures ... " is uncited.
  • In the "Influences" section I tried to sort out the sentences about Thomas Pynchon (one my favorite writers). It took a few tries and I'm not sure even now that it's right. A sentence not in the source had to be deleted; the "phrase "portraying the screaming descent of a V-2 rocket" is verbatim from the source (NYT) but not in quotation marks, fixed here, here, and here, and here; another misuse of quotation fixed here

In all it took six edits to fix two sentences, [7].

Obviously the article has seen tremendous work and improvements but judging from those few sections there are still sourcing issues, i.e a search on Google scholar for Rilke "Duino Elegies", here gives a large number of results. Of the first three secondary sources on the first page of the search result, Gass, Bell, McDonald, Hollander, we quote one from a separate source and don't use any of the others. Probably a lit search is in order, rather than trying to fit existing text with search strings to pages viewable on the internet. In other words of the criteria, 1 is not satisfied, 2.c. is satisfied, not sure about 3 or 4.
Bottom line, we should go ahead and delist. Victoria (tk) 19:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria, I will defer to your decision. I joined this edit because I (mis)understood it would be fairly minor: the major issue was that claims weren't back by citations. I had assumed that beyond ensuring the text supported the citations, the article had relative integrity and other editors could clean up the loose ends. I did substantially rework the first two subsections of the "Writing and Publication" because a bit of it was factually incorrect. But I avoided heavy editing as the third subsection (Publication and Reception) and all of "Themes and Symbolism", as it struck me as subjective, heavily reliant on Leishman and Spender's (1963) commentary to the exclusion of much else, and I didn't agree with the analysis anyway. (But I didn't feel that's my role, given literary criticism is highly subjective.) I have no interest in reworking the "Symbolism and themes", which would also force a reworking of the lead. Maybe others are interested in a salvage operation? Wtfiv (talk) 20:36, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv I should have been clearer in my initial comments here, I forgot to put the article on watch when I put the FAR on watch, I'm absent for too long (in other words, I'm good at beating myself up!) and I feel bad about this. But the work you and Gerda Arendt and Grimes2 still stands and you all made the article better. The article will still be here in its improved condition, simply not eligible for TFA - which is ok. You all add great value to the project and time is a precious commodity. That you're not happy with the themes section is telling - you're a very intuitive and responsible editor. As a final note I decided to remove the beauty/suffering phrase. Victoria (tk) 23:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please make a note about your decision to snip the famous line on the article talk page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just to reiterate one of the posts above, the first iteration of that phrase shows up here and we haven't found a source for it. Before this closes, the issue should be buttoned up on this page so it's documented. Victoria (tk) 23:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY; take it out. We don't honor hoaxsters and sockmasters on Wikipedia, and we have no idea of the origin of that phrase, as Victoria has amply illustrated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't understand. It's taken out. All I asked is please make a note about the decision on the article talk (not here where nobody will see). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FAR pages are (often) more likely to be seen than talk page sections, which vanish into talk page archives; the FAR page is enshrined in {{Article history}}, and easy to find at the top of the talk page. But yes, I did misinterpret the remark, "your decision to snip the famous line", and apologize for that misunderstanding. It read as if you valued the content that someone decided to snip. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What I value and not is of no concern here, nor if I spent or misspent my time. The sentence made it into literature about Rilke, with attribution to Wikipedia (if I understand Wtfiv right), and people from outside might be interested in what happened. They are not likely to find a FAR, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gerda, I very much value what you did! I'll respond in detail on your talk page. Wtfiv (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And they are equally unlikely to find it in talk archives then.
Are you saying that we need to add a {{Backwards copy}} to the talk page for the original sources that seem to have copied it from Wikipedia? Unless I am misunderstanding the history, we can't be sure they did copy it from Wikipedia, because we don't know where it came from. But if Victoriaearle thinks a backwards copy can be employed here, see the example at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies, where the template allowed me to link to an entire talk page where I laid out the entire history of everything that ninny lifted 100% from Wikipedia. To add a backwards copy, we make the claim that we had it first; I don't think we know that we had this first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that there's no way of knowing whether the phrase came from a source verbatim, whether it's a paraphrase, etc., what the source is, or whether there is one. The only hint is that it's cited to the Duino Eligies. I've spent the past almost two hours trawling through introductions and notes in various pre-2014 translations and that phrase nor any of the words used in conjuction exists. No critic agrees what the Eligies are about, which is as it should be - a critic's job is to speculate and make an argument. Any phrase that's so definite has to be attributed (rather than in wiki voice, because many other critics will disagree).
I found a good description in a 1998 translation, here that emphasizes that there's no way of knowing what the poems are about (in other words, our definite phrase might be wrong):

The Eligies raise a number of questions. What is their subject? Is it primarily the creative act – the life, death, being, transformation of art, of poetry itself? Does Rilke take Life for his subject? Or is it primarily the Life of Art? I believe that the Eligies must be seen as the experience of being human, which includes the experience of art ...Cohn, Stephen. "Introduction", in Duino Eligies, A Bilingual Edition, (1998) p.18,

In terms of backwards copyvio, apparently that's happened, but I'm not in a place today to be able to do the necessary documentation. Sorry. Victoria (tk) 21:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since I cannot foresee anyone !voting to keep this, no matter how much work is (mis)spent on it, I agree that we should follow the original recommendations, and Risker's current recommendations, and lose the dog now. We have many high-value, high pageview articles begging for attention at FAR, and we are entertaining a hoaxster here. We need to do the same with Alcohol laws of New Jersey before someone wastes any more time on it. So, per Victoriaearle, I am at Expedite a move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FARC, accelerated process per Victoria and Sandy. This is the sort of article that really should be reworked outside of the FA process. Hog Farm Talk 04:56, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or just plain procedural Delist, without going to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A procedural Delist would to expedite the stated preferred outcome of Victoriaearle, Wtfiv, Sandy and myself, and move forward the inevitable, so uncontroversial. For the star to be kept, the article would need to be torched and rebuilt, rather than modified and Wtfiv above has effectively confirmed my gut feeling. Well done however to those who have carried out the repairs in the last few weeks; very good work indeed. Ceoil (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC) [8].

Alcohol laws of New Jersey

[edit]
Notified: no active editors, nominator blocked, WP Food and drink, WP Law, WP New Jersey, two-week talk page notice waived by FAR Coord, but given on 2021-12-12

Review section

[edit]

This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. In the case of this article, as noted on talk on Alcohol laws of New Jersey 2021-12-12, there is dated text and sourcing problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Victoriaearle's commentary and homework on the background at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Duino Elegies/archive1, this should be an expedited Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Sandy, I don't think FAR is the place to fix this sort of disaster, the sourcing just can't be trusted at all. Hog Farm Talk 04:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC) [9].

Toledo War

[edit]
Hotstreets, Bkonrad, Kendall-K1, WP Michigan, WP Ohio, WP MilHist, talk page notification 2022-07-05

Review section

[edit]

This 2006 FA has not been maintained to standard. As indicated by Hog Farm last April, there are sourcing issues. There is also MOS:SANDWICHing and iffy image layout. If someone engages to improve the article, other issues can be examined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • To my mind, there is a critical failure at point 3 of FAC - media. It attempts to describe verbally the spatial relationships giving rise to the war. As a non US editor, I have no underpinning conceptions (prior knowledge) to assist me. There are four maps in total. File:Northwest territory.png is not annotated - ie there are no names of the states or lakes. There is nothing to show where the disputed territory is. The Mitchell map is the basis of the dispute. Text tries an fails in describing how the error of the Mitchell map resulted in the problem. First of all, I don't know where on the Mitchell map I should be looking. The map of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is fair enough but I still don't know where the strip is. The map of the Toledo strip is fair enough but I don't know where, in relation to the other maps it is. Essentially, a good image(s) is worth a thousand words. Images need to show places mentioned. They need to show how the problem was created by comparing the boundary per the Mitchell map v reality. A reader shouldn't have to jump all over WP to find just where things are. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Sourcing concerns remain. I saw that JasonAQuest made some major edits to the lede. Are they interested in making further improvements on the article? Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, per my comments on talk about sourcing in April. Hog Farm Talk 02:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, some improvement, but substantive sourcing issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC) [10].

First Nagorno-Karabakh War

[edit]
Notified: Military history, talk page notification 2021-12-01

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because multiple concerns have been raised by several editors and while some issues have been addressed, many are still outstanding. Specifically:

  1. There are questionable sources and multiple instances of unsourced material. Non-english sources without English translation of bibliographic detail and incomplete bibliographic detail. There are multiple notes in the reference section where there is a separate notes section.
  2. The lead is difficult to read.
  3. There is a table that doesn't render.
  4. there is an issue with the dates of the war and sourcing for that.
  5. There is an issue with the title and rendering of same in prose.
  6. There is an issue with length and unnecessary detail. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Cinderella157 I have added the talk page notification for you above; please see the instructions at WP:FAR and do the notifications to editors and WikiProjects, and note them above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella157 thank you for notifying MILHIST. Per the FAR instructions, could you please notice the following WikiProjects listed on the talk page ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And could you please go through the page stats and notify the most recent, most active editors, along with the editor who originally nominated the article at FAC? Sorry I can't do more; I am iPad typing, and this was a lot to list. I know it seems like a lot of work, but it's important to cast a wide net to try to find people who can restore the article, and FARs are delayed when editors find out weeks in that an article was nominated. Once you get the hang of how to do the notifications, it can be done in under 15 mins. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia, I have notified the above projects. Additionally, I have notified the following users: MarshallBagramyan, Yerevantsi, Aivazovsky, Roses&guns and Polluxian. I thinkthis reasonably satisfies the users that should be notified. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 09:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying editors involved in discussion at Talk:First Nagorno-Karabakh War#FA criteria: Buidhe, Rosguill and Brandmeister; and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 167#Talk:First Nagorno-Karabakh War#FA criteria: Hog Farm. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:47, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have no time to give the article the thorough re-sourcing and rewrite that it deserves. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly not going to have time for this, either. Hog Farm Talk 21:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. As a major contributor to this article, I'd hate to see it de-listed, though I readily acknowledge its shortcomings and deficiencies. Unfortunately, I myself do not have much time these days to devote to redressing the problems in the article. I can perhaps try giving it a crack perhaps next month, but I'd hate to make any promises I can't keep. Best regards, Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 14:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised this criticism before in the prior discussions but I'll note it again here for the record that one of my top concerns for this article's FA status is the new title of "First Nagorno-Karabakh War". While there are RS written since the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war that now refer to it this way, it's not clear to me that it has been established as a canonical name for the war in English, and note that at least (some? Pro-government?) Azerbaijani sources seem to instead refer to the entirety of the conflict 1988-2021 as a single war (which isn't totally unreasonable, considering that ceasefires were signed but no decisive peace treaty). I'm worried that this issue of historiography may not be easily settled until more time has passed, as whether or not the current status quo of the conflict holds for the long run will likely determine how previous phases of the conflict are described. signed, Rosguill talk 16:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC) [11].

Larrys Creek

[edit]
Notified: Ruhrfisch, WP Rivers, WP Pennsylvania noticed in March 2021

Review section

[edit]

This 2006 promotion needs a touch of updating to get back to featured article criteria, but should overall be a fairly doable save. There's a sizable amount of uncited material in the plank road section, and there is some areas that need updating. For instance, "and it is still in operation as of 2007" is supported by a 1992 work and the lodge's dead GoDaddy site, so there's no indication in the sources if it's still open or not. "As of 2006, the club has 55 active and 15 honorary members (all male)." could also use updating, and the whole recreation section probably needs to be checked for datedness. The claim of "Larrys Creek is the largest creek in Lycoming County without its own watershed association" appears to be no longer accurate, based on this and this. The first PDF linked is only from 2011, but still suggests that the natural gas stuff in the article needs updating, with a reference to 38 gas pads in the watershed and an incident involving drilling mud getting into the stream. It also states that two of the tributaries of the creek are officially considered to have impaired water quality. This also mentions that it is illegal to put water from the natural gas operations into Larrys Creek, which would be interesting to add if a better source than a lesson plan could be found. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I cwill work on it, but am fairly busy in real life (though I should be less busy in 2 to 3 weeks). My recollection is that the Plank Road material is mostly from the Landis article (back in the day I went to a library with a print copy and read that, and there is link to a re-typed version of the article given here for convenience). - Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being willing to work on this! If you need to take several weeks to work on the article, that's fine. Hog Farm Talk 04:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:38, 20 August 2022 (UTC) [12].

Joel Selwood

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Boomtish, User talk:Allied45, User talk:Johnny Stormer, User talk:LM150, WP:AFL, WP:AWNB, WP:WPBIO, Notice from July 2021

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is out of date with very little information on post-2015 activity (subject is still an active player) Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bumbubookworm do you have examples of what is missing, eg, with reliable sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joel_Selwood#2012–present:_Captaining_the_Cats - You can see there is one small para about the 2020 season at the end, but only one sentence is actually about him, and one sentence before that he reached 250 games in 2018. Apart from that, there is nothing on his activities 2016-19 and 2021. He is still a full-time player, you can see in the stats table that in these years, he played 20+ games as he had done in previous years (2020 was shortened due to COVID) and he was still productive; his stats in those years are similar to his career averages, and he is still the captain, eg he was also All-Australian in 2016 and 2017, so still one of the more prominent players in the league, but there is no coverage of these years. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC plenty of news stories just in the last year[13] interestingly a Guardian opinion piece declared that he was behaving "antithetical to AFL principles" in June 2021.[14] Not sure if this particular controversy merits discussion but I'm convinced the article has not been updated sufficiently. (t · c) buidhe 05:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - post-2015 material is not properly fleshed out. Hog Farm Talk 07:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll finish most if not all of it by next month. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, strike again; but please do keep us posted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, source-text integrity issues. And there's still some uncited text in the 2009-2011 section. For instance:

  • "During the off-season, Selwood was appointed as the national team captain of Australia for the 2014 International Rules Series against Ireland. Playing in the midfield, Selwood kicked one over in the lone test match and led Australia to a 56–46 win against Ireland. Winning their 20th test match against Ireland, Australia reclaimed the Cormac McAnallen Trophy for the first time since 2010" - I'm not seeing where the source supports the midfield or the kicking one over, or most of the last sentence
  • "Selwood highlighted his consistency by gathering over 20 disposals in 21 of 24 games" - this is original research to a stats line
  • "while in a round nineteen match against Collingwood he gathered a career-high 20 contested possessions" - no longer supported by the source, which may have changed formats because the title is now different

I haven't given this one a super-thorough look, but with this open for 7 months and this sort of issue still outstanding, I think it's time to consider delisting. Pinging @FAR coordinators: . Hog Farm Talk 02:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to it. This was what I was referring to when I said "I still need to proofread everything and fix some of the existing sourcing". Sportsfan77777 (talk) 17:30, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a timeframe for this? There's a certain point where it's more effective to delist and then re-submit to FAC so that FAR doesn't become completely bogged down. Given that it's been about 4 months since substantive work has occurred, I'm wondering if that point is being reached ... Hog Farm Talk 04:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make it a priority after I finish the current article I'm working on, so probably July. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sportsfan77777, are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sportsfan77777, could we get a status update? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @FAR coordinators: "Gleeson, Michael (26 November 2006). "Geelong captures a Selwood and calms a mother's heart". Big Footy. The Age. Archived from the original on 16 April 2013. Retrieved 23 July 2022." - this ref is a web forum. The failed verification and uncited text pointed out two months ago are still present. At nine months in, it's concerning that there's still these sourcing issues. @Sportsfan77777: - Would it be better to close this as delisted now so that you can work on this outside of FAR and then renominate at FAC at some point in the future? Hog Farm Talk 14:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Gleeson ref is to The Age, which is a newspaper. The text from the article itself was copied into a web forum. I don't see an issue with that. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still most certainly an issue for two reasons - 1) the source is unreliable so we can't trust that it's accurately copying the newspaper text and 2) it's a WP:COPYLINK violation if accurate, as the newspaper text would be under copyright. Hog Farm Talk 23:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is it okay to de-link it then and cite it as a newspaper source? I'm not concerned about the accuracy. The point of copying it into the forum is typically because it requires a paid subscription, hence why the link to the original article included isn't archived. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Is there a way to verify that information from another source? I don't like the idea of essentially sourcing something to something copied into a forum, even if the copying is probably right. Hog Farm Talk 13:40, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • The failed verification you pointed out I wasn't concerned with. The link is supposed to go to his individual page, which is already linked in the article numerous times. The 2009-2011 section is the last big section I need to get to. I finished most if not all of the 2007-2008 references a few weeks ago.
      • I think I can finish everything in not that much time. If someone else didn't nominate 10 sport GAs to delist last month, I would have gotten to more of this in July. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: Buidhe has a Delist declaration above, Hog Farm has a Delist declaration, and now my patience is also exhausted. I am reinstating my struck Delist; not only are we not moving forward, but it appears we are even moving backwards. This article can be revisited via FAC. The nomination was from last November !!!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by moving backwards. Everything is moving forward. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 21:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
November to August is not moving forward; it's time to wrap this up. If the article is worthy, it can come back to FA status via FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: The three examples of text not properly supported by the source raised by Hogfarm on 12 June are still not properly supported by the source. On a more picky level, consistent formatting of references (WP:FACR#2c) is a problem: why, for instance, is The Age sometimes wrapped in {{cite news}} and sometimes in {{cite web}}? Why does one of the references to The Age give location= and publisher= information when none of the others do? Why is the publisher for "Naitanui already making headlines" listed as the AFL rather than Collingwood Football Club? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC) [15].

School for Creative and Performing Arts

[edit]
Notified: Nasty Housecat, Br'er Rabbit, WP USA, WP Ohio, WP Schools, noticed in April

Review section

[edit]

This older featured article on an education institution has been allowed to fall badly out of date. The history section cuts off about 10 years ago, and the academics section is hopelessly out of date, but there is still more dated content in places. The original FAC nominator hasn't edited in years. Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concern currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC) [16].

Slayer

[edit]
Notified: M3tal H3ad, MetalDiablo666, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Slayer, WikiProject Metal, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject American music, Vital articles/Level/5, 2021-03-05, 2022-05-30

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as noted on the talk page last year, there are numerous sources that can be evaluated for inclusion in the article, failed verification of sources, uncited statements, and a "Controversy" section that I think should be integrated into other sections of the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a giant decade-and-a-half diff of the changes to the article between its 2007 FA version and today. In 2007 it had 22,900 characters (3,751 words) of "readable prose size", according to the DYKcheck tool—54.6 kb total size. Since then, it has expanded to 134.8 kb in total, with 47,557 characters (7,974 words) of readable prose, a doubling in size.
Additions to the article include the awards section, and everything happening after 2007 such as two more albums and Hanneman's death. The old "Feuds" section was removed (no great loss), and the "Influences" section was rewritten and expanded as "Legacy".
Even in 2007, the article contained a controversy section. Such sections are no longer recommended practice; controversy about the topic should be introduced and detailed throughout the article as part of the developing narrative. Binksternet (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC) [17].

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series

[edit]
Notified: Serendipodous, Elizium, Vanamonde93, AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel, WP Novels, WP Religion, WP Christianity, WP Children's literature, WP Women writers, talk page notification 2022-01-08

Review section

[edit]

This 2007 promotion has not been maintained to standards. As explained on talk, it has not been kept up to date, suffers from WP:PROSELINE, does not use the most recent scholarly sources (of which there are many), and relies too heavily on overquoting. There are probably due weight problems as well, related to the use of lower quality sources. Following on the FAR for J. K. Rowling, the highest quality sources that should be used are known, but there has been no response to the talk page post for six months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC. Fixing this would be a massive undertaking. At present, the article is a chronological hodgepodge of individual reactions to Harry Potter from a religious perspective. It mainly reports on reactions that are primary sources for purposes of this article—because they are evidence of the debates from participants in the debates, rather than commentary on the debates. It would need to be totally rewritten to give WP:DUE weight to the main religious reactions, and themes of such, identified as significant in reliable secondary sources. As SG notes, good sources are available for this. But it would be a mammoth task (which I am not prepared to take on) to use them for this purpose. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC on grounds mentioned above. Much of the article strikes me as primary sourcing that tries to make the issue seem salient to present. Some other minor issues stemming from the age of the article should also be considered, including MOS and linking issues. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:01, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. In addition to the above issues, there is some unsourced phrasing. The lead says "often on the grounds that witchcraft is a government-recognised religion and that to allow the books to be held in public schools violates the separation of church and state[7][8][9]", but all the citations here (and in the body) are to the same lawsuit. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 01:15, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haven't the time for a thorough assessment, but I recall from when I examined this during the Rowling FAR that there's much scholarship that isn't covered, and covering it will be a considerable amount of work. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Other than a lot of work to remove the WP:ELNEVER accio-quote sourcing, the article has not changed since Vanamonde93 last looked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, after the intense work at JKR, it's abundantly clear that the work needed here would be huge, and equally clear that there is no one likely to do that work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, some junk has been removed but this is still a trainwreck. Hog Farm Talk 13:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC so significant edits to the article since FAR nom, and the person who has edited the article suggests moving to FARC above. There's just too much work to do in order to save this, and FAR is the wrong avenue for that. Z1720 (talk) 22:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC) [18].

Green and golden bell frog

[edit]
Notified: YellowMonkey, Froggydarb, Tnarg 12345, Hpesoj, EcoJay, WP Australia, WP Amphibians and Reptiles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand, noticed in June 2021

Review section

[edit]

As noted over a year ago by Femkemilene, this 2006 FA promotion has become extremely dated in the conservation section, including text such as "The numbers of green and golden bell frogs are estimated to have declined by more than 30% in the past 10 years" being cited to a source from 2004, and much of that section is cited to a "draft for public comment" from 2005. This needs heavily updated. It's unclear to me how well the prose has been watched over as well, as a random sentence fragment of "very low" has been present since before Femke's talk page comments, and there is an uncited paragraph. Hog Farm Talk 16:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC) [19].

Sunderland A.F.C.

[edit]
Notified: Sunderland06, Maxim.il89 (blocked), Eem dik doun in toene, WikiProject Football, WikiProject North East England, 2021-03-21, 2022-06-24

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is uncited text, short paragraphs, and MOS:SANDWICH throughout the article. The sources should also be reviewed as "Roker Report" and a wordpress website are used as sources, and some sources are not complete (missing author name, publisher, etc.) Z1720 (talk) 04:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC) [20].

All You Need Is Love (JAMs song)

[edit]
Notified: Kingboyk, Joefromrandb, WP Electronic music, WP Hip hop, talk page notice 2021-10-09

Review section

[edit]

This 2006 FA has not been maintained to FA standards; there is considerable uncited text, the lead is underdeveloped, sourcing is sub-standard and vague (eg "News item, Sounds, 12 September 1987."), and a good deal of the content is quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/August_2022&oldid=1106908447"