Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 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) 6:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC) [1].

Vampire

[edit]
Notified: Casliber, WikiProject Bulgaria, WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Death, WikiProject Eastern Europe, WikiProject Folklore, WikiProject Horror, WikiProject Occult, WikiProject Romania, WikiProject Serbia, WikiProject Skepticism, 2021-06-10, 2022-08-07

I am nominating this featured article for review because lots of information has been added to the article since its FAC, and that prose sometimes uses low-quality or unreliable sources. There are also lots of short, stubby paragraphs that should be evaluated. This is an article with high readership, so it would be great if this could be fixed up. FAC nominator has not edited Wikipedia since 2012, but since Cas is a top editor I notified them. Z1720 (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of articles listed above that are not in the article history of Vampire (Vampire: The Masquerade - Redemption/archive1, Vampire lifestyle/archive1). Anyone know how to trim these out? Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Darn, I so need Cas at schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, as I keep hoping they can avoid FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These high-traffic articles are...challenging. and article has crept up in size (again). Let's take a look..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok @Z1720: have removed material that is too narrow for article and kept valid updates since its promotion. Main thing now is formatting some references (sigh) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: I tried tackling some references, but when I went into the wikicode I found a wide variety of reference formatting methods. Some books are listed in References, some have citations in References then are listed in Bibliography. Same goes with journals. Should this be standardised? There are also many reference formatting problems, with missing information and disorganisation. I also am suspicious of some references, like biffbampop.com, Didjaknow: Truly Amazing & Crazy Facts About ... Everything., Die Bestattung in Litauen in der vorgeschichtlichen Zeit (a thesis from 1947) and world-science.net. This is much more than a quick fixer-upper; if sources are kept, the information should be verified if the source was added after its promotion. If it is removed, the information that it is citing will also need to removed or better sources found. This is much more than I am willing to tackle, as I am very busy at the moment and will be even less available later in the week. Z1720 (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The way I have generally done references is that I have the whole citation in the References section, unless it is a book that I've used multiple bits of. In which case I'll have the complete reference in the (what has been renamed on this page) the bibliography section. High traffic articles suffer from frequent additions. Have been busy myself with house moving etc. Will plug onwards with referencing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:49, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that work is continuing on this article by Casliber. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay @Z1720: can you see any problems still....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posting that I've seen this, but I am busy with other tasks so this might get delayed. I have no objections to others reviewing or this article deemed "keep" without my input. Z1720 (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC) [2].

Mary Martha Sherwood

[edit]
Notified: WP Bio, WP Children's literature, WP Women writers, WP Women's History, WP Women in Religion, talk page notice 2021-03-03

This 2007 promotion has minor amounts of original research or uncited text that has not been addressed since I raised it over a year ago; this should not be a difficult fix if someone has the sources. The original writer is deceased, and there are no other active involved editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, I will take care of addressing the sourcing issues and other problems in the two-week period allotted. Thanks for bringing this back to our attention. The original writer, Wadewitz, was my mentor in my early days of editing, so I'm on it! ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thx Christine! I will be away on vacation, but please keep this page informed of your progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia, of course, will do. Have an enjoyable vacation. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:56, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Figureskatingfan when do you expect to be ready for a new look? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia, I'm busy with other projects this Fall. I'm almost done with one, so when I'm finished, I'll make a more concerted effort to work on this article. Would you mind giving me another month? If not, I understand, but I'd appreciate the extra time. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem; let me know when ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, I have finished going over this article, so it is now ready for a FAR. Thanks for your flexibility and patience. Best, Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Figureskatingfan, digging in:

  • It is not clear to me why we need links to individual works when we already have multiple links to her works overall ... can external links be pruned to eliminate the individual links here, which seem excessive ?
  • Unattributed opinion in the lead: the poor, as "one of the most significant authors of children's literature of the nineteenth century".
  • Please review my changes: [3]

It looks good enough to keep, but suggest others read it, as the topic is out of my comfort zone. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, addressing your comments:
  • I agree about the external links sections; it looks like similar articles don't list individual works, so I removed all but the general links to works.
  • The quote in the lead is attributed to Dawson.
  • Your changes all look great; thanks for making them.

I also agree that this should be keep, even though I don't get to vote in this situation. Thanks again. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the quote is attributed in the body ... you do get to vote in this situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Well then I vote KEEP. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick read of four or five paragaphs, the writing looks great; clear and concise. Will look more closely over weekend. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, are you still planning on looking at this? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:04, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did a ce of the article, and I'm putting some thoughts below:

  • The lede is quite short. I'd recommend expanding it.
  • There's an "Evangelicalism" section and a "Evangelical tract literature in the 1820s and 1830s" section. Why are these separated (especially since the latter is a paragraph long.) Should these be merged?
  • "Sherwood also wrote a companion story titled Little Lucy and her Dhaye (1825) that told a similar tale, but from a little girl's point of view." Needs a citation.
    Why is that not WP:SKYISBLUE; the book speaks for itself? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. Z1720 (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, thanks for your comments. Addressing them:
  • According to WP:Lead, at 28177 characters, two or three paragraphs is long enough, but I expanded it anyway.
  • I too dislike short or one-paragraph sections, but I think in this case it's warranted and they shouldn't be combined because they're about two different genres: the "Evangelicalism" section is about her evangelical novels and the other second is about her tracts, which were evangelical in tone.
  • Added citation.
Also thanks for the ce, looks good. Hope I've sufficiently addressed your comments. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Overall, I think the article looks good. I would like others to do a copyedit of the lede, and try to remove the quotes in the third paragraph, but otherwise I'm happy with this article's prose. Z1720 (talk) 15:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC) [4].

Norwich City F.C.

[edit]
Notified: The Rambling Man, Dweller, CanaryOJ, Joseph2302, Mattythewhite, ZakNelson1995, Screech123, C.Fred, WP Football, WP England, WP East Anglia, WP Football/England task force, noticed in April

Has good bones, but needs a bit of a makeover. The ownership section contains significant uncited text, and disjointedly ends with the prior chairman. The Statistics and records also contains a fair proportion of uncited text, there's an empty section ("Development squad"), as well as uncited lists and tables (players of the season, out on loan, etc.) Also an internal contradiction - the lead claims "The fans' song "On the Ball, City" is the oldest football chant in the world, written in 1890 and still sung today", while the body qualifies this as chant in use and says it was written in the 1890s, not specifically 1890. Sourcing may also need to be checked in places - "Another photograph, taken on a match day that same season, shows that despite the era's limited car ownership, a parking area was provided at the ground" contains minor original research as this is just a photo of cars parked, and says nothing about car ownership of the time frame. Hog Farm Talk 13:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I think this is probably fixable. Here's the to-do list:
  1. Ownership section - DONE Dweller
  2. Statistics and records - I've fixed most of this now, and tagged three unsourced claims, that The Rambling Man has said he'll try to take a look at. Dweller DONE TRM
  3. Development squad - DONE Dweller
  4. On The Ball, City - DONE Dweller
  5. Sourcing checks - DONE TRM
  6. Photograph - DONE Dweller

I'll put my name against the things I'll work on before I take them. If anyone else wants to help, they're welcome. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can check sources if needed, but I'm not going to be a good options for knowing where to track down suitable replacements if needed. Hog Farm Talk 18:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost finished. When TRM has finished with number 2, would you like to do the sourcing check, Hog Farm? If you need suitable replacements for anything you can check here and one of us will step in. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 15:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if you or TRM ping me when it's ready for that stage I'll get to it as soon as I get the chance. Hog Farm Talk 00:25, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dweller, might you remove the done templates (not used at FAC or FAR), lest someone else start that up? Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, sorry. Looks like someone else (TRM?) sorted this for me. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 08:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting at the bottom, I found issues with the first section I checked (the Norwich City Women section). It is all based on a 10-year old source which can't be read. Is that person still the manager? (An "as of" date can be avoided by recasting to state "Person X was appointed manager in year Y" or some such, but I can't access the source.) Is the 95% stat still true? Etcetera ... I'll read through starting from the top as I find time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And found this, so that section can be updated apparently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can try to read through again myself, but it would probably be Sunday or Monday at the earliest before I could get to this. Hog Farm Talk 13:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am way behind swamped too, but wanted to get in a pass before Nikkimaria's weekly run to see if this one was good to go ... looks like it will take another week for more of us to get in there ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: - Do you think you'd be able to address the women's team section? I have no idea where to even look for sources for that. Hog Farm Talk 00:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I've time for and will be without internet for most of next week. I don't see anything else egregious and when Hog Farm is satisfied, I can also be considered (in my absence) satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller you might be on your own here going forward. I can't possibly face the idea of having to explain every rule of soccer within the article, so I'll gracefully remove myself from this process now. Sorry. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - any chance that you'd be willing to briefly revisit this just to find a new reference for the kits? Should be about ready to close once that gets addressed; I can look through the references to make sure they're completely formatted sometime after the kit gets better sourced. Hog Farm Talk 18:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very busy IRL at present, but I don't see why I can't sort out the issues mentioned. Just give me a little time. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, do you have a timeline for when you might be able to address these issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this month. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dweller: ? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the women's section, with some gnoming help from a fabulous bloke. And I've killed the unreferenced and not very encyclopedic list of sponsors --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 18:41, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 15:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hog Farm --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 21:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I readthrough the article to see if this can be moved along. I reviewed this as if it was an FAC, wtih apoligies that I am not well-versed in UK association football (and I'm required to be a Sunderland F.C. supporter, so my knowledge of Norwich is even lower.) Some comments below:

  • The history section is a little lopsided, with whole decades summarised in a sentence while the 2009-present section is quite large. I suggest that the shorter sections be expanded to at least two paragraphs, or merged together per WP:OVERSECTION. I also suggest that 2009-present be trimmed.
  • The beginning of the "Colours" section seems to use a lot of quotes. I am not sure they are all necessary and perhaps some can be summarised instead.
  • Is the chorus of "On the Ball, City" in the "Supporters" section necessary for this article? I think this belongs in the song's article.
  • "Norwich have currently been unbeaten against Ipswich for over 12 years, encompassing 12 matches, including 5–1 and 4–1 victories, as well as a victorious play-off semi final fixture in 2015." This feels a little like fan-service, and could become outdated. Can this be removed?
  • I'm dubious of the "Current ownership" section. Chronologically, it feels like it jumps around a lot and I'm not sure the 2003 investors or the 2006-7 AGM information is relevant anymore. Maybe most of the information can be deleted, and relevant info (like its current ownership) can be moved to the History section? Either that, or I suggest a whole re-working of this section to describe the current ownership structure and who occupies various positions (to align it with other articles on companies)
  • There are two different numbers for stadium capacity: "Stadium" says "It has a capacity of 27,244." while "Statistic and records" says "As of July 2020, the capacity is 27,359." Also, I'd be in favour of removing the stadium stats from this section as much of this information is already stated in "Stadium" section
  • The "Club sponsors" section does not have any information pre-2006. Is this available somewhere?
  • "The under-18 players among other younger age groups make up the academy team." Needs a citation
  • Information about the fans raising money for the new sports facility using Tifosy is stated in both the "Supporters" and the "Development squad" sections. Should one of these mentions be removed?
  • "Norwich City Women" section feels a little underdeveloped. I think the article should include information on how this affiliation happened and the details of the relationship between the two clubs.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping me if you would like me to take another look. Z1720 (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: - I've looked through it again and while I fixed a few referencing formatting issues, I think this is overall good enough to close as keep - not perfect, but good enough. I do have one question " "Famous Norwich City Fans". The North Stand. 2 June 2012. Archived from the original on 17 July 2015. Retrieved 8 December 2014." - this source is a personal blog. Any reason to believe it's RS for featured article purposes? Hog Farm Talk 00:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close as keep my comments above have been addressed. conducted a copyedit, added alt text to images and removed px. Z1720 (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC) [5].

Green children of Woolpit

[edit]
Notified: Drmies, talk page notification 2020-04-15
Notifying the wikiprojects listed on the talk page for Q28: WikiProject Culture, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject England, WikiProject Folklore, WikiProject Skepticism, WikiProject East Anglia. Welcome to FAR! (t · c) buidhe 22:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Q28 and/or buidhe, please also notify other major contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe when you have to complete the nominations for another editor, you can add their name so it doesn't look your nomination thusly: {{subst:FARMessage|Green children of Woolpit|Q28}}. All parties have not yet been notified. ~~~~
Drmies is listed above as notified, but I see no notification on their talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm completely uninvolved, but I've been notified. Panini!🥪 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because I have some concers re close paraphrasing and over-reliance on certain sources. I gather from the FAC that no spotchecks were done, which I find a bit bewildering. Anyway, let's have a look:

  • Article: In a modern development of the tale the green children are associated with the Babes in the Wood, who were left by their wicked uncle to die; in this version the children's green colouration is explained by their having been poisoned with arsenic. Fleeing from the wood in which they were abandoned, possibly nearby Thetford Forest, the children fell into the pits at Woolpit where they were discovered.
  • Source: In what seems to have been a recent development of the story […] the children are identified with the familiar "Babes in the Wood" […] According to this version, their green coloration was due to arsenic administered by their wicked uncle; fleeing from the wood where they were abandoned (perhaps nearby Thetford Forest), they stumbled into the pits at Woolpit
  • Article: The second is that it is a garbled account of a real event
  • Source: Others accept it as a garbled account of an actual occurrence
  • Article: Ralph's account in his Chronicum Anglicanum, written some time during the 1220s, incorporates information from Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, who reportedly gave the green children refuge in his manor, six miles (9.7 km) to the north of Woolpit.
  • Source: Ralph of Coggeshall's version, in his Chronicon Anglicanum (English Chronicle), was not finally written down until the 1220s; but it incorporated information from a certain Richard de Calne of Wykes, who had reportedly given the Green Children refuge in his manor.

I also think it's kinda weird that no pages are cited for journal articles (which can have rather long page ranges, like Clark 2006, Lawton 1931, Lunan 1996, Orne 1995, Walsh 2000, etc.). --Q28 (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Q28, not citing pages is not "weird"--it's pretty common practice, certainly for those who use only the regular citation templates and cite articles in notes and books in bibliographies. It would be nice if the "cite journal" template had a parameters for the pages of the article and the actual citation. To appease I made some tweaks to get the paraphrase further from the original. But that "no spotchecks were done"? It is more likely that the absence of evidence is no evidence of absence: the reviews were done by seasoned editors. AGF please. And remember that "close" in "close paraphrase" is a matter of opinion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, Q28, this wasn't you, this "I"--it was User:Eisfbnore, who tagged me on the talk page over a year ago. I don't remember if I saw this; if I did, I must not have thought it of great concern. It's funny that you would pretend here to complain about close paraphrasing when of course the entire text is copied verbally from someone else; perhaps Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia is of use here. But beyond this particular case (Eisfbnore, please see my edits to the article), I have some questions about competence, given for instance this edit and the reply to this edit by User:SandyGeorgia--thank you, Sandy, for pinging me. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll put things more nicely; Q28, beginning FAR reviews based on other opinions is fine (like how multiple users will bicker about an article and someone else unrelated will join the discussion and WP:AFD it), but since this is direct pulling proper credit needs to be given. If you didn't know about this, that's perfectly fine, and I apologize for our stink-eyes. If you acknowledge and apologize, we can move on (and actually fix the article while we're at it). Panini!🥪 17:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Refs, I don't know about all this above^^^ but I made a start on one of the citations to provide page numbers (as someone pointed out above, to avoid overly broad page ranges per V). As my editsum makes clear, I have indulged mightily in citebanditry as I know no other way. Although it's worth noting that the article already uses {{sfn}} for some sources anyway, so I fail to see why others have to be in a list of stuff. Or something. Anyway, as far as I can see, the sources with the page ranges are Lawton 1931, Briggs 1970, 2X Clark 2006, Lunan 1996 and Harder 1973, all of wot I got. SN54129 18:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone still has to address the close paraphrasing/copyvio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Well, I'm still not sure about the above  :) but I rewrote and removed the close paraphrasing noted above (except for the second one: "garbled account" is in quotes in the article and so not a CP). No others jumped out at me. SN54129 17:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, Drmies, Ealdgyth, and Serial Number 54129: I have standardized the citation format. Could someone specify explicitly what is missing? If I must, I will get the sources myself; it's time to get this FAR wrapped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry—got distracted—can get involved with sources tomorrow morning UTC—apologies also to Drmies for ignoring you—and apologies for fecking up your references. SN54129 20:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, User talk:Serial Number 54129, I'm not complaining at all--I appreciate your help! Drmies (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that was just me, being unnecessarily grouchy. If I can't wake up to find Putin gone, at least I can hope for some FARs to move along! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some months ago, I attempted to standardize the citation style after Drmies made considerable edits (see discussion above). Drmies had used the citation template, rather than cite templates, which do not use trailing punctuation, so I removed trailing punctuation from the short notes. Subsequent edits have re-introduced cite templates, short notes with trailing punctuation, and a mixed citation style. Which style is wanted? My preference would be to remove the citation templates originally used and go with cite templates, so we don't need the silly |ps= none on every short note. At any rate, one style needs to be decided on and implemented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Buidhe's comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed, Sandy (although she may not know that yet!), and I agree that the |ps=none is wholly unnecessary, and just adds to to the cite bloat. SN54129 12:52, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless someone disagrees, I will convert all to cite template and remove ps= none and citation templates when I am home (in a few days). @Drmies and Ealdgyth: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • SandyGeorgia, thanks for the ping--I had forgotten this was still a thing. I'm sorry I don't really follow the technicalities (I don't really know what "trailing punctuation" is). But I appreciate what you're doing--thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • SandyGeorgiaYou may have noticed I'd tried tidying up the mixture of trailing punctuation and no punctuation a few days ago, using |ps=none because I didn't know there was a better way to do it! Unfortunately I was immediately reverted by Serial Number 54129 on the grounds of 'consistency'. I certainly agree we don't need the fullstop/period at the end of every short note, and if SandyGeorgia can make the appropriate changes, yes! I promise not to add any more references in the meantime! I'm afraid I don't understand the technicalities. Must admit I'd never dared edit a Featured Article before. But I've long had my eye on Green Children, and when I saw it was to be reviewed - and then saw Serial Number 54129's extensive (and worthwhile) additions - I thought I'd try some changes of my own. What I've been doing is largely checking back on the references and making sure they are accurate, and that the text actually says what the original contributor says - and tidying up typos and inconsistencies. I hope they are generally acceptable? There are still some paragraphs I find a bit muddled and incomprehensible - for example if anyone actually knows what Jeffrey Jerome Cohen is on about, perhaps they can explain it better. I hesitate to delete anything, but I think there are some superfluous references to Madej. Some of the sources (Hill, Varner) are suspect. There is also a new paper just out: James Plumtree, 'Placing the Green Children of Woolpit', in Strangers at the Gate! Multidisciplinary Explorations of Communities, Borders, and Othering in Medieval Western Europe, ed. Simon C. Thomson, Explorations in Medieval Culture 21 (Leiden: Brill, 2022), pp. 202-224. At first sight nothing that would change the Wikipedia article - unlike Cohen, Clarke, Otter, or Partner, refreshingly Plumtree doesn't use the story to push their own historical agenda.John O'London (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Yes, I saw the message at Serial number's talk page and had quite a time figuring out what you two were talking about. The problem is not now only the ps=none, rather the mixture of citation and cite templates. That is two different citation styles; the ps=none was only making the short notes agree with one of those citation styles. I will fix all when I am home tomorrow by a) removing all citation templates and b) replacing them with cite templates (which end in a trailing period), and c) removing the ps=none from short notes, since everything will then have trailing periods. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of the difference! I think I made two additions to the Sources list myself, and looking back, one of them was using Cite book, and the other used Citation because I copied and changed another publication by the same person which used Citation. Please do all you can to standardise it. John O'London (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging John O'London as they've been working on the article lately. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some of the page ranges are too broad; specific page nos. needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the correct pages here? Is it one page (13) or a page range with a typo?
    Hartley-Kroeger, F. (2019). "Review of The Green Children of Woolpit, by J. Anderson Coats". Bulletin of the Center for Children's Books. 73: 13–13. OCLC 760196674. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't help with Bulletin of Center for Children's Books - but what are the specific other ones with page ranges 'too broad'? [Sorry - just spotted Simpson/Roud, Harder and Duckworth!] (Thanks for all your hard work!) John O'London (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I tagged them in the article; you can ctrl-f search for "page needed". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:33, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks - sorry, I didn't spot the tags: Simpson/Roud and Mills are both Oxford online reference works with no pagination - you have to search the entries alphabetically - if we were to change both these to the hard-copy printed works I could supply page nos - Simpson & Roud 2000, pp 153-4, and Mills 2003, p 509. I notice Simpson/Roud is the only sfn in the lead - we've got the same phrase in a different translation "very wanton and impudent" in the main text under 'Story' - perhaps we could reword the first occurrence to match the second, and get rid of the Simpson/Roud reference entirely! I've done Harder. I can check Lunan, I've got a photocopy somewhere. But can't help with the others. John O'London (talk) 21:03, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Please feel free to remove any page needed I added if there is no pagination on the source (I thought I had checked, but who knows ... still catching up). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:16, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there some way of including the equivalent of a 'sv' in the reference - ie 'Green Children, The' and 'Woolpit' meaning look under this heading? John O'London (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Not understanding the question ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      If I was faced with a book that had headings in alphabetical order, like a dictionary or encyclopedia, I might indicate the reference as 's.v. 'Green Children, The' - (s.v. = sub verbo). How does Wikipedia handle such cases? There must be cases when one wants to direct people to an article in an encyclopedia, and the article title may be more convenient than page numbers. I see there's a 'cite encyclopedia' template. Should that be used in this case? John O'London (talk) 22:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've done a few more now - including Lunan. (It does seem to be unfair to Lunan's extraordinary eccentric theories that Wikipedia cites his first brief note in Analog rather than his 2012 book, where they were set out in detail.) It's now down to Duckworth, if I can get to the library, and the two Oxford online dictionary references. John O'London (talk) 09:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Does anyone have immediate access to the Duckworth reference (Australian Literary Studies 26.3-4) to check the page number? I can't access the 2011 volume online, and at the British Library you need to order it up two days in advance - and I'm not planning to go there again soon. Thanks to DrKay for sorting out the Oxford dictionary refs! John O'London (talk) 08:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR discussion - I came late to this - the Green Children article was on my watchlist, but I wasn't aware of the move to FAR until after User:Serial Number 54129 added a considerable amount of text to the article on 30 March - in fact expanding the article by 50%. The questions surely became, were the extensions of the same FA quality as the original, were they properly integrated with the original, and does the expanded edition warrant FA status. Much of the discussion took place before that expansion. User:drmies and User:SandyGeorgia had already begun making improvements. I've done quite a bit of work on the expanded version since, checking and adding refs, occasionally tweaking the language to make it (I think) clearer. But I've avoided any major rewrites, even when I think the text as-is might be misleading. To declare an interest, in real life it's a subject I've done a lot of work on - I know too much about it, and have my own opinions about the subject; I also regard some of the sources cited as unreliable, not worth citing, or just plain wrong (all three are true of Varner 2006, for example!). So I shouldn't be editing it at all! Could some disinterested party read through it? - for example, does it now meet the first of the FA criteria? Is it really "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard"? Does it now have "appropriate structure"? Is it all clear and understandable? John O'London (talk) 09:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and with apologies, I should obviously have restricted my tinkering to the extra 50% text added by Serial Number 54129, rather than the original FA text. But he had inadvertently introduced some errors in the original text, like changing the date of the Duckworth ref from 2011 to 2006, and I didn't always distinguish between what was original FA and his additions. It was the extent of his additions, which seem to have been accepted without query in the middle of an FAR, that encouraged me to think what I wanted to do would be acceptable.John O'London (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your arguments alone would warrant delisting, if you provide more detail on issues of sourcing and accuracy. My earlier "Move to FARC" declaration stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I may answer at length later - but here's a pretty typical example of what happened when I started editing it. Serial Number 54129 had introduced a new section heading 'Music' - under it they included (taking the text from the original FA article) Glyn Maxwell's play Wolfpit - which is a verse play without music. So I simply moved it to the previous section, which contained various other literature. But then I read what the original FA article said about it "In 2002 English poet Glyn Maxwell wrote a verse play based on the story of the green children, Wolfpit (the earlier name for Woolpit), which was performed once in New York City." No, Maxwell wrote and published his play in 1996, and it was performed at the Edinburgh Festival Fringe that year. So I found a source to cite for the 1996 performance, and changed the date - but also left the ref to the NYT review in the original FA for the later NYC performance (there've been more than one in NYC - and no doubt others elsewhere). This is what I meant about whether the additions were properly integrated and the need to consider the whole of the new version. John O'London (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IP post on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since the people who edit this "encyclopedia" presumably have access to the back issues of folklore journals and other online resources which are free if you can log on as a member of the relevant university, but cost everybody else so much it isn't worth it, perhaps a little research in that area would be useful? I mean proper research, not the wikipedia version of research that autistically lumps together everything that references the subject of the article in any context and gives it all equal weight, whether it's an academic treatise or a passing mention on The Simpsons.

In this instance, we have an extremely improbable tale derived from only two sources, both secondary at best and written long after the alleged events. The earlier of the two makes the only mention anywhere of a named primary witness, Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, whoever he was. Thus if Sir Richard was for any reason not telling the truth, it's just a tall story that he told, Ralph of Coggeshall believed, and William of Newburgh also believed when he heard about it in some other way a few decades later. And unless we assume these bizarre events to be literally true in every detail, Sir Richard, who claimed to have known the Green Children quite well, either told his own story very inaccurately or was very badly misquoted.

So if we treat the tale as history, we have a straight choice between believing that a lost tribe of green people live in mysterious subterranean villages beneath England from which they sometimes emerge through caves no-one can ever find afterwards, or that the story is possibly to some degree true, but every extant version of it leaves out important facts and inserts impossible ones, so basically the number of reliable sources is zero.

On the other hand, from a folkloric perspective, almost every detail fits an extremely generic narrative about fairies which somehow made the transition from pure fiction to a rumour which people came to believe was true. I said "almost" every detail. The two points which don't fit are that fairies aren't mentioned at all, the place from which the children came being called "Saint Martin's Land", a mysterious realm which as far as I know is unique to this story, and that there's a reference to this strange land having Christian churches. Which makes perfect sense if you assume that whoever invented the tale - possibly Sir Richard de Calne of Wykes, to wind up a gullible monk - simply retold a traditional fairy story as fact, but left out all mention of fairies and inserted a couple of Christian references because otherwise it would have been a direct accusation that the villagers of Woolpit consorted with pagan creatures that according to official Christian doctrine were literally devils.

Modern attempts to make the narrative fit whatever agenda the writer is obsessed with are all desperately contrived. At best we have to assume that the inhabitants of Woolpit somehow didn't know of the existence of another village within walking distance entirely populated by immigrants who didn't speak English, and they never, ever found out about it. At worst, we have to swallow the barking mad word-salad of professional eccentrics like Duncan Lunan and accept that it's perfectly plausible for Star Trek transporter beams to accidentally whisk people across the galaxy from strange medieval planets inhabited by little green men who live on beans.

If the article was rewritten so that the bulk of it treated the story as the folklore it obviously is, and compared it with other traditional tales of fairies, fairyland, intermarriage between humans and fairies, and so on, it might be more objective, and perhaps even encyclopedic. You could still have a little bit at the end listing the nonsense. And nonsense it is. Your own page on Duncan Lunan, which reads as though it was written by a very close friend of his, contains statements like "On his mother's side, he traces his ancestry back to Mitochondrial Eve", and cheerfully recounts his claim (since retracted) to have decoded radio messages from an alien probe in orbit around the Moon. I would be disinclined to take seriously any theory about anything proposed by this fellow, particularly if it was published in a magazine mainly devoted to science fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.52.224 (talk) 05:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include citations and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, nothing but confusion since the FAR was initiated, and no one addressing concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, very convoluted and byzantine FAR, yet issues remain. Nutez (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - FAR has gone on for months with basically no clarity; it's unclear where the article status is, but it doesn't seem to be FA right now given the comments in the FAR section. Hog Farm Talk 18:11, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no edits to the article since June, and no one has said during the FARC that they are working on this. Progress seems to have stalled, and unless someone is going to step up and adopt this article, I think it should be delisted. Z1720 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Delist struck, see below. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The FAR started with only two issues to consider - 'close paraphrasing' and 'citation'. These were dealt with. The matter of comprehensiveness was only raised during the FAR - this prompted a contributor to add an unexpected extra 50% of text, bringing with it its own citation and other problems, like poor formatting, referencing errors and lack of proper integration. The citation issues in the new text were then dealt with alongside the original, and I believe that the article is now up to standard in that respect, errors have been corrected and some tweaking has helped to integrate the new with the old - even if one could argue that the text is now too comprehensive, with irrelevancies and unnecessary citations that add nothing! More seriously, does the 'extra' material itself meet FA standards? Is it "well-written: its prose... engaging and of a professional standard"? Certainly the original met those criteria, but does the 'new' article as a whole have "appropriate structure"? Is it all clear and understandable? The FAR, disrupted by the late additions, never considered these issues since no-one had ever questioned them! So unless someone is willing to comment at this late stage on whether as a whole the article meets all the FA criteria, including those the FAR wasn't asked to consider, so that some kind soul can 'adopt' the article and try to meet the criticisms, I am going to be contrary and vote that the article should retain its FA status - at least until someone wishes to raise a new FAR with a proper list of the problems that need to be addressed! It makes nonsense of the FAR system if the goalposts are moved during the process. With a lot of hard work by a number of people, in my opinion the article now successfully meets the criticisms that the original referral was based on - citations and close paraphrasing - as well as the comprehensiveness issue that was raised later. So, please, Keep. John O'London (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    First, whether something is or isn't raised initially in the FAR is irrelevant. Any FAR should look at everything. Second, I am completely confused about your statements about the status of the article. I suggest you might want to send it back through FAC once you feel it's ready. Most here, like me, may be at this point unable to state the article is at FA standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In your Delist comment above you said "no one is addressing concerns". Could someone please list the concerns that have not been addressed? John O'London (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't list concerns for anyone else; my concern was that your posts implied there were still big problems in the article ... but was written in a way that I couldn't even decipher what those were. As one example, when you ask if anyone has access to certain sources, if no one does, we can't state that this article is at standard. With none of the original writers active on this FAR, we've not much to go on, and your stance has been unclear. It's still murky enough that I suggest delisting and going back through FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When I stated my general concerns back on FAR you were the only one who responded, so it seemed that nobody agreed with my assessment - I didn't think it was worth taking further - but (scrolling back) you were already recommending moving it to FARC. Did you already have your own specific reservations, even after the hard work you'd put in to improving it? OK, I've spent a bit of time this morning on the article - mostly removing what I personally considered to be the superfluous and irrelevant, and some unreliable sources, and tidying up some bad writing. Beyond that I can't go. Now - quote "Is it "well-written: its prose... engaging and of a professional standard"? Certainly the original met those criteria, but does the 'new' article as a whole have "appropriate structure"? Is it all clear and understandable?" I've no idea what Wikipedia's standards are - which is why I want someone else to look at it as a whole. All I'd ask those who recommend Delist that they do so on the basis of the article as it is, not on the fact that the FAR was chaotic. If it is delisted I may continue tweaking it for accuracy but I don't intend to be involved in any future attempt to put it forward as a Featured Article candidate. John O'London (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John O'London: A concern raised in this FAR was verifying the information. Where are we with that? Has everything currently in the article been checked? If not, and you are willing to do this, can you verify the information, or post here what you can't access? This will allow other editors to see if they have access to the source. Also, if you don't have access to a source, but find another one that verifies the info, we can replace the reference. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: You've got me worried! I did a random check this morning, noticed a date in the lead that puzzled me: "The story was praised as an ideal fantasy by the English anarchist poet and critic Herbert Read in his English Prose Style, published in 1931, and provided the inspiration for his only novel, The Green Child, written in 1934." Not sure when it was written but Read's novel was published in 1935, and surely publication date is what one expects here. The 1934 date is repeated under Publication and Legacy, with a citation of a 2010 article in the Guardian - which actually gives the correct publication date: 1935. The incorrect date 1934 has been in the article for a very long time - I think it was there in the original article when it received its FA status. In those days (2011), it cited a Leeds University Library catalogue record - I've checked the Leeds online catalogue, which says '1935?', but adds the information 'first published in 1935'. British Library says '1935', other catalogues say '[1935]'. (I think the problem is the date doesn't appear under the publisher's name on the title page but on the following page and says 'first published in 1935' without confirming that this is the first edition!) Other sources (including Clark 2006a, cited many times in the article for such basic information) agree on 1935. Even the reference to Read's earlier publication English Prose Style is problematic - there was an edition published in 1931 (and several later), but the first edition was in 1928 (Clark 2006a, 220)! The date 1931 does not appear in the reference cited (Harder 1973, 716) so I don't know where it came from.
I had previously assumed that material in the original FA - created by two of Wikipedia's most renowned and experienced contributors AND 'passed' as FA - was factually accurate (even if I disagreed with the emphasis given to certain sources) and never read it looking for that sort of error. During the FAR I concentrated on helping find the missing page numbers (a task which is complete as far as I know) and checking the bulky additions made in the midst of the FAR by Serial Number 54129 - and that kept me busy! John O'London (talk) 10:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John O'London: Based on what you and Q28 found, I would suggest to "keep" this article as an FA unless every source and reference is spot-checked. Is this something you would be willing to do? If you don't have access to a source, post it below and others will see if they have access to it. I also suggest that you look up additional sources that might be used in the article (WP:LIBRARY and Google Scholar might find something). Once the spot-check is complete and additional sources are checked for, please ping me and I'll do a more thorough review of the article's prose. Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I think I'll have to call it a day now as far as sources and references are concerned - see History for my recent changes. Although I have easy access to most of the sources (mostly on my own bookshelves) I see no point in checking every reference - most of the page numbers were checked during the FAR. I have spot-checked 'on suspicion' - where I thought there was something wrong with a reference or didn't think the quote/summary fairly represented what the source said. This threw up for example that 'Hill 2004' looks like a second-hand quotation via 'Bramwell 2009' who quotes Hill - I doubt if the contributor who added it checked the original source - I've replaced it with a more reliable source for the same theory (ie the man who invented the 'atavistic harvest ritual' theory!). For consistency I've (reluctantly) changed the occasional reference to them as 'the Green Children' to 'the green children', as it appeared in the title and lead, and in the majority of instances - 'green children' is how it appeared in the original FA, and it was never queried, so I assume there is some esoteric Wikipedia reason for using lower case! I've also wikilinked some more author-names in the list of sources - can't see any more to link. It is now in my opinion pretty comprehensive and up-to-date (to 2020). I'd be very pleased if you would do a thorough review of the article's prose. John O'London (talk) 18:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@John O'London: the spot check is not just about page numbers, as the original comments outlined various areas with close paraphrasing. The sources need to be checked in comparison to the article and the paraphrasing eliminated. Has this happened already? Also, Otter, M. (1996) and Poole, W. (2009) are listed as sources but not used in the article. Do you have access to these sources, and should they be included in the article? I did a quick JSTOR and WP:LIBRARY search for more sources, but did not find any that I would consider high-quality or significant, but I will do another check later. If anyone has other sources (databases or books) that can be added, please mention below or add them directly to the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: sorry, my fault - Otter: I deleted a footnote that I considered irrelevant (it was about another of William of Newburgh's stories, not the Green Children) and I hadn't noticed it was the only place her book was cited as a source. Otter (like Partner) is discussing the methods of William of Newburgh, rather than the Green Children story. Poole 2009, his edition of the Francis Godwin's the Man in the Moone, doesn't really add much to what was in his 2005 article on Godwin's sources. The 2009, pp 20-21 ref (which appeared under 'Folklore') was to Poole's argument that Godwin's Man in the Moone was inspired by Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy, sufficiently covered in the previous para in the same section with its ref to Poole 2005, pp 200-202, and expanded on under 'Publication and Legacy'. Again I didn't realise this was the only reference to Poole 2009. Close paraphrasing - when it was raised in the FAR the original author rewrote some passages, tho' they pointed out that 'close paraphrasing' was a very subjective assessment. I'm afraid I am not sufficiently committed to Wikipedia or the FA status of this article to undertake a check of every single reference to see if it's a fair (but not too close!) reflection of the original. John O'London (talk) 11:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am hesitant to do a copyedit of the article if close paragraphsing concerns have not been resolved yet, which will involve checking all the sources, in my opinion. Fortunately, earwig doesn't catch anything major (I suspect the strong similarities are sites that have copied from Wikipedia, not the other way around.) Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I want to reiterate my delist above: I don't think that a spot check has been done on the article yet, and no one has stepped up to conduct it. As this was a major concern in the FAR filing, I think that this needs to be completed before I can change my endorsement. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article appears to now meet WP:FACR criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2, 3, and 4. Concerns over 1b were addressed by expansion. On 1f, the initial concerns of close paraphrasing were in my opinion weak to start with and the article has since been expanded, copyedited, and run through earwig. On 1c, while there is some use of primary sources and the use of works by authors I personally would consider to be academically weak, this is a topic that attracts the weaker scholar and the 'relevant literature' includes these works. DrKay (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per DrKay. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update; there are four keep and two delist declarations. One of the delists is very old from an editor who has not revisited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep—not really convinced by close paraphrasing issues, which don't seem to still be evident enough to warrant delisting. I have two suggestions: 1) perhaps the "Sources" section in the References should be renamed "Bibliography" since there is already a section entitled "Sources" earlier in the article. 2) The references listed are not consistent in including publishing locations, and these should probably be added. Aza24 (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I struck my delist above. My rationale was my concern about close paraphrasing. Since many experienced editors above do not have those concerns, I am going to withdraw my delist and defer to them. I'm not going to declare a keep at this time because I haven't taken a close look at the article recently, but please do not let this hold up consensus. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 20 October 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) 6:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC) [6].

Joseph W. Tkach

[edit]
Notified: [7], Nov 2022

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues with lack of independent, high quality sourcing in the article. Based on my own investigation and the talk page notice, the article would likely have to be rewritten with different sources to be considered FA quality. (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 17 December 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) 6:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC) [8].

Olympic Games

[edit]
Notified: H1nkles, Rodney Baggins, Br'er Rabbit, Parutakupiu, Trenchfox, Max Arosev, Aridd, ErnestKrause, WP Olympics, WP Sports, WP Multi-sport events, noticed in May 2021

Review section

[edit]

This older FA on a major topic is deficient in a number of areas - the nations section is largely unsourced, undue detail seems to have accreted in several areas (see, for instance, the self-sourced criticism material from Lutdal, when there's no indication why this one piece of criticism is significant enough to mention), dated statistics such as " Research has shown that trade is around 30 percent higher for countries that have hosted the Olympics." cited to a working paper from 2010, and concerns have been raised on the article's talk page about the "Economic and social impact on host cities and countries" section. A major overhaul is needed here. Hog Farm Talk 05:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm noticing that the article size is approaching 200Kb which seems a bit large. One of the sections is also presently tagged for multiple issues. When doing a read-through of the article for narrative flow, then there are many instances of one and two sentence paragraphs throughout the article; it sort of gives some of the sections the appearance of being like 'lists' of sentences rather than well-written sections. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The inflated article size (although prose size isn't too bad) has a lot to do with the sourcing to official reports and news articles rather than a (likely smaller) set of scholarly/retrospective sources. Agree that FAR is needed. (t · c) buidhe 09:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC numerous listed sources are not used in the article, many sources are dubious, and some WP:SPINOUT and trimming needs to happen to reduce the size of the article. Considering the large amount of scholarly material on this topic, I think this article needs a lot of work to remain a FA. Z1720 (talk) 14:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - Buidhe culled some undue material earlier, but there is still significant sourcing and content issues here, including more weighting (is three paragraphs on the recent Russian doping really due weight for the whole history of the Olympics?) Hog Farm Talk 14:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, coverage, currency, and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 17 December 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) 6:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC) [9].

Hamersley, Western Australia

[edit]
Notified: Orderinchaos, WP Australia, talk page notice 2022-02-21

Review section

[edit]

This 2007 promotion has not been maintained to FA standards, and has essentially no recent active editors. The issues listed on talk include datedness, sourcing, and citations; if someone engages, more can be listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 17 December 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) 6:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC) [10].

New Carissa

[edit]
Notified: [11], December 2021

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because in addition to the issues highlighted by Sandy on the talk page, I'm having trouble verifying some of the content in the cited sources and there is also unsourced content. (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorted the FV tag - the ref was there originally but removed without specific comment in May 2012, now restored - I'll come back and refine that with page numbers. I'm happy to help, but am not au fait with FA standards specifically, so need some relevant input to work round. Davidships (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some minor work on the article but do not wish to do more. The text needs to be checked against sources, and sources need to be reviewed to reduce duplication. At least two of the sources state there were 23 crew aboard while at least two more give 26, and none that I have seen indicate there was a "maximum" crew (either planned or actually on board). While this is a minor point it does reduce confidence. Kablammo (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:58, 10 December 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) 5:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC) [12].

Tom Pryce

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Leftism; WT:BIOG; WT:SPORTBIO; WT:F1; WT:MOTOR; WT:BMS; WT:WALES; talk-page notice 2022-02-23

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the concerns mentioned on the talk page by SandyGeorgia – uncited text, incomplete citations, and sources of dubious reliability – haven't been addressed. I think someone with access to the sources could probably bring this back up to standard without too much trouble, but at the moment the FA criteria aren't fully met. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:57, 10 December 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) 5:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC) [13].

Albatross

[edit]
Notified: Jimfbleak, DrKay, Vanamonde93, UtherSRG, Circeus, WikiProject Birds, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, diff for talk page notification (2021-12-01)

Review section

[edit]

This article's sourcing and verifiability issues were raised in December of last year. There have been edits since, but I'm unsure whether such issues have been addressed sufficiently. The article is too large for a single person to review, but I can stand corrected about that. Furthermore, it's not yet marked as "Satisfactory" in WP:URFA/2020A. Maybe there are other issues that have been overlooked, but I hope they're either not present or already resolved to this date. George Ho (talk) 07:39, 21 November 2022 (UTC); extended, 12:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, structure and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:58, 10 December 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) 5:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC) [14].

Ironclad warship

[edit]
Notified: [15], 7 July 2022

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of uncited text, accuracy and coverage issues as raised by Hog Farm about 2 months ago. There has not been an effort to resolve the concerns. (t · c) buidhe 05:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Parsecboy and Sturmvogel_66, who have produced good/featured topics on groups of ironclads. I can help with the ACW stuff, but as the work here is going to overlap with that of Wikipedia:Featured article review/USS Missouri (BB-63)/archive1, this probably should have waited until after then. Hog Farm Talk 12:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello all. A few comments from me.
    Yes, it clearly needs to be reviewed - the level of referencing in the original FA version (getting on for 15 years ago!) probably is not quite up to today's standards, and material that's been added since is rather less referenced. I would also like to take another look Hill's "War at Sea in the Ironclad Age" as from memory I'm not really sure it's a strong enough source, if I'm right about that we should replace it as far as we can.
    Regarding the American Civil War, I am sure there is some material that can be added, but I am also a bit cautious about adding too much material. For instance, doubtless many engagements involving monitors could be listed, but should they? How much content tells the story of the ironclad, rather than telling the story of the war?
  • I'm happy to get involved in bringing the article up to scratch, though not able to commit myself as much to it as I did to the creation of the original FA. (Also, I'm away for a bit over a week from now). The Land (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @The Land: - Will post more tomorrow (had a very long and hectic day at work and need to get my brain unfrazzled before trying to write intelligently) but I do generally agree that we don't need to add really a whole lot more of information for the Civil War, but just sorta refocus what we have. Some quick-hitter thoughts on this section:
      • Article talks later about ramming as an effective assault against ironclads being believed because of the war, but this is never established
      • I think we get into excessive details in a couple places: do we need to be naming the ships at Charleston, and we certainly don't need to be naming the Confederate non-ironclad gunboats at Mobile Bay
      • "The Confederacy built ships designed as smaller versions of Virginia" - Need to consult Saxon Bisbee's recent work on Confederate ironclads again, but I think this is a bit of an over-simplification, since the later Confederate ironclads were generally purpose-built unlike Virginia and there were a variety of hull types, including several with a sorta diamond-shaped hull that didn't really work.
      • " the two ironclads repeatedly tried to ram one another" - unsure of accuracy of this statement, but will go consult a couple relevant sources tonight.
        • Per a skim of the relevant chapter of William C. Davis (historian)'s book on Hampton Roads, Virginia/Merrimack made one ramming attempt but that was it for intentional ramming tries although they did bump into each other several times (although this is implied to be from close-quarters firing). I'm extremely dubious given the construction of Monitor that it ever would have considered ramming anything. Hog Farm Talk 22:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I've added some material about ramming onto the talk page - hopefully that takes us forwards. The Land (talk) 08:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a significant bias toward the British, French, and US navies (with some coverage given to Italy at Austria, mainly focused on Lissa) that needs to be balanced out. There were significant ironclad fleets in a number of other countries that should be mentioned (I find it quite strange the First Sino-Japanese War isn't even mentioned, for instance). I can do some work to bring some broader coverage, but it may take some time for me to get there.
  • There are some flagrantly incorrect statements that need to be sorted out - a good example is "by the early 1880s widespread concern about the threat from France and Germany culminated in the Naval Defence Act". No, the NDA was directed against France and Russia. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Work seems to have stalled, with few significant edits in the past few months and lots of uncited statements. This does not stop further edits from changing my declaration later. Z1720 (talk) 18:09, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to FARC I do not see momentum building for significant improvement to the article. (t · c) buidhe 08:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses, I've finally finished with the Missouri FAR and intend to focus on this one next. I've already started with cleaning up the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:58, 4 November 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) 5:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC) [16].

Paul Kruger

[edit]
Notified: Cliftonian (user is now a different username and, imo, wants to vanish), WikiProject South Africa, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Politics, Vital articles, 2020-06-16 2022-11-05

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because buidhe expressed concerns about the quality of sources in June 2020, and posted numerous additional sources on the talk page. This concerns has not been addressed yet, and there are also numerous sources in the "Further reading" section that should also be considered for inclusion in the article. There are also MOS:SANDWICH concerns, but these are secondary matters. Z1720 (talk) 02:35, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D From a quick skim:

  • I agree with buidhe's comments.
  • It's also notable that most of the sources pre-date the development of the anti-Apartheid movement outside South Africa and the fall of the Apartheid regime. This may reflect the period in which readers and publishers had the most interest in Kruger, but I'm sceptical about the extent to which this is an issue given lots of revisionist works have been published on South African history since the 1980s internationally and since the 1990s in South Africa.
  • The article's heavy reliance on books by Johannes Meintjes is also potentially concerning: I'd want evidence that a South African historian living in South Africa in the late 1960s and early 1970s is considered usable by modern historians to be comfortable with this given the oppression of views critical of white rule that was a core feature of the Apartheid regime. The material cited to this source seems to be very sympathetic towards Kruger, including some dubious claims (e.g. ""Once seen, he is not easily forgotten", wrote Lady Phillips. "His greasy frock coat and antiquated tall hat have been portrayed times without number ... and I think his character is clearly to be read in his face—strength of character and cunning."")
  • There is virtually no material on Kruger's period as leader on his policies towards the black majority (which were presumably oppressive given he was running a state dominated by the white minority). These sections are focused on high politics, military matters and economic issues which is plainly too nrrow.
  • The section of the article on the Second Boer War seems brief and rather sympathetic to the architect of this disaster for his cause.
  • The 'Exile and death' section is too detailed, and takes a rather romantic view of Kruger - for instance, he's portrayed as a hero in Europe despite his total failure there.
  • The text of the article is generally quite sympathetic to Kruger. He was a colonist, imperialist and white supremacist who led his country to total ruin, but the article generally portrays him as a hero. I doubt this reflects the tone of modern scholarship. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC concerns have not been addressed, no edits since nomination. (t · c) buidhe 02:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC - I agree with Nick-D's concerns, and there have been no improvements made to the problematic sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 14:43, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 3 December 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) 5:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC) [17].

Ellis Paul

[edit]
Notified: Kmzundel, WP Musicians, WP Maine, WP Roots music, WP Boston, talk page notice 2021-11-28

Review section

[edit]

This 2007 promotion has not been updated or maintained to FA standards. A year ago, Buidhe noted sourcing issues and datedness, and no improvements have been made in the interim. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the revise section include sourcing, currency, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 3 December 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) 6:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC) [18].

Shaw and Crompton

[edit]
Notified: Jza84, Peteb16, JamCor, Pachu Kannan, WP UK geography, WP England, WP Greater Manchester, WP Cities, noticed in July 2021

Review section

[edit]

This 2007 promotion has not been updated in some time, and the original FAC nominator was indeffed about a year ago. There are citation needed tags scattered throughout, the population/demographics information is two censuses old, there's tables of churches and schools that aren't standard inclusion in articles of this nature and may be undue coverage, and the economy section only includes one thing about post-2010 conditions/events. This will need re-sourcing/updating in several areas. Hog Farm Talk 18:16, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, currency and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 26 November 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) 6:07, 10 December 2022 (UTC) [19].

Tyrone Garland

[edit]
Notified: [20], Dec 2021

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has had virtually no edits since Hog Farm pointed out some sourcing and updating issues about 10 months ago. (t · c) buidhe 05:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, currency and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'''Delist''' lack of edits to address concerns. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 5 December 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) 5:07, 3 December 2022 (UTC) [21].

Political integration of India

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Vadakkan; User talk:Rama's Arrow; WT:INB; WT:HOI; WT:POLITICS; WT:PAK; talk-page notice 2022-01-02

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues Buidhe mentioned on the talk page haven't been addressed. There's a fair amount of uncited text, and sourcing more generally is also a concern: the article relies heavily on older sources (including primary sources like V. P. Menon's book) at the expense of more recent ones (for instance, [22], [23], and [24] aren't cited at all). Other issues include a too-short lead and a large number of duplicate links. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC: citation needed templates have not been addressed. Kautilya3 outlined problems on the talk page about the use of primary sources and Indian nationalist POV (of which I am not knowledgeable enough to comment about, which is why I am pinging them). Z1720 (talk) 12:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point I made was that the notion of "integration" (by independent India) is insufficiently explained. The term comes from V. P. Menon, the chief Indian official in charge of the affairs, and it has been replicated by scholars in a nominal way. But the article suggests that there was substantive "integration", when it starts talking about "reasons for integration" etc. If the "integration" is a fresh phenomenon that didn't exist during the British Raj, that needs to be substantiated. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, coverage and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 12 November 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/December_2022&oldid=1130528265"