Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 2020

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept

[edit]

Removed

[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) 6:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC) [1].

Gerald Ford

[edit]
Notified: WP BIO, WP MILHIST, WP US Presidents, WP Michigan, WP Cold War, WP American politics, WP Conservatism, WP US Congress, WP Scouting, WP College football

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion whose main editor is no longer active. It was last reviewed in 2009. The talk page notifiction from 11 February mentions sourcing and citation concerns, and resulted in no improvement. The article has grown from 8,500 words of prose to almost 12,000 words, so most of the article is unvetted for FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sourcing could use improvement. Article should be sourced to scholarly biographies of Mr. Ford—such as Greene's which is definitely underused—and other academic sources, rather than a hodgepoge of news articles, obits, and books of variable quality and relevance. buidhe 21:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just added a series of cite needed tags, as there are entire paragraphs in this article that are lacking citation. The Post Presidency Activity subsection also needs consolodating and reformatting; right now its just a bunch of proseline. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the fair use image of the postage stamp, the fair use rationale was for a different article and since the stamp wasn't discussed in the article at the time of removal, the fair use requirements were not met. Hog Farm (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2020 (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) 6:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC) [2].

Mysore

[edit]
User:Amarrg is inactive. Notified: WikiProject Cities, WikiProject India

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is tagged for notability issues, verifiability and unsourced sections. There are style problems, an inadequate lead, and a laundry list of 'notable people', only one of whom I recognize. DrKay (talk) 10:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The name is strange. It seems like the page should be called Mysuru, as it's the official name, the one used on google maps, etc. Is Mysore now out of date, like Bombay? Also the text uses both Mysuru and Mysore randomly. At least there should be consistency. I suggest we use official name as title and throughout the article so as to match all other large Indian cities wikipedia articles. Or course there should be mention of Mysore as the colonial name. Mattximus (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that Mysore is still overwhelmingly the common name, at least a decade ago per NGRAMS [3] If you think Mysuru is now the common name, WP:RM is the correct venue. I agree that we should be consistent in using the common name / article title throughout. buidhe 10:19, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2020 (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) 5:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC) [4].

Roy Welensky

[edit]
Notified: South Africa WikiProject talk page notification 18 April 2020

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks HQRS, as pointed out by Buidhe. It relies extensively on a PRIMARY, and is worded in a POV manner. Eisfbnore (会話) 02:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

  • Sourcing Losing patience with the British, Welensky took a harder line against them. to Welensky's own memoir is OR and, a breach of PRIMARY
  • Citation formatting is not consistent – we have shortened footnotes both with and without harv anchors. Also, brackets are not consistently applied.
  • Unacceptable SELFREF: To this end, Welensky organised a conference in February 1949 to investigate the idea of a federation is sourced to Wikipedia itself
  • Editiorial judgment: "insisted", "rebuffed", "felt", "stirred into a frenzy", "after much deliberation", "highly critical", "determined", "convinced", "disgusted", "won a significant political battle", "paternalistic", all sourced to Welensky's own memoir
  • Western bias: "Hastings Banda [had] great difficulty remembering his native African language" -- perhaps interesting to know which African language
  • Tagged with citation needed several places
  • Excessive use of generalized history book of Rhodesia from 1977

That's only after a five minutes' read. Eisfbnore (会話) 08:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Serious deficiencies and no one working to address them. buidhe 21:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist A third of the references point to Welensky himself, plus two blogs of dubious reliability and Wikipedia as a source. Apart from that, there are a number of citation needed tags and some work is needed to either remove non-neutral language/sentences or properly source some heavy claims. For instance: "Although not of British ancestry, Welensky was intensely pro-British, a distinctive sentiment among Rhodesians." This sentence is not neutral at all and needs a better source to back it up other than a foreword in a book. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Sourcing and neutrality concerns. DrKay (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2020 (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) 5:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC) [5].

Mortara case

[edit]
Notified: Italy, Christianity, talk page notification 24-04-2020

Review section

[edit]

This article needs updating and improvement, because since it was promoted the affair became prominent again due to First Things publishing an article which justified the kidnapping. Also, the article relies almost entirely on a single source. Because it neglects other sources written about the subject (listed on talk), it cannot be considered well researched. buidhe 07:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson
seizure of a six-year-old boy named Edgardo Mortara from his Jewish family in Bologna, "named" is unnecessary IMO, as is the bolding
Many employers would simply sack girls in such situations "Sack" is too informal, perhaps "terminate" would be better
they told neighbours that their maid was sick and recuperating at home. Just say "Morisi" or "she" in place of "their maid"

This is just a sample, but agreed with Eisfbnore that this is suboptimally written. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should have cited some examples of the serpentine sentences. Here is one:
The official church position was that Catholics should not baptise Jewish children without the parents' consent, except if a child was on the brink of death—in these cases the church considered the customary deferment to parental authority to be outweighed by the importance of allowing the child's soul to be saved and go to Heaven, and permitted baptism without the parents' assent.
I almost keeled over trying to parse that sentence. I can't fathom why this wasn't picked up on in the FAC. The GA review was also very short, although carried out by an experienced editor, whom I respect tremendously. Eisfbnore (会話) 22:12, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 30 May 2020 (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) 0:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC) [6].

Rhodesia's Unilateral Declaration of Independence

[edit]
Notified: Africa, UK

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails 1c (well-researched) due to ignoring recent high-quality academic sources (see list on talk page). Also, it probably fails 1d (neutrality) due to its reliance on dated works and JRT Wood, which is fine to use but not to the exclusion of other research. Overall the article is similar to Ian Smith, which was recently delisted as a featured article. The nominator is a vanished user so I didn't notify them. buidhe 11:17, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I just read Nyamunda's "'More a Cause than a Country': Historiography, UDI and the Crisis of Decolonisation in Rhodesia" from the Journal of Southern African Studies. It is a review of the literature concerning mostly the UDI country (i.e. the independent Rhoedisan state) rather than the declaration itself, but it does draw attention to a historiographical debate on the importance of Wilson's assurances to Smith that he would not wage war against an independent minority-ruled Rhodesia in facilitating the UDI to go forward. This is not adequately reflected in the article (a wider reading of several sources also suggest there were several reasons why Wilson did not want a war, including his slim majority in Britsh Parliament). There are also some instances in this article where citations are combined to the point where it is difficult to determine which information in a given paragraph is supported by which source. For example, take this following sentence: "The British government dismissed this option because of various logistical issues, the risk of provoking a pre-emptive Rhodesian strike on Zambia, and the psychological problems that were likely to accompany any confrontation between British and Rhodesian troops in what Smith said would be a "fratricidal war"." This is sourced to both Wood's book and Smith's memoir. Obviously Smith's opinion on fratricidal war can be attributed to him, but what of the rest? Would he be privy to the internal logic of the British government? Doubtful, but now we are left with a conundrum that asks more questions than it answers.
The article "Church and State in Rhodesia: From the Unilateral Declaration of Independence to the Pearce Commission, 1965–72" in the same journal lists Wilson's "Five Principles" which his government told Rhodesia during the negotiations that it had to meet before it could be granted independence. This crucial information is curiously absent, as is the reactions of the local church structures to the UDI (it was roundly denounced by the Anglican bishop of Salisbury Cecil Alderson, all five Catholic bishops in the country, and the governing body for all Protestant churches). It also notes how the 1-year anniversary of the UDI was celebrated by the government, and how Alderson refused to participate. It also discusses Alderson's concerns about the internal division in the Anglican church over the UDI. Clearly this article has important information which must be included here.
Nyamunda's 2017 "Money, Banking and Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence" in The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History discusses how RF tried to disentangle its monetary and financial system from Britian in preparation for the UDI. This is curiously absent from the article.
-Indy beetle (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Ditto for Roy Welensky. As to your point @John M Wolfson:, it is a shame that so many of these are due to be up for FAR, since the Rhodesia area is one of the few African topics on Wikipedia with a solid amount of FAs. That said, many of these FAs are older and promoted at a time where heavy reliance on things like memoirs wasn't seen as an issue. Rhodesia is a controversial area in history, which is why there was increased scrutiny of the Ian Smith page that culminated in FAR. It seems only natural that attention would drawn to other Rhodesian articles afterwards, especially since they were all nominated by the same user, and apparently suffer from the same deficiencies. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already put a FAR notice on Welensky because of excessive self-sourcing. There is a thread open on WT:FAR#Cliftonian nominations where the systemic issues can be discussed. buidhe 09:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 16 May 2020 (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/June_2020&oldid=964789685"