Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2023

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) 6:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC) [1].

Diocletian

[edit]
G.W., Iazyges, WP Bio, WP Milhist, WP Illyria, WP Greece, WP Classical Greece and Rome, WP Politics, WP Croatia, WP Rome, WP Roman and Byzantine emperors, talk page notices 2020-05-03 2022-10-30

This 2008 FA is the oldest listed at WP:FARGIVEN, with concerns about sourcing dating to 2020-05-03, and updated at 2022-10-30. The original nominator has not edited for two years. Sandbox improvements mentioned on talk have not materialized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From UndercoverClassicist on talk: [2] UC, if you intend to work towards improving this FA, please keep this page updated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello - I posted the below on the page you just linked. Would anybody have any thoughts on it, particularly if it seems like a useful or worthwhile thing to be doing?
Please take this in the spirit of inquiry - checking to see that I've understood things correctly:
  • On the use of ancient sources - I've only given it a cursory check, but as far as I can see, most of the uses fall under one of the below:
  1. The article is explicitly addressing the reactions of e.g. Aurelius Victor to Diocletian's treatment of Carinus' officials, and so cites Aurelius Victor to do so. It seems to me there's a case-by-case check to be done about whether there's any value in referring to that person's reaction at all (in this example, Aurelius Victor is quite a lot later than Diocletian, so my instinct would say 'no'), but, at least in principle, can the article not cite ancient sources when explicitly talking about ancient authors' views of the matter under discussion?
  2. The article also cites modern scholarly literature, and the primary-source citation is really a matter of 'showing working' (and probably the entire evidence base on which the secondary author has based their claim). Should those primary sources be excised?
  • Looking quickly at the bibliography, it seems that a lot of the ugliness could be solved by imposing a uniform referencing system - most of the entries seem to have been entered manually. Personally, I quite like {{sfn}} with {{cite book}}, {{cite journal}} and so on. That would, at least, mean that information was presented in the same order, and perhaps be a useful first step towards going back in and tracking down missing details?
  • Some of the dodgy references seem to be used in support of other, less dodgy ones, and so could be cut out without causing any real problems.
Happy to have a go along those lines, if it would help?
UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks in good shape to me. Better than any of the FARs I have worked on.

  • With regard to the use of the ancient/modern dual references, I would vote forcefully to keep it this way. I often use a similar form with scientific articles, where both the secondary source and the original paper are cited so the reader can look up the latter. In the case of a reader who is researching the subject, this is extremely valuable. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't thoroughly read the whole article, but from going through the lead, the early life section and the references I would agree with Hawkeye and UndercoverClassicist that the article doesn't look in terrible shape. If UC does tidy up all the referencing it will hopefully be much clearer what is still problematic and needs addressing. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • My thanks to Tintero21 for standardising the citation style. There were several citation errors; I have left the ones dealing with ancient sources, until we are decided what to do with them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of outstanding reference issues which hopefully you or Tintero21 will be able to fix more easily than me: the short footnotes to "Epit. Caesarinus, 39.15" (#52 at time of writing) and "Panegyrici Latini, 7(6)15.16" (#200) are throwing harv errors. The first I think is simply a typo for "Epit. Caesaribus"; I think the latter requires the bibliographic entry for the Panegyrici Latini wrapping in a {{wikicite}} template? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Demise of Carausius's breakaway Roman Empire" section is a bit problematic at the moment and I am thinking it might just be better removed entirely. I am not intimately familiar with this period, but the section does not even mention Diocletian so seems unneeded in his bio. In addition, it was a post-FAC addition and somewhat unsourced—the Harries 1999 refs appear to be dubious, since upon looking for page numbers I found that the entire publication does not even have the words "Boulogne" or "Allectus". Aza24 (talk) 00:19, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SG review:
  • Harvref errors throughout that can be viewed by installing User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js. [3]
  • Inconsistent citation formatting raised in initial comments as yet unaddressed, including missing access-dates.
  • With over 11,000 words of readable prose, opportunities for trimming are easily found. Taking as a sample the Level 2 section, Tetrarchy:
    "Upon his return" should be defined at the start of a new Level 2 section.
    The first paragraph in that section goes in to considerable detail on other individuals who have their own articles.
    Similar in first para of Invasion, counterinvasion

As knowledgeable editors have argued for the inclusion of the primary sources originally mentioned in the FAR listing, I will be a keep if the citation formatting can be cleaned up, and a trimming copyedit is undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Caeciliusinhorto, Iazyges, AirshipJungleman29, and Aza24: I've completed what I could of my list above; are you able to review the remainder of my list and anything else needed, so we can move towards bringing this to a close? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UndercoverClassicist: sorry that I failed to ping you with the rest! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with your assessment of the necessity and ease of trimming. Readable prose size is 68kB (if I've understood correctly), putting it in the second category of WP:SIZERULE, and I feel that the current size is sustainable considering "the scope of the topic". I also don't feel that the paragraphs you've outlined contain excessive amounts of detail, with the detail on the other individuals directly relevant to Diocletian, his reforms, and his imperial rule (I also can't find the "Upon his return" you mention). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone else has already copyedited, which may explain the difference in your view and mine, and the missing pieces ... I am now less concerned, but unsure if the copyedit is finished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I took out a bunch of the most obviously redundant stuff, and I think the article is rather better than it was, but I'm happy to have another go through the article if people are still concerned about excessive length. I think there are still some inconsistencies in citation formatting – will do another pass on that later this week when I'm at an actual computer if nobody else gets to it first... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, things like missing access dates and other trivialities ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, I didn't name you above as I can never remember how to spell your username :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A couple of observations from going through the citations to iron out some of the inconsistencies:
    • "BGU" referred to in footnote 93 is unexplained – what does this refer to?
    • footnote 101 (Rees, Layers of Loyalty) refers to an entire book; page range is needed
    • same with footnote 164 (Heather, Rome Resurgent)
    • same with Leadbetter, Galerius and the Rule of Diocletian, in fn.241
    Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul August might you be interested in looking in here? I see you in the page statistics, and an extra set eyes might help get this one wrapped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24 and Caeciliusinhorto: are you ready for a new look, or still working? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I think I've made the citations consistent now, though my eyes glazed over somewhat at the end so if there's anything I've missed do point it out or fix it. But there are a few uncited claims that I've marked, and the missing page ranges I mentioned above; I can try to track down the relevant page ranges for those sources I have access to where we have a book already cited, but late antiquity really isn't my area so if someone knows the sources better than me to sort out the {{cn}}s that would be greatly appreciated! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed two tags, one remaining. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can topic experts pls opine whether the citation needed content is crucial to comprehension or comprehensiveness? It appears that no one is able to cite it, so do we need for that content to be holding up this FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I get the feeling some of the later content might be citable to Jones above it; I'll see what can be salvaged. If not, I feel the content already cited comfortably satisfied the explanation of his expansion of bureaucracy. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:39, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unluckily, this was not the case. I've gone ahead and removed the content of "for an empire of 50–65 million inhabitants, which works out to approximately 1,667 or 2,167 inhabitants per imperial official as averaged empire-wide. The actual numbers of officials and ratios per inhabitant varied by diocese depending on the number of provinces and population within a diocese. Provincial and diocesan paid officials (there were unpaid supernumeraries) numbered about 13–15,000 based on their staff establishments as set by law. The other 50% were with the emperor(s) in his or their comitatus, with the praetorian prefects, or with the grain supply officials in the capital (later, the capitals, Rome and Constantinople), Alexandria, and Carthage and officials from the central offices located in the provinces." and added some more from Jones. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, Iaz; once I get through (that other current mess), I will find time for a full read-through. Hopefully others will do so as well here (@Buidhe, Z1720, Extraordinary Writ, and Aza24: and not Hog Farm because I know he's crazy busy this time of year. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article is looking great now and I am finding little to no issues. I do wonder about the rather strange (and small) "Social and professional mobility" section and whether its inclusion is essential Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: I think it should be included, it's fairly important for world history (enough so the edict could probably have its own article), as a precursor to feudalism, and its small enough that it doesn't bump into UNDUE. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but can we incorporate it better into the article? Bizarre as it stands right now Aza24 (talk) 05:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've appended it to the end of the legal section rather than giving it its own section. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:53, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close w/o FARC - I'm still not sold on the inclusion of the sentence about Virgil given where the only ancient attestation of that comes from, but that's an editorial decision and shouldn't hold up the FAR. Hog Farm Talk 14:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Virgil quote has now been removed by Caeciliusinhorto. Aza24 (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close without FARC – now has FA standards of formatting, thoroughness and comprehensibility. Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close without FARC per Aza. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close without FARC. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:49, 16 March 2023 (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) 4:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC) [8].

Heian Palace

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Stca74, User talk:91.153.253.39, User talk:Ineffablebookkeeper (no other users with > 2% edits) WP:JAPAN, WP:ARCH Aug 2022 notice

I am nominating this featured article for review because, per the talk page notice, it has a large % of unsourced material, and the article is predominantly sourced to one author. One would suspect that an imperial palace would have been written about by quite a few people. Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has remained remarkably stable since being promoted to featured article status more than 15 years ago. During this time the featured article criteria regarding verifiability and citing sources have not substantially changed, as can be seen by checking the history of the criteria page. Also (as far as I am aware) no such new research literature that would materially affect the article has appeared (at least in English) since 2007.
The low number of cited sources is explained by the main reference (McCullough & McCullough 1980) being by far the most comprehensive English language source on the palace and its history, written by two leading experts and working as a comprehensive survey on the topic. It is itself thoroughly researched and cites both primary sources and very well established Japanese secondary sources (vol. 1 of 京都の歴史, an extensive general history of Kyoto). While writing what still remains the bulk of the article, a great care was taken to check that all statements are backed by the listed references - in practice McCullough & McCullough in most places.
During the original featured article nomination process the number of inline references to the sources was indeed increased to a level deemed adequate. In theory essentially every sentence could have inline reference to one of the listed sources, but such extreme citation intensity would not be normal for this type of well-established topic. There is also a fairly extensive discussion about this issue on the article's FA nomination discussion page, where the community consensus was that the quantity and scope of citations and inline references is appropriate.
The specific issue of citing a larger number of sources (such as Morris's book World of the Shining Prince) was covered during the original nomination process and the outcome was that inline references to multiple sources just for the sake of it is not necessary if and when the same information is found in the cited main reference(s). Instead, additional sources were added as a Further Reading section.
With this background, I do not think there is a substantial need to increase number of inline references or multiply the explicitly referenced sources simply to increase citation metrics.
But obviously if there are specific points where there is a consensus about a need for new explicit source references, such should naturally be added on a case-by-case basis. However, unless new material be introduced, such references would most likely again point to the already cited main sources. I would therefore suggest that any discussion be focussed on such specific questions about the article's content, if any. Stca74 (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the 15 years since the FAC, there have been substantial changes to the feature article criteria, and older articles haven't been grandfathered into the new standards. Hog Farm Talk 13:12, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course debatable what qualifies as "substantial". However, the 2007 version about citing sources is says:
  • (c) consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1), where they are appropriate (see 1c).
whereas the current version says:
  • consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using footnotes—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references. Citation templates are not required.
Apart from moving to footnotes only I see no real change.
Both refer to criterion (1c), which in 2007 was:
  • "Factually accurate" means that claims are verifiable against reliable sources and accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge. Claims are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this involves the provision of a "References" section in which sources are set out, complemented by inline citations where appropriate.
whereas the current version is:
Apart from rewording and reordering most of the old version, the current one is a little less prescriptive. Both call for inline citations where appropriate, which as as pointed out above does not imply "for each and every claim". In any case it is very hard to see any tightening in these criteria as written since 2007.
It is also worth pointing out that verifiability (still) states a clear preference for English sources. And as stated above, the article already relies on the most comprehensive ones there are.
The reason to respond at length here and above is in particular to argue in general in favour of a reasoned approach to the use of source citations instead of an application of mechanistic citation counts. In this particular case I would argue that calls for significant changes should be made only after actually consulting the primary sources cited and comparing the article's claims to them. And then should any contentious claims be found, address those specifically and not the article in the abstract. Stca74 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think de facto nowadays people expect citations for more or less everything except primary school level stuff, even at generic things like T:DYK, WP:OTD and so forth Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is that indeed so regardless of subject matter? I can see that the generally more and more polarised discourse on the web would have become reflected in more stringent citation standards for (the increasingly common?) contentious topics, while similar tacit reinterpretation of the criteria may not have taken place on more "placid" issues. (My primary activity here is on mathematics articles, where the nature of the subject matter leads to hardly any disputes regarding factual claims — style and level of presentation is another issue...)
In general, I would prefer that the criteria policies be updated explicitly if that is where the community wants to move, instead of a silent reinterpretation of unchanged rules slowly taking place and accumulating.
But be that as it may, in the interest of advancing the discussion on this specific article:
1. Regarding the issue of the low number of different sources cited: As I have written above, I am afraid not much can be done. I am not aware of any substantial newer English-language sources that would not just refer back to the sources used already — in particular McCullough & McCullough (1980). I think one should accept that this topic is niche (at the very least from English language audience perspective): an ancient Japanese palace that ceased to exist in visible physical form some 800 years ago, leaving almost no archaeologically accessible traces and being mainly covered by ancient Japanese literary sources. Having such detailed and well-researched material in English as the appendix of McCullough & McCullough is indeed a positive surprise if anything. I do not believe that this state of affairs should be a reason to declassify the article (it would be another matter if no reliable sources existed). On the other hand, should someone find new suitable sources they should obviously be used.
2. Regarding density of inline citations: It should be obvious from my comments on this page that, according to my old-school estimation, the article already cites its (few) sources sufficiently. If this is felt to be too little, then I would kindly ask for specific comments on what claims and/or sections should have inline citations added. And I remind that most if not all of these would point again to various pages of the McCullough & McCullough appendix. As the article stands now, almost all paragraphs have at least one inline citation (apart from the lead, where I believe it is still considered good form to have few or no inline citations). In proposing additional citation points, please also take into account
guidelines on bundling citations to same source(s) for entire paragraphs. Stca74 (talk) 13:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious point with a needed citation is " Its placement right next to the Inner Palace shows the influence of the Shingon sect during the early Heian Period.". Is this conclusion being drawn from a source, or is this original research? Hog Farm Talk 13:41, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it is more of an extension of the preceding sentence, but added an explicit reference. Stca74 (talk) 09:56, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, largely uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Now cited, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC citation needed issues. (t · c) buidhe 17:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Referring to Wikipedia:Featured article review (first two bullet points under stage 2 (FAR)), these are rather premature recommendations: proposals on actual concrete improvements (and implementation thereof) has hardly started (one proposed addition, completed). Stca74 (talk) 10:03, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per above, older citation standards weren't grandfathered in when the featured article criteria were tightened. Low Memorial Library is an example of a recent building FA that follows the modern citation standards. Hog Farm Talk 19:41, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Statements in Wikipedia articles should have inline citations that verify the information, and an article cannot run at DYK, let alone become a GA or FA, unless there is an inline citation at the end of every paragraph, minimum. Some statements that need citations are, "The Jingi-kan, the final standing section of the palace, remained in use until 1585.", "The Daidairi was a walled rectangular area extending approximately 1.4 kilometres (0.87 mi) from north to south..." and "The Heian Jingū shrine in Kyoto includes an apparently faithful reconstruction of the Daigokuden in somewhat reduced scale." If someone is interested in addressing these concerns, I am willing to add citation needed tags to the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC) Struck, due to comment below. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am happy to add references where deemed necessary according to the current interpretation of the criteria. As I wrote above, my old-time experience with the FA process supplemented by re-reading the criteria-as-written did not give me a good idea of what the current requirements would be in practice. Hence your offer to add citation-needed tags would be much appreciated. Stca74 (talk) 08:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Requested inline refs added for Heian Jingū as replica and the Jingi-kan site remaining in use until 1585. Please notice that two inline references already existed for the dimensions of the Daidairi, at the end of the very sentence (McCullough&McCullough (1980) and McCullough (1999)). Stca74 (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe, Hog Farm, and Z1720: you have (above) either old or dated or duplicate statements for this FAR; could you strike/de-bold/update as needed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck my move to FARC declaration above. Sorry for the delayed reply; I'm on the tail end of a nasty sinus infection. Hog Farm Talk 21:17, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph of Primary sources, it seems improbable that all of that text is covered by Farris 188; pls confirm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that is correct: the Farris ref covers only the last sentence. I will add references to earlier parts of the paragraph asap. Stca74 (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks, I see you have added "citation needed" tags in a number of places. I will attend to those on Sunday; looks like all will get refs to McCullough&McCullough. Stca74 (talk) 17:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thx ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: All "citation needed" tags as well as the need for additional citations for Primary sources section have been dealt with. Please do continue to add tags if current coverage remain unsatisfactory, and I will address them. However, I will be away from my library for the next week, so may not be able to react immediately. Stca74 (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stca74, do you feel you've addressed all of the concerns raised above? If so, I'd suggest asking those reviewers to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, yes - indeed, my update of 30 Oct was intended to signal that. Should I do something beyond posting that request to revisit the issue here on this page? (I've been away from more active editing for a long time...) Stca74 (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bumbubookworm, Hog Farm, SandyGeorgia, Buidhe, and Z1720: ↑. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get to this at some point in the next week. Hog Farm Talk 05:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a few comments at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Heian Palace/archive1#HF comments. My primary concern is a jargon issue, as several components of the palace structure are mentioned before they are explained. Hog Farm Talk 21:25, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for comments. Made changes and left reply at the subpage of the detailed comments. Stca74 (talk) 23:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep here, although I'm so unfamiliar with the subject matter that I hope someone else can weigh in here as well. Hog Farm Talk 02:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The image at the top of the article had a "image reference needed" tag that needs to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reviewed the article: I made some prose changes, added alt text and changed px to upright. It looks like it's in good shape, and I'm leaving some notes below:
  • Image reference needed tags need to be resolved
  • There are some sources in "Further reading" that are not used in the article. Can they be used as sources (especially the 2014 source)?
Please ping when the above are addressed and I'll take another look. Z1720 (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720:Thanks for edits and comments. I've added the requested image references. In addition, I reviewed the "Further reading" section for use for further inline citations. Here's a summary (the first two have been added by me long time ago, the later two very recently by others):
  • The 1925 Ponsonby-Fane article is essentially covered by the the 1956 reference (used for one inline citation);
  • The Japanese reference (from 1970) is the most important reference for much of the cited English language work, but given the language issue and the fact that citation coverage already appears to be good, I see no reason to add direct citations;
  • I do not have access to the 2008 UNESCO publication (in French); it is cited in a few places in Stavros (2014) but not in a way that implies anything immediately useful for the present article; and
  • Stavros (2014) is an interesting summary of Kyoto's urban development over a 1000-year period. But as a consequence its wide focus it has rather limited material devoted to Heian period and even smaller part of that is devoted on the palace. Essentially everything (and much more) is covered in the already inline-cited sources. And indeed, McCullough's article in Cambridge History of Japan (vol. 2) appears to be the primary source for the palace (and much else relating to the Heian period) in Stavros's book. Additional inline citations to this book would become indirect references to the already cited sources (which themselves rely on much Japanese primary research).
In summary, the four listed "Further reading" items are best left as they are, not used for detailed citations. And in fact the 1925 article could be just as well removed: it is very hard to find and does not add much to what is said in the other sources. Stca74 (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Close as Keep. Thanks for resolving these. My personal opinion on Further reading in FAs is that, if it can't be used in the article, it probably shouldn't be listed in an FR section, but this is an opinion so it won't bar me from endorsing a keep for this article. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I see you have carried out a good number of copyedits (big thanks!) yesterday both before and after your comment here; do you consider this task now completed? If not, would be willing to carry it out to your satisfaction? Stca74 (talk) 14:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No and no ... first, I'm not among our top copyeditors, second, I am running way behind because of a sprained wrist, and finally, I only corrected what I was able, but noticed that everywhere I looked I saw things that needed fixin. I hope a more able copyeditor than I am can get to it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: What would you propose? I can of course take another shot at copyediting myself, but given that it's mostly my own text, I'm likely to remain as blind to some issues as I have been before. Do you have in mind an active copyeditor to solicit to the task? Stca74 (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry; someone will come along. I wonder if John or Firefangledfeathers would be interested; they both have very competent prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment! I'd be happy to help. To the table, I can bring my currently erratic schedule and near-total ignorance of the topic! John, if you have more time, knowledge, or passion, feel free to brush me aside. I'll start coordinating with Stca74 at talk. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome :) Even on a Really Sucky Day, FAR can be such a nice place! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia and Firefangledfeathers: Thanks both! I'll jump to continue at the talk page. Stca74 (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to decline on doing a copyedit either - I'm an Ozarks hick and pretty much everything I write needs significant copyediting. Hog Farm Talk 20:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Work ongoing on article talk: @Firefangledfeathers and Stca74: pls let this page know when you're ready for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will do! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers knocking on your door (recognize how busy you are :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come on in! Sorry about the mess. Yes, my feet have been dragging a little. Give me another week to either push through the rest or wave my white flag (it's technically a handkerchief). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: First: big thanks for the help on the article!
I have now rechecked your notes and questions in the articles talk page. The ones I had not addressed and/or commented already were checking for definitions of Japanese terms and italicisation; I've now gone through both, and made a few edits. I also made some minor language edits and clarifications. Unless you (or someone else) comes up with new items or new comments on my edits & comments, I have for the moment no remaining edits to make. Stca74 (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article has progressed nicely; it would be even nicer to get this wrapped up :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:@Firefangledfeathers: Just restored a (fist cn:d then removed by another account) passage with requested citations added. As far as I can see (and subject to further comments by others) both the referencing and copyediting efforts should now be complete. Stca74 (talk) 08:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just for the sake of being explicit... Stca74 (talk) 05:35, 8 March 2023 (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) 6:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [9].

Belton House

[edit]
Notified: WP Architecture, WP Lincolnshire WP Historic sites Lajmmoore, Guerillero, Giano, talk page notice 2018 and 2022-01-10

I am nominating this featured article for review. There are two talk page notices. The first discusses a lack of coverage by The National Trust. The second is a more extensive list of problems that I will list below.

  • There has been some coverage of the library in the academic literature over the past decade [10] [11]
  • WP:LEADCITE issues
  • Severe need for additional citations or trimming of uncited material
  • MOS:BOLD issues
  • Sourcing problems
    • Anon. The National Trust Belton House 1984
    • Moondial at IMDb.
    • "ALVA - Association of Leading Visitor Attractions". www.alva.org.uk. Retrieved 27 October 2020.
    • Christie's catalogue
    • Belton Park Golf Club
    • "History of the Royal Air Force Regiment"
    • John Harris, English Decorative Ironwork (1960)
    • Henry Williamson's Chronicle of Ancient Sunlight
  • Mixture of using a date and not in the SfNs
  • Footnote 2 provides no page numbers
  • Prices are not as of a date

Having read the article I think most if not all of the problems listed above are still present. In addition the article history does not discuss Belton House's links to the slave trade. So it is also failing coverage. Desertarun (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Desertarun see the instructions at WP:FAR. Please notify all of the WikiProjects listed at Talk:Belton House by using {{subst:FARMessage|Belton House}} with a section heading (something like Featured article review for Belton House). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 have you interest in helping out at this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, hope you are keeping well. Much as I’d like to, and much as Belton House merits FA coverage, I’m afraid real life is just too busy at present. Hopefully someone will pick it up. KJP1 (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image layout needs work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can do to save this Featured. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - I should be able to help out with references, if needed. I've some of the books currently cited, and a range of others, Pevsner etc., that have good coverage of Belton. KJP1 (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be my pleasure to work with you; I dread on account of my own inability (and dialect) the replication of Giano's prose. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m afraid I can’t commit working on a full redraft. As I mentioned to Sandy G above, real life is just too busy right now. But if you need cites for anything, I should be able to find them. As you say, Giano wrote beautifully, and their content is generally super-sound. But citation requirements were looser then than they are now. With Palladianism, I tried to keep the prose as far as possible, and focussed primarily on finding cites/sources, tweaking the text to match where required. I’ll watch this page, and chip in when/where I can. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 10:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Godspeed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 11:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you tell me what Pevsner has to say about the house in Lincolnshire? The best Google Books has for me is a preview and I can't find this tome on the Internet Archive. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 14:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vami IV if you're going to work towards a save, you can conduct the regular editing and questions on article talk, and keep this page updated weekly on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Progress report, 1 February 2023 . The rewrite is more or less complete. The only section that hasn't seen rewriting, rearranging, and reordering wholesale now is #Interiors. It probably needs it, but I am burnt out. In the course of rewriting this article I have noticed a lot of failed verifications and removed or substantiated text as available sources allowed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've copied over Vami IV's update from the article talkpage for ease. We've gone from 70 cites and 14 published sources to 141 cites and 21 very sound published sources. As detailed on the talkpage, I think the specific issues raised in the FAR have been addressed. Vami's done the heavy lifting, but I they are now "burnt out" - understandably! If there are any remaining concerns, I'm happy to look to address them. Otherwise, this could be closed without the need for FARC. KJP1 (talk) 07:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will have time for a read-through in a few more days, but I noticed this unsightly section, which is ugly reading with all those interspersed citations. Would a table format work better there ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know what you mean, but I'm not sure a table's the answer. They do contain important information about the sheer number of listed features on the estate, and basically listing = importance in this context. I'll see if I can group them in a more pleasing way. KJP1 (talk) 12:06, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have had a go, which hopefully makes it slightly less jarring to read. See what you think. KJP1 (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ack! How about using a bundled citation with a list of what goes to what ? See citation 452 here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy - this is making my head hurt! I think I can see from the example how to do it with a standard cite, e.g. take <ref>{{NHLE|num=1298447|desc=Two Garden Urns at the N end of the Italian Garden NW of Belton House|grade=II|access-date=28 January 2023}}</ref> and make it * Two Garden Urns: {{NHLE|num=1298447|desc=Two Garden Urns at the N end of the Italian Garden NW of Belton House|grade=II|access-date=28 January 2023|ref=none}}, all bundled with a <ref></ref>, but I don't know what to do when it's a shortened, repeat reference, e.g. <ref name="auto2"/>. Can you advise. KJP1 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC) [reply]
I've tried one, 118, where there's no truncated referencing and it looks ok. But I still need to work out the shortened one. KJP1 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Think it's now sorted. Hope you like it, coz it was painful! KJP1 (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that is indeed beautious. If you think that was painful, imagine how Giano feels :) I will try to get to a read through, but can't make any promises, re my own current pain level. Thank you so much for digging in yet again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what is going on here, either grammatically or in terms of the duplicate wikilinks:
    For about three centuries until 1984, Belton House was the seat successively of the [[Brownlow baronets|Brownlow family]], which had first acquired land in the area in the late 16th century, and of its heirs the [[Earl Brownlow|Cust family]] (in 1815 created [[Earl Brownlow]]). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:19, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed that myself; please check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SG - Had a go at this one. Unfortunately, I've not got the book, but it is clearly cited, down to the page number. KJP1 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had to skip down and read the body of the article to understand why the word significantly was used here, and why windows and staff were mixed in the same sentence. It's clear after reading the body, but needs to be better sorted in the lead. "The new house was fitted with the latest innovations such as sash windows for the principal rooms, and more significantly, with completely separate areas for the staff." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And had a go at this one. It's wrapping two concepts into one sentence - the use of innovatory designs, such as sashes, and the use of innovatory planning, which split the servants from the masters, in contrast to the early period where they all mucked in together in the great hall. I hope the re-wording works. KJP1 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Desertarun might you continue reading from this point to pick up any miscellaneous copyedit needs and to check whether all the issues you raised have been addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re. the above point, I've put in a footnote referencing the journal article. KJP1 (talk) 18:10, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1 and Vami IV: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have made some more copyedits according to your comments above. The reference to Tinniswood 1999, p. 30 is commented out because the following citation is just more Tinniswood; I commented it out in case someone found another citation to stick there and break up the page spread of the following Tinniswood citation. At some point this week I'll dig up the energy to finally tackle #Architecture. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts below, will add more later. Desertarun (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • The lead needs updating to reflect changes to the body in this FAR
  • I updated the lead, it looks acceptable to me now, although others may want to alter/spruce it up
  • Is it usual to call a section "interiors"? to me this means decor and furniture, but that section also discusses the room design, would something like "Room design and interior decor" be better?
I think this is fine. It's a pretty standard way of distinguishing between the inside and the outside of a building. But don't take my word for it - Pevsner's section on the inside of the house is titled "The INTERIOR". (p=136) KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The interiors section starts: "The plan of the rooms at Belton was outdated for a grand house of its time." That paragraph then goes on to argue the house should have been designed to suit infrequent VIP guests. This is a negative architectural judgement and the owners doubtless didn't want to build the house for others.
I take the point here. I think the original author is likely quite right, but they wrote at a time when Wiki was less source-focussed than it is now. I've not been able to find a source to fully support it, so have trimmed what can't be supported. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • "The principal room is the large Marble Hall (1)" , what is special about the hall?
It's the main room of the house which, as was common, was designed to impress from the outset. Hence the marble, and hence the elaborate carving. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "principal" is overused.
Have trimmed. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The second of the principal reception rooms" is contradictory, I'd think there should be only one principal reception room.
Trimmed. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Tyrconnel Room (10), was transformed into the principal or state bedroom during the occupancy of Lord Tyrconnel in an attempt to create a more fashionable suite of Baroque state rooms on the first floor. After his death in 1754, it became a Billiard Room, until the 3rd Earl Brownlow had it refurnished more than a century later." What did it change into? It looks a bit of a tease to not say.
Neither Pevsner nor HE say. Tinniswood will. I shall check. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Great Staircase to the east of the Marble Hall is unusually placed at Belton, as in a house of this period one would expect to find the staircase in the hall" could this be reworded?
Have tried. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a "procession link"?
I've re-worded and changed it to processional route. It basically means "the way the great and the good moved from one room to another". I'm slightly suprised there's not a bluelink, but there you go. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Great Dining Room, now the Library, has been greatly altered and all traces of Carolean decoration removed, first by James Wyatt in 1778 when it was transformed into a drawing room with a vaulted ceiling, and again in 1876, when its use was again changed, this time to a library." Can this be reworded?
Have tried, and put in a cite. KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Windsor Bedroom (directly above the School Room), so-called following its use by Edward VIII during the 1936 abdication crisis. Today, Belton has a permanent exhibition devoted to that event". Why is there a permanent exhibition other than the obvious, are there any interesting stories?
I've not seen it, but the Abdication Crisis was a big deal and Perry Cust's part in it reasonably major. Hence the exhibition. We could expand on it - I've just been rereading the section in Philip Zeigler's Edward VIII biography. Basically Cust fell badly between two stools, supporting Edward until the Abdication, and then refusing to go to his wedding afterwards. Edward and Mrs S never forgave him for the latter, and George VI and Queen Elizabeth hated him for the former, and he was abruptly sacked as a Lord in waiting by the new king. Do you think it needs more? KJP1 (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think from what you've said there is enough to warrant any more being added. Desertarun (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Desertarun - Profuse apologies for reverting earlier. That, and the Previous button, are just too close when I try to edit on the iPad. Glad you found the article a better read, and thanks for your comments and input which have definitely brought it closer to current FA standards. I'll look to address SandyG's two outstanding comments tomorrow and then, if it can be closed as a Keep, that will be a good job of work. KJP1 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I've got you, I noticed you have an interest in slave ships. I don't know if you do GA, but I have Penrhyn Castle up for GAN. It's quite a powerful example of the links between the British country house and the slave trade, and I've tried to cover it in some more depth than is perhaps usual. It might be of interest. KJP1 (talk) 22:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was there a few years ago on an amazingly sunny day, the views from the walls were spectacular. I was aware of its links to the slave trade. I'll have a read tomorrow. Desertarun (talk) 22:50, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KJP1 when you get to it, there are still two not yet done things in my list above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy! But I'll get to them. KJP1 (talk) 18:27, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy - now had a go at rewording these two. Let me know what you think. KJP1 (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those two look good. Vami IV mentioned somewhere wanting to expand something, so I'm unclear if we are done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to look over this during the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 14:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "built between 1685 and 1688" - the body indicates the interior was finished in 1687, so it's not entirely clear to me why 1688 is given as the completion date
Done - by correction. KJP1 (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cust died in 1751, because of the "unusual fatigues" of his office," - how did Cust die in 1751 if he was still Speaker in 1770?
Done - by correction. A clear error. KJP1 (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the home depôt"- I don't think the diacritic in depot is needed, especially since depot is used without the diacritic later in the article
Done - by correction. KJP1 (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for the architecture section, will resume later this afternoon. Hog Farm Talk 17:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The principal room is the large Marble Hall (1) at the centre of the south front" - the paragraph beginning with this sentence I can't tell what it's sourced to - the wording of the footnote suggests that it may only be supporting the quote from Winde
Done - by addition of a Pevsner cite. KJP1 (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is Wyatville or Wyattville the correct spelling? Both are used
Done - by correction. It's the former, and I hope it's now right throughout. KJP1 (talk) 09:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look fine, I think this is very close to being keepable. @Vami IV and KJP1: Hog Farm Talk 21:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm - Thanks very much. I hope I’ve addressed everything and that it may be possible to wrap this up. I think Vami may have been planning to do a bit more on Architecture but, for the purposes for this FAR, I think the criteria are met. It’s always capable of further improvement, of course, but in terms of whether it should keep the FA status, I think we’re there. KJP1 (talk) 11:25, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Vami thinks the additional work is non-essential, than I think this one is good to close. Hog Farm Talk 14:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have composed that section differently, but it's perfectly functional now. I no longer think I need do any more work to this article. If reviewers disagree, though, Giano helpfully sent me some pieces of books he used for this a little while ago. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Close without FARC Hog Farm Talk 23:43, 27 February 2023 (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) 6:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [13].

Hanford Site

[edit]
Notified: Northwesterner1, WP Milhist, WP History of Science, WP Washington, WP Environment, WP NRH, WP Oregon, WP Science Policy, talk page notice 2022-07-01

This is a 2008 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; it's main writer has not edited since 2009. Other than DrKay, there are no recent active editors maintaining it. As mentioned on talk on 2022-07-01, the lead is too long, the article is dated, and recent scholarly sources have not been consulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to take on the task of maintaining the article as it is part of Wikipedia:Featured topics/History of the Manhattan Project. However, I am on vacation at present and will not have access to my books for another week. List the issues that we have with the article and I will make the required changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The three main things are listed on talk:
  1. The lead is too long and needs a rewrite.
  2. There is very dated material and a new report out that hasn't even been consulted (basically, the main editor hasn't touched the article, so a top-to-bottom update is needed)
  3. A google scholar search is linked on talk, and recent scholarly articles need to be checked to see if further updates are needed.
No problem waiting ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7: Please feel free to ping me when you get to it. I would like to pitch in as well, I won't be able to work on it at all until Thursday, sounds like maybe we are on a similar schedule. Important article, I worked on it a bit during the FA push, and I readily concede that I haven't paid much attention to it for years. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Thank you! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hawkeye7 and Peteforsyth: since the original writer wasn't following, I've gone through the talk page to archive the old, but there are several threads I've left on talk that need to be reviewed as to whether there is merit or those items were addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A series of chemical processing steps separated the small amount of plutonium that was produced from the remaining uranium and the fission waste products. Do we know what chemistry they used in those days? PUREX? It would be an interesting thing for the article to contain. John (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Three different processes were developed: the bismuth-phosphate process was used during the war; the REDOX process was developed during the war and deployed in 1947; and the PUREX process, which was used from 1952 to 1992. I have added this on my list of things to add to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have decided to split the article. I am creating a new subarticle (Hanford Engineer Works) that will contain the wartime period. This will match and have the same structure as Clinton Engineer Works. This article in turn will gain additional material about the Cold War period. The sources bemoan that Hanford has not received the same coverage as Oak Ridge or Los Alamos. On Wikipedia the fault is mine; because this article was already featured, it never appeared on my work list. But I did gather material on it, and am working on it now. This may take a bit of time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hawkeye7 progress update ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The new subarticle is progressing nicely, and should be complete in the next few days. I will return to this one, cut back the World War II section that I started to expand, and carry on with the post-war period, for which I have assembled the source material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The new article (Hanford Engineer Works) has been moved to the mainspace and submitted to DYK for review. I have now returned to this article. The World War II section will be rebuilt, references added and some factual errors corrected. The Cold War expansion will be expanded. The final section looks okay; it just needs some updating. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:01, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Further note on progress Finished World War II and Cold War should be done in a day or two. Down to Decommissioning. The rest of the article should proceed more rapidly. The main effort in the final sections will be bringing them up to date. I have added some new images, including a nice colour map. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finished Back to reviewers again. The major changes are:
    1. Manhattan Project section forked off into its own article
    2. Cold War section added, with deatils of separation processes
    3. Later operartions section rewritten
    4. Decommissioning section rewritten
    5. New images added, including a more colourful map
    6. New sources added
    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this review now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finally back home; let me try to get a chance to read through this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 14:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same ... I have not read through and will have time in about one week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any way to update the data in the climate table? It no longer matches the record high noted immediately afterward ...
    I've updated the records to 2021 from a new source [14] Unfortunately, the source gives 118 as the temperature on 29 June 2021. As it seems that the record was officially updated in December, I have adjusted that entry in the table accordingly. All the other figures are from the source. Note that the new averages are for 1991-2020. This is normal these days, due to global warming. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the PUREX plant in 1997, " - is this distinct from the PUREX facility closed in 1972? It isn't particularly clear
    Yes. I have added a bit to make it more explicit: "The PUREX plant reopened in 1983 to reprocess N Reactor reactor-grade fuel into weapon-grade fuel. This ended in December 1988, and it returned to standby status in October 1990... the PUREX plant closed for good in 1997" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but electricity tariffs had to be increased to repay the bond holders" - tariff generally indicates an import/export situation. Are we sure that's the best wording here?
    Electricity charges are called tariffs. Linked to electricity tariff. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Less so in the United States (although I am from a different region than Hanford), but that's better. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concentrations of radionuclides including tritium, technetium‑99, and iodine‑129 in riverbank springs near the Hanford townsite have generally been increasing since 1994. This is an area where a major groundwater plume from the 200 East Area intercepts the river ... Detected radionuclides include strontium‑90, technetium‑99, iodine‑129, uranium‑234, -235, and -238, and tritium. Other detected contaminants include arsenic, chromium, chloride, fluoride, nitrate, and sulfate - this is a direct quote from the (public domain) source. It's not a copyvio, but needs to be more clearly indicated as such
    Reformatted as a quotation, with page numbers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing many issues besides these above, I anticipate supporting this being kept once the above are addressed. Hog Farm Talk 05:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm at a close without FARC here. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope to be able to get through this week, but at a quick glance, I don't understand the placement of Climate so predominantly (early in the article) ... is it necessary for understanding the rest of the article, or can it be moved down ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't move it; it is where it has always been. It seems to be in a logical place. The article starts with geography, the climate follows, and then the history. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still reading, but I cannot (yet) find where the article explicitly states (from the lead) that "Many early safety procedures and waste disposal practices were inadequate, resulting in the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River" ... would it be better as "Many early safety procedures and waste disposal practices resulted in the release of significant amounts of radioactive materials into the air and the Columbia River"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would imply that the objective of the safety procedures was to contaminate the air and water, when the opposite was the case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prose:

WP:SIZE: at almost 11,000 words of readable prose, I'm watching for places to trim.

  • This passage seems wordier than necessary (a lot of space to say work was delayed to save crops in the field): "Most of the land (some 88 percent) was sagebrush, where eighteen to twenty thousand sheep grazed. About eleven percent was farmland, although not all was under cultivation. Farmers felt that they should be compensated for the value of the crops they had planted as well as for the land itself.[38] Because construction plans had not yet been drawn up, and work on the site could not immediately commence, Groves decided to postpone the taking of the physical possession of properties under cultivation to allow farmers to harvest the crops they had already planted. This reduced the hardship on the farmers, and avoided the wasting of food at a time when the nation was facing food shortages and the federal government was urging citizens to plant victory gardens.[39][40] The War Department arranged with Federal Prison Industries for crops to be harvested by prisoners from the McNeil Island Penitentiary.[41][42]"
  • Do we need this level of detail? "Barracks construction commenced on April 6, 1943, and" ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I always use specific dates when available. They help readers who are searching for specific information, and those who want to paraphrase the Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can this be trimmed ? "DuPont put the contract for building the village of Richland out to tender, and the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder, G. Albin Pehrson, on March 16, 1943. " TO ... DuPont awarded the contract for building the village of Richland to the lowest bidder, G. Albin Pehrson, on March 16, 1943. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point here is that DuPont let the contract, whereas at Oak Ridge (and elsewhere) the Army would have. This is an important difference between Hanford and the other sites. The reader could guess, but better to be explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a fair bit of editing myself, but am not entirely comfortable doing so; it does seem that the prose could be tightened throughout. It might be good to have a new set of eyes run through and have a look for areas where prose might be trimmed and tightened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion would be that they are most likely to be found in the final three sections. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:36, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did a ce of the article. Some comments below:

  • The "Growth of Richmond" section is quite large, and I'm struggling to understand the connection between the demographics and incorporation of the city with the site. Perhaps this information would be better if it was in the city's article, and the information more effectively summarised?
    The Richland township was part of the Hanford Site. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest splitting up the larger sections to make easier reading, especially in the "Plutonium production", "Expansion" and "Cleanup under Superfund". I usually recommend 3-4 paragraphs per section.
    The MOS notes that there is no consensus about this. Split them up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some other thoughts below:

  • "Wahluke Slope" section starts with "Immediately outside the Hanford Site lay an area known as the Wahluke Slope." This makes me think that this section does not concern the Hanford Site and maybe can be removed. This would be like if the article on Toronto had a section describing Mississauga: the latter city is not within the borders of the former so I would be confused as to why it is there.
    As the article notes, it is flanked by the site. The bounds of the site are somewhat elastic, and there were issues about how safe the surrounding area was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tritium, polonium‑210, thulium-170, iridium-192 and uranium-233 were also produced.[139][158][159][160][161]" Are all five citations necessary here, or can some be removed? If not, should it be WP:CITEBUNDLE?
    The first one covers the first four isotopes, so moved in. The last four remain, per WP:CITEBUNDLE; they are all about uranium-233 production. For some reason this was secret and very controversial. Uranium-233 is nasty stuff; ignore the people on the internet touting it.
  • "It was shut down in 2008.[196][199][200][201]" Are all of these citations necessary here? Can they be spread throughout the paragraph, or citebundled?
    I really weaved these together tightly. Split up a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2016 it was announced that gravitational waves had been detected.[206][207][208][209]" Another possible removal or citebundle of the refs.
  • "It began producing power in May 1984.[199][211][212][213][214]" Another one.
    Split citation again. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I encourage that the sources listed in "Further reading" be used as sources for inline citations, or removed if they are not high-quality or do not add contributions to the article.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 and SandyGeorgia: What concerns remain outstanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Comments above were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
responding to ping, while looking in to how to trim, I see there is a citation needed tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FFTF has its own article, so that para can be trimmed, but I can't sort this sentence, so aborted trim:
Another source of contaminated food is the first mention of contaminated food in this section:
  • Another source of contaminated food came from Columbia River fish, an impact felt disproportionately by Native American communities who depended on the river for their customary diets.[219] Radiation was later measured 200 miles (320 km) downstream as far west as the Washington and Oregon coasts. it was estimated that a person who had daily eaten 2.2 pounds (1.00 kg) of fish caught at Richland would have received an additional radiation dose of 1,300 millirems per year.[220] Screens and fish ladders were used to protect wildlife.[citation needed] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah ha, we get cows in the next para ... These radionuclides entered the food chain via dairy cows grazing on contaminated fields ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The light dusting of strontium-90 isn't much of a health hazard for living there, as the radiation is negligible compared to the natural background. However, it turns out that if you graze dairy cattle on the grass, the concentration will be a hundredfold in the milk. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunities to trim content remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

  1. I made some small copyedits to the top part of the article only, but since copyediting is not my strength, I am still uncomfortable that after all this time, others have not had a look. I stopped halfway through Production process.
    There was one error; you stated that the site is not open to tourists. It is! (see the last paragraph of the article) Book your tour here! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I continue to feel like there is more physics here than needed, because individual parts have their own articles. As examples, we have N Reactor and we have B reactor; how much of the physics do we need to cover here, and is necessary to go into detail when different parts have their own articles?
    My reaction here is "what physics?" Look at Tamper (nuclear weapon)#Physics for an example of what it looks like when I put physics into an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am hoping to impose upon ComplexRational, who is very good at copyediting, and also for an opinion on the physics parts of the article that I haven't yet delved in to. I am concerned that FAR shouldn't be just patching up dated articles and pushing them through; Hawkeye7 has rewritten this article, and deserves the same prose scrutiny expected at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think FAR can handle that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Headbomb's reliability script is calling this source a no-no:

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

Delisted

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [15].

1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Washington, WikiProject Disaster management WikiProject Military history Nominator is blocked. Talk page notice 2022-11-15

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has had a page needed template for over 6 months and various page needed tags are placed throughout the article. Having read the article I can see myself that the article is also lacking inline citations and I have little confidence in the content. The article was noticed here. Desertarun (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting this is a Cla68 FA. His content was always highly trustworthy, so hopefully someone can add the page numbers. Also, somewhere along the line, this article's sourcing was damaged; the promoted version had page numbers. It should be possible here to step back through to see what happened and restore the page numbers. In 2015, it still had most of its page numbers. Could MILHIST editors suggest if a revert to an older version might be in order here? Page numbers that were provided have been removed, and other damage has occurred; Cla68's articles were typically sound, so a revert might be the best option here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears from the conversation below we're confident more inline cites aren't needed, so i'll remove that suggestion from the FAR. Desertarun (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose revert to this 2018 version, the best I can find before the damage and the tag bombing started. Ian Rose kept an eye on the article for a long-time after Cla68's last edit, and cleaning up from that version doesn't look too hard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Either we're gonna need to let the page numbers slide or someone's gonna have to get ahold of Kern - even the 2007 promoted version lacks page numbers for Kern. Hog Farm Talk 14:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The two versions aren't dramatically different. The biggest change to the referencing is that bundled citations have been unbundled, which makes the lack of page numbers more obvious and someone has subsequently tagged them all {{pn}} but we don't ever seem to have had page numbers for Kern, Tony T. (1999) Darker Shades of Blue: The Rogue Pilot, even when it was promoted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:49, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If MilHist editors agree the star might be salvageable, and are willing to do the rest, I will strive to get a copy of Kern to address page numbers. In honor of Cla68-- a very fine editor. In the version I suggest reverting to, Kern is not the only citation for the text, and there are only four missing page nos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Articles on events like this are fairly easy once they've been written so it should be salvageable. The scholarship isn't likely to change dramatically and necessitate significant rewriting year on year like a science article, for example. The book is ~£50 on Amazon UK, which is out of my price range, especially for a side project, but if you can resolve the page numbers I'm willing to look at prose and formatting and any updates it might need. A quick look through Google News and Books shows a few new bits, especially around the 25 anniversary, but nothing that couldn't be easily incorporated. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to ILL it if there's a consensus this is salvageable. Hog Farm Talk 15:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you or Sandy can get hold of the book and add the page numbers, I'll tackle the rest. Shouldn't be too taxing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked it up on WorldCat, and I can't get it within driving distance. But I could try for ILL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see a copy on the Internet Archive. Hog Farm Talk 18:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Beam me up, Scotty! I tried, couldn't find it ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find it again and link it after work - I searched for "darker shades of blue kern" on there on my phone, which doesn't copy and paste well. Hog Farm Talk 19:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the IA copy of Kern. Hog Farm Talk 23:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it ... User:HJ Mitchell, we're on. (I've got to first finish up Hawkeye7's Hanford Site, so you can plunge in and I'll catch up ... some of the Kern pages are already given). Thanks so much Hog Farm! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia and HJ Mitchell: - I am so confused on something here - so our article has the names of Arthur "Bud" Holland, Mark McGeehan, Robert Wolff, and Ken Huston. That copy of Kern has Arthur "Bob" Hammond, Mark McCloud, Robert Moulton, and Ken Wilson. The names in the article appear to be the correct ones. So is Kern masking surnames for privacy reasons, or has something gone terribly wrong with that source? Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will need to step back to check ... I remember seeing some edits to that effect that might have been vandalism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved - Kern's preface (p. xviii) says he's using pseudonyms. So we shouldn't use any personal names found in Kern. Hog Farm Talk 23:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
whew, thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I guess you're suggesting it's not vandalism (sigh) ... will have to dig in ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm following the final demarcation of duties here but I'm happy to polish prose if someone else can tackle the referencing duties (I'm busy saving my own RAAF unit FAs from becoming FAR fodder, as several have changed their equipment in recent years). I've always had this on my watchlist but somewhere along the line I must've had my back turned because reading top to bottom it's not the article I remember. Did we decide in the end to revert to an earlier version and start from there? The same thought had crossed my mind when re-reading... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:38, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Sandy and/or HF were going to sort the missing page numbers (though if the source is online I might get to some of that myself). I think I've agreed to help with any prose/formatting gremlins and anything else that crops up to make sure it's up to modern standards, though more eyes are always helpful. But I don't want to start making edits that would get lost if we roll everything back to a previous version. Btw, Ian, I've always appreciated you watching lots of FAs; you must have a huge watchlist! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose and HJ Mitchell: I think this 2018 version the best to revert to; it's clear to me that Ian was following that far, and then wonky stuff starting happening and refs got messed up. It might be worth stepping forward a bit more from there to see if there's a later good version-- I just ran out of time. I have the kids here visiting this week, so can't start in yet, but that version has all page nos except four, and I'm happy to clean up refs and such after you all have resurrected content. Realistically I can't do much in the coming week, so you all feel free to advance without me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harry, near as I can figure it I have about 1,700 articles (articles, not pages) watchlisted -- is that a lot? Blame much of it on tweaking something in just about every FAC I promote... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. The citations are bundled so it's not as glaring but none of the Kern references citations have page numbers in that version. One ref, for example is "Piper, Chain of Events, p. 136, Kern, Darker Shades of Blue, and USAF, AFR 110-14, pp. 2–3. Kern in red so he stands out. This diff shows all the changes since then so if we're happy with the 2018 version, we can pick through that and restore any improvements, which are probably mostly ref formatting as the citation templates have been changed since then. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you all decide ... I can comb through Kern later ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can comb through Kern as well if needed (thankfully the relevant chapter is only about 20-25 pages long). I will have limited time next week though - lots of driving around to client sites for work + studying for the final portion of the CPA exam, which I'm taking in a few weeks. Hog Farm Talk 22:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to go ahead and revert to Sandy's suggested revision, with an edit summary pointing to this discussion. If a couple days go by and the edit "sticks", then I can began adding page numbers for Kern. Someone can then go through the changes between that revision and the current one and reflect any improvements. A bit of a personal preference thing here, but I truly believe that use of sfns have benefits, so I'd suggest we consider a possible changeover to sfns in the process. I found a similar switchover to be very much worth the work at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Battle of Blenheim/archive1. Hog Farm Talk 20:09, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reversion done, and have made some edits to cleanup some changes to templates/portals/categories that had been made between the old revision and today. Hopefully this didn't start any drama with the page. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to go through the page numbers for Kern, and I guess there's one additional thing we'll need to do. Kern doesn't support all of the details found in the article, and Thompson is paywalled for me and I can't find a copy of AFR 110-14 online, so I can't verify all the details here. I'm assuming we can trust the original FAC-passed text, but we'll still need to compare the two to find any sneaky additions between then and now. Hog Farm Talk 03:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This will take some plugging away - the way the refs are bundled will require creating a bunch of new citation names in order to fix this. Hog Farm Talk 04:20, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell and SandyGeorgia: - I'm going to be largely out of commission until the first week of March - I have the final part of the CPA exam coming up. Hog Farm Talk 16:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Had visitors, will start catching up this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arthur "Bud" Holland = Arthur "Bob" Hammond
  • Mark McGeehan = Mark McCloud
  • Robert Wolff = Robert Moulton
  • Ken Huston = Ken Wilson

Guessing at real name = pseudonym used by Kern, but how do we know if this is the actual correlation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't sort Capotosti, because Kern uses pseudonyms and the dates don't match. We will need another source to sort the Capotosti issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:03, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to find something for Capotosti - my exam is this afternoon, so I'll be much less busy once that's out of the way. Hog Farm Talk 15:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm good luck! Based on what you can find, we might revisit whether this is really saveable :( :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd had similar issues previously in the article and had just removed the specific names sourced only to Kern, but in hindsight that probably wasn't the best editorial decision. Hog Farm Talk 15:17, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, it's apparently from this, the Kern thing linked in the ELs, which does use real names. It notes that Capotosti was to take over a week after the airshow and that Capotosti gave Holland the riot act after taking over. The one week appears to be reading in between the lines there. As to "Capotosti did not document his warning to Holland or take any other kind of formal action" that appears to be based on the EL version of Kern's statement that "there was no documentation of the reprimand or counseling given to Lt Col Holland in any form.". Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm beginning to wonder if the reason why there was never any page numbers for Kern in the FAC-promoted version is because Cla68 was primarily relying on the web version of Kern, not the print version. And the web version doesn't have page numbers, which would explain the lack of them. Hog Farm Talk 22:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perhaps I'm not focused enough, but I'm still befuddled. Are you able to sort the remaining pieces (that is, should we keep the fAR going)? I was pretty discouraged when I stopped trying to figure out who was who with the pseudonyms ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I'm feeling reasonably confident I can fix the rest of this, if this version of Kern is okay with reliability and WP:ELNEVER. It uses real names, not the pseudonyms, and was listed as a web source at the time it passed FAC, so I suspect it was what Cla was using, as opposed to the hard copy that's been befuddling us. Hog Farm Talk 23:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect much of the Kern can be sort out like this edit, but ... I just flagged some failed verification. The original 2007 version had another citation for the material (not sure why it was removed), but it's that USAF report that I haven't been able to find a way to access. Starting to have some doubts here on this one, it's apparently been very badly damaged since it passed FAC. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia and HJ Mitchell: I'm afraid I've hitting a sticking point. It's been too badly damaged, and I can only do so much with access only to Kern and the web version of Kern. Have noted several issues

  1. Four page needed on Kern remaining
  2. Our article states "During the first practice session, on 17 June, Holland repeatedly violated these orders. Brooks witnessed this, but took no action. Pellerin flew with Holland on that flight". Kern doesn't say that Pellerin was on the flight - do we have confidence to support that section to Kern and trust that Pellerin's presence on the flight is supported by the USAF AFR source?
  3. Failed paragraph in the investigation section - previously had another source (which I cannot access) when it passed FAC. I do not know why the USAF AFR source was removed - do we feel comfortable just adding that source back?
  4. One of the web sources is probably unreliable, but should be fairly easy to replace
  5. The final paragraph about the 2015 film is a post-FAC addition to a permanently dead website. Do we trust the verifiability there?
  6. "After witnessing the flyover, Colonel Weinman and his deputy commander for operations (DO), Colonel Julich" - the Kern web source which uses real names doesn't mention Weinman. Do we trust this is supported by the inaccessible USAF source?
  7. "Holland's aircraft flew at altitudes below 100 feet (30 m)" - Kern has 100-200 ft. Do we trust the USAF source supports below 100 feet?

If the answer to 2, 3, 6, & 7, is "yes", then this one isn't too far from fixed. If the answer is "no", I don't think it's saveable. Hog Farm Talk 00:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find a working link for the #5 web source, and have verified that content. Unfortunately, we can't just plug-and-play Kern for #4, because Kern doesn't state that the crash is used both in military and civilian contexts. Hog Farm Talk 00:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm uncomfortable with the whole thing, and willing to let it go. It is, after all, outside of Cla68's normal Pacific Theatre WWII range of expertise. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [16].

Lessons for Children

[edit]
Notified: Wadewitz (deceased), WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Women in Green, 12-27-2022

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several uncited statements, an original research tag from 2021, and lots of block quotes that I think can be reduced or summarised. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Figureskatingfan: interested? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia, yes but I have a deadline this week, so I will tackle it then if that's all right. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia and @Z1720: I have completed going over this article, which suffered from years of neglect and was a product of the lower standards of FAs of the time it was first produced. Despite this, it's both artistic and scholarly, a work of art and an example of top-notch academic/encyclopedic writing. I want to be Adrianne Wadewiz when I grow up. It's been such an honor to do the little I've had to do to improve it, updating the referencing format and correcting several instances of OR. (Adrianne couldn't help herself.) Remember, this was first written before Visual Editor, and it's an outstanding piece of work nonetheless. Looking forward to your feedback and suggestions to make it even better. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very quick look, still see a citation needed tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, I kept it because what comes before it is important, but I didn't want to sort through all the sources to find something that supports it. I'd like to keep the tag, but I will delete the sentence if you wish. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Christine, I'm not following what you are suggesting/asking. Awadewit pushed her own views in to many articles, so we should not leave any unverified content in the article. Perhaps I am misunderstanding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I'm asking if I should remove the tag and the sentence instead of waiting to verify it. I'm also saying that I'm not able to go through the research it might take to verify it. I'll go ahead and remove them, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, does not seem critical anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But still have: Barbauld had published a successful book of poetry in 1773 which Johnson greatly admired; he viewed her switch to children's literature as a descent.[citation needed] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done as requesed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is overquoting; to the extent possible, we should use our own words, but there are lengthy quotes of which a few look like we could rephrase.
More significantly, there are no sources beyond the late 1990s used in this article, when Google Scholar coughs up a plethora. I don't believe the article is comprehensive, and when we factor in that Wikipedia was specifically criticized in a journal article for past issues found in similar Awadewit content, it is hard to be confident this article is still at standard or reflects up to date scholarship. I'm afraid that patching up what was there by removing OR and uncited is insufficient. The article would probably meet GA "broad coverage" requirement, but not FA "comprehensive", and a survey of the dozens (hundreds?) of scholarly articles written since 2000 is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying what I suspected would be true about this article; due to its age and the higher standards of the FA criteria currently, it wouldn't fulfill that criteria today, not without extensive research, additions, and rewrites. I also suspect that this would be a fun project, but it's not something I'm willing and/or able to take on right now. I've got too many other projects going on right now, in Wikipedia and other areas. I agree that although what I've done goes far in this article's general improvement, it doesn't go far enough. Unfortunately, then, I think that we need to de-list it, in the hopes that another editor with the time and inclination to take it on. It, like Anna Laetitia Barbauld, needs a team, with someone to lead it, and that's not me, although I'd be willing to help. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, Christine; at least you brought it to GA standard anyway ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [17].

Omaha Beach

[edit]
Notified: Factotem, Eaglizard, Binksternet, Hugo999, Cgersten, WP France, WP MILHIST, WP Normandy, noticed 2023-01-16

Review section

[edit]

This is a very important FA, but isn't at the current sourcing standards. There is a massive amount of scholarly literature on D-Day/Operation Overlord (too much to list here, but go ask the nearest WWII buff for more details), but this article relies almost exclusively on a single 1945 US Army report. I have significant concerns with WP:FACR #1c, as while I'm sure that one 1945 report is fine, it's not a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". I can help a little here, but my personal library is more 19th-century focused, and the couple of relevant works I have aren't going to be enough to push this one over the line. Hog Farm Talk 20:20, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (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, 16 March 2023 (UTC) [18].

Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

[edit]

Procedural FAR to delist this FA per the AFD decision to merge to Neil Harvey. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:18, 11 March 2023 (UTC) [19].

Panic of 1907

[edit]
Notified: notifications, Nov 2022

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the well-researched and comprehensiveness concerns raised on talk have yet to be addressed. (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no improvement (t · c) buidhe 05:18, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC while lots of sources are listed in the bibliography, they haven't been used as inline citations, causing the article to be overreliant on one source. Also, it seems like other sources have been used as inline citations that I would find dubious, especially considering the academic scholarship that is available. The timeline sidebar should probably also be worked as a list as it is causing stretching problems on my computer. No progress has been made to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC. One edit since the start of this FAR. Desertarun (talk) 09:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2023 (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) 6:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [20].

Hurricane Gustav (2002)

[edit]
Notified: Mass message send, talk page notice 2021-12-04

Review section

[edit]

This 2006 FA has not been maintained to standard, and the nominating editor has not edited since 2008. Issues outlined on talk on 2021-12-04 include grammatical and comprehensiveness failure. If someone intends to attempt to save this article, a CCI check will be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2023 (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) 6:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [21].

Nathu La

[edit]
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject India / Wikipedia:WikiProject Sikkim Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tibet Wikipedia:WikiProject China, Wikipedia:WikiProject Mountains Article nominee not active.

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there has been an extended discussion on the talk page about whether this article still meets the FA criteria. The discussion became stagnant with significant problems remaining. I also do not believe the article meets the FA criteria. Link to talk page here [22] Desertarun (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2023 (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) 6:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [23].

Ed Stelmach

[edit]
Notified: [24], Nov 2022

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because as stated in the talk page notice there has been insufficient updating and incorporation of newly available, higher quality sources, like this one. (t · c) buidhe 16:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC lack of improvement (t · c) buidhe 07:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC updates still needed, no progress. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2023 (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) 6:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [25].

Psilocybin

[edit]
Notified: Sasata, WikiProject Fungi, [26] WikiProject Neuroscience [27] talk page notice 2021-12-14

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are presently two big orange WP:MEDRS templates regarding the article leaning too heavily on primary sources. The last paragraph of the legal status section is entirely uncited and has two {{Citation needed}} templates. I just got done 86ing some poorly cited (and outright uncited) sentences the Mystical experiences section that conflates two medical journal articles with some guy's self-published blog; that usually doesn't bode well for such a densely-cited article. I have no experience with the Featured article process and am far from a subject-matter expert on pharmacology, but it's seems that this article has either fallen out of spec with WP:MEDRS or has somewhat degenerated in the decade and change since it was promoted. Another user on the Talk page has proposed starting a FA review on grounds of sourcing issues and scope creep, so I am not alone in this suspicion. DigitalIceAge (talk) 07:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified the remaining WikiProjects (WP Chemicals and Pharmacology) and added the talk page notice to the Notification line above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was promoted in 2012 (by me, after a long MEDRS discussion). Sasata has not edited it since 2015, and has been gone since 2016. The article does not look salvageable from here without serious engagement from an editor familiar with MEDRS, and updated per WP:MEDDATE. (Please review the FAC discussion, as the unfortunate removal of the lay parameter from the citation templates might have been part-- but not all-- of the problem here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zefr, Beland, and Smartse: (others who could have been notified). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, thanks for pinging those people, @SandyGeorgia: XTools was broken last night, and I couldn't get a reading on any other main contributors from the article history. DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DigitalIceAge Not to worry (most of the wiki is broken right now thanks to Vector 2022), and these editors would not have shown as top contributors by the tools anyway ... I pinged them because they are recent editors, and I queried some of the MEDRS stuff when I promoted the article, but the destruction of the lay parameter by subsequent changes to the citation template may have messed up the sourcing. This needs a closer look, but probably not worth it, as there should be newer sources that can be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2023 (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) 6:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [28].

Inner German border

[edit]
Notified: [29], talk page notice Nov 2022

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of sourcing and comprehensiveness concerns outlined in my talk page notice. (t · c) buidhe 10:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I reserve the right to be wrong on this, but on inspection, I don't really see the issue? Responding to the four points raised on the talk page... Unsourced content is the biggest concern, but there doesn't appear to be any currently. Now, if you did some spot checks and it turns out that the citations are only covering one minor point and other unsourced info snuck into the paragraph, that is concerning, so if you did that feel free to say so - but just based on basic inspection, it seems fine. Older sources are fine to "flesh out" details, so that doesn't appear to be a huge issue either - there are substantive books cited written as late as 2008 (makes sense, since it was a 2009 promotion), so as long as the editors weren't citing old sources for claims that are in contention with modern sources, it shouldn't be problematic. (And they're not even *that* old, 1970 and some 1980s for the ones that get cited some, and the 1970 book is by a respected British journalist.) On the Cold War / Western Bloc angle, I don't see any wild bits of bias - Stacy 1984 is the US Army itself writing, but it's all talking about the very early history of East/West Germany, I don't see anything in that paragraph that looks controversial even to a diehard communist (at least as long as they grant that some people did indeed flee from the Soviet zone westward). And we're allowed to acknowledge the obvious, which is that censorship concerns means that any East German publication used would have to be used with some extreme caution. The concern about the possibility of using more German-language sources is interesting, but I think that's a dangerous criterion to impose. There appear to be some German-language sources cited already, but in general, on English Wikipedia, English citations should be preferred so that they can be verified and checked more easily. Sometimes there's no choice but to use other language sources, especially for more obscure topics, but this is a very well-covered topic, so it should be entirely possible to source the vast majority from English-language scholarship. If there's a specific German source that is just truly essential yet not available in translation, then sure, but that should be specific sources to call out not a general desire for more German-language sources. Finally, looking at the additional sources linked on the talk page, those don't seem so important to impact comprehensiveness concerns? The first is on economic impacts in one region after the border fell, which seems more like a "History of Bavaria" type local thing. The second on linguistics is on a topic that seems more related to the political effects of German reunification, not the border itself (i.e. an expansion of German reunification#Effects - really, there could be a summary-style spinoff article called "Effects of German reunification" or the like on the 1990-1995 or so period). They're relevant related topics, sure, but that's worth maybe a sentence at most or a link in the See also. The article is already at 70kb prose size, a little longer than recommended, so keeping it focused on when the border existed seems a way to keep the size in check.
  • As stated before, I did not do spot checks, so if there really are referencing problems, that's worth investigating and fixing. But the other concerns don't seem so dire as to be FARC-worthy. SnowFire (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It is well known that many aspects of the Cold War, including East Germany, were not fully understood until the opening of Eastern Bloc archives. I just don't see how this article could be considered well researched or comprehensive without the examination of more recent, scholarly sources (the fact that most of the high-quality, recent sources happen to be written in German is inconvenient, but does not recommend citing inferior sources just because they are in English). The sources on linguistics cover how dialects diverged due to being located on opposite sides of the border, and are therefore affected by the border itself and not reunification. If length is a concern, it could be addressed by reducing the amount of content sourced to contemporary press reports, which do not necessarily indicate lasting significance, and possible overemphasis on Western, English speaking viewpoints compared to East German ones.
    Incidentally, there is still plenty of unsourced content in the article: it has not been fixed since my notice. I have not thoroughly checked for failed verification issues, but the article has many sentences like "The GDR implemented a variety of security measures along its Baltic coastline to hinder escape attempts. Camping and access to boats was severely limited" (cited to a 1962 news article). This could potentially tell us what the situation was in 1962, but only a retrospective source could verify this claim because policies could have been changed later. (t · c) buidhe 07:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that post-Cold War sources are required, but aren't they already being used in the article? I have to presume that they were examined and used. For example, there's a bunch of citations to a book from David Childs (academic) written in 2001, who appears to be an expert in German history. Gordon L. Rottman isn't from academia but rather the military, but this is a military topic too, and there's a book of his from 2008 cited heavily. Gareth Dale lived in East Germany during the period (perhaps addressing the worry about not giving sufficient deference to East German sources) and he's a Reader (if not a full professor), so at least not a nobody, and his book was 2005. To be sure, there appear to be some non-prestigious random authors thrown in (no idea who Michael Cramer is based on a Google, possibly an independent author; he's clearly written on the topic some based on Goodreads and he's cited a decent amount for his 2008 book, but can't tell his reliability easily), along with some reference spam. But it doesn't appear to be a major problem merely from inspection. (It would be a problem if pre-1990 sources are used to cite things that post-1990 sources disagree on, but that would require essentially reading all the relevant sources.)
    I still don't think the linguistic differences between West & East is on-topic. This article is mostly about the physical border, the politics behind it, and things like escapes / fortifications / guards. Linguistic differences develop across all borders no matter how they're made and no matter the politics for the natural and obvious reason of being in different states; the Inner German border wasn't special here. Checking, I don't see any mention in Canada–United States border about the difference between Canadian English and American English, or Germany–Switzerland border about the difference between German German and Swiss German. To be sure, that journal article sounds like a great source to use to expand Dialects of German or some sub-article on differences during the Cold War, but it is at most worthy of a single See also link in this particular article IMO. Especially given the article's length, it's just too peripheral.
    I don't have access to The Times of London archives so I can't comment on the claim about restricted access to boats. It doesn't sound particularly controversial (and the openly-accessible German site indicates that the observation towers part was definitely real) but sure, a better source would be nice there. (Less worried about the timing - even if they dropped the policy in the 1980s, which seems unlikely, it'd still be relevant - and more just the slant, that a Western paper might have exaggerated.) That said, I think chopping out less relevant parts sourced only to news reports might be a good change, sure (or perhaps moving them to some holding pen on the talk page). SnowFire (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repetition of words in section headings breaches WP:MSH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a shot at fixing this (diff). I left two minor exceptions - "Crossing the border" (Just "Crossing" sounds like a noun/place, but it's meant as a verb in context) and "Fall of the inner German border" (Just "Fall" seems a little vague - it could be misread as the season it happened in, or the fall of the East German politburo, etc.), but open to suggestions on those two. SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Considering that this is a historical concept at this point, I think the news sources should be replaced with academic sources as much as possible. I don't see any recent edits for improvements. Z1720 (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to FARC unless someone is going to start the article overhaul. (t · c) buidhe 01:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Per above, I'm still not convinced that any improvements or overhaul are actually needed. I guess it comes down to trust in the original editor - are the news stories just being used as "supplemental" sources and everything relevant is in the cited scholarly works as well, or are there major parts cited only to contemporary news stories? Because some editors just throw in supplemental "this is also here" references to buttress a claim, and this isn't necessarily problematic. The original FAC features some very effusive praise for the article editor, so I'm inclined to give him some benefit of the doubt. SnowFire (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No there are entire paragraphs cited to news reports only and some are original research/insufficiently supported like the one I quoted above and another case I flagged in the article. (t · c) buidhe 23:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Specifics
[edit]

These walls of generalized text are a bit frustrating. Could we get some specifics nailed down? The talk page notice said:

I am sympathetic to Buidhe's concern, as I have clearly seen similar problems when Spanish-language sources are overlooked in Latin American articles in favor of English-language news reporting, but I hesitate to advocate for FARCing without concrete examples on the page.
That said, I'm learning FARC as there has been extremely limited engagement so far, and it's highly unlikely that an FA this old–whose original nominator is disengaged–would not need updating and improvements as newer and better sources become available. And three of the original nominators six FAs have already been defeatured. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one yet. Its only been c. a month, and most of the complains seem to be either shakey (use German sources) or easily fixed (text squash or recently added uncited bits and pieces). Anyways, the thick walls of tldr text above make it hard to pars what's actionable. Slow down people. Re "are you interested in fixing up the article?"...Grrr actually I'm losing faith given the pace of this process. Let me see, theirs this Tulip Mania, Yellowstone National Park, Dürer's Rhinoceros, as well as prep for my own articles to prepare to defend from a group think and I sometimes think...scoreboarding. buidhe (a coord no less, and somebody I almost always disagree with on everything)) nomed on the 7 January and opened FACR to vote delist on the 5 February...that's not right and very, very, very disillusioning. At that timescale: take a few weeks off and your gone. Ceoil (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same concerns about the vagueness of the complaints, so entered four questions (see above) that satisfied me that the article is not in good shape, nor likely to be fixed-- see my queries above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have reverted to the promoted version, do what ye must. Sandy I always appreciate your input and diligence; but my point stands: outside of your always helping above and beyond, this group is moving too fast. Ceoil (talk)
Just noting for the record that it's been almost three months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we now have to look for foreign language scholarly sources? Per the talk notification: "German language scholarly sources (many of them post-1990) are neglected in favor of popular/news English language sources that are more dated" That would be a major change. I ask so that requests are kept within FAC criteria, so that people are not overwhelmed by dual criteria at FAC & FAR Ceoil (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My question on that aspect (above) wasn't answered. Regarding making sure the criteria are kept in focus, and FAC and FAR are in sync, I think the burden would be on the reviewer to lay out exactly what is missing from foreign language sources such that the article fails comprehensiveness or neutrality. I know that, were it a Venezuela article, I would be easily able to make the case for issues covered in Spanish-language sources but not in English. I'm not convinced that has been done for this case; it is lack of updates in the other areas (eg economic and linguistic) mentioned above that convinced me that work was needed here. And there is some dubious sourcing.
Do we know of anyone who might work on this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh) Not now, but can we please give it time - I do think a longer term should be given; ChrisO, a long long term editor until recently, is intermittently active here, and when becomes active, is highly active.
I agree that non eng sources should not be used as implied reasons for delisting as happened here, but take your point re gaps in "economic and linguistic" - but thus far the gaps have not been clearly defined and to be fair anybody cant throw out such terms and be convincing to passers by. I really have a hard time imagining what "linguistic" might even entail. Ceoil (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, Buidhe to use FAC terms, your list of concerns needs to be made more actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have put forward actionable concerns as best I can, noting examples above of missing coverage and sources that, given their date of publication, fail to fully verify the content. There's a limit to what I can do because my German is not the best. (t · c) buidhe 05:11, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should be more careful. "given their date of publication, fail to fully verify the content." That is patently nonsense in this context. As a separate point, what gaps in linguistics are you seeing given "my German is not the best?" Ceoil (talk) 05:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil Special:Contributions/Prioryman does not look promising (last edit in June 2022 and only 22 edits for the year of 2022). How long do you suggest waiting and who might show up to address what issues remain? The FAR Coords will need more to go on ... I'm asking because I had intended to next put up Quneitra, which I noticed as unmaintained and dated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not much longer in the cold light of day Sandy :( I still think first rational was shaky however, but grand. Ceoil (talk) 13:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ceoil ... so ... 1) Is anyone in email contact with Prioryman? 2) I will hold off, per your concerns, on putting up Quneitra (which is seriously dated and obviously unmaintained). 3) Buidhe please be sure to put up specific, actionable concerns at FAR so we don't become known as a speedy delist place and can avoid long back-and-forth generalities like at the start of this FAR. 4) HOLD until Feb 20, at which point I will be a Delist unless someone engages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have no concerns re you noming Quneitra, have never been inclined to question your judgement. Ceoil (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2023 (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) 6:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC) [31].

Hurricane Nora (1997)

[edit]
Notified: Miss Madeline, Titoxd, Hurricanehink, WP Mexico, WP Weather, WP California, WP Arizona, talk page notice 2021-12-02

Review section

[edit]

This 2007 FA has minor issues that should be an easy fix. I CCI cleared it over a year ago, so hopefully someone will take on the other sourcing issues mentioned on 2021-12-02, as well as any general updating needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed the italics issue mention on talk, and started going through fixing the referencing formatting, but I think we're going to need a hurricane specialist here. The claim of " and one of the rare cyclones to make landfall in Baja California" isn't sourced anywhere and I don't have the background knowledge to evaluate and try to source this. There's a paywalled journal article about an analysis of rainwater chemical contamination comparing Nora to other storms, but nothing else really stands out as useful to add academic-coverage wise. This is related to damage at a proving ground and would be a single sentence in the article at most. Beyond that, I'm just seeing a master's thesis that we couldn't use anyway per WP:SCHOLARSHIP and this which doesn't look useful as its mainly a look at cirrus clouds with a little background in Nora. I don't feel comfortable trying to do the smallish content work since I know nothing of hurricanes, but if we can get a hurricane editor to help out in the smaller areas that need content-matter expertise, I'm willing to help work on this to push it over the line. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entire MH section needs to be rewritten. Also needs stuff from NCEI with regards to US impacts. Some Spanish sources would be nice but idk if such exist here. I'll try to fill in myself but no promises here. YE Pacific Hurricane 08:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So I ended up rewriting the MH and started digging through the Preps and Impacts section and took a wonder to the Wikipedia Library, where I found a lot of newspapers which need to be combed through for various preps and impacts to Califonia, Arizona, Nevada and a few other states. With the right support, I should be able to do this over the next few days.Jason Rees (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My work on Nora is starting to take shape with the preps and impacts now combined and split into the various impact zones. Southern Mexico, Utah and the other states more or less completed, this leaves Baja California, California and Arizona to go through, which is where the majority of Nora's wrath was unleashed.Jason Rees (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Work ongoing, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:55, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah Nora has proved to be more significant and challenging than first thought, hopefully, I should be able to work on getting Arizona sorted later tonight before moving on to California and the rest of Mexico.Jason Rees (talk) 17:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot is needed to save the article. I’m borderline if it should be outright delisted or if it’s saveable at this time. 47.19.209.229 (talk) 19:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I applaud Jason for taking it on, but seeing the amount of work that has gone in to this already (with still a ways to go) gives me serious concerns about the status of all the other very old hurricane articles. This far in, and with Jason still gathering this list, makes me wonder how much will be needed on the others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I strongly feel that the article is saveable at this time but needs a lot more research and good dig through Mexican Newspapers and other Spanish Sources which I am attempting to do with Google Translate as I dont speak Spanish. @SandyGeorgia: Thank you for your applause for my hard work, I have found that I tend and need to be very through when looking for tropical cyclone impacts especially where I usually work in the South Pacific. Personally researching Nora has shown me that some of the older FA's from WPTC need some new love and attention as links have gone dead and we now have access to various resources including Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. I have fixed some of these while I have been researching Nora as some of the sources are the same. We also have to remember that Atlantic hurricanes between 1851 and 1970 with selected others (including Gloria 85) have been reanalylised by the NHC. However, I have an eye on a few of them including Gloria and Linda 1997, but who knows whats going to happen in the future.Jason Rees (talk) 12:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep up the good work (by the way, I speak Spanish if you get into trouble ... recently I have decided that Google translate does a fairly decent job, compared to years ago, when it was dreadful). Just keep in mind that direct translations are plagiarism ... you still have to paraphrase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    On a side note, I should acknowledge that @TheAustinMan: has been helping me compile some of Nora's impacts.Jason Rees (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since my last update, I discovered a website that has various advisories from the US NWS on it, this included the tropical cyclone discussions issued by NHC on Nora, which prompted a significant rewrite of the Meteorological History. The NWS advisories will also have various effects on the United States Preps and Impacts sections and maybe even the Mexican ones.Jason Rees (talk) 17:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize this has been a long haul, and again appreciate that Jason Rees has been willing to do it. I continue to believe we should leave this FAR open, as it provides a great example of why it is unlikely that we will be able to save other similar articles at FAR. We have hundreds of Cyclone articles to process, all need a CCI, and this FAR has made it obvious that the original notices, while brief, underscore potentially big problems in similar FAs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Rees this is now the oldest in the FAR section; how is it coming ? Do you have an estimate by when you might finish? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its coming along but I have been struguling to get back into it over the last week for two main reasons, the first is that I have felt really rough in real life and tested postive for Covid. On top of which Gabrielle surprisingly appears to have become the costliest tropical cyclone on record in the SHEM over the last few days. There is a temptation to throw in the towel on Nora and move on, but I also feel that I have come this far with it that I had better try and finish it off.Jason Rees (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you feel better soon; keep us posted as to what you decide to do here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: My feeling is that there is a lot more work needed to bring Nora to a point, where the article could start to be assessed and at the moment it seems that my attention is being pulled elsewhere. As a result, I would suggest that we delist Nora and send it through the normal GA/FA processess when its ready to be fully reviewed.Jason Rees (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, Jason Rees, but thank you for the monumental effort. It was helpful in that it contributed to understanding of how much work will be needed to save the older storm stars. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I read the original FAC, I am reminded of a general attitude that hurricanes are considered to be cool and recieve a lot of attention after a high impacting system like Katrina. As a result of this, more resources becoming available and Wikipedia's standards changing, I doubt that many high impacting systems will be able to get FA level without a lot of collaboration between editors.Jason Rees (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2023 (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/March_2023&oldid=1146478715"