Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 2021

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) 5:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC) [1].

James Joyce

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Switzerland, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject France, WikiProject Poetry, WikiProject Anarchism, WikiProject Socialism, 11 June 2021
See this discussion; SandyGeorgia, Ceoil, Victoriaearle and Kablammo have now all been notified.

Review section

[edit]

OK, I'm back. I am nominating this featured article for review because there are issues with sourcing especially (considerable unsourced content) and as HAL333 noted "The article doesn't rely on any recent academic work on Joyce." That was nearly 3 months ago and there has not been significant improvement since then, so here we are. Original FA nominator has retired. (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Extension Requested

I'd like to adopt this article, so could you extend the FARC process? I had more extensive concerns about what would be expected of me on the FAR talk page. If the FARC team is good with that and the extension, I'll get started with it. Wtfiv (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinators will keep reviews open as long as improvements are being made. In fact I suggest putting the FARC on hold to give more space for editing. Thanks for your efforts to improve the encyclopedia. (t · c) buidhe 05:47, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, buidhe It may take a few days before much action happens. I want to put some proposals out to the talk page and give a couple of days for response. After that, I'll be unable to edit until next week. Also, there seems to be one editor who feels strongly about adding infoboxes. I'm good with it either way, but I want to make sure that the editor open to working on the article to keep its Featured Article status. It should start looking busy after that, unless I get positive responses sooner.Wtfiv (talk) 06:16, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update to note that editing is ongoing on this article. (t · c) buidhe 23:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Wtfiv great work on the article so far but some of the sections are getting quite long, especially "1906–1915: Rome, Trieste, and sojourns to Dublin", "1915-1920: Zürich and Trieste", and "1920–1941: Paris and Zürich". I don't really know how Joyce's life is periodized, but I think it would improve readability if these sections could be broken up somehow by making the time intervals shorter. (t · c) buidhe 22:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe Breaking up the sections shouldn't be too hard. I didn't break them out before as I tried to keep the general gestalt of the original, renaming the section on life after Dublin was "Career", I renamed it "Exile". But, the section did expand! Each location can easily be turned into its own section, and each section will have an additional subsection. I'll be on it! Wtfiv (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Text after initial notification failure related to process moved to talk (all agree amazing progress has been made, and that the lead expansion can be left until work is finished). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of my MOS trivialities have been addressed on talk; fine work so far, and I agree with Victoriaearle that the lead can wait until Wtfiv is satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Process discussion moved to talk, but noting that:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved trivialities moved to talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a request, Wtfiv its very hard to keep track of issues raised, what's actionable, what's o/s etc as you are inclined towards walls of text and sidetracking in response, so I'm getting a bit peeved. Please restrict and stay on point. That way we can get on with here and now and work at hand, and not get bogged down in broader meta discussions. Ceoil (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted with first expansion of the lead [2]. Ceoil (talk) 00:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil The lead: I'm glad it looks good at first glance. As to my working/thinking style. I the worst should be over. Thanks for keeping on top of all of this anyway! (And for your patience!) Wtfiv (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've scanned it and it looks fine, actually am very impressed! Re working style, I think we should now get into utilitarian bullet points and done/not done responses. This will help us all judge the level of work left, and aid the FAR co-ords when they finally decide to keep or delist, though I remain optimistic. Ceoil (talk) 01:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are 42 instances of the word also, and also is almost always redundant; many of them are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wtfiv:, other editors will re-review once you say you are ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:23, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Thanks for the ping. I believe I'm done with my major edits. Please have the FARC team take a look to see it can be delisted from removal. I think all of HAL333 original concerns and the added concern about the abstract. I'll probably muck with it for weeks to come, but it should be minor. I'm sure there are infelicities- typos, grammos, repetitions, citation errors- as well as downright mistakes. If anybody sees any of these during the review, please fix as one evaluates. And of course, address anything you'd like to add (treating it as our normal editing process?) If there is indeed a genuine major issue, of course, let me know. Please ping me once the vote has been made. I'd love to know the outcome. Wtfiv (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Status update: ready for re-review, Wtfiv has completed major re-write. @Ceoil and Victoriaearle: (involved in rewrite) and those who opined earlier @Z1720, Buidhe, and Hog Farm:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images? Buidhe, this FA was so old that it is unlikely it has ever had an image review; might you take that on? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe has a good eye. I tried to ensure they're all good, and excluded a couple of nice ones on commons as they seemed questionable. but this is an aspect of Wikipedia that may more complex. Wtfiv (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paul August, per your earlier involvement with this article, you may be pleased to know that a complete rewrite and update has been undertaken by Wtfiv. Would you be interested in having a look at what appears to be heading for a FAR saved star? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

As requested I've done a copyright review. Images removed were not evaluated for copyright.

Not a copyright issue, but I bet there is a better quality photo of Joyce to use as the lead image. File:Revolutionary Joyce Better Contrast.jpg is pretty low res. (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Buidhe. So, Wtfiv, now that Buidhe has done the image thing, I cannot help you on the next steps, because of my aforementioned ignorance of All Things Images. We have things that need to be corrected, but I don’t know if Ceoil, Victoria or someone else will know how to do that. Buidhe, here I am going to go backwards on my typical “move to talk” stance. I would like to move your post to the main FAR page, so others might jump in to help Wtfiv on these, OK? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely! Wtfiv (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Also, any and all the images that didn't pass can go, but I don't have the heart to do it myself. But will work with whatever is left Wtfiv (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and removed the images flagged above. (t · c) buidhe 00:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe Thanks! It doesn't look too bad. Maybe another early Joyce image would look good. I'll scour around maybe others will find something. Wtfiv (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia, Wtfiv was working and I've been busy. Will try to revisit if I can; a bit tied up myself. Buidhe I'm not clear why File:Jacques-Émile Blanche - James Joyce.jpg can't be used. Looks to me that it needs a US tag but should otherwise be good. It's a painting, not a photograph. Wtfiv take a look at Cornell's digital Joyce exhibition, there may be documents, etc. or even photographs there that are free. The media is well documented. Will try to return. Victoria (tk) 20:58, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not public domain in US as it was still copyright in France on the URAA date unless I'm missing something. (t · c) buidhe 21:13, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't parse that sentence. Tried parsing it via various tags on Commons and still not clear about it. Do we need the painting's date to determine the licensing? Victoria (tk) 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases it's the date of publication, not creation that determines copyright. I use the Hirtle chart to determine copyright status. (t · c) buidhe 22:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Hirtle chart doesn't apply to paintings per the sentence, "This table is for image and text works". But anyway we found the other. Victoria (tk) 22:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the main rules apply to any copyrightable work except architecture and sound recordings, for which there are special rules. For some reason the wording on Commons is confusing on that point. See the original source: https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain (t · c) buidhe 23:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, can we use File:Portrait of James Joyce P529.jpg? It has a different license. Victoria (tk) 22:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That one seems fine, since it has been released under a free license. I'm assuming that the gallery also bought the copyright to the painting. (t · c) buidhe 22:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Wtfiv you can use File:Portrait of James Joyce P529.jpg. I leave it you for placement. In the meantime I'm looking for other images that can be used and will post a gallery on the article talk page. It'll take me some time. Victoria (tk) 22:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much Victoria! I've been scouring and feeling stalemated due to the orphaned work laws, but the beauty of working together is we can find things through triangulation that any individual may miss. If you find something, please toss it in. We have a good team checking to make sure it works. And if it doesn't, to quote Joyce's Paris days: "C'est la vie"! Wtfiv (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely have to log out now, but if you want to peek at User:Victoriaearle/sandbox I have a list of images that can be used. Will format into a gallery on the article talk page when I get back here. Victoria (tk) 00:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria I used one of the images of Shakespeare & Co. you gave to replace the subscription advertisement. I want to see what other think. Keep, leave or delete? The image issue is definitely the challenge here. Copyright, royalties, and control of image. What an issue: The artist's image and royalty value as Struldbrugg! Please put others in, where you think they may work. Please delete what doesn't. Wtfiv (talk) 01:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you find anything better File:Rue_Edmond_Valentin,_Paris.jpg isn’t doing a lot to expand my limited knowledge of Joyce :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what's cool, Sandy, that's the Eiffel tower in the upper left corner! Sociologically, that contrasts on the ongoing poverty, free-spender point that seems part of the Joyce Mythose. For readers who know, that's a silent critique of the early "poor Joyce" narrative. Google map the location: its prime real estate. Joyce was in one of the classy districts. Should we expand, leave as is, delete? Do what you see fit, and I'll support. Wtfiv (talk) 00:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t pay attention to me; I know nothing about Joyce :) But … as someone who knows nothing about Joyce, that contrast was also lost on me. You could expand the caption if you have a source explaining this “poor Joyce” narrative ? But what do I know … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SandyThe narrative that emerges in the sources, is he was constantly short of money and broke. I tried to reflect that in the article, as it has been played since Ellmann. But here he is living for five years in one of the priciest parts of Paris. It doesn't dismiss the narrative as he obviously like to spend money (according to his niece Bozena, who is sourced in the article, he bought her a string of real pearls in Trieste for eating her meat.) He's living high. Let's do it this way. If something better comes along, let's bump this one out. If you want me to mention the Eiffel tower, I will. If you can do a good caption, please do. (Actually, I know you can...so why not...or delete...I'll live...) Wtfiv (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, don’t worry about me. It would require quite a caption to get from what the neighborhoods were then to what they are now (the image is not from his time period, right?) and it seems we’d get into original research to do that … just leave it as is, and those smarter than I am will get it :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good! I think it was pricey then too, from what I could gather when researching the article. The frontage is the same today as back then. If someone catches it being wrong, they can fix. But do keep in mind, I trust you to make changes if you decide otherwise, as you have been the Wikipedia "Joyce tender" long before I came on the scene, and I do want to make sure that those elements of the article that reflect your vision are respected. Wtfiv (talk) 01:33, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy RE: A better Paris photo. Do you know- or do you know another administrator- who could help us put out a help request for a Parisian Wikipedian at the appropriate location to take a better photo for us? Something like this would look perfect Joyce's Apt. 7 on edmond valentin It catches some of the frontage, the Eiffel tower, and Joyce's actual address. I've not seen anything like this in Wikipedia, but one never knows...Wtfiv (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t want you to keep worrying about an off-hand comment I made, but Colin may know a Paris photographer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy Not worried, you just raised a good point that we could get a better picture. Thanks for pinging Colin! Wtfiv (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do know a Parisien photographer but wonder if the Commons Category already has what you need? For example File:Rue Edmond-Valentin (Paris).jpg, which is like the original here but more conventionally including the ground level. -- Colin°Talk 09:58, 14 November 2021 (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) 4:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [3].

History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966)

[edit]
Notified: Qwghlm, WP Football, WP History, WP London, noticed in December 2020

This older FA has uncited text sprinkled throughout, including wording like "slick and technically proficient" and "dominance of the decade" that certainly need sources to support such wording. I'm also concerned that phrasing such as "false dawn", "Arsenal's pain", and similar phrasing may not be fully encyclopedic tone. There's also what appears to be an unreliable source used (tagged in the article). Hog Farm Talk 02:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Qwghlm is long gone, I'm happy to take a look at this one...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: - how's it looking now.......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to give this another look tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 03:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which has fuelled the long-standing enmity between the two North London clubs" - Is the second club Tottenham? It's not entirely clear
  • "Arsenal performed strongly in a free-scoring title race with Aston Villa, recording several heavy wins (including 7–1 against Blackpool, 7–2 against Leicester City, and 9–1 against Grimsby Town, which remains a club record for the top flight). Arsenal won the title with two games to spare and finished the season having scored 127 league goals (another club record), though Aston Villa managed to score 128, which is still a record for the most goals in an English top flight season." - citation needed
  • "With these new signings, Allison oversaw the completion of a hat-trick of League titles in 1934–35, and Arsenal were back to their attacking best; Drake scored a club record 42 league goals that season and Arsenal racked up a series of heavily one-sided scorelines reminiscent of the 1930–31 season (including 7–0 against Wolves, 8–1 against Liverpool, and 8–0 twice, against Leicester City and Middlesbrough)." - Not sure that this is covered by the note at the end of the paragraph, which is about a different subject
  • " Participation in the London League led to their expulsion from The Football League in 1941 along with 14 other clubs; it was not until April 1942 when they were readmitted after expressing regret and paying a £10 fine." - why was participation in the London League problematic?
  • "Although Arsenal were unable to sustain any challenges for the League title, with the new blood they won the FA Cup in 1949–50, with Reg Lewis scoring both goals in a 2–0 win over Liverpool in the final." - citation needed
  • " and a fixture pile-up" - what is a fixture pile-up?
    • @Hog Farm: - basically it means that a lot of games had to be played in a short period, usually because they had been postponed earlier in the season and therefore all "piled up" at the end of the season. I'll try to think of a way to re-word that part..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the numerical advantage in their favour, Newcastle won 1–0 with a goal from George Robledo." - citation needed
  • "To make matters worse for the club, rivals Tottenham Hotspur won the Double in 1960–61." - citation needed
  • "In mitigation, that same night the 1966 European Cup Winners' Cup final between Borussia Dortmund and Liverpool was screened live on television, a comparatively rare and prestigious event for the time, while the Arsenal v Leeds United match had no bearing on either team's fortunes, which partly accounts for the low attendance." - will need a citation due to the nature of the claims in this
  • "Andy Kelly's Arsenal Resource Website" - is this a RS source, or just a no-name personal blog?
  • ""Remembering the Arsenal Players that died during WW2". shewore.com. Retrieved 15 February 2020." - the about page for this sources does not give me any confidence as to this being a RS

Good progress made so far, ChrisTheDude. Hog Farm Talk 23:05, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: - all the above points now addressed, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Had a conference this weekend, will give this another look hopefully tomorrow. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close without FARC, my concerns here have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 22:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ChrisTheDude could you please remove the “done” templates? They are not used at FAC or FAR because they cause template limits to be exceeded, which wipes out part of the FAC page or FAC archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies :-( -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the references use manual short citations, while others use sfns that link to the Works cited, resulting in a) two citations styles, and b) almost every source in the Works cited returning a harvref error, since nothing links to them. This can be fixed by implementing a consistent sfn style, as is done on part of the citations.
  • MOS:HEAD explains that section headings should follow WP:AT, article titles, which should not use the word the.
  • MOS:CURRENT, avoid words like now … the sentence in the lead that uses “now southeast London” can be made more precise by saying something like “and southeast London since year xxxx”.
  • For “They were promoted to the First Division in 1904 but financial problems meant they were liquidated and reformed”, meant they were is awkward, I suggest instead something like “They were promoted to the First Division in 1904, but after incurring financial problems, they were liquidated and reformed in year xxxx”.
  • appointment of Herbert Chapman … as what … ? … in the lead. Also, that is a very long (run-on?) sentence.
  • What is “mid-table” ?? I gather from the context that it is not a good thing, but can’t get beyond that.
    @SandyGeorgia: - I changed it to "they were consistently finishing around the middle of the league table", do you think that is clearer to non-experts? Basically it means that they regularly were finishing in the region of 11th, 12th or 13th out of 22 teams in the league rather than 1st, 2nd or 3rd...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ha ! Yes, that does it … I was wrong in guessing what it meant. Will continue reviewing later today, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • “Bertie Mee, who would go on to turn around the club's fortunes” … who turned around the club’s fortunes … more direct ?
  • See MOS:DATERANGE. There is inconsistent year styles in the section headings:
    Early years (1886–1910)
    Move to Highbury and the promotion controversy (1910–25)
    The Chapman era (1925–34)
    A hat-trick of League titles (1934–39)
    The Second World War (1939–45)
    The post-war years (1945–66)
    Correcting for both MOS:HEAD and MOS:DATERANGE would yield:
  • Early years (1886–1910)
    Move to Highbury and the promotion controversy (1910–1925)
    Chapman era (1925–1934)
    Hat-trick of League titles (1934–1939)
    Second World War (1939–1945)
    Post-war years (1945–1966)

Also, should it be … “During the Second World War”? ChristheDude, thank you for all the work on this; if you don’t have time for some of these minor issues, I could chip away at them as I find time … let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: - all done (I think) with the exception of specifying when Woolwich was absorbed into London, which is proving unexpectedly hard to confirm. I'll carry on looking into that........ -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now sorted that bit too -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fast work! I am busy most of today, but will certainly look in within the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for so quickly addressing all of the above.

  • Such was Arsenal's strength that in November 1934, seven players that started for the England side that beat World Champions Italy 3–2 (in the so-called "Battle of Highbury") were on Arsenal's books, a record number of players from a single club, which still stands today.[c]
  • Similar "Arsenal finished 14th, their lowest position in 36 years, and recorded the lowest attendance at Highbury—4,554 for a match against Leeds United on 5 May 1966.[75][e]" is cited to 2007. Needs to be checked for datedness (lower attendance during COVID ??? maybe), and if still correct, needs an as of date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still two HarvRef errors (see Category:Harv and Sfn template errors): SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maidment, Jem (2005). The Official Arsenal 100 Greatest Games. Hamlyn. ISBN 0-600-61376-3. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFMaidment2005.
    • Weaver, Graham (2005). Gunners' Glory: 14 Milestones in Arsenal's History. Mainstream. ISBN 1-84018-667-4. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFWeaver2005.
@SandyGeorgia: - all done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, ChrisTheDude. I had a hard time sorting the “Such was Arsenal’s strength” statement; based on the source, I hope this adjustment is accurate. Please review? If that is good, and pending a re-read from Hog Farm, I will be good to close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a re-read after work. Hog Farm Talk 17:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Updated to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it another little tweak :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I am good to close without FARC, unless Hog Farm finds something that I/we messed up :). Thanks again for taking this one on! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
After reviewing the changes, the article has only improved. Hog Farm Talk 01:22, 11 November 2021 (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) 4:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [4].

Great Lakes Storm of 1913

[edit]
Notified: Brian0918, GreatLakesShips, 7&6=thirteen, WP Lakes, WP Weather, WP USA, WP Canada, noticed in March

Review section

[edit]

This 2005 promotion has not been reviewed since 2007, and needs a bit of a touchup for modern FA standards. The primary issue seems to be lack of inline citations in parts, although there are also some lesser layout issues caused by MOS:SANDWICHing. Hog Farm Talk 05:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I added in line citations and fixed and reformatted the book and other citations. Added more text.
The "current values" is understated, and I don't know when anyway. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed that. This was in the lead, and the answer is in the sourced body of the article. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that there has been quite a bit of editing since the nomination was posted; could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the references added during the improvements, Enns, appears to be possibly self-published. What are the author's credentials? Hog Farm Talk 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC Some work done over the last month, but the largest issues remain - uncited text etc. Additionally, one of the sources added (Enns) doesn't seem to be reliable, and I've found (and tagged) a spot where the source doesn't support all of the text, which indicates a possible other concern. Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: 7&6=thirteen made excellent edits in early May, but improvements have been limited for the past several weeks. There are lots of uncited paragraphs that need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The very few uncited paragraphs are basically weather reports about the storm's progress. I presume those are in the newspapers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure that "very few" is the right descriptor. The second paragraphs of November 7 and November 8 are currently effectively unsourced, as the only reference is a note that just consists of an indirect citation for wind speeds, which does not obviously support text such as " Long ships traveled all that day through the St. Marys River, all night through the Straits of Mackinac, and early Sunday morning up the Detroit and St. Clair rivers". Much of the November 9 section lacks inline citations. The only source in the entire November 10 and 11 section is an indirect reference for wind speeds, which doesn't obviously support much of the content. The are two entire uncited paragraphs in On the lakes. There are also a couple spots in the Ships foundered text where I tagged statements not supported by the references. Hog Farm Talk 03:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
??To me it appears that the second paragraphs in the November 7th and 8th section s are sourced to: Brown, David G. (2002). White Hurricane: A Great Lakes November Gale and America's Deadliest Maritime Disaster. International Marine/ McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-138037-X. I think that the "for wind speeds see.." note does not limit it's applicability to just that. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, I would recommend that the reference be placed at the paragraph, instead of in the note. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Z1720 here; its not obvious to those not working on the article that that is the case, and WP:FACR #1c states claims [...] are supported by inline citations where appropriate, and there are a number of specific statements in here that are not self-proving or general common knowledge and require the inline citations. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll work on fixing that. BTW, I'm more interested in article quality and not so much about FA status.North8000 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not comfortable with just applying the current cite directly without having the book in hand. Perhaps someone else can do it. I just ordered the book. I am interested in working on the article and will do so. But it's not going to be fast and I'm not concerned about FA status.North8000 (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see above that it's thought that some sourcing might be in old newspapers, too - I have access to newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library, and I'm willing to try to find contemporary sources for stuff, if needed. Hog Farm Talk 02:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my immediate plans are that I'll have the book tomorrow, I'll get the second paragraphs of the November 7th and 8th sections more directly sourced. And I'd be happy to do that for any other specific areas noted. Being an entire book on the topic of the article I expect that it will be pretty comprehensive. But if it were to get de-listed, I wouldn't be working on any re-submittal. Even though I did it once for SS Edmund Fitzgerald I really don't do FA-specific work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FAR co-ords are very amenable to keeping FARs "on hold" until fixes are complete. After your edits are complete North8000, I can conduct a copyedit and post clarification questions that I hope you will answer. With a little bit of work, this article can remain an FA. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to try! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book. I'm buried in the real world for the next 5 days but will start on it after that. To start with I'll be focusing on the areas noted in Hog Farm's 03:49, 9 June 2021 post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed and sourced the 2nd paragraph in the November 7th section. North8000 (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finished with the November 8th section. Modified text to what I was able to source and sourced it.North8000 (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finished getting the November 9th section sourced North8000 (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I finished sourcing the November 10th & 11th section. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the Enns source. Being questioned at FAR due to being SPS source. Also not needed. Only cited once, and that sentence is also supported by two other sources. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: - I'll try to give this another read-through son. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thanks. Per my edit of my comment I realized that there are still noted areas which need work. I plan to have the rest of those handled within a few days. But before or after that would be happy for any comments on how the improve the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the "On the lakes" section is now tweaked to be sourcable and sufficiently sourcedNorth8000 (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the noted problems in "ships foundered" section.North8000 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I think that all of the noted problems have been fixed.North8000 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and layout. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HF
  • Alternate name of Big Blow in the lead needs a direct citation
  • Wouldn't hurt to have a direct citation for "By then, the storm was centered over the upper Mississippi Valley and had caused moderate to brisk southerly winds with warmer weather over the lakes. The forecast predicted increased winds and falling temperatures over the next 24 hours." - if I remember when I'm less busy I'll try to poke around in old newspaper articles to see if I can find something
  • "On November 8th ship traffic continued Traffic allowed traffic to begin flowing again" - not sure what's going on here, but I think something's off
  • "Immediately following the blizzard of Cleveland, Ohio, the city began a campaign to move all utility cables underground, in tubes beneath major streets. The project took half a decade. - probably needs an inline citation
  • "Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below" - does this warrant a citation? I'm not sure that it's common knowledge since it's specific to this storm
  • Is ref 42 intended to cover the victim counts of the sinkings, as well?

This is already looking quite a bit better than when FAR was opened. Someone better with images than me may want to look through licensing, and having someone look through this for some copy editing might help, too (I don't look at prose too closely, as I'm a redneck whose not always great with English). Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on several of those bulleted items.North8000 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Big Blow" moniker has now been sourcedNorth8000 (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleveland transition to underground cables is now sourced. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resolved "often blew in directions opposite" issue. Edit summary: "Remove "often blew opposite" statement. Unable to source, plus this aspect did not show up to be particularly relevant, plus "rare" statement is probably an un-sourcable overreach" North8000 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edit removed the statement of This was the result of the storm's cyclonic motion, a phenomenon rarely seen on the Great Lakes. which I'll trust your judgment on that, as well as if the Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below. statement which still remains should remain, as well.
  • Resolved /removed" "ship traffic continued" issue. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm: Regarding your "Is ref 42 intended to cover the victim counts of the sinkings, as well?" question, looking at the article state as of your post, ref #42 seems unrelated to that, and so I don't understand your question. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "....By then, the storm was centered...." issue has been resolved by removal of the sentence. I discussed this more thoroughly at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of the (six) noted items have been resolved.North8000 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720 and Hog Farm: What issues are outstanding here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • From a quick look, there's a bit of a contradiction - table says that Plymouth has not been definitely found, while the prose says "In 1984 the previously-unfound Plymouth was located off of Poverty island" which is pretty unequivocal. I think having another pair of eyes to look at prose would be nice. Hog Farm Talk 01:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I can't review the article at the moment because I am busy in real life. If this is still open in August I will take another look, but please don't let my busy schedule hold up this FAR. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll list this at GOCE to see if this can get a copy edit. Hog Farm Talk 01:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll take a harder look at the Plymouth issue. North8000 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just listened to a 50 minute extremely detailed history of the Plymouth covering from long before the storm through the supposed find at Poverty island and up through 2020. It was put on by an organization that studies such things and produces such hosted video presentations and the expert was a guest on this one who is an author and a very careful, thorough expert researcher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJ8mHA_ZBc It's a slam-dunk that the find at Poverty island was not the Plymouth and that circa 2020 the wreck had not been found. Further, the source in the current article that said it had been found was not even about the topic, it was a memorial page for an individual that died on it. I don't want to push a FA into a question area by using a video presentation viewed as a reference, but I think that any statements that it has been found and at Poverty island are false / baseless and have no actually reliable source. I'll take them out accordingly. North8000 (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't help for Plymouth, but this is an RS that discusses the shipwrecks, so it may be helpful for that portion. Hog Farm Talk 03:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To recap, I finished working on the noted issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720

@North8000: I did a review of the article and fixed things that I could. I have some questions below that I hope you or another expert can answer:

  • "with enormous loss of life" (in Note A) this feels like an opinionated statement and not NPOV. Can it be removed, since it's not really about this storm anyways?
  • I'm surprised with the amount of citations in the second paragraph of the lede, particularly 5 citations for "the Great Lakes Storm killed more than 250 people." Is this not mentioned in the article body? Are these citations necessary, per WP:CITELEDE?
  • "The Weather Bureau did not predict the intensity of the storm" Which country's weather bureau? Since this storm affected Canada and US, the article will constantly need to specify which country's department/infrastructure/facts it is talking about. (With a possible added complication of talking about British institutions, since Canada still had several ties to the British Empire during this time, but I will check the article for this.)
  • " As the cyclonic system continues over the lakes, its power is intensified by the jet stream above and the warm waters below." This needs a citation
  • WP:OVERCITE is an essay, but I think it raises legitimate concerns. Why does the second paragraph in "Background" have 7 citations? Can some of these be spread out amongst the paragraph, or removed?
  • I changed the "Big Blow of 1905" to "Mataafa Storm" because the wikilink was a redirect to a section of List of storms on the Great Lakes which had a hatnote directing the reader to Mataafa Storm. If this is not the same storm, please revert and clarify below.
  • For "Prelude" can the two paragraphs be combined, per MOS:OVERSECTION?
  • "The forecast predicted increased winds and falling temperatures over the next 24 hours." Need a citation
  • "St. Marys River" is this one of the river listed at Saint Mary's River?
  • Is note D necessary? It is saying that the reader can go to the source cited in ref 29 to get more information. Why not just include this info in the article?
  • Should November 7 and 8 be combined, per MOS:OVERSECTION?
  • November 9 has a lot of small paragraphs. Can these be reorganised and combined together?
  • "wait for things to clear." Are they waiting for someone to clear the snow, or for the storm to finish passing through the area?
  • I am finding that this article is very US-centric. What were the Canadian preparations (or lack thereof) for the storm? There's also not a lot of information about what is happening on the Canadian side on Nov. 9. I don't know much about how weather systems work, but based on the description would the Canadian side be affected by this storm on this day?
  • First paragraph of "Aftermath" needs citations
  • "Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below." Needs a citation.
  • "Post storm conversations were mostly focused on choosing certain ones of these to place blame." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to tell me.
  • "The Weather Bureau had the perfect defense for failing to predict the severity of the hurricane-strength storm but did not invoke it." This feels POV, as who can decide if something is "perfect"? Also, what was their defense?
  • "The practice of not "trimming" (leveling) the..." what is the correct technical term to use here, can it be wikilinked, and can a better description of the term be used?
  • "was also noted and criticized." By whom?
  • "In general few of these spurred immediate action but instead many influenced the longer-term course of events." I think this needs to be expanded upon further. What changes were eventually made because of this storm? What changes were proposed, but ultimately failed?
  • "The most recent discovery is Hydrus, which was located in mid-2015.[60] The last wreck found previous to Hydrus was Henry B. Smith in 2013.[63] Among the debris cast up by the storm was wreckage of the fish tug Searchlight lost in April 1907.[64]" I think this information should be moved to before the list, with more information added about discovering the otehr vessals. I also thing the information about Searchlight needs to be in a different location in the article.
  • I did a search for images of the storm from London, Ontario archives, which I find extremely frustrating. I am going to keep looking, as I have connections in that city that might help. I also looked in Lambton County Archives (where Sarnia is located) but their database's coding is terrible and did not garner results. Ontario Archives's database did not yield results, either, though I might give them a phone call to see if a librarian can find better information. Overall, extremely frustrating trying to find Canadian images, because I want to diversify from all the Cleveland images. I won't let this stop me from recommending "keep" later on in the process.

Those are my thoughts. EDIT: Forgot to sign yesterday, so here it is: Z1720 (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Work on items listed by Z1720 on August 7th

Those look like 22 good ideas that I would be happy to work on or address. Two quick notes; my interest is in improving the article rather than being concerned about FA status. Also I just came there recently and only about 5% of it was written by me. I copied your points below in order to organize responses or put them in-line:

  1. "with enormous loss of life" (in Note A) this feels like an opinionated statement and not NPOV. Can it be removed, since it's not really about this storm anyways? Resolved: Good idea, I did it. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm surprised with the amount of citations in the second paragraph of the lede, particularly 5 citations for "the Great Lakes Storm killed more than 250 people." Is this not mentioned in the article body? Are these citations necessary, per WP:CITELEDE? Preliminary partial response: I took one out where it was easy. The others will need / trigger more in-depth work including on content because some are used only in the lead.North8000 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Resolved I cut it down to two cites. North8000 (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "The Weather Bureau did not predict the intensity of the storm" Which country's weather bureau? Since this storm affected Canada and US, the article will constantly need to specify which country's department/infrastructure/facts it is talking about. (With a possible added complication of talking about British institutions, since Canada still had several ties to the British Empire during this time, but I will check the article for this.) Resolved: Fixed. Clarified every instance of just "weather Bureau: North8000 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. " As the cyclonic system continues over the lakes, its power is intensified by the jet stream above and the warm waters below." This needs a citation. Resolved: Added a source North8000 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WP:OVERCITE is an essay, but I think it raises legitimate concerns. Why does the second paragraph in "Background" have 7 citations? Can some of these be spread out amongst the paragraph, or removed? Resolved Reduced to three. Details are in the edit summaries. North8000 (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I changed the "Big Blow of 1905" to "Mataafa Storm" because the wikilink was a redirect to a section of List of storms on the Great Lakes which had a hatnote directing the reader to Mataafa Storm. If this is not the same storm, please revert and clarify below. Resolved: I think that that is fine. Also it looks like Mataafa is the overwhelmingly common name for the 1905 storm and that "Big Blow" is seldom used for it. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. For "Prelude" can the two paragraphs be combined, per MOS:OVERSECTION? Resolved I combined them. North8000 (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "The forecast predicted increased winds and falling temperatures over the next 24 hours." Need a citation Resolved Added a cite. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. "St. Marys River" is this one of the river listed at Saint Mary's River? Resolved: Yes, and I did it. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Is note D necessary? It is saying that the reader can go to the source cited in ref 29 to get more information. Why not just include this info in the article? Resolved: Removed this note and similar ones. Edit summaries said: "Removed note that was not useful or informative. Also, there was no specific info on this to present from the source." North8000 (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Should November 7 and 8 be combined, per MOS:OVERSECTION? Response: IMHO not. IMHO the date-based framework provides an excellent structure for the core of the article, and there is already sufficient material for the two separate dates. Also, a natural expansion of the article using that framework (which I intend to do) would add additional material to each of those two separate sections. North8000 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC) Also, inclusion of the material under the separated headings provides the (imo important) date for each one, avoiding m,uch repetition in the text. North8000 (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. November 9 has a lot of small paragraphs. Can these be reorganised and combined together? Resolved Did that. North8000 (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. "wait for things to clear." Are they waiting for someone to clear the snow, or for the storm to finish passing through the area? Resolved:Change to "wait for the storm to pass" which more precisely matches what the source said. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I am finding that this article is very US-centric. What were the Canadian preparations (or lack thereof) for the storm? There's also not a lot of information about what is happening on the Canadian side on Nov. 9. I don't know much about how weather systems work, but based on the description would the Canadian side be affected by this storm on this day? Responded I did a pretty thorough review of this topic and due to it's size and possible future usefulness for the article, I put it at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. First paragraph of "Aftermath" needs citations Resolved I removed that material, it was not sourcable as written. I will replace it with sourced material. North8000 (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below." Needs a citation. Resolved: This was old text; I never saw it in any source and it looks unsourcable as written. I removed it. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. "Post storm conversations were mostly focused on choosing certain ones of these to place blame." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to tell me. Resolved Revised the sentence. North8000 (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. "The Weather Bureau had the perfect defense for failing to predict the severity of the hurricane-strength storm but did not invoke it." This feels POV, as who can decide if something is "perfect"? Also, what was their defense? Resolved: That wording was my summary of what the source said. I dialed back the statement including removing "perfect". Answering your question, the defense is described in the following section in the article which is: "They did not have enough data (including upper atmospheric data), communications and analysis capability, or understanding of atmospheric dynamics to predict the storm, including wind directions which are key to the ability of ships to avoid or cope with the effects of the storm." North8000 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. "The practice of not "trimming" (leveling) the..." what is the correct technical term to use here, can it be wikilinked, and can a better description of the term be used? Resolved This has a specialized meaning for bulk carrier ship. It has narrow usage in that context but is the correct technical term. I believe that the description given covers it. I could expand but IMO that might be overkill. I also added a reference and also an internal link to an article section that explains / uses that specialized meaning.North8000 (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. "was also noted and criticized." By whom? Resolved Switched to source's summary of that. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. "In general few of these spurred immediate action but instead many influenced the longer-term course of events." I think this needs to be expanded upon further. What changes were eventually made because of this storm? What changes were proposed, but ultimately failed? Partial/preliminary response Regarding change proposals and changes made directly in response to the storm, it appears that there were nearly none except the ones noted in Cleveland. That wording was my summary from the noted pages in the source. But I concur that that area needs expansion and improvement even if to say that little or nothing was proposed or changed in response to the storm. There is good material available. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC) Resolved I re-read the sources on this topic. Two narrow specific changes were made (I now added the additional one to the article) and other than that nothing in the sources indicates anything else was done even later in response to the storm. I modified the text accordingly. North8000 (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Further note The November's Fury book which I just bought and received more directly confirms this. In essence little or no shipping related changes were made in response. I added this and cited the reference. North8000 (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. "The most recent discovery is Hydrus, which was located in mid-2015.[60] The last wreck found previous to Hydrus was Henry B. Smith in 2013.[63] Among the debris cast up by the storm was wreckage of the fish tug Searchlight lost in April 1907.[64]" I think this information should be moved to before the list, with more information added about discovering the other vessels. I also thing the information about Searchlight needs to be in a different location in the article. Resolved Made / resolved the three specific changes. I didn't do a general expansion on the discovery of the wrecks. Right now this is in the references by the find dates which are generally on line. I plan to continue to work on the article on a longer term basis. North8000 (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000: if you are willing to improve the article, I and other editors will focus on whether it meets FA standards. It doesn't matter who wrote the original article, anyone is free to make changes and improvements. Please ping me when the above concerns are resolved or if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Cool. I know that I can change anything but I always start out more cautiously when I arrive at an article. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For several of these, in order to do a good job, I'll need to obtain and read/absorb more of the sources. I'm buying 2 more of the books but even just receiving them will take a week. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A GOCE copyedit I requested is being performed for the article right now. Hog Farm Talk 01:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The copyedit has now been completed. Hog Farm Talk 14:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a search for mention of this storm in various Southwestern Ontario archives, but couldn't find additional details. Unfortunately, Newspapers.com and Newspapers Archive don't seem to carry the London Free Press, and I don't think I can access their archives without going to London myself, which is not going to happen because of COVID. Although I wish there was more detail about what happened in Canada, sources can't be found at this time and I withdraw that concern.
I added alt text for the images per MOS:ALT. A couple of other thoughts:
  • "about $130,926,000 in today's dollars" Today should be replaced with a specific year.
  • "Wind speeds reached 60 mph (97 km/h) at Duluth, Minnesota." Needs a citation
  • "Few of these factors were acted upon but many influenced the longer-term course of events." How were they influential? Are there examples?
  • Any reason why "November's Fury: The Deadly Great Lakes Hurricane of 1913" is not used as a source?
I think we are close to the end! Z1720 (talk) 02:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@North8000: Are you able to address the above concerns? Z1720 (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Sorry for the slow response. I was off the grid (where even cell phones don't reach) for 10 days. Also now buried in real life days and evenings for a few more days. The 3-4 remaining items are where I was contemplating more in-depth re-reading of material and some substantial additional work in those sections while fixing the noted items. I think I'll go not so deep and can them get them all fixed/addressed within 7 days. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update, please ping me when completed and I'll take another look. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Work on items listed in Z1720's September 25th post

(copy of those items plus responses follows:)

  1. "about $130,926,000 in today's dollars" Today should be replaced with a specific year. Resolved. Removed sentence.I have the book and edition specified as the source and it is not there at the noted page number, and I could find no such summary elsewhere. The noted archiving was of the conversion tables, not the source.North8000 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Also there is other (sourced) cost data elsewhere in the article. North8000 (talk) 14:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "Wind speeds reached 60 mph (97 km/h) at Duluth, Minnesota." Needs a citation. Resolved Modify/expand info to match source and added source. North8000 (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. "Few of these factors were acted upon but many influenced the longer-term course of events." How were they influential? Are there examples? Duplicate of item in August 7th list above .....I'll handle it there. North8000 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Any reason why "November's Fury: The Deadly Great Lakes Hurricane of 1913" is not used as a source? Preliminary response I can't speak for the history of the article, my significant involvement has been somewhat recent. That is one of several books I bought on this topic during recent work on the article. The bulk of the 1960 book is sort of "stories from the storm" with lots of quotes from persons involved. Slightly less useful that other books for obtaining enclyclopedic statements from. So with limited time, I didn't prioritize it for immediate reading for work on the article. I plan to fully read it. But short term I'll find at least one place to incorporate it as a reference. North8000 (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC) Responded I was mistaken. My answer referred to "Freshwater Fury" which is already incorporated as a reference. I just noticed that"November Fury" is a different book. I just ordered it. It will take time to get it, read it, and determine suitability as a reference. I would like to leave it as just listing it as "for further reading" is currently already OK. North8000 (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC) Resolved I bought and received the book and incorporated it as a reference North8000 (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Completed work on all noted points

To: @Z1720: cc @Hog Farm:} I have completed work on all of the noted points, and confirmed that / provided responses to each on this page. BTW on a longer term basis I do intend to continue work on this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is looking pretty good now. Just a couple more (I promise I'm very close to a keep opinion here)

  • I'm not seeing where the death toll and the 68,300 tons of cargo, as well as the reference to clapotis, in the lead are mentioned in the body. Can these be added to the main body of the article as well?
  • Would it be possible to get a direct reference for note E?
  • The lowest pressure in the infobox doesn't seem to be mentioned/cited anywhere else

That's it from me, I think. Hog Farm Talk 15:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Workspace copy of items from Hog Farm's October 27th post
  1. I'm not seeing where the death toll and the 68,300 tons of cargo, as well as the reference to clapotis, in the lead are mentioned in the body. Can these be added to the main body of the article as well? Resolved Done (both) North8000 (talk) 13:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Would it be possible to get a direct reference for note E? Resolved I removed it. Unable to source and it is probably incorrect. Others in the same storm appear to have preceeded it. The original source probably meant "not prior to this storm" but it was not given. North8000 (talk) 13:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The lowest pressure in the infobox doesn't seem to be mentioned/cited anywhere else. Initial response Someone else put that into the info box. For me to be comfortable inserting / replicating it elsewhere I'd need to find a source. I'm working on doing that. North8000 (talk) 14:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC) Resolved Done. Including finding and providing a reference.North8000 (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm's items copied in by North8000 North8000 (talk) 17:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 29, 2021 status

I've resolved / responded on all of the noted points. But I see a couple of other issues (and old one which was lack of technical / overview coverage of the weather of the storm itself and that my work has created a few overly short paragraphs.) I'm working on those before I do any more pings.North8000 (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ping when you are ready for me to look at it again. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Me as well. Hog Farm Talk 03:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: @Hog Farm: I completed work on those extra issues that I noted. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:26, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it's been improved enough; many thanks to North8000 for this. Only other thing I saw is infobox gives low pressure as 968.5 while body says 969, this is minor and doesn't prevent me from thinking this should be kept. Hog Farm Talk 05:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Cool. BTW I found a source for the un-rounded 968.5 and changed it in the body to 968.5, so now they match. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I did a copy edit and fixed some minor things. One concern is the article says: "The storm was first noticed on Thursday November 6" do we know who noticed it? This concern doesn't prevent my "keep" assessment. Many thanks to North8000. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • An undefined term (November gale) is introduced in the lead, but the body of the article says:
    The resulting storm, which is commonly called a "November gale" or "November witch", can maintain hurricane-force wind gusts, produce waves over 50 feet …
    with a link that goes to Witch of November. So is the Witch of November the same as the November gale? If so, why is one red-link used in the lead, with a different link provided in the body? If they are the same, should we not use the more common term (Witch of November) linked in the lead? If they aren’t the same, the article is very confusing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storm is first mentioned in the second section of the article, Prelude:
    The storm was first noticed on Thursday November 6
    At that point in the article, the name of the storm should be re-introduced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyediting needs remain:
    At the time the U.S. Weather Bureau did not have enough data, communications, analysis capability, and understanding of atmospheric dynamics to understand or predict the storm.
    Comma after “at the time”? Understanding to understand ?? the storm, or any storm of this nature?
    Studies of the available information and data from the storm have been done in more modern times enabling a description of the weather mechanisms of the storm.[2] Those reveal that it was actually two storms.
    This could be tightened. For example,
    More modern studies of the available information and data from the storm provide better descriptions of its weather mechanisms, and reveal that it was actually two storms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there and suggest a fresh set of eyes to copyedit. It is unlikely I will have time to revisit, so trust others to determine if an adequate copyedit is done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved items struck. I will continue on the talk page here, as this page is excruciatingly long already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to comments

(Suggest continuing the final review in the previous section above)

As I mentioned earlier, my main interest is in improving the article rather than in retaining FA status.This is a complex-to-cover topic which is of interest to me which makes such more fun. I'm less into the higher level of precision formatting that only comes up at FA, but I'm happy to work on specifically noted ones. If anyone else would like to work in those areas, cool. North8000 (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the "November Gale" and "November Witch" terminology IMHO my first thought is that it is better as is. I'm not one to worry if someone else wants to change it but am reticent to do so myself. Here is my rationale. First, they are both terms without precise definitions, so I don't think there is a basis for determining whether or not they mean precisely the same thing. "November gale" is used far more in sources and literature. I think that "November Witch" exists more in the poetic / musical realm. I'm guessing that it has an Wikipedia article because it was popularized by the Gordon Lightfoot song. ("The Witch of November comes early") even if it the less-often used term. So the article introduces both terms and used "November gale" in the lead. Perhaps I should create a "November gale" article. Or move and expand the "November witch" article leaving a redirect. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever route is taken … right now we have an undefined red-link in the lead, and confusion in the body of the article about whether the two things are the same; both need to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved I redirected and broadened the "witch" articles to November gale and broadened it a bit to include the November gale term. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "studies of available info.... Thanks, good idea and done. I write a lot of technical stuff that gets published and tend to write sentences that are so chock full of content that they are hard to read or poor prose I have to have someone fix them for me before publishing. :-) The "available data" was intended to add in the note that data from the time was incomplete. North8000 (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the big problems for laypersons trying to copyedit weather articles is that, at a certain point, our attention span for reading through so much technical stuff wanes. That is why it often takes more than one pass from even good copyeditors to get good prose. I think we could use another pass here (I only gave samples). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "The storm was first noticed...." Done / fixed. Re-introduced the name of the storm. North8000 (talk) 15:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Separating responses from issues makes striking and re-reviewing more difficult (going between two sections to review and strike?); just noticing that almost none of what I raised above has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: Commonly I see where folks put several issues/question in one post and the only way I can respond (without posting in the middle of their post) is to respond separately. Sorry that I failed to notice that you divided yours into separate posts to facilitate that. I'll put any additional responses by your posts. North8000 (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No prob-- but it's moving between two different editing sections that was hard. It's OK to separate your response, but within the same section, so one can see all text when responding :) Also, we don't typically use sub-heads at FAR, and a separate sub-head for each response is bloating the table of contents; I removed your sub-head once, but you re-added it :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't realize that I was re-adding. I thought that I just forgot to put it in! :-) North8000 (talk) 18:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding clapotis Resolved I added a parenthetical explanation. North8000 (talk) 19:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding "understand or predict the storm". I added the suggested comma. Regarding the two instances of "understand" the first refers to atmospheric dynamics in general, and the second was for this particular storm. I moved the second instance of "understand" later into the sentence to eliminate (I think) the prose sound problem. North8000 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So this subsection (I believe) responds to all of the specific items in SandyGeorgia's November 1 posts. I went through FA (and article of the day) a long time ago at SS Edmund Fitzgerald and since then have not been an FA person. Would be happy to follow any specific requests/guidance on organizing & formatting any future responses here. North8000 (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice changes … I will continue at the talk page of this FAR, as this FAR is already excruciatingly long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Coords; good progress has been made and I should be able to revisit my talk page comments before the end of this week (busy today). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good progress, still reviewing, working on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Status November 10
An auspicious date on the Great Lakes.
Very good progress was made on the talk page of this FAR (including addressing image copyvio and other image issues along with prose, MOS, sourcing, and citation formatting), so I am now bringing the remaining points back to this main page for others to scrutinize.
  • "Waves on the Great Lakes (especially the shallower ones) can be taller, shorter and have shorter periods than ocean waves." Do we really need this statement? Because if we do, we have to define for the layreader what is meant by the "period" of a wave. I don't see the value added in this sentence, but not a lake, ship or weather person :) Can we shorten that whole thing to:
    • Waves on the Great Lakes can be taller than ocean waves and, compared to the ocean, there is less maneuvering "sea room" and closer proximity to shores making it more difficult for ships to weather storms.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the background on how waves and storms on the Great lakes can be worse for ships than on the oceans is useful and also important for understanding the article. But the "taller" is misleading at best (I didn't notice that) and it has the other issue that you noted. I'll rework it (both in the body and the lead)North8000 (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, in your hands :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done North8000 (talk) 22:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are instances throughout where the prose needs fine tuning, is more complex than necessary, or needs clarity; I can chip away at pieces as time allows, but @Hog Farm, Z1720, and GreatLakesShips: the prose here is not yet up to snuff, so "all hands on deck" can help bring this over the line. This is a complex article, and I am concerned that we need both the Weather WikiProject and the Ships Wikiproject (oddly not tagged on talk) to comb through it, and I don't believe we can "keep" this listing without considerable prose work. The biggest pieces have been done, and we are almost there :) Thanks North8000 for taking this on! It surely would have been easier to write from scratch :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I write a fair amount of technical stuff that gets published in "general reader" areas. My drafts are usually precise and fact filled and hard to read and then I need to have someone work on the prose.Which usually makes a bit less precise / complete and more readable. I have a hard time making those tradeoffs so prose would be best done by somebody else.

The subject of this article is really about 45 articles, some of them highly complex and technical covering:

  • About 38 shipwreck articles many with substantial stories related to them
  • An immense, complex, long lasting storm, with only spotty data and no understanding of it from the time which has been studied multiple times since with more of an understanding developed from those studies
  • A story about the weather agencies of the time including them throughout the storm
  • About 10 closely related and highly relevant technical, operational, regulatory and governmental topics. E.G ship design, communications, ship operating stuff etc.
  • A multi-day weather disaster in Cleveland.

IMO this article needs an epic rework job including substantial expansion in many areas and smoothly knitting all of it together, which would take a substantial reorganization. Maybe doing all of that well for the 45 areas is beyond the normal FA? I plan to keep working on it but that's more likely to take 2 years at a comfortable pace rather than the "sprint" I've been doing during FAR. Also, if it loses FA, I would not be doing a re-submittal. More people working on it would be very welcome, but more people coming in just to make general noting of issues / suggestions for improvement without working on it would just add to the long list that I already have in my head. I've enjoyed the intense working on this, including all of the specific feedback from the FA experts and resultant learning experiences. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the outcome, it’s a better article for your work. I do agree with you that it could benefit from substantial expansion and knitting together, but have a harder time letting the FA status go, after all the work you’ve done. If I had stronger prose, I would try to help you more, but alas, I am more able to spot prose issues than I am to fix them :) Seeing some of what gets through FAC makes it seem unfair to apply a stricter standard at FAR, so I will defer to others on the final outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading through this with eyes to maybe smooth out some of the prose wrinkles, and I did come across a single spot that gives me a question.

  • (edit conflict) "Around midnight on November 6–7, the steamer Cornell, which was 50 miles (80 km) west of Whitefish Point in Lake Superior, ran into a sudden northerly gale and was severely damaged. This gale lasted until late November 10 and almost forced Cornell ashore" - seems to sourced to a letter or possibly the ship's log. It seems a bit odd that it isn't entirely clear if this gale is the storm itself or not, but the source does not allow that conclusion to be drawn. Do Brown or Schumacher or the others say anything about Cornell. If this gale isn't a separate storm, it may be best to not have it in the prelude. My instinct then would be to merge the description of the storm buildup that appears in the storm section above the weather maps into the prelude section, and then have the storm section be for the day-by-day recap. Hog Farm Talk 15:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cornell is a "near miss" story that started at the beginnings of the storm. I "inherited" that with the article. I'm guessing that the wiki-editor put it in because it starts early early in the storm as is material for the "prelude" section. Also maybe because there is a full story on it. There are few or no stores from the ships that outright sank because nobody from them survived. There's nothing on it in Brown and although I've not finished reading Schumaker yet, looks like he has nothing on it. On your second note, I do plan a major expansion and reorganization and my plan was to organize it as you describe. But I was thinking more long term rather than during the "sprint" of a FAR. Especially since heavy work is bound to introduce lots of things that will need tweaking and re-review. But I could condense the work down to a month or 2....I don't know what the FA/FAR possibilities are. North8000 (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article text mentions more than 250 people killed. Our ships chart has 253 … do we have any source mentioning whether there was any loss of life on land ? I can’t see that we discuss that … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I seen so far was a mention that the loss of life in even the worst on-land place (Cleveland) which I think was about 2 people was minimal. North8000 (talk) 14:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can we source a statement saying that there minimal loss of life on land, or something of that nature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I read it somewhere in Brown so I'll just need to find it.North8000 (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved I put a few sourced sentences in on this.North8000 (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
North8000, the wording is odd: "Approximately five deaths in Cleveland were attributed to the storm, ... " a death is a death. Could you find an alternate to "approximately" that explains why it's not a certain number? "Five deaths in Cleveland may have been due to the storm"? Or something like that ? Depends on why the uncertainty ... SandyGeorgia (Talk)
I was trying to respond to your idea of putting something in on this while skirting the edge between summary and wp:synth. Also what I found meshed/combined with the slighter later sentence about putting the wires underground. The source just said few deaths, and then described 5 deaths related from the storm. I'll try something a little different but am not sure how to handle this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tweaked it....see my previous post. North8000 (talk) 23:10, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have two Keeps above (from Hog Farm and Z1720). I have expressed some reservations about this article, but all-in-all, it has been greatly improved at FAR. I feel it would be unnecessarily strict of me to withhold a Keep declaration, when the article is on par with much of what is passing FAC these days, and I am confident that North8000 will continue working towards any needed upgrades. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A reminder I want to lodge here for the benefit of others, seeing the condition the article was in when I first viewed it; please don't call the GOCE in to an FA-level article, unless you are personally familiar with the copyeditor. They rarely get the job done at the FA level. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While not being in the role of being an advocate for FA status, I've been heavily involved (and enjoying) making suggested improvements and so I'm not sure if I should be weighing in. If so, my recommendation would be "keep". I think that this meets normal FA standards. There has been expert guidance, suggestions and issues raised regarding those standards and I think that I have responded on all of the specific items. I do see a lot of improvements that could be made and plan to make them in the upcoming months and years. However, IMO the improvements relate to the fact that this covers an epic topic which could be 40 articles, and how to deal with that reality in one article rather than being an issue with normal FA standards. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC) [6].

IG Farben Building

[edit]
Notified: Mcginnly, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, 2020-12-08, 2021-10-09

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as pointed out by RetiredDuke in December 2020, there are numerous uncited sentences in the text, a Future section which talks about events in 2018 and 2020 (and in my opinion might be WP:CHRYSTAL), a Rumours section which should be integrated into the article, and formatting problems with the citations. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomed in 2006, primary editor has not posted since 2010. That said, from a scan, is in good heath, and density of citations is quite high. I see Giano approved, which gives confidence. Can be saved, not a slam dunk. Ceoil (talk) 22:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2021 (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) 3:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC) [7].

Dawson Creek

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Canadian communities, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject British Columbia, WikiProject Geography of Canada, WikiProject Cities, 2020-12-26

Review section

[edit]

The article currently does not meet the FA criteria for being well-researched. I am the article's principal contributor and its original FA-nominator (in 2005). However, no one (including myself) has not kept it up-to-date in terms of content or in terms of WP expectations for FA-articles. A FAR notice was posted on its talk page last year and I made some requested edits but to bring this in line with expectations one should expect out of a FA would require a level of effort I am not willing to invest. Specific issues include (1) Climate and Education sections with no citations and (2) the History section with little or poor coverage of the last 30 years. Some other items which may not be specifically actionable but I feel should be mentioned are an Economy and Culture sections which use out-of-date references and content. maclean (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am going to notify additional Wikiprojects, as added above. I also changed the noticed link to the article's talk page notice in December. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Missing notification to CambridgeBayWeather, completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 14 November 2021 (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) 3:08, 27 November 2021 (UTC) [8].

Constitution of Belarus

[edit]
Notified: Zscout370, WikiProject Belarus, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics, diff for talk page notification
See this discussion; additional notifications to Jabbi. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of Bumbubookworm's note two weeks ago that "This article just states/summarises the terms of the constitution without any legal analysis on case law etc. It is therefore not comprehensive under the requirements of a featured article. There are textbooks out there and there have been constitutional law cases also". I'd add that the article doesn't cite available scholarly sources in English so that's another reason to doubt the comprehensiveness. (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the textbook of Belarusian constitutional law and the log of cases that I was referring to. Basically someone would need to actually write the content of this FA, unfortunately Bumbubookworm (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Coords: additional notification to Jabbi was made on 27 October by Buidhe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, needs quite a bit more to be comprehensive. < 15 sentences of combined material for judicial review and criticism together; a FA on a nation's constitution really needs secondary legal analysis to be truly comprehensive. Hog Farm Talk 20:28, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concern comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC) [9].

ANAK Society

[edit]
Notified: User talk:MaxVeers, User talk:Disavian (no other users with > 2% edits), WP Georgia Tech, WP Secret Societies, diff for talk page notification
Review section
[edit]

This article is mostly cited to primary sources such as the university itself, or the secret society itself, which leads to verifiability issues if the source for a secret society is itself. Several of these are simply internal archives/logs Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's so bad I'm wondering if it's even notable. I don't see any sources that would count towards WP:NORG. (t · c) buidhe 19:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm amazed this article ever cleared FAC. The sourcing is quite terrible. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides providing good evidence of Why We Love Ealdgyth (whose source reviews of every FAC were started the month after this promotion), this is a good candidate for Speedy delist, bypassing the two-week wait to Move to FARC; it is highly unlikely it can or will be repaired at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accelerated process - The old Jewish Encyclopedia source is probably the only source independent of the subject or Georgia Tech - from a first glance, McMath looks independent, but he was actually the ANAK faculty advisor at one point according to his article, so he's not independent here. I think this needs a whole new FAC, even if improved within FAR. I don't think I've ever seen such a high rate of non-independent sources in a FA. Hog Farm Talk 16:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the Jewish Encyclopedia source does not mention the society and states that its entry is about "a pre-Canaanite tribe", the Anakim. (t · c) buidhe 06:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2021 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 5:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC) [10].

Agatha Christie: Murder on the Orient Express

[edit]
Notified: Paaerduag, Angeldeb82, Thunderforge WP Video games, WP Women artists noticed in May

Review section

[edit]

As noted on the article's talk page, a number of the sources used in this one are marked as either unreliable or inconclusive at WP:VGRS, including some used heavily. Needs some significant work to improve the sourcing, but it should be doable if someone has access to better sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • A less important issue but I wonder if the plot summary (775 words) is bloated? There's no recommended length for video games but it seems longer than others I've seen. (t · c) buidhe 11:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:VG/PLOT recommends 700 words as a loose max length, but with an understanding that games where the plot is central might be longer, while games where the plot is irrelevant can be much shorter. Presumably the plot is pretty important to a mystery game rather than a Mario-style platformer, so I think the current length is acceptable, although a very minor trim might be reasonable. SnowFire (talk) 13:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cut the plot down to 693 words. (Did not make an attempt at fixing the sourcing issue, though.) SnowFire (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - the major concern here is the sourcing, which has not been improved. Hog Farm Talk 13:47, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, 2007 FA with significant sourcing issues, only one edit (SnowFire's) since FAR began. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC If bloated sentences like this are in the article, definitely time for this article to be rechecked: "Murder on the Orient Express received some praise for graphical improvements over its predecessor. Among the aspects of the game which received positive reactions were the game's environments" 👨x🐱 (RenamonxKrystal) 23:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2021 (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) 4:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [11].

Flag of Lithuania

[edit]
Notified: Zscout370, WikiProject Lithuania, WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, diff for talk page notification

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as Hog Farm flagged on the talk page, the article relies on some unreliable sources and contains unverified info. A Google Scholar search indicates that the article is missing out on reliable sources such as this paper. (t · c) buidhe 22:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2021 (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) 4:39, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [12].

History of saffron

[edit]
Notified: Saravask, WikiProject Food and drink, WikiProject Food and drink/Herbs and Spices task force, WikiProject Agriculture, 2019-12-17, 2021-09-11

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article relies on one source for citations, while there are numerous unused sources listed in the References section. Numerous paragraphs are uncited. Article focuses too much attention on ancient history and contains very little information about post-19th century events. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and balance. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2021 (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) 4:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [13].

Dhaka

[edit]
Notified: Listed WikiProjects, talk page notification from March 2021
See this discussion; notifications to WP Cities, WP Bangladesh, User:Aditya Kabir has passed away and it does not look appropriate to post to their talk;
belated notification to Tarikur, Sun8908, Rakibulbappy, Worldbruce, Ragib, M R Karim Reza. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because per SandyGeorgia's talk page notice, there is substantial unsourced information, but more importantly, out of date information that hasn't been updated for 15 years Bumbubookworm (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific which parts are outdated? --Zayeem (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kmzayeem Not the original nominator but I notice that there are several issues with updating in the article, especially economy and demographics section. All figures subject to change should have an "as of" date. The article doesn't follow that and instead gives number of rickshaw drivers in 2000 and percentage of the Bangladesh economy as of 2017, without stating the date so the reader doesn't know it hasn't been updated. Another big issue with the article is the lack of inline citations for all info as required by the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 17:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kmzayeem: are you interested in cleaning up this article? Z1720 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This article is very poorly sourced, anyone could slap a dozen more cn tags on it and it still wouldn't be enough. The Culture section is full of unsourced trivia and I keep finding POV-driven language in odd places (Relatively low-cost and non-polluting cycle rickshaws are superior to private cars, which are exclusively responsible for Dhaka's congestion. - this is sourced to an opinion piece, that of course does not say anything of the sort.) Needs a top-to-bottom rewrite. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Just to say that I have deleted the mentioned senctence now ("Relatively low-cost and non-polluting cycle rickshaws are superior to private cars, which are exclusively responsible for Dhaka's congestion"). EMsmile (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@EMsmile, the discussion is closed, you should not be saying this here. 102.42.66.109 (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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) 4:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC) [14].

Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

[edit]
Notified: YellowMonkey, WikiProject Biography/Sports and games, WikiProject Australian sports, WikiProject Cricket, talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because it synthesizes too much information (especially in regard to statistics), leading to violations of WP:OR. Additionally, the notability of this subject may need to be reevaluated. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe it's just jargon, but I can't figure out how the infobox of Test debut of 15 August 1948 and a "last Test" of 14 August 1948 works. Like how is you first test match after you're last one? Hog Farm Talk 17:30, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Needs a serious check for jargon Ring was the equal third highest wicket-taker in first-class matches excluding the Tests, with 59 scalps - What's a scalp? Only time this word appears, neither me nor presumeably the average person has any clue what this means. Also, should this just be merged to Doug Ring#First-class cricket? It's a bunch of deep detail for someone who didn't play a sizable role in the series. Hog Farm Talk 17:39, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed the last Test issue. The dates were both 14 August before it's day as FA - clearly some twit changed something and no-one spotted it. I've used the onetest field as it's probably slightly better to do so. I'm not convinced that the cricket infobox as it's set up now is the best way to present this information - career statistics, for example, is misleading. It would, perhaps, need a new infobox to deal with an article such as this - that's doable, but obviously means creating a new infobox. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I mentioned on the talk page, I have no experience in FAs, but I would personally like to focus on whether the notability of this subject may need to be reevaluated.
A was observed on the talk page, virtually all sources are statistics (either databases or almanacs) and thus most commentary is original research. Although some statements are sourced, the bulk are inferred from statistics. As such, I don't see how this can meet criteria 1c. More sources are needed to a) actually support the commentary in the article, and b) prove the notability of Ring's '48 tour. I'm sorry I can't make a more specific request for improvements here, but at some points the article seems to be barely discussing Ring and instead talks about the tour generally because there is simply no information available on Ring's role.
5225C (talk • contributions) 01:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

I am deeply skeptical that this article has enough significant coverage in sources to establish notability. As other editors have said, Mr. Ring is notable, the team which went to England in 1948 is notable, but this one person at the 1948 games is questionable. Unfortunately, the primary author, who presumable has access to the offline sources, has been inactive for a decade. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like noted above, I have a strong suspicision that the content here would be best handled with some in the Doug Ring article and others in the team article. Hog Farm Talk 04:25, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I don't think there's any content here that needs saving. Doug Ring § Test debut seems to capture all the important points, while this article breaks it down play-by-play and seems to be mostly WP:FANCRUFT and statistics which don't warrant this level of attention.
5225C (talk • contributions) 04:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no particular interest in the 1948 tour and have not made any major edits to the article, but want to provide an alternative viewpoint here.
  • we have plenty of obscure topics that make TFA. That's a good thing. Later this month I believe we have another Yugoslav ship, a soccer club season from the 1920s and a local war memorial. Along with climate change. A mix of articles is a good thing. Is Ring super-notable for his role in 48? Possibly not, although he did take 60 first-class wickets on the tour. He only played in one Test match, but there were another 30 matches on the tour, the majority of which were first-class. But I've seen less notable TFA.
  • I have a major issue with synthesis from statistics in cricket articles. Here there are scorecards being used to help source the narrative - I've seen a lot worse statistical synthesis in sports articles and a lot more use of "and against XXX she..." style of writing.
  • some of the analysis of sources is making assumptions about offline sources. I'm not sure that's an entirely fair thing to do, and I do wonder if there's a tendency to look for one source that "proves" notability, rather than to accept that a range of sources lead to a cumulative notability
  • the CricketArchive references are scorecards - not statistical databases as such, although they do generally lack prose (I'd have to check - there may be limited prose on some of them, but can't be sure until I can get to a computer that allows me proper access. I could source all of them to The Times, which will have the scorecards along with reports, easily enough in an afternoon
  • the Wisden sources are prose, not statistical. Wisden would have had significant prose reports of at least each of the first-class matches and, in particular, the Test matches on the tour. Some of these may be available online, although they aren't always easy to access. We'd need someone with access to the 1949 edition of Wisden to be sure. I'll see what I can do with this
  • a notes section and some references have recently been removed from the article, which worries me slightly. I'm not entirely sure why as it's all mixed up in the usual flurry of editing during TFA day; the edit summaries will need picking apart
As I say, I don't have an over-riding love of this article, but I do feel a need to offer some form of challenge here! Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I have no overriding hatred of this article or its subject(s), but I do fail to see why it deserves independent encyclopaedic coverage. It's not its obscurity that concerns me but the fact that it lacks any claim of significance. If the lead of the article essentially says "Ring had little impact on the '48 tour" then I fail to see why his involvement in the tour has encyclopaedic importance. I was not aware that Wisden was a prose source so I will concede that I've overlooked that. On the other hand, none of the prose sources are primarily about Ring, but there are of course a few on the tour which may help establish notability. I don't believe you can point to a collection of stats/game reports and say "look, individually these aren't important but put them together and it proves notability" (sorry if that's an oversimplification of your argument), there has to be some in-depth coverage that says "this is important and here's why". Nothing in this article (or online) seems to be doing that. Most of the time, it's doing the opposite.
5225C (talk • contributions) 05:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be the prose sources that I would suggest could be used to cumulatively show a level of notability. To review sources such as The Times reports (which I doubt were available online in 2007) will take some time I'm afraid - I don't have as much of that as I'd like. I will try to make a start at least, but a specific "to do" list would be of some use. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the hard copy Wisden, but this appears to be a republication of the series report in the 1949 edition. Hack (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The only mention of Ring is that As with McCool, limited opportunities came to Ring, the other leg-break bowler, who was slightly the faster through the air, and, though playing in the last Test, Ring was never a trump card in the pack., so if that's the level of coverage Wisden has it certainly is not significant coverage.
5225C (talk • contributions) 05:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - they might have the reports of the Test matches online as well, but they seem to be moving them around the website unfortunately. As I say, there would have been reports of at least every first-class match and probably, at that time, the other matches as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do have a copy of the 1949 Wisden - what do you want to know? Note that the "As with McCool,..." quote is from the main "Australians in England, 1948" article by R. J. Hayter (page 207). This article is followed by the statistical summary and then the individual match reportsNigel Ish (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nigel Ish: it's referenced a few times in the article and there is an assumption that Ring is barely mentioned - which he may well not be. I suppose, given the discussion, it would be helpful to know if there's much depth on Ring, especially with regard to county matches which he seems to have played a lot of. If you get the chance. Hack has added some Trove articles, which are good to have, but this discussion seems to hinge on whether there's any real depth of coverage on Ring himself on the tour. Thanks Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the Leicestershire vs Austalians match Wisden p217 says that "Ring's leg breaks caused most trouble to Leicestershire in the first innings..." - [13] Australia vs Essex - Wisden is used for match events and the scorecard - no significant coverage of Ring. [17] Notts match - Wisden used for match events (i.e. Hardstaff making a century with the scorecard used for Ring taking the wicket - no significant coverage. [20] - Match events - no significant coverage of Ring. Northants v Australia (p. 232) - "Johnston and Ring bowled skilfully in Northamptonshire's second innings...". Gloucestershire v Australia (pp. 238–239) "Johnstone...and Ring were the match winning bowlers". Fifth test - Wisden used for match events - no significant coverage of Ring. Gentlemen v Australia (p. 255) - "The Gentlemen's second innings was marked... and skilful leg-break bowling by Ring". Somerset v Australia [45] - Wisden used for match events - no significant discussion of Ring. Scotland v Australia (p. 259) "...the other batsmen failed against Morris and Ring".
So basically Wisden appears to have been used to source match events - other than the "as with McColl..." quote, and it does not appear to discuss him or his contribution to the tour in depth. Hope this is of some use.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that's really helpful. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:36, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I suppose my suggestion would be to replace the CricketArchive sources with The Times, because if they're actually talking about Ring on the tour then it could help prove notability. I still don't really understand this idea of "cumulative notability", because, as I mentioned on the talk page, a similar method of sourcing could be used to write season-by-season articles for any major athlete (for example, Patricio O'Ward with McLaren in IndyCar in 2021). That to me sounds absurd. If you could find an example of The Times coverage I'd like to have a look at it, because I'm not sure whether I would class it as significant coverage or not.
5225C (talk • contributions) 05:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will take a look, but we're probably talking 3-4 article per match and there were 29 matches on the tour in the UK... (e2a: and I do take your point about the idea of such articles by the way) Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:57, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that sounds more substantial to me. Whether it will verify the commentary in the article I don't know, but I'm willing to keep an open mind about it. Assuming it does justify the article's content, I would still lean more towards a merger to Doug Ring rather than keeping an independent article, but we'll see.
5225C (talk • contributions) 06:04, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A brief aside: I've skimmed through the featured topic Australian cricket team in England in 1948, of which this article is a part, and there seem to be similar issues in the topic's other articles, though perhaps not to the same extent since many of the other players were more active. RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion on Talk:Doug Ring, the discussion has moved to AfD, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination). I will notify the relevant projects now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the consensus has been formed that the article is not notable. Once the content has been merged, which is the consensus of the AfD debate, there will be no FA to review. 20:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5225C (talk • contribs)
  • Agree with the above comment. There's no point in holding when the AFD has come to a very strong consensus that this shouldn't be an article. Hog Farm Talk 21:05, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD has already closed with a strong consensus to merge. There is no basis for a hold here. The appropriate venue to contest is at deletion review, not here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the three previous posters; there is no basis to hold this FAR open. The options are Delist now or Merge then delist. FAR cannot override a community AFD consensus to merge. By community consensus, the FA no longer exists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delist per AFD consensus to merge, without moving to FARC. I agree with Hog Farm that it would be preferable for the article’s content to be merged before we close this FAR, but that is not happening. I looked into doing the merge myself, but because the target article at Doug Ring is a GA, and I don’t understand most of the content, I don’t feel that I can complete the merge without damaging the GA. It is not within the remit of the FA process to deal with the merge that no one is undertaking. FAR’s purpose is to determine if an FA still meets the criteria. There is broader consensus beyond FAR that the article should not exist and should be merged elsewhere, and a non-existent article can’t be a Featured article. We can proceed to delist even though no one has yet completed the merge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delist for the reasons explained by SandyGeorgia. RunningTiger123 (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delist per SandyGeorgia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural delist, although I'd feel more comfortable if someone performed the merger so this doesn't fall through the cracks somehow. Hog Farm Talk 14:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC) [15].

Lewis (baseball)

[edit]
Notified: Therapyisgood, Politicsfan4, WP NYC, WP Bio, WP Baseball, WP NY state

This is a procedural FAR, to keep the bookkeeping right, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis (baseball) (2nd nomination). Consensus was to merge (which hasn't been done yet, but is separate from article rating); in such a case, the Featured status is typically not retained, a new FAC can be considered for the merge target, and a procedural FAR allows for all the talk page and WP:FFA bookkeeping to be enacted by the Coords and FACbot. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC) [17].

Sydney Roosters

[edit]
Notified: WP:AWNB, WP:RL, July 2021 notice

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced material, extreme recentism, material sourced to the club itself and unnecessary procedural details on club business, and an undue weight list of random celebrities who are fans of the club Bumbubookworm (talk) 11:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC) [18].

The Greencards

[edit]
Notified: GoneAwayNowAndRetired, WP Biography, WP Rock music, WP Roots music, WP USA, noticed in June

Review section

[edit]

Unfortunately, this older FA about a bluegrass group has not been kept up to date well. Sweetheart of the Sun (The Greencards album) isn't even mentioned in the prose, the history leaves off with The Brick Album not yet released, the lead states that Carl Miner joined the group in 2010, but he isn't mentioned outside of the infobox and lead, Tyler Andal is identified in the infobox as a former member but doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else, Luke Bulla is stated to be a band member in the infobox, but isn't mentioend elsewhere, and a few lesser things like that. There's been an update needed tag on this one for over 4 years, so it probably should have gone here a long time ago. This one looks like it has good bones, though, so if someone will invest the work to get it up to date, this should be keepable. Hog Farm Talk 03:33, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC) [19].

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

[edit]
Notified: Mtmelendez, WP Puerto Rico, noticed on June 5, 2021

Review section

[edit]

I don't believe this one meets the criteria anymore. It is very statistics heavy, but all of the statistics are from 10-15 years ago. The article also claims the programs has been controversial, yet it is sourced almost entirely to US government reports, suggesting that there are additional viewpoints not represented. This one may be an accelerated candidate, as it'll need a complete rewrite and a new FAC would probably be the best way to go once this is reworked. Original nominator has not edited regularly since 2014. Hog Farm Talk 17:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: and @Hog Farm: - I did a small amount of work, but I am not able to do more because I don't have any more current sources. I think you should proceed as you think is best. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: and @Hog Farm: - Update: after my comment above, I found current sources. I can try to work on it, update the statistics to make them more current and remove some of the statistics so it's not so "statistics heavy". --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Eloquent Peasant, are you still planning more work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, @Nikkimaria:. I am not. Thanks. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - The heavy degree of reliance on older US government reports is still present, and still indicates a lack of third-party views. Hog Farm Talk 05:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delist - I updated a lot of the statistics to be more current. I removed two tables with old stats. And Re: missing third party views, I added findings, sources and text from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which is a "nonpartisan research and policy institute".
  1. "A Brief Overview of the Nutrition Assistance Program". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (in Spanish). June 11, 2020. Archived from the original on March 4, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  2. "The Nutrition Assistance Program Helps Over Half of Puerto Rico's Children". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. June 11, 2020. Archived from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
  3. "Puerto Rico's Nutrition Assistance Program Helps Seniors". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. June 11, 2020. Archived from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
I think it meets the quality for featured article.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, do these updates address your concerns? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and The Eloquent Peasant: - It's looking a lot better, although the program admin stuff isn't quite current I don't think. Is it okay if I try to get some attention elsewhere (like at WT:FAC) to see if I can try to get someone more familiar with politics to look at this? I'm an auditor and could probably assess econ content okay, but I'd rather get a second look for anything political. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are some additional sources although at first glance not all of them are about this program and many look more like think-tank statements rather than high-quality reliable sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Program admin material needs updated - stuff like "The EBT debit card system has improved the program's payment accuracy rate to 96.4% in 2003, 4 years ahead of its 2007 goal of 95% accuracy" is no longer even close to current. Hog Farm Talk 17:34, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per datedness from Hog Farm, and no edits for more than two months. There are prose infelicities everywhere (“current program of today”) and copyedit needs (Sample: The 1993 study, which also researched the impact on household expenditures, formed a completely different conclusion: that the average beneficiaries under the NAP program spent $5 less per week on food than non-participating families, considering if both would have the same amount of resources available. Nevertheless, this conclusion has also been questioned by subsequent research, attributing this result on the author's determination of the population sample.), but a copyedit would not be productive considering datedness of sources and material. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Two months since the last edit, and the article still needs a good copyedit, which I am not knowledgeable enough to lead. Z1720 (talk) 15:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2021 (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/November_2021&oldid=1057353403"