Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:FARC)
Reviewing featured articles
Shortcuts

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and removed from there once posted here).

2. Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article review coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article review coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Urgent reviews are listed here. Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator.
  2. No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article over at least a two-week period. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header.
    Relevant parties include
    • main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools),
    • the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and
    • any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified).
    The Notified:message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified and include a link with the date of the pre-notification given on article talk.

Featured article reviews

[edit]

Bart Simpson

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject The Simpsons, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject Fictional characters, Gran2, Scorpion0422

I am nominating this featured article for review because...The article is obviously outdated and doesn't meet the modern FA criteria. The article went a lot of changes and the prose isn't FA quality already. There are lots of reliable and scholarly sources that need to be updated for the article to be updated + the article uses a lot of low-quality sources and the citations are poorly formatted. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trafford Park

[edit]
Notified: Parrot of Doom, Eric Corbett, WikiProject Greater Manchester, WikiProject UK geography, 06-08-2024

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements and paragraphs, the lead is long and could be better formatted. The "Current and future transport" and "Political representation" sections are underdeveloped, and the "History" section stops at 2008. There is no "Demographics" section, although I do not know if this is possible to obtain from census or other data. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies removed the strike out of Eric Corbett's name with this edit. The strike-out is to indicate that a notice was not sent to that editor for the stated reason. Z1720 (talk) 13:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: removed as an unnecessary badge of shame. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Swift

[edit]
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Children's literature, Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels, Wikipedia:WikiProject Fictional characters, NDfan173, Ricardiana

I am nominating this featured article for review because...This old FA article suffers from a lot of sourcing issues. Most of the citations aren't formatted properly, for example. the lack of authors, dates of articles, etc. + the usage of unreliable sources such as ref 53, ref 56, and possibly more + there are a lot of unsourced statements and citation needed tags + the depiction of race section is barely standing with that short content in there + the cultural influence section should definitely be expanded in order for the article to meet the current FA standard. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoshone National Forest

[edit]
Notified: MONGO, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject United States, diff for talk page notification (2023-05-16)

Issues about this Featured Article—primarily, outdated info—were raised in January 2021. The article was then listed at WP:FARGIVEN in May 2023 when updates failed to materialize in the preceding year. Since then, other than rescuing dead links, no major updates have been made; a major contributor who is just now notified hasn't been active for at least one year. George Ho (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lemurs of Madagascar (book)

[edit]
Notified: Maky (page creator/nominator; formerly "VisionHolder"), Primates, Madagascar

"Bloated article; uses the [Mittermeier] book that is the subject of article 44 times, out of about the 60 references given. Contains excessive detail and primary sourcing."

— Possibly (talk · contribs), May 2021 (links added for context by yours truly)

Cleanup-tag note says it all. Original article creator/FA nominator, Maky (talk · contribs), has been on WP in highly reduced capacity since late 2015.

P.S. Can't believe it's been 17 years and change since I last sent a page for review... Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 07:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If folks think it merits keeping in some form, I'd be happy to take a pass at cutting it down -- way down. Much of it reads as puffery, and a lot of it redundant. I think there's some factual information that would be worth keeping, though.
I'm not in the habit of gutting a page like I would want to do with this one, so just putting that out there. Monkeywire (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Monkeywire: I'd support someone going through and cutting down the prose: there is too much puffery, and the "Overview" section should probably be renamed to "Background" and refocused. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at editing. (It's so much easier to cut than to write!). Apologies in advance for any errors, but I think it's in better shape than it was before. Monkeywire (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just adding for the record that I think this is worth keeping now that it's not so bloated Monkeywire (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Slgrandson: Do the edits made address your concerns? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Better off. (Attempting to reach @Maky so that we can remind him of the progress, but an immediate reply is hardly guaranteed as he last edited in April.) --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I see an unsourced paragraph in "Editions". I also think the "Reception" section could be expanded upon, considering that several reviews are already used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 03:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Slgrandson: I've gone ahead and undone Monkeywire's changes while performing a very substantial but much more surgical cutdown of the article. It was bloated beyond belief, but I believe Monkeywire's decision to relegate the entire 'Reception' section to a paragraph and the entire summary/contents to a bullet pointed list of chapters dramatically hurt the article's comprehensiveness and turned it into something more akin to a C-class article (through no fault of their own; there really was so much extraneous stuff there). Some highlights of the changes I've made include:
  • Word count and character count in the prose are both down a smidge over 28% (~21,050 characters down to ~15,100 and ~3,310 words down to ~2,240).
  • I believe I have done this while retaining all the points which were present when this article was first reviewed.
  • I do not believe this article could now be meaningfully reduced further without losing relevant, useful information.
  • The brick wall of listed authors which made the 'Overview' section effectively unreadable has been moved into three explanatory footnotes – one for each edition. I believe this information about the authors is highly relevant and should remain but that it undeniably cannot remain in the prose.
  • The descriptions of the appendices have been completely stripped out, as they were effectively obvious by the appendix titles alone.
  • The mention of a Lemur News announcement has been removed owing to the fact that a sales pitch written by the book's authors does not constitute 'Reception'.
  • The awkward, dangling lead paragraph of the 'Content' section about the front and back covers has been neatly folded into an already-existing sentence, so the section now starts with the "Introduction".
  • The block quote from the "Introduction" section has been shortened and naturally folded into the sentence prior to where it originally was.
  • Very obvious tangents such as how many lemurs a reviewer had spotted as well as tautologies such as (paraphrased) "this field guide helps identify lemurs in the field" have been taken out.
  • Statements that could be expressed in substantially fewer words without loss of clarity have been amended.
  • Not relevant to bloat per se, but I revised the summary of Lisa Gould's review to – I think – better reflect what she wrote.
My vote in the article's current state is to Keep the featured article status, as I believe it is now an excellent reference for this book's publication history, contents, reception, and impact on primatology. I tried to be descriptive with my edit summaries, so please feel free to peruse and see if you approve of the changes I've made. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not extremely familiar with FA standards, but I think the improvements above are very good and I would vote to maintain the status as a FA. I can't point out any problems. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-dreadnought battleship

[edit]
Notified: The Land, Blackeagle, Nigel Ish, Parsecboy, WP MILHIST, WP Ships, noticed January 2023

Sadly, this key Operation Majestic Titan article is no longer at the current standards. I voiced concerns on the article's talk page over a year and a half ago, but the only activity there since has been an IP raising minor accuracy concerns. As a MILHIST regular, I regret having to take this here, but I lack the sources and subject matter knowledge to resolve this concerns myself. Hopefully the outcome of Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ironclad warship/archive1 can be avoided. Hog Farm Talk 22:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just skimmed the article's sourcing and agree that there are major formatting issues for the cites and bibliography. I can fix all that pretty easily. I'll see what more needs to be done after I do that and look at your comments on the talk page.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I just started trying to figure out which actual book goes with some of the cites and I can't match them up! Furthermore, some of the pages cited don't relate to the material cited at all. I just deleted them and will cite them properly as I find time.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:24, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sturm, is that work that you anticipate could be done within FAR? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think so; I'll try not to drag it out as long as I did for Wisconsin and Missouri.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sturm, any update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur (Or the Decline and Fall of the British Empire)

[edit]
Notified: User:I.M.S. [1], WikiProject Albums, [2], WikiProject Rock music, [3]

I am nominating this featured article for review because... the article no longer meets the FA criteria in its current state. An old FA from 2010, there are citation needed tags, not enough critical reviews, unsourced sections (personnel), and some questionable sources (kindakinks.net). – zmbro (talk) (cont) 20:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Personnel doesn't inherently need a source; per WP:PERSONNEL, "Similar to the track listing requirements, it is generally assumed that a personnel section is sourced from the liner notes. In some cases, it will be necessary to use third-party sources to include performers who are not credited in the liner notes."
Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro: Let me see what I can do to save this article. Doesn't look too bad (I say before I inevitably discover a shitshow behind the scenes). Famous Hobo (talk) 21:43, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying Tkbrett in case he's interested. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 18:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping zmbro. I will be passing on this one though. Tkbrett (✉) 14:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Sorry for the delay, been on a long work trip. I do intend to continue working on this article. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Hobo, any update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Arbor, Michigan

[edit]
Notified: Pentawing, Lengau, WikiProject Michigan, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject United States, 2024-05-30

I am nominating this featured article for review because since its promotion there has been a lot of information added to the article that is too detailed for the article scope. The article also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION, particularly in the "Infrastructure" section, there is uncited text throughout, and the lede is too short to summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have started new articles to contain details (right now they are in the Economy and Transportation sections). But before summarizing those sections, can you tag passages where citations are needed? PentawingTalk 01:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Summarized the "Economy" and "Transportation" sections. "Politics" section still needs work (should it be removed entirely and focus only on city government?). I am still the process of clearing "citation needed" tags and addressing the lead. PentawingTalk 05:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Citations addressed. Lead has been expanded. PentawingTalk 04:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: All issues noted above have been addressed including citations, lead, over-sectioning, and excessive details (e.g. Government/Politics section summarized with details moved to the "History of Ann Arbor" article). Is there anything else that needs to be addressed? PentawingTalk
I agree with the assessment. It seems there are now two tables showing the exact same racial information in the demographics section. There is a census estimate for 2021 in the infobox but in the historical population box it's 2023. Strongly suggest just getting rid of estimates and keeping the census figure. Crime data almost a decade out of date. Weird paragraph with just one sentence and it contains a statement about the number of Japanese people in 2013 (a year without a census). The entire section from the 2010 census can be removed and replaced with 2020 census information. Also no need for income from 12 years ago to be mentioned. Lots of little things need updating. Mattximus (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the duplicate racial information table, updated the demographics using 2022 US Census data, and updated crime information using data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). As for population estimates, there seems to be an unwritten consensus to display such information if they exist (as seen in other US city articles).
I agree with the assessment...Lots of little things need updating. - Can you be specific as to what needs to be done? I went through the article and updated any numbers-based information, and moved one-time events (if notable) to "History." PentawingTalk 05:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: ↑ Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is considerably better! If it is to be featured level a few more things need to be added.
  • All non-context data needs to have a reference frame. For example, if the per capita income is $52,276, is that low, high, average? It would be best to give context, for example "higher than the state average of x" or "lower than the national average of x". Crime says it's the 6th safest city over 50,000. But what if there are just 6 cities over 50k in Michigan? Need to say "out of x cities" to give context. There are a few instances where this is done (compared to national crime rate at end of paragraph) but all figures *must* be given context.
    • Done. Though I should add, after looking at other US city articles, that a breakdown of the population is the norm when using census data. Context in terms of comparison to state/US national figures is generally not done unless one is doing a ranking. PentawingTalk 04:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better, but context should always be given. I suppose for data that is related to itself (male:female ratio for example, or male:female income) then no external comparison is needed but certainly for figures like % of people with high school degree (not every wikipedian is American, knows it is a univeristy town, and can infer if that's above average or not). I would say something like poverty levels definitely need a comparison to national/state levels. The crime sentence is also ambiguous now, if it's the 6th safest city out of 10, isn't that actually the 4th most dangerous? I do know the answer, it's 6th out of around 20, but I'm not sure what constitutes a city as per the source. This needs to be fixed for sure. Mattximus (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I put in comparisons to the U.S. national data where available (e.g. education attainment and poverty levels). As for the crime comparison, the source had it has a "top ten" list (though Michigan has more than 10 cities with populations over 50,000 only the 10 safest are mentioned). Does wikilinking "top ten" clarify the sentence, or is there a better way of wording the sentence? PentawingTalk 06:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • We really need to mention what the denominator is to make a "safest city" claim. If we can't list how many cities over 50k were included, then it should be deleted. The reason bears repeating. If there are only 10 cities and it's the 6th, that is quite a dangerous city. Education also needs context, I know from personal experience working in Ann Arbor that is quite an educated town, but since there is no comparison between % people with degrees compared to national averages, no reader would figure that out. Mattximus (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            I went ahead and removed the safety ranking passage as I cannot find any source that lists all Michigan cities; the sources I'm finding all all "top ten" or "top 50," which you seem to find as problematic. Education already has context information in the form of comparison to the U.S. national figure. PentawingTalk 05:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not start the section with a table, table should be below or to the side of the paragraph talking about the table.
  • It's otherwise much better, but I would start the section (or somewhere here) with a comment on population growth from the table (Ann Arbor has experienced consistent population growth since the first census in 1860). The historic population table could thus be referenced in writing.
    • Is this to be used as an opening sentence for the section? Ann Arbor has seen two years of population shrinkage so saying that the city has consistent growth is going to cause a problem. However, the article intro does mention the city seeing explosive growth in the early 20th century. PentawingTalk 04:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh no it can be anywhere that fits, but we shouldn't have a table in a section that is not referred to in the section, I believe that is against featured article standards. I would be satisfied with something as basic as consistently grown in population in all censuses since 1860. I wouldn't be concerned with the 2023 estimate, they have been wildly off in the past and are not very encyclopedic. Census data is really all that needs to be considered. Mattximus (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got! Mattximus (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Z1720

[edit]

@Pentawing: Sectioning off comments for easier navigation. I think this article is close to a keep.

  • Why are there citations in the lead? WP:LEADCITE says they are unnecessary. Has all this information been cited in the article?
  • "Geography", "Media" and "Infrastructure" are not mentioned in the lead. Since these have level 2 headings, should they be included?
    • I added some mention to geography, but after looking at other city articles I don't think including media and infrastructure in the lead is necessary (unless there is a good example that says otherwise). PentawingTalk 05:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History" does not mention any pre-colonial information. Considering the work on Indigenous history over the past 10-ish years, is there any information about that history that can be added? Which Indigenous peoples occupied the land before colonialism? Is there any archaeological research in this area?
  • I'm not sure this is necessary as the article is about the municipality of Ann Arbor which didn't exist back then and is a rather modern construct. Perhaps a mention any indigenous people on the land at the time the city was formed, or a cursory sentence about who the previous occupants of the land were and what happened to them would suffice? Mattximus (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arts and culture" is quite large. Is there a way to split this with other headings? Perhaps give sports its own section?
  • "Parks and recreation" is quite short. Any information to expand this? Perhaps information about recreation opportunities in the city, connections with YMCA or other recreation-based organisations, or popular recreation activities? Any information about the number of community centres, pools, hockey arenas, or other recreation infrastructure? The "Parks" information seems to be enough, but the recreation side seems to be lacking.
    • Since the information appears to duplicate that in "Landscape" I merged the two sections. As far as recreation in Ann Arbor, it is typical of what is found in small to mid-sized U.S. midwestern cities, and I can't think of a way of including information on recreation without it sounding like it should belong in Wikitravels. The linked park articles already mention some recreation activities. PentawingTalk 05:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are sources listed in "Further reading": should these be incorporated as inline citations, or removed from the list?
  • I have added alt text to all photos, per MOS:ALT
  • There are no px concerns in the images.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, have your concerns been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop YF-23

[edit]
Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because over the past few months, I've added a considerably amount of additional information about the aircraft's design history gathered from multiple sources. The prose has doubled in length, so I would like other editors to review my work to ensure that it still meets FA standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve7c8, did you discuss this on the article's talk page at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. However, given the amount of content added since it was last listed as FA over a decade ago such that it has more than doubled in size, with much of the new prose written by myself, I believe that this warrants a FA review especially from a neutral party to ensure that it meets the quality standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please notify other editors and relevant WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Steve7c8, I've worked a little bit on the article. I believe you have the technical knowledge of the subject, while I can do source and reference formatting. I changed the sources to cite book or cite journal templates, and changed some of the references to sfn tags. Would this and any further work I do on formatting be okay with you? Matarisvan (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good. I'll notify some other editors and relevant WikiProjects to have another go at it. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, we need a link for the Aerospace Daily article, otherwise any reviewer doing spotchecks would fail the source review. Matarisvan (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original link from years ago is gone and I don’t think it’s ever been archived, but it’s transcribed in a forum post here, which I’m not sure is considered adequate. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post the link here, I can search for it on archival sites. Matarisvan (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have the original link. Perhaps search for key words and phrases in that article that's transcribed in the forum post? Steve7c8 (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll have to remove this reference, we already have another one (Chong 2016) at the same place. Is that OK with you? Matarisvan (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Steve7c8, do you have access to either of Sweetman 1991a or 1991b? I put in these in the sfn tags on a placeholder basis as I wasn't able to get access to them. This is the last thing left to do here, once it is done we can safely say the article is back again at FA level. Matarisvan (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I don't. I have limited access to these sources as I'm in the middle of an SLTE currently, but in a few days I'll check my shelves. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, @Matarisvan, a friend of mine has hard copies of these publications, I can borrow them if need be. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these, @Steve7c8? That would be great, we would be able to finally close this FA review. Matarisvan (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan, I'm not quite sure how to Wikimail these sources. My friend has the physical books on hand which I borrowed. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would just need to photograph the pages we have cited here, and attach these photographs to an email which you can send through Wikipedia. Also, I'll be reviewing the YF-22 article at ACR soon, I haven't forgotten about it, just have too much work both on WP and IRL. Matarisvan (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan I have emailed you one of them, working to borrow the other book again to get pictures. Steve7c8 (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, received. Working on spot checks on refs cited to this source. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan I have emailed you the other one. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What establishes that Speciality Press located at Forest Lake, Minnesota has a reputation for fact checking, etc? The article is cites several works published by this company, which appears to lack and internet presence.
  • If File:FB-23 Rapid Theater Attack.png is a Northrop Grumman image as stated, it's been wrongly uploaded. The source PDF doesn't establish that it was released under a creative commons licence.
  • I suspect that none of the external links are needed. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with Specialty Press overall and I believe they went under just recently. However, the cited books in this article are written by people with direct connections to the YF-23, namely Alfred "Paul" Metz, YF-23 PAV-1 test pilot, and Air Force Materiel Command researchers and archiver, Tony Landis and reputed aviation author Dennis Jenkins.
  • If that is the case, I can upload a non-free thumbnail version under fair use.
Steve7c8 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D, before you leave for your break, could we have your vote? Matarisvan (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1880 Republican National Convention

[edit]
Notified: Nishkid64, Coemgenus, Billmckern, Tilden76, Devonian Wombat, -A-M-B-1996-, WP Politics, WP Chicago, WP Illinois, WP USA, WP Elections and Referendums, noticed in December 2023 with prior issues raised in 2015

As originally promoted, this 2007 FA included a number of references to varied sources. However, in 2015, it was discovered on the talk page that essentially the editor just read the Ackerman book and threw in citations from Ackerman's notes, even though those sources did not entirely support the cited content. I ran into a similar problem from this same editor when I rewrote Thomas C. Hindman, another old FA promotion, several years ago. Coemgenus resolved many of the issues in 2015 but the article is still very heavily reliant on Ackerman alone. I also, in December 2023, found that there are still a number of smaller source-text integrity issues and that the citation placement is messed up.

Awhile back, this article was suggested to potentially rerun as TFA with the upcoming Republican National Convention later this year, but I don't think that is a good idea given the sourcing history here. Given my experiences with Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. R. Richard/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lee Smith (baseball)/archive1, Talk:Thomas C. Hindman#Uncited paras/sentences etc, and Talk:Stede Bonnet#Featured article review needed I have grave concerns about the sourcing from any FA nominations by this nominator. Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC no major edits to address sourcing concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not write this one, though I have edited and have access to the sources. Is the concern here that some particular sources are inaccurate, or just that there might be problems? I'd be glad to run a spotcheck on the citations and see if it's good. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Coemgenus - I compared passages to parts of Ackerman several months ago and have found that the big ideas are all supported, but a number of the smaller details are not. I'm also generally uneasy with the content here after my experience with re-writing Thomas C. Hindman, another FA by the same nominator, where the article was based only on one book to the neglect of information in other sources, omitted major information (Hindman being suspended from command for awhile), and contained factual errors (incorrectly claiming that Hindman was present for the Chattanooga actions after Chickamauga), in addition to the sources failing spot-checks. A spotcheck here would be greatly appreciated. Hog Farm Talk 14:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
fn.10 -- Hesseltine p. 432 contains the quoted language and the sentiment it expresses.
fn.20 -- Ackerman makes both points on p. 74 and the quoted headline is there.
fn.30 -- Ackerman pp.66-67 does say this.
fn.40 -- Cites Ackerman p. 58 for two points. the phrasing is a little awkward, but it's accurate.
fn.50 -- Cites Ackerman p. 83 for two quotes, both accurate.
fn.60 -- Cites Ackerman p. 91 for three points and two quotes, all accurate.
fn.70 -- Cites Ackerman p. 103-104 for two points, both accurate.
fn.80 -- Cites Ackerman p. 116 for two points. Both accurate, but the parenthetical near the second point wasn't in the source (it is true, though). So I moved the citation to the right spot.
fn.90 -- I had trouble accessing this -- the Questia page wouldn't load. I found the book on the Internet Archive, though, and it's correct.
Since most of those random citations were to the same book, I picked out a few others to check.
fn.53 -- Cites Muzzey p. 169 -- the quotation and the meaning of the sentence are both accurate.
fn.59 -- Cites Clancy pp. 104-105 for two points including quotations. This is the first problem I found. Clancy and Ackerman both cite a letter from Joseph H. Geiger to John Sherman, but where Clancy summarizes the content, Ackerman quotes it directly. The author of this article uses the direct quote, as found in Ackerman, but cites it to Clancy, which is incorrect.
I think this article relies too heavily on Ackerman's book, but where it does so, it does so accurately. Where it cites other sources, in at least one instance, it does not do so faithfully. There's not much to fix here, but it should be fixed. I have nearly all of these books, so I guess I should be the one to fix it? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus, it does not appear anyone else is stepping forward - is this something you're willing and able to do, or should this proceed? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I apologize, I've been swamped. I'll get started on it this weekend. The Ackerman citations are all good, it's just the others I need to clean up. Shouldn't take long. I hope! --Coemgenus (talk) 02:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I've gone through and checked the cites, especially those not to Ackerman. After a few changes, I think everything is accurate now. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: ↑ Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a look at this over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This looks mostly fine, but I'm a bit concerned about the heavy reliance on Ackerman. Coemgenus, noting that you've done work on a number of articles related to this election, do you think that this article is a "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" as required by the featured article criteria? Hog Farm Talk 22:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is. If I were writing it from scratch, I'd vary the sources more, but everything seems accurate since the last changes I made. I could change a few of them to other sources, but it wouldn't change the text, since multiple sources all say the same thing. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If Coemgenus, wikipedia's subject matter expert on the 1880 election, is okay with this, then I think I'm at a keep. Hog Farm Talk 01:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Given the above, what are your thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still concerned about the overreliance on Ackerman as inline citations. I did a Google Scholar search for "1880 Republican National Convention" and found additional sources that might be used in the article. Has there been a search for additional sources that could be added to the article? I also went through the article and removed repetitive, subsequent refs to the same citation and I'll change images from px to upright momentarily. Z1720 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coemgenus? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I think the cites are now fully accurate. I could change some of them to other books, if I have to, but they all say the same thing — these are mostly undisputed facts about the convention. —Coemgenus (talk) 21:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward I of England

[edit]
Notified: Unlimitedlead, Dudley Miles, Ealdgyth, Usernamesarebunk, Lampman, Hchc2009, GoldRingChip, Gog the Mild, Surtsicna, Nev1, Mike Christie England, WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Scotland, Ireland, Jewish history, Middle Ages, Military history WikiProject English Royalty diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because, during the FA process the article went through, three large areas of historical research were omitted. Thus currently it does not meet the criteria that the article needs to be:

  • 1.b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context and
  • 1.c well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature

I have since addressed one of those, but had no feedback. I intend to address the other two but would like to ensure my work is reviewed as I do so.

The areas that were not addressed during the FAC process were

  1. Anglo-Jewish historical research: Edward's actions are a large subject of discussion in this literature, which contends that he has particular significance for the history of antisemitism and for English identity, which incorporated an antisemitic element as a result of the expulsion. (These topics were notably missed in Prestwich.) These issues have now been addressed to a minimum level by myself but need a check for FA standards.
  2. Welsh history: Edward I is of particular significance to Welsh history. Edward is typically seen by Welsh medievalists as a coloniser, someone who did immense damage to Welsh society, culture and self-confidence, which produced a lasting anger. These items need expanding in the "Legacy" section at least. The literature on Edward I from a Welsh perspective was unfortunately contended not to exist during FA review.
  3. Irish history: The literature on Ireland was not consulted; Ireland is not covered in the article at all, except to mention Edward governed it and it provided him income. Themes include the early takeover by Edward and some squabbling with his father; Edward treating Ireland as a revenue source and little else; corruption and incompetence in the administrators Edward appointed and repeatedly sacked; over-taxation to meet his war demands; speculation over food exports during the Welsh and Gascon wars; problems emerging from the Edwardian weak administration including a revival of the fortunes of the Gaelic areas' leadership, leading to regular wars in the period and following centuries. Thus although an absentee landlord, current Irish historical research sees him as signficant for the difficulties of Ireland that continued in the centuries following.

Additionally, a check should be made regarding Scottish sources and perspectives.

These areas should also be looked at:

  • Religious views: the article may not fully capture the nature of Edward's devotion. It covers his piety as actions, rather than as a belief system. There is commentary about his and Eleanor's piety giving them a sense that they were doing God's work, which makes sense as Crusaders, and explains better his sense of certainty while doing morally reprehensible things.
  • Relations with Eleanor: particularly, the support of and the psychological impact of the loss of Eleanor and some of Edward's key advisors around 1290 is often held to have impacted the latter part of his reign. This doesn't seem to be discussed. Also, Edward encouraged Eleanor to accumulate land wealth to reduce the call on his own funds, which was an important change for future queens but impacted a lot on domestic relations with the landed classes who were being dispossessed; it limited what he could do with taxation and was a driver in his policies towards the Jews. This is now touched on this but it could do with discussion earlier.

The reasons for several of these areas being missed appear to include an over-reliance on Michael Prestwich's biography. It received significant academic criticism for missing several of these areas, and being overly concerned with war administration and finance; which I have noted on his Wikipedia page.

Key texts that need consulting include:

  • For Wales, "The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063-1415" by RR Davies from 2001, and A History of Wales by John Davies.
  • For Ireland, "A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534", which contains a dedicated chapter on Edward's Lordship, "The years of Crisis, 1254-1315" and a further chapter on the wars that were provoked in the period "A Land of War", both by James Lydon. There is by Robin Frame, "Ireland and Britain 1170 to 1450", and other works

As mentioned, I would not like to see this article demoted and I am willing to do the work on Wales and Ireland particularly, and anything further on Anglo-Jewish matters. There is a question on structure for that section also. A point may emerge around article length and there may need to be cuts to meet FA criteria. This I would certainly need help with.

If it is better that I simply work on these areas, complete that and bring the article back to FAR afterwards I can do that. But I haven't got much feedback on the page and feel reluctant to do more work without a little guidance.

Jim Killock (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by KJP1

[edit]

My view is that a FAR, a year after the article's promotion, is not needed. If I can try and summarise, you think there are three areas where something/more needs to be said;

  • Edward and the Jews;
  • Edward and Wales;
  • Edward and Ireland;

and two areas that may need a bit more coverage:

  • Edward's religiosity;
  • Edward and Eleanor.

My suggestion would be that you write brief, sourced, paragraphs on each of these, covering the additional points you think need to be made, and place them on the article Talkpage. Then, see what other involved/interested editors think. I stress brief for two reasons - firstly, your comments to date are rather long and this may discourage editors from engaging with them; secondly, there are always challenges around what to include, and not include, in an FA. Edward reigned for 35 years and packed a lot in, as well as being quite busy before his accession. Therefore, you're never going to be able to cover everything. Indeed, we already have spin-offs, e.g. Conquest of Wales by Edward I, Edict of Expulsion etc. and it may well be that further spin-offs, Edward and the Jews / Edward in Ireland etc. could be an answer. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that but I'd note the main reason for non-engagement AFAICT is probably that the main editor is in semi-retirement and no longer working on the page. There will be existing pages for all these topics, but for an FA standard, the page has to reasonably represent all the relevant literatures, AIUI, ie, other parts might need trimming, if it came to a question of overall length. As now the article arguably violates NPOV, through omission of some of the more uncomfortable aspects of his reign.Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that the OP has found sufficient deficiencies in the article to justify a trip to FAR. Per policy, if they attempted any major changes they could be reverted, while the talk page is quiet enough to suggest it would be an unprofitable exercise.
    In the meantime they have built a solid case. They have identified fundamental omissions which don't only breach WP:FA? but Wikipedia policy and pillar also.
    More broadly, it highlights the problem with a lack of expertise at FAC. There may not be always much we can do about that, but we must accept the consequences of it all the same. While the review of this article received an at first glance thorough examination, with the exception of a couple, most of the reviews were for prose and spelling and the source review lightweight. The latter, at least, could have e highlighted gaps in the scholarship.
    Still, it's not too late. I'm sure we're all grateful to JimKillock for highlighting these issues and for expressing willingness to step up to the mark and address them. Cheers! ——Serial 12:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, FAR or Talkpage, it would be immensely helpful if JimK could provide suggested paragraphs for inclusion, which would look to address the said omissions. I think that would greatly assist other editors in assessing the issues, and how they might be addressed in the article, having regard to weight, length etc. KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will crack on with this for sure. It may take me a few days to find time to start; altogether I would think probably 3-4 weeks are needed for me to find spare time to look at all the things I've mentioned. The Wales paras are the easiest for me. Jim Killock (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry and no problem! Edward I is not my period, but I do have some experience of compressing prose into tight, FA, pargraphs. If I can help at all in terms of reviewing the prose, I'd be delighted. Serial is your man for reviewing the content. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you for the kind words and offers of (potential!) help. Jim Killock (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1@Serial Number 54129Ping in case you are able to help: I've linked to the work I have already done for checking re Anglo-Jewish policies, and drafted the changes regarding Wales from Welsh sources below. Jim Killock (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JimKillock - Not forgotten this, just busy irl this week. Will take a look at the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward's Jewish policies: text check

[edit]

Moved to talk page to simplify feedback

Wales I: Edward I of England#Conquest of Wales

[edit]

Moved to talk page as mostly resolved

Wales II: Edward I of England#Legacy

[edit]

Moved to talk page

Ireland

[edit]

Next steps

[edit]

I will try to write up the section on Ireland next, once I have Davies 1998 British Isles book. I have access to the two volumes on Ireland, Frame 1998 and Lydon 2008a mentioned. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Comments from KJP1

[edit]

With apologies for the delay in getting to this, a few comments. A caveat to start, Edwardian history is definitely not my period, and thus what I'm not able to judge is the weight that would be appropriate to give to the differing views on the Jewish and Welsh (and subsequently Irish) issues. That said:

  • In general, the suggested additions to the Jewish/Welsh issues seem quite reasonable.
  • In relation to the Jewish issue, we now have two, well-sourced, paragraphs, featuring a range of views. These seem reasonable. I'm not myself quite clear on the connection that is being drawn between the tomb of Little St Hugh and the Eleanor Crosses. The text says "is likely to have been an attempt by Edward"; it seems to be suggesting more than just a stylistic similarity, but some form of connected political aim. Is it possible to make it clearer?
    • The background is that they were built in the same style by the same craftsmen working for the Royal household. This has led historians to pick up on a linked political purpose, as both are political objects. Since Eleanor had an "unsavoury" reputation regarding Jewish loans and land seizures, it is most likely that she was being associated with the cult of St Hugh, in order to "clean up" her reputation, as someone who venerated a Christian child supposedly ritually murdered by Jews. However, although the evidence is quite clear, it is also historians making educated calculations, not a matter of simple fact. At the same time, Edward's promotion of the cult is absolutely established and his purpose entirely clear. I'll take another look as the point re Eleanor is a difficult point to convey. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking, I had placed this information into an end note, regarding the link between the Eleanor crosses and the tomb design. I could edit the main body, to say something like "creating a visual association" or "probably to associate Eleanor's memory with the cult". --Jim Killock (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I can't judge is whether the emphasis given to this issue by historians would warrant it being a separate section. It would, of necessity, still be quite brief. That said, a 4.4. would not seem too problematic?
  • Wales - moving the coverage of the 1287/1294 rebellions further down seems reasonable, and creates a better chronology. The other changes don't seem controversial to me.
  • Legacy - losing the sentence on contemporary English views of the Welsh campaigns again doesn't seem controversial, it's not directly sourced. Where I would diverge from JimK is in ditching Morris and having only the views of Welsh historians, Davies/Davies. Include them, certainly, but not exclusively.
    • Just quickly on this: the current "Legacy" structure is "views on Edward, from an older English; modern English; Scottish; Welsh; Ango-Jewish perspective", rather than dealing with aspects of his reign.
    • I think more fruitful that pro contra on each aspect may be to bring the question of Edward and the English Crown as either an English or British phenomenon, and the associated power dynamics into focus, as this has been an area of active discussion (there's 3-4 histories written like this, not yet consulted, noted below). The question raised by Morris (was it justified) isn't really discussed in the literature (much?) AFAICT, it was just used as a proxy answer to "Do we have information about Welsh historians' view of Edward?" as a reviewer noted this was missing. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I would tweak the clause "R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', being 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King'" to read something like "R. R. Davies considered Edward's repeated and 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', to have been 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as king'".
  • Character - following on from the above, it would seem reasonable to reflect something of this in the "Character" section. It doesn't currently have anything on how he was/is seem from a Scottish/Welsh/Irish perspective, and that would be useful to have. But it would again need to be quite brief.

I hope that editors with much greater knowledge of Edward will be able to chip in, particularly on the issue of DUE which buidhe notes above. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this @KJP1. I'll wait some further feedback before making edits. Jim Killock (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nikkimaria; I have been busy with other things but want to do the Ireland section next. This won't be so much work as looking at Scotland, and the British context, both of which need me to do significant reading. I think I may as well transpose the edits re Wales at this point. Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irish section drafted Jim Killock (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback requested

[edit]

I've done most of what I hope to do now, I might tidy up some Scottish points later but for me the FAR changes are done. If @KJP1 or @Serial Number 54129 or anyone else has feedback I would be very grateful. Pings to @Unlimitedlead, @Dudley Miles, @Ealdgyth, @Usernamesarebunk, @Lampman, @Hchc2009, @GoldRingChip, @Gog the Mild, @Surtsicna, @Nev1, @Mike Christie --Jim Killock (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Killock, could you move your notes and resolved commentary to the review talk page? This one's getting a bit hard to follow at this point, and that may be discouraging others from weighing in. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria I've moved the notes and commentary I can move and linked to them. Hope that helps. Jim Killock (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KJP1: How are things looking from your perspective? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria - Sorry, missed this one. To me the changes suggested are sound, and the research very solid. I do wonder whether there is sometimes a little too much detail for our summary style. But my real problem is that I'm not a specialist in this period, and as such I cannot make an informed assessment on "weight". It really needs, another, Edwardian specialist to weigh in. And those will be few and far to find! KJP1 (talk) 06:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @KJP1 @Nikkimaria. A copy edit / check / tightening of prose could be done on my changes. Someone could check for issues with source and cite styles. I'm sure there's room for some cutting. On overall "weight", this is a problematic area as the last academic biog was in the 1980s. I would caution against judging weight via biographies alone; these tend to be partial and Anglo-centric accounts while are currently also rather out of date. Other literatures deal with Edward extensively (Anglo-Jewish, Scottish, Irish, Welsh histories). The prior Anglo-centricity of the article is what I've tried to re-balance, this is not a coincidence. Jim Killock (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've posted a request to WP:GOCE for a partial copyedit on the revised sections, however there is currently a 3-4 month backlog. Jim Killock (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Started the first section. Some of these will be harder than others. I am not a subject specialist. John (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. There isn't any massive hurry (we've waited since mid June for a copy edit, and GOCE would take another 8 weeks at a guess). I can check for accuracy as you finish sections, or answer any questions you have. Jim Killock (talk) 14:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a pleasure. Please do check my edits in case any important shades of meaning are lost as I copyedit. John (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your changes @John, should we take it you are done? I'm very happy with them (I've made one edit) and thank you for looking at the text throughout, as well as the new edits. Jim Killock (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. I might take one further look if that's ok? John (talk) 06:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for sure, go for it! Jim Killock (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience. I think I am finished now. As a Scot, I was tempted to use a different verb than "confiscated" to describe the removal of the Stone of Scone. I might say "looted" or maybe just "took". I wouldn't dream of imposing my POV though. What word does the source use? I think the article is looking good now. John (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check in a few days; there will be multiple sources of course, and potentially different words used. "took" is neutral enough. Edward's penchant for delivering snubs of this nature is well discussed in the sources, but dealt here with at "character" / "legacy" rather than in the narrative. There, "seizure" is used. [Edit: I agree that "confiscated" is rather non-neutral / Anglo-centric; it implies that law and authority was on Edward's side when taking the Stone] Jim Killock (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@John Prestwich (cited) used "removed", also more neutral than "confiscated". Barrow uses "moved", followed by describing it as "plunder[ed]". So "took" seems right to me as it doesn't presume legality or claims of legality. I made the edit in any case. Jim Killock (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is more neutral language, and if it is truer to the sources that's perfect. John (talk) 19:21, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still to do; full dates for the events of the Second Barons' War as just having months is confusing. I presume he didn't erect the memorial crosses himself, but is it too clunky to point that out in the text? John (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is clearer, thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 18:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria What is the process for closing the review? I think we have done as best we can with available resources (I think @John is done with copyedits from what I can see). Jim Killock (talk) 19:37, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The process is we need people to either say this is ready to close without FARC, or this needs to be moved to FARC. Once there's a consensus either way it will proceed according to that. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who has read and reread the article in the course of a fairly thorough copyedit throughout, with specific emphasis on the rewritten sections, I think this article should retain its FA status. It looks like all the concerns raised in this discussion have been addressed. John (talk) 14:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am happy that the concerns raised are sufficiently addressed and believe it should retain its FA status. --Jim Killock (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I shall stick my neck out and also vote for retain, given that it was a fairly recent FA, and JK's edits seem clear improvements. JK has done a good job of expanding/nuancing/giving the article a wider perspective, and John's done a great copy edit. KJP1 (talk) 16:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matarisvan

[edit]

Hi Jim Killock, my comments:

  • Note a, ref #2: the page range we have used, 865-891 is, I think, a whole chapter. We need to cite 1-3 pages which say regnal numbers were not used during Edward's time and that he came to be known as Edward I only after his 2 immediate descendants also used the same name.
  • Note v needs a citation.
  • Perhaps link to justiciar? I must say that I didn't know what the word exactly meant.
  • Ref #35 needs page numbers, unless we are citing all 11 pages of that source.

Will resume tomorrow, completed reviewing the Early life section. Matarisvan (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I will work on these, note these issues were present (bar note v) at FA completion, rather than in this round of changes, so fixing refs especially may take a bit of digging for me. Jim Killock (talk) 11:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are fixed. On ref #2 re regnal numbers, the information was not in the source, so I removed it. On ref #35 (now #34), I don't believe this was the source used as it goes into great detail without really making the basic points. Rather I think the narrative follows Prestwich, so I added that. Jim Killock (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim, will resume my review the day after tomorrow. Till then, you should look at ref #7, particularly its last 3 sources, because only the first source cited in that ref is necessary. I think the titles of the 3 sourcez are cited to show that Edward was called the Lord Edward before his coronation. Matarisvan (talk) 18:40, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These sources don't actually support the claim, afaict, so I've removed them, thank you. Jim Killock (talk) 23:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

[edit]

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notices 2020-11-21 2022-12-10

This 2001 FA which dates to Refreshing Brilliant Prose days was last reviewed at FAR more than 10 years ago, and its most significant contributors are no longer active. The talk page notifications from 2020-11-21 and 2022-12-10 barely scratch the surface; the article is riddled with maintenance tags and there are concerns about image licensing, uncited text, prose, MOS compliance, and a good chunk of the very large article has never been vetted in a review process, as it was added after the last review. I believe the problems here are too deep and wide to be addressed at FAR, and the article should be delisted and re-submitted to FAC if it improves, but maybe someone is up to the task. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree that FAR is an unlikely solution for this, unless someone seriously commits themselves to this daunting task. This has been one of the big impending FARs for many years... I think the biggest length issues are in the history section, which should be 3/4, maybe even half as long. On the other side, the Literature section seems embarrassingly brief. From my understanding of Byzantine music (I created the List of Byzantine composers article), the emphasis on instruments is hugely undue and much more discussion of composers, genres and music rituals should be instead substituted. Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant to commit, given other constraints, but with a day in the library I could seriously improve the bloated history section. We shall see. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SandyGeorgia. Even if it were thought that a very long article would be needed even to summarize this topic well, this is not in any shape to be considered featured article class. As Sandy points out, there are too many deficiencies for a featured article. It will be a big task to make the needed improvements and, I think, few if any reviewers available to undertake it. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of the above. If there's a collective push to save this article I would chip in but it's way too modern for my usual area and I'm in no position to lead it. Aside from all of the valid criticisms already made, I am surprised to see not a single mention of slaves/slavery in the article. We have Slavery in the Byzantine Empire which seems to suggest that there were major changes to the institution of slavery from how it had been in classical antiquity... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caeciliusinhorto-public it looks like work is progressing; are you in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping SandyGeorgia. Between Christmas and other real-life stuff I probably can't commit to much but I'll watchlist the page and poke my nose in if I have anything useful to contribute. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, it looks unlikely anyone can or will take this on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per the above. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC it seems like even basic maintenance tags are unaddressed. Apropos of nothing, I am surprised that this article manages to be even longer than my own African humid period. I caveat though that I see though that Biz is doing a bit of work on the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been taking a break due to life, but before I touch this topic again I want to read Anthony Kaldellis's The new Roman Empire and complete my research on a draft I'm working on. I think there are some easy improvements that could be made. I prefer to collaborate with people and take a section by section approach as I go deep into the sources and more interested in factual accuracy as it supports a narrative than word smithing. Biz (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also reading this book, and I would like to contribute to improving this article the best I can. If I can help you in an adequately directed way, I would be happy to. Remsense聊 13:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Biz and Remsense: What is your timeline like - are you hoping to work on this within the context of FAR? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure. I don't have time to commit due to life circumstances, have not finished Kaldellis yet because I'm 4 deep in other books, but throw me a bone... @Future Perfect at Sunrise @Furius @DeCausa what do you think is best to improve the article? Biz (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversely, I do have time, but I am intimidated in the task and would feel most comfortable as the "junior partner" in an article cleanup where I'm possibly doing tasks specifically requested by others with more intuitive expertise, like I am presently doing at the other FAC Battle of Red Cliffs. This is a big topic of my interest, but it's not my specialty.
    If anyone else wants to help and knows exactly what to do, but doesn't have the time to do it—I have that time at present. I hope that's useful. I've been grabbing the sources cited so I have them on hand. Remsense留 15:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have time, and like to read sources, then I have a project that will prepare us for productive editing. It's the approach I would take and if we set this up right, I'll happily involve myself as well when I find a minute as this is the fun bit for me but also the most time consuming. This can be a parallel process to any editing that occurs. It will align people and can be used to settle Talk disputes. If more people want to involve themselves, it gives a common reference point for editing.
    1. Read all the sources referenced to statements and document with quotes and/or bullet points what they say.
    • Check they actually say what was written
    • Check for patch-writing
    • Use this an opportunity to identify historians who might have written more research that updates our knowledge. Bruno Rochette on language is a good example of that, as he wrote a more recent paper (2018) that, I think, responded to misinterpretations of what he wrote in 2012 (and that Wikipedia used as the basis of its narrative in the Roman Empire article section).
    • Documenting this means you can have other people help with the evaluation
    2. Read the article and sources in Roman Empire and see if there is anything there we can use.
    • There should be synergies between these articles
    • When these articles talk about each other as different empires, we should probably understand why.
    3. Finish reading Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire. See if anything he introduces supports the sources, the narrative or challenges them (the Iconaclasm is an example).
    • If you want to take this article to an even higher level, chase down Treadgold’s 1990s work and see where he and Kaldellis agree or differ in views.
    • In my view, this article should read with what Treadgold and Kaldellis have written in their books as the primary sources as they are the most recent academic historians to write about the topic at length.
    • Specialist historians on sections should be used of course to delve into issues but as we are looking for consensus what Kaldellis and Treadgold have said should be the test for consensus.
    The act of doing this will give us plenty of inspiration to start editing and improving the article on what substantively it needs. As it’s a large topic, I suggest this is done in sections to make this less over-whelming. If there is a way to set this up as a project, other people can contribute. By reading the sources, the edit prioritization will just naturally emerge.
    Further, by doing this, copy editing I think will be more informed and it will allow us to make the article more concise with the content that matters. Biz (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that this shouldn't be an FA. It would be good to get a clear summary of why it's not and of what needs to change.
I have a lot of respect for Biz's work and especially for their careful section by section approach, but that does mean that the talk page tends to focus on points of detail and nomenclature.
Thus, we don't currently have a holistic overview of how the article should change. It would be good to have that. If FA review could give us that, it would be worth doing. If there is another, better venue, we should do that. Furius (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That said, I do think Kaldellis’s book — the first new academic narrative since the 1990s — should be a standard for us to measure the current article beyond the maintenance tasks. Despite some issues, it’s remarkable well written. If we have a group of people commit to reading it before editing we will be all on the same page and the article will be all the better because of it.
One suggestion on approach is we understand this is a big project and do drives every so often on sections. It will make this a sustained effort then (and action will breed other action). If a regular group of editors have experience working together, they can just jive off each other’s edits. If people revert and becomes a problem, we take it to talk. What’s key is we set the expectation that we are blowing up a section and ask for people’s collaboration in edits rather than hash it out on talk. Biz (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently already reading it as I've said above, and I agree with your praise. Also with your methodology, I am fully onboard. Remsense留 05:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can work with Kaldellis as a foundation, I also have access to the relevant Cambridge history; I can get going in around a week, if that's acceptable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Word counts by major section
  • Lead: 571
  • Nomenclature: 307
  • History: 10,090
  • Government and bureaucracy: 924
  • Science and medicine: 528
  • Culture: 3536
  • Economy: 418
  • Legacy: 416
Lead can be done last (and where Talk wastes the most time so let's stay away from it). Nomenclature has undergone a major review recently so no need to focus on that now. The Language section in Culture is 519 words, a good 1/7th of that section and larger than the two sections after it -- the languages section in Roman Empire has undergone a recent deep review by me so we can lean on this to re-evaluate this section. Oh, and history, let's look at that as clearly this needs work:
  • Early Byzantine history: 1026
  • Justinian dynasty: 1081
  • Arab invasions and shrinking borders: 1312
  • Macedonian dynasty and resurgence (867–1025): 2170
  • Crisis and fragmentation: 491
  • Komnenian dynasty and the Crusades: 1694
  • Decline and disintegration: 1282
  • Fall: 309
  • Political aftermath: 725
Was hoping to finish Kaldellis before editing again -- with my travel and other commitments, optimistically it won't be before January -- but hey, throw a dart and we can start. Biz (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, my non-binding pick is Crisis and fragmentation, it may be easiest to identify the article's broader shortcomings with a short cut from the middle. I can also take a closer look at Language.
Oh, also, the presence of File:Bizansist touchup.jpg seems fairly...not for this decade. It needs to be replaced or likely removed, I'll see what I can source. Remsense留 04:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the most interesting section! Crisis and fragmentation, or rather that time period, is something Kaldellis will be key for as there is a lot of new research since Treadgold.
It's worth introducing the historian Roderick Beaton (with his very excellent, The Greeks: A Global History) who's book tries to make a case that every generation of Greek-speaking regime collapsed when central government was no longer useful. So in the case of the Byzantine Empire, he said long before 1453 and even 1204 occurred. That is to say, this era of 800-1204 is very sensitive how we edit it. Howard-Johnston, Treadgold and Kaldellis are the leading experts on this 'middle' period so I hope you understand my reluctance to have an opinion on this section until I get further with Kadellis. Biz (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start at the beginning? (I should note that when this FAR was opened a month ago, I trimmed the original six paragraphs into the current two). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also fully support this approach. Remsense留 14:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Logical. Ready to roll. Biz (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With three "Move to FARC' declarations, I'm unclear which way this FAR is headed. If you all are intending to save the star, it will be a very long effort, with work best conducted on talk with bi-weekly updates here, while a discussion of how you intend to tackle the size issue will be helpful. How will the article/work be divided, where will summary style be employed? Alternately, if the thought is that the article will be better served by having it delisted, and re-appearing at FAC once reworked, we need to know that, too, so we can move to FARC. I understand people are still reading the necessary new sources, but over a month in, we've seen very little actual article progress, so direction is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, it seems like we are going to keep it simple, starting with the history section and go over it chronologically. I've already earmarked several graphics that I plan on replacing or possibly removing. Remsense留 14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm willing to work on the article within FAR, but not outside it. To be honest, the size issue is at the moment secondary to more immediate problems (OR, CLOP, etc.) History section first, then others, when we're all hopefully soaked through with knowledge. As we should be going section-to-section, and just move the comments on each to talk after it's satisfactorily completed. This will be a long job but I wouldn't expect anything else for such an important article (Genghis Khan took me 413 days on my lonesome). At the moment, I'm mildly optimistic—we have three competent and active editors, pretty much a blank sheet in front of us, and if it fails then. well, at least we tried? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support working within FAR though these frameworks for review is not something I have useful experience in. Will need to defer to someone else's lead on that. In terms of process, I'm amenable to suggestions.
If we exclude the Lead and Nomenclature, there are 9 history subheadings, 7 culture subeadings and 4 other major sections. By announcing periodic drives on a section and putting eyes on it, even with just 1-3 of us, we'll rip through and make Temüjin-like progress. If we want to do this right, and on balance of all the things needed, I'd say this a 20-80 week project (budgeting 1-4 weeks per section).
I'll put my hand up on the slowest part of this process which is validating existing sources, evaluating other sources people suggest or from other articles, and otherwise assessing current scholarship. This will result in addressing article issues like CLOP and OR, and by extension assist with condensing the narrative which will address the big billboard problem of size. Happy to document notes and note down direct quotes as I read sources which may assist in making this work more accessible so other people can leverage it. Biz (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Sandy is probably right that we should do all the nitty grity on this FAR's talk, so we don't clog up the main FAR page with all our scribblings. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. So if I understand this right:
  • this FAR page (or its talk?) is where we document a FAR review
  • this FAR talk is where we put notes evaluating scholarship and/or other notes
  • Issues from the above two processes will get posted on the articles Talk page
  • We announce updates here every two weeks
  • After (or in parallel?) of the FAR, we do section by section drives?
Anything else? Who will perform the FAR? And we officially start sometime-ish this month? Biz (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that everything happens on this page or its talk, and that the improving of each section is part of the FAR. At the end, some other editors will take a look at the article and see whether they think it meets WP:FACR. Is that right SandyGeorgia? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Biz's question: the FAR is open, the instructions are at the top of WP:FAR, but there is no time pressure. Other editors will evaluate on this page whether the article meets WP:WIAFA, but it is typical for them to wait until after you all are ready for a new look and as long as you keep this page informed and that work is steadily progressing in the right direction. (I am quite concerned that I haven't seen much progress yet, particularly in terms of re-organizing the content towards a trimmer version.) Where you coordinate the work doesn't matter; it can be on the article talk page, or on the talk page of this FAR, but to avoid clogging this page, the nitty gritty need not be conducted here, unless you need broader feedback beyond the day-to-day improvements. This page is for others to eventually declare Close or Move to FARC in the FAR phase, and Keep or Delist if it moves to the FARC phase. Considering there is a very large amount of work to do, my suggestion is that work proceeds on article talk, and that you let this page know bi-weekly how things are going. If progress stalls, editors are likely to suggest Move to FARC to keep the process moving forward. Perhaps an understanding of FAR functioning can be had by reading through Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 (which I I believe is the biggest rewrite at FAR to date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pointers.
I've started the review with some structure on how we approach it in this article's talk page. Open to feedback to do this differently (in the Talk page, of course). Biz (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of approaches may also take place on the article's talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm continuing the rewrite, aided by the others here; @Z1720 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: as the two remaining !votes, is there anything in particular you want to see addressed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one section without a source at the last sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll get to that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still see lots of uncited sections. I am happy to cn tag the article if this is requested. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, that would be a great help! Biz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate feedback on two sections I've been focused on: Transition into an eastern Christian empire and Language. I still want to do more source work (last paragraph of languages needs verification; waiting for a new book on slavery which may improve the narrative) but I thought now is as good a time than ever to ask if I am rewriting this article to the standard that is expected. (I'm finding it a challenge to balance summary prose with comprehensiveness and neutrality...I've never brought an article to FA standard so I apologise for what may seem obvious to others.) Biz (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christmas Day update: Biz has been working on the language section, while my grand reduction of the history section has gotten slightly distracted; I will be back there shortly, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've completed my read (40+ hours) of Anthony Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire which was my precondition before I start work on this article.
    • I'm currently focused on "society". It's two-thirds done. @AirshipJungleman29 is taking point on History and it's not an easy task.
      • Languages: need to validate last paragraph sources and final review of copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
      • Transition into an eastern Christian empire: need to validate two sources still and final proof read to make sure I'm happy with the copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
        • when I thought I had finished this, someone added a paragraph on slavery, and as I validated the sources, I ended up reading a book Slaveries of the First Millennium by Youval Rotman which helped rewrite it and which is also helping with a lot of other content (like marriage which sits in women right now)
      • I've asked for feedback on the above because I'm not confident in my ability to meet FA standard, and before I embark on the rest of the article.
      • I'm currently reviewing the "women" section and have more literature to read as it's a topic I have no expertise in
        • I'm drafting a new section on socioeconomic and legal rights, that will incorporate sources from the women section I'm reading and that will reduce that section but also make the content stronger I hope (ie, combined with other sources, broader perspective).
        • I'm still evaluating if there needs to be something on "gender" (as part of women or separate) which is something that is coming up in modern scholarship. Can only resolve this by reading a book by Leora Neville
    • Due to life commitments, I expect to be slow moving until February 5th.
    Biz (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    History rewrite is ongoing...slooowwwwly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, Biz, and Remsense: How is it going? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halted, and probably will be for the next three weeks due to RL responsibilities. Working on adjacent topics, however, and intending to return. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same with me. IRL challenges, but have every intention to continue. Appreciate the follow up. Time has flown this past month… Biz (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I copy-edited the "Society" section, does that section look better. CosXZ (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you! @AirshipJungleman29 added that copy editing tag because I wanted feedback on my writing and actually I've been waiting for this and is partly why I paused my contributions. I would appreciate your continued involvement in copy-editing as we re-write sections. Personally, I'm trying hard to write a balanced and modern narrative supported by stronger sources but it's easy to get caught in detail that another editor can easily correct. Biz (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biz please try to iron out your additions in drafts, before adding them to the rewritten article. Take for example the second paragraph of this edit—none of the three sentences make grammatical sense, and I additionally don't see what relevance it has to a section titled "Central government". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By second paragraph, you mean the sentence starting with Phocas?
I'll review the two new sentences on nomos empsychos and re-evaluate which seems to be the only thing you cut from the revision I made. Biz (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, came across this a few days ago and thought I'd offer my help if there are any particular sections that could do with editing/sourcing improvements? @AirshipJungleman29@Biz & co.? Jr8825 • Talk 21:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! We are working our way down the article, @AirshipJungleman29's driving the history rewrite and also worked on Nomenclature which I also previously worked on, I've completed my work on Society and recently finished Governance. I've gone into a rabbit hole understanding one statement about nomos empsychos and related the impact of Justinian's code, which probably won't belong on this article but reflecting on its relevance still, and plan to focus on military, diplomacy, law after that which has some overlap on the work I've already done.
Economy, architecture, Daily life, Science and medicine, Religion would be next after that so that would be a great place you could pick up on. Arts @Aza24 has previously said they would work on, but otherwise open field! Biz (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting work on literature in my sandbox. Should get to Art and Music after – Aza24 (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed a draft for a new literature section, see User:Aza24/sandbox (perma link: [4]). @Biz:, does it seem too long? I was going for as concise as possible, but don't know if I've overstepped. I'll paste it in after I copy edit and go through the sources once more. Should get started on the art section in a few days. – Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded with feedback. @AirshipJungleman29 should also take a look. Biz (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've made some adjustments (moved your comments to the bottom of the page with replies). Aza24 (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't have much time to take a look at this at present. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! The Byzantine Empire will be waiting, since you can't go back to Constantinople anyways. Aza24 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My new literature section has been added. Thanks again Biz for your feedback! I'll look towards doing Art next sometime soon – Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. I've updated the status of the article here: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3. Let's use that page to coordinate on the work, and keep this page for general updates. Biz (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Nice system you got there Aza24 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After 8 and a half months, this article is still not close to meeting the FA criteria. There are still uncited sections, including the entire "Military", "Clothing", and "Relationship with Western Christendom" sections. Progress also seems to have stalled, with information added recently getting reverted several times. While I appreciate the work done to try to save this, it might be better if it goes to FARC so that it can be evaluated for delisting. Z1720 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the three sections until more work can be done on them.
    If there is a list of specific issues you want done by a certain time period, I'm happy to prioritise this over the line by line by section review that is currently occurring (albeit at a leisurely pace as I did not think there was a rush and it requires readings and reflection)
    As for the reverting of some of my edits, this has not been a problem for me, as it keeps me to a higher standard when done respectfully. And of the litany of other editors where this occurs, it's been appropriate as we've had talk page consensus on these issues. But I can understand it does not look good. Biz (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern is not about specific sections: it's that FAR is about evaluating whether the article should still be considered an FA. Having extended comments on a review makes the FAR page difficult to load, and discussions on article improvements should happen on the article's talk page, while small corrections should be discussed on nomination pages such as FAR. If the article is so far away from the criteria that it cannot be fixed in a couple of weeks, my opinion is to delist it and work on it without the time pressures of FAR, and it can be renominated at FAC when it is ready. Since this has been open for 8 months, and citation problems still exist (even after the above sections were removed) my opinion is that the article probably needs a lot of work to get it back to FA status, which should happen on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I defer to yours and others judgement. Personally, I like the idea of keeping this as the oldest FA on Wikipedia so would prefer a process where I have time to improve it which is how I understand FARC with extensions is.
    I do want to say that the articles talk page has been inhibiting progress on this article these last few years. Since this FAR started, I've become along with others one of the top authors in the articles history. The work I do is not superficial and will take months. For example, the previous FAR editors added citations but when I checked one, it was to the contents pages (as I read all the sources); and this Bleicken book I've hunted down that is referenced in modern scholarship I've come across is referenced in other articles (ie, Principate) and now that I've read half of it says something completely different to what people think it says (ie, terms like principate/dominate need to be dropped, it was the same legal system since Augustus, there was no hellenistic autocracy change in the emperor which nomos empsychos has been used to represent, etc). Biz (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went down a nomos empsychos rabbit hole, reaching out to academics as it's a multi-disciplinary issue across history, jurisprudence and philosophy. As for why, I've come to realise it's important for this topic, as it underpins narrative bias historians have (ie, Prinzipat und Dominat, Bleicken 1978, 22–24 uses it for periodisation of the Roman Empire that others refer to; Kaldellis all together rejects it; and it separately has had a huge impact on medieval and modern law but that's beyond the scope of this article though it does link to the section about law as it was in Justinian's code). If someone can help me obtain access to Bleicken which I've had trouble with, I would appreciate that. UPDATE: it only took a few hours and two months but I found this out-of-print book that all the scholars reference; now I just need to learn German...
Military is a complex topic I'm reading about now and plan to draft new copy hopefully this month when I get some free time. Biz (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria and @Z1720, I've worked on the bibliography formatting, namely the links to authors and editors, locations of publication and consistent use of ISBN13. Could you review this? Once this is OK'd then I can start work on the reference formatting. Matarisvan (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: Feel free to ping me when this article is ready to be reviewed. I could consider the article ready when there is no uncited text, the prose size is reduced (currently at over 13,000 words), and the article has been copyedited (anyone can do that, or even split the work). Z1720 (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was looking for a review of just the formatting of the bibliography. I believe it would be much better to do piecemeal reviews since, as you said, the article size is large. Wdyt? Please let me know, Matarisvan (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: I'd prefer to wait until the whole article is ready: there have been times when editors asked me to review parts, only to disappear later. However, the following listed sources are not used as inline citations, and should either be included or removed: Dennis, George T. (1985), Chrysos, Evangelos (1992), Bury, John Bagnell; Philotheus (1911), Antonucci, Michael (1993), Seeck, Otto, ed. (1876). Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will look through these sources and see if anything in there can be added here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all references that were previously in the diplomacy section, a review completed after Matarisvan's review. I reviewed diplomacy in late July and agree that they can be removed (except the Chrysos that in now listed as a chapter in Shepherd). Biz (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Biz, could you confirm whether it would be alright if these 5 unused sources were removed? If so, I will remove them. Matarisvan (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though I think since this was discussed it has been removed. We would love it if you could continue to join us in the review, the more eyes the better. Let's discuss the work on this talk or the articles's talk and keep this page just for pulse general updates. Biz (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Doing... History and Arts are progressing but I defer to Airship and Aza given they are updating here. I'm working on Law next
 Doing... Religion was rewritten by an editor with expertise in the topic (Jenhawk777), Economy similarly for the first paragraph by another editor (Graearms) but needs more work, and both will need to be reviewed by different editor later.
 Done Governance and Diplomacy have been recently reviewed.
 Done Also reviewed, but new since the FAR started: Geography, Military (Army, Navy).
 Done Previous sections that are now finalised: Society. They include Transition into an Eastern Christian empire (previously in history), Slavery (new section), Socio-economic (new section partially from women before), Women, and Language.
 Done Nomenclature from before
 Done Infobox has now more tightly regulated and simplified.
 Done Matarisvan has improved the bibliography and converted the remaining references into SFN on the unreviewed sections.
 Not done Other than the before mentioned, what remains is a review of the more straightforward topics of Flags and insignia, Daily Life (Cuisine, Recreation, and we might add Clothing), Science/medicine, and legacy.
 Not done Airship will be proposing a new article layout, which we may implement once we complete the review to restructure the content and address lingering word count issues, as well as to make the content more accessible
Overall: We may not be done but the work we've done has now made all of us in the before mentioned 5 of the top 10 authors of the current article which reflects how extensive this content review has been. We also have a battle tested standard on source usage which if we stick to will put it in the strongest state its ever been while also reflecting the latest scholarship, breathing in a new life for this FA. Biz (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria, we now have only three sections left to rewrite, namely Science & medicine, Legacy and Arts. Other than that, there are only two sections yet to be fully reviewed, namely Daily life and Economy. Once these are done, we have 6 images which need sourcing (compared to the original 12) and TOOBIG issues left to address. I think we could then put the FAR up for voting, though other editors working on the rewrite have raised some more issues which might take a little more time to resolve. Matarisvan (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reviews for Flags and insignia, Education, and Clothing are now complete. I plan to focus on Recreation, Cuisine, and Religion next. Biz (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article removal candidates

[edit]
Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Wadewitz; WT:BOOKS; WT:NORWAY; WT:POLITICS; WT:WPWW

Review section

[edit]

This article was noticed last year because of concerns about citation-needed tags and overuse of block quotes. There's also been seventeen years' worth of new scholarship since the FAC, and I'm not sure the article's kept up with it enough to remain comprehensive: there a chapter here, a chapter here, an article here, and probably others too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Vrba

[edit]
Notified: Jayjg, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Jewish history, WikiProject Slovakia, WikiProject Hungary, WikiProject European history, WikiProject Military history, 2024-06-25

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, per WP:TOOLONG, the article at 11,000 words should probably be summarised more effectively and reduced. The article over-emphasises the Vrba–Wetzler report, and the lead is missing biographical information. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Tritter

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Fictional characters, Fourthords, WikiProject Television

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because...It is not comprehensive enough, and the prose doesn't read well, and it feels like it just lists everything. "Entertainment Weekly stated that Tritter annoyed House more than any other character, and Variety considered her a "worthy foe"." This is not reception at all, and why was he a "worthy foe"? "Staci Krause of IGN found the first few episodes of Season 3, in which House recovers from being shot, more interesting." This is not him but from the episode. "Tritter all the more scary."There is clear evidence that the article is not comprehensive and has prose issues. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My general impression of this article, after a quick skim, is "shrug". I don't have any sourcing concerns. I am unsure what else can be added to the article, but I am not well-versed in pop-culture articles about fictional characters. The "Reception" section could use a refresh using the advice from WP:RECEPTION but it's not terrible. There have been no edits since it was posted to FAR as of this comment. I am going to defer to others who are topic-experts: I have no strong feelings, but barring additional concerns I'm OK if this was kept (although I would not suggest this go up to TFA). Z1720 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps @HTGS can respond here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC while my opinion on the quality of this article can be summarised by the word "meh", Boneless's concerns have not been addressed, which makes me think that no one is maintaining the quality of this article. I think FARC will be a good avenue to determine if this should be kept. Z1720 (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On comprehensiveness, some additional references were suggested last year[5] but they contain nothing that's worth adding to the article. I see nothing egregious in the prose that I can point to and say 'that needs rewriting'. The article is what it is: a brief summary of a minor character in a once-popular TV show. It's not a great subject matter, but it seems to meet Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. DrKay (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HTGS can you respond? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; there's nothing glaring here that stands out to me. Sure, it could possibly be polished up a bit with the reception, but I'm not seeing anything worth delisting over. It's honestly about the best that I would expect an article written about such a microscopic and ephemeral topic could be. Hog Farm Talk 21:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages

[edit]
Notified: Ealdgyth, Johnbod, Reddi, Adam Bishop, Middle Ages, European history, Visual arts, Military history, History [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was heavily edited, partially rewritten and slightly restructured for various reasons since 23 December 2021 ([15]), so it needs a thorough and comprehensive new review. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the broad structure, it seems worth bringing up for discussion that the article seems structured as three separate topics rather than a single one, being set up as a summary of each period (Early, High, Late). There are 3 society subsections, 3 military and technology subsections, and 3 Art and Architecture sections. This gives the impression that the three periods are quite distinct with little connecting the historical division as a whole. This may be true (within usual historical fuzziness, although but then why is there only a two-fold division in Romance historiography?), but if so I'd expect something a bit more explicit about such disjunctions in Terminology and periodisation. Aside from that discussion, overall, it does not appear at an initial read through that the quality has obviously decreased since the linked version. Perhaps worth a note that the new version calls highlights a single historian (Miri Rubin) in Terminology and periodisation, while removing the highlighting of C. R. Dodwell in the second Art and architecture subsection. Best, CMD (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. (1) I did not touch the main structure of the article because it has been stable for more than a decade ([16]). I think the article follows a quite common scholarly practice, as its structure is based on chronology instead of topics. This is fully in line with most of the cited books. As I also noticed that the article failed to explain why the Middle Ages is discussed as one period in scholarly literature, I expanded it with two sentences about the period's main characteristics (I refer to the third paragraph in section "Terminology and periodisation"). If we ignore these common characteristics, we can indeed conclude that the three subperiods were quite distinct, as it is presented in the article. On the other hand, the article (I hope) also presents the links between the subperiods. (2) The sentence containing a reference to Dodwell presented his PoV about frescoes in churches in the west. As I prefer facts and wanted to expand the article about details of Orthodox architecture and art, I deleted the PoV sentence, and added a sentence about Balkan church architecture. (3) Miri Rubin is primarily named because I preferred to quote her words instead of paraphrasing them. Furthermore, she is a prominent contemporaneous historian of the period, who is specifically mentioned in John H. Arnold's cited book about problems of medieval history. Borsoka (talk)
  • Borsoka is correct. The rewrite in the last 3 years has been so complete that the usual FAR process is totally inappropriate, & the article should immediately be delisted so that the new owner can, if he wishes, reapply at FAC. The main contributors in the last decade per the page history (Borsoka, Ealdgyth and myself) have all said so in the past, so there should be no difficulty. The stats give Borsoka, who first edited the article 27 December 2021, long after it became FA in May 2013, 70.5% of the "authorship attribution", in 1411 edits. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: It's not so much about ownership as stewardship, and it's encased in policy. ——Serial Number 54129 15:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify - the below replies to a cmt now huffily blanked by the poster. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always the not-understanding with you! FAR is meant to be a much lighter process, and normally attracts far fewer reviewers and comments. That may be fine for an article that has already been through FAC, but is wholly inappropriate for one that has been changed as much as this one, in effect completely re-done. In the past Borsoka expressed the view very strongly that the previous version was absolutely terrible, and should never have been made FA. What is presented now is a completely new article, that has never been through FAC, as it needs a full review, for the first time. I hope this has clarified. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While one wouldn't expect great detail on military matters, the article does over-rely on a single generalist work (Nicolle Medieval Warfare Source Book), which means a single and perhaps slightly dated perspective. Conflicting views on the roles of cavalry and infantry or the importance of technology in works by Rogers, DeVries and the Bachrachs among others deserve mention. The later medieval section is rather weak on maritime advances, which are a very significant factor going into the 16th century as the reach of European ambition expands globally (economic motivation is fine but it needed the technology to achieve it). This should include advances in navigation (development of portolan charts and so on) not just shipbuilding.Monstrelet (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan
[edit]

Hi Borsoka, saving a space, will be adding comments soon. I will try to do a comprehensive review as you request in the introduction here, but given the huge scale of this article, that will take a lot of time. I hope that is ok. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that you are not re-reviewing an existing FA, but what is in effect a completely new article that has never been through FAC. So you should indeed the thorough, if you think it is appropriate to engage in this at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Johnbod, I understand the quality of the review would need to be high. I will work on being as thorough as possible, please let me know at any time during the process if I err. Matarisvan (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: Here goes the source formatting review, source review to come soon.
  • Link to Frances and Joseph Gies as done for other authors?
  • I am not sure that the existing link Frances and Joseph Gies is useful, and linking it to both names would be difficult.
  • Remove the second link to Edward Grant, as we have not linked similarly for Chris Wickham, the only other author we have used two works from?
  • Done.
  • Link to Oxford History of Art, Oxford Illustrated Histories, Routledge Studies in Medieval Religion and Culture, as done for other series?
  • Done.
  • For Lasko 1972, why use the old SBN format, and not the ISBN provided by Google Books: 9780300060485? Have there been any material changes between the two texts? If you choose the latter, the formatting would also be consistent with all the other sources in the biblio.
Matarisvan (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, the source formatting review is a pass then, will do the image and source reviews tomorrow. Matarisvan (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes the image review:
  • File:Новгородская грамота 109 от Жизномира к Микуле 12 век.jpg - PD tag could be disputed since the photo seems to be from a book published in 2021, unless this fragment is already in the public domain, say at a museum or public collection, if so then the tag will have to be updated.
The site has the following copyright info: © 2023 – National Research University Higher School of Economics; Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Are these government institutions? If so, then will be PD. Matarisvan (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Venice city scenes - in St. Mark's square, File:Sanvitale03.jpg - St Mark's Basilica (11002237996).jpg and - The photographers may have provided CC license for the images, but are they covered under Italy's freedom of panorama?
  • Based on Nikkimaria's linked remark, I understand that the "freedom of panorama issues specific to Italy are non-copyright restrictions". [17]
  • File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.png, File:Map of expansion of Caliphate.svg, File:Carolingian territorial divisions, 843/855/870.png, File:Europe mediterranean 1190.jpg - I had issues with a map which had colors like these ones in my recent FAC nom, due to MOS:COLOR. Black and white versions of these maps would be better.
  • We do not have available maps of better quality. From a practical perspective, I think the fact that most of the maps have not been challenged for more than a decade indicates that our readers think they are useful. [18]
  • File:Aachen Germany Imperial-Cathedral-12a.jpg, File:Frühmittelalterliches Dorf.jpg, File:Maria Lach 02.jpg: Covered under Germany's freedom of panorama?
  • See my above remark.
  • File:Catedral Gótica de León.jpg: Covered under Spain's freedom of panorama?
  • See my above remark.
  • All other images seem to have proper sources and copyright tags, at least as far as I can tell. @Nikkimaria will be able to provide more feedback on the images.
Matarisvan (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of the likely closers on this so will leave it to you :-) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your image review. Borsoka (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, all images seem ok now except for File:Aachen Germany Imperial-Cathedral-12a.jpg. As per Commons, Germany's freedom of panorama rules are: "In the case of architectural works, the freedom of panorama provision is applicable only to the external appearance. Therefore, pictures of interior staircases and interior courtyards cannot be used under § 59(1) even if all of the above-described conditions are met". Now, the image does not show a courtyard or staircase, so it could be allowed on a technicality but it can very well be disputed too. For the St. Mark's Basilica statues and Sanvitale03 images, FoP is "OK for objects where the copyright has expired". The statues are from 290s AD and the mosaic from 547 AD so both are ok. On the maps with color as a legend, I'm not an expert, only Nikkimaria or another editor with image review proficiency will be able to rule on this. So pending the MOS:COLOR issue, everything else is ok. Once that is resolved then we can pass the image review. Matarisvan (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24
[edit]
  • As I've said before, this article is hugely lacking in music content. Despite the lengthy architecture & art sections, there is quite literally eight words on music. This is not acceptable: this period saw some of the most important developments of Western music: notation, harmony, genre etc.—these developments are vastly more fundamental than any innovations in art/architecture. This period was quite literally the birth of Western classical music. – Aza24 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments (mainly on music):
  • The IB has AD 500 – 1500 but lead has 500 to 1500 AD. I'd think the AD placement should be consistent. Perhaps it should also be included once in the body, ideally in the "It customarily spans" sentence of Terminology.
  • I added some more on late medieval music and a small tidbit on early. I think the main movements are all covered now. The High Middle Ages music is a bit limited, could use one more line talking about how the secular songs had regional variants, Troubadours/trouvère/Minnesang. – Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
[edit]
@Borsoka: Here goes the source review. Since the article has ~500 refs, I will be doing spot checks for 20 refs, which is 4% of the total refs. I will also be using a random number generator to make the ref selection as random as possible.
  • Would you consider adding DOIs and JSTOR IDs for books? If so, I can provide these. Many sources are from OUP, CUP or other university presses which allow access with the above through The Wikipedia Library that is easier than accessing through ISBNs.
  • Why is David Lindberg mentioned twice as an editor in Lindberg 2003?
  • Fixed.
  • All sources are from reliable publishers.
  • Is there any material in the sources from the further reading section which could be added to the article? If not, you may have to remove the section entirely. I personally don't have any issues with such a section but have seen reviews where editors have criticised the need for it.
  • Could you provide quotations for the following refs? I tried accessing some of them on Google Books but many previews don't have page numbers, making spot checks hard. I'll try to access some of these that have DOIs or JSTOR IDs, for the others you can provide quotations.
  1. 48, #83, #84, #97, #116, #216, #263, #280, #325, #338, #344, #368, #377, #394, #400, #463, #473, #487, #492, #495. Matarisvan (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka, I'm thinking of doing spot checks only after you've incorporated Aza24's suggestions on medieval music. That way, one or two refs from such text added can also be checked. Wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]

I intend to have a look sometime in the next month. Ping me if I haven't got round to it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 :) Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick read of the lede and skim of the rest. Made some tweaks, but didn't find glaring deficiencies. Sdkb talk 21:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "glaring deficiency", from the FAR point of view, is that the article has been very largely rewritten and almost completely re-referenced by Borsoka since it passed the FAC, without involvement by the original editors. It is essentially a different article, which has not been through FAC. The only thing to do is to remove FA status, & let it be re-submitted at FAC. The FAR process is not intended to deal with this situation, & is not capable of handling it. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, no other editor has accepted your proposal. I cannot agree or disagree with it because you have not quoted a single text from any relevant WP policy to substantiate it. Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This review is going nowhere and frankly is an insult given the article history. Move to delist sadly; page has denigrated and has not received a review on FAC criteria in its entirely re-written form. Borsoka suggest you take it to GA first, then to PR before you present again as FA-worthy; although your aims seems to be to smith your enemies rather than move the page on. Dismal behaviour. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no enemies. Please do not assume that editors are here to fight although I am sure this is a surprise for you. Perhaps you want to take me to ANI for misconduct instead of continuing your boring personal attacks. Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Move to delist nonetheless. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Airship
[edit]

Apologies for the delay. Comments to follow.

I've spent some time comparing the current article with the old; I think overall there has been enough improvement to warrant a rewrite, notwithstanding the displeasure of the original authors who also put a lot into this article.
My comments will naturally focus on those areas with which I am more familiar (which, not to blow my trumpet, is most of this), so some points of detail may go unexplored. With a view to length: 13,500 is of course quite long but justifiable with an article of this calibre—still, we should look to trimming more then adding, I think. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do like the structure, most of which seems to have been inherited from the previous version, but it was certainly a good choice to keep it. And a sources section! you know I like a good one of those.
  • Has to be said that the lead is chunky: 625 words is on the top end for any FA. I think the third paragraph especially is slightly problematic—it reads not so much as a professional summary but instead a prosified bullet-point list. You don't have to summarise literally everything in the "High Middle Ages" section with equal weight. See what you can do.
I have given this a prune, as it seemed like no one else was going to. It may be over severe but it is certainly clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which states are mentioned in the lead? Western and Eastern Rome, Franks/Carolingians ... nothing in the High Middle Ages paragraph ... Ottoman Empire. I think that confirms, for me at least, that the third paragraph is too thematic-focused. I would expect at least the HRE to be mentioned.
  • The new periodisation section is a definite improvement—the old "Development of the concept" subsection seems a little bit wasted space.
    • "to use tripartite periodisation" perhaps add a "this" before tripartite?
  • You aren't certain whether the Middle Ages are singular or plural. For the former: "The Middle Ages is", "It customarily spans". For the latter: "the Middle Ages were often known".
    • "It customarily spans" certainly has no direct antecedent.
  • "There is no universally-agreed-upon end date" this was just said; remove and start the sentence with "the most frequently..."
  • It's an odd choice to start the sources section focusing on what we don't have, rather than what we do have.
  • I don't know if three paragraphs on events before even 350 AD is necessarily WP:DUE; the "Later Roman Empire" section certainly seems quite overburdened.
As before, pruned, perhaps over severely but more in keeping I think. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have limited access to WP till the end of the week, so I will address them on Sunday. Borsoka (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


FARC section

[edit]
Moving to get more input regarding this article's status WRT the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist obviously. The current version is, via attrition,not what was examined at FAC. And per Johnbod above, FAR is designed to repair and shouldn't be able to pass an entirely rewritten article as FAC standard. Borsoka should open a fresh FAC with his new version and see how his bludgeoning tactics work there. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are talking about bludgeoning above. Does it mean that you could prove that the two huge archives where I indicated dozens of cases of unverified statements or statements representing marginal PoVs in the article's "FA" version (FA?) are basically incorrect? If this is the case, please do not hesitate to take me to ANI. The two of the three nominators who can still edit WP perhaps could assist you. Ping them. Borsoka (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing the point! You yourself have said that the article was (relatively recently, after you had made vast numbers of changes) unfit to be an FA. The version that actually passed FAC is gone, & there is no point in re-opening arguments over its merits. The issue is that the current version that replaced it is unreviewed, and the various points raised above, fine as far as they go, by no means amount to the "thorough and comprehensive new review" that you yourself said at the top here was needed. This FAR has now been open almost 4 months, without attracting any overall support for the current version, and there is no alternative to a Delist. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and regardless of Airship's late intervention, they are just one voice and POV. Resubmission at FAC is the only option. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not going to declare a strict keep or delist, but given that the point of WP is to present information in the best possible, most thorough and palpable way, I don't see why an FA resubmission would be anything but helpful. It would bring a lot of eyes to the new draft and iron out any kinks. I don't think this version is too far from an FA anyways; it's certainly GA but just hasn't had the proper vetting/site-wide consideration that a subject this big requires. – Aza24 (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose an extension so that Airship and Az's reviews play out. They are shaping up to be beneficial for a future FAC, although they shouldnt be allowed to move it over the line here it a step forward. Ceoil (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ceoil—this is fair enough if these reviews were actually playing out, but they seem rather dormant. Perhaps AirshipJungleman29 and Aza24 could confirm whether they intend to return to this review. Furthermore, it appears that the nominator Borsoka is too busy to address any issues raised. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do intend to continue, but if consensus is to delist for "procedural reasons" I might as well save my comments for the FAC.
    I wasn't aware however that you could delist an FA simply for having been rewritten—I thought the important thing was whether it met the FA criteria, and as far as I can see none of the !votes above have provided any evidence in that direction. If one of them could point me to a discussion outlining this type of "procedural" delist I would much appreciate it. Or is the argument that it has not met criterion 1e? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really that (not met criterion 1e). Thanks to Borsoka's vigorous WP:OWNing, stability is the least of the problems here. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if the situation has come up before, and am not going to research the matter - you could ask ask at FAC. Is there a precedent for passing an article like this? But FAR, obviously, is a rather light touch review process for articles that have passed the FAC process, and this one hasn't. Therefore we need an FAC, precisely to determine whether it meets the FA criteria; currently we just don't know. That doesn't seem conceptually difficult to me, and I'm not sure I would call it a "procedural reason". We shouldn't be "grandfathering" articles in. If the rather sparse FAR "rules" don't yet mention this, then they should. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, this review seems to be heading towards a pass by one person, AirshipJungleman29 (whose comments are being actioned only by Norfolkbigfish (since reverted) also an opposer), with comments on a narrow area by Aza24. That to me seems like falling through the cracks. If I were either of the editors arguing for keep here; I'd be punting towards FAC, for reputational and transparency reasons. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod off the top of my head unresolved precedents would be the war over Global warming, and Moors murders and the second FAR for Byzantine Empire. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was mercifully unaware of these! Just looking at the last of them, Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Byzantine_Empire/archive3 rather relevant to here, the high priestess of FAR, User:SandyGeorgia, was surely right to say at the start that a full new FAC was needed. But she didn't push for that, so over a year later, the process drifts on in a desultory fashion, that I think inspires no confidence that if the star is kept the article will deserve it. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now also looked at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1 (2019), at 74 kb too long and depressing to fully scrutinize if you don't know the article. Some similarities to here, including one of the original main authors. Several of WPs er stronger personalities involved, after a very major rewrite. It was delisted. I doubt I can face "the war over Global warming". Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after reviews proved that the article did not (and potenially had never) met FA criteria. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was busy, but I returned a couple of days ago. I have not addressed the issues because I have been waiting for the outcome of this intermezzo. As I mentioned before, I would accept any conclusion. However, so far this section looks like a private conversation among three editors who (as usual) come to an agreement without referring to any point of a relevant WP policy. Borsoka (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no editors who are arguing for keep here because for the time being the normal process is being followed. Consequently, those who argue for a delist should refer to a single point in the relevant policies. Norfolkbigfish's "action" demonstrates the destructive consequences of ignoring our rules. By the way, the article was edited based on FAR comments. Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't play both sides here citing on the one hand that there are "no editors who are arguing for keep" while berating "those who argue for a delist" while reverting Norfolkbigfish. That's just embarrassing double-speak. Noting also your attempt to refracture the discussion by placing your reply to recent points after the days old "I was busy" ANI flu-type excuse. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your approach Borsoka, you are so knowledgeable, but obstinate at times, clearly a victory via FA is the best path here. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not play both sides: I have clearly stated, at least twice, that I will accept any outcome but I ask you to refer to a single point of relevant WP policies. Sorry, I do not understand what is the connection between my statement made some hours ago, and my revert of Norfolkbigfish's "edits" yesterday. (Please note those edits were reverted by an other editor as well [26].) I do not attempt to refracture the discussion in any way: I always try to place my comments where they are to be placed in context. I have several times explained you that it is not me who is here to fight or to have my victory. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is characteristically misleading. There were review comments unactioned since the 21st October, so in attempt to move these on I summarized the lead and another section as the comments suggested. No factual information was added. Both were reverted by the nominator. I attempted to summarize the Lead in another edit and followed with an edit to insert a space. The nominator then reverted the space edit, leaving the first edit in place. The subsequent editor then noticed this mistake, and reverted the first edit to be helpful. There is no evidence that this indicates support for the reverts, only of an editor rectifying an obvious mistake. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping the editor who reverted your edit when assuming something about their motivation. Remsense, before reverting your edit, thanked the remarks I made about your edits on the article's Talk page. You (as it is not unusual) ignored my remarks before partially repeating your edits (that contain unverified claims and obviously false statements). Please also read the article's history before stating that any of my comments is misleading: I made several edits in accordance with comments by other reviewers ([27], [28]) in July and September. Borsoka (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the FAR co-ords Nikkimaria, Casliber and DrKay as this seems intractable and a matter of scope. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Borsoka I dunno at this stage, you are exhausting and given your use of double-hands, I'm bowing out for now least I talk my way into a block. The FAR coordinates are typically even-handed, and I will leave it to them; I'm as likely to get as hammered as you but at least a precedent will be set. Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1)It is:
"a) well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;" - untested by full review. Numerous relatively minor issues with idiom and vocab are normally found by Borsoka's reviewers.
"b) "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;"- untested by review. There have been significant changes here
"c) "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;" - almost certainly NOT based on "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", though that is a huge demand here. As usual on large subjects that are not on his main stomping ground of Central/Eastern Europe, Borsoka tends to pick a single source, not always of top quality, and stick with it.
"d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;" - untested by full review. Very probably there are issues here, suggested by the direction of some of Borsoka's changes.
"e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process;" - untested by full review. Borsoka's vigorous reverting of almost all changes keeps it relatively stable.
"f) compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing". - untested by full review.
  • (1) (ad b): I think the article was without doubt improved from this perspective. For instance, your version of the article did not mention Cyril and Methodius, Cyrillic script, Old Church Slavonic, the Khazars, Mount Athos, the Arab sieges of Constantinople, Arianism and Bogumilism, and almost completely ignored the history of Scandinavia, Central Europe, Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
  • (2) (ad c): Please compare the bibliography of your and this version, and you will be surprised how many specialised new sources were introduced. Indeed, I expanded the article with facts about the history of Central and Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Balkans, because one of the weakest part of your version was its almost total ignorance of the history of large regions of Europe (together with obviously false statements, for instance about a powerful high medieval Poland). In addition of using some more general sources (such as Barber's cited book) to improve coverage of Central and Eastern Europe, I introduced the following specific sources: (1) *Curta, Florin (2019). Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300), Volume I. Brill's Companion to European History. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-41534-8. (your version referred to Curta's work about the history of Southeastern Europe); (2) Fine, John V. A. (2009) [1987]. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-08260-5.; (3) Grzymała-Busse, Anna (2023). Sacred Foundations: The Religious and Medieval Roots of the European State. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-6912-4508-9.; (4) Sedlar, Jean W. (1994). East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000–1500. A History of East Central Europe. Vol. III. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-97290-9. Which one would you qualify as not of top quality? On the other hand, I stopped referring to sources of questionable quality extensively used in your version.
  • (3) (ad d): Examples?
  • (4) (ad e): If you read the article's history, you will find dozens of edits made by other editors that I did not revert because they improved the article. For instance, this case shows that I willingly accepted all suggestions that were verified. (In addition, it also indicates that other editors also realised that your version contained debatable statements.) Yes, I reverted most of your reverts, but I always explained my action. For instance, when you reverted my edit ([29]) because you seem to have (wrongly) associated the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church with the Roman Empire's ecclesiastic structure and (also wrongly) thought that the Desert Fathers lived in Syria as well, I asked you to explain your action before reverting your revert.
  • (5) Sorry, I began not to understand what you want. You are saying that nothing is tested by full review although two editors (Airship and Matarisvan) stated above that they were ready to complete a full review. From the start, you want to prevent them from completing the full review. Similarly, Norfolkbigfish wants to delist the article without a review, but is obviously ready to edit it in accordance with Airship's suggestions during the review. You both should decide what you want.
  • (6) Again, I have always wanted to improve articles not to collect badges, so I am ready to restore your version and initiate a new FAR. I could, in a couple of day, list the unverified statements, misinterpreted facts, marginal PoVs that should be fixed in order to keep its FA status. As you are a native English speaker, I think you do not need more than a month to fix all of them, and coverage could be imporved based on my text. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For 3d, you ask for examples. One significant one, affecting various parts of the article, you boast about yourself: what one might call the drift to the East, bulking up material on Central and Eastern Europe, and to some extent reducing it on France and the British Isles. I'm not saying that some or all of this is a bad thing necessarily, but it amounts (over a number of touches in different places) to a significant shift in the article, and is the sort of thing that should be given the consideration only a full review is likely to achieve. I'm aware there's been a trend along these lines in recent Anglophone history writing, but there is a balance to reach between this and what a preponderance of RS in English cover, and what views on more specific articles show our readers are interested. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Yes, I reduced materal on England (for instance, we do not need to know in the article's context that the Black Prince was named for his black armour), but expanded coverage on the British Isles by mentioning some relevant details of the medieval history of Ireland and Scotland (I refer to the first sentence of section "New kingdoms and Byzantine revival", footnote 17, and the last sentence in the second paragraph of section "State resurgence"). I also expanded the text with highly relevant details of the history of the Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia and Italy (I refer to sections "Rise of state power" and "State resurgence"). Less than 1,700 words are dedicated to the history of Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans, that is less than 13% of the article's size. I think this is quite modest, and it is fully in line with the approach followed by several books about the period's general history published in English and cited in the article (Barber, Bartlett, Collins, etc). Borsoka (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am ready to revert back to that version, start a new FAR and list all the problems, provided that at least one of the two nominators or an other knowledgeable editor is ready to fix all of them in order to prevent delisting. I think this will be a time consuming process, because that version does not meet FA criteria 1b-1c, 2a and 3, problematic sentences abound and coverage should significantly be improved. Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, you do love a WP:BATTLEFIELD! I don't know if this was a serious suggestion, but I'm sure I'm not the only one to find it deeply unappealing, having been through the Crusades etc. You've said many times before, and just now, that the old version was unfit to be FA, so a delist should precede any such revert. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to read a good example of battleground mentality, read your friend's text below ([30]). You can also read your mainly baseless reverts and your and Ceoil's personal attacks in the article's history and in the archives, or during this review. Similis simili gaudet ("Like rejoices in like"). Do you refer to this FA review of the Crusades? It was closed by the following notes [31]: "Okay, we've left this open two-and-a-half months, way more than we generally do, because it was a big article that needed lot of commentary, and not so long ago it looked like we were on track for consensus for promotion. That's not the case now, issues being raised by new reviewers and the prospect of the nom dragging on still longer. I hope that the Borsoka, Johnbod and Lingzhi with continue to work with the nominator on the outstanding points via article talk, after which you could ping previous reviewers for another look, and renominate." It was also a substandard article, nominated by Norfolkbigfish. I am ready to restore the old FA version after a delist as well if you are ready to edit it. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The present version of the article does not meet the FA criteria in a number of fundamenatal aspects. They are:

    1. It is not well-written, the prose isn't engaging or of a professional standard;
    2. while comprehensive, not neglecting any major facts or detail it does not place the subjects in context;
    3. the current situation means it is not stable
  2. Length. It is too long and it doesn't focus on the main topics, but instead enters into unnecessary detail. It doesn't use summary style where appropriate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1a. As a non native English speaker I cannot comment this, but none of the editors who already reviewed the article mention it as a problem above. 1b. What do you mean? The article was expanded with sentences about the common features of the period, and also with text explaining its long-time effects and heritage (I refer to the 3rd paragraph of section "Terminology and periodisation", the first paragraph of section "Rise of state power", and the last paragraph of section "Modern perceptions and historiography"). What further info do you need? 1e. Why do you think that edits made to implement reviewers' suggestions indicate that the article is not stable? Or do you refer to the revert of your not unusually highly problematic edit [32]? Read your version of section "Background". 2. Are you kidding? The version of Crusades ([33]) that you nominated for FA contained 12,535 words, while this article covering a 1,000-year-long period, including the crusades, contain 13,360 words. In addition, Johnbod's FA version of the article contained 14,349 words ([34]), although it provided almost no information about the history of large regions of Europe (Scandinavia, Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans). So I shortened the article by nearly 7% although I expanded its relevant content. Of course, the article could be shortened during the FAR, and I already started to shorten it weeks ago. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no other editor has touched on the prose apart from @Johnbod and @AirshipJungleman29 in his truncated review. Simply put, as the article is currently written, there is no narrative flow and too many random details dropped into the text because they are considered to be too important to leave out while there isn't space to put them into context. It doesn't cover the topic in a way that is easy to find or read. Most readers only want/need a quick summary or a moderate amount of information. If they want more each of the Periods early, high and late Middle Ages have articles (albeit B and C class that could do with improvement) and there are a number of chunky medieval topics that already have their own articles. The notes are just clutter. It is crying out for a good prune and application of WP:SummaryStyle. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Norfolkbigfish, those are about the vaguest criticisms it is possible to muster while still remaining coherent. Might you have courtesy to provide some evidence of your assertions? You know, like an actual review? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again (and again, and again), I am sure that this article (as all FACs and FARs) could and should be shortened, perhaps even radically. However, in sharp contrast with Norfolkbigfish's above statements, I think the article has significantly been improved in regard to context in comparison with the previous version ([35]). Just some examples: (1) Section "Sources" now explains how available sources have potentially distorted our understanding of the period. (2) Section "Trade and economy" was slightly modified to give a short explanation of the background to changes in the system of currencies. (3) The new versions of sections "Architecture and art" clarify how different artistic traditions influenced each other to merge into new styles durng the Early Middle Ages, or what factors entailed the development of Romanesque and Gothic architecture. (4) Section "Economic revival" now introduces the high medieval "commercial revolution", and its economic background. (5) Section "Collapse of Byzantium and rise of the Ottomans" shortly explains the reasons of the weakening of Byzantine power and the rise of the Ottomans. (6) Section "Scholars, intellectuals, and exploration" now clarifies the reasons of the beginning of exploration. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may well come to me providing a review @AirshipJungleman29, but I am holding off at least until some consensus is reached on next steps at this FAR. Much as it it appears you are yourself. For me the only way forward is for the article to be delisted now and if @Borsoka so desires he can renominate. It will attract more reviewers and get a more thorough fairer review. Undoubtedly this FAR has failed and needs to be put out of its misery.
In the interim I will share my thoughts on the Sources section above. Because in microcosm this illustrates why this article is not at FA standard, if indeed it ever was. Firstly, it is not really a Sources section at all. It doesn't emphasise the key meta-sources the period e.g. Manuscripts and Chronicles, Religious Writings and Church Records, Literature and Epic Poetry, and finally Illuminated Manuscripts and Iconography. In addition there are those derived from archeology such as Architecture and Monuments, Artifacts and Everyday Items and Graves and Burial Sites.
It also doesn't touch on more specific sources such as Book of Kells, Tres Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Matthew Paris, Jean Froissart, Magna Carta, Capitulary of Charlemagne, Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri, Beowulf and The Song of Roland to name just a few, others are available.
It also lacks coherence. It seems to be a confusion of a sources section and a historiography section, the lack of which is a glaring ommission in the article. Adding all this would add significantly to the word count to an article that is already too large, and too challenging to digest for readers with light to moderate interest in the topic. It would need Wp:Summary, an additional Historiography section perhaps using the the confusingly named main article Dark Ages (historiography) and maybe an additional article Primary Sources of the Middle Ages.
The thing is, this is just one section. There are multiple instances in the article where this process would need to be repeated. It is for this reason that a simple delist now is the only sensible alternative. FAR is not the appropriate place for that amount of reviewing for an article this complex. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Norfolkbigfish: you should decide what is your problem: the lack of summary style or the lack of details. Section "Sources" presents the major types of written sources as they are summarized by a leading medievalist: annals, chronicles and other narrative sources, documents of state and church administration (royal charters and chrysobulls), grafitti, seals, and letters. In addition, the section also mentions images and sculptures. The list covers everything you mentioned above from "Manuscripts and Chronicles" to "Iconography". Sorry, but I must raise the question: are you sure you understand the terms you are using? From among the specific sources you listed above as missing, the article refers to the Book of Kells, Tres Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, Bede, Aquinas and his Summa, Dante, Beowulf, The Song of Roland, Magna Carta. In addition, among specific sources, the article also refers to birch bark letters, sagas, the flourishing Old Church Slavonic religious literature, El Canto de Mio Cid, chivalric romance, autobiographies, works by erudite nuns, the Constitutions of Melfi, the Siete Partidas, etc. You are right, the article does not name the Ecclesiastical History of the English People (only refers to it), Matthew Paris, Jean Froissart, Charlemagne's Capitulary. However, neither does it mentions the Chronicle of Alfonso III, the Primary Chronicle, or the chronicle by Theophanes the Confessor, the Annals of Fulda, and dozens (or rather hundreds) of other important medieval annals, chronicles, romances, laws, etc.. Do you really think that the article should list all sources of the period?? Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Please also read the last section before requesting a Historiography section (it was me who expanded the article covering historiography). You are obviously making comments without reading the article. I think I am not the only editor thinking that your "review"/comments/edits on this page are not helpful ([36]). I am blessed that you are not my friend. Borsoka (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Middle_Ages#Modern_perceptions_and_historiography would be better renamed just Historiography. It is also not of a FA standard. It contains WP:UNDUE quotes and sentences on whether the Earth was thought to be flat or not but does not follow a coherent structure of how the historiography developed e.g., Renaissance to Enlightenment, 19th century Romanticism and Nationalism, late 19th – early 20th Century professionalisation of History, the Feudalism debate, 20th century Annales School and Social History, late 20th century reevaluation and expansion and through to today with digital Humanities and interdisciplinary approaches.
Yes, many of these facts are in the article and also sourced but they are not presented methodically or summarised well enough to be meaningfully understood by the lay reader. Simply put it fails to meet FA criteria 1a and 1b. All that is being suggested here is possible approaches to meet those criteria. Whether you choose to take this advice, or take different approaches, is up to you but if you wish to pass a FA review these are problems that need addressing. That is before getting to WP:TOOBIG. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facts can be presented in several ways. For instance, the article provides a very general picture of the period's sources and their relevance and weaknesses in a separate section, then presents specific sources in each subsection, because these works were not only sources, but important representatives of early, high or late medieval art, legislation, intellectual life, etc. What alternative coherent structure would you recommend? In this respect, the article's structure did not change to much (I wrote a section about sources, and added sources from Iberia, Scandinavia, and the Balkans). So you should discuss the structure with the original nominators, such as Johnbod as well. You should also discuss the WP:UNDUE issues with them because the "Modern perceptions" part was radically shortened by myself in comparison with their version. All the same, I fully agree with them that we need to cover modern perceptions, especially the one about flat earth. As to historiography, I again had to raise the question: do you want summary style or a comprehensive study. For the time being, the section summarises the most important trends in medieval historiography as they are presented in two specialised works written by two respected medievalists. We are not here to present our views, as per WP:NOR. Please read the article and familarise yourself with relevant literature before continuing your comments and demanding edits. Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All interesting issues for the new FAC. There is no point in reviewing stuff you have removed! Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the sources the article uses seem to be of variable quality. I would suggest the following could be useful to anyone taking this on:
  • Marc Bloch Feudal Society for medieval social structures, economies, and the feudal system.
  • Barbara Tuchman A Distant Mirror for a narrative account of the 14th century, covering themes like the Black Death and the Hundred Years’ War.
  • Georges Duby The Age of the Cathedrals for medieval society’s transformation, focusing on agriculture, urbanization, and the economy.
  • Ernst Gombrich The Story of Art to contextualize medieval art within broader cultural developments.
While I am at it Peters is mentioned in the References section but isn't used. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Norfolkbigfish: could you name some of the sources of lower quality? I suggest you should discuss the lack of the specific sources you listed above (Bloch, Tuchman, Duby, Gombrich) with the original nominators, such as Johnbod because they also ignored them. Sincerely, I would not refer to any of those sources in the article either. For instance, Tuchman's book is an excellent source for the history of the 14th century, but not for an article about the Middle Ages; the feudal system is mentioned in the article, but the article also emphasise that feudalism was not the dominant structure in all over Europe. Borsoka (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you do mention Bloch, explicitly by name, and link to his WP article? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because of his role in historiography. I cannot imagine a historiography without a reference to him. I also mention Aquinas, but I do not cite him. Borsoka (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmy Noether

[edit]
Notified: Scartol, WillowW, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women scientists, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Women in Green, 2023-08-20

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous citation concerns, including an orange banner at the top of the "Contributions to mathematics and physics" section and an uncited "List of doctoral students" section. There's also a lot of great prose describing math concepts, but much of this does not describe how Noether contributed to these concepts and I don't think much of it is necessary for the reader to understand how Noether contributed to the ideas. I think this would need a math specialist to help improve the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source for the entire doctoral students section. Also, far be it from me to ignite another "anti-intellectualism" GAR/FAR firestorm, but the line "I don't think much of it is necessary for the reader to understand" rubs me the wrong way. Yes, to understand Noether's accomplishments it is necessary to understand the mathematics and physics concepts she worked with. That said, I agree that the contributions section could be better sourced; we used to allow unsourced background material that we would expect any student of the subject to have some familiarity with, but those days are gone. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To expand upon my comment about what the reader needs to understand: after reading the article when making the nomination, I found that some sections did a great job explaining the math, but struggled to connect it to Noether. For example, in the "Background on abstract algebra" section, Noether is not mentioned until paragraph 4. I would expect Noether's contributions to be more prominent and mentioned first, then the mathematical principles explained by connecting it to Noether's contributions. I think the "First epoch (1908–1919): Physics", all the second epoch, and all the third epoch sections do this well; I think the other sections need to feature Noether more prominently, which might involve removing some information, and will probably involve moving around some information. Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We get an issue with accessibility or focus whichever way you slice it: either there's maths explanations with nothing to do with Noether, or the descriptions are only accessible to those familiar with elementary algebra. If you don't understand what a group is, it's impossible to understand Noether's contributions to maths. I don't think you can reverse the order of it.
The subject matter is necessarily extremely technical. What might not be obvious to layreaders is that (e.g.) the group representations paragraph is child's play compared to the statement of Noether's problem. This is the dumbing down as far as possible without distorting the facts. I can wax lyrical about group representations but Galois theory makes my head hurt. By focusing on big picture ("it's all about symmetries", "like prime numbers") and toy examples (the discriminant, polynomial splitting fields), but also giving the full statements of what Noether studied, I think the article does quite well. I feel it's best left as is unless someone is jumping to make it a big project of theirs.
My comments at Talk:Emmy Noether#WP:URFA/2020 were to indicate that I do not think there are major citation issues—it's more a style issue, as convention has changed since 2008. I do feel this article would benefit from a mathematician giving it a full copyedit, with an algebra textbook to hand for some inline citations. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv said more or less what I was going to. The ordering in the "Background on abstract algebra" passage makes sense because, well, it's background. It has to cover concepts that were introduced a half-century before Noether was even born. That's just how math works: it's a cumulative subject, and we can't always take a thin slice out of it and hope for a meaningful result.
Much of the uncited material can probably be found in any textbook on the area (e.g., the definition of a ring or a group representation is standard stuff). I did what I could with the books that I had near my desk, but I am too tired to do more and need a very very long break. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the "List of doctoral students" section is necessary in the first place. "All" (i.e. those with wikilinks) the notable students are in the infobox and a table list of their dissertations and defenses seem somewhat superfluous. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to remove the section. Feel free to revert or add it back if you disagree. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also realised there were two separate "Recognition" sections, which I merged together. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with this removal. Everything in the infobox should be a summary of main-article text. The infobox should not supplant the article. See MOS:INFOBOX: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. If you include the list of doctoral students only in the infobox, then readers looking for a non-superficial summary will not find that information. Or, to put it another way, if it is so important to the article that it needs to be summarized in the infobox, so that even low-attention-span readers skimming the infobox find it, then it is also so important to the article that it should be covered properly in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know the infobox shouldn't supplant the article. My reasoning was that the infobox could have the names of all her notable doctoral students while the article went into more detail (which it does, in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section; I recognise it's in need of some more sentences about her doctoral students specifically). I still don't believe a list of their dissertations and defense dates is of benefit to the average reader, but I'll leave it. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not wedded to the specific table format. A more prose-like format such as a bulleted list might be better. The titles of the dissertations are less important than their overall topics and what happened afterward to each student. And the placement of the list of students in the article would make more sense in the section you mention than as an appendix at the end. But if one is looking for a complete list of her students (or, what the infobox lists, her bluelinked students) one won't find anything resembling that in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section in its current state. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. After the citation issues are resolved, perhaps the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section can be expanded to include more information about her doctoral students, but I don't think it should make or break the article's Featured status. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with David Eppstein that the doctoral students should be mentioned in the body. An exhaustive list makes sense to me, with dissertation topic (e.g. p-adic numbers) and anything the student was later known for. It would also make sense to incorporate them into the chronological account of her life, but the issue might be that she had so many notable students that it could overwhelm the rest of the section's focus. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with ensuring they are mentioned in the body. My reasoning was that dissertation titles and defense dates are not that important. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the dates are worth keeping. The titles, if we have topics instead, can go. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I've added an initial mention of the two Erlangen students in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section. They don't seem too notable though and could probably be moved up to the "Teaching period" one instead. Unfortunately, I don't think I'd be of much help with the citation issues. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Work seems to have slowed down, but several sourcing problems remain. Are editors still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have the time to properly sit down and crack on with this until towards the end of March. After that, I'm happy to continue working on the doctoral students part. As I said above, the citation issues in the "Contributions to mathematics and physics" section may require someone with more expertise than me in the area. Besides, beyond those two issues, I think the article is worthy of FA status, and I made some structural changes that made the article (in my view) neater. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements have definately been made (thanks everyone!) but I still have citation concerns, as there are some paragraphs which do not have any inline citations. Would it be helpful if I tagged the areas that I felt needed citations for others to address? Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note a seems to use inline references, which should be converted to inline citations (footnotes). Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working my way through as many of those as I can. Will update when I stall out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now we're forbidden even footnotes from having parenthetical citations within them? So we need a separate footnote inside the footnote to be the reference? No. Just no. This blind fanaticism serves no encyclopedic purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misindented my comment. I've been working through the cn tags. Haven't looked into the note. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reply was aimed more at Z1720 than you. Going through cn tags and finding citations for them is a very useful thing to be doing. Putting nested footnotes into footnotes because of an aversion to mixing footnote text with footnote citations, less useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inline reference issue in Note a has been fixed. Two cn tags remain, and the section on her second epoch might need some citations too. The rest of the article seems good. Beyond that, I had the idea of making her doctoral students part of the prose rather than an explicit table at the bottom of the article, but that shouldn't make or break FA-status. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sgubaldo. Haven't given up on the last few cns. Just been busy. I'll either fix them soon or throw in the towel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found something in Page 99 of Emmy Noether: The Mother of Modern Algebra by Margaret B. W. Tent for the phrase 'Her family paid for her room and board and supported her academic work' as mentioned on the talk page, but i'm a little skeptical of using it as a source since it's mostly aimed at teenagers and the author takes some literary creativity and makes up conversations between historical figures. No luck on the other cn tag yet. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "Her family paid" line. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't been paying attention to the bigger picture, but I resolved what I think was the last remaining cleanup tag a couple days ago. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've prosified the doctoral students and added some references in certain places. If a reviewer could go through and check again what else they feel needs a citation, that would help. Other than that, I think this should be done. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC My concerns about this article are still present: there is off-topic information that does not relate to Noether's life and lots of uncited information. Z1720 (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think that is true then why have you done nothing to make your concerns more specific, for instance by responding last May when the comments immediately above this talked about resolving all remaining cleanup tags? We cannot clean up what we cannot see, and we cannot read your mind if you will not tell it to us. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Frankly, this baffles me. Nothing in the article as it stands is "off-topic" to my eye. Rather, it's all either straight biography or attempts to explain the mathematical topics on which Noether worked. In other words, cutting anything would risk having an article that fails to work as a self-contained unit. XOR'easter (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, a lot of the information in "Background on abstract algebra and begriffliche Mathematik (conceptual mathematics)" can be summarized better: it is a lot of detail that would probably be better explained in the articles of those concepts. "Algebraic invariant theory", "Galois theory", also have a lot of text explaining the mathematical concept when this could be better explained in the concept's article. This article is over 9,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG recommends be split and reduced: I think there are opportunities in this article to move information to other places. This article doesn't need to be a self-contained unit, because it is part of a wider Wikipedia project and users can go to other articles to get more detailed information. Z1720 (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, to put it bluntly, you want to gut the intellectual contributions from a biography of someone known for her intellectual contributions, in favor of a greater emphasis on routine biographical information? Perhaps you can explain how this fits with your understanding of WP:FACR #1b, in which we are asked to ensure that the article "neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"? The sections you object to are exactly placing the subject in context. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An article about Emmy Noether needs to explain why a whole host of major concepts are called Noether's or Noetherian. That's far more important than the rules of thumb in WP:TOOBIG, which are made up anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my opinion, the article does not need as much information as it currently has on explaining the mathematical concepts. It would be better to summarise the theories in fewer words and give more detail of their explanation in the theory's article. The long explanations of these theories are against WP:FA? #4, and I do not see how these very long explanations of concepts are major facts of Noether's work. Instead, they are going into too much detail of the background before Noether's contributions or giving too much detail in their explanation. I look forward to new editors reviewing the article and giving their thoughts so that a consensus can form. Z1720 (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even this biography of Noether aimed at children aged 6-8 claims to include "explanations of complex mathematical concepts". Are you suggesting that Wikipedia should fall below even the mathematical sophistication of a children's book? Because that's what I am getting from your comments here. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The explanations currently in the article are already very short compared to what an article devoted to a Noetherian math topic would be. For example, our page on Noether's theorem is, by itself, over half the length of the entire Emmy Noether page, and much longer than the corresponding subsection here, Emmy Noether#Physics, which is all of three paragraphs. We're not teaching a course in ring theory or advanced classical mechanics here; we're doing pretty much the bare minimum to explain what Noether herself did and why it matters.
    I'd be amenable to judicious trimming, but that would require a sentence-by-sentence reading to decide what phrases might be diversions or superfluous details, not a vaguewave at the FA criteria. XOR'easter (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Moving to get more input regarding this article's status WRT the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist My thoughts in the FARC remain unchanged, and the issues I brought up haven't been resolved yet. If there are any changes, please ping me and I can take another look. Z1720 (talk) 23:03, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein. This does not mean I must support the argument of delisting a status. As a not-so-thoroughly-expert-at-FA-reviewer and not a fan of biographical articles, I found they remain unsourced in the following:

  • These courses often preceded major publications on the same subjects.[citation needed]
  • Some other facts remained unsourced in the section "Background on abstract algebra and begriffliche Mathematik (conceptual mathematics)": Lasker–Noether theorem and her other works in further explanation.
  • "An algebra consists of a choice..."
  • First epoch and second epoch

Overall, the article looks good, and its status can be preserved. But this question for me: do all of these need citations for, keeping in mind, supporting the facts? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not these need citations (I haven't taken the time to formulate an opinion) that is already more helpful than Z1720's claim of "lots of uncited information" but refusal to respond to requests like "If a reviewer could go through and check again what else they feel needs a citation" from last May. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how can I comprehend your words here: it is better to give a list of which parts that is unsourced, unlike the user who says to fix up everything without giving more details of the problem? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was what I meant, yes. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein So, I think I shall leave this to you. Hope you don't mind. I wish I can help but biographical articles are not my thing. I'll see if I can find some spots. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 11:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein and Dedhert.Jr: I have added cn tags where I think citations are needed. There are some sentences where the citation is in the middle, instead of at the end of the sentence: I did not check to see if these citations verify the information after the citation. Z1720 (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 If you found things that is not in the criteria, please make a list of bullets. Users may understand and start to fix up, just like how normally users reviews GAN. You don't mind, eh? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 12:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of my concerns:

  • There are uncited statements, which I have noted with citation needed tags.
  • There is a lot of prose that describes the background information of mathematical concepts which is not directly related to Noether. While some background information is necessary, I think the "Background on abstract algebra and begriffliche Mathematik (conceptual mathematics)" goes into too much detail on mathematical concepts that are better explained on the concept's own article page.
  • The "First epoch (1908–1919)", "Second epoch (1920–1926)" and "Third epoch (1927–1935)" sections spend a lot of time explaining the mathematical concepts, but do not explain Noether's contribution or how she discovered them. These sections need to more closely link Noether to the work.
  • Per WP:ONEDOWN, many of the math concepts explained in this article are too technical for the average, interested reader to understand. This article is a biography of this person and a reader should know how her discoveries affected mathematics. The large amount of mathematical information and high-concept language makes this difficult, and I think this information would be better on the mathematic concepts pages, rather than here.
  • The following sources are listed in "Sources" but are not used in the article: Blue, Meredith (2001), Huff, Kendra (2011), Kimberling, Clark (March 1982), Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003), Lemmermeyer, Franz; Roquette, Peter, eds. (2006), Noether, Emmy; Brewer, James W; Smith, Martha K (1981), Schmadel, Lutz D. (2003).

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep conditional on the explicit {{citation needed}} tags being resolved. I do not see the case for shuffling actual mathematical content in a mathematician's biography off to other articles. Nor do I see a real conflict with the WP:ONEDOWN rule of thumb. The most technical parts of the article are about mathematics one sees in graduate school, and they're pitched to an upper-level undergraduate audience. XOR'easter (talk) 19:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking of the mathematical fields alongside its technical, apparently algebra is somewhat intended to be technical in this case, no matter how one would like to try to gloss it into the least technical as possible. I think other fields such as mathematical analysis or calculus, or topology, are similar cases. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On hold, awaiting content's improvements before picking either delist or keep. I prefer not to delist the status because some users would like to keep it, nor to keep it because the content is still debatable and especially in shambles quality of unsourced facts. Some responses from me to Z1720:
    • Replying "There is a lot of prose that describes the background information of mathematical concepts which is not directly related to Noether": I cannot find anything that exactly means here. If I look at it again, it is actually the opposite. Can you tell us more specifically?
    • Replying "Three epochs": Ditto, but waiting for the sources.
    • Replying WP:ONEDOWN: Already explained in XOR'easter's reasons to keep.
  • Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not understand the "more closely link Noether to the work" comment at all. The "epochs" sections are full of her contributions. In 1918, Noether published ... Noether provided the resolution of this paradox ... Noether's theorem has become a fundamental tool ... In this epoch, Noether became famous for ... In 1923–1924, Noether applied her ideal theory to ... And so forth. XOR'easter (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Then I guess this leaves to the sourcing problems, after which I might be vote for the status. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to some of the above:

  • Re: WP:ONELEVELDOWN: if this was a math article, I would be more receptive to the argument that information is geared towards graduate students. However, this is a biography article, and as such I think all of the prose should be more accessible to a wider audience. I think the goal for the language in this article should be to be readable to an interested high school student with an exceptional understanding of basic algebra concepts: after reading the article, the high school student should be able to explain in a basic way what her contributions to mathematics are/were.
  • Re: Background information and too much detail: These are the places with the math concepts that I am concerned about:
  • in "Background on abstract algebra and begriffliche Mathematik (conceptual mathematics)" is two paragraphs of background information before Noether is mentioned.
  • In "Algebraic invariant theory" Noether is mentioned in the first paragraph, then there is four paragraphs of information without mentioning Noether.
  • In "Galois theory" Noether is first mentioned in the fourth paragraph.
I think these sections should link Noether to her discoveries sooner and more explicitly. If this prose is background information, I would like that information intertwined with Noether's discoveries more effectively or have information summarised with one paragraph per section of background information being the goal.
There's a couple reasons for this:
  • The article is over 9,000 words, which WP:TOOBIG recommends considering spinning out the information. I think the background information is the best place to consider this.
  • I think too much background information is off-topic for this specific article and the information better served in the appropriate mathematics article.
  • Summarising/moving background information might make the article more accessible to people with less subject matter knowledge, as they will not feel like they have to have a solid foundation of high-level mathematics to have a basic understanding of her contributions. If I wanted high-school students to report on her contributions, they would struggle to simply describe why she is important.

Sorry for the long response and the wall of text (ironic considering I want to trim information). I hope it is helpful and happy to summarise below if editors want. I think those were the only two concerns where my comments were requested. If I missed something, please ping me. I struck out my "delist" designation because there is progress being made on the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Nikkimaria is refusing to let me include content in this review responding to other reviewers' comments in this review, and has repeatedly redacted my own comments into an accusation of making personal attacks directed against me. Because of this non-neutral behavior, I would like to request that any future coordination of this FAR be performed by someone other than Nikkimaria. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am asking you to keep your commentary focused on the article, rather than on other reviewers. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Despite your repeated allegations, the comments you removed were focused explaining why I think certain other comments in this review should be discounted as unreasonable, rather than focused on the person who made those comments. Is that not allowed? Are we required to separately contribute to this FAR, ignoring all other contributors? What kind of process it that? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this: if this was a math article, I would be more receptive to the argument that information is geared towards graduate students. However, this is a biography article, and as such I think all of the prose should be more accessible to a wider audience. It's a biography of a mathematician, and on top of that, a mathematician whose pioneering contributions were at a rather abstract level. I don't see how the article being a biography can override the fact that it is an article about mathematics. This seems like a matter of personal taste, where mine differs from yours, rather than a factor that should play into FA status one way or the other. Likewise: ...or have information summarised with one paragraph per section of background information being the goal. This strikes me as a rather arbitrary line (and I doubt that it could be feasible without reducing the mathematics to empty platitudes).
Summarising/moving background information might make the article more accessible to people with less subject matter knowledge I suspect that the opposite is true. The more times a reader has to click on unfamiliar words and open new browser tabs, the more likely they are to give up. Nor is it the case that pointing the reader to a big page about a whole area of mathematics — Galois theory, let's say — is the right way to inform them about the parts of the subject most relevant for understanding the contributions of Emmy Noether. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we could compare two other FAs Leonhard Euler and Georg Cantor, the topic as in geometry, analysis, graph theory, number theory, and more, seem less technical. Unlike Emmy Noether which focus on abstract algebra topics, the description is difficult to understand naturally because of how abstract the topic is. I think that is also the reason why its section Background on abstract algebra and begriffliche Mathematik (conceptual mathematics) has so much background of basic explanations about abstract algebra topics???
Since this article also focuses on mathematics other than biography, is it possible to call FAR coordinators who are in favor of mathematics? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dedhert.Jr: I'm not sure what "FAR coordinators who are in favor of mathematics" means. I am not a coordinator, but my understanding of their role is that when this discussion reaches a conclusion, a coordinator will evaluate the discussion here and the article's adherence to the featured article criteria and decide whether the article should remain a featured article or be delisted. The criteria for mathematics articles are the same as other articles, and I don't think coordinators have a preference for the type of articles that are featured. Pinging @FAR coordinators: to give a better explanation than me. Z1720 (talk) 13:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I was trying to say that, since some of the users have criticized your comments about TOOBIG and ONELEVELDOWN problems allegedly, it might ping coordinators who are experts in mathematics as well, ensuring find a solution to the drama of mathematical topics discussed here. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There aren't coordinators assigned to specific subjects. Typically posts at WikiProjects would be a tool to bring in expert reviewers - I see that has already been done in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is worth pointing out that the same issues about TOOBIG and ONELEVELDOWN arose already in Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/John von Neumann/1 (a similar case of someone known for research contributions that are both extensive and highly technical). There, Nikkimaria had a (very minor but non-neutral) role on the side of byte-counting and of pushing to cut down much of the technical content. Since the same issues are a central concern in this FAR, I would have greater confidence in the neutrality of some other coordinator. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about the same thing. Considering that rewrite her contribution as summary and then create Contributions of Emmy Noether just the similar how did one proposed in John von Neumann, recall that WP:TECHNICAL have a quote of saying that a good article will always grab of interest so the audience may interest to read it. And for the preassumption, I think it is a 50-50. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are some math topics where we can at least explain the question at a high school/pop science level and then say that the person is famous because they answered it. Andrew Wiles? Oh, he proved Fermat's Last Theorem. Kenneth Appel and Wolfgang Haken? They proved the four color theorem. Emmy Noether? OK, better sit down, this is going to take a minute.... The least abstract thing to explain is probably her contribution to physics, but even that requires understanding what a conservation law is and what we mean by a "symmetry", not of a shape, but of a physical law. XOR'easter (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Notorious B.I.G.

[edit]
Notified: 2Pac, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Hip hop, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject New York City, talk page notification

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2007 FA that was kept at FAR in 2010. I've identified a few issues with this article that bring it below the standards expected of a featured article. Pulling from my comment at TFAR, a brief skim of the article shows unreliable sources, including IMDb, being used in § Awards and nominations, failing criterion 1c. I also question the article's comprehensiveness (criterion 1b) if there are substantial-looking biographies of Wallace unused in the article and stuck in § Further reading. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC) (please Reply to icon mention me if you need my attention)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the sourcing problems, but would like to offer agreement on the comprehensiveness. I'm not an expert in this area of music, but I will say that I've read and come back to this article on multiple occasions and couldn't help but feel like this FA was old and/or lacking for a performer who, in a very short career, defined an era of rap. 83.4k bytes for this guy? Is that really it? I doubt it, but I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to definitively say no, just questionable. mftp dan oops 16:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Brock

[edit]
Notified: Scimitar, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Channel Islands, WikiProject Military history, 2024-07-26

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is a lot of uncited text throughout the article and a large "Further reading" section with sources that can be incorporated into the article. The sources used as inline citations are of lower quality; lots of academic literature has been written about Brock, but the article relies on newspaper articles and a source from the 1800s. The lead is too short to summarise all major aspects of the article, but I would not want to expand it until other academic sources are incorporated. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the identified issues. I have no immediate plans to fix these issues and think that the article should be delisted. That said, I live relatively close to Brock University and they're incredibly likely to have the academic sources that would be needed to make this an FA again. I'm not opposed to the idea of going to their library at some point (again, not near future, I'm quite busy). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey

[edit]
Notified: SNUGGUMS, Heartfox, WikiProject Mariah Carey, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

[edit]

I have nominated the article for TFA, but it was unsuccessful. It stated: "article would not pass FAC in current state. Suggest waiting until 60th birthday (which is a more notable anniversary than 55th) to re-run the article as TFA, after which improvements would have been made." On the talk page, I asked for article issues, but no response was made in the past 2 weeks. Please take your time to review and I would like to address the article's concerns. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE March 23, 2024 This FAR has been reopened and please take your time to re-review this featured article. According to Heartfox, some of the article's sources are not high-quality reliable.

@ScarletViolet: As was noted in the TFA discussion, if there is to be an FAR for this article, specific concerns have to be identified on the article's talk page as a first step - I don't see that that was done? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: There are some concerns in the article, like it does not follow some of the Manual of Style. Featured articles follow all style guidelines. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but were these concerns raised on the article talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 04:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let's do that first. This will be on hold for the moment to give that a chance to happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScarletViolet, I do not see that you have posted to the talk page - are you still intending to move forward with the review process? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: You say so. This has been reopened. ScarletViolet (talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of reviewers, I'm going to copy Heartfox's comment from the talk page here: "Mainly issues with WP:FACR 1c, and probably others would take issue with 1a. There are some websites that aren't high-quality sources for a biography (or really anything) like TheThings, Fame10, Nicki Swift, Daily Mirror, Gossip Cop, Daily Express, etc. Also, the most significant scholarly work on Carey (Why Mariah Carey Matters by Andrew Chan) isn't cited, as are two recent academic book chapters (ISBN 978-1538169063 and ISBN 978-1-5013-6825-7)." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, it looks like the sourcing definitely needs some work. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll at least start work on citations within the next 24 hours, though with regards to linking terms, I thought it was common practice to only link the first one to use a term and that subsequent uses of that publication didn't need linking per WP:OVERLINK. From a glance at this version of the page, it would for example mean The New York Times is just linked in ref#5 and Toronto Star in ref#27. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE it looks like all the subpar sources have been removed, and I've linked some more terms. Before I make additional changes with linking (or lack thereof) for publications used more than once (such as multiple MTV News or Entertainment Weekly articles), does anybody know for certain whether it's expected to be a first-mention-only or all-instances ordeal? SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:28, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: It depends on what you choose. Would suggest that improvements should made in due time, otherwise its status will be gone. ScarletViolet 💬 📝 12:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no hurry; typically an FAR stays open as long as there are people willing to work on it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: The sections too are very long, unlike the Regine Velasquez and Taylor Swift articles, which are very concise and short. Consider splitting it into subsections in a similar fashion to The Beatles and BTS. Improving while its FA status is active not enough. Would suggest removing the status first, then once the article meets the FA criteria, then the article can be ready for re-promotion. ScarletViolet 💬 📝 01:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not be so hasty; I've cleaned out lots of duplicate links from the article body and Heartfox has helped me in improving citations. How much splitting would be adequate? In the meantime, I also have touched up some of the prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: I boldly went ahead with some splits and here is what the article looks like afterwards. Hopefully it's a step in the right direction. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: You're right. Let's think positive, not negative, shall we? I'm also planning to write major changes in the sandbox first before revamping it in the article itself. This time, I would also split Carey's cultural status to its own article: like Cultural impact of Mariah Carey. Title follows other articles like Cultural impact of Michael Jackson, Cultural impact of Madonna, Cultural impact of Taylor Swift, Cultural impact of BTS, etc. ScarletViolet 💬 📝 11:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea at all. Before you implement the sandbox changes, please do show what they look like. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 11:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article looks savable to me, and there does not seem to have been any substantial change in Carey's career that would require it to go through a complete rewriting. Can you guys catch me up on what specifically still needs doing here, ScarletViolet and SNUGGUMS?--NØ 04:58, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except for perhaps expanding on legacy (debatable how much should be added), I can't think of much else to do with the page now. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:40, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will shortly do research for any stuff that needs adding there; in the meantime, I feel comfortable putting a keep here.--NØ 10:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, and I'll also say keep as FA. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:44, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MaranoFan and SNUGGUMS: Sorry about not being able to improve the article. I was busy working on other articles, but would agree with your decisions to keep. ScarletViolet tc 09:20, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All three sources you mentioned have been taken out. As for academic work, I personally am not sure which text should be attributed to those that isn't already, but am open to hearing others' thoughts. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Requesting the whole book at Resource Exchange isn't feasible so page numbers or at least which topics from the new academic work need to be added is required information. Without that, the mere existence of the new work is non-actionable and thus not alone grounds for delisting. No problems with getting some more reviews on this, though.--NØ 20:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: The recent academic works are now cited within the article. The Chan book does get overly into detail into individual songs but that is best suited for the Cultural Impact, Public Image, or individual song and album articles. I have pulled his opinions for the relevant sections of this article where his personal opinions are relevant.--NØ 14:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Channel

[edit]
Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

[edit]

Nominating the article for review as the article has a few conspicuous issues that this process may assist with:

  • Firstly, in terms of research, the article features overuse of quote citations from the game to evidence plot and gameplay mechanics. Secondary coverage should be preferred, other than WP:PLOT which tends to be viewed as self-evidently sourced from the work itself. This approach is arguably WP:EXCESSIVE - over half the article's citations are for quotes as trivial as 'The End' just to evidence that the game ends! Without these, the article is not particularly broadly cited - not that this is any barrier to FA status.
  • Secondly, in terms of comprehensiveness, the article has no actual development information that may shine a light on who made the game, how they made it and what they thought of it. The section relies on pre-release promotional articles that are purely early impressions of the game. This leads to unclear statements - that the game is a "spiritual successor" to Hey You Pikachu! and that it was developed for the purpose of promoting the e-reader - are likely the case but this is assumed from how an IGN preview describes it rather than the developer. Investigation into WP:NONENG sources and the potential for Japanese development interviews could significantly improve this section.
  • Thirdly, this may be a matter of personal opinion about comprehensiveness, but for a game titled Pokemon Channel with gameplay oriented around the channels, the gameplay section is well-written but does not go into much detail about what each channel is and what it features. I understand the channels are a bit superficial, but a list or more detailed description rather than a sentence that says Other channels include X, Y, and Z may be more helpful for readers to know exactly what content is offered in the game's channels. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vrxces. Unless I missed something, you have not yet brought these concerns up at Talk:Pokémon Channel. Per the instructions at the top of the page, talk page discussion is the first requisite step in this process. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm not familiar with the FAR process. I'll do that. Happy to take this down if the FAR is inappropriate at this time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries on my end either, and I hope you stick around FAR! I know sometimes the coordinators will just put the discussion on hold while talk page discussion occurs, so you should leave this up and let them handle it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your guidance - I've added this feedback on the talk page. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hold recommend that this FAR is place on hold while the notice period (step 1 above) is conducted. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1 is now complete (with no response) so hold is off. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ, could you please notify relevant editors and WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant WikiProject has been notified; I will also reach out to key editors when I can. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote-citations of the game are pretty strange, but since the material would be fine even without citations per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, I'm not sure there's really an FAC criteria issue (although I'm not averse to just removing the citations). Comprehensiveness, on the other hand, is definitely a valid concern, but does anyone have a few examples of good sources that aren't currently being cited? The reason there's no development section may just be that the sources don't talk about it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No work has been done on the plot section, which should be reduced and all of the inline citations to quotes of the game should be removed. I searched for sources per Extraordinary Writ above and found one source, [37], but struggled to find others in my quick search. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nomination rationale confuses me. Most of the errors in the article seem to be text-based (Which can be easily fixed per MOS:PLOT and some expansion on the gameplay section) and easily fixable, with the only real concern being the development section. Per Extraordinary Writ, if no additional sources can be found for the development, then it's very likely sources just don't talk about that aspect while talking about others. If more sources per Z1720's Polygon source are found, then those can be added to the article and used to expand the section. This FARC feels very forced when most of the issues could have been fixed with simple edits and research to the article by the nominator (Some of which have already been done by Sjones23). I'm willing to do a search for additional sources + adding anything found to the article if this works best, but as it stands the rationale for delisting this article is very weak and easily fixable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback. This nomination was made when I had a weaker understanding of the FAR process under the misapprehension it was a vehicle to escalate quality issues on FAs. I think at this point the nomination can be comfortably closed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been three months. Why is this still open? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I have not been active in this time. Am I meant to close the review? I assumed the text "A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached." meant another party was meant to do this. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an FAR coordinator is supposed to close it. One should hopefully close it soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - evidently from the nomination this was all a bit faulty but hopefully it can be sorted out. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concerns over the length and style of the plot section were addressed and searches for additional information and sources were completed. I found no issues. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerto delle donne

[edit]
Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-02-10

Review section

[edit]

This 2006 FA was nominated by an editor who has made one Wikipedia edit since 2013, and has not edited the article since 2007. The article has no main watchers and has not been maintained to standard. The article was notified last year for original research, over-reliance on single sources, MOS issues, and citations needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did some urgent fixes and will park these lists of sources to use here. It seems like Newcomb 1980 is available at a local library. That's for sourcing & completeness; someone more adept that me will need to handle MOS problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did some expansion. Newcomb 1980 seems to be the most comprehensive source on the group, so I can see why he would be the main source. Stras 2018 seems to be a bit more generally discussing the music scene in Ferrara, rather than a detailed analysis of the concerto delle donne. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, starting to try to catch up ... where does this stand; do you think the article meets comprehensiveness? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it passes on comprehensiveness, keeping in mind however that I only considered sources that show up on Google Scholar. There are some bits in the page source that need further thought. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The additions look great, thanks Jo-Jo! I recall working on this for a bit but stepping back due to time commitments. Hopefully I can look throughout it more next week... am thinking that the biggest issues right now are source References formatting and the rather poor lead. Aza24 (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 are you going to be able to look at this, or should we be moving to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think so. Give me till the end of the weekend—if I don't get to it by then we can move it FARC. Aza24 (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this today – Aza24 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at it a bit today. I still have more cleanup to do, but at the moment these are the issues I see remaining (this list is for my own personal use as well)
  • Needs many more reference to Stras
  • A few missing citations still (one is marked), about cross dressing, the ballet etc.
  • Probably need a collage pic of the Duke and Duchess in the beginning of history
  • Emphasis on Luzzaschi and near absence of anyone else may be undue, I'm not sure
  • Note b needs to be expanded to include the similar contradiction from Pendle and Grove
  • Music section is a bit of a mess; badly organized and laid out. The composers
  • Really needs an image of sheet music (which I can engrave and then upload)
  • I don't think Yarris is a "high quality source"
  • Similar doubts about Kuhn
  • There is a great long-ish quote from Vincenzo Giustiniani (in Burkholder) which could go in quote box for the Influence section
  • Lead needs a complete rewrite, including the names of important composers and singers
  • Minor clean up matters regarding linking first mentions (& overlinking) and giving translations to Italian terms
  • Overall, I think there are two main issues:
    • Rewrite of the music section
    • I think the whole article will have to be recontextualized a little. Too much emphasis on the Ferrera court and practically none in comparison for the equivalent ensembles at Mantua, Florence, etc. Britannica's article is (surprisingly) a good model in this regard Aza24 (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like the Wikipedia Library is down, so I can't do anything about Stras or the other concerti or the citation tag at the moment. I looked for an image of Duke and Duchess, but apparently there are only separate images. It seems like Monteverdi is more commonly mentioned than Luzzaschi in sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries! I have a PDF of Stras (which I can send?—email me if so) that I'm planning to add from. For the Duke/Duchess I meant a collage (double) image, which I've just added. – Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't do anything before tomorrow, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Began to work a bit with Stras. I am going to warn folks that since musicology is very far from my areas of knowledge/interest, I am perhaps not the person to ask for a proper due weight evaluation. I got as far as p.167 in Stras. I've asked at WP:RX for one source for the crossdressing thing. Does anyone have access to this book? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I just found a PDF. If you email me I can send it to you. Aza24 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you up for rewriting the music section? This is a topic on which I understand essentially nothing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I think so. Was looking into what that would consist of earlier – Aza24 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aza24 where does this stand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Should hopefully be able to work on it this week. Back from vacation now. I think its definitely trending towards a positive direction Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Aza24? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Uhhhhhhh, sorry I am getting v distracted. I assure you all this is still on my radar Aza24 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24:? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've set aside some time next weekend to work on it. Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Almost done with refiguring the music section in my sandbox Aza24 (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to reach out to Laurie Stras, an expert on this topic, and she has kindly agreed to give feedback via email about possible improvements/errors. She said she's on vacation at the moment, but has promised to look soon. Looks like this should all be wrapping up soon. Aza24 (talk) 07:14, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She pointed out some factual mistakes, which I've now fixed. She also said that although the article is heavily influenced by somewhat older scholarship (Newcomb 1980), it is generally suitable for a general encyclopedia. She expressed some hesitancy over citing Yarris, which I previously found questionable. I'm thinking all of the Yarris refs need to be replaced. Aza24 (talk) 06:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like many of the claims sourced to Yarris can be found in other sources, going by Google Scholar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

[edit]
Notified: Gary King, Pagrashtak, WP Video games, 2022-12-11

Review section

[edit]

Featured article that was first promoted back in December 2005 (current status is from 2008). This nearly two decade old featured article lacks citations in several areas, has a cleanup banner from as far back as November 2021 that addresses a lack of citations, some sources noted on the talk page are missing, and the article itself is largely abandoned. I also believe that it might violate the MOS:VG when it comes to the organization of the Reception section, and some images may not be necessary. No large efforts to improve this articles issues have occurred since they were pointed out, and all edits recently have been relatively small. I might not be too familiar with the featured article criteria, but I'm very certain that this article needs improvement and currently does not meet it. NegativeMP1 21:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in working on this when I can. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Had a busy week last week, still working on this. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as on my list to check over. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article definitely needs a lot of TLC...
  • Gameplay section is pretty haphazard, and does a bad job explaining the gameplay to someone who hasn't already played Ocarina of Time. I'm not sure the gameplay makes sense to split into subsections about the masks and time cycle, but that might be just a cosmetic rather than important organizational quibble.
  • The synopsis is much better than it was thanks to edits, but it still repeats itself a lot (the plight of the regions is mentioned in setting and again in the plot) and I think is missing a few details to make sense of it (why does Tatl have no other choice than to help Link?)
  • The Development section has some IMO improper use of sources to synthesize conjectures (like Ura Zelda becoming Master Quest) and generally feels pretty slight for such a recognized and important game.
  • Reception definitely needs beefing up and a rewrite. Likewise the Legacy needs a cleanup. Sourcing throughout is not up to modern standards (Screenrant refs, unreferenced statements, and the like.) Much closer to a B-class article than FA these days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

  • N-Sider is used in this article as is marked as unreliable at WP:VGRS
  • David Fuchs appears to have been questioned the use of Screenrant above
  • FAs should be using high-quality reliable sources, which is a stricter bar than basic reliability. What makes the following sources high-quality RS: wccftech (marked as unreliable at VGRS), Zelda Informer (also marked as unreliable at VGRS), Game Kudos (not at VGRS, which appears to be a sign of definite obscurity), WWG (seems to be associated with comicbook.com, which is marked as inconclusive at VGRS), Nintendo Everything (marked as unreliable at VGRS - current citation does not name the publisher), Escapist (VGRS notes that this has had issues with insufficient editorial oversight in the past - while this is outside of the unreliable time range, is this really a superior source for FA purposes?), Noisy Pixel (marked as unreliable at VGRS, again the publisher is not named in the citation)

None of these sources are used heavily, but that's still 9 sources there's some reason to have doubts about them being up to the FA standard. I think more sourcing work is needed here. Hog Farm Talk 00:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced all the unreliable sources. The two Escapist articles are from known reliable game critics (Yahtzee Croshaw and Marty Sliva, formerly of IGN). They are high quality sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Clock town.ogg - licensing is problematic. The "own work" does really work because its a derivative copy of the video game music, which would be under copyright. I've nominated for deletion on Commons.
  • "Link in his Goron form. The time limit is displayed at the bottom of the screen." - it's unclear what time limit this is referring to

That's all that stands out to me but I'm not very familiar with video games. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't even realize it was filed under a CC license. Definitely not appropriate for Commons. I edited the caption for clarity. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the .ogg file for now per the deletion request; I think we can keep now. Hog Farm Talk 21:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and feedback! Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Fuchs, any update on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose still needs some work; I've started doing some edits. I think the major outstanding issue for me is the gameplay section, which doesn't seem like it's a great introduction to the actual gameplay if you don't know what Ocarina of Time is and can backfill in the information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Fuchs: It has been three months. Have you made much progress? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't worked on it much at all, to be honest. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I had completely forgotten about this (didn't get any pings?). What issues do you still have with the prose? I'll see what I can do about the Gameplay section when I have a spare moment this week. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axem Titanium I think restructuring the gameplay section so it doesn't start with Ocarina (a game for which someone might have no frame of reference) would be a good start. The prose also flips between describing things in terms of what the player can do, and what Link can do—I think either is fine, but it needs to be consistent throughout. There's also some weird organization—ocarina songs for manipulating the three day cycle are mentioned under that subhead, which makes sense, but then other uses for the songs are discussed that have nothing to do with it (not sure the subhead needs to be there at all, but the organization could do with being a bit more thought-out. (I think the Jackson guitar thing should be cut entirely because it's irrelevant to understanding the gameplay as well.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Fuchs Thanks for the comments. I made some changes to help clear that up. In terms of player vs. Link, I made some adjustments to ensure that "player" is only used for things that the player does (like save the game or solve a puzzle in their head) and Link is used for things that Link does (like swing a sword). Axem Titanium (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Axem. I'm going to do another pass through and see if there's any sourcing that might help, then edit what's there. It's looking better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs: Are you still working on this? @NegativeMP1: What concerns of yours remain unaddressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be honest, I keep forgetting I even started this discussion. It's been over a year. There might be a couple of areas that could be a bit off, but from what I'm seeing right now, I think all of the concerns that I initially had when I made this review have been addressed. All the major blatant issues have been resolved, and the article is far better organized. I think it meets the current criteria, and I feel that this discussion can be closed. On a side note, it might be worth nominating this article for TFA next year, specifically on April 26, for its 25th anniversary. λ NegativeMP1 21:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Fuchs: given the above, are you satisfied with the article thus far (given we have two keeps) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stray remaining thoughts:
    -The body is still missing release date info that's in the infobox (unreferenced), would also be a good place to stick it and make the "marketing campaign" not an orphan line.
    Forced to work together to solve the issue unclear what the issue is and why Tatl has to help Link.
    -Skull Kid makes amends with the fairies and Link, which he recognizes. it's unclear who is recognizing who, or why it's particularly notable if the Skull Kids recognizes Link. (Shouldn't he?)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs someone changed the entire story section without discussion. I have reverted it to the previous version that does not contain those unclear passages. I added references for the release dates. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review&oldid=1254975145#Featured_article_removal_candidates"