Wikipedia:Featured article review

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

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]

Macedonia (terminology)[edit]

Notified: [1], 9 Dec 2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because of sourcing issues and a needs update banner. See the talk page notice for more info. Last FAR in 2009. (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Zealand national rugby union team[edit]

Notified: Shudde, Rodney Baggins, AmarikSZN, Dale Arnett, Giants2008, Rugby.change, Roger 8 Roger, GordyB, Gadfium, WP Rugby union, WP New Zealand, noticed on 2023-02-11

An article that has not been well-maintained for the last several years. Significant amounts of uncited text have accreted, as well as entire uncited sections and tables. Also noting some failed verification in the paragraph beginning with "Their all-time points record for tests stands at 17,715 points for and 8,521 points against ...". Some of the listings of information need to be assessed for due weight/statscruft as well. Hog Farm Talk 02:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Notified: DVD R W (last edit 2010), WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Visual arts, WikiProject Higher education, WikiProject Architecture, 2022-12-28

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several unsourced statements in the article, some of the listed sources are not used as inline citations, and there is no "History" or "Timeline" section to describe its creation or significant events of the school, a common element in articles. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concur that the sectioning is very unusual. That, combined with the short length/few references leads me to believe that we'd likely find comprehensiveness issues if we dug deeper. It also means that some elements in the lead, such as the student count, are not present in the body. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Harriet Tubman[edit]

Notified: RL0919, Scartol, WikiProject New York (state), WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Women in Religion, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject African diaspora, [2]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are unsourced passages and paragraphs and the prose is unnecessarily tortured in places, repetitive in others and imprecise elsewhere. Just in the first two paragraphs of the lead you have unnecessary convolution: "similary-enslaved people" for "fellow slaves"; repetition: "Born into chattel slavery ... Born into slavery" and imprecision: "irate enslaver" (it was an irate overseer not an irate owner, but this is not clear in the prose). DrKay (talk) 15:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I addressed some of the issues DrKay mentions, but I do think there's a need for further review. DK started at the top and I started at the bottom. I found unsourced content and a Legacy section that is seriously bloated compared to the tight four paragraphs of the FAC version. Certainly, Tubman's legacy has expanded since then, but the current length is unwarranted, and we could do with less detailed mention of each park and mural dedicated in her honor.
I looked for, but didn't find, major book-length works on Tubman published since 2008, but I bet there's some scholarship that should be evaluated and incorporated. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:23, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had intended to stay well clear of the article about Harriet Tubman, yet here I am. I apologize for this “essay”, but it is how I organize my thoughts.
Using, there are (very roughly) about 170 items with “Harriet Tubman” in the title. Trying produced 2,542 Results. Limiting the search to print books in the last 10 years turned up 627 records. Further selection for non-juvenile history in the past five years gave a list of 62 books. There is even a 2022 book by Kate Clifford Larson called “Harriet Tubman : a reference guide to her life and works”. Even allowing for multiple editions, there might be several sources which are not mentioned in the Wikipedia article. That doesn’t mean they all should be mentioned. After all, the title is “Harriet Tubman“ not “A Guide to Publications about Harriet Tubman“. But there might be too much reliance on Larson’s book.
People-first language
Language changes and sometimes it has to preceed changes of society’s viewpoint; gender-neutral language in job titles is a good example. But sometimes it might go too far, too fast, and we wind up with awkward references such as the “people who menstruate“ highlighted by J. K. Rowling. (I roll my eyes when people are censured for stating the title of the book “White Niggers of North America”. Perhaps it is one of those books being removed from libraries, or reissued under a title such as “White Enslaved African Americans of North America”.) With respect to this article, it doesn’t make sense to have a link entitled “enslavement” leading me to an article called “Slavery in the United States”.
In the past couple of months, I encountered terms such as “enslaved person” on Wikipedia. It is new to me and, like a new shoe, it isn’t as comfortable as the old. But neither was it so jarring that I couldn’t accept it. Wikipedia’s Manual of Style doesn’t recommend word usage. I found an article called People-first language. The article Slavery (not “enslavement”) covers such terminology, noting it is in dispute amongst historians.
My impression is that Wikipedia follows common usage. So it is not the role of Wikipedia to change society. Harriet Tubman probably described herself as a former slave not as a “formerly enslaved person”. I think Wikipedia should mirror the academic terminology of the past decade and not change until academics reach a consensus. When and if new terminology filters down and becomes the norm, in newspapers for example, the article should be changed to reflect it.
The article seems too long in places. While I believe in thorough referencing, a list of hundreds of references always suggests to me that an article is too detailed. An alternative is to refer readers to the articles about the Underground Railroad and the Raid on Combahee Ferry for more detail.
I agree that the legacy section is too long. It covers everything from opera to television, and could be condensed. If I wanted to know Tubman in detail, I would read a biography and consult two or three other books. So Wikipedia doesn’t need to repeat all the details.
As an example, I will criticize my recent attempt to add more information about Salem chapel. My intention was to globalize the article a bit more, prompted by a news item. However, the details of the news are temporary and should be replaced when the renovation project is complete. I didn’t remove any existing material about the chapel; the paragraph could certainly be condensed. It is relevant to say the chapel has been designated a Canadian historic site, but the phrase about how that came about isn’t necessary, just a reference.
The statement that she supported women’s suffrage by “working alongside women such as Susan B Anthony and Emily Howland” isn’t natural to me. Did Tubman actually work with Anthony and Howland, or is “alongside“ figurative? It strikes me as an effort to increase Tubman‘s status by association. Yet, at that, it assumes that the reader is immediately familiar with Susan B Anthony and Emily Howland, so it hinders the global readability of the article. I wouldn’t mention them unless it is possible to see more about their relationship with Tubman.
The comment about the plaque in Auburn New York which contains dialect forced me to look up the date. The time that it was erected is relevant to the language and her level of education so it should be there.
The map of key places in her life lacks red dots for Auburn and St Catherines.
Over All
The article seems heavy in promoting Harriet Tubman. While her accomplishments are remarkable, I really don’t want to read something which sounds like an application for sainthood. It doesn’t have to include everything. I have left some comments on the Tark page of the article questioning, in particular, whether Tubman truly planned and led (versus inspired and advised) a raid during the Civil War. Some biographers, and some editors, become enamoured of their subject, so I think it is especially important to maintain a neutral point of view in this article, and to ensure balance.
It needs some work but not necessarily a lot. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 05:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the moment I will just make a brief comment about the available sourcing: Because Tubman is a well-known and revered historical figure, there are multiple books produced about her every year, and her name is invoked in the titles of books that are not really about her (for example, Conjuring Harriet "Mama Moses" Tubman and the Spirits of the Underground Railroad or Harriet Tubman: 30 Lessons in Love, Leadership, and Legacy). Numerous pop history series have a volume for her. And for a 19th-century figure, there are public domain books that on-demand publishers can spam across every platform. So while there are some interesting newer volumes to look into, numbers from search results are not a meaningful indicator. --RL0919 (talk) 15:04, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edgar Speyer[edit]

Notified: this list, Nov 2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because it may have been well-researched & comprehensive when promoted back in 2009, but it is not now due to the publication of newer, high quality sources like the 2013 biography by Lentin, which is barely cited in the article. An example of lack of comprehensiveness is the non-mention of the subject's role in the Cuban tobacco industry, covered in Liebmann 2015. Instead, there is currently an overreliance on press sources. (t · c) buidhe 18:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An odd FAC; it was rare then for Raul to promote, so it looks like both Karanacs and I may have recused, and Mattisse was in there. Johnbod ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just supported on one point in 2009, & haven't looked at it since. Between the trains and classical music crowds you might find interested editors. Not me I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings and Mackensen: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm afraid there's nothing I can help with here. The issues cited by buidhe in opening the FAR require print sources which I do not have access to. I almost exclusively stick to North American topics anyhow. I don't like declining a request to help out somewhere, but unfortunately I cannot assist with this FAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been meaning for a very long time to give this article an update since Anthony published his book. We corresponded before its publication and he was kind enough to send me a signed copy and thank me in the acknowledgments. He also does cite this article in the secondary sources section of the book.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
DavidCane, do you intend to update this during this FAR? Or should we delist it and it can be updated outside of this process? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The request for a review is based on needing sources updating. I'm happy to do that but I'll have to re-read Antony Lenton's book and see if I can find a copy of the Liebmann book. Since there aren't any other reasons for review given, does the FAR need to remain open?--DavidCane (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't usually close a FAR until/unless issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, if you want to keep it open. I'll start on an update.--DavidCane (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sex Pistols[edit]

Notified: DocKino (DCGeist sock), Ceoil, Ss112, WP bio, WP Rock music, WP Punk music, WP London, formally noticed on January 27, but concerns were raised much earlier

An old brilliant prose entry last formally reviewed in 2006. Ceoil expressed concerns about "excitable language and bloat"; there's certainly tone issues here, with language such as "got frisky with", and the article talk page is littered with concerns about the tone. At over 11,000 words, the article also needs to be closely examined for summary style issues; I imagine that fixing some of the tone issues will go a long ways on that front. Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hog, at a first glance it seems doable, but jeez it seems like 2006 all over again (one of my first introductions to wiki review processes), except then it was too short, now its too long :) The sources are still 90% high quality with no major gaps in sourcing or coverage. The writing is fine (both grammatically and re clarity), and it hasn't bloated or suffered much prose-line since the 2010 Geist re-write. The major issue is obviously, as you say, tone; but that's more trimming than heavy lifting. Extensive spot checks of refs would also be needed, though from scanning in last half hour am seeing few doubtful claims (as an obsessive since 1985-86). Will update in a few weeks after chipping away. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As a note, have all the cited book sources. Most of the heavy work here will be on standardising the ref formats, esp if somebody turns up and ask for 13 digit isbns, and everything is snf (neither of which I care about). Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, for one, don't see either of those things being necessary. Have always preferred to use the isbn in the print book, instead of some new ISBN 13 that may or may not actually be associated with the original volume. Personally a fan of sfns, but it would be a truly massive nightmare to try to convert over to those here. Hog Farm Talk 22:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It possible to check the book edition via snippet view, but have most of the book sources still from the 2006 FAR. Phew re snf - I like it too, but such an effort to convert would make the overall task not worthwile. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ceoil and Hog Farm: Re. The Pistols, I have no sources at all, but re. refs, I've had a go at transferring to {{snf}}, including a separate notes section. I chose one of the most common sources (Savage), and it's not as bad as it seems. (All now self-reverted of course.) He takes up ~half the refs, so although it'll be a job of work, the bulk shouldn't take too long; the rest will be polishing (aligning editions with with ISBNs etc., as noted above). What think ye? SN54129 16:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SN54129:, I mean that would be great...but hope you know what you are letting yourself in for! On the + side, this will take around 3 months anyway. Thanks if you decide so, and can help. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hog as an update, am tying to pull in other editors to help trim. My heavy rotation playlist has changed since the nom from 2020s techno to classic punk rock, so thanks for that. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Noting that the image and sound file licensing also needs to be covered off. Ceoil (talk) 02:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd like to thank Ceoil for inviting me to help. I'll see if the resulting trims flow well for a read, and do my own business here as well. Carlinal (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hurricane Danny (1997)[edit]

Notified: Mass Message Send, talk page notice 2021-12-07 (noting that original nominator, Hello32020, has opted out of talk page messages)

This 2007 FA has not been maintained to standard, and the nominating editor is inactive. The main issue outlined on talk on 2021-12-07 is a comprehensiveness failure, newer sources not included, and there are minor MOS issues as well. If someone intends to attempt to save this article, a CCI check will be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jason Rees shall we proceed to FARC, or are you planning more work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am planning to work on Danny more as time allows.Jason Rees (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jason Rees you haven't edited the article since 28 February; shall me proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Time is my enemy at the moment so I guess you will sadly have to go to FARC.Jason Rees (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glynn Lunney[edit]

Notified: MLilburne, Wikiproject Science and academia Wikiproject Moon WikiProject Spaceflight, noticed 2022-07-19

I am nominating this featured article for review because the lead is too short and omits discussion of sections in the body, and because WP:Primary references are in use. Desertarun (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Primary references aren't a problem if they're used appropriately (I haven't looked at the article's usage of them, so can't make a statement on the appropriateness of the referencing). Hawkeye7 is the most likely to work on this, but they've still got Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hanford Site/archive1 up and are fairly busy anyways. If Hawkeye has any interest in working on this one, IMO the FAR timeline should be extended out long enough to get Hanford pushed over the hump and still give time for this one. I don't want to see FAR become a "clock-'em-up" basic auto-delist except for the absolutely most deficient, so we need to give time allowances for situations like this and Hanford where it's most likely to be one editor working on multiple. Hog Farm Talk 19:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The main thing missing from my original URFA notice was that, when Lunney died in 2021, a number of new sources (obits) came out that need to be reviewed and possibly incorporated. (I will try to get to Hanford this week, now that visitors have left.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I guess I can take this one on. It doesn't seem to have too many problems. I am very busy at the moment, and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hanford Site/archive1 has been going for five months now. Some people wanted me to look at Omaha Beach but that would be a much bigger project and I cannot see myself having that much time until later in the year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:01, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have done a pass through the article. Fixing some referencing problems. Dealt with some dead references and some marked incorrectly as dead. Incorporated some material from the obits into the article. Added a couple of images. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'll try to give this a read through later this week. Hog Farm Talk 21:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hawkeye7 have you considered adding anything from the interview in external links? I thought some of it interesting ... it's in four parts (short). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It isn't available in my location. Face-sad.svg Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:53, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The center was a part of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), a United States federal agency founded to promote aeronautical research. Cooperative students at NACA took part in a program that combined work and study, providing a way for them to fund their college degrees while gaining experience in aeronautics." - not in source
    Added additional sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "It was during these years that Lunney became the protege of flight director Chris Kraft, a relationship that would last some twenty years" - I don't think we can say the relationship lasted 20 years using that particular sources, as it is from 1968 which is early in the 20-year period
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " this was his first experience with uncrewed spacecraft" - I thought he'd worked with the uncrewed Gemini 2?
    I noticed this one when I added the bit about Gemini 2. It needs re-wording somehow. The idea was that Gemini was a crewed spacecraft even though Gemini 2 was an uncrewed mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Changed to "satellites". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Content looks generally fine, this is more of a first pass than anything else. Hog Farm Talk 01:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yellowstone National Park[edit]

Notified: MONGO, Mav, Mike Cline, Brian W. Schaller, Civil Engineer III, WP Protected areas, WP Montana, WP Volcanoes, WP Geology, WP World Heritage Sites, WP USA, WP National Archives, noticed in March 2021

Unfortunately, this very early FA needs some love and care. It looks like content throughout the article will need to be updated. While the article currently states "There are almost 60 species of mammals in the park,", the NPS park facts under wildlife lists today lists 67 species of mammals, and there are similar disagreements, such as 8 vs 9 species of conifers. Many of the animal population figures will also need updating. Extensive editing by editors unfamiliar with the featured article criteria seems to have damaged the article, as uncited text has accumulated and in several places where checked, the sources listed do not support all of the text they are backing up. Note: The #2 editor per Articlestats has not been informed, as their primary contribution is simply a giant bot run for referencing formatting and they do not normally edit in this topic area. Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Although I am very willing to work on aspects of the YNP FA review, some care must be taken when citing apparent “disagreements” in the article. For example the the 60 vs 67 species of mammal disconnect is cited by Hog Farm is not entirely accurate. The NPS Park Facts does not actually list the 67 species, it merely says there are 67 and only identifies 40 in the list. Indeed the phrasing can be improved, but the FACTs will be tougher to sort out as some mammal species are migratory (bats) and may only be transitory in the park. Just some thoughts to ponder. Mike Cline (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • True, but we'll still need to have a source supporting the numbers we choose. The spot with mammals I pointed out is sourced to the NPS park facts page, which now has a different number than the one in the article. Hog Farm Talk 14:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Mike Cline are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Notified: Mav, ComplexRational, Materialscientist, Double sharp, WP Elements, WP Physics, WP Mining, WP Energy, noticed in December 2021

This older featured article's nominator unfortunately hasn't been actively editing in several years, and some tuning-up work is needed. Two sections are orange-tagged as needing updated, and other material outside of these sections does not seem to have been updated since around the time of the FAC, including "This trend continued through 2006, when expenditure on exploration rocketed to over $774 million, an increase of over 250% compared to 2004. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency said exploration figures for 2007 would likely match those for 2006". Some of the uncited text is non-problematic, but others such as a claim about skin absorption in the human exposure section should be cited. The layout has also deteriorated, with images and charts crammed into the article, regardless of whether there was room for them or not. Can be fixed, but it'll take some work. Hog Farm Talk 18:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I agree that some cleanup and polishing work is needed. Recently, I reorganized, expanded, and added citations to the isotopes section, and my overarching impression is that similar work is needed elsewhere in the article – perhaps even a shuffling of the sections (e.g., why put isotopes after applications when a number of applications derive from nuclear properties?). However, I'm unsure how much time I'll have to commit in the near future – at the very least, I can't promise to be active enough to undertake this by myself. I could at least try to find some citations and do some minor copyediting. Complex/Rational 21:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have updated the parts that did need an update: 1) worldwide production and 2) post Cold War nuclear safety in Russia. Considering a strong decline in research and applications of uranium in the past decades, the article is still rather comprehensive. Materialscientist (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think the article needs clarification and update in 'Human exposure'.
    • There are toxicity effects mentioned in the prose that aren't mentioned in the table about uranium toxicity. For instance, under reproductive effects, the table only mentions that Uranium miners have more first-born daughters, but there is a sentence above the table stating that Uranium is also a reproductive toxicant. It seems like the table should summarise all the toxicity effects, or perhaps be left out?
      The table has been removed. In general, approved toxicity effects of uranium are much less clear than what we expect from the general public fears. A characteristic example is the CDC official Toxicological Profile for Uranium: see, e.g. sections "Other uranium health effects", "Uranium and cancer" and "Children and Uranium" section on pp. 5-6. Materialscientist (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • All of the human impacts relate to individual toxicity, but there is also a lot of research on social impacts. ("Uranium social impact" gets 181k hits on Google scholar – so that's nearly 10% of the scholarship on uranium overall.) All of the top hits relate to the social effects of uranium mining.
      It's likely that some of this scholarship should be covered in Uranium mining, but it appears to be absent from that article as well. I notice that The Extractive Industries and Society journal did a special issue on uranium in 2020. So some of those articles should probably be cited in this article if it is to keep its FA rating.
      I disagree: "uranium social impact" has 1 hit, "social impact of uranium" has 177 hits, uranium "social impact" has 7k hits, and uranium social impact has 184k hits. Naturally, Google puts up the hits with "social impact" as most relevant, but after sorting out those, we see random hits. In other words, the actual number is ca. 7k out of 2,200k (0.3%), not 184k. The mentioned social impact refers to a more general issue of nuclear energy production rather than to uranium. This topic is covered in many Wikipedia articles, including Nuclear power debate, Public opinion on nuclear issues, Anti-nuclear movement, Pro-nuclear movement, Nuclear energy policy, Environmental impact of nuclear power, Nuclear power, and a dozen more. Materialscientist (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this. Your points about the search terms seem valid. I still feel like something is missing though. Maybe the best way to think about it is this:
If we search the article for the term 'waste', we get a sentence about early uses in glazings, and we get these sentences:
  • The capacity of the surrounding sediment to contain the nuclear waste products has been cited by the U.S. federal government as supporting evidence for the feasibility to store spent nuclear fuel at the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
  • Approximately 73% of the budget [in 2015 Russia] will be spent on decommissioning nuclear reactors and nuclear facilities, especially those involved in state defense programs; 20% will go in processing and disposal of nuclear fuel and radioactive waste, and 5% into monitoring and ensuring of nuclear and radiation safety
  • In nature, uranium(VI) forms highly soluble carbonate complexes at alkaline pH. This leads to an increase in mobility and availability of uranium to groundwater and soil from nuclear wastes which leads to health hazards
  • Under 'Isotopes' we get, Uranium-236 occurs in spent nuclear fuel when neutron capture on 235U does not induce fission, or as a decay product of plutonium-240. Uranium-236 is not fertile, as three more neutron captures are required to produce fissile 239Pu, and is not itself fissile; as such, it is considered long-lived radioactive waste.
I don't feel like the article provides early context for these sentences. Why do we need Yucca mtn repository? Why is Russia allocating money to decommission these reactors? What is nuclear waste anyway? I think a very short (1-2 sentence) background earlier in the article to establish that Uranium is used by industry in a way that creates complex social issues around waste (and also mining) would be helpful. As it is, the article seems to assume the reader would already know this (which they may), but I think some accessibility here esp. for younger readers would be helpful.
We're talking about how waste moves in the groundwater, and the economics of Russia treating waste, but we haven't established that the waste exists or where it comes from or what it does (except obliquely in a very technical sentence buried in the section on isotopes).Larataguera (talk) 00:12, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added clarifying words. The issue of nuclear waste is covered in the linked nuclear waste article; it is relevant to various (and any) radioactive materials. We all know that radiation is unhealthy, first-hand, from visits to dentists and hospitals (when we see and wear X-ray shields), and from recent news about Zaporizhzhia, Chernobyl and Fukushima power plants. Russia doesn't decommission any reactors, only aged ones. Materialscientist (talk) 07:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for making those changes. Can you clarify whether you're opposed to some additional background about waste? Consider that Uranium "nuclear waste" gets 68k hits on scholar and "uranium waste" 3.9k, but "uranium glass" only gets 2.6k. But we link to uranium glass in the lead, and we don't link to nuclear waste in the lead, even though that search combination gets 26 times more coverage in the literature.
Maybe you can help me refine the search terms to identify the best way to frame this missing information? I think we can find search terms that outweigh some of the excessive historical information given in the lead. Consider that Uranium Klaproth only gets 2.2k hits; Uranium Péligot only 813, but we link to articles about both these scientists (and others) in the lead. Uranium "Indigenous people" gets 11.4k hits, suggesting social impacts that are far more represented in the literature than this detailed historical background. Larataguera (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. Handling of radioactive waste is, and will be, a major international issue for decades. Meanwhile uranium glass has always been a curiosity, propagated by photographs of rare uranium glassware that shines in the dark; production of uranium glass was halted in the 1940s due to the emergence of nuclear projects. I rewrote the lead to reflect this. Materialscientist (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's definitely an improvement, thanks! It's still a little awkward that radioactive waste is only mentioned in relation to Dismantling of these weapons, together with the related nuclear facilities. Of course power generation is also an important source of waste in uranium-related industries, and most of the literature seems to treat these sources of waste fairly equally. (eg, [3]). I think the introductory sentence should mention both these sources of waste. Larataguera (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, the lead didn't mention that uranium is a health threat, which we take for granted as a common knowledge. I have added a sentence at the end of the lead to fix that (at the end because it fits best into the prose flow there), linking spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a significant improvement. Thanks for working on this! -Larataguera
What do you think about linking to Uranium in the environment in the lead? The last sentence could read Spent nuclear fuel and contamination from weapons manufacturing are sources of radioactive waste, which mostly consists of uranium-238 and poses significant health threat and environmental impact.
Linked (though Uranium in the environment is a weak article). Materialscientist (talk) 07:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I know, it's terrible! I've often wondered how much responsibility a Featured Article has for immediately related sub-articles. It's difficult to be sure that we're adequately summarising and giving due weight to the topic of Uranium in the environment in this broader article when that subject is so underdeveloped. Larataguera (talk) 12:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going over search terms again, the search pollution intitle:uranium yields 9.3k articles, which is perhaps not a huge proportion of the 186k for intitle:uranium. But, if we look at articles written after 2019, we get 2.1k/9k. So this is clearly an increasingly important part of the discussion in more recent literature. Larataguera (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • In the section on 'Human exposure' the introductory paragraphs about how people are exposed to uranium are overly general. There's definitely research that quantifies human exposure that we could cite, and this would help establish the significance of the issue. For example, I easily found a 2022 global meta-analysis describing exposure to uranium from mining activities. It seems the article could be improved by this additional information. (Does this affect 10,000 people or 10 million?) Perhaps there is a similar analysis for legacy pollution from weapon manufacturing sites. I haven't looked. Larataguera (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I don't have access to the full text of that study. Its abstract talks about France, Portugal, and Bulgaria; uranium production there has always been negligible on the world scale [4]. Its thumbnail world map highlights minor players in the uranium production rather than key countries. Those key countries are Kazakhstan (45%), Namibia (12%), Canada (10%), Australia (9%), Uzbekistan (7%), and Russia (5%). We might get exposure data for Canada and Australia, but hardly for other key countries. In other words, various authors may claim "a global meta-analysis", to boost the importance of their work, but I strongly doubt they can provide one. Materialscientist (talk) 06:32, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I didn't initially have access to it either, but now I've found the full text is available through WP library. (Does that link work for you?) I reviewed the article, and you're right that it's incomplete. It's an analysis of 54 studies from 16 countries. Maybe it's worth citing it to say that uranium mining appears to pose health risks from exposure to other potentially toxic trace elements? It doesn't really establish the scale of the problem.
    I think my main point is that I'm still concerned that recent studies of public health and environmental/social issues related to uranium aren't adequately summarised, and I think more thorough research would find some review papers that would allow us to be more detailed about the impacts of uranium-related industry. Most of the papers in the health section are from the early 2000s and the most recent is a CDC pocket guide from 2015. More recent scholarship is likely to assess public health and social issues. Do you think this paper might be useful? There's also this paper from 2014 full text assessing social/health issues in relation to Indigenous people in Australia, Canada, the United States and several African states – so that's fairly global. Thanks for your patience as I work to ensure that this featured article is updated with recent scholarship. Larataguera (talk) 14:01, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've read the articles, thanks for the links.

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151556 - this is a meta-analysis of contamination around uranium mines. Main results are in Table 3. Most data originate from 1-2 sites/country, hence a large spread, leaving many options for speculative (mis)interpretations. There is a clear correlation between U and Cd; however, Cd toxicity is relatively low, and Cd is more abundant at Zn mines; steel, battery and fertilizer plants, etc., rather than at uranium mines. There are no locations, and hence one can argue that few people live around those mines. Also, China aside, best statistics is obtained for countries that have virtually halted their uranium mining some 6 years ago (Germany, Portugal, France, Brazil, Romania, US) [5]. Igeo for China is moderate, and is likely a minor concern, considering other pollution sources in the region. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.055 - a nice analysis, but it covers social issues rather than mining or health; also many of its sources are obsolete. doi:10.1016/j.envint.2020.106107 - this is a meta-analysis of U-related health effects. Its first 9 pages tell us that U hurts us in many ways, but in the Conclusions on page 10, the authors suddenly back off and say that all effects are unclear. The article seems to focus on what U can do, but not what it does in reality. Materialscientist (talk) 06:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems like you're still a little reluctant to include social impacts as in doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.03.055. Maybe a good middle ground here is to mention public health issues, so we're remaining in the health sphere, but still broadening the scope beyond individual health. Here's a 2019 paper: "Nuclear power and uranium mining: current global perspectives and emerging public health risks". Larataguera (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My problem is not the criticism of uranium-related activities, but the unprofessional reviews on the topic. Authors pile up results that fit the public fear of radiation danger, without an adequate fact checking. As a random example, let me list a few problems that I've spotted in your recent link during my today's lunch break: 1) in fig. 2 the author shows U production for 2004–2017 and cites a reference from 2015. 2) All through the article he accentuates the global increase in U production, but in reality it fell by 50% from 2017 to 2020. 3) He claims that "Africa and Asia have emerged as major sources of uranium" but U mining in Africa has been stable for decades. 4) He points to the Karoo region in South Africa as an example of social abuse, but official sources [6] reveal that this information is obsolete: (Areva was acquired by Peninsula in 2014, and Peninsula withdrew from U mining there in 2018). 5) "Many mines are situated in countries undergoing conflict" - it is easy to slap such sentences, but I don't recall any conflict involving a major U producer in the past decades (except for Russia, but its wars don't seem to concern U mines). 6) And the final gem is the concluding sentence of the abstract: "This article provides recommendations for multilateral institutional collaboration on public health surveillance plus capacity building for young researchers." - nothing in the article elaborates the "capacity building for young researchers"; besides, such far-fetching recommendations should not originate from a one-author report. Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason (or one reason) that mining pulled out of the Karoo was because of social opposition and concerns about public health.[7] This exit from the Karoo isn't an example of why these issues aren't important as you suggest. It's an example of how these issues are significantly impacting the industry.
As far as expansion into Africa and implications with conflict, the world nuclear association does say that new production is being developed in Africa, and lists several countries with ongoing conflicts. Some of these conflicts are specifically mentioned as disincentive to development. But the point isn't to argue details of specific sources. It's to point to an increasing number of articles exploring social and public health issues related to the uranium industry which are not mentioned at all in this article. Please don't pick apart the ones I find, just help me find the best ones. Larataguera (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article you linked [8] doesn't say "because of social opposition and concerns about public health". It says "Technical problems at the company's mine in Wyoming, the depressed price of uranium in the world market, and endless delays forced Peninsula Energy to reassess". Don't get me wrong, environmental topics are important, but it is much harder to find factual sources on them as compared to exact science. I wish other editors adequately cover them in other wikipedia articles, so that we could add brief summaries with wikilinks into elements articles like uranium. Materialscientist (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, but the "endless delays" are clearly because of social opposition. The title of the article is "Victory for Campaign Against Uranium Mining Project". And the bulk of the article is about the social campaign and the public's concerns. It feels strange to pretend social issues weren't a major aspect of industry exit from the Karoo. But anyway, it doesn't feel like we're getting anywhere. I'm going to let it go.
I still feel like this shouldn't pass FAR without more content on social issues, and I'll reiterate the WP:UNDUE emphasis on individual historical scientists in the lead when social/environmental/health issues have greater weight in the literature. Not going to take up anymore of your time. Leave a message on my talk page if you want further thoughts. Thanks for the effort. Larataguera (talk) 11:17, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've posted a request at WT:MED for someone there to look over the health effects sourcing to make sure everything is compliant with WP:MEDRS. Hog Farm Talk 14:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for that note, @Hog Farm.
    The unencyclopedic table (not present at the time the article was promoted to FA originally) has to go entirely. We strongly avoid all in vitro studies, and even animal studies, and laundry lists of "one time, one study found" is not an encyclopedic approach, even if you pull that laundry list out of a review article.
    That said, the main problem is that all the sources are out of date. In an ideal world, that section would cite only sources from 2018 or later. As this is not an area with rapid changes in scientific opinion, we might stretch that back as far as 2013. Instead, very little of it has been updated since 2007, and most of the sources are even older than that.
    I don't think that an update would be difficult. Sources should be readily available, and much of the content is likely to be accurate. It's probably a couple of hours' work for one editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just nixed the table with an edit summary pointing back to this FAR, hopefully the edit sticks. Hog Farm Talk 16:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks for doing that. So far, nobody has reverted you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    A link to the WT:MED thread with newer sources that should be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Looks like there's still some updating needed - "The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency said exploration figures for 2007 would likely match those for 2006." in the resources & reserves, as well as a couple tags in the medical section for newer sources needed. This has made some good progress, but isn't quite there yet. Hog Farm Talk 14:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Updated resources, fixed the mentioned medical issues, removed one claim that had been rejected by a more recent and much more authoritative review. Materialscientist (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still nothing on social impacts.... Larataguera (talk) 11:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See above. Materialscientist (talk) 08:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is unnecessary redundancy in the first two paragraphs. We should not give the relative proportion of U-238 twice (99% of uranium on Earth), nor should the half-life be repeated. These two paragraphs can probably be consolidated.Larataguera (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Consolidated. Materialscientist (talk) 10:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Partners in Crime (Doctor Who)[edit]

Notified: Sceptre, WikiProject Doctor Who, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Television, 2023-01-06

I am nominating this featured article for review because I was considering nominating this article for TFA in April, to coincide with the 15th anniversary of the episode's airing, but I do not think it's ready for the main page nor do I have the background knowledge to fix it. One concern is sourcing: most reviews of the episode are from its airing in 2008 and do not include retrospective perspectives and information on its reception relative to other Doctor Who episodes. Other concerns include a "Donna's mime" section which I think should be removed (it was added after the article's FAC) and the "Critical reception" section falls into the X says Y trap. I'm hoping this FAR will inspire editors to fix up this article before a TFA run. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken a quick look and fixed a few blatent errors. I think the lede needs a bit tightening up and the reception also needs the modern cites that have been found, and also a bit of a c/e to make it flow like a traditional reception section. Otherwise seems pretty decent. Don't think it's a long way off. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Paging User:Sceptre, whose original FA candidate this was back in 2008. SN54129 17:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC I agree with Lee above that the article is not far from a save. However, I am still concerned about the reception section's formatting and the lack of retrospection about the episode's placement in the wider programme (in terms of plot, comparison in "best episodes of the programme" and other information.) Z1720 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Where are the sources that have not been included? They are alluded to above but I'm not finding them. A section added post-FAC can be removed if it's not up to snuff or necessary for comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Re: sources. I posted two examples on the talk page that can be used in the article. However, I think there are more because this is such an iconic show that there has been many "Best of" episode listings that are not included in the article. Although I could Google to find these, I am not enough of a television expert to know which sites are the best sources for this. I did do an academic literature search on WP:LIBRARY but did not find any useful sources. Z1720 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't think this needs to go to FARC. There's two more recent sources listed on talk, but I don't think this is a situation where the sourcing has changed much. The "Doctor who microsite" appears to be run by BBC, so that source is okay, and I'd say Metro is okay enough for reviews. This should be a very easy fix. @Lee Vilenski: - are you willing/able to add the two sources noted on talk? I can do it myself, but my experience with Dr. Who is watching a single episode about evil gargoyles 8 or 9 years ago and thinking it made no sense, so I'd rather not be the one to try to parse this stuff out. Hog Farm Talk 02:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Andrew Jackson[edit]

Notified: Display name 99, Cmguy777, Orser67, Elisfkc, Rjensen, WP Biography, WP Biography/Military, WP Biography/Politics and government, WP Military history, WP Tennessee, WP U.S. Congress, WP United States, WP District of Columbia, WP US Government, WP US Presidents, WP Politics, WP Politics/American politics, WP Indigenous peoples of North America, talk page notification 2022-08-22
Pre-hold content

It has been a few weeks since I raised concerns at Talk:Andrew Jackson about the neutrality of the Andrew Jackson article. In my opinion, this article should not have been promoted to a featured article. Since I first raised concerns, there have been some improvements, but I believe that there is a lot of work left to be done before this article meets the WP:FACRITERIA. Overall, I think that this article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for WP:NPOV. Though one editor has been arguing that there is "no bias," many parts of this article are still heavily skewed in Jackson's favor. In particular:

  • Some of the language is misleadingly MOS:FLOWERY. For example:
    • As FloridaArmy has pointed out, Jackson is hailed as an advocate of the common man and the working class. This terminology is misleading because Jackson's policies were known to help the white working class in particular. The way it is currently written, it makes Jackson seem supportive of the working class in general. This is especially misleading because Jackson ruled over a country where slaves were common and made up a sizeable portion of the working class, and Jackson's policies were explicitly Andrew Jackson#Reaction to anti-slavery tracts pro-slavery. Indigenous people were also significantly more common before Jackson's ethnic cleansing, but they are also excluded from the common man. It seems that the main justification for this language is that it was "the language of Jackson's supporters,", but this strikes me as extremely biased to use this language without significantly more context.
    • As Cmguy777 has pointed out, Jackson is described as an advocate for democracy. The word "democracy" is fairly vague to begin with, and the way it is written makes it seem like Jackson advocated for democracy in general, when Jackson's ethnic cleansing was in fact extremely disruptive to the existing democracies in the region. It is misleading to describe Jackson as an advocate for democracy when in fact he was systematically replacing non-white democracies with white supremacist Jacksonian democracy. This needs to be clarified.
    • Conflicts tend to be described mostly using language from the U.S. perspective. Jackson won, he lost, he achieved a decisive victory or suffered a devastating defeat. I've made some changes particularly to the Andrew Jackson#Creek campaign and treaty section, but it still seems unbalanced; Creek victory is known as the Fort Mims massacre, while Jackson's victory is described by some historians ... as a massacre, or at least as having some characteristics of one.
    • As Deathlibrarian has pointed out, some language seems to dance around Jackson's ethnic cleansing, using the term "forced removal" to avoid directly mentioning Jackson's goals of extermination and racial homogeneity. This has been discussed at length at Talk:Andrew Jackson#RfC on how to describe Indian removal in the lead.
  • There is WP:UNDUE focus on Jackson's positive impact on white men. For example, in the lead paragraph, Jackson's pro-white-working-class and pro-Union actions are each mentioned twice, while his ethnic cleansing is only mentioned once. Every source that I have read about Jackson has mentioned his ethnic cleansing. It is what he is known for, more so than his pro-white-working-class stance.
  • As Hobomok has pointed out, the cited sources are unbalanced. Most cited by far is work by Robert Remini, mostly from the 1970s and 1980s. Historians Fred Anderson and Andrew Cayton have described Remini as "Jackson's most thorough biographer and energetic champion." This article would benefit from a greater variety of sources, especially Indigenous authors, as they were some of the most affected by Jackson.
  • As ARoseWolf has pointed out, this article violates WP:WIKIVOICE by stating facts as opinions. Jackson's actions were ethnic cleansing. That's a fact, supported by lots of reliable sources. FinnV3 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - The "Popular culture depictions" needs a heavy revise; its seems to be a trivia collection (you think for a such a figure as Jackson there would be a source which distills how he appears in movies, fictional literature, etc.) with some poor sources. With regards to the racial views, at a brief glance I think you're correct in that we could use newer sources, but on the whole I think the article represents this issue in a balanced fashion. There is a whole section devoted to his "Planting career and slavery" as well as "Reaction to anti-slavery tracts" and the whole "Indian removal policy" section. The Legacy section section also covers the contemporary shift towards a negative view of Jackson and his exclusionary actions. The lede itself is what needs work ("working class" is not even mentioned in the body text of the article). "Common man" is only mentioned once in the body of the article, I think the Legacy section could do a better job of describing how he became associated with that term
As for "Indian removal": it is simply the name of that historical policy/event. That does not mean it was not ethnic cleansing ("Holocaust" != "not a genocide of European Jews" because it doesn't say genocide). I have no objections to describing the Indian removal as an ethnic cleansing but of course, we should find a good RS which says such (preferably one which makes the direct connection to Jackson). Whether it is an "opinion" or a "fact" is a little more tricky. One or several scholars calling something a genocide/ethnic cleansing does not mean a consensus exists (my own experience) and thus cannot be treated as factual, so we should find a good RS which explicitly states there is a consensus (if one exists, I suspect so but do not know) that this was ethnic cleansing, then it can be treated as fact in Wikivoice. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep Place on hold-As FA nominator and most frequent contributor. Before several weeks ago, when parts of the article were challenged and underwent revision, the article was not perfect but was mostly fine. The larger grievances are not justified and in my opinion largely motivated by POV rather than adherence to Wikipedia policy and what reliable sources say. Details can be found on the article talk page. I would rather FinnV3 waited for the discussion on the talk page to conclude to see if the issues would be resolved, but whatever. I want to ping some prominent contributors to the article to give them a chance to contribute here: Wehwalt, Hoppyh, Alanscottwalker. Display name 99 (talk) 22:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase; please read the instructions at the top of WP:FAR. Let's first get sorted whether the notification wait period was respected, and a reminder that FAR is not dispute resolution. Please stay focused on WP:WIAFA, provide sources, and keep arguments at article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hold the talk page notice (FAR instructions step 1) was placed yesterday, and it generated a lot of discussion. I think that conversation needs to be resolved there (to keep everything in one place) before an evaluation of the article's merits can happen here. Z1720 (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Procedural close This discussion is currently being handled at the article talk page, quite extensively. I did not realize the notice of problems was given only a week ago (isn't it standard that the FA criteria warning notice be given a week or two to be addressed before FAR is initiated?). This should be put off until things are resolved there (my points on the lede and the popular culture section still stand). I also advise caution to the OP, who has only really been an active editor for a month. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Place on hold for at least a month, to see if discussion is productive. Best I can tell, notification requirements were not followed. But ... a procedural close is not optimal, as it could record an inaccurate event in articlehistory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    PS, with a whopping 17,000+ of readable prose, I hope that the excess has been trimmed and better summarized (to around 10 to 13,000 words of readable prose) by the time this FAR resumes, else I'll be headed for a delist declaration regardless of the outcome of the other issues. The size alone warrants we continue this FAR once the RFC closes. It is not hard to see why the size is so inflated, by examining any section where one's eyes happen to fall ... here's a sample of an entire paragraph that could be summarized in less than half that amount of words:
    • The first recorded physical attack on a U.S. president was directed at Jackson. He had ordered the dismissal of Robert B. Randolph from the navy for embezzlement. On May 6, 1833, Jackson sailed on USS Cygnet to Fredericksburg, Virginia, where he was to lay the cornerstone on a monument near the grave of Mary Ball Washington, George Washington's mother. During a stopover near Alexandria, Randolph appeared and struck the president. He fled the scene chased by several members of Jackson's party, including the writer Washington Irving. Jackson declined to press charges.
    Skipping further down the page for random samples:
    • Jackson appointed six justices to the Supreme Court. Most were undistinguished. His first appointee, John McLean, had been nominated in William T. Barry's place after Barry had agreed to become postmaster general. McLean "turned Whig and forever schemed to win" the presidency. His next two appointees —Henry Baldwin and James Moore Wayne —disagreed with Jackson on some points but were poorly regarded even by Jackson's enemies. In reward for his services, Jackson nominated Taney to the Court to fill a vacancy in January 1835, but the nomination failed to win Senate approval. Chief Justice Marshall died in 1835, leaving two vacancies on the court. Jackson nominated Taney for Chief Justice and Philip P. Barbour for associate justice. Both were confirmed by the new Senate. Taney served as chief justice until 1864, presiding over a court that upheld many of the precedents set by the Marshall Court. He was regarded with respect over the course of his career on the bench, but his opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford largely overshadows his other accomplishments. On the last full day of his presidency, Jackson nominated John Catron, who was confirmed.
    Goes off-topic in quite a few ways. If Joan of Arc and J. K. Rowling can be done at 8,000 words, this can surely be done in under 13,000. Or less. We'd have a much better shot at analyzing other issues if the size were reasonable. With this size, I am concerned that other problems may be lurking. I find it very odd that this FA, more than four years old, has never appeared as WP:TFA considering the severe shortage of suitable topics, where issues like this would have drawn broader attention and it makes me wonder if the TFA Coords avoided scheduling it because this problem is so apparent. Part of the art of writing is as much about what to leave out as what to include, and that art needs to be exercised here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I tend to wait for presidential FAs to be nominated by the person who's put the work in, rather than grabbing them without a nomination. Can't speak for my fellow coordinators on that.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Considering also the amount of verbosity reduction that is needed, along with the POV issues under discussion at talk, a one-month hold is probably insufficient; two months might be required to bring the FAR back with the article in a state that others can review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps for a future time, but we could definitely spin some of this off to more dedicated articles, especially his military career, in the style of Military career of Dwight D. Eisenhower, for example. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, but spinning content off to reduce the size won't change the fact that the prose is just not tight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indy beetle and SandyGeorgia, I agree with you both about the length issues. The current dispute began about a month ago. Before then, the article was stable. It was already long, but the size was more manageable. Since then however, a group of editors has complained that the topics of Jackson's policies towards Indians and blacks has been underrepresented in the article. As a result, editors have been adding content to deal with that, and nothing has been taken out. The result is that the length has gotten a bit out of hand. I know that the article would benefit from trimming. Unfortunately, the atmosphere is so charged right now that, if anyone dares to try to extract anything having to do with slavery or Native American issues, it could create a firestorm. I also may be a bit too attached to some parts of the article not dealing with racial matters that I wrote, and so I haven't been willing to touch those either. You're welcome to try to cut down on that or anything else that needs it. Regarding creating separate articles, I'm a amateur Jackson scholar, and creating separate articles about Jackson's early political career and his military career has been a long-term goal of mine. However, in order to do so, I felt that I needed to read more about Jackson than I already have, and my attempts to do that have been bogged down with delays. Maybe in the next year or two I can get started on that, but we'll see. That's a great long term goal, but for right now, I think that the focus has to be on trimming this article. Display name 99 (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Display name 99, don't be discouraged; J. K. Rowling appeared at FAR under very similar circumstances, and came out wonderfully. After many months. Ditto for Joan of Arc, laboring under serious sockpuppetry. At this point, probably the best thing to do is to keep the FAR from sprawling, and keep the bulk of discussion on article talk, with only summaries back to here of matters relative to WP:WIAFA. Should the Coords decide to put this on hold, as instructions weren't followed, that should allow you some time to work. Have a look at not only Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1, but Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 and its five talk archives. And the Joan of ARC FAR. FAR is patient, and editors who come here seeking a speedy delist are disappointed and tend to quickly disappear; a collaborative spirit prevails. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Keep with hold also making sense. I think the editor who nominated this is sadly POV pushing and not giving the process a chance to work. Outside of the question related to forced removal/ethnic cleansing this seems to be an editor upset that their preferred phrasing/emphasis hasn't been used. This is not a case where a previously FA was slowly degraded by many poor edits over a long period of time nor is this a case where a trove of new information is forcing us to update the article. This is an editor who is unhappy with long standing phrasing and is now demanding the article be changed to match their preferred terms/emphasis. All of this could/should be addressed on the talk page without delisting. Certainly no delisting should occur so long as talk page discussions and the RfC are underway and the outcome of the RfC also shouldn't result in a delisting regardless of how it is closed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springee (talkcontribs) 22:41, August 23, 2022 (UTC)
    Unsigned, please read the FAR instructions; it is a two-stage process, and keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would also suggest that these discussions play out on the talk page. I don't think FAR is a substitute for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Place on hold, this appears to be an attempt to use FAR as dispute resolution. Hog Farm Talk 00:13, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I also believe the discussions belong on the talk page, without the tags on the article. Hoppyh (talk) 01:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Maintenance tags are a separate matter; they can't be removed until the issues are resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Place on hold - As I stated on the article talk page, I believe the issues brought up there need to be addressed. If they are not addressed satisfactorily then I may agree with delisting but that's a big if. I appreciate the nominator for bringing up issues with this article but I disagree with the timing of this review. The discussion needs to be concluded on the article talk page first and this review should not be used as a form of dispute resolution or to force a speedy alteration to the article. There is no rush to do anything. --ARoseWolf 12:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sorry, I thought I was following the protocol. It has been three weeks since I first raised some of these issues on the talk page, but little has changed, so the WP:FAR instructions (and a suggestion from Oncamera) made it seem like this was the logical next step. Maybe the WP:FAR instructions should be amended; is there some unwritten rule that articles with recent talk page activity are ineligible for FAR, or something similar? I'm not trying to cause problems. FinnV3 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Place on hold per Hog Farm. FAR is not dispute resolution and these issues are cropping up throughout the project on articles about presidents, with the same editors showing up. Take a look at George Washington and the associated talk pages/archives. Unfortunately editors with little to no understanding of producing and writing content, let alone featured content, tend to flock to the discussions. Best to resolve the issues on the talk page via a structured format. Even better, in my view, is to disengage and let the issues die out. Victoria (tk) 19:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Again, this is not an attempt at dispute resolution. I believe that this article does not meet the featured article criteria. It has been more than three weeks since these concerns were first raised on the talk page, and they have not been addressed, so the WP:FAR instructions seem to indicate that this is an appropriate review. If everyone agrees that this article is ineligible for FAR, then I think the WP:FAR instructions should be amended to be clearer about this. FinnV3 (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It doesn't seem the problem is with the instructions; the page was clearly notified per instructions on 22 August by someone who read the instructions. Please avoid filling this page with off-topic discussion: WT:FAR is where you would go to discuss the instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The instructions say to attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article, which I have been doing since July. It says to give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review, which I did, and the issues have still not been addressed. Are you saying that there's an additional unwritten rule that articles are ineligible for FAR if the talk page has been active recently? Or that the attempts to resolve issues must explicitly mention "FAR" two to three weeks in advance? FinnV3 (talk) 00:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have clearly said you should raise your questions at WT:FAR and not disrupt this page. @WP:FAR coordinators: might we get this premature FAR put on hold (per consensus above) to stop the unhelpful use of this page, while work continues on talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There's no rule that articles with an active talk page cannot be brought to FAR. However, there are two intertwined issues that do impact whether this should be here right now. First off, the notification step is targeted to improvement rather than just starting a countdown timer. If you post a notification and get no response for two weeks, great, bring it here, but when there is an active response and efforts towards improvement (including an active RfC) then we want to provide an opportunity for things to get resolved there. Second, FAR is not dispute resolution - overlapping discussion here when there's already an RfC as well as a noticeboard thread in progress will confuse rather than improve matters. Let the RfC run, let the noticeboard thread run, address any behavioural concerns in a more appropriate venue, and then if issues remain relative to the FA criteria those can be dealt with at that time. For the moment this review is on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delist Considering that even the people above saying "Keep/Place On Hold" are all noting and largely agreeing with there being egregious issues with the article as it stands, along with major problems of bloat to the text and outdated sourcing, I see no reason why the article should remain listed as an FA. Trying to place a hold for months seems counter to the whole idea of this being FA quality as it stands. It should be delisted and, once all issues are fixed, it can be re-nominated. Otherwise, we risk the "one or two months" of waiting to instead be much longer with the improvements not being completed and the article not being in a proper FA-quality state that entire time frame. Delisting now and then re-nominating once everything is fixed seems like a much better option. SilverserenC 21:52, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Silverseren this FAR is already on hold; please don't add volume to an inactive page, and Keep or delist are not declared in the FAR phase anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notifying all previous participants of this FAR (who haven't already re-engaged) that the article has been re-worked and the FAR is no longer on hold. @FinnV3, Wehwalt, Indy beetle, Hoppyh, Silver seren, Victoriaearle, ARoseWolf, Hog Farm, Springee, and Z1720: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC the article has been improved somewhat, but some of the issues identified have yet to be rectified, such as article length. (t · c) buidhe 10:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC or restore to last high quality version, preferably around here. The current version of this article is a massive downgrade over where the article stood several months ago before it was largely rewritten. In being reduced from over 15,000 words to just a hair over 12,000, the article has been gutted of much of its valuable content. 12,000 words is too small a size for an article of this importance. A little over 15,000 was close to ideal, and it should have been kept within that general range.
It is important to note what has been cut and what hasn't. The article, again, has been reduced from 15,000 words to 12,000, meaning that about one-fifth, or 20 percent, of the article's volume has been reduced. Yet the coverage of slavery is basically equal in volume as it was before. The section on Indian removal during Jackson's presidency prior to these revisions stood at 766 words. Not only has it not appreciably shrunk like most of the rest of the article, but it has grown to 798 words. Plus, there is a completely new 469 word section on Native American policy at the end of the article. So how is it, that when the article as a whole is cut by 20 percent, coverage of this subject matter not only is not trimmed like almost everything else but actually increases by quite a lot? I will try to be charitable here and not impugn the motives of the editors who made these revisions (although that is not the easiest thing to do given the environment at the article at the time, and the fact that a note that Jackson demonstrated concern for the care of his slaves and that the size of his slave quarters exceeded the standards of the time somehow got removed), but I cannot deny the impact that these changes have had in terms of creating a severe problem of WP:Undue weight, shifting coverage away from Jackson's important actions with regard to white Americans while unduly emphasizing aspects of his life and policies with regard to black and red people.
Even for those who disagree with my views about how racial issues should be treated in this article, and I know that there are plenty of people who do, I think that it should still be clear that the "Native American Policy" sub-section of the Legacy section is objectively terrible. It's mostly just needless repetition of stuff that's already discussed further up in the article. In a couple of cases, things are mentioned here which are not mentioned already (the Jackson Purchase and Jackson's justification of removal), but they should be mentioned earlier for the sake of maintaining a proper sense of chronology. Somebody could delete the whole four paragraph, 469 word section and nothing important would be lost that could not be summarized in a couple of sentences placed in appropriate points earlier in the article. I think it's ridiculous that people are saying that 12,000 words is too long, but if they seriously believe that, they need to start the trimming here.
The final short paragraph at the end of "Historical reputation" is completely unencyclopedic and needs to be entirely re-written.
Editors should vote to restore this article to where it was before recent changes ruined it or take the next step towards delisting this sad relic of something much better that came before it. Display name 99 (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I concur that the final short para at the end of Historical reputation is odd and unencyclopedic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are now three mentions of Native Americans in the lead; does the preponderance of reliable sources, and summmary of the article, justify this weight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SandyGeorgia, I'm not sure if you're asking me, but I'll answer anyway. I'm fine with the lead. My issue is with coverage of Native American issues and slavery in the body. Whatever the reason, while the rest of the article was heavily shortened, coverage of these matters was not only not shortened but actually grew. The "Indian Removal Act" sub-section for Jackson's presidency is longer than any of the other sub-sections in the presidency section, and that's not including the special 469-word section on Native American issues in the Legacy section. The section on Jackson's war against the Creek Indians easily dwarfs all of the sub-sections on Jackson's presidency aside from the one on the Indian Removal Act. The Creek War is important, but it was one of many wars between the United States and Native Americans. That section has 924 words, whereas the section on the Nullification Crisis, which occurred during Jackson's presidency and probably marks the closest that the United States came to secession and civil war before the Civil War, has only 664 words. That's unacceptable. Plus there's still a 493-word section on Jackson's war with the Seminoles, which appears basically unchanged in size from before the revisions. I think it's clear that the article is heavily slanted towards coverage of Indian affairs in a way that damages its reliability.
The easiest thing to fix is the "Native American Policy" sub-section in the article. Like I said, it's mostly just needless repetition. I disagree heavily, of course, with your belief that the article is too long, but if you want to shorten it, here is what I recommend. Go to that section. Take the sentence about the Jackson Purchase and move it to the start of the "First Seminole War" section. Then take the sentence about Jackson's justification for Indian removal and move it to the section on Indian removal in his presidency. Condense into a short summary the historians' views of the matter and move them into "Historical reputation." Then delete the rest of the section. You'll save probably about 300 words of repetitive and overly detailed text. Display name 99 (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
MY question was directly about the preponderance of sources. Confining your answers to discussion of sources, and keeping them brief, is helpful at FAR. There is zero discussion of sources in your very long response, which is mostly opinion, which renders it not helpful for FAR purposes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article could still benefit from trimming and verbosity reduction. Here is but one example:

Jackson had not fully recovered from his wounds when Governor Blount called out the militia in September 1813.[85] A faction of Muscogee (Creek) known as the "Red Sticks" had broken away from the Muscogee Creek Confederacy, which wanted to maintain peace with the United States. The Red Sticks, led by William Weatherford (also called Red Eagle) and Peter McQueen, had allied with Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief who was fighting with the British against the United States.[80][86][87] Earlier in the summer, a party of Red Sticks had gone to Pensacola to pick up supplies from the Spanish.[88] During their return, they defeated an ambush at Burnt Corn Creek by American militia.[89][90] On August 30, the Red Sticks avenged the ambush by attacking Fort Mims, a stockade inhabited by both white Americans and their Creek allies. They killed about 250 militia men and civilians.[91][92] The attack became known as the Fort Mims massacre.[93][94]

Jackson's objective was to destroy the Red Sticks.[95]

The article retells too much history (and this happens repeatedly); there is an article for Fort Mims Massacre, and we don't need all the background detail. A trim is still needed throughout.

"Known as" is used twice in the sample para above, and nine times throughout; it is often redundant. For example, the entire para above could be reduced to something like (this can be improved upon, but just a sample idea that it can be done in two sentences) ...

Jackson had not fully recovered from his wounds when Governor Blount called out the militia in September 1813 following the August Fort Mims Massacre. The Red Sticks, a confederate faction that had allied with Tecumseh, a Shawnee chief who was fighting with the British against the United States, killed about 250 militia men and civilians at Fort Mims in retaliation for an ambush by American militia at Burnt Corn Creek.

Jackson's objective was to destroy the Red Sticks.[95]

Sample only, cuts the words in half. Getting this article to a reasonable size is doable, if the weight and neutrality issues can be sorted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should this be moved from Writings to External links?

  • "Andrew Jackson Papers". Library of Congress. A digital archive providing access to manuscript images of many of Jackson's documents.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progress is being made so I am not ready to declare move to FARC; Wtfiv has proven capable of working through disputes in the past, so we can give this more time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Progress update based on FAR and Talk comments:

  • Ft Mims example shortened as per suggestion in FAR.
  • Seminole War section shortened to remove back story as per Ft. Mims example.
  • Native American Policy removed as per FAR suggestion. Treaties moved to text, final paragraph shortened and moved to other section of legacy.
  • Andrew Jackson papers moved to external links as per FAR suggestion.
  • Sections on Jacksonian democracy removed as per discussion on talk page. Some points reworded. Legacy reordered, awaiting reworking by another editor.
  • Final mention of issues related to Native Americans in the lead reduced to two. One in first paragraph of lead on general view; second specifically addressing the Indian Removal Act.

Current length of main body is 11603 words. Wtfiv (talk) 05:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

6 Feb 2023 Progress update: Still awaiting a possible further update of legacy from an editor. Otherwise, the article is unchanged. Currently, many of the first FAR concerns have been addressed (e.g., issues raised by FinnV3 addressed, attempts to address points from second iteraction of FAR editors, article length reduced by 4000 words; but is still 11.6K words long.) Wtfiv (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One new change from previous iteration: Clause and source added back in mentioning in legacy that the Indian Removal Act has been discussed in the context of genocide. Wtfiv (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

11 Feb 2023 Progress update: Legacy reworked, as editor proposing to rewrite hasn't responded. Recent changes have attempted to address concerns. Minor trimming, article reduced by about 300 words, presently 11.3K words of main text. Wtfiv (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Wtfiv , any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi Nikkimaria. I think most of the concerns in talk and listed above have been addressed. Another editor was going to rework the legacy section, but hasn't been able to. But, I reworked it based on comments on the article's talk page. I'm not sure if article length remains a concern. It has been significantly reduced in length. The article length was reduced by 3K words a few months back, and it was shortened another 1.1k words after the FAR was reinstated. The article length is now 11.3K words, which is longer than 10k words. But out of the 16 presidential articles that are FA, only four are shorter (Cleveland, Arthur, Hayes, and College). Wtfiv (talk) 04:39, 5 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The length is no longer disastrous (those other presidents are :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tulip mania[edit]

Notified: Smallbones, Ceoil, JayHenry (last edit was 2011), WikiProject Economics, WikiProject Finance & Investment, WikiProject Netherlands, WikiProject Plants, 2020-07-03 2022-11-06

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are multiple instances of statements without citations, short paragraphs that can be merged or reformatted, and references listed that are not used as inline citations. A secondary matter might be searching for academic literature that has been published since the article's original FAC and using them as sources. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm working on a background section to replace the one that was denied. It doesn't seem like any significant sources were published in the last few years. As far as De Rosa (2021) is concerned Garber (2000) and Goldgar (2007) are still the most comprehensive and important treatises on the subject. He also mentions Thompson (2007) while he conveniently ignores French. I think the article needs to include French (which it does) as a dissenting voice to achieve balance. Regards. Draken Bowser (talk) 18:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubt that significant academic literature has been published since the article's original FAC, unless the nominator is holding back for some reason. I'm not seening "multiple instances of statements without citations", and " short paragraphs that can be merged or reformatted, and references listed that are not used as inline citations" as very light-weight SOFIX stuff. Geez, an editor that supported an article back in the day could almost feel as being guilt tripped via frivolous clock them up noms. Ceoil (talk) 09:12, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have added some cn tags to places where I think citations are needed. Some of the short paragraphs I think need to be reformatted are the paragraphs that begin with "In the Northern Hemisphere, tulips bloom in April and May for about one week." "Tulip mania reached its peak during the winter of 1636–37," and "The popularity of Mackay's tale has continued to this day..." While I do not know if significant literature has been published, I haven't done a search for it because I am not an expert in this field and so some of the sources I find might not be useful for the article. I am happy to do a search of various databases I have access to (WP:LIBRARY, Google Scholar, NYT, and others through my local library system) if someone is willing to evaluate and add information if applicable. Z1720 (talk) 13:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd just like to state for the record that I see nothing dubious about this FAR-nomination. The article has issues, even in the lede. Draken Bowser (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the paragraph with the cn-tag under "legal changes", beginning with: "Before this parliamentary decree, the purchaser of a tulip contract—known in modern finance as a forward contract—was legally obliged to buy the bulbs." this does not seem to be true. As stated in Dash (1999) and Garber (2000, p. 34) several laws limiting and banning futures trading had been passed in the preceding decades. The legal status of these contracts should have been at best unsettled. Can we strike this section? Draken Bowser (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Draken Bowser: Considering the lack of edits by others, I think its ok for you to WP:BEBOLD and make edits yourself. Z1720 (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll get to it, need to spend some time cross-checking page numbers. Draken Bowser (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Draken Bowser, are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, I've been on a short wiki-break, but I intend to. One or two footnotes in my draft failed verification, so I'm re-reading the other sources to discover the basis for these statements. Draken Bowser (talk) 21:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Draken Bowser, noting you haven't been active lately, are you still working here or should we proceed to FARC? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lung cancer[edit]

Notified these, 2021 and June 2022 on talk page
Important article, not kept updated sufficiently, long list of concerns on the talk page not yet resolved. No medical articles at FAR currently so I'm nominating this. (t · c) buidhe 06:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Ajpolino has made a lot of improvements to this article recently, great. Are you planning to save this FA? (t · c) buidhe 10:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd like to, but there's lots of updating to be done. Give me a couple weeks to plug away at it, and we'll see how far I get? Ajpolino (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ajpolino is making good progress; we can probably "call in the troops" for further improvements whenever he is ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Improvements continuing, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alright, I'm feeling optimistic this article can be thoroughly updated without too much pain and suffering. Just a note, starting Tuesday I'll be traveling for two weeks and will have limited (or perhaps no) editing time/access. I'm hoping I can wrap this up with another week or two of editing. So if I could get a month extension on this, that would be much appreciated. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Holding still, and I see Axl surfaced (hooray!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to try updating some of the older references in the next couple of months. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slow but steady progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: further discussion at Sandy's talk (t · c) buidhe 15:08, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Of relevance, here (else will be lost in archives). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 18 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update, slow going but steady improvement heading in the right direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ajpolino is still making improvements, their last edit was 24 Feb (t · c) buidhe 07:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ajpolino, how are things going here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Just a few major to-do items left. I'd say the article is ~90% overhauled/updated. I've saved the most time-consuming research dives for last, so this last 10% is slow-going. My apologies to the FAR watchers for the slow progress. We're near the "end" here. Ajpolino (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Better a gradual save than a quick delist (t · c) buidhe 02:32, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jefferson Davis[edit]

Notified: Omnedon, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject U.S. Congress, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject Kentucky, WikiProject Mississippi, talk page notice 2022-09-24

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been noticed for about a month with no changes. The sourcing has quite a bit of problems listed here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • From the bibliography, I have Davis 1996, Foner 1988, McPherson 1989, and Woodworth 1990. I can help push this over the line if somebody's going to take over, but I don't have the time, energy, or desire to do the massive resourcing that this will take. Hog Farm Talk 13:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lost Cause propaganda whispers regularly throughout the text. I believe it would require a full rewrite to replace the psudohistory with the current scholarly consensus. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 13:35, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If Vami_IV wants to take this on, I think that would work great. But, I'm wrapping up work on trying to keep Andrew Jackson out of the depths of FAR. If I'm successful, I'm willing to explore the life of Jefferson Davis, as his legacy is quite topical. It's not where I would've planned to have wandered, but it looks worthwhile and Jackson has already taken me into the former Choctaw lands of Mississippi anyway, so I feel like I'm visiting the neighborhood anyway. The sources Hog Farm mentioned are available on archive, and I think there are a lot of other supportive resources I can use. If I did take it on though, I think the second half of the article from "strategic failures" on would require a major overhaul. My preference would be to discuss his legacy in terms of the controversial issues: At first glance these look like: Role in Confederate defeat, attitudes toward slavery, post-war reputation (e.g., lost cause and the like). I suspect any work I did would be extensive enough that I'd need copy editing help when I'm done, and a couple of committed folk to give it a mini-FA-like look over. If it is best to leave it to another editor who feels more expert, I'm good with that. Thoughts? (I'll ping Guerillero too.) Wtfiv (talk) 02:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I'm fairly busy and am slowly working on a project in my sandbox to fix up Siege of Vicksburg, but I can help. We also need to factor in length concerns - prosesize tool is showing over 11,000 words, and the legacy needs more (and better) material. IMO the best places to cut fat are the death and burial section, the author section, and the gigantic mess of excess detail of all of court cases regarding him getting Brierfield back. We'll need more general biographies than just William C. Davis, but if there's going to be a push I can try to collect a few more together once I'm done with Vicksburg. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I appreciate that quick response! I'll wait to see how others weigh in, but it sounds like it'd be a worthwhile adventure just to get the opportunity to work with you. I've seen your style indirectly, and I admire it, but it would be very interesting to get a more direct sense of it. I think this is one of those articles where there is a chance of reaching SandyGeorgia's ideal of 9000 words or so. The article seemed filled with unneeded detail, and starts only at 11,000 words, so I think the odds are good. As to sources, I'm suspecting we'll be able to get plenty. (Though its possible I'd be wrong.) Wtfiv (talk) 03:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I won't be able to do a whole lot until after Thanksgiving - I'm traveling that week, and I'll be taking the third part of the CPA exam hopefully before then. I should have plenty of time after then, though. Hog Farm Talk 03:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Send me a bibliography and, let the record show, I can do some great things. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:37, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Sounds like Vami IV is on it! I'll be here if there's any need to pick up momentum later, just ping me, but it sounds like its in good hands! Wtfiv (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Wtfiv/Vami IV: I am not in a rush. Take your time. We can come back to this in December, since I am getting married in November and will be away for most of the month. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:49, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      If I'm understanding right, it sounds like you all have big projects right now, both life and wikiwise. (Hogfarm on finishing up the CPA; and Guerillo, marriage is a huge project, no matter what the context. To both of you congratulations!)
      I've got a little more time right now- though November may be more touch and go- so I can pitch in for now while you are taking care of the other issues, just starting on the citation sourcing the biography. If the narrative is already complete, it shouldn't be too difficult. That'll help build a bibliography for Vami's use when he's ready. Once someone else is ready to take over ping me on the talk page. Conversely, if I see major changes to be made I'll ping on the talk page as well. Wtfiv (talk) 16:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Work is ongoing on the legacy section; the rest has been largely rewritten. Hog Farm Talk 06:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I think I'm pretty much done adding content. I got done the first draft of legacy and am now just cleaning it up, but I think I'm feeling like I'm done with content at this point. I'm willing to to do whatever else is needed. Wtfiv (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Guerillero As nominator, what are your thoughts? Is it set? Does it need "next steps"? Here is my summary of how I've attempted to addresss the issues listed here.
      After I addressed them, I reworked the lead, mainly the last paragraph, to reflect the changes.
      • Family background: section rewritten. Removed much of the geneology, which was unclear.
      • Childhood: section rewritten and sourced.
      • Sourcing' is old and relies on Jim Crow era Southern Universities: have been brought up to date.(~45% of sources 21st century; ~40% 2000-1970; 15% earlier, not counting original sources.) Only two books are from Jim Crow era Southern Universities, Owsley's (1959) study on king cotton and Sulzby's (1960) book on Alabama Hotels.
        • Allen 1999 has a lost cause problem: Allen's biography is indeed quite different from the rest. Not used and has been moved to the "Bibliography" spin-off article.
        • Coulter's work has similar problems: Coulter is no longer used as a source.
        • Dodd 1907 is probably superseded by later work: Dodd has been moved to the "Bibliography" spin-off article.
        • Eaton 1977 was described as "admiring" by reviewers: Kept Eaton as third perspective in biography, but used less frequently. (For biographies: Cooper 2000 is ~107 times; Davis 1991 ~77; Eaton 1977 ~36). Eaton is sympathetic to Davis, but can be critical. His sourcing seems good, and sometimes he does a better summary than Cooper or Davis.
        • Patrick 1944's from 1945 makes me skeptical: Patrick has been moved to "Bibiography" spin-off.
        • Strode's three part biography is neo-Confederate hogwash and should be nowhere near a serious article about Davis: Strode's volumes have been move to the "Bibliography" spin-off.
      • The legacy section is choppy and glosses over the scholarly consensus on Davis. Further, without any criticism, it verges on being pro-Lost Cause: Legacy has been entirely rewritten. There are new sections at the end.
        • "Political views on slavery" summarizes Davis's views on slavery. The description of each is supported by academic secondary sources, and each one is accompanied by an accessible link to one of Davis's speeches so readers can verify for themselves whether the summary is correct. (Throughout the article, I reference Jefferson's public works. The summaries are based on secondary sources, but the original sources allow readers to determine for themselves if the summaries are accurate.)
        • "Performance as commander in chief" addresses the evaluation of his leadership by historians. It also separates the evaluation from the Civil War narrative. The article originally seemed to be emphasizing Pollard's points in the early "Lost Cause" mythology, embedding the evaluations of Davis in the narrative and implying that his actions lost the War. The section addresses the negative evaluations, the mixed evalutions, and even the relatively positive ones.
        • "Legacy" addresses the evolution of Davis's image into a lost cause hero and the controversies sparked by the symbolism of his image in the 21st century.
      • Citation style is inconsistent: Style is now sfn and sfnm (I like citing multiple authors when each describes the same point or facts from a slightly different perspective).
      Wtfiv (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Wtfiv: You did an extraordinary job! My objections have been quenched and I am ready to move to retain the article as an FA. Thank you for working on this. Having a balanced article on David goes a long way to improve our coverage of the American Civil War. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      I'll try to read through it again this week. Hog Farm Talk 15:07, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've reviewed on talk. Once the last few straggling comments are worked through, I'll be comfortable with the content here and I am comfortable with the sourcing used. It's a bit longer than ideal, but I'm too much of a nerd in this topic area to be good at suggesting things to pare down; I routinely read 500-600 page books on the Civil War for fun. Hog Farm Talk 00:47, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you Hog Farm. I appreciate your review. The care for Civil War articles is clear, as is your patience for editors who may be less expert. I think the issues you mentioned have now been addressed. And, I'm glad you are okay with the content. Wtfiv (talk) 18:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I'll make it clearer that I'm ready to close without FARC as well. The length isn't ideal, though, but I'm not sure what the best way to fix that would be. Hog Farm Talk 16:45, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My concerns have all been addressed here. Thanks for you hard work on this, Wtfiv. Hog Farm Talk 19:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I read through the article and, after some minor copyediting, I think this is ready for a keep. Z1720 (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SG review

  • There are inconsistent p and pp throughout the citations (too many for me to fix), eg Davis 1991, pp. 4–5 but Cooper 2000, p. 12–14, and Cooper 2000, pp. 23–24 but Davis 1991, p. 23–24.
  • Jeff in Petticoats is an odd external link; if it's notable, why not it's own article?
    • I'm inclined to consider this EL useless, so I've removed it. There were many songs about Davis in the 19th century, no point to single out one. Hog Farm Talk 20:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Senator and Secretary of War" section (a level two heading) begins with: Davis took his seat in December and was appointed as a regent of the Smithsonian Institution. Readers selecting to skip down to read a section should not have to backtrack to guess which year and which seat.
  • There are about 20 instances of the word also which should be reviewed for almost-always-redundant redundancy.
  • For an 11,000 word article, it is unclear why this bit of what seems to be trivia makes it in to the lead: Only two survived him, and only one married and had children. (Perhaps this will be revealed as I read?)
    • Removed; I was unsure about the inclusion of this in the lead when I did my read-through. Hog Farm Talk 20:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • MOS:SEASON: In spring, Taylor had him assigned ...
  • Why do we need to know the final parts of this sentence? Davis gradually improved, and briefly traveled to Havana, Cuba, to restore his health and returned home via New York and Washington, D.C., where he visited his old schoolmate from Transylvania College, George Wallace Jones.[43]
  • What does it refer back to ? He made his first slave, James Pemberton, its overseer,
    • "It" here is Briarfield. Wtfiv - I have a greater concern here. I checked my print copy of Davis, and he refers to Montgomery as "virtually overseer", not that Davis appointed him as one. Because a black man as a plantation overseer would have been very odd for that time, I think it's best to reword this. Hog Farm Talk 20:51, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • updated. Wtfiv (talk) 15:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Hog Farm Pemberton's role as overseer is ambiguous: Cooper 2008, p. 128 states Davis decide to leave his lsave overwee, James Pemberton, in charge. I'll stay with Davis and added "effective" Wtfiv (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Advocating ... advocated ... vary wording ... advocating for the nomination of John C. Calhoun over Martin Van Buren who was the party's original choice. Davis preferred Calhoun because he advocated for southern interests
  • Vacancy ... vacated ... vary wording ... appointment by Mississippi governor Albert G. Brown to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate,[82] which had been vacated by the death

I am going to stop for now, as there are still copyedit needs. Also, as an example of how to cut down the excessive prose size, I offer this overly detailed paragraph:

  • Before his resignation, Davis had sent a telegraph message to Mississippi Governor John J. Pettus informing him that he was available to serve the state. On January 27, 1861, Pettus appointed him a major general of Mississippi's army.[137] On February 10, Davis learned that he had been unanimously elected to the provisional presidency of the Confederacy by a constitutional convention in Montgomery, Alabama,[138] which consisted of delegates from the six states that had seceded: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, and Alabama.[139] Davis was chosen because of his political prominence,[140] his military reputation,[141] and his moderate approach to secession,[140] which could bring Unionists and undecided voters over to his side.[142] Davis had been hoping for a military command,[143] but he accepted and committed himself fully to his new role.[144] Davis and Vice President Alexander H. Stephens were inaugurated on February 18.[145] The procession for the inauguration started at Montgomery's Exchange Hotel, the location of the Confederate administration and Davis's residence.[146]

The paragraph is a sample of wordiness that can be trimmed, and I suggest checking throughout for similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • I think style issues may have to be addressed by another editor. Please see note on talk page.Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Confederate Congress ?? Clarify here ? In his opening address to Congress on January 12, ... no Wikilink? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Opportunities to cut down the excessive wordiness are easy to find. Do we really need, " He began writing his memoirs almost immediately"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why do we need the final clause here? Southern Historical Society has a link for exploring what it is. I suggest there are opportunities for trimming the prose throughout. In the 1870s, Davis was invited to become a member of the Southern Historical Society, an organization founded by Reverend J. William Jones with the former Confederate general Jubal A. Early as its president. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A wikilink review should also be conducted, as I found confederate congress and 1860 election unlinked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This article can easily be cut to under 10,000 words of readable prose. There is excess detail on the history of the Civil War everywhere one looks, and as but one sample, trimming off-topic detail from this one sample para cuts it almost in half. Hurricane Plantation (which belonged to Jefferson's brother) has its own article and need not be explored here, and BTW, if his brother retained the title to the property, he did not "give" it to him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current (97 words) Proposed (53 words)
When Davis returned to Mississippi he decided to become a planter.[37] His brother Joseph was successfully converting his large holdings at Davis Bend, about 15 miles (24 km) south of Vicksburg, Mississippi, into Hurricane Plantation, which would eventually have 1,700 acres (690 ha) of cultivated fields and over 300 slaves.[38] He gave Davis 800 acres (320 ha) of his land to start a plantation at Davis Bend, though Joseph retained the title to the property. He also loaned Davis the money to buy ten slaves to clear and cultivate the land, which Jefferson would name Brierfield Plantation. Davis returned to Mississippi and become a planter. His brother Joseph provided him 800 acres (320 ha) of land from the large holdings he was converting into Hurricane Plantation at Davis Bend. Joseph retained the title to the property, which Jefferson named Brierfield Plantation, and also loaned Davis the money to buy ten slaves.
  • Suggested change above implemented, but was reverted by another editor. Subsequently change "give" to "provided", as per suggestion.

This article has actually grown in size during its FAR; it does not need to be over 10,000 words, and a second pass to eliminate fluff should be undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • See talk for expansion. I think other editors may have to edit fluff. Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A would audit would also be helpful. There are 35 instances of would, as in the sample para above, and this one: received a land grant near what would become Washington, Georgia ---> received a land grant near what became Washington, Georgia. See WP:WOULDCHUCK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wtfiv (talk) 19:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See talk
Wtfiv (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Opportunities to trim verbosity remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think we still need to trim the content down. I'm severely burnt out, so I don't think I'll be able to work on it much. Hog Farm Talk 14:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Same for me, Hog Farm. I enjoyed fixing the article to meet the issues Guerillo mentioned, but since I added the content, I think it'd be helpful if another editor to determine what is not useful, superfluous, or over wordy. (I did try to make the suggested change, but it was edited.) Wtfiv (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My personal opinion is that Wtfiv, Hog Farm, et al. transformed the article into a piece of high-quality scholarship. We should keep the star based on the research done. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Caesar cipher[edit]

Notified: Matt Crypto, Hut 8.5, WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2022-09-01

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as pointed out by Hog Farm in September, this article has large amounts of uncited text and a history section whose prose is disconnected. I agree with this assessment, and I would add that I think the lede needs to be expanded, its usage needs to be updated (as the last entry is from 2011) and a search for additional sources might be warranted. Z1720 (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm not going to try to address this, as I have basically no chance of doing so, but the idea that the usage section needs updating is laughable. The Caesar cipher is incredibly insecure and can be broken easily by small children. Caesar used it against people who largely couldn't read. Anybody who uses it to protect any information in the present day would have to be extremely stupid. While the cipher is often used as an introductory example in cryptography works, I doubt the kind of sourcing coverage expected actually exists. Hut 8.5 07:56, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that the Caesar cipher has no practical usage, so there would be no relevant update to the usage section unless it was to include examples of inept conspirators/criminals using it. Simply doing an exhaustion with 26 attempts at trial and error will knock it down Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:36, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also agree. I'm not really sure what this FAR is about... there are a few unrerefernced statements, but I doubt it will be too hard to find verifications for those. Otherwise it seems like a decent well-written summary of the topic. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, there's no expectation for updating because this isn't used anymore, but this if probably one of the least organized FA's I've ever read. We go from the Caesars to Al-Kindi to the mezuzah to personal ads to WWI Russia etc. I don't think something that's basically just a list of examples would ever pass FAC today. Hog Farm Talk 13:25, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's realistically possible to write a History section for this topic which doesn't jump around like that because that's all you've got to work with. The Caesar cipher doesn't have a continuous record of usage to describe, just isolated examples of where somebody used it for something. Hut 8.5 16:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of the concerns when I was nominating the article was the lack of sources used. Bauer is listed in the bibliography but is not cited. Should it be added in? I have also found some other sources through WP:LIBRARY whose inclusion I think should be considered, especially because of the short length of the article:

Hopefully this will help expand the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First of all the mere fact the article is short is not necessarily a problem. It is a small topic. The features article criteria only say that the article needs to be comprehensive (neglects no major facts or details). I don't see any argument here that the article neglects major facts or details. Of the sources you've linked to:
  • "Historical Ciphers and Ancient Languages" is a brief overview of this history of cryptography which mentions the Caesar cipher as an example. It does not contain anything which is not in the article.
  • "Early Medieval Cryptography, Textual Errors, and Scribal Agency" is about several early medieval manuscripts which use cryptograms, and it mentions that some of them are encrypted with the Caesar cipher. For details on this readers are referred to David Kahn's The Codebreakers, one of the main sources used for the Wikipedia article. While we could mention these manuscripts as another example in this History section it's not something which could be used to deliver a substantial expansion of the article. The source is largely interested in fine textual details of the manuscripts and mistakes made by the scribes, which are well out of scope here.
  • "The Mathematics of Secrets Cryptography from Caesar Ciphers to Digital Encryption", to judge from the Google Books preview, uses the Caesar cipher as an introductory example. Books on cryptography often use it for this purpose because it's easy to understand and because it can be used to illustrate important concepts. I'm sure you could find quite a few other similar books which use it as an introductory example like this, but they don't add anything to what's in the article.
Hut 8.5 12:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hut 8.5: Sorry for not responding to this earlier. I agree that a short article is not necessarily a problem. When an article is short, I try to find additional sources to ensure that the article meets the 1b comprehensive requirements of WP:FA? If none are found, then I can be confident that the article is comprehensive. However, I found some sources after a quick search, outlined above, and there were some aspects that could be added to the article (like the Medieval information). Since it is a shorter article, adding information is not as much of a concern and I think should be considered. I also think a search for more sources should be made to see if there is information to add to the History section that could prevent the large gaps that currently exist in that section. Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It may well be possible to come up with some more obscure examples of usage, like that one medieval manuscript, but that doesn't mean the article fails 1b, which says only that the article should neglect no major facts or details (not neglect any facts or details). I don't think the article is missing any major facts or details. Adding more isolated/obscure examples to the History section would also make it more disconnected, which is something else you've objected to. If you don't think the article meets 1b then I would expect you to at the very least point to aspects which should be covered in greater detail. Instead it looks like you Googled it and posted whatever came up. Hut 8.5 18:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Close without FARC: the initial nomination raised problems of sourcing and comprehensiveness; I can see no remnant of these problems in the article. Perhaps I would recommend one or two more sentences in the lead, but I do not believe that to be any more than a personal preference. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Z1720: - Any thoughts on this? I personally don't know that this would pass FAC today in its current shape, but it looks like at least parts of my notice from way-back-when were in error. Hog Farm Talk 14:37, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Hog Farm. I still have concerns about this article. After reading the discussion above, this article might not have enough sources about its historical use for this to be able to remain a featured article at this time. I will respect the decision of the co-ords, whether it is kept or delisted, but I think the co-ords will need to make a judgment call soon unless new voices comment here. I will note that, if this is kept, it is very likely to appear as TFA soon (as math articles are less common at TFA, so I would want to nominate an article like this) so if editors do not think it is of good enough quality to be TFA, they should comment below. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Needs attribution of opinions and citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with Sandy that there's some points needing attribution/citation, so Move to FARC (which does not preclude additional work), as there hasn't been any work towards those points. Hog Farm Talk 15:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Will try to look back in soon, but it'll probably be next week. Hog Farm Talk 17:18, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have rewritten the tagged sections with citations. The statement which was tagged as needing attribution of an opinion was that the phrase "attackatonce" is recognisable as English text, this is obvious to every reader and doesn't need attribution. Hut 8.5 09:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "This may be a holdover from an earlier time when Jewish people were not allowed to have mezuzot." (article text) vs. source "a carryover from the time when Jewish people were not allowed to have mezuzahs". Probably close paraphrasing issues
  • "which Orthodox belief holds keeps the forces of evil in check" - I'm not Jewish, and had trouble fully comprehending all of the religious terminology in the source, but it seems to be attributing this belief to the teachings of Kabbalah, which are a subject of dispute in Orthodox Judaism I think?
  • " Kahn, David (1967). The Codebreakers. ISBN 978-0-684-83130-5." - page number needed
  • "Chris Savarese and Brian Hart, The Caesar Cipher, 1999" - publisher needed

Once these are closed, I think the article is probably decent enough to close the FAR as kept. I don't think this is our best featured article, but I'm not seeing anything that warrants delisting now that the unsourced content and attribution issues have been resolved. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've fixed the last two points. I'm also not Jewish and I don't know anything about that aspect of the topic so I'd have to do some research before dealing with that. The source website represents a particular branch of Hasidic Judaism though and might not be applicable more generally, maybe we can find a better one. Hut 8.5 08:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

Liberal Movement (Australia)[edit]

Notified: Mass Message Send, talk page notice 2022-01-21

Review section[edit]

This 2007 FA has not been maintained to standards, and its FAC nominator has not edited since 2010. The main item of concern noted on talk is sourcing (over-reliance on one source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I was the editor who place the pre-FAR notice, I've been trying to follow along with this FAR. See this reply on the article talk page from Adpete. I'm beginning to believe that some of the sourcing I thought I saw out there was for different, but similarly-named groups. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ignace Tonené/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herman the Archdeacon/archive1 both passed fairly recently with heavy reliance on a single source as well. I'm having trouble finding the right search terms to filter attempts to find sources down to just looking for this one, because "liberal movement" + "australia" or "liberal movement" + "steele hall" are largely bringing up irrelevant things. If Jaensch is indeed the only real scholarly source to have discussed this in detail (meaning not Dunstan's memoirs or Hall's or Bullock's writings), then IMO if we used all that's available that's not a major issue. But I'm struggling to verify other literature's existence/nonexistence. I queried an Aussie MILHIST writer I respect to see if they knew of any editors who would be familiar with this topic, but they're on wikibreak and I haven't heard back yet. Hog Farm Talk 14:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My answer there was about the reliability of the source in general, not about whether it impacts on FA status. Sorry, I should have read the question more carefully. I know almost nothing FA rules so I can't really comment on its suitability, beyond saying that I consider Dean Jaensch a reliable source. Adpete (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree - I'd definitely consider Jaensch to be reliable. The bigger question is if pretty much only using Jaensch is a "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" from WP:FACR. Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC; in it's time at FAR, the lead has been tweaked a bit, a maintenance tag has been added, and the very extreme reliance on one source has increased via the removal of other sources.[9]. When I add "Steele Hall" to the search, journal articles and other paywalled sources that aren't used turn up. This is overeliance on one source to an extreme (I already intimated at WT:FAC that I didn't think Ignace Tonené worthy of the star). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC per Sandy and my original notice. Hog Farm Talk 20:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Quatermass Experiment[edit]

Notified: User: Angmering, User Heartfox,WikiProject BBC, British television task force, talk notice 2023-01-26

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the following issues:

  • Some of the citations do not appear to be reliable/have editorial oversight (IMDb, The Quatermass Home Page, Doctor Who Restoration Team, Mausoleum Club).
  • Viewership figures would benefit from footnotes.
  • Fn 15 and 21 lack page numbers.
  • The last sentence has no citation.
  • I don't know if a BBC DVD should be used to cite "Viewers' responses were generally positive" for a BBC program; how can this be a neutral source?
  • Are there any other newspapers/magazines from the time period that can be used to cite/add stuff that are now available online?
Problems I found
  • Removed a [citation needed]-tagged sentence from the intro, as it was info not expanded on in the body.
  • Is Screen Online an RS?
  • Removed "Quatermass Homepage", an archive of a geocities fansite.
  • [Citation needed]s all over the place, including "Other Media".
  • Lots of choppy one-sentence paragraphs, including "Production" and "Other Media".
  • Viewership numbers in the "Episodes" table are unsourced. I also think this should be converted to text, as a table is a lot for only six episodes and it disrupts the flow.
  • "Mausoleum Club" link was 404, and this appears to have been a web forum so I don't think it was a RS to begin with
  • Is Digital Fix an RS?

Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 18:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the Geocities source may be a WP:SPS that meets reliability (if it's the same one we checked last time through), but nonetheless, per the other issues raised, Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I noted above, the Geocities page was actually fine here as a WP:SPS interview with the series writer, but this needs substantive work across the board, so move to FARC. Hog Farm Talk 20:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scottish Parliament Building[edit]

Notified: Globaltraveller, Wikiproject Architecture, Wikiproject Edingburgh, Wikiproject Scotland, 2023-01-27

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review for the following reasons;

  • The archaeology section is a list which would be better served in prose.
  • There is a controversy section, this info should be relocated elsewhere in the article.
  • No section is called "Design" making it hard to find the architecture of the building. Instead that information is blended into a description of the modern workings of the building.
  • No section is called "construction" so its hard to find the timeline of events while being built
  • The Demonstrations section looks like a news item and should be removed.
Note: Scottish Parliament was another FA by the same nominator, it was already delisted at FAR

Desertarun (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with the comments here. In terms of the demonstration section, would argue this needs to be deleted. The demonstrations are not re the building but rather against the government, parties within or for a cause. If the demonstrations section is to be kept, then it would need an expansion to ensure sufficient coverage. To my mind, there have been dozens of demonstrations outside the Scottish Parliament ranging from issues for and against independence, to recent demonstrations over the Gender Recognition Bill. That aside perhaps the biggest omission from this article and why maybe it should not be FA anymore is it does not adequately cover the current building. As a recent visitor, there are numerous issues with the structure, much of it related to water ingress, a leaky roof and other building issues. Go one step further and one need only read the numerous news sources about lighting issues during debates that run pass standard opening hours... I would rate the article as B-class at present. Coldupnorth (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC the formatting of the article needs to be addressed, the last edits to the article were in Feb. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC, insufficient engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section primarily concerned the article's organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Notified: Dwaipayanc, Nichalp, Yashthepunisher, WP India, WP Cities, WP Travel and Tourism, WP Nepal noticed in January 2021

Review section[edit]

A 2005 FA last formally reviewed in 2008. Datedness and sourcing issues are present, as the article has not been well-maintained in recent years. Example include "Sikkim is known for its very low crime rate" sourced to a city police website from 2011 (who of course wants people to think the city is safe), very few post-1990 events in the history, a need to check the Nathu La content in the economy section for updating, statistics to fairly old sources in the utilities section, and a government section referring to 2009 events as the most recent election when there have been state elections in 2014 and 2019. These are only examples. There are good bones here, but it needs some TLC. Hog Farm Talk 18:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Notified: Mass Message Send, talk page notice 2023-01-25

Review section[edit]

This 2007 FA has not been maintained to standards, and its FAC nominator has not edited for over a year. The main item of concern noticed on talk on 2023-01-25 is extreme datedness, but prose and short stubby sections also needs review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Move to FARC, needed improvements are not occurring. Hog Farm Talk 14:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC improvements are needed, but are not happening yet. Updates needed and short paragraphs are the main concerns, and the lede needs some work to be a more thorough summary of the whole article (and not have recent events added without formatting considerations.) Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC, datedness unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include currency and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redwood National and State Parks[edit]

Notified: MONGO, Tony1, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject California, diff for talk page notification

Review section[edit]

The issues about this article were raised one or two years ago, including sourcing and outdated info (or insufficient updates or coverage). Edits have been made since, but I think more work is still needed. George Ho (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has not been even a vague attempt to list here what work remains to be done on this article. (I haven't had time to check.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just so they're all in one place:
  • Issues mentioned at talk:
    • smatterings of uncited text throughout
    • detailed information is from 2008, and needs a check to make sure it's still in date. For instance, the camping rights details quite possibly could have changed since 2008, etc.
    • several marginal sources have been introduced since the last notice
  • Issues mentioned here:
    • addition of an unsourced paragraph
  • My issues:
    • §History has some clunkiness, unhelpful time jumps, probably could be better illustrated
    • Many tangential details, info about parks that are not in RNSP
    • Some quoted material is not sufficiently attributed in text
    • §Park management is tagged with "needs expansion"
    • In §Flora, the tree Hyperion is described as "tallest tree in the park" as of September 2006. It's not clear that the date refers to its discovery as the tallest tree, and the description should probably be something like "considered the world's tallest known living tree". The mention in the next paragraph of Stratosphere Giant, which is not in RNSP, is emblematic of the "tangential details" issue
    • Need consistency in use of "park" vs. "parks" and use of "RNSP" as either a singular or plural acronym
    • Unclear relevance: "The evergreen hardwood tanoak produces a nut similar to the acorns produced by the related genus Quercus (oak). Both tanoaks and oaks are members of the beech family"
  • I stopped documenting problems there, but there are more. I'd love to help keep the star on this one. I expect to be able to handle the items mentioned so far, and I hope to be up to resolving the unexpected issues. I don't have a strong feeling about whether this happens at FAR or FARC, but I do think it will be a couple weeks before I can really be in the zone on it. A resolution to WP:FAR#Heian Palace is (hopefully) coming soonish, and I can poke away it this before that frees me up to do more. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:08, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC...and go ahead and delist. I acknowledge this article needs updating, but the last time I worked my tail off updating an article it still wasn't enough to satisfy the reviewers. I think its better to let the articles get delisted then someone can later on see if they want to work to get the articles back into shape...but for me, I see it as a losing battle. I have been absent for 3 months mainly due to the exasperation of dealing with that last FARC situation.--MONGO (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include coverage and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

El Lissitzky[edit]

Notified: all wikiprojects, plus relevant editors,[10] talk page notice May 22, 2022

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because uncited text and other issues identified by Extraordinary Writ have not been addressed (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I will take a look in a week or so. I have several good sources, so this hopefully shouldn't be the problem. Will be updating here, though please do not expect a fast resolution of all issues, I'm really busy in RL now. (I made only few minor edits to the article before, so if someone who done more work is willing to do it, you are certainly welcome!) Artem.G (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sourcing here is probably the worst I saw in any FA! Half are not reliable (at least by my standards), half is too old, almost nothing available online. Will try to find newer sources, will take longer than I expected. Besides, a lot of sections need expansion and ce. Artem.G (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Artem.G you haven't edited this since 7 August; shall we proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm working on an overhaul in my sandbox, will update the article in the next couple of weeks. Artem.G (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: got two important lengthy sources through Resource Request, work is ongoing. I'm also planning to ask somebody knowledgeable in arts to look through the article after the rewrite, as it is generally not my topic. Artem.G (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Artem.G, could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still working on it. I got really busy irl, but expect to return to it in a week or two. Turned out I greatly underestimate how much should be reworked. Artem.G (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC: work seems to have stalled (last edit was early September, and the last significant progress was in August) and there are still uncited passages throughout. This move does not prevent a later "Keep" declaration, nor prevent further work from continuing in the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Move to FARC per above. (t · c) buidhe 17:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Artem.G seems to still be making plenty of progress in his sandbox, so I don't think it'll hurt if we hold in FAR for a bit longer. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, the work is still in progress. I also asked Aza24 for help on further copyediting as they are much more experienced in FA than I am; hope to show the final draft to maybe few more people after completion. Artem.G (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments from Aza
Some comments on User:Artem.G/sandbox3
Thanks a lot!
  • Kamczycki 2003 & Druker & Kümmerling-Meibauer 2005 refs are broken
    • Will fix later today or tomorrow.
  • Infobox needs some works; he's known for his art, not specifically being a part of those two groups, right?
    • I didn't work on the infobox yet, was thinking to update it and the lead after the draft is finished.
  • I still don't find most of the quotes necessary, I think they can mostly be summed up in prose, particularly the early years quote, which seems undue
    • I think it can be reduced - will move part of it to note.
  • More soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The family quote is interesting but seems out of place and too specific for a general overview WP article. Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would remove the family quote (possibly put it in a note?) and then combine the first and second paragraphs of early life. Aza24 (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Will move it to note as I think that the quote is useful - it shows how his family was both religious (his mother) and secular (his father, who travelled to the US and translated Shakespeare), and how (probably) it affected Lissitzky. This quote is also used in many sources on Lissitzky, so it seems that many researchers find it important.
  • Is the "He also worked as a bricklayer..." line saying that he made drawings of the interior and decorations of Jewish historical sites in general, or the Worms Synagogue specifically? Aza24 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Worms synagogue is mentioned in all sources, so.e mention it among other unnamed Jewish historical sites. Artem.G (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Status, work ongoing in sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Work ongoing in sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm looking through for the sandbox draft and will provide some comments. After which, we should be good to move Artem's new content to the mainspace and work from there. Aza24 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot! Artem.G (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comments on finalized draft
  • Starting to read through—I'm not sure that any of the Japanese influence is connected directly with Lissitzky to warrant inclusion. Aza24 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The idea was to show that Lissitzky influenced not only Soviet and European artists, but also people much farther from Berlin and Moscow. One of the Mavo's members created works called "Proun D" and "Construction F", Lissitzky also sent Merz to Murayama Tomoyoshi. The paragraph can be trimmed, though I think the influence is direct - naming the work "Proun" in 1920s, for example. Artem.G (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Early years
  • If you're not going to include "22/23" in the lead for his birthdate, it should probably just be 23 in the prose and the note explains the discrepancy.
  • Anything you could link "trade agent" to?
I can think only of merchant or Merchant guild (Russian Empire), but I saw nowhere that he was a member of the guild.
  • Since it's a quote, the "earned extra money" line needs a ref right next to, even if its the same as Kantsedikas 2017, pp. 15–16
  • The last paragraph of Early years could use some work to sound less robotic ("In [year]... In [year]... etc)
kinda done
Jewish period
  • Shouldn't the "Lissitzky spent a lot of time" paragraph be built into the early years section? and indeed the next paragraph as well
it can be done, but I was trying to show here that Lissitzky's Jewish roots can be traced to his childhood and youth, so it seemed logical to place it here. If you think it'll be better to move it to Early years, I'll move it.
  • I feel that Perloff doesn't need to be directly quoted and that information can be rephrased and sourced normally
half-done. moved the Pale out of quote, preserve Perloff's quote on Pale's influence on Lissitzky
  • I assume "fix on photo" means document? I've changed it to such
  • I don't think the large caption quote for the mural is warranted, there's already enough quoted material in the corresponding prose
moved to note
  • All the description on the yingl story (i.e. the info about the story specifically, unrelated to Lissitzky) does not seem warranted
trimed, quote removed, part of the description moved to note.
  • More soon—by the way, I'm thinking the Scholarly assessment and legacy sections should end up being combined (and less quotes there!) Aza24 (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks a lot! I've got covid again, and will address all the comments later. (I may occasionally revert some vandalism, but wouldn't be very active for a week or so.) Artem.G (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Once again, thanks a lot for great comments, Aza24! I'm back, and will try to finish the Lissitzky rewrite in a reasonable time - it took to much of my time and energy, but after a break I think I can proceed for a while :) I tried to address all your points, please let me know what do you think. Artem.G (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking better for sure, I'll try to read more this week. Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Somehow missed the message - I took a pause in that rewrite, but will continue the work. Aza is not very active now, but once they'll be back I'll be happy to work together. Artem.G (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC, which does not preclude further improvements, but to stay on track. There has been no engagement at the article since 12 January, and no response on this page for two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The sandbox version is 100kB larger than the article and better sourced. Why can't we move it across? DrKay (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had a break from working on it, and Aza started to review the new version, but is probably too busy irl. If you think it looks good, I'll reread it once again and move to mainspace. And it's certainly better sourced, I got all but two sources of those that are used in the article, and it's basically a completely new text, not an updated and copyedited one. Artem.G (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I'll be able to get back to this, being too distracted IRL and with other WP things. But I fully support the new text if the amount of quotations are lessened. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Notified: Lithopsian, Headbomb, RJHall, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Solar System, talk page notice 2022-02-06

Review section[edit]

Like what Hog Farm said. Just like Planet, this article also contains a lot of unsourced statements and is outdated. Nearly everything needs to be rewritten/expanded on other sections. BloatedBun (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. There are some instances of "a press release happened" (e.g., On 1 June 2020, astronomers reported...), and some paragraphs are uncited, but it looks in much better shape than Planet is or Solar System and Mars were. The uncited material looks like standard all-the-books-said-this stuff; it should be fairly easy to source and to update where necessary.
Unfortunately, with FARs of Solar System, Mars, 90377 Sedna, and Planet all ongoing already, our astronomy community is going to get spread pretty thin. Can't be helped, I suppose. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, the first step for a FAR is to raise the issues on the talk page at first. I don't see where that was done here. I'm not a FAR expert, but this seems like a premature FAR listing. I also agree with XOR'easter's caution about overwhelming the astronomy community. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Talk:Supernova#WP:URFA/2020. I thought I'd replied that I would try to find citations if the problem areas were pointed out, but nothing there. Maybe I'm thinking of a different article. Lithopsian (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. With the cryptic title "WP:URFA/2020", I missed that section. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
URFA... Ultimate Robot Fighting Association? :-)
My current thinking on the citation front is to aim for the DYK standard of at least ~1 per paragraph, for convenience. A mix of textbooks and review articles would probably be adequate to cover the contents of an article like this, which is mostly about providing the kind of background knowledge that everybody in the field learns early on. XOR'easter (talk) 19:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WP:FAR coordinators: and @BloatedBun, Lithopsian, XOR'easter, and Mark viking: - Given the concerns about overwhelming the astronomy project and the fact that this is the 5th (!) FAR on this subject matter area, would it be best to place this FAR on hold, and then re-open in a month or two once some of the others have (hopefully) been closed? Hog Farm Talk 19:28, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I forgot to mention that there was also talk of bring Hubble Space Telescope to FAR, though we put in some work since then and the conversation seems to have fallen off. XOR'easter (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion. Putting this FAR on hold until some of the other astronomical FARs have concluded is a good option. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not fussed either way. If I see working being done at an FAR, we often leave the review open for months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Others and Hog Farm. Since XOR has retired, I seriously doubt this one will be improved, including Planet. BloatedBun (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's see if someone else would be able to pick it up before just slinging this one to be delisted; it's not going to be me since I know nothing of the topic and am at the verge of burnout myself. Hog Farm Talk 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So I've made a second start with adding more references. I think every section except "Current models" is OK, with every paragraph except for a few introductions having at least one reference and usually several. Shame Current models is about half the article! Lithopsian (talk) 15:33, 11 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 28 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm willing to volunteer to improve this article. The talk page criticsms are so vague that I can't make out what improvements are needed. Please detail the specific references or statements that need to be corrected and there are contributors willing to work through them. --mikeu talk 05:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not vague enough thou. There are too many unsourced statements and some short paragraohs should be formatted. That's all. BloatedBun (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
mikeu: there are a couple uncited paragraphs in "Type II", one in "Type Ib and Ic", one in "Light curves", six in "Energy output", and three in "Progenitor". Nothing leaps out at me as inaccurate — the people who wrote the text in the first place probably knew what they were doing! — but I'm not a specialist and may have overlooked something. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@XOR'easter: Yes, it does look like someone knowledgeable wrote this. Those notes you left are very helpuful. I've started working through the list.[11][12][13] --mikeu talk 23:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! XOR'easter (talk) 23:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is image sandwiching and images placed at bottoms of sections. What date format is in use ? (I see three different ones). There is overlinking; user:Evad37/duplinks-alt can be installed to evaluate them (some repeat links are useful, judgment is needed). The prose does not seem to have deteriorated. That's all I've looked at so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've removed the duplicated links with a view to replacing some when the article is close to being FA standard again. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by Praemonitus:

  • The "Observation history" section of the Supernova article discusses supernovae types before they have been covered by the "Classification" section. For this reason I think the "Observation history" section should be moved down below "Classification". It could possibly go before the "Current models" section. Praemonitus (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not sure why "Observation history" and "Discovery" are separate sections; they read like one big section that should be organized chronologically. XOR'easter (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They even point to the same main article. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took a crack at merging the two sections, performing some re-organization in the process. Praemonitus (talk) 01:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good; thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I went through the references and performed various cleanups for consistency. An inaccessible reference was removed and another replaced. Praemonitus (talk) 03:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The inclusion criteria for the table with the caption "Historical supernovae" is unclear. It includes modern supernovae, supernovae outside the local group, but not the brightest modern supernovae. Praemonitus (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think drop the 1979 and 2014 entries. That leaves a fairly comprehensive list up to 1680, plus S Andromedae in 1885 and SN1987A. Maybe drop one or two of the uncertain old ones? The 386 event doesn't have an article and it is uncertain if it was even a supernova. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, for now I just constrained it to the Local Group. Praemonitus (talk) 01:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Observation history" section discusses the supernovae type of "SN 2016gkg" before types have been explained. I'm not clear that the last three paragraphs of the section are even needed here. They are more like "Recent findings" of a mildly significant nature. Praemonitus (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People do like to tack on the latest piece of "exciting" news they read. Usually it isn't something of longterm of hirtorical importance. I agree it could be pruned. Or even better, expanded but with the emphasis on discoveries of more lasting significance, probably mainly older ones. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I took the action of trimming back the last, rather bloated paragraph. Praemonitus (talk) 13:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good move. Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The "Non-standard Type Ia" section appears to need some work. It could use a proper introduction, not just a series of cases. Clarification is lacking in many paragraphs. For example, the sentence that begins "Abnormally bright type Ia supernovae occur" is a muddle. Praemonitus (talk) 16:16, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could be my fault. I don't really know a lot about Type Ias and even less about the peculiar ones, so that is a pretty weak area. Unfortunately type Ia supernova isn't much help. Lithopsian (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I rewrote that particularly muddled sentence, but the subsection is still choppy. XOR'easter (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A reference that may be useful: Gal-Yam, Avishay (2017). "Observational and Physical Classification of Supernovae". Handbook of Supernovae. Springer. pp. 195–237. arXiv:1611.09353. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21846-5_35. ISBN 978-3-319-21845-8. OCLC 1016955731. Section 2.2 is about "Peculiar Type Ia Supernovae". XOR'easter (talk) 23:41, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not seeing a common definition of the "Non-Standard Type Ia" supernovae. The double white dwarf model just appears to be the standard second model. Hence I changed the section name. Praemonitus (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the benefit of including the illustration with the caption "Artist's impression of supernova 1993J". What information is it meant to convey? Praemonitus (talk) 01:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice image, but there are lots of other nice, and real, images. Type IIb supernova in M81, so a little unusual, mentioned in the text, but the image doesn't really add anything. SN 1993J has an article, so I wikilinked the caption, but it is wikilinked in the text and the image is in the linked article. Lithopsian (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The statement, "Extremely luminous stars at near solar metallicity will lose all their hydrogen before they reach core collapse and so will not form a type II supernova" is then followed by the "Type Ib and Ic" where a supernova forms that has lost its hydrogen. This is ambiguous. Is the statement just saying it can't be a type II? Or that it can't form a supernova period? This and the following sentence are unsourced, it appears. Praemonitus (talk) 19:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just that any supernova won't be type II. The reference after the first sentence of the paragraph can confirm this. Also, it is something of an unsolved problem whether stars higher than the cutoff mass for producing a type II supernova will produce any supernova at all. Some or all of them may produce a type Ib or Ic, or neither. The referenced paper is dedicated to this problem. Lithopsian (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I rewrote it slightly so that is clear. Praemonitus (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Although the energy that disrupts each type of supernovae is delivered promptly, the light curves are dominated by subsequent radioactive heating of the rapidly expanding ejecta." Huh? The word "disrupts" doesn't quite make sense. Praemonitus (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it is referring to the initial implosion/explosion. That is a *very* rapid event, with gravitational potential energy causing heating and photodisintegration followed by enormous neutrino generation and (somehow) the conversion of the initial inward collapse into an outward explosion all within seconds, but the material that is ejected into space then radiates for various reasons for months or years. Radioactivity from isotopes created during supernova nucleosynthesis in that very rapid implosion/explosion is one of the dominant sources of that electromagnetic radiation. Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I modified it slightly for clarify. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "The intensely radioactive nature of the ejecta gases, which is now known to be correct for most supernovae, was first calculated on sound nucleosynthesis grounds in the late 1960s." What does 'correct' mean here? Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Correct" would presumably mean that it has been verified, observed, and become consensus understanding. It was none of these things in the 1960s. Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I re-ordered the sentence for clarity. Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 22:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? What issues remain outstanding? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ping. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Frankly, an FAR by a blocked sock puppet is a bit of a stretch for a continuation. If nobody provides additional feedback, I motion to close the FAR. The article seems to be in decent shape. It's an active field though, so it may need to come back at some point. Praemonitus (talk) 02:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • An image in the Early discoveries section about 1414 text is uncited and contains text not mentioned in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Citation added by Lithopsian. XOR'easter (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are unspaced WP:EMDASHES in the text, yet a spaced WP:ENDASH in this section heading; which is used (consistency)? And I adjusted the section heading per WP:MSH to avoid repeating a level higher heading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A random look at text (in a section my eyes fell upon only because it had a faulty use of Bolding):
    Because these supernovae arise from dim, common white dwarf stars in binary systems, it is likely that a supernova that can affect the Earth will occur unpredictably and in a star system that is not well studied. The closest known candidate is IK Pegasi (see below).[186] ... "not well studied", followed by a vague "See below" (no link or section name to indicate where or what below), and citation from 2007 .. still "not well studied"? This is followed by a sentence that starts with "recent estimates" (MOS:CURRENT) that is cited to 2003.

So just based on that very cursory look, this FAR should not be closed. I'm sympathetic to the problem of nominators who don't participate in the FARs they nom, but at the end of the day, we are sometime going to have to deal with dozens of non-compliant planet FAs in a WikiProject that has declined and become inactive, and I'd not like to start a precedent that we're going to accept deficient planetary FAs because of those circumstances.

Move to FARC, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "not well studied" applies as much now as it did when the line was written, because it's referring to a category of stars that are generally not well studied. I've tweaked the phrasing elsewhere in that paragraph. XOR'easter (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments by a455bc9:

Two of them now have in-caption attribution, and the third looks fixable but will need a little work. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I've just added the references to Commons as well (see File:SNIacurva.png and File:SNIIcurva.svg). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regarding the third one, some curves are already on Commons and sourced, such as: File:SN 2002cx Lightcurve.svg, File:SAndLightCurve.png, File:SN1987ALightCurve.png, File:Sn2006gy light curve.jpg, and File:Supernovae lightcurves.svg. We could use one of those and/or "merge them" into one graph. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought about swapping out the image with the last one you mentioned, but I think I was able to find adequate sources for the plot the article currently uses. XOR'easter (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Moving this as it appears to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:46, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It's only "stalled" because the problems identified above have been fixed, and nobody has been pointing out more. XOR'easter (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delist. Neutral. I started to review the article today and at first look it looks in good shape, so I began by adding a few cn tags which fixing wouldn't be a big deal. But then as I read, I saw whole paragraphs with no refs at all. I don't want to tag bomb the article so I've stopped the review. I think we've been here for 6 months+ and this doesn't look like its going to be fixed. Desertarun (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Because people stopped pointing out problems. That is the entire reason nothing has been "fixed". Because the people who were actively involved in fixing it figured that everything necessary was done. See the calls for closure from last September. XOR'easter (talk) 01:20, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I took the liberty of going through and tagging paragraphs that I thought were in need of citations. The existing citations may be sufficient to address these, but they should still be associated with the unsourced text. Praemonitus (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I went through about half of them but have to take a break now. Maybe someone else will beat me to resolving the rest. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Inclining to keep If there is anything left seemingly uncited that isn't actually covered by a footnote a few lines away, it can easily be fixed. XOR'easter (talk) 02:51, 18 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    All {{cn}} tags have been resolved now. XOR'easter (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have attempted to help here, but I simply do not have time to try to edit around ridiculously long strings containing up to 100 first and last name parameters in a citation.

As much as I would like to help, the crazy referencing standard here is off-putting. (In medical content, we use vauthors and shorten to three authors et al). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sample citation

 | title=The superluminous transient ASASSN-15lh as a tidal disruption event from a Kerr black hole
 | last1=Leloudas | first1=G. | last2=Fraser | first2=M.
 | last3=Stone | first3=N. C. | last4=van Velzen | first4=S.
 | last5=Jonker | first5=P. G. | last6=Arcavi | first6=I.
 | last7=Fremling | first7=C. | last8=Maund | first8=J. R.
 | last9=Smartt | first9=S. J. | last10=Krìhler | first10=T.
 | last11=Miller-Jones | first11=J. C. A. | last12=Vreeswijk | first12=P. M.
 | last13=Gal-Yam | first13=A. | last14=Mazzali | first14=P. A.
 | last15=De Cia | first15=A. | last16=Howell | first16=D. A.
 | last17=Inserra | first17=C. | last18=Patat | first18=F.
 | last19=de Ugarte Postigo | first19=A. | last20=Yaron | first20=O.
 | last21=Ashall | first21=C. | last22=Bar | first22=I.
 | last23=Campbell | first23=H. | last24=Chen | first24=T. -W.
 | last25=Childress | first25=M. | last26=Elias-Rosa | first26=N.
 | last27=Harmanen | first27=J. | last28=Hosseinzadeh | first28=G.
 | last29=Johansson | first29=J. | last30=Kangas | first30=T.
 | last31=Kankare | first31=E. | last32=Kim | first32=S.
 | last33=Kuncarayakti | first33=H. | last34=Lyman | first34=J.
 | last35=Magee | first35=M. R. | last36=Maguire | first36=K.
 | last37=Malesani | first37=D. | last38=Mattila | first38=S.
 | last39=McCully | first39=C. V. | last40=Nicholl | first40=M.
 | last41=Prentice | first41=S. | last42=Romero-Cañizales | first42=C.
 | last43=Schulze | first43=S. | last44=Smith | first44=K. W.
 | last45=Sollerman | first45=J. | last46=Sullivan | first46=M.
 | last47=Tucker | first47=B. E. | last48=Valenti | first48=S.
 | last49=Wheeler | first49=J. C. | last50=Young | first50=D. R.
 | journal=Nature Astronomy | year=2016
 | volume=1 | issue=2 | page=0002
 | arxiv=1609.02927 | bibcode=2016NatAs...1E...2L
 | doi=10.1038/s41550-016-0002 | s2cid=73645264

When I'm in edit mode, I want to be able to easily see the year of the citation for evaluating text next to the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've just revisited the article, and I agree with the original FAR statement from May of last year. There are too few inline cites. I checked one of the sources - an in depth scientific paper, that info had been summarised in a less than encyclopaedic manner. The summary involved interpretation of data i.e. WP:OR. So we have both OR and WP:V problems. This article needs someone to comb through the sources and given the amount of time this has been here I don't think that is going to happen. My delist stands. Desertarun (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which source did you check? I haven't noticed anything I'd call OR or V problems. Every paragraph is cited, apart from a couple short ones that just summarize the sections that follow, and with 229 citations (some of them used as many as 8 times each) the overall density of them does not seem very low. Without more specifics, no one can do anything. My "inclined to keep" stands. XOR'easter (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This^. As described several times, any weaknesses in referencing which have been pointed out have been addressed fairly promptly. If anyone thinks there are still problems with the references, these should be pointed out in some detail and they can either be discussed or fixed. Just making a sweeping claim that the article fails WP:OR or WP:V doesn't help anyone and doesn't improve the article. Lithopsian (talk) 13:12, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This^. If you see bundled refs or long paragraphs with just one reference - rewrite with inline cites. Desertarun (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not nearly specific enough to be actionable. Citations at the end of a paragraph are inline. So are bundled references. Per WP:CITEDENSE, Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles. Wikipedia requires inline citations based on the content, not on the grammar and composition elements. Some articles (e.g., articles about controversial people) will require inline citations after nearly every sentence. Some sections (e.g., dense technical subjects) may even require more than one inline citation per sentence. Others may not require any inline citations at all. This is a technical article, but one with a fairly broad scope. Some parts will naturally have rapid-fire footnotes because they contain more details, while other parts will be more sweeping because they are more introductory/overview in nature. XOR'easter (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tagged the section in which I found OR. Desertarun (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What claim was actually "original"? XOR'easter (talk) 18:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've added more tags. I have a degree in physics. Sadly a big chunk of the article is in poor shape. Desertarun (talk) 19:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Every tag you've put on looks either really easily fixable (e.g., the basic naming convention is widely documented) or misplaced. XOR'easter (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, i've finished tagging for today, i'll continue from thermal runaway tomorrow. You do realise the prose in this is kind of terrible in places don't you? Its an enormous ask to fix this article. Desertarun (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which places? What stands out as particularly bad in relation to, well, most scientific writing? (What, for example, is unclear about A small number of type Ia supernovae exhibit unusual features, such as non-standard luminosity or broadened light curves, and these are typically classified by referring to the earliest example showing similar features?) Identify them and we can fix them. XOR'easter (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A full stop after the word "curves" would make it easier to read. Desertarun (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that's down to a matter of taste. To me, splitting that line in two would make it more choppy. Maybe Lithopsian can make the call. XOR'easter (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've made no change, but someone else might attempt to make it better. Possibly splitting the first sentence at "curves", but then merging the split section with the following sentence to which it is very closely tied. Lithopsian (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand that sentence. I think. Desertarun, since more specificity on your concerns is needed, it might be helpful to explore details in a section all your own at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Supernova/archive1, and then summarize back to here when all is resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On number of authors, this can easily be limited. The "default" as applied, for example, by Citation Bot, is 29 which is quite a lot! Pick a number, if everyone agrees, I'll apply it. Just for the record, three isn't the number I'd pick, but if that's what people want then so be it. Lithopsian (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not talking about a display-author limit which impacts output; I mean, leave them out all together so the aren't so hard to edit around when in edit mode. In medical articles I edit, the rule I use is one that was established by the Diberri format eons ago ... if there are more than five authors, truncate to three plus et al. Some people prefer to truncate to six; I fail to see why we need more than three authors. It's editing around those gynormous strings that is awful. Another way to avoid having to edit around them is to move to an sfn style. See dementia with Lewy bodies. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS, mine is not an actionable objection relative to FA status; it's just a frustration that I can't evaluate content in edit mode relative to publication date when the content is so chunked up with unnecessary citation info. Others may have other ways of looking at content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continued on talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've finished a run through and added some tags. I'm going to assume these will be fixed and on that basis i'm switching my delist comment to neutral and unwatching the article and FAR (The topic area just isn't of much interest to me.) I'm generally not happy about dense science articles being summarised by WP editors but its not a barrier to FA articles. Desertarun (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've filled in all the {{citation needed}}s. I left a {{when}} and a {{clarify}}, because neither of them look ambiguous or unclear to me, but maybe someone else has a different opinion. Also, I still don't know what reads as "original" in the section tagged as possibly containing such. XOR'easter (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I removed the 'OR' tag from the Milky Way Candidates section as it was unexplained and the content appears to be reasonable and properly cited. The 'when' tag is questionable, so I modified the text instead to try and clarify the meaning. The 'clarify' sentence seemed clear, but I changed 'classified' to 'categorized'. Praemonitus (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I got curious and checked the page views and other such statistics today. Turns out that xtools is crediting me with the authorship of exactly 20,000 characters! Now I'm almost afraid to edit the page again.... XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • And now someone has run Citation Bot. Sic transit gloria mundi. XOR'easter (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]