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]

Polio[edit]

Notified: DO11.10, Robertpedley, WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Viruses, WikiProject Disability, 2023-12-24

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several unsourced statement, an "update needed" orange banner for the "Research" section added in 2020, and the "History" section seems to stop in the 2000s. There is also an extensive "Further reading" section that should be evaluated for its inclusion as inline citations or removal from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward I of England[edit]

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

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

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

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

The areas that were not addressed during the FAC process were

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

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

These areas should also be looked at:

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

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

Key texts that need consulting include:

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

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

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

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

Comment by KJP1[edit]

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

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

and two areas that may need a bit more coverage:

  • Edward's religiosity;
  • Edward and Eleanor.

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

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

Walden–Wallkill Rail Trail[edit]

Notified: Gyrobo, WikiProject Cycling, WikiProject Trains, WikiProject Hiking trails, WikiProject Hudson Valley, 2023-11-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has not been updated with post-2012 information. No response when I posted on the talk page, and the article has not been edited since 2021. Z1720 (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I find the pre-trail history to be quite lacking. We have all of 2 sentences for a rail line that operated for 111 years. The primary topic here is the trail, but it would not be a comprehensive article in my opinion without at least a little history of the corridor before it became a trail. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'm not involved with the article at all prior to this, and only saw the review when it came up on WP Hudson Valley, and I concur with Trainsandotherthings. While I did just do a quick search and found coverage that can be used to update the article past 2012, since the repairs were done following a grant and planned work (as of 2023) is going to connect it to various other trails on the Hudson River through property related to the Wallkill prison, it really needs pre-trail history to be comprehensive. Reconrabbit 01:56, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the history of the trail before it was a trail, I'm not sure what exactly we're looking for here. I feel like anything more than a cursory view of the railroad would be more appropriate for Wallkill Valley Railroad, since this article is supposed to be a comprehensive and complete look at the trail and not the railroad.
    There is information in the article about the prisons that predated the trail, if we're talking about stuff that exists outside of the railroad. It's been a while since I wrote the article but I remember pouring through all the remaining local newspapers that still existed from that era in the Haviland Heidgerd Historical Collection as well as Listen to the Whistle to get what I could about the pre-trail era.
    If the goal of a featured article is to be as comprehensive as possible with extant sources then yeah there's a little that can be added about the last few years but I'm not sure any additional sources exist for the pre-trail history around this specific part of the railroad. Gyrobo (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wanted to post again to set expectations and give an update, I'm planning to spend some time updating the article over the weekend with more recent references. Gyrobo (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Emmy Noether[edit]

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

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

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

Borobudur[edit]

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice noticed 2023-11-01

The FAC nominator for this 2007 promotion has been gone since 2008, and the article has not been maintained to FA standards. Concern listed on 2023-11-01 include uncited text; inconsistent citation style; Wikipedia articles listed as sources; further reading and external links need pruning or to be worked in to the article; and incomplete citations. Much of the content is cited to dated sources and the article may be outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article seems in decent shape to me. Where are "Wikipedia articles listed as citations"? The dates of the cited sources seems broadly ok to me; there isn't a vast amount published in English, given the importance of the monument. We don't have many editors in this area, so I wouldn't hold your breath for "a top-to-bottom rewrite". Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Wikipedia source was removed after my talk notice, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anyone is available to start working through the uncited text, MOS:SANDWICHing, inconsistent citation style, inflation adjustments needed on dollar amounts and other such, then the prose issues can be tackled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Internet Archive has two of the (six) source books, so I can start. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a progress report and preliminary assessment. It might be arrogant for me to attempt this topic without knowledge of it, but we seem to be making progress.

(Not done yet!)

  • failing verification. Maybe written by editor with subject knowledge.
  • for example, Raffles, who wrote an 1817 English text, is cited for saying something he did not write.
  • missing page numbers. Citations to whole books.
  • removed Gallery (wasn't there at FA promotion). Borobudur is a tourist attraction and people will stop by just to add their pics.
  • inflation is done (didn't repeat "equivalent to" over and over in one section. Cyprus is unsupported.)
  • MOS:SANDWICHs fixed.

Question. Is there any problem with me changing the citation style? This article used a list of refs (sometimes dereferenced with random strings like "4IUze"). I am slowly converting to sfns. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the change to sfns is an improvement. JimRenge (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, JimRenge. Today I am double checking sources I rejected. Found one alternate spelling so far. Most of the books are in the Internet Archive but money can't buy a copy of Imagine Buddha in Prambanan by Roy E. Jordaan. That one can be taken on faith based on a Google snippet and a HathiTrust page number. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:38, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question. I have to pull away for maybe a couple months for (my) priority FARs. We've made headway, and moved perhaps half of the list refs to sfns, and to a new section for Works cited. Any obvious mistakes in those refs are fixed. JimRenge is doing good work here; I agree with his edit summaries. Can he or someone else step in for a while?
Not ideal timing for me to move away. The HarvRef errors script reveals many unresolved mistakes. User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js -SusanLesch (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SusanLesch, I can continue the work on refs for a while. I intend to move refs to sfn, supplement page numbers, check text-source integrity and try to source uncited text. JimRenge (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much, JimRenge. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I still think this will make it but am an election worker until March 7. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shapinsay[edit]

Notified: Lurker (last edit was 2008), Ben MacDui, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject Scottish Islands, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Islands, 2023-11-01

I am nominating this featured article for review because of uncited passages and the article has not been updated with much post-2008 information. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move to FARC It needs a lot of work to bring it up to current FA standard. The economy section alone does not really explain much about the island's economy and is mostly focused on transport. That is ok given its an island but then there is little explanation of the transport infrastructure eg ferry terminal and no detail about the ships Iona, Klydon and Clytus which must have had a major impact for the economy and socially for the island over the last century. Coldupnorth (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. Not easy to know what else can be said about the economy - https://www.orkney.com/explore/shapinsay for example has little or no new detail. Omand (2003) has a few more historical snippets I think but I don't see anything new on Google books. I can have a look for some info about the ferry terminal etc. There's an interesting article here about electric ferries for example. However, I wouldn't expect a great deal of noteworthy information to have been accumulated since 2008. I have not been there since before that time but the last time I looked across the sound from Kirkwall it still seemed to be essentially the farming community of 300 folk it was then. Not sure about the 'uncited passages'. It's a while since I spent any time on the article but (unless you think every sentence needs one so that a single para might have several duplicate refs) I don't see any big problems. Any specifics gratefully received. As a jocular aside I find it amusing that the island has been inhabited for 4,000 years or more but an FA about it from 15 years ago is described as "very old". We all have our different perspectives I suppose. Ben MacDui 12:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ben MacDui happy to see you on board! If you can add those bits you mention above, I'll have another look (as I was the author of the original concerns). Let me know when you think it's ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to hear from you Sandy. I hope to take a look this coming weekend. Ben MacDui 18:22, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have added a bit about the Klydon and Clytus which had rather undistinguished origins. There does not appear to be a ferry terminal as such as the image suggests. I'll have another stab as soon as I can manage. Ben MacDui 16:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good additions. I added a bit on agriculture too as an update. I think the economy and now transport sections are much improved already. Coldupnorth (talk) 23:52, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SandyGeorgia et al. I have made some references more detailed, tweaked the lead and added a short section that covers some of the downsides of the Balfour improvements. (I might add a short note to this as well.) I can't seen any egregious examples of missing citations. Please let me know what you think. Ben MacDui 11:13, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ben MacDui: While waiting for Sandy to respond, I'll note some things below:

  • The demography section needs an update with 2021 data.
    • The census in Scotland was undertaken in 2022. To the best of my knowledge there is no data yet for the islands – I beleive this is likely to appear in 2024. (The updates for all islands is a substantial task.)
  • The history section has nothing post-1980. Are there any notable events from the past 40+ years?
    • I met someone once who was from Shapinsay and had been appointed to a short-life government advisory board. Not sure this is super notable. I wonder when history ends and the modern economy begins. To me at least 1990 isn’t yet ‘history’. There is a bit of breaking news here I can add.
  • I see references in the lede, which is sometimes a sign that information has been added to the lede that is not in the article body. Is this information in the article body? If so, these references are not needed.
    • MOS:CITELEAD seems to be a bit wishy-washy about this sort of thing. I'll take a look.
  • Many references are not of the highest quality, with many primary sources and tourism sites used. Can these sources be replaced?
    • It is a recurring feature of encyclopedic work in relation to Scottish islands (and, I imagine, rural areas elsewhere in the world) that these resources are often called into question – but that none other are available. Undiscovered Scotland for example is often grumbled about – yet it is an excellent source of information and I have never found it to be inaccurate.
  • Many sources have incomplete information, such as author, name of the website that is publishing this information, and archival information. Can each of the sources be looked at and information added?
    • Perhaps we are more ADHD now than we were. I will have a look.
  • Has a search been done of academic sources that could be added to the article, particularly ones published after this article was promoted?
    • How often do get published about modern Shapinsay? I am no longer as assiduous as I once was in seeking academic-style books or articles out but my guess is that Omand (2003) was the last one. In short I am not aware of better sources.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Thanks Ben MacDui 10:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Z1720: I have now:
      • Added the minor bit of breaking news referred to above.
      • Removed the citations from the lead.
      • Done a first pass at tidying them up. There is a dead link but no sign of a wayback archive being available. Ref #80 has a funny little ‘note’ that could arguably be removed or moved to the notes section.
    • I also note that:
      • There are a certain number of newer academic publications about local prehistory, history and some detailed work on local seabirds and seaweed but nothing at all that I can see about the modern political economy or anything in the former categories that (at first sight) suggests they have importance for this article.
      • It is a feature of Shapinsay that although many the larger Orcadian isles – and some of the smaller ones such as Papa Westray - have archaeological sites of world importance Shapinsay has a relative paucity of them. I can’t see anything new on Canmore or JSTOR that needs to be added. Ben MacDui 11:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Recent news is typically harder to find academic sources for. Therefore, it might be better to look at local sources for information to add to the History section. I would suggest at least a sentence on the island's votes on the Scottish independence referendum and Brexit. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Orkney voted 63.2% 'Remain' and 67.2% 'No' but this data is not broken down by individual island. I am pretty sure this doesn't happen even for local authority elections, Shapinsay being part of the North Isles ward. See also Constitutional status of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Ben MacDui 13:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was doing some tidying up and came across Irvine's Blaeu's Maps of the Northern Isles. I'd rather forgotten about it - I purchased it a few years after the Shapinsay FAC and used it on a few other articles. There are some snippets about the 17th century I can add. Not much perhaps but "happy is the land that has no history". Ben MacDui 12:08, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not aware of any further issues needing attention. Please indicate any I may have missed. Ben MacDui 17:00, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article is much improved. I would now rate it as Keep as FA. Coldupnorth (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there anything more that can be added about the flora - the two reserves? Is the island all grassland and meadows? Are there any trees? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Orkney has very few stands of trees other than at Happy Valley on the Mianland and Shapinsay is pretty much all grass. I will however have a hunt for some more info soonest. Ben MacDui 17:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Casliber There is a decent picture here. If you scroll down you can see a woman with a red jacket walking through the landscape described as “a patchwork of lush grazing interspersed with fields of barley”. The summer wildflowers are a sight but there is nothing particularly special about Shapinsay from that point of view, at least afaik. The list of flower species is borrowed from the main Orkney article. The nature reserves seem to be shy about the details of the flora. I added some bumblebee info too. Ben MacDui 10:20, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Battle of Red Cliffs[edit]

Notified: Underbar dk, Lingzhi.Random, talk page notice 2023-01-19

I am nominating this featured article for review because there has been no improvement since issues were raised in March 2022 (Talk:Battle_of_Red_Cliffs#FA_sweeps). Issues include: cn issues, questionable sources, and unsourced images. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A455bcd9 you should also notify the four WikiProjects listed on the article talk page. While you are doing that, would you please also notify Lingzhi.Renascence on their talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notifications should have also included @Applodion and Gog the Mild:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done: User_talk:Lingzhi.Renascence#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chinese_history#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Three_Kingdoms#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This article is missing de Crespigny 2010, Imperial Warlord (Brill), his biography of Cao Cao. I read it in the springtime this year; I'll see what I can do with it. I'll have a look at this article sometime this week, but probably not right after work today. Folly Mox (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would also like to actively throw my hat into the ring to help save this FA. I'll start with grabbing this Cao Cao biography. Remsense 00:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If anyone else wants to peruse the source I mentioned above, a recent English-language treatment by an expert in the field, direct TWL link. I'm currently searching for more sources. The only real bad ones live at the article have to do with pop culture stuff, and the last time I was forced to cite material like that (at Sima Yi) it made me want to cry, like I had called my dentist to make an appointment and ended up filing taxes over the phone instead. Folly Mox (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some of the sourcing issues (like maps about the engagement) are not going to be resolveable, since there's no uniform reconstructed narrative. A455bcd9, I've never been to FAR before. Do we discuss sourcing issues here or on the article talk page? Folly Mox (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no idea either... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Whichever works best, Folly Mox. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Folly Mox longer discussions can be put on the talk page of this FAR page, or on article talk. Just provide a link back to here, and if improvements are occurring and more time is needed, please keep this page informed weekly; otherwise, we proceed to declarations (Move to FARC, Close w/o FARC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops ok I was not aware of the time limit. I guess I'd better get going on this. Folly Mox (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Folly Mox; no time limit as long as things are progressing in the right direction-- just keep this page informed weekly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I started in on this yesterday. I've resolved a few of the "easy issues" brought up: improved the sourcing for two claims and removed a third claim that was not adequately supported; I think all but one of the {{cn}} tags has been resolved, but I've also been adding them as I go. Most of these were of the genre "actually already supported by sources cited in the article, which the tagger didn't check."
The maps are probably sourceable, and may even be accurate for the leading historical reconstruction. I have a question for the reviewers: if I find a suitably RS map that is similar to the unsourced ones in the article, is it ok to cite the article maps as "after Source S"? or just cite the map to an appropriate source even though the graphical style or level of detail varies?
Apart from the obvious issues raised at Talk:Battle of Red Cliffs § FA sweeps, I see more serious problems that are not evident to people without a background in the subject matter. One is that the historical narrative that has grown up around the battle is blandly accepted without balance by opposing critical viewpoints. It even gets a shout out in the infobox, where "Cao Cao fails to conquer lands south of the Yangtze River". This is not wrong, but we don't actually have evidence this was his intent. Another major issue is the impoverished postface. The § Cultural impact section is a measly two paragraphs, which is inadequately representative of the state of the field.
Overreliance on certain sources is present, and I'm probably not going to be able to do better than de Crespigny for the English language ones. He's been the preeminent English language scholar on early mediaeval Chinese history for decades. At the time of promotion fifteen years ago, the article leaned heavily on freely available internet sources, some of which have since been paywalled and I'm not readily able to verify. The source I mentioned in my initial comment on this page was published post-promotion. I've begun incorporating information from it.
The § Location section closely follows the major English language treatment of the question, the author of which holds a view distinctly outside the mainstream, which he acknowledges. We'll have to make sure that is balanced out at some point.
I haven't started looking at Chinese language sources yet (apart from the early ones I have at home). I haven't scraped zh:赤壁之戰 for its sources, or even read it or the subject's baidu to see what sorts of things we're not mentioning that I haven't thought of.
Surface level issues include citation style irregularities and slightly incomplete full citations. User:Remsense has kindly standardised the shortened footnote templates already, which I threw out of balance in my first several edits. There is also copyediting to do, and almost certainly other things listed at WP:FACR that I'm unfamiliar with.
I'm happy to take point on this effort, but I do work full time, so except for the band between about 1130–1400 UTC, I won't be able to do much on weekdays. Thanks everyone for your patience. Folly Mox (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Folly Mox, if you are willing/able to see this all the way through, time is always allowed. But you should probably know going in that you and Remsense may be doing the work alone, as no one else has shown up. I'd be fine with using a map to source a map. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, that characterisation of the workload was pretty anticipated. I'm down. Folly Mox (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is a bibliography of a couple zhwiki sources that appear additive for our purposes from first skim:

  • Zhang Zuoyao (张作耀) (2000). 曹操传 [A biography of Cao Cao] (in Chinese). Beijing: Renmin chubanshe. ISBN 978-7-010-03216-0.
  • Wang Wen-Chin (王文進) (2010). 論「赤壁意象」的形成與流轉-「國事」、「史事」、「心事」、「故事」的四重奏 [The Formation and Transformation of Images of the Battle of Red Cliffs: A Quartet of National, Historical, Mental and Narrative Matters] (PDF). Chengdu University Journal of Chinese Literature (in Chinese) (28): 83–123. doi:10.29907/JRTR.201004.0003. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-12-06. Retrieved 2019-01-18.
And a couple I happened to find while searching:
Remsense 18:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've got some sourced downloaded already, and more set to go once I get back on wifi. I'll copy them over to the § Further reading subheading or the talk page when I get time. `Folly Mox (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Folly Mox, do you mind if I sometimes endeavor to do some work you plan on doing in your (always very elucidating) edit summaries? When you mentioned Tian 2018 could be useful, I was excited because that's something I could help with easily, but I don't want to step on your toes. But I also also don't want to leave you with all the particularly difficult work in this article refresh, so let me know if you have any particular preferences with me taking the initiative with things you specifically mention, or if you'd prefer your own particular sequence of editing, as it were. :) Remsense 05:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please by all means, Remsense, do whatever excites you! I'm glad for any help!
I think we should probably do any necessary coordination on the talkpage though, to spare the reviewers the watchlist hits, and just report in periodically as advised. Folly Mox (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary update 03 December

(I guess this is transcluded somewhere, so lvl 4 subheading here).

Improvements to the article thus far have been slow. We've identified and added some additional sources, and cleared out all the {{cn}} tags but for the two maps (which Remsense may have to recreate? but if new maps based on sourced information look substantially similar to the existing maps, did we need the new maps? still characteristically confused on this point) – and a {{cn}} tag that is essentially there because something was stated in prose rather than framed as part of article structure.

I am working on (read: sometimes thinking about) replacing all the sources I'm not able to verify personally, chiefly two offline Chinese news sources, but also two de Crespigny sources. Overreliance on de Crespigny will seem less serious once the "cultural legacy and impact" section is filled in a bit more. I knew de Crespigny was unavoidable for historical treatments of this time period, but I didn't previously understand how he's basically the Amazon of English language Three Kingdoms period history. The monographs are all him, and even the Cambridge History chapters are him too. Will have to look in different disciplines for other authors to include.

Most of my work thus far has not resulted in edits: finding and reading (or rereading) sources. Problems remain with framing, coverage. Remsense has been making a lot of positive technical and copyedits, which of course I'll let them report about.

At this point it's no longer my intent to replace all the statements sourced to Chen and Pei 429 (三國志注) with modern sources, but instead to quarantine them in their own section, alike but unalike to the "Fictionalised account" section about the Romance of the Three Kingdoms variant narrative. Reason being that the earliest sources are already disparate in their accounts, and providing these to the reader should assist encyclopaedic understanding. Folly Mox (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My addendum: my work has been decidedly less meaty than Molly's, a large chunk of it being presentation-oriented, copy edits and template work and citation formatting and the like. I'm assembling all the sourcing I think I may need to either secure or redesign the maps into one place. Overall, I think we are doing well.
On the map sourcing question: If the information presented in a map indeed lines up with the written description in a source, I fully believe that this qualifies as verifiability. To me, it is not qualitatively different from adding a source to text, even if that text may not have been originally written according to said source. Remsense 23:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrary update 14 December Hey—I've done a bit more work behind the scenes and working on the graphics, but haven't directly edited the article in the past week. Folly is busy, and my attention has been elsewhere for the most part, in part on the simultaneous FAR over at Byzantine Empire. But now my attention is turning back here, and I'll be sharing some updates and doing some of the cleanup I can still see in the article in the next couple days. Cheers. Remsense 16:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Confirming that I am indeed busy and have updates planned but not committed to databases. Organising thoughts is not my forté. Might be my dump stat (I appear to have many). Stupidly, I've acquired 三國志集解, the standard annotated edition. This has not been an efficient use of focus. Folly Mox (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, @Folly Mox—this is my present understanding:
  • Nothing in the battle map itself requires additional/better sourcing
  • The main unsourced/SYNTH bit in the candidate sites map is the special "fourth region", and a replacement would essentially just replace this.
Remsense 18:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remsense, yeah the battle map is definitely sourceable. I feel like I linked de Crespigny 2010 p. 267 somewhere already, which is a partial match, showing Cao Cao's movements (unlike the map presently in the article, it's possible to see that his naval forces came downstream rather than overland; the green arrow is almost entirely hidden by Zhou Yu's advance to Jiangling in the aftermath of the battle).
I'm certain I used to have a book with more maps about this, but that hard drive was lost in the past two years in either a move or a breakup. The other movements on the battle map can be sourced to prose records, either Zhang 2006 or Generals of the South, which reminds me I still haven't converted the multifarious de Crespigny cites to author–title for ease of use.
The "fourth possible region" in the battlefield locator map is probably sourceable to Zhang 2006, given how closely that section follows the arguments in that source, but highlighting modern Jiayu county seems to have been a convenience for the original mapmaker, and I'm not sure "possibly somewhere other than these spots" is adequately supported in the literature to add to the map. We could put "not an exhaustive list of possibilities" or something in the caption.
Meanwhile, on the historical research side of things, it should be obvious that I haven't been active in updating this article during the past couple weeks. Apart from offwiki responsibilities, which have consumed most of my energy, the main blockers have been 1. wanting to do a full rewrite of the article because I'm even worse at organising others' ideas than I am my own, and 2. hesitancy with accepting de Crespigny uncritically whilst being unable to locate any broader consensus or lack of it.
The situation with that is de Crespigny has been at the top of the field of English language Three Kingdoms period history for five? decades, and doesn't really have competitors or even collaborators in a narrow sense (I've seen maybe two or three mentions of his work that engage it thoughtfully, rather than just citing it as authoritative). There's really no one else. While I can read Chinese language sources on the topic, I've been running into a lot of dead ends trying to access sufficiently reliable Chinese sources, which are poorly represented in the TWL corpora.
The problem here is that although de Crespigny has become more cautious with age, some of his earlier work is pretty conclusive about questions that don't seem conclusively answerable based on his sources at the time (although I'm certainly missing some of those). For example, the idea for Sun Quan and Liu Bei to ally is credited originally credited to all three of Lu Meng, Zhou Yu, and Zhuge Liang. Pei Songzhi and de Crespigny each pick one. Cao Cao's ships being burnt is originally credited to Zhou Yu, Liu Bei, and Cao Cao himself. The earliest record we have is actually Cao Cao's claim that he burnt his own navy on the way out so his opponents couldn't make use of it, but scholarship tends to accept the Zhou Yu story because it's also early, and it's there and it's compelling. I haven't seen any sources that really address this question other than by mentioning Cao Cao's claim, but it's ultimately unanswerable due to lack of contemporary sources, in a way that even the Battle of Fei River can be more clearly seen.
Anyway, this has been a me problem. Folly Mox (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC No edits in three weeks and uncited passages remain. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Z1720, I would happily participate in this process. However, could you confirm my understanding of the article?
      • Each map is tagged as unsourced.
      • There is one unsourced paragraph as such, admittedly an important one.

      From what I understand, one map doesn't have any actual citation issues, and the other could be easily modified to remove a singular citation issue. The paragraph, I could try my best to solidify or replace. — Remsense 00:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Remsense: You are correct about the above sections missing citations. There's also two other sentences that need citations, which I have just indicated in the article with "citation needed" tags. Also, "Taiping Chang (2014)" and the two sources in "Dien, Albert E." do not seem to be used as inline citations in the article. Should they be, or should they be removed as references? Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Z1720 et al.—I apologize for my lack of diligence in this FAR. Folly Mox is busy and I've been either elsewhere or wiped out, so now I will now take it upon myself to do what needs to be done to save this. Thank you very much for the additional tags. I am taking a look as we speak and will do what needs to be done. — Remsense 00:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'll strike my "Move to FARC" above. As long as work is continuing, I think the FAR co-ords will opt to keep this open.. Z1720 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Z1720, understanding every paragraph should end in a citation—does the "Wuchang-to-Chibi City" claim require an explicit citation in your mind, or is it WP:CALC? — Remsense 03:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Remsense: Sorry for the late response. What prose in the article are you referring to? Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Remsense:, I'm a bit late to this, what are we still looking for? Sources beyond Crespigny? Although he is a wonderful scholar. Aza24 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, the one clear thing is the map showing the candidate sites. I think everything else is sourced. I have done a bit of looking, but honestly I am not sure that there is other scholarship to include, save maybe for cultural impact. Remsense 00:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gotcha. Afaik, the Eastern Han is not nearly as popular as the Western in English-language academia. I'm not surprised that Crespigny is dominating the subject here. We could possibly use more from the CHC, but just skimming it now, I don't see much. Unless anyone has access to some Chinese sources, this might be the best it gets.
I'm think Folly is right above that much of the map can be sourced by Zhang 2006. It looks like pages 215–216 cover it (I've just added a citation there). Aza24 (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7 World Trade Center[edit]

Notified: Aude, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Fire Service

I am nominating this featured article for review because, per the discussion at Talk:7 World Trade Center#About splitting the articles into two, there was a consensus to split the page into two articles. This article thus may seem to fail WP:FACR 1e ("its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process"), although I have not checked other aspects of the article. I think the split version of the article should be evaluated against other criteria to determine whether the article is still FA quality.

Noting for the record that I also posted URFA commentary for this article two years ago and tried to resolve some of these issues myself. Although this FA was promoted in 2007, I did not think it was overly deficient, though further input would be appreciated in case I missed something. Epicgenius (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion about how to handle a Featured article review after an article is split (added: and about the 1e stability criteria) moved to talk page here. The consensus was to proceed with a FAR on this article, and the new article would be processed through FAC when/if ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no opinion on the quality, but FWIW, I don't think that this fails 1e because I read that criterion as being more focused on edit wars or routine poor quality editing that isn't being addressed. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:18, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Correct (that is also covered in the discussion moved to talk, linked above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What if we keep it as a featured article? If you want to demote it make it a good article instead. but i recommend keeping it featured. It's a "forgotten" building. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 03:10, November 13, 2023‎ (talk) 120.28.226.197 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't go from WP:FA class directly to WP:GA class without a separate good article nomination. In any case, as the nominator of this FAR, I'm not recommending demoting the article at this time; I'm merely bringing it up for review. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP 120, please have a look at the instructions at the top of the FAR page; there are several discussion phases in the FAR process, and being on this page doesn't mean demotion is the only outcome. Also, in the archives at WT:FAR, you'll see many discussions of the many reasons we don't/can't make delisted FAs into GAs. If you have other questions about that, we can help you out at WT:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opniion of this article review:
Keep - A "Forgotten" 9/11 building, As a FA it'll make more people have knowledge of this building and structure on and after 9/11. Article may need some minor changes 120.28.224.32 (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FA status is not based on the merit or interestingness of the topic, but rather on whether the article meets the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What if we give the page some changes? 120.28.224.32 (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As the nominator of this FAR, to clarify, I nominated this article for FAR precisely because I wanted to know what changes need to be made for this article to retain FA status. I certainly want the article to keep its bronze star, but it is an old FA that has also just undergone a major split. This is why I'm asking for feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some thoughts here:

  • "H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture (2007). The New York Academy of Sciences (brochure). H3 Hardy Collaboration Architecture." - I don't like the idea of using advertising materials to support text about what this company added to the building; we need something secondary to ensure that we are avoiding puffery/undue weight issues
  • I have a similar concern about the use of the Skidmore, Owings & Merrill book to support what Skidmore, Owings & Merrill added to the building; we don't want the article to contain essentially resume material for the designers
    • Hmmm. On the one hand, it is a primary source, but on the other hand this is basically just WP:ABOUTSELF information, rather than critical commentary added to the article. Nonetheless, I've tried to add secondary sources (mostly the NYT) where possible. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "From September 8 to October 7, 2006, the work of photographer Jonathan Hyman was displayed in "An American Landscape", a free exhibit hosted by the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation at 7 World Trade Center. The photographs captured the response of people in New York City and across the United States after the September 11, 2001, attacks. The exhibit took place on the 45th floor while space remained available for lease" - we can't really state that this actually happened using a source from August 2006 - it only supports that this was planned to happen
    • I haven't fixed this yet because I have not been able to find a reliable source that was published after this exhibit ended. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC) I have now fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "By March 2007, 60 percent of the building had been leased" - ummm... the source for this is from August 2006 and says that the building was 10-percent leased then
    • I removed this and added detail about how the building was 10% leased in Aug 2006. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "law firm Wilmer Hale" - source for this is about a different law firm named Darby & Darby - our article on WilmerHale does not mention Darby at all; I'm not sure how this supports the content at all
    • I have no idea how that happened, but basically WilmerHale leased some space in 2011, and Darby & Darby (which does not seem to have an article here) leased space in 2006. I've removed Darby & Darby. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "After AMN AMRO was acquired by the Royal Bank of Scotland," - is this an error for ABN AMRO?
  • " Silverstein Properties also has offices and the Silver Suites executive office suites[30] in 7 World Trade Center, along with office space used by the architectural and engineering firms working on 1 World Trade Center, 150 Greenwich Street, 175 Greenwich Street, and 200 Greenwich Street.[31" - MOS:CURRENT issues
    • I changed it to "had", since this is no longer fully true. At least, not the second part of the sentence (1 WTC, for example, has been complete for nearly a decade now). Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The whole paragraph beginning with "The space occupied by Mansueto Ventures has been designed to use the maximum amount of natural light and has an open floor plan ..." - is this level of intricate detail about the way a few individual lessees have arranged their space really due weight?
    • Not really. I moved this to the "Architecture" section and trimmed these sentences. Also, I removed the H3 reference - the entire building was designed with energy-efficient features, so there's no need to single out a specific tenant. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This does need to work to occur, and probably some additional spot-checking. Hog Farm Talk 03:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great idea! I have to go to bed. 120.28.224.32 (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's start to fix this page up to keep it as a featured article. 120.28.224.32 (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the comments HF. I've addressed most of these now. As you can probably tell, most of the article was written a long time ago, so it's highly probable that the article's text-source integrity has degraded along the way. Epicgenius (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This indeed does need work to occur, Hog Farm, and What things also need to be changed? 120.28.224.32 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Epicgenius - Do you have access to the NYT articles? I generally don't, so that would hamper a comprehensive spot check from me. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hog Farm, yes, I do. I can check the NYT articles and fix any problems that I find. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Late to this but is there any other problems that need to really be fixed? 120.28.224.22 (talk) 07:00, 19 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Epicgenius, are there still problems that need to be fixed? 120.28.229.213 (talk) 15:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I can see, some of the older sources may need spotchecks, and I still need to check the remaining NYT sources (I only checked about five at random and didn't record which ones I looked at). An uninvolved editor should check the prose as well; Hog Farm already conducted one check, but there may be something I missed. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What sources may need to be fixed and spotchecked? GabrielPenn4223 (talk) 18:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My apologies for the late response. I meant that someone would have to go through all of the sources, select some randomly (like 10-20%), and check to see whether they verify the text in question. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I checked some of the other NYT sources and didn't find many problems (I corrected the issues I did find). I'm waiting for someone else to review the other sources, though. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Haphazard selection of 7 refs to check:

  • 3a - checks out to archived version (current version is just a picture of a building?)
  • 40 - checks out
  • 75 - article has "The building was promoted as the safest skyscraper in the U.S. upon its completion"; the source (a promotional listing) has "The 52-story "green" tower is one of the safest office buildings in the country" which is a less strong claim than what we have in our article
  • 2c - checks out
  • 25 - article has "Prior to opening, in March 2006, the new building's lobby and facade as a filming location for the movie Perfect Stranger."; the source has "A floor of the Skidmore Owings & Merrill-designed building will be transformed into a futuristic office with flat-screen panel monitors" when discussing the use as a filming location for Perfect Stranger; "A floor" does not necessarily equal "lobby and facade". I will also note that the sentence in question in our article is a sentence fragment
  • 59 - checks out
  • 8 - article has "Opened in 1987, it was the seventh structure constituting the original World Trade Center building complex" - source supports the 1987 opening but I'm struggling to find where it has this as the seventh structure; the source mentions North Tower, South Tower/Two WTC, 5 WTC, 6 WTC, and 4 WTC, but that's only five before 7 WTC is opened

Hog Farm Talk 17:56, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks @Hog Farm. I have fixed these. I will likely have to take a more extensive look at the sources, since 3/7 refs not fully checking out is indeed problematic.
As for the original 7 WTC being the seventh structure in the original WTC, the first complex contained the Marriott World Trade Center, which was unofficially known as "3 World Trade Center". The buildings weren't completed in order, anyway, as 3 WTC was the sixth building to be completed. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Byzantine Empire[edit]

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

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

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

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

Per above, it seems like we are going to keep it simple, starting with the history section and go over it chronologically. I've already earmarked several graphics that I plan on replacing or possibly removing. Remsense 14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm willing to work on the article within FAR, but not outside it. To be honest, the size issue is at the moment secondary to more immediate problems (OR, CLOP, etc.) History section first, then others, when we're all hopefully soaked through with knowledge. As we should be going section-to-section, and just move the comments on each to talk after it's satisfactorily completed. This will be a long job but I wouldn't expect anything else for such an important article (Genghis Khan took me 413 days on my lonesome). At the moment, I'm mildly optimistic—we have three competent and active editors, pretty much a blank sheet in front of us, and if it fails then. well, at least we tried? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I support working within FAR though these frameworks for review is not something I have useful experience in. Will need to defer to someone else's lead on that. In terms of process, I'm amenable to suggestions.
If we exclude the Lead and Nomenclature, there are 9 history subheadings, 7 culture subeadings and 4 other major sections. By announcing periodic drives on a section and putting eyes on it, even with just 1-3 of us, we'll rip through and make Temüjin-like progress. If we want to do this right, and on balance of all the things needed, I'd say this a 20-80 week project (budgeting 1-4 weeks per section).
I'll put my hand up on the slowest part of this process which is validating existing sources, evaluating other sources people suggest or from other articles, and otherwise assessing current scholarship. This will result in addressing article issues like CLOP and OR, and by extension assist with condensing the narrative which will address the big billboard problem of size. Happy to document notes and note down direct quotes as I read sources which may assist in making this work more accessible so other people can leverage it. Biz (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sounds good. Sandy is probably right that we should do all the nitty grity on this FAR's talk, so we don't clog up the main FAR page with all our scribblings. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Makes sense. So if I understand this right:
  • this FAR page (or its talk?) is where we document a FAR review
  • this FAR talk is where we put notes evaluating scholarship and/or other notes
  • Issues from the above two processes will get posted on the articles Talk page
  • We announce updates here every two weeks
  • After (or in parallel?) of the FAR, we do section by section drives?
Anything else? Who will perform the FAR? And we officially start sometime-ish this month? Biz (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the idea is that everything happens on this page or its talk, and that the improving of each section is part of the FAR. At the end, some other editors will take a look at the article and see whether they think it meets WP:FACR. Is that right SandyGeorgia? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand Biz's question: the FAR is open, the instructions are at the top of WP:FAR, but there is no time pressure. Other editors will evaluate on this page whether the article meets WP:WIAFA, but it is typical for them to wait until after you all are ready for a new look and as long as you keep this page informed and that work is steadily progressing in the right direction. (I am quite concerned that I haven't seen much progress yet, particularly in terms of re-organizing the content towards a trimmer version.) Where you coordinate the work doesn't matter; it can be on the article talk page, or on the talk page of this FAR, but to avoid clogging this page, the nitty gritty need not be conducted here, unless you need broader feedback beyond the day-to-day improvements. This page is for others to eventually declare Close or Move to FARC in the FAR phase, and Keep or Delist if it moves to the FARC phase. Considering there is a very large amount of work to do, my suggestion is that work proceeds on article talk, and that you let this page know bi-weekly how things are going. If progress stalls, editors are likely to suggest Move to FARC to keep the process moving forward. Perhaps an understanding of FAR functioning can be had by reading through Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 (which I I believe is the biggest rewrite at FAR to date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the pointers.
I've started the review with some structure on how we approach it in this article's talk page. Open to feedback to do this differently (in the Talk page, of course). Biz (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Discussion of approaches may also take place on the article's talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm continuing the rewrite, aided by the others here; @Z1720 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: as the two remaining !votes, is there anything in particular you want to see addressed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is at least one section without a source at the last sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We'll get to that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I still see lots of uncited sections. I am happy to cn tag the article if this is requested. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes please, that would be a great help! Biz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would appreciate feedback on two sections I've been focused on: Transition into an eastern Christian empire and Language. I still want to do more source work (last paragraph of languages needs verification; waiting for a new book on slavery which may improve the narrative) but I thought now is as good a time than ever to ask if I am rewriting this article to the standard that is expected. (I'm finding it a challenge to balance summary prose with comprehensiveness and neutrality...I've never brought an article to FA standard so I apologise for what may seem obvious to others.) Biz (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Christmas Day update: Biz has been working on the language section, while my grand reduction of the history section has gotten slightly distracted; I will be back there shortly, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I've completed my read (40+ hours) of Anthony Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire which was my precondition before I start work on this article.
    • I'm currently focused on "society". It's two-thirds done. @AirshipJungleman29 is taking point on History and it's not an easy task.
      • Languages: need to validate last paragraph sources and final review of copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
      • Transition into an eastern Christian empire: need to validate two sources still and final proof read to make sure I'm happy with the copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
        • when I thought I had finished this, someone added a paragraph on slavery, and as I validated the sources, I ended up reading a book Slaveries of the First Millennium by Youval Rotman which helped rewrite it and which is also helping with a lot of other content (like marriage which sits in women right now)
      • I've asked for feedback on the above because I'm not confident in my ability to meet FA standard, and before I embark on the rest of the article.
      • I'm currently reviewing the "women" section and have more literature to read as it's a topic I have no expertise in
        • I'm drafting a new section on socioeconomic and legal rights, that will incorporate sources from the women section I'm reading and that will reduce that section but also make the content stronger I hope (ie, combined with other sources, broader perspective).
        • I'm still evaluating if there needs to be something on "gender" (as part of women or separate) which is something that is coming up in modern scholarship. Can only resolve this by reading a book by Leora Neville
    • Due to life commitments, I expect to be slow moving until February 5th.
    Biz (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    History rewrite is ongoing...slooowwwwly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kreutz sungrazer[edit]

Notified: Worldtraveller, Ruslik0, Jqmhelios, WP Astronomy, noticed in 2021

As noticed by SandyGeorgia in 2021, this featured article last formally reviewed in 2008. There are prose issues (perhaps best exemplified by the admonition to "see below"), as well as dated text such as sourcing a list of discovery statistics to a source last updated in 2008, "The continuing discovery of large numbers of the smaller members of the family by SOHO will undoubtedly lead to a greater understanding of how comets break up to form families" from a source from 16 years ago, and similar. I don't think this will be a hard save, but this does need work. There are also more recent sources that should likely be consulted, such as [1], [2], and others. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Move to FARC while some edits have been placed in the article, there is still more work to be done, particularly in sourcing the "Discovery and historical observations" section. Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move to FARC, no engagement since Z's last comment. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gonna do some work here, beginning with some unsourced paragraphs. Given what is said above, I guess that these are the sources that need to be included? Some questions:

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - sorry for the late reply; I've been quite busy IRL the last couple months. I don't know enough about the topic matter to opine on the list or the Great comet of 1680, but I don't see any issues with using Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society for the inclination or semiminor axis. To me it seems like Kronk meets WP:SPS and should be an acceptable source. Hog Farm Talk 03:06, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I meant in the sense of values - finding a source that says "X and Y are the typical values of the inclination and axis of Kreutz comets" is tough. I see that I need to expand my list of sauces to use, probably will work them in tomorrow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't access the particular source but trust your judgment on this matter. Hog Farm Talk 02:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Make this another few days; the thing I hoped to finish yesterday will take longer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright, expansion's now underway. Some comments:

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe XOR'easter would look at your list ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sigh. Just found out that apparently VE makes a complete mess out of pagenumbers - when you copy a reference and change the pagenumber in the copy, it seems to alter all of these citations. I'll avoid using it for the next batch but the previous one will need to have pagenumbers checked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, cleaned that up. Someone ought to go through and see if some duplicate citations can be merged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
VE makes a complete mess of citations, period; abandon that MF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've resolved the outdateness issues. I'd like to have comments from other people about the items on my dot-point list above and also a look-over on the prose quality, as that's the weak point of my FA(R) writing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    JJE, I'll give this a readthrough over the next week or so. Unfortunately, I won't be able to weight in very much on the list of specific subject matter questions - XOR'easter or Serendipodous? I think this FA should be close to being keep-able. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "It thus became the first known sungrazing comet. Its perihelion distance was just 1.3 solar radii, that is, its perihelion was 1.3 solar radii from the center of the Sun, and just 0.3 solar radii above the surface of the Sun." - given the very specific claims made here it should be cited
    Removed this sentence wholesale as it adds nothing to the preceding paragraph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Other candidates are comets observed in 582 AD in China and Europe,[27] X/1381 V1 which was seen from Japan, Korea, Russia and Egypt," - it's unclear if these "other candidates" are for notable comets, the progenitor comet, or are candidates to be Kreutz sungrazers. I'm finding the whole first paragraph of the notable members section to be fairly confusing.
    Specified this one a bit. It's a list of all these ill-documented comets where there is only little discussion on their membership. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "at which it reached an apparent magnitude estimated to have been −17, by far the brightest recorded for any comet and exceeding the brightness of the full moon by a factor of 57" - how does the math on this work, if -11 is stated to be comparable to only the first quarter of the moon later in the article?
    I'd imagine it's because magnitudes are exponential - a difference of 6 magnitudes is equal to 10^(6*2/5)~251 times brighter. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Great Comet of 371 BC section states "It [The Comet of 371 BC] is currently thought to have been the giant comet which progressively shattered under the influence of the sun to form the entire family of Kreutz sungrazers. " but then later in the article we get "One possible candidate for the grandparent is a comet observed by Aristotle and Ephorus in 371 BC. Ephorus claimed to have seen this comet break into two. However modern astronomers are skeptical of the claims of Ephorus, because they were not confirmed by other sources.[2] Instead comets that arrived between 3rd and 5th centuries AD (comets of 214, 426 and 467) are considered as possible progenitors of the Kreutz family" discussion the same comet
    A common pitfall when updating an article is that you update section A and forget that something in section B needs changing as well. I've stripped out the Ephorus part from the 371 header. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The Great Comet of 371 BC section states that the original comet must have had a 120 km nucleus, but then we're told "The original comet must certainly have been very large indeed, perhaps as large as 100 km across [...] although a size of only a few tens of kilometres is also possible"
    Typical "One source says this, another says that" case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's probably best to attribute these statements inline to the individual authors, then. Hog Farm Talk 17:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not sure that in-text attribution is also for non-opinion statements. Also, I'll need to check whether other people have remarked on this question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "On average, a new member of the Kreutz family is discovered every three days" - this is word-for-word from the source. This isn't a big deal because the source is public-domain NASA materials, but it still would be best to reword this
    Gonna have to pass here since I can't think of a better formulation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I reworded that line a bit. XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " Some amateurs have managed remarkable numbers of discoveries, with Rainer Kracht of Germany having chalked up 211, Michael Oates of the United Kingdom making 144, and Zhou Bo of China spotting 97" - either newer numbers should be used or it should be mentioned that these counts are as of 2008; it's also unclear why these individuals are selected when the cited source indicates others have found 185, 105, and 100
    Don't know either. Apparently that website compiled them from SOHO or Minor Planet Electronic Circulars and hasn't updated for a long time. Unless we can find another website that does it, we can't keep that block in the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:59, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've tried snipping that part out; see what you think. XOR'easter (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think we're getting closer, but there's still a bit of work needed here yet. Hog Farm Talk 16:36, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think we are waiting on Hog Farm regardin the "still a bit of work needed here" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'll give this one another read-through when I get the chance but it might be a couple days. The article is definitely in much better shape than when I first listed it at FAR. Hog Farm Talk 15:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Coming back to this ...

  • "For example, the Great Southern Comet of 1887 passed about 27000 km from the surface of the Sun." - in the lead but not in the body; if this is important enough for the lead then it should be in the body of the article as well
    Aye, but first I need a WP:SYNTH check: According to [1] this comet got 0.00483 au from the Sun, the closest among the Kreutz sungrazers of 1843-2011. That adds up to 27000km above the Sun's surface. Not sure that this is a case of WP:CALC given things like barycenter etc. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

References

  1. ^ Fernández, Julio A; Lemos, Pablo; Gallardo, Tabaré (2021-09-28). "On the origin of the Kreutz family of sungrazing comets". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 508 (1): 790. doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2562. ISSN 0035-8711.
  • I honestly don't know if that meets CALC or not; math isn't my strong suit. We really need one of the astronomy editors to weigh in here - I'm getting in over my head with this one. Hog Farm Talk 17:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    That reference gives the perihelion (and other numbers) for the sungrazers discovered from the ground and doesn't particularly call attention to the 1887 comet. It gives the blanket statement, It is particularly noteworthy to highlight that their perihelion distances are very small: q < 0.01 au (i.e. less than about two solar radii), thus falling within the Sun's Roche limit. Would it make more sense to provide a statement like that instead of talking about one particular example? Also, I feel that less than about two solar radii is more dramatic for readers who don't instantly remember the Sun's radius in km. XOR'easter (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @XOR'easter:That would work better. Regarding the copies in the reference list, I suspect they are citing different page numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We could merge the repeated instances and use {{rp}} to refer to specific pages. Or, we could gather the ones cited for different pages into their own list and cite them with {{sfn}}. XOR'easter (talk) 15:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I went ahead and took the {{sfn}} option, since there were a couple books that were also cited repeatedly with different page numbers. XOR'easter (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oh, and there are three copies of that paper in the reference list. Likewise, there are 5 copies of "The science of sungrazers, sunskirters, and other near-Sun comets", and 6 copies of "20 years and 3000 objects later". Was the intent to refer to different pages? I think we generally don't bother with that for journal articles, as opposed to books, since the former are shorter. XOR'easter (talk) 01:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "A Kreutz sungrazer's aphelion is about 170 AU (25 billion km) from the Sun;" - is what the lead has, but then the body of the article has "The group generally has an eccentricity approaching 1, [...] an aphelion distance of about 100 AU ..." so that is an internal inconsistency
    Changed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Any possibility of a direct citation for the paragraph "This serendipitous event happened when the Eclipse Comet of 1882 reached its perihelion just as a total solar eclipse took place. The celestial alignment allowed observers to notice the comet against the darkened backdrop of the eclipse. This rare occurrence provided a unique opportunity for astronomers to identify and study the comet, which otherwise would have remained undetected due to its close proximity to the Sun during that period of the year."?
    I asked the editor a few months ago and they didn't respond. I figure that there might be something here, but removed in the meantime. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems fine otherwise, but I would appreciate if we could get one of our astronomy editors to give this a third-party readthrough; I'm just not all that familiar with this group of comets. Hog Farm Talk 23:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • The specific reference to Canis Major is only found in the lead
  • "Ephorus claimed to have seen this comet break into two. However modern astronomers are skeptical of the claims of Ephorus, because they were not confirmed by other sources." is found in the Dynamical history section but we still have the Great Comet of 1106 AD section stating "Observations also suggest that the larger fragment of the Great Comet of 371 BC, which was observed splitting into two pieces" outright, which suggests that the language in the 1106 AD section about it splitting into two needs hedged a little bit as this is apparently disputed

This is all I noticed from another read-through, I think I'll be ready to support keeping this once these two things are addressed. Hog Farm Talk 23:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm okay with closing without FARC here. Hog Farm Talk 17:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One down, to go.... XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: need an update here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Noting that Sandy hasn't been active lately, but Z1720 have your concerns been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My comments have been addressed. Here are some other comments after a quick readthrough (some sections I skimmed, others I read thoroughly and copyedited). Note that I am not an expert:

  • I changed all the px to upright, per MOS:UPRIGHT. Feel free to change.
  • I added alt text to images, per MOS:ALT. Feel free to change to better wording.
    Expanded one of these ALTs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Why are there citations in the lede? Are these needed? From what I can determine, this information is cited in the article.
    Removed them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not thrilled with the single-paragraph level-3 sections in "Notable members". Should some of these paragraphs be merged together?
    I don't think so. A list is a list, trying to pass it off as a paragraph just makes it less readable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There are various times that measurements are given in kilometres. Do imperial measurements also need to be given in these types of articles?
    My understanding is that on such scientific topics one usually sticks to metric things. But if folks want to replace the kms with converts, I am fine with it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Ikeya–Seki's derived orbital period gave a previous perihelion almost exactly at the right time," I'm not quite sure what this sentence is trying to tell me.
    It means that the 1106 comet seems to be the earlier perihelion of Ikeya-Seki, or of a precursor of Ikeya-Seki. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Dynamical history and evolution" is quite long. Can this be divided by level 3 headings?
    Not quite sure where to do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Does the "Future" section violate WP:CRYSTAL? I think this can be moved to a better section, phrased more in Wikivoice, and updated for 2023.
    Nah, orbital parameters are one of the more reliably predictable things. Problem is that I don't see many recent studies commenting on past predictions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "About 83% of the sungrazers found by SOHO are members of the Kreutz group, with the others including the Meyer, Marsden, and Kracht1&2 families." This is cited from a report in 2008. Is this still accurate?
    Don't think anyone has investigated this question since then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "New Kreutz sungrazers are discovered roughly once every three days," Citation is from 2015. Is this still accurate?
    Don't think anyone has investigated this question since then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There's some overly-expressive language in the article, and some copyediting that needs to happen. I did some of it, but I ran out of time and would appreciate if someone with more subject-area knowledge would do a readthrough first.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minneapolis[edit]

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-01-28

I am the nominator of the 2007 Minneapolis FAC and have been working to bring it to current FA standards since at least 2020 through several talk page archives, with SandyGeorgia looking in. I believe it is at today's FA standard, and ready for review at FAR. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never did finish my pre-FAR review on article talk; will try to get back to that by leaving comments here this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't forgotten about this; I've just been much busier than expected this week. Hog Farm Talk 18:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I need to give the new Turnpike album a second listen anyways, so might as well start going through this tonight. Saving the lead for last ...

  • I know that newer style of interactive map has its benefits, but is there any way to also show the reader at a glance where Minneapolis is located in the country, rather than making them get into the interactive map, fiddle with the zoom system which is kinda balky on mobile, and then try to figure out that information?
Yes. I guess WikiProject Maps added the interactive maps recently. I placed an old style pushpin map under theirs. Is this OK?
  • "The US Army Corps of Engineers built a concrete dike that held in 1876" - needs rephrased somehow. Current phrasing implies that there was some sort of particulalry important holding that happened in 1876
Restored an old version with more details, thank you. It took the Corps of Engineers 6 years or more to stop the Eastman Tunnel leak.
  • So do the sources indicate why exactly the milling and logging declined? From what I can tell the milling seems to have taken over about the time the logging went down, but it's not obvious from a quick skim of sources if the milling directly supplanted the lumber, or if the local forests had been extirpated, or something else altogether
Excellent point. I added a sentence in two places, demarcating the demise of lumbering and flour milling. Does it make better sense now?
  • "With the Fuji-Ya restaurant leading the way on the west bank," - is this a particularly important detail to note? I had noticed when I was doing my informal review on the talk page several months again that the article had a tendency to make unnecessary name drops
Not absolutely necessary and has been removed.
  • Susan, I'd like to hear your and Sandy's thoughts on this, but I have some tone concerns here. Stuff like "formidable Institute of Technology", "in the end, to the nation and the globe", and others.
My shorthand, and no problem to omit.
  • The Institute of Technology was indispensible, which the source suggests, but was perhaps overrepresented (say, in comparison to other institutions) by the word "formidable" (we had that discussion before about "fabulous" which I removed).
  • Again a shorthand way of saying "nationally and internationally", opting for shorter words. Omitted.
  • " and supplied about half the electrical needs of the US military during World War II" - the sources actually says "during World War II the firm produced nearly half of all the electric plants used by the American military during the conflict". There is an important distinction between "electrical needs" which implies all electricity usage, and then producing half of all generators, which doesn't really equate to half of electricity usage
Good catch, Hog Farm. Reworded that sentence to reflect the sources, and say more precisely, "and supplied about half the generator sets the US military used during World War II."

Stopping here for now. Hog Farm Talk 03:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think either of those examples of tone are necessary, and they should be omitted unless the source specifically supports them, in which case they should be quoted and attributed. Thanks for reviewing, HF; it's been several months since I last took a deep dive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, Hog Farm. I was looking forward to your comments and they didn't disappoint. Everything done as indicated inline above, with one exception. Looking for an alternate way to say "nation and the globe." -SusanLesch (talk) 23:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. I'm embarrassed to say the phrase is a too-close paraphrase of William Lass. Much better to omit it. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question. I found a few more adjectives (extraordinary, extraordinary, diverse). Are you all recommending they be omitted?

  • "The truck drivers union executed strikes with extraordinary "military precision"". I read Walker's book and it was astonishing but may be better unsaid.
  • Ditto for the post-Floyd, "The local insurgency resulted in extraordinary levels of property damage in Minneapolis".
  • Ditto for "the park board owns the city's canopy of trees,[389] and nearly all land that borders the city's diverse waterfronts."

-SusanLesch (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On those three: my thoughts would be to attribute use to attribute the "military precision" quote to the author and then leave off the extraordinary if the source doesn't use that language, the damage would be best to attribute to the author, and I'd recommend ommitting "diverse" in the waterfronts example. Hog Farm Talk 23:21, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Thank you, Hog Farm. Hope I'm learning to identify some of the "tone" problems you point out. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another. In the lead, "—the only natural waterfall on the entire length of the Mississippi River." Maybe shorten to, "the only natural waterfall on the Mississippi River"? -SusanLesch (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that one is fine, unless you really want to trim down the article word count. I haven't forgotten about this review; I just haven't had time - June through August/September is just probably going to be a hectic time for me at work most years now. Hog Farm Talk 04:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, good, we'll keep it. No worries, I'll hold on until you are free again. Best wishes, SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Resuming - I'm skipping the structural racism section for now as that is probably going to be the trickiest section to write and review and I'm simply too tired for that now.

So you know, that section is fairly tightly written and has been through WP:RSN.
"Sources disagree on the exact location and elevation of the city's highest point, which is cited as being between 965 and 985 feet (294 and 300 m) above sea level" - is Soper's 1915 figure really relevant anymore? The city has grown so much in the last 108 years that it's not surprising at all that more recent sources give a higher peak as the city expands
There's no reason to doubt Soper, the academic. Soper's estimate was 2 feet less ("965 feet, or thereabouts") than John Carman gave in 1975. And his location, identified by placenames that still exist, is loosely the same as contemporary sources. However, you have a good point. We can simplify the article by removing one old journal paper. So now we begin the disagreement in 1975 instead of 1915.
"Shaffer, Scott (February 7, 2018). "Low-density Zoning Threatens Neighborhood Character". Streets.mn. Retrieved March 13, 2023." - community blog, I don't know that this meets the high-quality RS bar for featured articles
Streets.mn was checked out at WP:RSN. So were several other sources, archived here. Everything passed (except one that had no comment) for noncontroversial use here. We only use it to define the term "non-conforming".
Would it be worthwhile to provide a sentence or two about the history of neighborhood development in Minneapolis? Right now the section is heavily weighted towards the zonining issue and a brief overview of neighborhood development would provide balance
For now, I resurrected the Neighborhood Revitalization Program that ran from 1991 to 2011, for which I have a book source. Brought this up to date with a combination of sources.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will continue, hopefully soon. Hog Farm Talk 16:27, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "The least-snowiest winter was 1890–91, when 11.1 inches (28 cm) fell" - cited source is [3] which doesn't seem to support this at all
Topic is over my pay grade. Inquired at WikiProject Weather.
Comment. The National Weather Service can't give me a URL. I submitted a data request to the Midwest regional office but the answer was they don't have a URL. So we're using Minnesota state DNR records which are up to date.
  • "who claim no religion[255] but among whom one third nationally tend to think a God exists." - I don't know that it's necessary to define that non-religious people claim no religion
Agreed. Removed that and combined two paras. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Minneapolis became the first major American city to allow broadcasting the Muslim call to prayer" - recommend rephrasing. This implies that there is a general ban on the call to prayer itself in its entirety, but the source indicates that Minnesapolis was actually the first to allow all five daily calls (for noise ordinance reasons), rather than the first to allow it at all. It surprises me a bit that this was considered a noise ordinance issue; I lived for awhile in a small town that sounded the danged emergency siren on the hour for every single daylight hour
I found a history (probably not an admissable source) and you are correct. Reworded, and cut the "major city" stuff. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • " it is the only exchange as of 2023 for hard red spring wheat futures and options" - recommend dropping the reference to options as the source is only really calling out that it's the only source for hard red spring wheat futures
The source mentions options on futures, but not specific to Minneapolis. Cut, thank you.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2023 (UTC) Ready for arts and culture, apologies this is taking so long. Hog Farm Talk 00:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "The center expanded in 2005 with an addition by Herzog & de Meuron.[283]" - I'd cut this sentence; this is more relevant to the Center article than to the overall article on Minneapolis from the more high-level view we need to take with articles on major cities like this. I have similar thoughts to the extensive description of the enlargements to the Mia. The idea is to give a general overview of the topic of Arts in Minneapolis, and I don't know that a blow-by-blow description of building renovations is necessarily part of a general overview of that topic.
Extra architects cut for both the Walker and Mia, thanks.
  • "helped make First Avenue and the 7th Street Entry the heart of American popular music" - "the heart of American popular music" is quite a strong statement to be made in Wikipedia's voice, I'd recommend using some form of direct attribution to a source here
Good thinking. Removed the footnote, refocused the statement, and attributed to Pitchfork, a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC.
  • I'm unsure of mentioning apparently non-notable concert venues by name. Theoretically any bar with a stage could be considered a concert venue, and we should only really be hitting the highlights here
Removed venues that don't have Wikipedia articles.
  • "After refugees explained the old name was a reminder of their most dreadful days, the American Refugee Committee changed its name to Alight. Alight helps millions of refugees in Africa and Asia with water, shelter, and economic support" - this needs significant work. The connection to Minneapolis is not at any point stated, and the discussion about the name change is not relevant to the city of Minneapolis. I'm sure the organization does good work, but this isn't the place to elaborate too much on a single organization.
Agreed, better to reduce the elaboration. Leave the name change to the Alight article.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:47, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ready for the historical museums section, also pinging in SandyGeorgia for another opinion on these points. Hog Farm Talk 01:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not in disagreement on any point you've raised so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Minneapolis hosts the world's only Somali history museum as of 2021" - The Somali government re-opened its national museum in 2020, and our article on the Somali Museum of Minnesota indicates that it's only possible its the only Somali history museum in the world. This seems to be an awfully strong claim to support with only a website seeking to highlight Minnesota tourism opportunities
Yes. Used a better source and trimmed that claim away.
  • "In 2016, following the killings of Philando Castile and Alton Sterling, Lynx captains wore black shirts as a protest by Black athletes for social change.[370]" - I'd argue that this belongs more in the article for the Lynx
Took it out.
  • "enabled Horace Cleveland to create his finest landscape architecture," - finest should be attributed to the specific author unless you can find a source indicating that this is a consensus view
Rewrote intro. At first attribution stood out like a sore thumb, but now it's better.
  • "Ruhe stopped the state from building a highway through Minnehaha Park, a conflict that the park board appealed to and won in the US Supreme Court. During Ruhe's tenure, the board learned to accommodate growing public participation, and it became an environmental steward when faced with Dutch elm disease and improving water quality.." - is this from those pages in Smith?
Yes. It's a summary not a quote.
  • "In 2022, 500 participants[386] ages 14 to 24 served as Teen Teamworks recruits for on-the-job training in green careers[387] or as future park employees.[388] " - I don't know that this is actually relevant to include; it's not unusual at all for cities to involve teen park workers in things
I was impressed by the numbers during a pandemic, and reluctantly removed.
I'm not going to be dogmatic about having this removed, if you feel strongly it can be re-added. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. In my latest rewrite, this brings a short historical intro up to the present, so I added it back in.

I'm open to discussing any of these as they could well be controversial; ready for the government section coming up next. Hog Farm Talk 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saving my powder for the Media section, the only place I anticipate pushing back. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hog Farm have you been through Parks and recreation yet? I don't understand this edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I had reviewed that section before that edit and had no objections to the sentence in question; the disputed sentence seems like a reasonable attribution of a subject matter expert to me. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is my impression as well; I don't understand the edit summary about a "non-notable book" when it's a notable author, and relevant information. I suggest the content be reinstated; the content is not UNDUE and there are plenty of sources speaking to status of Parks in Minneapolis. We may be excluding rankings from the article, but we know nonetheless where Minneapolis stands on its system of parks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Added. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Volunteer missionaries,[439] the Pond brothers got permission at Fort Snelling to teach new farming techniques and a new religion to Chief Cloud Man and his community on the east shore of Bde Maka Ska.[254]" - the first question is when this was occurring, and the who gave them permission is unclear as well. Is this from the Dakota, the US Army at Fort Snelling, or the territorial government?
Clarified. Permission was granted by the Indian agent at Fort Snelling (that's the US government). Added citation and year.
  • "divided between community and magnet" - is it worth linking magnet school here?
Good idea, done.
  • "Some of the magazines published in the city are [...] Artful Living" - we shouldn't be sourcing this to the magazine's own "advertise with us" page
Changed to a third party site. It's only a directory listing but is likely better.
  • I also don't know that we should be listing the magazines for which we don't have an independent source noting its existence; I've found that independent RS sourcing is usually a good test as to if mentioning something is due weight or not
Can of worms. I like your idea of RS sourcing but lacking that in general this section has become self-sourced which I know is a red flag for Sandy. I have been through this list for Media now maybe four times and am nearly burned out trying to defend every title. Past discussions were with SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm. I tried asking WikiProject Minnesota to try to track down the now-defunct Minnesota Magazine & Publishing Association (which had 95 members in 2007). Some of these passed WP:RSN where Banks Irk said "There are a lot of these community-based local news organizations that are basically replacing local newspapers." Wikipedia depends so much on these periodicals I cannot bear to cut them. Next to go would be Architecture Minnesota but who are we to choose winners and losers?
  • Removed Restaurant Franchise Monitor, The Tower, and in newspapers, Dispatch.
  • "about five bus rapid transit (BRT) lines" - cited source lists 6?
Changed to "about six". Considered saying "several" because at least two more are under construction.
  • "Racially discriminatory federal housing policies starting in the 1930s "prevented access to mortgages in areas with Jews, African-Americans and other minorities", and "left a lasting effect on the physical characteristics of the city and the financial well-being of its residents."" - extensive quote should be attributed inline
Source identified inline.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:48, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now skimmed through pretty much the whole article except for the lead, although chunks of it only rather light skimming because I am rather worn out. Once this last batch reaches resolution and I've gone through the lead, I would prefer to have a fresh and more energetic set of eyes look over it before I take a fuller pass through the article. Hog Farm Talk 01:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "As of the 2020 census the population was 429,954, making it the largest city in Minnesota and the 46th-most-populous in the United States" - this feels like something that should be mentioned in the body
Added to Census and estimates.
  • Several of the nicknames/motto provided in the lead are not sourced there or anywhere else and should be sourced
You're right. Everything has a source now.
  • "and, to the present day, preserved its financial clout." - ideally we should be sourcing this major claim to something better than a commission apparently run by the city to show how great the city is
Agreed. The citation is only there because of the sockpuppet farm that plays with our lead.
  • Because this is covered in Economy, omitted the citation altogether.
  • "The city's reputation for high quality of life notwithstanding," - I'm not seeing this general claim made directly in the body; for a statement as strong as this it should be worked into the body of the article and not just the lead
Since rankings were discouraged by RfC in 2021, it is tough to quantify "quality of life". For the metro area and sometimes by city, the state had a good source.
  • File:Log Drivers-by Michael Nowack-1881.jpg - Buidhe can explain this better than me but the licensing isn't as straightforward as it would seem here. The image may be from 1881, but we'd need proof of when it was first published because theoretically it could still be under copyright (the 1928 tag requires publishing by then). See Hirtle chart on Commons; I've had a painting from the 1860s rejected at a FAC or A-class image review before
Answered below to Buidhe.
  • File:Lake Calhoun MN.jpg - not sure on this one. The licensing claims that the copyright holder has released it, but the uploader to wikipedia doesn't seem to be the copyright holder and the file page indicates in multiple places that it would be copyright Larry Kanfer photography 2003. The original source link appears to be gone forever, so it may be better simply to replace this with another image of the lake. File:Minneapolis Skyline (234868322).jpg maybe?
OK. Unfortunately Internet Archive only captured the source after that long-standing photo was gone. I am happy to replace it.
  • Picked a scenic one because this is the Geography section. Turned out beautiful, Hog Farm, thank you.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll look back later, but this is it from me for now. Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Depending on when the 1881 photograph was published it could still be under copyright.
The Minnesota Historical Society (MNHS) claims its website would be done last summer. I called them a few months ago and there is no recourse except to wait for them. ("Access to Collections online is temporarily unavailable for remote and in-person researchers.") We know that Michael Nowack, the photographer, published something in 1881 that MNHS states is public domain. I can't speak for the log drivers.
  • Removed until MNHS comes back online.
  • Their reply today says "Unfortunately, due to unforeseen technical issues, we do not currently have a date for when Collections Online will be available again." -SusanLesch (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another issue I've noticed in excessively long sections such as "Lumber, waterpower, and flour milling" and single sentence paragraph in the demography section. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point. That single sentence was to differentiate between people from India who appeared in close proximity to American Indian reservations. Turns out that fixing chrono order was what we needed.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you recheck the what the source said on "In 1871, of the thirteen mills sawing lumber in St. Anthony, eight ran on water power and five ran on steam turbines" I believe that the steam turbine was not invented until 1884 and didn't come into real use until the 1900's. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surely. From page 146 of Agnes Larson's The White Pine Industry in Minnesota, A History: In 1871 thirteen mills were cutting lumber at St. Anthony Falls, giving employment to 831 people. Of those thirteen mills, eight were run by water power and five by steam turbine. The author mentions a "first-class" steam powered sawmill owned by Hersey, Staples and Company in Stillwater, Minnesota built in 1854 (page 17). Around there she writes, "Steam was beginning to come into its own." Her source is a book I've never seen: Hotchkiss, History of Lumber and Forest Industry of Northwest, p. 525, that is unfortunately not in the Internet Archive as far as I can see. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:24, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
HathiTrust has a copy here. It appears Wikipedia's article on steam turbines needs updating, no? -SusanLesch (talk) 18:53, 14 October 2023 (UTC) P.S. I double-checked another book The Falls of Saint Anthony by Lucile Kane. She says on page 108 that Another factor which contributed to the decline of sawmilling at the falls was steam power. As early as the 1850s and 1860s seven steam mills had operated at different times in the falls district. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:29, 14 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My guess is that the author made an error and should have said steam power or steam engines rather than steam turbines. I.E steam engines / steam power was prevalent then, steam turbines were still in future. But if the source said it, that's good enough from a Wikipedia standpoint. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Changed the article to say "steam power". Thank you.

Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SG Review

As the article is getting close to Keep territory, it may be helpful to scrutinize the lead more closely. Does it truly summarize the high points? At WP:TFA, would the lead provide the material that would be highlighted in a blurb? Examples I suggest addressing

As of the 2020 census the population was 429,954, making it the largest city in Minnesota and the 46th-most-populous in the United States.
Too much detail for the lead, and not really worthy of being the second line in the lead. I suggest removing the 46-th most bit to the body, and only mentioning in the lead "With a 2020 population of 429,954, it is the largest city in Minnesota."
Extra detail removed. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first paragraph is tangled with nine mentions of Minneapolis and Minnesota; I suggest that Dying might find a way to smooth this out.
Hi. The lead was constructed for the most part here and here by a sockpuppet farm. I threw up my hands some time ago but am happy to help if I can. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Minneapolis has its origins as the 19th century lumber and flour milling capitals of the world, and, to the present day, preserved its financial clout -->
Minneapolis was the 19th-century lumber and flour milling capital of the world and has preserved its financial clout into the 21st century.
Fixed.
waterfall on the entire length of the Mississippi River --> on the Mississippi River
Fixed.
on a section of land north of Fort Snelling.
Fixed.
Its growth is attributed. --> its growth was ? In the 19th century ?? Early growth was ??
Fixed.
metropolis located far from competing neighbors,[15] Minneapolis is the birthplace of General Mills, the Pillsbury brand, and the Target Corporation. ... No relationship between these two clauses
Fixed.

Part done. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I hope Dying, well-versed in fine-tuning leads towards writing the TFA blurb, will have a look and lend a hand. I think the lead could be much better. First pass only, will continue, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll continue my review on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

dying

thanks for the ping and praise, SandyGeorgia! SusanLesch, this will admittedly be the first time i contribute to either fac or far, so please let me know if there is anything i am doing incorrectly or if you have any suggestions for improvement.

Greetings, Dying! Excited to work with you.

offhand, three things about this lead jump out at me.

  • a decent number of statements appear to have been made as if minneapolis has something to prove. i think, to a neutral reader, this makes the city less impressive than it really is.
Wonderful comment (in line with some of Hog Farm's ideas and SandyGeorgia's work to eradicate false claims). Maybe you can help tone it down.
  • the lead seems to be a lot longer than those of comparable articles. because minneapolis is 46th on the list of u.s. cities by population, i also specifically looked at the articles for oakland (45th) and tulsa (47th), and both of them have leads that are roughly 20–30% shorter, even though they have longer article bodies.
Maybe four paragraphs should do it per WP:LEAD. You're right we've gone over. One point, I would try to compare cities that are featured articles (Wikipedia doesn't have many). Boston, Cleveland, Washington, DC, Ann Arbor, Michigan (although I don't know which ones are recent FAs). Our guidelines at WP:USCITIES has more info.
  • considering that minneapolis has recently been highly prominent in world news due to an incident that sparked a worldwide protest movement, it seems strange that this only seems to be referenced obliquely in the lead. (full disclosure: i started a few of the articles related to the protests.) for comparison, the article leads for the cities of wuhan, beirut, and mariupol all not only explicitly mention the unfortunate events that have recently brought them international attention, but also provide links to articles that cover the events in further depth.
I agree with you but sadly lost an RfC on the subject.

would you prefer to address these points before i perform a more in-depth copyedit? dying (talk) 10:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope that's enough to start. Good to meet you, Dying. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suggest Cleveland is the better example for comparison for the direction of the lead; it's a continuously maintained FA, and I'm uncomfortable with the idea of using non-FAs for guidance. SusanLesch are you comfortable then with having dying work directly on the lead? I see good room for reduction in the third paragraph and fifth (current city appointments are also recentism). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, indeed. -15:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Grand; dying, one way to make work at FAR easier on other reviewers and the Coords who have to close is to start a sub-section on the talk page of this FAR, as you can see I've done. Then, when you're done, you can summarize back to this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm working on SandyGeorgia's review on talk in my sandbox. Making progress every day. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:45, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SandyGeorgia and Dying: Done with SandyGeorgia's review. A couple questions and a note are marked. Dying, you could do our lead now if you can find the time. Sandy said she's busy elsewhere until at least Friday. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will get on it this weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies. I have to be out tomorrow early and need a day or two to complete an item I had thought was done. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Section done. Dying do you have a plan to go ahead with this lead? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
sorry for the delay, SusanLesch! unfortunately, another incident on wikipedia took up a good deal of my time recently. i have been working on the lead intermittently, but recently realized that it might be easier to start with the draft of a tfa blurb and then work backwards. i should post something on the talk page within a day or two. dying (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    apologies! my old machine recently gave up on me, and although i was lucky enough to be able to revive an even older machine, i've been falling behind in everything as a result, and i admittedly have not been able to prioritize this. i still intend to finish revising the lead, if that is okay. dying (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, my! Interruptions in hardware (and email) are the worst. When your stress level recovers, yes, please have at the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: Climate -- the new growing zone map (https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/) has the entire city and much of the surrounding suburbs in zone 5a now. Can someone make this change?

Done. Thank you, Sanctacruce21. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, my understanding is that Hog Farm and SandyGeorgia's reviews are done (both were lengthy, detailed reviews). Dying had a machine failure so the lead remains about the same, but they were able to write a TFA blurb (on talk). I made a couple more improvements to the article and ran IABot last week. Generally we had no status change since November. A couple questions are outstanding on Sandy's review (on talk). Is anyone available to !vote keep? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @George Ho, Z1720, and Hog Farm: are you available? Sandy said in October "As the article is getting close to Keep territory...." She and I cleaned up this article over the past couple years. Sorry to ping you. Best wishes, SusanLesch (talk) 15:29, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'll take a look but have no idea when I can get to it. I just moved last weekend; I'm not sure which box my primary laptop is in and we don't have reliable internet access set up yet. Hog Farm Talk 16:34, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you, Hog Farm. While we're waiting I'll try to update Climate. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am working our polls for the presidential primary in the next two weeks and turn into a pumpkin tomorrow until March 7. In the meantime I tried to recruit a weather expert at the WikiProject. (Outdated climate data seems to be a hurdle with lots of old FAs.) -SusanLesch (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update to anyone worried about the climate box, I updated the data so it goes back to 1873, with a note explaining where the weather station is. I also removed some unnecessary parts of the table that aren't accessible in the NOWData source. Thanks SusanLesch (talk · contribs) for reaching out to the weather WikiProject. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Beautiful, elegant job. Thank you so much, Hurricanehink. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William Wilberforce[edit]

Notified: [4], May 2022

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns I raised a year ago about the sourcing and comprehensiveness, which have yet to be addressed. (t · c) buidhe 05:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Working. § Lingzhi (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here is the link to Buidhe's comments. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Buidhe there is an over reliance on one text and this does mean that perhaps all the relevant literature has not been explored. Bayne, Belmonte, Carey, Furneux, Hennell, Pura, Reed, Rodriquez, Vaughan texts appear in the sources list but have not been cited within the article. Article does appear salvageable with some work. MaxnaCarta (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I completely revamped the referencing system. Not saying it's perfect; just saying it is now much, much, much easier to work with. Replacing all the Hague stuff becomes easier (but still not easy), forex. More later. Hoping others will pitch in too. § Lingzhi (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Here's my plan: First I have to finish a Talk:Logic/GA1. After that, I'm gonna turn to Wilberforce (unless someone comments on my poor, unloved FAC). For Wilberforce, I'm gonna use my sandbox extensively. Others will be free to use it too, if anyone so desires. There I'll make a bullet-point list of all the Hague 2007 cited text such as "which at the time was headed by a young, dynamic headmaster, Joseph Milner, who was to become a lifelong friend.[11]" When I find it in a better source, I'll strike through that item in my sandbox and change the cite in article text... FAR is supposed to take 2 weeks? It is very possible I will not finish before then. Cheers. § Lingzhi (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

() A cold-hearted and selfish thought has occurred to me: if User:Slp1 declines to help, then I should just let it be delisted. Then I can fix everything at my leisure (it's gonna take time!) and renominate. So that's what I'll do. § Lingzhi (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Email Slp1?
This FAR was launched on 8 May; Slp1 has not posted since 7 May, so we can guess they haven't yet seen the FAR (someone might consider emailing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see an email address on her user page. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Email this user" is in the standard toolbox on the left-hand side of the page at User:Slp1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alas, NO, it seems it's under TOOLS in the skin I use. I did CTRL-F and did not see it... because it is under TOOLS... but thank you for telling me... and now I will look under TOOLS for email address... will email her... tks. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Warning that posting on someone's talk page already sends an email to the address on record (there is no way to disable this as far as I know). However, it's always possible that she might respond to a second email. (t · c) buidhe 17:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only if you have your Preferences --> Notifications set that way (I don't, for example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I suppose I can keep chipping away at it, but it won't be my highest priority. I have other things and that I want to work on. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 14:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the direct email. I do not have email notifications enabled. I have had and continue to have a lot going on in real life at present, but I will try to answer the various points here tomorrow.Slp1 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll start by admitting that I have a jaundiced view of the FAR process based on an unpleasant past experience. It does not seem to be a collaborative process and that is a pity. In this case, it seems that I am supposed to fix up the problems that others identify, and if I do not respond, or "decline to help", the article will be delisted. Isn't this an encyclopedia anybody can edit? Why not do it yourself? However, since Lingzhi.Renascence has kindly shown some interest in helping, and indeed has already started work on the references (thank you!), I will try to put this behind me and engage.
The initial post states that there's too much sourcing from "the 2007 biography by politician William Hague." This is a biographical article and to get the detailed information required for this, the best sources are biographies. WP requires the use of reliable published sources: we looked at all the biographies published and the Hague article was the most detailed. It is published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, and received generally positive reviews [5][6];[7][8][9][10][11]. It has been widely cited according to google scholar [12]. Several of the others were Christian hagiographies that were thoroughly unsuitable (e.g. Belmonte, Metaxas). Tompkins was another option but is shorter and less detailed. Pollock was very old. The Hague book was used mainly to cite the life story of Wilberforce, the facts of which are hardly controversial/open to bias, even if yes, it was written by a former politician (who had incidentally also written another well-reviewed book about William Pitt). But many other books were used, including the highly contrasting Hochschild whenever possible- although his book is not a biography so does not cover major parts of Wilberforce's life.
There have been no biographies published since 2007. I guess it would be possible to change some of the citations to Tompkins, but I don't see the point unless someone can point out some examples of inaccuracies/POV in the facts cited from Hague. Many FA biographies cite mainly from one biography.
The original post links to some possible sources that "don't get enough attention":
  • [13]-Teaching History for a Moral Purpose: Wilberforce as Evangelical Hero. That this happened is mentioned in the article already. The author is talking to a particular audience (Christian (evangelical) history teachers), pointing out that Abolition wasn't just thanks to Wilberforce etc, that he was not perfect etc, all of which is reflected in the article. The chapter has only been cited once since it was written but I guess we could be the second and use it to expand the article a bit about how Wilberforce continues to be portrayed by a certain segment of the world.
  • [14] Freedom Burning Anti-Slavery and Empire in Victorian Britain. Wilberforce died before the Victorian era, and he is only mentioned once, very briefly in the book.
  • [15] The Grand Object of my Parliamentary Existence’: William Wilberforce and the British Abolition Campaigns, 1783-1833 . A PhD dissertation. I haven't read it all but based on the abstract and a quick glance it is probably useful as another source for some of the detail of the parliamentary campaigns if somebody wants to switch in references for some reason. For what it is worth, it is has never been cited elsewhere according to googlescholar.
  • [16] This is a very good find and WW's involvement in the capital punishment issue is something completely missing from the article. I will look into including this.
  • [17] William Wilberforce and ‘the Saints’ in "Making and remaking saints in nineteenth-century Britain". I haven't been able to see the full text, but from the abstract it seems to be more about the creation of a new form of evangelical biography and of a new concept of "a practical saint", using the sons' bio of William Wilberforce as an example. From what I can see perhaps a brief mention is required here... likely more useful in the bios of his sons who actually wrote the books.
The original post also mentions "the legacy section needs expansion for Wilberforce's use in anti-abortion and other modern-day conservative/evangelical causes." This is really interesting and would be be great to include if there are sources. None of the sources given above mention abortion, and when I did a search in various scholarly search engines/databases, the only non-primary source I could come up with was this [18] which is rather old (2002) and perhaps not the the best source re editorial control. Maybe I am missing other reliable sources (I hope I am, to be honest) but if not I would worry about undue weight/original research issues with only this one secondary source.
That's all I have time for now. Slp1 (talk) 22:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree that worrying about whether an article is drawn too much from one source is a little (or a little more than a little) bit ticky-tacky, if that source is valid. Valid is as valid does, and if the facts can be verified, then what's the issue? [This is an evolved position for me: many years ago I would have been strongly on the other side of the fence here. I am mellowing just a tiny bit with age.] I personally do not agree with raising this FAR/FARC. But User:Buidhe did raise one valid point: Conservatives drew metaphorical connections between Wilberforce/slavery and the abortion issue. I personally did not know this. I do agree that at least one paragraph needs to be added about this. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 22:53, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I would love to add a section about Wilberforce/abortion, but as I mentioned, I could only find 1 semi-reliable secondary source about it. When I have time I will look again, but would welcome other eyes. --Slp1 (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • My main concern about sourcing has to do with WP:HQRS and the FA criteria. When I first looked at the article it did not seem to me that this source should qualify as HQRS according to the FA criteria. If it can be demonstrated to do so, as seems to be the case based on what Slp1 has written above, I am not so concerned. (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Two questions, then: 1) Is the source valid or not? 2) If it is, is that enough to close this FAR, assuming that Slp1 and/or I promise to write a paragraph about abortion? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 23:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is no need or reason to close the FAR before changes are addressed; doing that assures a stamp of approval and provides a diff to that version in article history. It doesn't seem there is much remaining to do, and there is no resistance at FAR to keeping the page open if the intent is to make the (few) improvements that are indicated here. Closing a FAR is the equivalent of passing FAC, so any issues should be all sewn up before that is done. The idea that being at FAR is some sort of badge of shame is just not the case; it's a place where delisting only happens if improvements aren't being addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I also concur that sometimes we are forced to limited biographies; this certainly happened with both Kirk and Smith at J. K. Rowling, as she has not authorized a biography. It does seem that some things have been identified that could be addressed, so I hope both (lingzhi and Slp1) will engage to address those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Buidhe: Is the source RS, or not? @Slp1: You wanna write a paragraph about Wilberforce and abortion, or shall I, or us together? § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 10:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first step, per NPOV, is to find out if there are enough reliable secondary sources to write anything about it at all. One, very old, not-very-good source is not enough, unfortunately. I will look for more sources (perhaps newspapers?) this evening -though to be honest, I don't like the approach of searching for sources to justify the inclusion of something. It is the wrong way go research for an encyclopedia article. I will report my results on the talkpage of the article Slp1 (talk) 14:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slp1, can you remember to summarize conclusions back to this page (with a permalink to article talk for archival purposes) when the time approaches for others to enter declarations? Else, the process here is for others to wait until you are done working, and to give you time and space ... My main concern is your statement above that "[13] This is a very good find and WW's involvement in the capital punishment issue is something completely missing from the article. I will look into including this.". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I will do. I have not forgotten the capital punishment article and will get to it at the weekend probably. Slp1 (talk) 00:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slp1, you seem to have this situation in hand. Ping me if you need anything. (I do mean that). I'm unwatching.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingzhi.Renascence (talkcontribs) 12:22, May 24, 2023 (UTC)

Slp1 is this ready for a new look yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not yet. Life is busy. Trying to finish it off soon. Slp1 (talk) 20:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: Slp1 made some edits the past few days, so work seems to be starting up again. Z1720 (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I think I am pretty much done. Sorry that it has taken so long but I have many things going on in my life at present. A quick report:
In general, it was good to go over the text. Some errors and some unnecessary digressions had been introduced, so a freshen up was needed.
After considerable searching, I did find enough reliable sources about Wilberforce's name being used by conservative Christian groups in N. America, so I added a couple of sentences to the Legacy section. [19]
My memory was failing me when I said that the capital punishment issue was missing from the article. I It was already there, but I have expanded a bit based on the Devereaux article.[20] [21]
The main remaining issue is referencing. I would like to know what the rules are about this. When the article passed FA in 2008 we used Harvard for books (to give page numbers) and citation templates for other sources [22]. I guess the rules have changed since then? Lingzi very kindly changed everything to Harvard but I find this very difficult to work with. You have to add and delete references in two places. It is a buggy. I don't think it is ideal for readers as they have to look in two places to see a reference. It also increases the maintenance issues as people tend to use citation templates when they add material which somebody who knows how Harvard works (ie not me!) then has to convert to the Harvard system. Anyway, I gather people have strong feelings about this, but for what it is worth my preference would be either to have the old mixed system or to convert to the citation templates totally. I will do it, although I will be very sorry about Lingzhi's work going to waste. However, I think it will be easier to keep up to snuff. Please advise Slp1 (talk) 08:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "rules" have not changed; an overall change to sfn was not indicated, a mixed system is still accepted, and you can change it back to what it was, as long as it is consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was waiting to see if other had comments on this, but it seems not. Okay, I will start the process of restoring the former mixed system. I continued to be very pressed for time due to family issues, but will make a start on a draft page today or tomorrow.Slp1 (talk) 13:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slp1, how's it going? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have pretty much done. It is here [23]. I cannot figure out how to make note b have a reference. If anybody can help that would be wonderful. I am also not sure about the names and order of the sections of references so welcome comments and suggestions about that too.. as well as about anything else of course.Slp1 (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Slp1 Would it help to look at the notes at J. K. Rowling? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great idea!! Sorry should have thought of something similar myself!! I don't have time now, but maybe later. Slp1 (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, I have finished my labours, for now at least. It is ready for others to take a look.Slp1 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Buidhe? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The article has been cleaned up a ton for which I thank slp1 and other editors who helped. Reading through the changes made since the FAR nomination, it's clear that most of the sources added are improvements. However, I did notice one source—Amazing Grace in the Life of William Wilberforce—that I just can't agree is a high quality RS. The author is not a historian, rather an evangelist and theologian, and I cannot find any independent sources attesting to the accuracy of the book. (t · c) buidhe 02:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I agree. That source was in the article at the original FA and I agree it is not the best. It was supported in its entirety by Pollock, so was not actually needed. I have replaced it with Tomkins. --Slp1 (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right, I have no objection to keeping at this point. (t · c) buidhe 14:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm having a hard time seeing how

  • His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation ...

summarizes the content of this section. First, it reads as if conservatism = politically repressive legislation, which doesn't follow. Second, the section reads as if the issues were that a) he opposed unions, and b) he wasn't as active in advancing legislation on national relative to international issues, and c) he had (then) traditionally conservative religious views on women, but offsetting that we have the whole paragraph beginning with "More progressively, ... " which includes multiple issues as well as his philanthropy and seems overlooked in the lead summary. I'm concerned that the lead gives more weight to certain criticisms than to certain beliefs and achievements. Do the sources support the wording more progressively? Those words seem to indicate that those achievements were somehow at odds with his conservatism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think that your assumptions hold. In this case he supported legislation that was politically and socially repressive of unions, Catholics, and people trying to organize "seditiously". The supporters of the legislation were largely British conservatives. It does not require any assumption about different varieties of conservatism over time and in different countries. That said, if you have an idea of better phrasing you could propose it here. I deleted the phrase "more progressively" as I don't think it's necessary. (t · c) buidhe 01:15, 18 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not sure if there is a difference in what 'conservative/conservatism' means in different countries that is causing difficulties, but multiple reliable sources confirm that Wilberforce was (small c) conservative (in the sense that he did not believe in significant changes to society), and that as a result he often supported repressive legislation and did not support progressive reforms. A wide range sources mention this from (big C) Conservatives (William Hague) to religious historians (Andrew Walls to the more left wing American journalist/historian Adam Hochschild.
  • Hague in the bio: "Such views were pure Wilberforce: for although he spearheaded the abolitionist campaign and led so many other endeavours on the basis of justice, fairness, and concern for the poor or destitute, he was no political radical. He was utterly conservative when it came to the defence of the constitution or the existing political order, seeing revolution or anything approaching it as hostile both to religion and to wise and considered leadership" p.255; "It is largely because of Wilberforce’s attitude towards domestic discontent after the war that he has sometimes been seen as having a narrow and unbending view of British society, confirming the impression made to history by his support for the Combination Act in the 1790s that he was the enemy of many progressive political causes."p.444 "The seeming contradictions of Wilherforce’s life have always made him difficult to unravel and understand: a man of conservative disposition who devoted much of his life to one of the great progressive causes of his time";p 505 . Note in particular how the word conservative and progressive are used by a Conservative.
  • Walls 2023 "Although Wilberforce and his colleagues were vigorous campaigners on such issues, they were often conservative on domestic social issues. A Baptist like Carey might welcome the French Revolution, at least in its early stages; Wilberforce trembled at it and supported all the British goverment's repressive legislation in the wake of it. The political reflexes of Wilberforce were invariably conservative. He had no vision of a new society . He thought, indeed, that the British constitution already embodied all the excellencies….. This is no social revolutionary. He acknowledges inequality, even that inequality produces evils, but does not expect to these to change, does not seem to think of them within the sphere or public policy." p 70 pg=PT70&printsec=frontcover
  • Hochschild "Within a few years of Bennet Langton’s dinner party, West Indian planters would be burning Wilberforce in effigy; later, it was reported, runaway slaves in the Jamaican backcountry would be praying to Saint Wilberforce. It was a most unlikely fate for a gentle, impractical man who, on almost every other major issue, was profoundly conservative. He was against increasing the tiny number of Britons with the right to vote, fearful of any attempt to mobilize public opinion, and dismayed by members of the lower classes or women who questioned their assigned places in the social order.” p 124 Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 3 December 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.

Concerto delle donne[edit]

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

Review section[edit]

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

Did some urgent fixes and will park these lists of sources to use here. It seems like Newcomb 1980 is available at a local library. That's for sourcing & completeness; someone more adept that me will need to handle MOS problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did some expansion. Newcomb 1980 seems to be the most comprehensive source on the group, so I can see why he would be the main source. Stras 2018 seems to be a bit more generally discussing the music scene in Ferrara, rather than a detailed analysis of the concerto delle donne. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, starting to try to catch up ... where does this stand; do you think the article meets comprehensiveness? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it passes on comprehensiveness, keeping in mind however that I only considered sources that show up on Google Scholar. There are some bits in the page source that need further thought. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:15, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The additions look great, thanks Jo-Jo! I recall working on this for a bit but stepping back due to time commitments. Hopefully I can look throughout it more next week... am thinking that the biggest issues right now are source References formatting and the rather poor lead. Aza24 (talk) 21:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aza24 are you going to be able to look at this, or should we be moving to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I think so. Give me till the end of the weekend—if I don't get to it by then we can move it FARC. Aza24 (talk) 06:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at this today – Aza24 (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looked at it a bit today. I still have more cleanup to do, but at the moment these are the issues I see remaining (this list is for my own personal use as well)
  • Needs many more reference to Stras
  • A few missing citations still (one is marked), about cross dressing, the ballet etc.
  • Probably need a collage pic of the Duke and Duchess in the beginning of history
  • Emphasis on Luzzaschi and near absence of anyone else may be undue, I'm not sure
  • Note b needs to be expanded to include the similar contradiction from Pendle and Grove
  • Music section is a bit of a mess; badly organized and laid out. The composers
  • Really needs an image of sheet music (which I can engrave and then upload)
  • I don't think Yarris is a "high quality source"
  • Similar doubts about Kuhn
    • Looked at this further and believe its high quality enough – Aza24 (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • There is a great long-ish quote from Vincenzo Giustiniani (in Burkholder) which could go in quote box for the Influence section
  • Lead needs a complete rewrite, including the names of important composers and singers
  • Minor clean up matters regarding linking first mentions (& overlinking) and giving translations to Italian terms
  • Overall, I think there are two main issues:
    • Rewrite of the music section
    • I think the whole article will have to be recontextualized a little. Too much emphasis on the Ferrera court and practically none in comparison for the equivalent ensembles at Mantua, Florence, etc. Britannica's article is (surprisingly) a good model in this regard Aza24 (talk) 06:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It seems like the Wikipedia Library is down, so I can't do anything about Stras or the other concerti or the citation tag at the moment. I looked for an image of Duke and Duchess, but apparently there are only separate images. It seems like Monteverdi is more commonly mentioned than Luzzaschi in sources, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No worries! I have a PDF of Stras (which I can send?—email me if so) that I'm planning to add from. For the Duke/Duchess I meant a collage (double) image, which I've just added. – Aza24 (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can't do anything before tomorrow, sorry. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Began to work a bit with Stras. I am going to warn folks that since musicology is very far from my areas of knowledge/interest, I am perhaps not the person to ask for a proper due weight evaluation. I got as far as p.167 in Stras. I've asked at WP:RX for one source for the crossdressing thing. Does anyone have access to this book? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just found a PDF. If you email me I can send it to you. Aza24 (talk) 20:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Are you up for rewriting the music section? This is a topic on which I understand essentially nothing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes I think so. Was looking into what that would consist of earlier – Aza24 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Aza24 where does this stand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Should hopefully be able to work on it this week. Back from vacation now. I think its definitely trending towards a positive direction Aza24 (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Aza24? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Uhhhhhhh, sorry I am getting v distracted. I assure you all this is still on my radar Aza24 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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