Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2020

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates‎ | Archived nominations
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 28 March 2020 [1].

Pierre Le Gros the Younger edit

Nominator(s): Gerbis (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the French baroque sculptor Pierre Le Gros (1666-1719) who lived and worked in Rome for most of his adult life and became one of the best known sculptors of his day in Europe.

Le Gros has been the object of my studies for more than 30 years (on and off, obviously) and much of this article is based on my own, published and peer reviewed research. I have updated this to include more recent studies by other scholars and have quoted and referenced others in preference to myself where possible. But I have tried to avoid unreliable populist opinions from online sources. While taking them seriously and drilling down into their references (if given), I have found most to be wrong or ultimately based on my own published material.

In parallel, editing this article and cross-referencing it has lead me to numerous small updates of related articles and a couple of complete rewrites, so there was a lot of collateral work involved.

I have been digging deep into wikimedia, flickr and other non-commercial image sites to establish as complete a list of images of Le Gros' work as possible and found many of them - proving that there are other people out there who find his work interesting, not just me. I also uploaded some of my own images which, as it turned out, weren't always the best quality or were copyrighted, so I couldn't upload them. But I tried my best.

The writing style I adopted is factual but, I hope, not too dry and easily digestible. I have also tried to avoid jargon except for some relatively broadly known specialist words but at the same time linked them to other wikipedia articles to clarify what they mean. The translations of quotes from other languages, particularly French, are my own, and I'm happy to listen to suggestions to improve them if they're found wanting.

All in all, I hope you like what I produced... Gerbis (talk) 07:59, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

This is a gallery of works by the article's subject who worked in the field of visual arts. Such arts are nothing if they are not visible. The works are mentioned in the text but the images can't practically follow the text flow, so they are at the end. This approach is equivalent to listing the published books of a writer. To remove the gallery would mean you'd send the reader to a haphazard structure in wikimedia in which all emphasis and chronology will be lost. Gerbis (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, done. Gerbis (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Pierre_Le_Gros_Portrait.jpg needs a US PD tag
Done. Gerbis (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Véturie_by_Pierre_Legros_the_Younger,_Tuileries_Garden,_Paris_September_2010.jpg: since France does not have freedom of panorama, this will need a tag for the original sculpture. Same with File:Triumph_of_Faith_over_Idolatry_Theodon.jpg, File:Religion_Overthrowing_Heresy_and_Hatred_Legros.jpg, File:Clement_by_Pierre_Le_Gros.jpg, File:Stanislaus_Kostka_Legros_n1.jpg, File:Pierre_legros,_san_tommaso,_entro_nicchia_disegnata_dal_borromini,_02.jpg, File:Pierre_legros,_monumento_a_gregorio_XV_e_al_cardinale_ludovico_ludovisi,_1709-1717,_02.jpg, File:Cappella_Antamori.jpg, File:Card._Ludovico_Ludovisi.jpg, File:S._Ignatius_Le_Gros_Gesu_Rome.jpg, File:Pierre_legros,_gloria_di_san_luigi_gonzaga,_1697-99,_03.jpg, File:Pius_V_Tomb.jpg, File:Pierre_legros,_sepolcro_del_cardinale_girolamo_casanate,_1707_cropped.jpg, File:Duc_de_Bouillon_in_Battle.jpg, File:St_Dominic_by_Pierre_Le_Gros.jpg, File:Sant'andrea_al_quirinale,_stanze_del_convento,_cappella_di_san_stanislao_kostka,_statua_del_santo_di_pierre_legros_00.JPG, File:St_Francis_Xavier_by_Pierre_Le_Gros.jpg, File:Duc_de_Bouillon.jpg, File:Éléonore_Duchesse_de_Bouillon.jpg, File:San_Pietro_in_Vincoli_-_Tomba_del_Card._Cinzio_Passeri_Aldobrandini_1.jpg, File:Biblioteca_Casanatense_cropped.jpg, File:Heinrich_II_Montecassino.jpg, File:Chiesa_San_Giacomo_in_Augusta_18.jpg, File:Rom,_die_Kirche_San_Giacomo_in_Augusta,_Kapelle,_Bild_1.JPG, File:Bartholomaeus_San_Giovanni_in_Laterano_2006-09-07.jpg, File:Duomo_di_Torino_4.JPG, File:St_Agnese_in_Agone_Rome_interior_06_cropped.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are mostly found images on wikimedia. I can't see it being my task to update everybody's uploads. Gerbis (talk) 09:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only those that you want to use in this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Legros died in 1719, & his works are out of copyright (even in France). What does freedom of panorama have to do with it? The gallery is absolutely fine, per WP:GALLERY, except that it is in the wrong place. It should be at the end of the text. It might be better to break it up into two or three smaller galleries within the text. Johnbod (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Ian edit

Recusing from coord duties, tks for bringing this article to FAC, but on a quick run-through I have serious concerns:

  • A good deal of the article appears unreferenced. At least a dozen paragraphs don't end with citations, which they should, even if citations in the following paragraph cover the last statements in the one preceding. This applies particularly with claims such as During their lifetime however, they were regarded throughout Europe as outstanding figures, valued as exemplary by generations of young artists.
  • Spotchecking the language while scanning for citations suggests an essay rather than an encyclopedic article, for example:
    • It is astonishing that one of the first things a first time visitor mentions is that Kostka looks so lifelike when, in fact, the statue couldn't be more artificial.
    • Alas, none of this highly original concept was ever to have any influence on the development of monumental funerary sculpture.
    • While Le Gros was put in his place, he was not down and out.
    • An impartial look shows Le Gros as a driving force in an international environment.

If only one these issues was present I mightn't recommend withdrawal but taken together I think it'd be preferable to work on the article away from FAC and bring it back for another go later. Note that the above is not an exhaustive list. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by KJP1 edit

I'm afraid I will have to second the above Oppose, and for mostly the same reasons.

Prose
The article is engagingly written and finely illustrated, but it does read as an essay, rather than an article drawing on reliable secondary sources. Ian gives some examples above, but there are plenty more; e.g.
  • "lost his long battle for artistic dominance to a prevailing classicist tendency against which he fought in vain";
  • "At the same time, La Teulière could not help being a little proud of his protégé who managed to beat the cream of sculptors in Rome";
  • "The sheer panache and virtuosity of this group launched Le Gros' career";
  • "Alas, none of this highly original concept was ever to have any influence on the development of monumental funerary sculpture";
  • "have now been given their rightful place in the pantheon of artistic geniuses".
Other concerns
  • The article is rather cite-lite for an FA, with many paragraphs uncited, as are almost all of the notes;
  • I don't know the etiquette for an editor citing their own works, as you have done here extensively. There may well be no issue here, I'm just not sure, but I'd certainly want other views. Two examples, among many: "The importance of Le Gros for European art in the 18th century is, therefore, beyond question.[1]" "All of Le Gros' work is characterised by a dynamic of far and near view. It is worth getting close up to even his most heroic-scale figures"- these statements asserting Le Gros' notability/importance are both cited to your own book;
  • The lead is rather too short.

It is a very interesting article, for which many thanks, but stylistically I think it is some way off meeting the FA criteria. KJP1 (talk) 09:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On looking back at it, I'm agreeing with your suggestion to withdraw. I think, language got the better of me the longer I worked on this. I will revise when I have the time. Gerbis (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Buidhe edit

  • When citing sources, you have to give the page number or narrow enough range that the information can be verified. Preferably this is one or two pages, certainly not more than ten as I see in some cases.
  • Some of the notes are not cited, such as "Both, [sic] composition and flatness are very reminiscent of Germain Pilon's famous gisant of Valentine Balbiani (c. 1583)." Is that original research? If not, cite.
  • Since you've withdrawn the nomination I suggest incorporating these suggestions before renominating. Hope to see you again here! buidhe 19:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • For what it's worth, I had a quick look at the article and I don't see anything insurmountable in terms of prose and referencing. It needs a lick of polish, which is where a GA nomination or peer review would have come in handy before FAC, but assuming all the information in the article can be supported by the sources—in which case it's just a case of finding page numbers and adding a few ref tags here and there—it shouldn't need a huge effort to bring it up to standard. I made one little edit earlier and i'll make a few more little copy edits. Hopefully these are helpful but feel free to revert if not. I'd be happy to do a proper review when you renominate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod edit

Needs loads more refs, and (especially those to your own book) page numbers. It would be good to couple many of these with other books that may be more readily available. As you can see above, WP:PEACOCK has always made any stylistic analysis of art, especially if enthusiastic, tricky on WP. I generally just use quotes, which are accepted. I'm sure it would be fine after a bit of work. Johnbod (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: What's the status of this nom? I see a couple of references above to it having been withdrawn. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikki, as I'm recused it will be for Andy or Ealdgyth to make the call. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 March 2020 [2].

Red Dwarf edit

Nominator(s): MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British science-fiction sitcom Red Dwarf. Airing its first episode in 1988, its noted as one of the longest-running British sitcoms in history whilst retaining its original cast, having aired its most recent episode in 2017 and preparing to air a feature-length television film next month. Besides that, it has managed to spawn a plethora of other media ranging from magazines to video games to an attempted American reboot.

I believe its reached the point where its quality can act as an example to fellow television shows/franchises on how to structure your Wikipedia article. All responses in regards to its nomination are welcome and I'll be very much alert on what you believe it needs additional work on. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: Yo. Actually, though, you've only edited the page about Dwarf 40 times, and have added no substantial amounts of prose. Incidentally, this nomination is meant to go at the top of the page, not half way down it 😃 cheers! ——SN54129 09:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what you mean by this, do I need to have made substantial edits to the article myself to rightfully nominate it? I didn't see that when I was looking up the process. Not claiming the article as my work, I only changed photos to be more appropriate and citations for accessibility. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it." Ah. I see this now, I apologize for my ignorance. Do you recommend removing the nomination? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 09:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would recommend withdrawing it and asking GoCE for a FAC level copy edit. On a quick spot check the prose doesn't look FAC ready to me yet. Looking at a couple more sections, some are pretty good, some are spotty. The poorer ones could probably do with some fresh and experienced eyes on them. If you decide not to withdraw, give me a ping and I'll look at it in more detail - it is possibly that I randomly picked the only two poor quality sections. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken: (with apologies for the tardiness of this reply) Well; I'm not going to oppose just to get my name on Mike Christie's monthly stats chart, but this^^^ is an excellent offer, which I'd heartily recommend you take up. A "FAC-level copy-edit" from GoCE...who ever knew such a beast  ;)  !!! @FAC coordinators: please. ——SN54129 18:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Lee Vilenski edit

  • Aside from the fact the nominator is not a major contributor (and I'd recommend withdrawing) there is a lot of things staring out to me that suggests the article is closer to a WP:GAR than an FAC. Here's a small list of things I saw quickly:
    • WP:LEDECITE
    • MOS:LEDE says the lede section should be no more than four paragraphs
    • Article in general has an issue with tiny paragraphs
    • Sections run-ons. There's a total of 13 subsections of "Spin-offs", 11 in production.
    • The lede says that there are 11 series, and an additional miniseries, but who made that quote that it wasn't a full series?
    • Cite needed tag in body
    • Unreliable sourcing
    • Duplinks
    • Do we need a table for the characters in the US Series? It could easily be done in prose.
    • [111][112][113][114] - refbomb.
    • No sourcing whatsoever for the ratings... Which only cover some series... And should really be a WP:SPLIT.
    • Episodes needs sourcing

The above was just on a casual glance... I can't support the promotion of an article in this state. I love Red Dwarf, and I hope some of the above can help the article be improved Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note edit

Hi, as well as taking the above recommendations on board, you could consider trying the FAC mentoring scheme to assist in a future nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. 20:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 17 March 2020 [3].

Leptospirosis edit

Nominator(s): Cerevisae (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the general view of a neglected tropical disease named leptospirosis. Everything has been done to make sure the article reaches the FA status. Making the article featured will help more people to understand this disease and help to spread awareness. Thank you.Cerevisae (talk) 12:51, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG edit

  • MOS:CAPTIONS for starters.
  • Citation style is not consistent.
  • This article is greatly improved from its first appearance at FAC. but, There are prose issues evident throughout, suggesting the need for an independent copyedit. I strongly encourage the nominator to seek collaborators, and to engage with WT:MED to improve the article before approaching FAC. Samples:
  • Efforts to prevent the disease include protective equipment ... protective equipment are not "efforts".
  • Overuse of however throughout, also check subsequently.
  • WP:MOSNUM issues, eg, and six to 20 micrometers long. ...

More to come, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose and suggest withdrawal after seeing this IP edit from Penn State, which scratches the surface of the level of problems (without even looking at sourcing). User:Cerevisae I am sorry to have to suggest twice now that you should withdraw this article from FAC, but medical FAs are possibly the hardest to write of all topics on Wikipedia, and you should have engaged WPMED early on and planned for sustained involvement and copyediting before nominating. Further, bringing this forward during the COVID-19 pandemic practically assures that few medical editors will have enough time to devote to this now. I would hope not to see this article back at FAC until several experienced medical FA writers say it is ready, and that could be quite some time away given how busy everyone is on COVID. (I hope you won't be distracted by the idea below that you have to cite specific page numbers on journal articles; that is fiction, and focusing on minor issues like that is a detraction from the overall level of unpreparedness for FAC of this article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild - leaning oppose edit

  • Cerevisae, I note that this is the first article you have nominated for FA. Have you followed the advice

    Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination.

    at the head of the FAC page? I do not wish to depress you with a long list of fairly basic points; nor should I need to at FAC. Articles are supposed to arrive here needing only minor polishing. No individual point that I have found in this article is fatal, but cumulatively they indicate a good, solid article which does not have prose yet ready for FAC. A rapid and thorough copy edit may yet save this nomination so far as I am concerned; otherwise I recommend withdrawal to work with someone who understands what is required of FACs - a list of volunteers is here - and/or a copy edit by GoCE. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Buidhe

FA mentorship is a mixed bag; I didn't have success with it myself. The nominator has gone to great effort to improve the article since the last nomination and it went through a recent copyedit at WP:GOCE, so if there are prose/MOS issues that were missed, perhaps they should be identified and offered as feedback to the copyeditor? Personally, I don't think this article is too far off from FAC criteria, but page numbers are important for WP:V. buidhe 20:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal citations do not require page numbers; books do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I disagree. Anything that the writers of the article can do to improve ability to check the information is invaluable to source reviewers. If it's just a really brief article that's one thing but it's not clear how long these articles are. buidhe 20:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement to specify page numbers on journal citations; writing a medical FA is hard enough, we don't need to make it even harder, or confuse new nominators. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:Citing sources#What information to include: "Citations for journal articles typically include ... volume number, issue number, and page numbers". Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your suggestion. I tried to find a mentor once but he said he was busy with other things. I will try to search for other mentors.Cerevisae (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, yes page numbers (plural) are included, as a range. Anyone who has not read the entire journal article shouldn’t be citing it at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - This reads like my old, scribbled lecture notes. The prose does not flow; the text is just one short sentence after another. It fails our first criterion "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". Graham Beards (talk) 14:09, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Timeline of the Donald Trump presidency (2017 Q1) edit

Nominator(s): Mgasparin (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty self-explanatory—a timeline about the current president of the USofA. This article is fit to be a featured list because I believe it meets all the criteria, especially because it is well-written, well-researched with all claims apppropriately cited, meets WP:NPOV and WP:SS and is very stable (I don't know of any edit wars that have happened here in a long time). I am not the main contributor to this article, but I am very heavily involved in related articles (the timelines from 2018-present), and am very knowledgable in the area, so I am confident in my ability to address any concerns or questions that editors may have here. Mgasparin (talk) 10:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you intend to nominate this at WP:FLC? Here we assess featured articles, not lists, and as you say in your nominating statement this is a candidate for featured list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:32, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is definitely a list and belongs at FLC, not FAC. Before you take it there, I would recommend expanding the lead massively, as two sentences isn't really going to cut it for featured content..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, have you run this nomination past the main editors of the article (by which I mostly mean the two who have each edited it over 300 times compared to your 12)......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw This is a list, not an article article. Please try WP:FLC but you might consider talk page discussion first. buidhe 15:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 9 March 2020 [4].

Candy (Foxy Brown song) edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! The above article is about a 2001 song by American rapper Foxy Brown for her third studio album Broken Silence. It is a dance-pop, pop, and R&B with lyrics about cunnilingus. American singer Kelis performs the hook while Brown raps the verses. The song was well-received by critics during its release and in retrospective reviews; critics have compared it to music by other artists, such as Lil' Kim. Academic scholars have analyzed its depiction of black female sexuality. Although "Candy" was often featured on early 2000's soundtracks, it had limited commercial success, and peaked at number 24 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Billboard chart.

This article was promoted to a GA a little over two years ago, and I further expanded and copy-edited the article last year. I would greatly appreciate any feedback for this FAC. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Foxy_Brown_Candy.jpg: not seeing that image at the source link. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for catching this. I have changed the source link. Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping, but I would like to withdraw this nomination as I do not have the time to appropriately dedicate to this nomination as I am quite sick at the moment. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 14:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 4 March 2020 [5].

Led By Donkeys edit

Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article tells the tale of how four friends used a ladder, a bucket and wallpaper paste to take on Brexit, and failed. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:19, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose on sources
  • Almost all the article's sources have anti-Brexit editorial line. That affects WP:NPOV
  • It seems that pro-Brexit sources have largely ignored this anti-Brexit group. Unsurprisingly. On top of that, many of the pro-Brexit sources seem to be marked red on the list of reliable sources on WP:RSP. How does one apply WP:NPOV in circumstance of such bias in the sources?
  • Tabloids such as Evening Standard, Birmingham Mail, Metro are not RS and should not be used (see WP:RSP)
  • WP:RSP states that "Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation". My interpretation of this is that when a source like Evening Standard simply reports an event that happened, provides the evidence of said event (say a video of a projection on the White Cliffs of Dover), and no other source is available, then it is ok to use it. Am I wrong? Should I instead delete the content altogether?
  • For FAC, I just don't see how these sources can qualify as high quality reliable sources as stated below by another reviewer. buidhe 17:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not use Huffington Post for any controversial or disputed content, since there is no consensus on its reliability. buidhe 19:29, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both instances replaced now.
  • I strongly suggest withdrawing this from FAC and going through GAN instead. buidhe 19:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having brought 5 far less controversial articles here before, with success, I opted for the painful learning experience of bringing a controversial one here. Would you be willing to work with me on GAN? I specifically want to find out how to cope with sources if one side of the argument seems to largely ignore the topic. I'd be grateful if you could assist me. Edwininlondon (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to help but contemporary politics really isn't my area either, I'm afraid. buidhe 17:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose from Spy-cicle
  • This article has large sourcing issues meaning it will not meet 1.c (claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources...). This includes the usage of Huffington Post, Metro, Evening Standard, Express and Star, The Star, Devon Live, The Birmingham Mail, etc.
  • There is also significant portions of the article sourced from primary sources, this being the book written by the subject. Primary sources should generally be kept to a minimum when reliable secondary sources exist
  • There are also some WP:NPOV issues. E.g. Led By Donkeys' main campaign consists of billboards containing past tweets by pro-Brexit politicians which state the politicians' previous political positions, which have clearly not stood the test of time. because it is written in Wikipedia's voice not from an RS.
  • There are also issues with spacing and typos the use of curly quotes. Also when referencing a book the page numbers should use en dashes per MOS:DASH.
  • I would strongly suggest withdrawing this FAC, resourcing this article so that it only uses reliable sources, request a copy edit at the Guild of copy editors and submitting it for GAN.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:51, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong opppse for the reasons outlined above. CassiantoTalk 10:01, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius edit

Besides the reference issues, there are numerous prose issues:

  • The first paragraph of the lead is pretty long and should probably be split
  • All four men have a connection with environmental campaign group Greenpeace; Oliver Knowles and Ben Stewart are employees, and James Sadri and Will Rose had previously been involved with the group. - as of when?
  • Sentences like these They settled on these four: Michael Gove saying, in 2016, "The day after we vote to leave we hold all the cards and can choose the path we want"; Liam Fox saying in 2017 "The Free Trade Agreement that we will do with the European Union should be one of the easiest in human history"; David Davis saying in 2016 "There will be no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside"; and John Redwood saying in 2016 "Getting out of the EU can be quick" should probably be split up. There are plenty of long run-on sentences like this.
  • South East of England - if this is a proper noun, it should be linked. If not, it should be lowercase.
  • I'd try to avoid sentence constructions like For months, who was behind Led By Donkeys was unknown.
  • There are metric conversions with no US customary or imperial equivalents.

This is just a sample of the issues I found. Normally, I would give this a deeper prose overview, but combined with the over-usage of primary sources and questionable sources, I unfortunately have to oppose this article for promotion. Like the above commenters, I would suggest going through the GAN process first. epicgenius (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you edit

Thank you epicgenius, Cassianto, Spy-cicle, Buidhe for your comments. I will take them all on board, withdraw from FAC and go through GAN at some stage. Edwininlondon (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was archived by Ealdgyth via FACBot (talk) 3 March 2020 [6].

Mangalore edit

Nominator(s): Aviator423 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mangalore was a Featured Article in Wikipedia from 2008 to 2018. It was de-listed from FAC in 2018. In January 2020, a Featured Article review was done and the article didn't get promoted. Thereafter, it has been nominated and listed as a Good Article. FAC copyediting by GOCE is also done for this article.

I have listed the article as a Featured Article Candidate. Aviator423 (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest withdrawal Comment by Fowler&fowler edit

The latter two-thirds of the article is a sea of blue links, lacking both descriptive and narrative prose. It is a list. I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is a nonstarter. I don't need to cite chapter and verse. I recommend withdrawing the article, examining its history, examining what it looked like in 2008 when it became an FA, and removing at least half the links, maybe two thirds. Only then will you be able to create room for prose, for its phrases, clauses, and adjuncts. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:20, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the link exists for that particular page, then it is added. It is the crux of the World Wide Web. Then why do Wikipedia and Google take the number of links into consideration? For your information, I am a PhD in Computer Science with summa cum laude. The latter two-thirds of the article comprise the comprehensive prose for Economy, Education, Transport, Culture, Sports and pastimes, Media and Tourism.
There is years of effort in composing the prose and narrative of this article. Are you are only interested in the colour "blue"? The 2008 version of the article had many blue links and even red links too? Now will you say that broken links were added to that 2008 Featured Article?
If Wikipedia doesn't encourage adding links to a page, then why are WP:Building the web and WP:Orphan very important?
I am very sorry Mr. Fowler&fowler, but your analysis is very shallow, and is demeaning the efforts made by all the Editors including the Copy-Editors to this page.
The review hasn't even started, and Mr. Fowler&fowler is suggesting withdrawal. Here is the page version he is talking about:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mangalore&oldid=941315961
Aviator423 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I am no longer opposing the article. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria edit

Oppose, suggest withdrawal - I appreciate the effort that has gone into this article. However, unfortunately I do not feel it meets the current iteration of the featured article criteria. Specifically:

  • 1a (prose): particularly in the later sections the prose is very listy, and at times repetitive. There are some grammatical errors and also inconsistency in what variety of English is used - for example the article contains both "program" and "programme".
There was 1 occurrence of inconsistency. It is resolved. I don't think that the latter sections are listy. For the Education section, the earliest institutes are mentioned. As far as repetitive is concerned, Pilikula is mentioned in both Sports and Tourism sections, since it has a Golf course in addition to being a tourism destination. I don't agree with the terms 'listy' and 'repetitive'. Aviator423 (talk) 07:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I provided one example, but it's not the only occurrence. Here's another example showing both inconsistency and repetitiveness: "In 2006, a Tulu film festival was organised in Mangalore.[290] Tulu Cinemotsava 2015 was organized in January 2015". Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is rewritten as "Mangalore hosted the Tulu film festivals in 2006 and 2015". The issue is fixed. Aviator423 (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b (comprehensiveness): the article is missing discussion of healthcare, and the contemporary history section is quite abbreviated.
Contemporary history section has been updated. It is already a lengthy article. Is a healthcare section really needed? Do you need another point to mention the healthcare section also as listy? Aviator423 (talk)
It should be possible to write such a section without being listy, and I do think it's needed, particularly given that the lead identifies the city as a healthcare "hub" without any corresponding content in the body. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some statements related to Healthcare in the Economy section. Will create a section for Healthcare, when more statements are included. I will be working on adding more statements. Kindly let me know about any changes or suggestions. Please provide me some time to further enhance the Healthcare content. Aviator423 (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - A section for Healthcare is created within the Government and public services section. Please let me know your suggestions. Aviator423 (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1c (sourcing): some of the sources used are of questionable reliability, such as bharathautos.com. There are also theses that do not have sufficient information provided to assess whether they meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP.
There is no such source - bharathautos.com. I don't know what you are talking about. Also those theses sources have been removed from the article. Aviator423 (talk) 17:06, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That source is footnote 208 - it is difficult to identify at a glance since the citation is incomplete. As to the theses, the guidelines around sourcing have changed significantly since 2008. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced bharathautos.com with a new reliable source. I am working on the addition of authors. Authors have been added to the first 270 news citations. Will try to complete them soon. Aviator423 (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done The changes have been made. Please confirm if any modifications are necessary. Aviator423 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 (style): the article is not consistent with the Manual of Style, for example in repeating wikilinks.
The repeating links are removed. Aviator423 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't been - for example Pandyan Kingdom is linked twice from the same paragraph in Etymology. And again, that was an example only. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pandyan Kingdom update is done. Aviator423 (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Kindly confirm if it's fine. I'll make further changes based on your suggestions. Aviator423 (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2c (citation formatting): citations are inconsistently and often incorrectly formatted, and some do not have sufficient information to accurately identify the source.
If you are referring to the formatting of newspaper citations, then that issue is resolved. Be specific about the statement "citations do not have sufficient information to accurately identify the source". Aviator423 (talk) 08:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that have a named author should include the author's name in the citation - for example FNs 6, 14, 34, etc. Web sources should include website or publisher name - missing for example in FN17. Publication location for books is optional but if it's to be included it should be done consistently - for example you include it in FN22 but not in FN23. Etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are around 250 to 300 newspaper citations in the article. Adding an author to almost each one of them will take some time. I request you to please co-operate with the time. Aviator423 (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - The citation changes have been made. Please verify and suggest if further changes are needed. Aviator423 (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is absolutely no yardstick involved in the Featured Article reviews. Any editor on any given day can come and say 'suggest withdrawal', 'oppose', 'support' or 'comment'. Articles with 100 odd corrections can be supported in FA review, but articles with 5-6 corrections can be withdrawn ! PR tactics matter a lot in FA reviews !
Aviator423 (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I base my commentary in FACs on my own assessment with regards to WP:WIAFA, which is the yardstick against which articles are meant to be assessed - not the specific number of corrections needed nor how good the article's "PR". If you feel my assessment is incorrect, state your case and allow the @FAC coordinators: to gauge whether my comments constitute an actionable oppose or not. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note for others looking at this discussion: please be aware that some of the nominator's comments were changed after I had replied to them, please refer to history for the state of the page at the time of my responses. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from John M Wolfson edit

I apologize greatly for this and I know it's not fun to have your FAC opposed like this, but I had a bit of a hard time reading this article. I don't think the prose is to FA standards and think that a thorough copyedit is in order. Here are some more comments; none of these would be fatal to an FAC on their own but this is not exhaustive and dealing with them is not enough for me to strike my oppose. I also respectfully suggest withdrawal for this and refer you to the Guild of Copyediting.

The article has been copyedited by the Guild of Copyediting this month for FAC. Check this link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests/Archives/2020
Aviator423 (talk) 15:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is fair enough; I still do not think that copyedit is adequate, but I do appreciate your work. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:52, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The entire C/E editing phase by the Guild of Copy Editors took nearly 7 days, with over 90 edits to the article. Adequate and substantial amount of copyediting has already been done. Aviator423 (talk) 04:07, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • officially known as Mangaluru, I assume this was officially changed at some point like Mumbai, Chennai, and Bengaluru, but the article makes no mention of it.
Changes are done. It is now mentioned and cited in the article. Aviator423 (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ptolemy's and Pliny the Elder's Just say "These".
I've made the change. Aviator423 (talk) 15:57, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it at times the full "kilometres" but the abbreviated "mi"?
There was only 1 occurrence and it was in the Utility services sub-section. Changed and made uniform with the other statements that all include km. Aviator423 (talk) 16:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mphasis BPO. What does "BPO" stand for?
BPO stands for Business Process Outsourcing. Aviator423 (talk) 16:06, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The New Mangalore Port Is it officially called the "New Mangalore Port"? Otherwise it shouldn't be capitalized.
Yes, it's officially called "New Mangalore Port". Aviator423 (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The city generates 175 tons per day of waste I assume this means the metric tonnes, but several imperial units are also called "tons" and this doesn't describe which unit is meant.
Yes it is tonnes. The change has been done in the article. The cited source uses the American English spelling, while the article makes use of the British English spellings. Aviator423 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As said above by Nikkimaria, DUPLINKs are bad form.
Duplicate links have been removed. Aviator423 (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to take WikiCup points for this review. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd like to start by saying that Mr. Rose is correct, in that it is not best practice to spend a significant amount of time on an FAC after it's been opposed and withdrawal suggested when the article has little support. Nevertheless, I do commend your dedication to the article. Unfortunately, I still don't think that the article passes FA standards in its current form, and must therefore maintain my oppose. Here is but a sample:
    • Karnataka, etc., should probably be linked at their first mention in the lead (and, per DUPLINKS, no more).
I have made your suggested change. Aviator423 (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • the state's only city to have all four modes of transport—air, road, rail and sea. should be rewritten, and is not (as far as I could see) explicitly mentioned in the body.
I have made your suggested change. Aviator423 (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • according to the provisional results of the 2011 national census of India. What about the final results?
The change has been made in the article. It's done. Aviator423 (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, that was only a sample; no amount of work in the FAC process is going to change my mind looking at the article again. I must again maintain my oppose and suggest that this be closed if not withdrawn before. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the suggestions and modifications mentioned in this FAC review have been incorporated in the article. It's all in Ian Rose's hands now. Aviator423 (talk) 08:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers and Thank You very much John Wolfson, Nikkimaria, Fowler&fowler and Ian Rose !! It was a pleasure listening to all of you :) Aviator423 (talk) 10:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, this is but a sample so dealing with these alone is not enough for me to strike my oppose. I wish you the best with this article, but significant work remains to be done outside of the FAC process. Have a good day! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:06, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes edit

Aviator423, I suggest you re-think your attitude to the review process. Articles come to FAC to be critiqued. You aren't required to agree with everything a reviewer says but you need to treat them with respect and not surliness. They are volunteers just like you but they don't get a gold star if the article is promoted. Also remember that FAC is not here to judge how much effort has gone into an article, by yourself or GOCE or anyone else, but whether the end result meets the FAC criteria. It would have been quite within the FAC guidelines for the coordinators to have archived this as soon as they'd noted the suggestions for withdrawal by Nikki or John. As some time has passed since then and changes have been made to the article, I'll invite them to take another look and indicate whether they stand by their original recommendations. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ian Rose, it's your decision.
Thank you for your kind and informative words. G'Day Mate :)
Aviator423 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: This should be closed ASAP, in my opinion. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: Please have another look at the article. Here is the latest version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mangalore&oldid=943700848
Best Regards, Aviator423 (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given the above, I'm archiving this. A good idea would be to work with the two opposing editors to address issues on the talk page outside of the FAC process so there is less pressure of time contraints. --Ealdgyth (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/March_2020&oldid=947793874"