Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/March 2022

< 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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 1 April 2022 [1].

Nimona edit

Nominator(s): HenryCrun15 (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the webcomic and graphic novel, Nimona. Written by ND Stevenson, it is a fantasy / science fiction story. The article passed GA status recently, and since then, a full plot summary has been added. The work is important as an example of webcomics receiving publishing deals, a key work by Stevenson, and an example of queer literature. HenryCrun15 (talk) 06:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Nimona_cover.jpg: source link is dead
  • Is there a photo of the author that could be added? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these comments. To address them:
  • I have added an archive link (through web.archive.org) to the source.
  • I have added a photo of the author.
HenryCrun15 (talk) 07:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PresN

I approached PresN (talk · contribs) who is on the list of Featured Article mentors. They had some excellent general comments about the process, and also some comments on this article which I've copied below for reference.

  • The lead seems short; it doesn't for example seem to cover the Synopsis section or and reception beyond awards.
  • Conception and Publication are both pretty short; if there's any other information you can find that would be good.
  • Both Reviews and Academic analysis have the same issue: each paragraph is a different review. For Reviews, since they didn't fill paragraphs, it reads like it's divided where it was because the paragraph was too long otherwise. There's no connection between the reviews, no "story" about what the reception to the comic was, just a sequential listing of reactions. Consider restructuring the sections so that the commonalities between reviews/analysis is highlighted, e.g. "X and Y both mentioned that blah blah".
  • Once everything is sorted, give the whole article a copyedit- every article needs one. Try reading each paragraph in reverse order for grammar and extraneous words/turns of phrase, so that you don't get caught up in what it says and can instead focus on how it's being said.

In response I have expanded the header and I'll address the other points soon. HenryCrun15 (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HenryCrun15: The idea was to fix all of the issues before you nominate. The purpose of FAC is to review articles that the nominator believes are ready to go, not to serve as a staging ground while the nominator edits an unfinished work. If you are still editing the article in response to feedback, then this FAC is premature. I recommend retracting it for now and starting over once it's ready. --PresN 14:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@PresN: Thank you and my apologies for my misunderstanding. How do I retract the nomination? HenryCrun15 (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 22 March 2022 [2].

Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes edit

Nominator(s): elijahpepe@wikipedia 02:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2012 Lego video game. This article was brought to GA-status the other day and seems worthy of a FA review. elijahpepe@wikipedia 02:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time - I'd suggest taking this through a thorough peer review before nominating. Some specific issues:

  • Use of unreliable sources, eg IMDB
Certain sections can't be done without the use of such sources. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent/incomplete citations - eg multiple citations are missing website/publisher
Fixed.
Fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:10, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the materials that are cited don't appear to be supported by the citations given - eg I can't find the claim "some missions force the camera to be in a 2.5D perspective" in the source given
Hopefully fixed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Lego_Batman_2_-_DC_Super_Heroes_suit_showcase.jpg needs a stronger fair-use rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fair use rational seems to be fine. No free image exists that demonstrates the game. The image is, as far as I know, promotional material released by TT Games. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:22, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
elijahpepe@wikipedia As a coord, I have to say that reliable sources and correct image licensing are a basic requirement for FAC. If you aren't willing to make sure the article follows the FA criteria, this nomination will have to be archived. (t · c) buidhe 02:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm absolutely willing to make sure it follows FA criteria, but at the very least the image does follow correct licensing. As for the citations, I've attempted to find better sources for the cast section but the only two sources that could even be considered are BehindTheVoiceActors and GameFAQs. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:39, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Im sorry but this shouldn't have even passed GAN. The Development section alone is so barebones. We literally have a Lg game thats a Featured Article with Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy that could be used as a template to improve. GamerPro64 04:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you expect me to do. I've done the most possible to get sources for the development section. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:24, 22 March 2022 (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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 18 March 2022 [3].

Mindful (song) edit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Mindful" is a promotional single from K. Michelle's third studio album More Issues Than Vogue (2016). It is hip-hop and R&B song in which Michelle raps and warns critics to be mindful of her. The song does not take itself seriously and instead has a more fun approach, as reflected in its colorful music video set in a trailer park. Although "Mindful" did not chart anywhere, it always stuck out to me for whatever reason.

I brought this article to GA status in 2018, but I ended up rewriting it earlier this year. I was on the fence about whether or not it would be the best fit for the FAC space, but I have decided to just try and see what happens. This is actually my third FAC nomination in a row for a song article (after "No Panties" and "Laundromat"). I would greatly appreciate any feedback. Thank you in advance for any comments. I am taking a minor break from Wikipedia as I have started a new job, but I will be more than capable to respond to everything on here in a timely fashion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review edit

  • Which version of the song is used in the excerpt?
  • Also suggest expanding the excerpt's FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Thank you for your review. I believe that I have addressed both of your points, and I would be more than happy to revise anything further. Aoba47 (talk) 02:44, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG edit

Placeholder, leaving comments soon. FrB.TG (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:

  • "Throughout the track, Michelle raps the lyrics and warns critics to be mindful of her." You should probably place mindful inside quotation marks considering it's not only part of the title but is also included in the lyrics.
  • Good point. I like that a lot and I have implemented it into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was made available as a digital download;[4][5] one of these downloads had" - "download(s)" within a close proximity.
  • "Seriah Buckler summarized the video as being about" → "Seriah Buckler summarized that the video was about"
  • "Throughout "Mindful", Michelle warns critics and "hoes" to be mindful around her." Same as my first point (if the suggestion is adapted).
  • "In an article for Revolt, Seriah Buckler wrote that she "rides the beat like a seasoned lyricist", and described the song as "laden with raw bars and a flow that your favorite rapper couldn’t carry"." There's a curly apostrophe in "couldn't", which should be replaced with a straight one per MoS.
  • I am honestly the worst when it comes to this, and I will try to be more aware of this in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's my lot. FrB.TG (talk) 16:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for your review. I will try my best to review your Tom Holland FAC in the future. I have actually never seen a film with Holland so hopefully my very outsider perspective will be helpful there. Aoba47 (talk) 23:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - good work as always. FrB.TG (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. I appreciate it! Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude edit

  • I'd be tempted to say "Atlantic Records" rather than just "Atlantic"
  • That's fair. It would remove any unnecessary ambiguity or confusion for readers who are not familiar with this record label. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and she cited it was one of the first times" => "and she stated that it was one of the first times"
  • That does look better so I have revised it into the article. For whatever reason, I started getting into a kick of using "cited" so I need to be more aware of that habit. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Seriah Buckler summarized the video being about" => "Seriah Buckler summarized the video as being about"
  • In the caption of the audio clip, the first sentence appears to end with a comma
  • I am not sure how that happened. I have revised this so it is a period now. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the music and lyrics section we have both "hoes" and "hos". The first appears to be a direct quote so that's presumably how the original author spelt it, but what about the second?
  • Both sources actually use the "hoes" spelling for some reason. I would not have any issue going with hos. I have seen it spelled both ways. What are your thoughts on it? Before I change it though, I wanted to check in with you about it. I do not have a strong preference either way. Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd use whatever spelling is used by the original source in each case. If they differ then so be it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the response. I had actually missed the "hos" spelling so apologies for that I have checked the Azzopardi source and he does use the "hos" spelling. I agree with you with keeping the spelling if it is a quote so I would likely keep both spellings. Apologies for the oversight on my part and I hope that clears it up. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChrisTheDude: Thank you for the review as always. I have addressed all of your points, except for the last one which I left a response/question about it. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article further and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:14, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Pseud 14 edit

  • In which they work together in a recording studio.[2] – I think “work” should be past tense
  • It was one of four videos to promote More Issues Than Vogue – in this third paragraph, I think you can refer to it as “album” instead, since it has been mentioned in full in the previous 2 paragraphs.
  • Critics contrasted the single with Michelle's past songs and albums. – I think “Critics have compared the single with Michelle’s past songs and albums” is a better word choice IMO.
  • A reviewer for Rap-Up and Danny Schwartz of HotNewHipHop – since there is no specific writer for the first and Schwartz is mentioned again in the next sentence, perhaps we you can start with the publication instead, e.g. "Rap-Up described mindful as… , while HotNewHipHop writer/critic Danny Schwartz wrote …
  • Revised for the most part. I am hesitant on just Rap-Up because I do attribute the writer (if known) in the prose and I would like to keep that consistent even if the reviewer is unknown, but that is just my preference. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bill Chenevert highlighted the song as "outstanding" and a "blast" – “complimented or praised” the song calling it “outstanding” and a “blast”, would be better word choices for this line. Since you also used praised in the next sentence, you can switch it up so it’s not repetitive.
  • Also in the second paragraph of Critical Reception, praise is repeated. Suggest alternative wording.

That's it from me. Another wonderful work on a song article. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pseud 14: Thank you for the review and for your kind words. I believe that I have addressed everything. Have a wonderful weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pending edit

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 01:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • Technically the "other" parameter (in the AV refs) is not supposed to be used when there is no author listed, so that's why you might see a green error when you preview an edit. This isn't a huge deal, since the error notices aren't visible to normal readers, but if you want to add like "author=Atlantic Records" that might be an option
  • Revised. Thank you for the review! I will look through and address the rest of the review later tonight. Aoba47 (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formatting is otherwise great—us usual :)
Reliability
  • I'm a little considered about Idolator, how can they be considered 'high quality'?
  • That is a good question. I ended up removing this source as upon further research and reflection, I do not believe it is a high-quality source for a featured article. This removal actually opened up a pretty major concern about the article, which I will raise below. Aoba47 (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find a similar issue with HotNewHipHop
  • HotNewHipHop has evidence of editorial oversight on their website's staff page (here), and the website has been used in the articles by reliable sources, including BET, Complex, Out, and Yahoo!. I would say that this is an example of how context matters. I would consider it a high-quality source for hip-hop articles. Aoba47 (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Verifiability
  • Checked a few, no issues. Can do formal spotchecks if requested by the reviewer or coords. Aza24 (talk) 01:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your review. I actually ran into an issue while removing the Idolator source. That was the only article I could find that explicitly named "Mindful" a promotional single. Other publications just call it a single, and the music video has an opening card that places the "Mindful" single cover alongside those for proper singles. I have found that the line between single and promotional single can be quite murky so I will need to do further research on the subject. For that reason, I would actually like to withdraw this nomination as I think this work would be best done outside of the FAC space.
  • I also ran across a helpful review from Renowned for Sound that I somehow missed while re-writing the article so I would also want to do another web search to make sure other reviews did not slip through the cracks as well. Pinging @FAC coordinators: to let them know about my withdrawal request. Aoba47 (talk) 04:33, 18 March 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 12 March 2022 [4].

Ike for President (advertisement) edit

The "Ike for President" advertisement
Nominator(s): Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last advertisement at FAC was "Daisy", something dealing with nuclear war, fear, attack ad, and all the scary words you can think of. That was 1964, scary times! This is "Ike for President"; a peaceful, animated, comic, jingly advertisement. A classic example of 1950s advertisements, animated by Disney for the Eisenhower campaign. Hope you have an interesting read! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt edit

  • "John Sparkman". Mentioning who he was, i.e. the Dem VP candidate, might be wise here since he is obscure today.
  • "name recognition". Seriously? Eisenhower needed name recognition?
    • I don't think he needed name recognition, but that is what the source states. Thomas A. Hollihan says: "Clearly, the purpose was to win name recognition, communicate that Eisenhower enjoyed the support of the people of different socioeconomic means, and simulate the old fashioned campaign parades of the earlier days in this new visual medium." [5]. I write "name recognition" just as the opinion of the author, summarizing what reliable sources say. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and often led the list of Gallup Poll's "most admired man".[4]" You might want to phrase this in a way that doesn't make it sound like poor grammar, with the quote.
  • " The Republican National Convention nominated him, with Senator Richard Nixon as the official presidential ticket in July 1952.[15] He was challenged by Democratic presidential nominee Adlai Stevenson.[16]" I might simplify and say "In July 1952, the Republican National Convention nominated him for president, with Senator Richard Nixon as his running mate." Also, since you are going to mention Sparkman later, this would be a good place to mention him, it also balances things because you mention Nixon. It would also make the passage where you introduce Sparkman/Acheson/Truman a little less awkward.
  • I'm a little bit surprised there's no mention of Nixon's demonstration of the power that television could have on the voter in the Checkers Speech in your setting of the scene for 1952, or, for that matter, at all in the article..
  • "Most of the advertising expenditure from the Eisenhower campaign" Presumably television advertising is meant here.
    • This refers to the complete advertising budget of the Ike campaign, most of which was devoted to a television advertising campaign: "Eisenhower Answers America" – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "saying that she discussed with John Hay "Jock" Whitney about a proposed advertisement which could be "the greatest piece of propaganda in [that] whole campaign".[21]" Grammar ("discussed with"/"about" seems a bit odd).
  • "and a caricature of Eisenhower around his body, beating the drum with his tail.[29][30][28]" refs out of order.
  • Given that the ad is public domain, is it possible to include the video in the article? I realize this is a pain, having done it for Bring Us Together and I won't hold it against you if you don't want to.
    • Presumably you are referring to the ad video? It is already there in the infobox. Let me know if I am missing something. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cops". Since we write with formality, perhaps "police officers"?
  • "firemen" To avoid the "men", perhaps "firefighters"?
    • Sure, done. They do a really good job fighting with fire! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Aftermath section makes its sound a bit like Adlai was a bit behind the times with his 30 minute speeches, whereas Ike's people were more modern and effective with short commercials like we all have seen. I would strive to make it sound less that way, given that Nixon had just provided an example of how effectively a 30 minute time slot could be used. Presumably Ike also made TV addresses?
    • This is combined answer for this as well as for the above mentioned Nixon's Checkers speech point. None of the sources I cite contrast this ad with the Checkers speech, neither do they mention it. Presumably because (do correct me) Checkers speech was not really an advertisement. It was a clarification by Nixon to the general public about all his assets and that fund controversy. Stevenson's speeches were specifically meant to promote his candidacy (like what Perot did in '92), they were different from Nixon's speech. I do not feel comfortable including about Checkers speech since none of the sources specify anything about it. But, for curious readers, I have added it in the "See also" section. As for the point just above, that is how the source present it, at-least for this ad. Ike's television address was (I think) limited to that Ike answers America campaign, where he was asked 10 seconds long question, he recorded 10 seconds long reply, and that short ad was ready! Stevenson campaign mostly used their advertising funds for broadcasting long speeches, seen as a way of bringing the traditional Truman styled whistle-stop tour speeches to television. Ike campaign tried new ways of short advertisement. That is what mostly the sources, directly or indirectly say. Do you know any other long television broadcast (except Checkers speech) by the Ike-Dick campaign? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's all.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Thanks a lot for the review! Replied above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good. Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from theleekycauldron edit

I have negative time on my hands, but this is an interesting one—reserving this spot for a future review/source review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:32, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'd appreciate your source review! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comin' right up! I checked through pretty much everything, only ended up having a problem with the stuff below. On the balance, great stuff! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@theleekycauldron: Just a general comment, per WP:FILMPLOT (if you consider this ad a 1-min film), "Provided the film is publicly available, citing the film explicitly in the plot summary's section is not necessary, since the film is the primary source and the infobox provides details about the film." We have the ad publicly available (in public domain in this case), so citing everything in the "Synopsis" section is not required. That is why I have separate "Analysis" section. So, for the following sources having issue in the "Synopsis" section, well, especially for the lyrics, I am not sure if I need to fix that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:06, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: I'm not sure that citing everything is required either; in fact, i'm not seeing anywhere to attach a cn tag. But it seems pretty plain to me that FILMPLOT isn't a free pass on sourcing style or verifiability, only whether or not you have to use them; if you choose to provide secondary sources, they should verify the content, be properly formatted, and sit in easily understandable positions for readers so that they know at a glance which sources should verify what content. Also, I got dinged in my SLAPP Suits FAC for relying on that rule for only parts of synopses, and ended up having to cut stuff that wasn't secondarily sourced to maintain a consistent level of sourcing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but when I see FA on books having completely uncited Synopsis section, .... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

version review :D

  1. Christiansen 2018:
    • ref 1d (p. 37): Looks like it only verifies the first line of that two-line quote.
    • ref 24 (p. 33): The letter says that the costs "will not exceed" $1,000- presumably, some of that $1,000 check could have been left over. Also, the letter requests that the money be sent to Mr. Anderson, not the Walt Disney company—obviously, we know that Anderson was an accountant for the company, but the letter doesn't specify to whom the money is paid, just to whom the check should be sent. Normally, I'd be less of a stickler on this, but this is quoting a primary source, so we've gotta be much more careful.
      • I don't think it would be necessary for the reader to know if the check was sent to William Anderson. So, I just rephrased it to imply that the check was sent to an employee of the Disney company. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ref 28 (p. 35):
      • a: The source says that animated advertisement began with the words "Eisenhower for President" and the Ike button underneath it.
        • Yes, but that is too much detail for the synopsis. And this is in the synopsis section, we merely have to summarize what is in the ad, in our own words. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • b: Along with the other two references, I'd move them around a little so it's clear what verifies what.
        • That would be difficult, since each of the references verify content in chunks. I'll end up having 2-3 citations in every sentence, which is not very good for the flow. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • c: Again, not a bad idea to re-order the list so that if one occupation is exclusive to this ref or to Burns, it's clear which reference it can be found in.
        • Same as above; what I can assure in this case is that all the occupations are verified by those 2 sources jointly. There are some which are not present in one, but is present in other. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • d: The source says fifteen times in one mode, and four times in another, so that should be nineteen?
    • ref 35b (p. 38): The fact that it was created in response looks to be on p. 39, so I'd reference both pages
  2. Ambrose 1983:
    • ref 2 (pp. 275–276): Where does the source verify the content?
    • ref 5 (p. 14): Where does the source verify the content?
    • ref 9 (p. 523): I'm not seeing the source verify that Eisenhower's nickname was Ike
  3. Busch 2012, ref 3 (p. 55): Not seeing where it says he directed the Allied invasion of germany, nor that he was a five-star general
    • I think you made the classic error of relying on Internet Archive's page numbers. The real pg 55 is on IA's pg 71 (see) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't, and I actually made sure of that one before—I see V-E/Normandy, I missed that one, and it looks like five-star was cut. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:56, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Morris & Schwartz 1993, ref 4 (p. 140): The source (at least on this page) doesn't say that the "most admired man" poll was conducted by Gallup, only that a separate presidential poll was. It also doesn't say that he was hailed as a war hero by people of the time, although the source certainly does. It'd probably be expedient to mention that MacArthur led the list along with him, although I'm noting that if he was commander from '44–'45 or so and led the list "in the late 1940s" (from source), those don't quite match up.
    • Coincidentally, I have a FLC pending on Gallup's most admired man and woman poll! Fixed a few things here. Added another page, the source definitely supports that he was a war hero. " Much is known about Dwight Eisenhower's accomplishments as wartime general and postwar president; however, little is known about the reasons for his extraordinary popularity. Drawing from opinion polls, popular media, and related sources this article shows how Eisenhower's achievements and public conduct resonated with the concerns and values of his generation. "Symbolic leadership" theory and the "action theory" of heroic leadership frame this twofold articulation of Eisenhower's mid- century image". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Birkner 2003, ref 10 (p. 15): Not seeing "They Like Ike" anywhere on the page? Actually, the source is really confusing me now. Berlin seems to have written a song called "I Like Ike", that "became the Eisenhower campaign song", but it's an entirely different song with different lyrics??
    • "Other songs were written for the election. Irving Berlin wrote “They Like Ike” for the Broadway show Call Me Madam, which was later rewritten as “I Like Ike.”" this, p. 45. Changed source. It is entirely different from this ad. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Daniel 2000, ref 11 (pp. 396–397): Inaccessible to me, but given that it's verified in the abstract, agf.
  3. SAGE Publications 2010: Inaccessible to me, but that's a pretty non-controversial statements so agf
  4. Voss 2008, ref 16a (p. 186): Presumably meant to verify that Stevenson was a candidate for president Adlai Stevenson was a Democrat who ran against Eisenhower for president in '52 (weirdly enough, Christiansen doesn't ever explicitly spell that. In fact, it doesn't mention the two words "Adlai Stevenson" next to each other at all). The fact that they're both at the end of that sentence suggests that each reference verifies both the peep and the veep, which they don't—so this one should probably be moved next to Stevenson's name.
    • I don't think 2 citations at the end of the sentences means they both fully verify everything in those sentences. It may also be the case (as it is here) that they both jointly cite the complete text. One source cited half, another half. I dislike adding citations between sentences unless it is necessary. It breaks the flow. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kamber 2003:
    • ref 17 (p. 29): I'd expand this one a little, to make it clear that you're not throwing in a random fact from this source—i'm not gonna insist, but there's a bit of room, it seems?
      • What in particular? B'cause I think that 40% stat is the most imp. detail on that page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ref 34b (p. 30): Kamber doesn't hedge, so "speculates" would be against MOS:SAID
  6. Wood 1990:
    • ref 18b (pp. 266): I'd make it clear that you're talking about estimates of said expenditures
    • ref 19 (pp. 265–270): not sure where it says that most of the advertising budget went there, although I could be missing it?
      • It is in somewhere in those 5 pages, but I just went ahead and rephrased it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Diamond & Bates 1992:
    • ref 20 (p. 49): Where does the source verify the content?
      • Google books doesn't provide preview for pg 49. I added another source along with this one. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • ref 26 (p. 59):
      • a: Inaccessible (couldn't find the right quote), but it's already verified through the other source there so agf
      • b: This also says that it was an indirect attack on Stevenson, so it wasn't just Kamber...
  8. Rumbough Jr. 2013, ref 36a (p. 111): quite of bit of the information is on p. 110—and it looks like the source says "five or six", not "four to six".
  9. Benoit 2016, ref 22 (p. 40): Honestly, not sure why you'd want to go to the trouble of citing an entire book for a single page that 1. doesn't wholly verify the content and 2. isn't needed, since the other source does wholly verify the content.
General comments
  • "But Adlai goes the other way, We'll all go with Ike": per MOS:/, use a spaced slash to separate song lines ("But Adlai goes the other way / We'll all go with Ike")
  • "the greatest piece of propaganda in [that] whole campaign": bracketing seems unnecessary? original quote looks fine
  • "Cochran requested Carlson to pay the amount to The Walt Disney Company": "requested --- to pay" is technically correct grammar, but a little awkward. Might want to consider a rephrase.
  • the word "President" is unstressed, and is "on the submediant and leading tone.": Punctuation outside the quote—but more importantly, I'm not sure that either needs to be quoted? For the first, it's quoting a word as a word, so it should be president (lowercase per MOS:JOBTITLES). For the second, I'm thinking that this is a piece of analysis we should be putting in wikivoice, because otherwise it sounds like we don't quite understand it. We should probably link submediant, too.
  • "The advertisement begins in D major but subsequently changes to F major; the tempo is constant at 120 beats per minute.": I'd add Christiansen's note that it's the most common marching tempo, too.
    • I think that'll be too much detail, and doesn't particularly benefit a reader. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Punctuation appears inside a quote quite a few times—I'd run searches for ," and ." just to clear that out.
    • Fixed, except for "Now is the time for all good Americans ..." – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roy O. Disney wrote a letter to Cochran 10 days after the election"—spell out "ten"
  • "Dennis W. Johnson wrote that the main goal of the advertisement was to "drive home a consistent, simple message: 'I Like Ike'", and called it the best presidential slogan ever created." I happen to think this one would be just a bit punchier if it were " ... simple message: 'I Like Ike'", and remarked that it "has to be one of the best presidential slogans ever created" ". Just a preference, though :)

That's all I've got for now—fascinating article, I learned a ton! very nice job :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Thanks for checking all citations and listing the problematic ones. I replied above. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Reping, earlier one didn't work. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: All righty! Hmm, I've got some persisting issues:

version review :D
  • Morris & Schwartz 1993, ref 4 (pp. 133, 140): mmmm, the quote you've provided isn't ticking the box for me. Is there no clearer indication that the public specifically hailed Eisenhower as a war hero? It says he was popular, and heroic, though. Maybe later in the page: "Eisenhower was revered for time he became commanding general in Europe during World War II ..." but even that feels shaky for me.
  • The source does not explicitly state the phrase "war hero", but various instances in the cited page imply that. But I'd go ahead and remove the 'war hero' thing, replace it by a "'extraordinarily' popular". That is explicitly stated in the source, and
  • Smith 1986, ref 5 (p. 574): still not seeing verification that he led the list in the late 40s? (yeah, i know you moved that up to the top, but the implication is still there for me)
  • "Almost yearly since 1947 Gallup has been asking the American public what man and what woman "living today in any part of the world" they admire the most." + "Dwight D. Eisenhower (before his elevation to the presidency) and MacArthur were the leading light". (from Smith 1986) + "Eisenhower and MacArthur led the list of "America's Most Admired Men" in the late 1940s" (from Morris & Schwartz 1993). Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ambrose 1983, ref 10 (p. 28, 523): Where does he go from "Little Ike" to just "Ike" in the eyes of the public? yes, I know, it's nitpicky
  • From the same page: "... the "Ike" was a natural transformation of the first syllable of his last name". I feel that supports what we are claiming in the article. Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Birkner 2003, ref 11 (p. 15): hmm, where does the source verify the content?
  • I'd just remove this ref, the content is supported by the previous ref. Also rephrased a bit. Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wood 1990, ref 21b (pp. 265–270): source says "The Republicans, on the other hand, formally engaged three agencies: for television speeches and radio programs, B.B.D. and O.; for print media, Kudner; and for the Eisenhower Answers America spot ads, Ted Bates, Co." am I missing something? (can't access Diamond & Bates ref there)
Sorry, I do know most of this is pedantic... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: No issues at all, I think I replied to everything! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Kavyansh.Singh: re BBDO: I'm more inclined to trust Wood as a focused JSTOR page, rather than a more broad-concept book. Also, while we're on the subject of copyright down below, are we really allowed to print Mannes' lyrical response in full? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:52, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal edit

I am looking at this version from 09:57 March 9. The prose is not "engaging" or "of a professional standard", and needs a copyedit by an editor familiar with FA standards. At less than 1,700 words of readable prose, as in the case of Socrates Nelson, there is no reason for such a short article to not have polished prose (it's neither highly technical nor long, so should not be that hard to work on, and that work should be done before bringing a nomination to FAC).

If there were only prose issues, I would not suggest withdrawal, but that is not the case. One thing is the number of source-to-text issues uncovered (with an edit summary of "the real five wikicup points were the friends we made along the way :D"), but more concerning are the hand-waving responses to sourcing integrity from the nominator. This nomination appears to have been rushed, and the edit summary above seems to implicate the WP:WIKICUP drive to bring short articles quickly to FAC to advance in a contest. This article was created on 3 March, labeled a "Good article" two days later, and presented at FAC within four days of being created. With significant prose issues, and source-to-text problems.

On the positive side, the article does not suffer from one of the red flags of poor writing: the overuse of however (see also User:John/however); there is only one however, and it is used appropriately. There is, though, a smorgasbord of other red flags.

There are four instances of subsequently; all are redundant. There are six instances of the throw-away word various; most are redundant. In the lead, four out of eight consecutive sentences begin with the same words (The advertisement), and the fifth is a subsequently. This restricted variation in prose is seen throughout. Samples of redundant wording are things like, "used the technique of name repetition", "decided to contest" = "contest", awkward prose and missing hyphens ("The first one was one-minute long, having 90 feet (27 meters) long tape footage."), odd usage of the word devoted (The Eisenhower campaign was mostly devoted to a television advertisement campaign titled "Eisenhower Answers America".), "a total of" is generally redundant (User:Tony1/How to improve your writing may be helpful). I'll stop there as taking the time to type up the rest of my notes is not a good use of FAC resources. This nomination was premature, and FAC is not peer review.

But while I'm here, on MOS issues, please also note MOS:CAPTIONS re punctuation: "Jacqueline Cochran (pictured in 1943) coordinated the advertisement with the Walt Disney Company" is a full sentence. Democratic donkey is not linked, and a thorough Wikilinking check may be warranted.

Please do not just fix the issues I have noted and expect me to revisit until/unless a thorough source-to-text integrity check (not by a WIKICUP friend) is done, and a top-to-bottom independent copyedit (by someone not previously involved) is completed. @WP:FAR coordinators: the nomination should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Believe Sandy meant to ping @FAC coordinators: rather than FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:SandyGeorgia, thanks for the review. I will try to fix the issues, please give me some time, but I don't think I'll withdraw the nomination. I will try to get this a copyedit and would appreciate source-to-text integrity check from anyone. But, please give me some time. As for the point about "wikicup friend", I never asked anyone to review this article. As for the point about rushed nomination, it is new, but it was definitely not created nor nominated with the view of WikiCup. I responded to Leeky's all the reference issues, and they have probably checked "through pretty much everything". I think the article is pretty comprehensive, that is why I brought it here. And the nomination, as of now, should not be marked withdrawn. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Full disclosure: Draft Eisenhower movement would be live on the main page as TFA on March 11. The blurb of the article has this advertisement video. We don't see videos at TFA regularly, and such an ad there would definitely make many people curious about the ad. My sole motive for creating this article was to assist curious TFA readers, not for those Wikicup points. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
plus, the wikicup points i was referring to would be mine, not yours, and I've got them whether this passes or not. so, no, no conspiracy to pass this one for wikicup points. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I think you're misinterpreting my edit summary. I started the source review because I was interested in the article, not for WikiCup points. Getting through the source review took me a long time, and near the end, it occured to me that I'd get a few WikiCup points for my review—although my next thought was that five was a bit on the light side for the amount of effort I put into the review. The delivery may have been flawed, but I was just trying to quip something to that effect. Oh, and the "we" is just me, not him—think of it as a royal we? We haven't met, I suppose—I don't do things for the barnstars and buttons. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Source to text integrity check ongoing on the FAC talk page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia: Sorry for pressing you, but few replies to your comments. I have done a top-to-bottom source to text integrity check on Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Ike for President (advertisement)/archive1. All the text in the article is compared with source text; let me know if there are any issues there. I feel that now, there are (at-least) no source-to-text issues. As for the prose, I tried fixing all the issues you specified. There are no subsequently, 'the technique', 'decided to', just one various, full-stop in the caption, etc. I tried reducing instances of 'The advertisement', but the issue is that I didn't find any better alternative than replacing it by ad's name. I would very much appreciate if you can specify more prose issues here of at the FAC talk. I would definitely try to fix them. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has an independent copyeditor looked in? I will be out for most of today, in the car, iPad typing, and cannot take a substantive look until I am home, but I would hope to hear that someone else has been through before I look in. I also note that the Draft Eisenhower movement copyedits made since it has been on the mainpage indicate that articles at FAC are possibly no longer being checked for wikilinking, as a diff of changes so far to the movement article shows a lot of missing links, so please check for that as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Unfortunately, no other editor has taken a look except the comments above (by Wehwalt and Theleekycauldron). But I have tried to fix the mentioned issues. I just added few more links which I think are useful. I'll appreciate your further suggestions whenever you wish. Thanks a lot! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My declaration is that the nomination was rushed, is premature, and should be withdrawn. That is still true. The nomination appeared at FAC within four days of article creation, failing 1a prose, 1c sourcing, and 1f compliant with Wikipedia copyright policy. Perhaps 1c has been corrected (too soon to say considering glaring issues two days ago); 1a and 1f have most certainly not.
On 1c, sourcing, I see at least one blatant and very surprising source-to-text inaccuracy has now been corrected--two days after the article received a Support and after the article passed had had ( changed, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC) ) a source review. When I viewed the article on March 9, it already had a Support and a Source review. On March 11, an edit correcting Ike winning Minnesota to him narrowly losing was made. How much more of that kind of very surprising issue might there still be? Kavyansh.Singh, you wrote Draft Eisenhower movement, so you obviously must have known that Ike did not win the Minnesota primary (as that article has it correct). This is an indication of how rushed this nomination was. Yet the article passed had had (changed SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC))) a source review, where that issue was not even checked and the nomination garnered a Support from a reviewer who knows US politics quite well (that a Republican would win a primary in a state that is the only state that even Reagan lost in a landslide election should have raised red flags and indicated a check, which would have revealed that the cited source made no such claim, because it's not true). By the way, you should be using high quality sources in FAs: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27547486 is a good one on Ike "winning" Minnesota.[reply]
On 1a, prose, I am still finding issues. How many of them should I have to type up to convince @FAC coordinators: to shut down a premature nomination and send an article to peer review, where issues can be more quickly and easily addressed, without requiring opposers to revisit? "Eisenhower contested the Presidency"-- is there a reason we can't just say he ran for president? "followed by many people of different occupations", too may ways of wrong to type, needs a skilled writer. "The goal was to", well, did they? "was the commander" --> was Supreme Commander. Just as Hawkeye cleaned up the Movement article, this article needs a MilHist editor to look it over, and that should be done before bringing it to FAC. Those are samples only; this is not the purpose of FAC.
On 1f, there is failure to respect Wikipedia copyright policy on WP:CWW, which should result in the equivalent of a quick-fail. The entire article history is easily viewable as it is so short, and there is no edit summary WP:PATT for WP:CWW. Nor are there any {{copied}} templates on article talk. The article was created with text copied from other articles, that includes at minimum (and I haven't checked all article that content may have been copied from, only Draft Eisenhower movement) text copied that was written by editors Hawkeye7, Ylee, TwoFingeredTypist, and TheTechnician27. At minimum (there may be more), the copyright of those four editors has been breached, as words they wrote are not properly attributed. All text copied within now needs to be identified and corrected via dummy edits and templates on talk of all affected articles. (And I imagine that extends also to Draft Eisenhower movement.) You can see samples of how to template talk at Talk:Battle of Glasgow, Missouri (Hog Farm added the templates there even though he had correctly attributed the CWW in edit summary, see under the talk page banner), but dummy edits also now have to be made on all affected articles.
This FAC is even more surprising than the very similar Socrates Nelson, involving the same lax reviews, but this article will get much more readership than Nelson (akin to the time DYK ran a picture of Douglas MacArthur that wasn't, as any one of a certain age knew). There are similarities with Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Socrates Nelson/archive1, where very surprising (and false) claims were not source checked, and poor prose was passed. Any politically savyy editor of a certain age, with experience in writing political FAs, should have seen red flags at the false statement that Ike won Minnesota, just as a source review at Nelson should have specifically checked the glaring red flag (and false) statements that Nelson co-authored a petition to Congress, or voted to "legalize slavery" in Minnesota. If editors support articles with very surprising claims that aren't checked, the premature support should be weighted no higher than a drive-by. A support declared on an article with demonstrable inaccuracies, 1a issues, and failure to respect copyright should be considered a drive-by and the nomination shut down. Coords can also decide not to promote FACs with only three supports if any of those supports come from editors with a history of drive-by supports. These issues discourage serious reviewers from engaging FAC. FAC is not PR, and is supposed to be better than GA; please take the time to prepare an article accordingly before nominating at FAC. My recommendations for preparing for FAC are here; it does not appear this article was prepared. My declaration stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia: I might be able to reply to the above comments in a few hours, but a few things. You initially accused me and leeky of helping each other at FAC for those points in Wikicup, which is not true. That comment is making me feel bit uncomfortable, can you please withdraw that accusation. Secondly, now, you say that there is a passed source review. I don't see any passed source review here... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 02:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted that the source reviewer was finished when they said "that's all I've got for now"; in fact, at 18:46, 9 March 2022 leeky does seem to be acknowledging they had finished. Nonetheless, I have struck and rephrased above. I did not "accuse" you of anything; I quoted an edit summary, which I said "seems to implicate the WP:WIKICUP drive to bring short articles quickly to FAC to advance in a contest". If the shoe doesn't fit, you don't have to put it on. I believe your denials are on record here, and I accept them on AGF, but me quoting an edit summary and stating what impression that can lead to is not an "accusation", nor did I say anything about "you and leeky helping each other". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears we both misinterpreted each other. Thanks for rephrasing the "passed" source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Okay, a few things before we settle this:

I accept my full responsibility for erroneously writing that Ike won Minnesota, when I wanted to write that he "almost won". But that has already been corrected, and is cited to a source which was found in other FAC to be WP:HQRS by two independent source reviewers (Jo-Jo Eumerus and Hog Farm at FAC) and at A-class review (by Ian Rose). I don't see a reason why it should be cited to another source, but I am open to your views. (By the way, while I completely agree it was wrong to say Ike won Minnesota primary, I very much disagree that it should have "raised red flags". We are not talking about general elections. Why would a Republican not win in Republican Minnesota primary?)
As for copying text from the Draft Eisenhower article, I did provide attribution, and I have differences. I was initially creating this article in my sandbox. See Special:Diff/1074860806/1074862263 and Special:Diff/1074862263/1074864304. While I was copying text, I did provide attribution. However, when I copied that sandbox in article space, I did not wrote that in the edit summary. Thus, it appears I did not provide attribution. I have now fixed that by adding talk page banner. Nothing from any other article was copied.
As for the Socrates Nelson comparison, I'm quite well familiar with that article. As for Douglas MacArthur, I don't know this case, are you saying that DYK ran a picture of MacArthur that wasn't him? Strange, as he is quite easy to recognize. But I agree that this article will get lot of pageviews. (Draft Eisenhower yesterday got about 50,000 views!)
As for the prose issues: Don't get me wrong, Sandy, but I am honestly confused. You feel the prose is not upto standard, and the nomination is premature. If it is, I have no issues withdrawing the nomination and sending this to GOCE. But, I am confused, because Wehwalt (an experienced FAC editor) supports this nomination. I don't think he had checked the sources, so I'll assume his support was based on assessing the prose. @Wehwalt, do you share the concerns Sandy specifies. Because if you do, I'll be happy to withdraw this. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; I appreciate that you accepted the responsibility and respect that.
On CWW, when you moved the draft from your user space to article space, there was no edit summary providing attribution from there, so the article remains failing copyright policy until you add the templates on talk of all affected articles, and add the dummy edit summaries. I see the template on talk and will check your work on that this afternoon (I am out the rest of the day). The point of CWW and PATT is that you leave an attribution trail. Without that, anyone looking at this article has no way of knowing what content was written by (at least) Hawkeye7 and the others.
I am glad the Minnesota issue is corrected; I do not object to any source used as long as it's now correct; I provided you anyway the high quality source I found right after I read the error (it does give a good explanation of what happened, but more depth than needed for this article). By the time I was able to revisit the article, it had been corrected. I do hope you understand my overall point was, and remains, that this article was rushed to FAC, where it is taking reviewer resources while very well prepared articles are going without review. The edit summary suggested a WIKICUP issue; I accept both of your explanations that it was not.
You are correct that my expectations of what reviewers may be presumed to know about politics in MN may be too high. My point there is that the random spotchecks are not turning up big issues as they aren't focusing on key statements; that was why I drew the similarity with Nelson (you passed the source check while somehow not checking the most surprising statements, which almost all turned out to be false). In this article, a key fact was not checked in the first source pass; it happened to be something I knew to check right away. Random checks are good, but be sure to check the big and surprising things as well.
Wehwalt also supported Nelson, which had demonstrably deficient prose, as indicated by feedback from multiple editors. When there is a pattern, Coords should weight Supports accordingly, and expect more than three supports before promotion.
Now, as to whether this article should be withdrawn or is improving: how is Leeky indicating what has passed sourcing and what has not? Because I just made one small check on only one source on only one page range, and the three facts you have cited to it are two wrong, one poor prose. See Kamber pages 29 to 30: 40% of all Americans did not own televisions; there is a big difference idiomatically between a "positive spot" ad and a "net positive", and the paragraph where Mamie is positioned has poor flow-- why is she stuck in where she is? Forty percent of households is not the same as 40% of people, and "had" is not the same as "owned" (I don't know about the US, but in the UK then it was possible to rent a TV). And yet, Leeky reviewed Kamber 29 above and did not indicate it failed a source check, nor is that indicated on talk here, so what's the system? That is one page range of one source I checked. This article should be at peer review. And your FA efforts would benefit from developing a set of collaborators who will check your writing and sourcing before you bring it to FAC. I hope you understand that is not intended as a criticism; my own prose is as Bad As It Gets, so I know I should have multiple independent copyeditors comb through my writing before I bring it to FAC. It appears that you should also have collaborators who carefully check your source-to-text integrity.
If I seem overly fussed about this situation, it's a) two FACs in a row that I've checked with such glaring issues (Nelson and Ike), b) taking FAC time while extremely well prepared articles go unreviewed, and c) a cavalier attitude about what an FA is and should be, and how important source-to-text integrity is, and that this approach is disrespectful of fellow editors who bring well prepared material to FAC. Precisely the reason Coords are supposed to archive ill-prepared FACs is that reviewers should not have to keep revisiting to keep addressing issues, when that could be done more productively at peer review. I should not have to keep checking to discover yet more unverified facts and keep returning here promptly to see if I should strike my oppose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn — Now convinced by Sandy. Happy to withdraw for now and will bring this back soon! Thanks Wehwalt, leeky, and Sandy! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, with respect. Please do not hesitate to ping me to a Peer Review, where I will be more than happy to assist. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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.
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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 12 March 2022 [6].

SpaceX Starship edit

Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a reusable stainless steel rocket that can land on the launch tower's arms. There has been some very interesting events around it, from literal spy cams recording 24/7 by enthusiasts, to Jeff Bezos' litigation because NASA chose Starship instead of their Blue Moon lander. Enjoy. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: I would like the nomination to be withdrawn; it was an oversight by me to not read through the entire article before. In the meantime, I would try to copyedit the article as much as I can and seek help if needed.

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. The prose is not up to standard. Here are a few examples:

  • with the owner company SpaceX mostly self-funds the project - grammar
  • In November 2005, SpaceX first referenced a concept with some capabilities of Starship - "referenced a concept"?
  • and was not mentioned to be reusable - "mentioned to be"
  • Super Heavy BN4 was the first that can mate to Starships, while Starship SN20 was the first to feature a body-tall heat shield, mostly made of black hexagonal heat tiles. - first what?
  • Methane was chosen for the Raptor engines since it may be cheaper - well is it or isn't it?
  • SpaceX builds multiple other variants of Raptor - why not just say "many"
  • These grid fins are not spaced evenly for obtaining more pitch control and can only rotate in the roll axis - I have no idea what this means.
  • When the rocket launches at Starbase, it may make more than 115 dBA at up to a 3.7 km (2.3 mi) radius, and up to 90 dBA throughout most of Brownsville, a nearby city, comparable to a lawnmower. - It is not obvious that noise pollution is the subject.

The poor prose makes the article a slog to read. It is far from FA level. Graham Beards (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose largely for the same reason as Graham Beards, which I note was also mentioned at the very recent "no-consensus" GAR and slightly less-recent PR. Even in the lead and infobox, there are several issues that give pause. In addition to Graham Beards's observations, these are just some examples from before the Concepts section:
    • Wikidata infobox is very unnatural - it doesn't even say what Starship or Super Heavy are, "Has use" is an awkward label, no links to things like "orbital inclination" that may be unfamiliar to most people
    • "two-stage and super heavy-lift" - "and" doesn't make sense as these are both adjectives
    • Use of "notably" (MOS:EDITORIAL)
    • "is selected for many space programs" - should not be present tense, as it is not currently being selected; "has been" would be better
    • "integral to [...] making rapid transport between locations on Earth possible" - does not seem to be backed up in text (only one brief mention), and makes no sense as many non-Starship rapid transport methods exist
    • Odd word choice at times ("inserts" itself into orbit? "encourages" inequality?)
    • Inconsistency between tenses (throughout the text, but e.g. "is later caught by [...] would reposition the booster")
    • "is subjected to change" should be "is subject to change"
    • "To be more specific", "going to be", etc seem redundant and not in encyclopedic tone
    • "one of which is spaceflight news site NASASpaceFlight.com" - is there any reason to single this one out except that it was interviewed?
    • "Brownville, Texas, one of the poorest United States's cities" - ungrammatical, also should be Brownsville
    • "nearby the spaceport" - "near"
  • Given these issues and many more minor ones (missing "that"s, for example), the article is rather hard to comprehend and IMO fails 1a by some distance. If the nominator wishes I can go read through the rest of the article and leave more comments, but I don't think all of the readability/grammar issues can be easily fixed. eviolite (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also oppose. I have not done a line-by-line review of this article since December (here), but from a quick readthrough, it's the same overall things just in different places. Cacti, I fear that as long as you are the main editor of the SpaceX Starship page, the grammar may never maintain featured article standards (unless something changes). Instead of a one-time fix being possible, it's an ongoing issue where you make a very high volume of edits (looks like 70% of all edits are you [7]). While I personally am not involved in reviewing featured article candidates, this nomination makes me feel a bit annoyed on behalf of those reviewers, as the article's overall disposition is the same as the previous times. Issues such as grammar and sourcing are extremely difficult to bring up to FA standards given the context of constant churn and rewriting. Leijurv (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given I was made aware of this discussion off-wiki, I am not going to take any kind of position, but I must state that my comments on the last FAC still stand regarding the lack of scholarly literature in this article. There is quite a bit out there on this topic. I also echo the concerns expressed by the others above and suggest you withdraw the nomination. NoahTalk 21:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at previous nominations or read the article before this, but seeing the opposes above I thought I would take a look at the prose. I picked a couple of paragraphs at random to look at. Not every paragraph had issues, but many did. Examples:

  • "SpaceX has said its goal is to colonize Mars for the long-term survival of the human species. Musk himself has been pursuing the goal since 2001 with the Mars Oasis program, where a rocket would launch a greenhouse to Mars. At the time, its purpose was to stimulate the space market and increase NASA's budget. The final possible goal of the program is to send a million people to Mars by 2050, with a thousand Starships sent during a Mars launch window." Several problems: "where" is the wrong connective for "Mars Oasis program, where..."; there's a direct contradiction between Musk pursuing the goal since 2001 and "at the time, its purpose was"; and "final possible goal" is vague -- they don't know yet what their goals are? This is probably meant to indicate that the final goal is only7 thought to be possible, but as written it doesn't say that.
  • "Another was proposed to launch a space probe orbiting around Io, a moon of Jupiter, which is difficult because of the mission's demand for shielding from intense radiation and large delta-v budget or range. Even further, the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, who experiment with using solar sails to travel between the stars, proposed a mission riding on a Starship cruising to Mars." It's not clear what "which" refers to in "which is difficult"; "Even further" is vague; and the MPISSR's experiments are no doubt intended to demonstrated that interstellar travel with solar sails is possible, but they don't current have solar sails that travel between the stars as this wording implies.
  • "An analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute think-tank wrote possible military-use cases of Starship": poor grammar.
  • "Of which, the tanks weigh...": don't start a sentence with "Of which".
  • "SpaceX builds multiple other variants of Raptor. The company specifies the Raptor engine has a ratio of throat area to exit area of 1:34.[67] Another is the Raptor Vacuum, designed to be fired in space." The third sentence would naturally follow from the first, but the second sentence makes the sequence incoherent.

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. This is not FAC-ready. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:36, 12 March 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 11 March 2022 [8].

Jean Batten edit

Nominator(s): Zawed (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a change from the military-themed articles I have previously brought to FAC, this article is about Jean Batten, an aviatrix of the 1930s. She made recording setting flights from England to Australia and then later England to New Zealand. Glamorous, driven, and ambitious, she was probably the most well known New Zealander of the 1930s but spent much of her later years as a recluse. I felt her article, as of mid-2020, didn't do her justice and have spent a lot of time, on-and-off, since then working on the article with a view to eventually bringing it to FAC. It went through the GA process in January and, having now attended to the addition of a map showing the flight path of one of her record flights, think it is ready for review at FAC. Thanks in advance to all those who participate in the review. Zawed (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose based on FAC#4, length and summary style. At 12817 words, the article does not succeed at avoiding unnecessary detail by using summary style as required by the FA criteria. The important information ends up getting buried under walls of text. Compounding the matter, some sections are very long, making them difficult to read for viewers with smaller screens. To reduce the length, I would suggest splitting "Record attempts from England to Australia" into a separate article and summarizing it here. (t · c) buidhe 09:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, that's disappointing. @Buidhe:, please withdraw this nomination. I think that the nature of the remedial work required is going to be such that it should be best done outside of the FAC process. Thanks, Zawed (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 11 March 2022 [9].

Werner Voss edit

Nominator(s):Georgejdorner (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I request the withdrawal of this nomination, as I have come to realize it is not yet ready. My apologies to Kavyansh.Singh and NikkiMaria for wasting their admirable talents fruitlessly because of me.23:27, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This article is about...one of the leading flying aces of the Imperial German Air Service of the First World War, Werner Voss. Noted for his flying talent, marksmanship, and situational awareness, Voss scored 48 aerial victories before dying in a single-handed match against eight Royal Flying Corps aces in a dogfight still debated and discussed by aviation enthusiasts and historians. Georgejdorner (talk) 06:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review edit

  • Images need ALT text for readers who cannot see the images. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images
    • I do not understand this. My coding skills are strictly "monkey see, monkey do". That is, I learn by copying useful code. However, I have never faced this code before. With an example, I would copy it as needed.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why the table is not sortable?
    • Is there a useful reason why it should be sortable? I do not think the material leads itself to a useful sort.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In accordance with MOS:DTAB, the table needs caption. But since the section heading is already "Werner Voss's victories", the caption would be repetitive. So suggesting to use {{Sronly}}, by which, the caption would be visible to only those using screen-reader. So, all in all:
{| class="wikitable"
|-
becomes:
{| class="wikitable"
|+ {{Sronly|List of Werner Voss's victories}}
  • The table needs col scopes. !No. becomes ! scope=col | No.
  • I also don't think that "Doubled horizontal lines" is the best method for marking changes in squadron assignments. If you'd like to keep the table unsortable, better would be to merge all the cells of that row, put a background color, and write "change in squadron assignment" or whatever better wording. For example, see the 1976 and 2021 row of this list.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Deleted doubled lines for transfers. That info is available in text.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time

  • What makes the following high-quality reliable sources? Blue Max, Find-a-Grave, Let Let Let Warplanes, Outskirts Press, Cronyn, Hobby Helpers
    • Excellent question. Now that I've been recently schooled that accurate websites aren't necessarily reliable, I will go through this lot.
      • Blue Max:
      • Find-a-Grave:
      • Let Let Let Warplanes: Moved to External links. Cites deleted.
      • Outskirts Press:
      • Cronyn: Used per WP:SPS, only to verify he wrote these SPS memoirs.
      • Hobby Helpers: I'm not finding this one. Perhaps you could point it out.
        Under Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • So it's not actually a source. Nevertheless, it is deleted.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          At the moment both Further reading and External links are subsections of References. If they're not intended as references, that shouldn't be. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details in the lead don't match up with what's in the article text. For example, the lead states that the medal was associated with a mandatory leave, while the text says it's only customary
    • It was mandatory that the ace take the customary leave. It was customary to send the ace on a mandatory leave. Where's the inconsistency?Georgejdorner (talk) 02:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Customary and mandatory mean different things. If what you mean is that it was customary for a leave to be mandated, then let's say that in both places. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regulations made mandatory leaves customary. Nevertheless, I have addressed your quibble.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are also inconsistencies within the text - for example it's sometimes Rhys Davids and sometimes Rhys-Davids
  • Also inconsistencies in citation formatting, eg whether publication location is included
  • Don't rely on wikilinks for basic definitions - eg WIA should be spelled out on first appearance rather than just linked
    • Missing in action, wounded in action, killed in action are all spelled in full and linked in first two lines of victory list. MIA, WIA, KIA are all linked on first usage as a means of introducing the unlinked abbreviations later on.Georgejdorner (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article would benefit from a going-through for MOS edits
  • "The dogfight remains a subject of debate and controversy among combat aviation historians and interested parties" - this could be expanded on. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, 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.
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 Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 6 March 2022 [10].

Supreme Court of Justice (Austria) edit

Nominator(s): Colonestarrice (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Supreme Court of Justice is one of Austria's three apex courts. It has final appellate jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases, and also handles intra-judicial disputes. Colonestarrice (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and suggest withdrawal. Sorry, but I don't think we can go to FAC when there are substantial unsourced paragraphs, choppy/single-sentence paragraphs and virtually no coverage on its post-World War II history. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Kavyansh edit

Oppose, and suggesting withdrawal — I'm really sorry for this rough start, but in its current state, the article does not meet the FA criteria:

  • I doubt if the article is fully comprehensive, as required by 1b. Why are the following 2 sources, along with so many other at Google Scholar not incorporated?
    • Ratz, Eckart (2015). "The Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Austria". Frontiers of Law in China. Retrieved March 6, 2022.
    • Schmitz, Georg (2003). "The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Austria 19181920". Ratio Juris. 16 (2): 240–265. doi:10.1111/1467-9337.00235. ISSN 0952-1917.
  • The prose is not fully upto FA standards. There are various one lined and short paragraphs
  • What makes ogh.gv.at a "high quality reliable source"? It is a primary source for Der Oberste Gerichtshof
  • Various citation formatting errors, various sources listed are not used, inconsistencies in citation date format, etc.
  • Also curious why did you withdraw the GA nomination, and nominated for FA withing 50 minutes?

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2022 (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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 2 March 2022 [11].

NeXT edit

Nominator(s): Wingwatchers (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an "American technology company that specialized in computer workstations intended for higher-education and business use." Wingwatchers (talk) 04:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ajpolino edit

Hi there, I don't have any particular knowledge about NeXT or computing, but I'll take a look from a lay perspective. Comments/suggestions below:

Lead
  • "computer workstations intended for..."
  • The second sentence, "Based in Redwood... in 1990.", is quite long. I was still able to follow, but you may consider splitting it into its constituent ideas.
  • ...with only about 50,000 units shipped in total"
  • Second paragraph - I don't exactly know what's meant by "application layer" or "implementation". If you'd like to keep the computer-challenged with you here, perhaps you could make it clearer through context or wikilinks?
  • Similarly, consider wikilinking ported.
History
  • "They were commercial... by February 1984." doesn't seem essential to my understanding of this topic. I'd suggest cutting it.
  • Regarding lunch with Paul Berg - (1) where does the "luncheon to honor the French president" bit come from? I don't see it in either of the cited sources. (2) The Stross book takes a gently skeptical view of Jobs' telling of this encounter, and even has an alternative telling by Berg. Perhaps you could add some text to communicate the nuance, or remove some text to less-fully embrace Jobs' version?
  • "Jobs's division... Macintosh Office software." reads a bit odd now. Any context you can add? Why the delay?
  • "The board of directors... Soviet Union on behalf of Apple." The two clauses in this sentence seem unrelated.
  • "after several months of"
  • "...taking several Apple employees from the SuperMicro division with him, but he also promised that his new company would not compete with Apple and might even consider licensing their license designs to them under the Macintosh brand"
  • "nicknamed as "the cube""
  • The box quote about curing cancer comes across as fawning over Jobs to me. If it were up to me, I'd cut it.
  • The paragraphs on Perot and Adobe/Display PostScript feel abrupt when I read through. Imagine how smooth the section would flow if the paragraph ending "...designed by Hartmut Esslinger and his team at Frog Design Inc." was followed by the paragraph starting "The original design team anticipated to complete the computer in early 1987..." I don't have a bold idea for how else to organize things, but just flagging the idea here in case you have an idea.
  • "The original design team anticipated to completing the computer in early 1987 and launching it for US$3,000 by mid-year."
  • Sometimes you use "$" and sometimes "US$". I'd suggest using just "$" throughout; it's obvious from context which dollar you mean.
  • "On October 12, 1988... Hall in San Francisco, California." it's not clear why this event is significant. Consider cutting or contextualizing? Ditto for the rest of the paragraph.
  • Any idea why the early 1987 planned release became a late 1988 reveal, 1989 limited-release, and 1999 release?
  • "The first NeXT Computers were experimented in 1989" I think a different verb is in order? I'm not used to seeing "experimented" this way.
  • "Computer targeted the United States"
  • "(CPU)" - no need to define abbreviations you won't use later.
  • "(MO)" is defined twice.
  • "Jobs negotiated Canon's initial price of $150 per blank MO disk so that they could sell at retail for only $50." I'm not sure I understand what this sentence is trying to get across.
  • "In June 1991, Perot resigned from the board of directors to concentrate more time in his company, Perot Systems, a Plano, Texas–based software system integrator" also feels a bit out of place. Maybe enough source material exists to make a section on corporate structure and financing? Take a look at other company articles and see what they've done.
  • "Jobs ensured that NeXT staffers... "pizza box" ...already had that nickname." doesn't feel particularly relevant? Maybe it's worth including at NeXTstation but I'm not sure I needed to know that here.
  • "Color graphics were...than their predecessors." reads a bit weird. I didn't know what the "NeXTstation Color" was (a color version of the NeXTstation?). Maybe you could clarify?
  • "then super-secret National Reconnaissance Office" - Is "super-secret" a term of art? Otherwise sounds a bit silly.
  • Do we know anything about why NeXT withdrew from the hardware industry? It feels sudden in the article.
  • My personal opinion is the box quote "We went for... worry about." is not very helpful and could be removed.

Phew, that's what I get from my first pass through. In general, I'd say the prose is a bit choppy and could use the attention of someone experienced at writing/editing high-quality prose (i.e. not me). My gentle advice would be to withdraw this for now, and ask one of the FAC mentors if they'd be willing to take a look and share their thoughts. That may be the quickest/easiest path to FA-quality prose. Thanks for the interesting read! Best, Ajpolino (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - oppose edit

Unfortunately, I don't think the sourcing has improved enough since the FAR delisting for this to be an FA again.

  • "NeXT and Adobe collaborated on Display PostScript (DPS), a 2D graphics engine that was released in 1987. NeXT engineers wrote an alternative windowing engine edition to take full advantage of NeXTSTEP. NeXT engineers used Display PostScript to draw on-screen graphic designs such as title-bar and scroller for NeXTSTEP's user-space windowing system library" - why are we citing this to a command/usage manual?
  • " Steve Jobs building NeXT on YouTube" - is there any indication that this isn't a WP:COPYLINK problem?
  • "It was the first computer to ship with a general-purpose DSP chip (Motorola 56001) on the motherboard. This supported sophisticated music and sound processing, including the Music Kit software" - Again, why are we citing these claims to a hardware manual?
  • "Ford, Kevin. "Canon object.station 41". The Best of NeXT Computers. Archived from the original on January 14, 2012. Retrieved September 18, 2011." - this appears to be largely Ford's personally website. What makes it RS?
  • Formatting issues abound - books missing page numbers
  • "NeXTSTEP's processor-independent capabilities were retained in Mac OS X, leading to both PowerPC and Intel-x86 versions (although only PowerPC versions were publicly available before 2006). Apple moved to Intel processors by August 2006" - not entirely supported by source. Besides some of the details not being supported, the source is from 2005, which is a big problem when you're citing it for stuff that happened in 2006
  • ""Serial Archive Listings for NeXTWORLD". The Online Books Page. Archived from the original on June 12, 2008. Retrieved June 13, 2008." - this is almost certainly not RS
  • " Roads and Crossroads of Internet History Archived February 6, 2015, at the Wayback Machine Chapter 4: Birth of the Web" - this ref is problematic. Either it's a non-RS being cited, or it's a non-RS hosting a (probably) copyrighted work.

I'm not giving this one much more attention, as it's clearly unprepared. If an article gets delisted at FAR for sourcing issues, you need to fix those issues before you resubmit to FAC. Pinging @FAC coordinators: . Hog Farm Talk 18:53, 2 March 2022 (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_2022&oldid=1080391436"