Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2022

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [1].

Niandra LaDes and Usually Just a T-Shirt

edit
Notified: NSR77, Grim-Gym, Burnedthru, Zmbro, WP Red Hot Chili Peppers, WP Alternative music, WP Albums, noticed in May 2021

Several of the sources in the article would not be consider good enough for FAC now - top40 is an about.com site and probably not reliable, invisible-movement.net is not RS, Discogs is user-generated, and feelnumb and Los Apson look questionable. Additionally, rockinfreakapotamus is a fansite/fanzine of questionable reliable. There's an entire paragraph of uncited material about recording after the track listing. While personnel can usually be assumed to be from the album cover, but because it lists several "uncredited" people involved, I think that those can't really be assumed to be from the album cover. Finally, the VPRO interview is a WP:COPYLINK violation; the audio clip needs to be shortened per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples and currently lacks the contextual significance needed, and File:JohnNiandraLades1994.jpg has a very weak non-free rationale. Hog Farm Talk 00:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: I'll see what I can do to fix this. I've cut out a few unreliable references and replaced then where I could. There doesn't seem to be a lot of discussion about this album nowadays on music websites, so fortunately there aren't any problems regarding scope. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Regarding the VPRO interview, I haven't watched it yet but from a cursory google search about this album, the VPRO interview comes up in almost every single article, regardless if the article is from a reliable source. So to say the least, this interview seems crucial. With that said, would it be possible to create a reference for the VPRO interview without actually linking to the interview itself? I'm still not quite sure how COPYLINK explicitly works. Famous Hobo (talk) 00:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it should be possible to cite it without linking to it. (In general, for lengthy videos like that, you'll want to use timestamps as an equivalent to the page numbers). It just can't be linked to a place hosting copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every unreliable source has been replaced, still have one to go. God bless oldschool fansites for scanning magazine articles and making my life a million times easier. Additionally, I still need to shorten the audio sample and spruce up the lede. Famous Hobo (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is Broxvoort, Brian (1994). "John Frusciante Goes Over a Bridge." Rockinfreakapotamus. It appears to be http://thechilisource.com/rockinfreakapotamus/ but is not fully formatted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rockinfreakapotamus is an old fanzine related to the band which may or may not be RS; the chilisource link is hosting scans of the old fanzine in a fashion that may or may not comply with COPYLINK. Hog Farm Talk 00:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this is the Rockinfreakapotamus article. I believe it should be considered a reliable source since it's an interview with Frusciante, but I won't lose sleep if it doesn't meet the qualifications for a reliable source. Famous Hobo (talk) 09:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the nature of the piece/interview, I would say that it is fine to use as a source. Hog Farm Talk 18:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Best I can tell, it's still an WP:ELNEVER (hosting a copyvio), which we shouldn't use. We can't link to the copyright violation, so we end up with an incomplete citation, and readers looking for the source will still be directed to a site hosting a copyright violation. Unless you are saying they had permission to run the photocopy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if we got the bibliographic information, then we could do a {{Cite magazine}} and just not link to it, right, formatting it like a print-only magazine? Hog Farm Talk 18:55, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, shortened the audio sample to comply with MoS, and now I think everything has been taken care of. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My only significant concerns right now are that " Wolk, Douglas. "Reviews". CMJ New Music Monthly. p. 42." is improperly formatted (we really need the date/issue for something like this) and that we'd be better off with the volume/issue number if possible for the Rockinfreakapotamus source to complete the citation. Zmbro - I know you've worked on similar music items before; do you have anything to add here? Hog Farm Talk 19:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that CMJ reference was one that I added. Fixed that reference. Sadly the place I got the Rockinfreakapotamus doesn't include a volume/issue number. Famous Hobo (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry just now getting to this. I notice the book sources are missing locations of publication; also, two are ISBN 10 and the other 13. Furthermore, per MOS:ALBUM#Track listing, the template is only needed for more complicated situations so we should change that to numbers and dashes. I'm wondering whether or not newspapers.com would have a few of these on hand, such as Boston Herald and Phoenix New Times. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 23:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Zmbro: Fixed the book sources and I think I changed the track listing correctly. Regarding the Phoenix New Times article, that's online in archived web format so the newspaper isn't required. As for the Boston Herald, I don't think I can find it since I don't have access to Newspapers.com, and other limited newspaper archives don't include the Boston Herald. Famous Hobo (talk) 07:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Since the album was released on November 22, I figure if it is gonna be a TFA, might want to wait for the date. But honestly fine with it running any day. I'm not too attached to this article since it was mostly just cleanup. Famous Hobo (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tack it onto WP:TFARP then. Hog Farm Talk 18:47, 19 February 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [2].

Geology of the Lassen volcanic area

edit
Notified: Mav, Hike395, WT:VOLC, WP:CAL, WT:GEOL, April 2021 notice

I am nominating this featured article for review because per Hog Farm's April 2021 notice, there is substantial uncited content in the article, failing 1c. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I may be able to find some time to resolve the uncited content issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Rockland Ash"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This ash layer. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It’s mentioned in image captions but never in the article … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if you plan to work on this, I suggest switching it to sfns to help resolve the awkward notes in the source sections. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed that the current citation style isn't really good. Mostly because it's not really consistently applied, mix of citation templates and not, different name sorting and such. I personally like and use sfn, but I would support any change that makes it consistent. RoseCherry64 (talk) 16:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus since you are doing the heavy lifting, I would be willing to do the sfn conversion, if that’s the way you want to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far I have only added references to all paragraphs, so currently the uncited text issue is IMO resolved. Nothing about updating, source formatting etc., though; geology in this specific region isn't something I am particularly well-versed with. I think a change to sfn would be warranted only if we began to use paginated sources, but that would imply a root-and-branch rewrite of the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Like many (most?) of the National Park articles, this article uses very old, archived versions of NPS/USGS pages (that have probably been updated and need to be checked). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've begun doing some of the work and I have to ask, what's our stance on using text from USGS verbatim? I know they aren't copyrighted but they are ancient and a lot of the article relies on them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is quite typical for the older National Park articles. It is similar to what we see in the Cyclone articles. In the very earliest years of FAC and FAR, when the emphasis was on building the ‘pedia, it was not unusual for FAs to mimic public domain sources. I am not aware of any consensus discussion regarding WP:WIAFA that allows us to demand that public domain text not be used, but we must make sure it is attributed. (Of course, there could have been a discussion that I either missed or have forgotten. I have a vague memory of a FAC discussion about whether FAs should be represent Wikipedia’s “own work” getting bogged down and going nowhere at FAC.) Although I suspect articles that were mostly public domain text would be rejected at FAC today, I don’t believe we have a criteria-based argument for doing that. The problem here, though, is that the public domain sources (NPS, USGS) have been updated, while our article has not kept up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a huge citation cleanup, and converted to SFNs.[3] I noticed that we are using a 1997 version of Harris, Tuttle & Tuttle, which is now on its 7th edition. Rockland Ash is still mentioned but not defined. I cannot judge whether the article is outdated or comprehensive: Jo-Jo Eumerus ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article is reasonably comprehensive, but as said above this isn't a part of the world where I am well versed with geology. I'll see if some editors who have written volcanoes in the region know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update? Bumbubookworm this is your nomination; how does it look to you now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: - I've seen a 2019 USGS report (should be public domain) titled "California's Exposure to Volcanic Hazards" from 2019 that has information about hazard assessments for Lassen in there. Would that document potentially be useful? Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it might, will need to check tomorrow. I suspect that it talks more about Lassen Peak than Geology of the Lassen volcanic area though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, checked, it's all about volcano not the geology. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:09, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much to say on this subject as I'm not an expert on geology in this part of the world. But from looking at the article I will also say it's reasonably comprehensive. Volcanoguy 20:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's comprehensive, then we still need to check whether it's current, as it is mostly cited to versions of public domain sources that are over a decade old. Volcanoguy you and Jo-Jo Eumerus would know which type of content is more likely to have changed here; I don't know how to do a spot check, as I don't know what areas of this article might need updating from the old sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a newer source here and here another one. Geology of National Parks is up to a 6th or 7th edition so far. One problem I see is that it's a bit unclear whether the US government sources in the article are archives or not, and that the general geological history of the area - the one part most likely to change - is exactly the thing I am least familiar with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some more sources, with the first implying that many of the USGS sources are treated by the NPS as still usable. I am not sure I will be doing a lot more work here, however; that's about 1250 sources to go through and I am not sure that I can muster the time and energy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, upon reconsideration I'll do some work here. I've updated some of the chronology section with newer text from the USGS and am now going through more recent sources. I'll see if I can squeeze some time in to go to the library for the most recent version of Geology of National Parks. I still welcome opinions on verbatim copies from USGS, though - I've used them right now but I feel a little uneasy with them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did go through more recent sources, as expected there hasn't been much new material published since then - typical for inactive volcanoes that aren't the focus of recent research. This contains information on volcanic hazards but I don't think it breaks new ground, [4][5][6][7][8] discuss neighbouring volcanoes and unsettled-on geology but I don't think that much of them is within the scope of this article, as it is closely focused on Lassen Peak itself. Lastly, someone might want to check my additions for writing quality. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did some updates from the 5th to 6th edition but now I don't know how to fix the sfn errors. There isn't an edition later than 5th for Geology of U.S. parklands, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found it, here; will look at rest tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo, I am finding needs for updating and clarification; I'll add my review to a talk page section once I get off iPad, on real computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am satisfied to Close without FARC, but would feel better if Jo-Jo Eumerus and Volcanoguy did a final read through to make sure I didn't introduce anything wonky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only found one edit by you that could be changed, which I've done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:19, 15 February 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC) [9].

Quatermass and the Pit

edit
Notified: Angmering, Hammersfan, IJBall, Ian Rose, DrKay, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Science Fiction, WikiProject United Kingdom, diff for talk page notification 2022-01-02

Eighteen years after the article's FA promotion in 2004, the article has issues, which I previously raised in the article talk page—e.g. overly long plot synopsis, episode list containing no individual episode synopses, sourcing, and insufficient updates. So far since I raised my concerns, no edits have been made. Furthermore, the article is listed in WP:URFA/2020A as the oldest remaining un-reviewed FA to this date (unless there are other articles from earlier years still tagged as FA). Improvements were discussed and (probably) made long before I raised the issues. George Ho (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC); edited, 05:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. These are weak complaints. In particular, the "plot synopsis too long" and "no individual episode synopsis" complaints make no sense taken together. The article's author clearly thought it was better to explain the plot in one continuous section rather than 6 split-up sections, which is a valid stylistic choice and not a "problem". "Insufficient updates" - you can't just say this without clarification. Is there post-2004 material that you feel is extremely important to include? What is it, if so? For sourcing - it seems that the nominator is simply complaining that there isn't a citation after every single sentence. But that's a style only used for extremely contentious topics; I presume that the references are more like covering an entire paragraph. The article looks fine to me. Finally, you gave all of a month for responses on the talk page, and it wouldn't shock me if there weren't any partially because this complaint is so vague. As nominator themselves note, the article was given a look in late 2020 and seemingly passed. There's a fansite used as a reference twice, but one is for a quoted interview, and the other for the mere existence of a stage play that is backed by another reference, so seems harmless to me. Nominator should clarify the issues more specifically or this FAR should be closed IMO. SnowFire (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking out my vague points. If the article is not outdated, then I must have worried over nothing. Same for the sourcing part. I brought this here because I couldn't tell whether the article still deserves to hold its FA star after all the years, even with improvements made last year. Also, I thought my language is implied, but I guess I should be more thorough or clearer or something next time I either take an article to a formal review or nominate it as FA candidate. Still, I'll try to clarify the part about the plot and layout: are readers wanting to spoil themselves expected to read the Plot section or the Episodes list... or both? It's hard for me to tell which plot points occurred in which episode. Also, without episode summaries, it's hard for me to know whether the storytelling is either simple or unusual like Pulp Fiction or 500 Days of Summer, though they're both films. Also, I wonder whether the article needs newer or older reviews and analysis, especially for an older series like this. If not, then I must have gotten worried over something that hasn't existed yet. --George Ho (talk) 05:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, and my comments at the talk page to this date received no replies. It's not because they're "vague" or anything like that. Probably because the talk page has been semi-active or less than that, AFAICS. Also, some of the article's editors are either banned (e.g. Eric Corbett) or no longer active. That's also why I brought the article here. George Ho (talk) 05:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There are many ways to write a good article. If you prefer moving plot summaries into episode summaries, that's valid, but it certainly isn't required. "Storytelling style" is something where it's assumed there's a "normal" chronological order of events unless stated otherwise - movies / TV series that pointedly play with temporal perspective will say so, otherwise you can safely assume it's not Pulp Fiction. See Jaws (film) for a FA example wherein the reader can safely assume that the movie depicts the events in the same order as the plot summary - I presume the same is true in Quatermass and the Pit's plot summary, that the events proceed in the order described from episode 1 to 6. Not that complicated. (I suppose, for the sake of pedants, some occasional markers could be stuck in the plot summary to indicate end-of-episode cliffhangers and the like, but that's a very minor request, SOFIXIT material not FAR material.)
    For "newer or older reviews" - well, I see contemporary reviews from 50s newspapers, a quote from a 1988 retrospective, and quotes from academics in the 2000s who've covered it, and a 2012 list from the BFI. Seems like a decent range of chronological reaction to me. SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close FAR without prejudice for renomination. Nominator admits he's "not sure" above whether this article even qualifies for FA standards; IMO, there's lots of old FA articles that are clearly currently below modern FA standards, so there's no need for FARs of "eh maybe it qualifies, maybe it doesn't" that are just asking a question. FAR can be reopened if a future nomination cites more serious problems. SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A diff to the full talk page notification might have been more helpful; SnowFire, are you able to lend any information re SPS on that source? IF we could establish whether the authors of the fan site meet WP:SPS, issues resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:45, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Disclaimer: I'm not a Doctor Who expert nor a BBC expert, and haven't seen this particular production. So I may not be the best judge here. That said, it seems like Doctor Who Restoration Team is notable enough to have their own article and be given BBC access, and Mark Ayres has a (thinly sourced) Wikipedia article. They seem like "experts" on this particular matter at least. I'm not sure if they meet the letter of SPS as far as being published by someone else, but apparently Ayres's article claims the BBC let him contribute commentaries on the restoration of old BBC stuff, and that's... vaguely in the right area, I guess? I think they can be used, but I'll grant it's a borderline source that probably shouldn't be used for anything seriously controversial - but it looks like it's largely used for remastering minutiae, so no big deal. I went ahead and removed one bit of minutiae that had been marked cn in the cleanup, and changed a ref on the VHS / early DVD releases to Revelation Films (which nobody seems to care about online) to a published book instead. So the DWRT is still used, but only for the explanation of 50s style telerecording and VidFIRE, which I think is valid as that's their area of expertise. Do you think that's sufficient to be within SPS grounds? Or in favor of playing it safe and cutting the parts still ref'd to DWRT?
    As discussed on the talk page, the other questionable source, "The Quatermass Home Page", isn't really used as a source itself, but more as a repository for an interview with Nigel Kneale, so it's really Kneale being cited, so I think that's good IMO.
    I also added a reference on the Blu-Ray release. SnowFire (talk) 03:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Reading the diff, your edits looks god good and must have been improvements. Still unable to access the book online, but I guess it must've been reliable more than the ones you removed. As you said, there are no more remaining issues at this time, including no more questionable sources just by looking at references list, so I guess the review shall be closed... unless I overlooked something else. --George Ho (talk) 07:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC); fixed, 19:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I could be wrong about "absence" of serious issues. --George Ho (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, SnowFire; you come to the same place that three other editors who looked at the article ended up a year ago; that is, in my view, there is borderline but benign use of an SPS here, but nothing rising to the level of needing a FAR. But now we have a FAR, so people need to opine. I don't think the minimal use of this borderline source warrants either delisting, or removing the text. Others may disagree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty thoroughly meh on this one. Agree with Sandy that the minimal use of a borderline source isn't a big deal. Aside from the potential that Newman 2014 could be used a bit more, I'm not seeing much that's really absent here. Not our greatest FA here, but I'm also not seeing anything that really warrants delisting. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure if you saw it already, but I worked in some more Newman 2014 after checking it out at the library just today. (On the downside, despite approvingly citing it above in the FAR, I also removed the 1988 Sunday Times quote because upon seeing the fuller quote in the older revisions, it seems pretty clear it's actually not talking about this serial at all - it cites a different year and a different plot. So whoops. But fixed now.)
    I think it's basically fine as is, per above comments, so would be leaning "keep". Ideally somebody checks the "bonus material" on the Blu-Ray edition that came out and see if it has slightly-more-citable material on the production than old GeoCities fansites, but I don't think I'm going that far, and I don't think it's crucial to maintaining FA status. (Also, if some brave soul does watch the Blu-Ray restoration version, I'd be curious to hear if the psychic mobs really are murdering people without Martian genes... the impression I get from Newman is that at least in the movie version, it's more generalized chaos and EVERYONE is afflicted by ancient Martian experiments, just some people are better at controlling it than others. But maybe the serial was different.) SnowFire (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Can anyone think of a UK editor to ping in here? I’m also in meh territory here; seeing it on the mainpage would not cause me to hang my head in shame, although it’s not our finest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire I’m not sure what we’re looking at here, but if that’s an WP:ELNEVER (link to a violation of someone else’s copyright), it has to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • I had assumed that was an interview done by someone affiliated with the fansite, but looking more closely... it's by Andrew Pixley but he isn't credited on the front page of the archived fansite, so probably not, you're right they're just hosting it then. Searching around for Pixley's name, it seems he's written some inset booklets for other works about Kneale example, although this may not be the same booklet, as it was from a release years after this fansite was made, unless they re-published an old interview)? So it's probably a real interview but I'm not sure how to even cite it, because it's citing "some material from an unknown release of Qatermass pre-2004". Clearly we need an emergency WMF grant to import a Blu-Ray... any volunteers?! SnowFire (talk) 06:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Same problem here: I can't tell if they did the interview, or if they are hosting a copyright. I got a free t-shirt from the WMF, but I gave it away. And I don't know how to turn on my TV, much less operate the Blu-Ray that my sons left here. Gotta find another for that! I would not like to delist an article over such minor issues, but we just haven't gotten answers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Found out that Region-B Blu-ray release has special features, but it's incompatible with other Blu-ray players outside Region B areas. The series is available only on DVD for Americans and Canadians (and Bermudans?) at this time. Blu-ray.com doesn't explain much about one DVD release itself. However, able to retrieve info about the DVD release, which turns out to be... barebones. Furthermore, according to a back cover via Amazon (and ebay), another Region-1 DVD release is also barebones. George Ho (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC. This old article gets negligible page views. While it may not be the most sparkling of all FAs, neither is it an embarrassment to the suite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC - not our strongest FA, but I don't think there's a good reason to delist here. Hog Farm Talk 19:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 5 February 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.

Delisted

edit
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC) [10].

Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre

edit
Notified: User talk:Yomangani; WT:CGR; WT:ROME; WT:HIST; WT:SPORTS; WT:HOLIDAY; WT:FESTIVALS, talk page notification2021-12-31

Review section

edit

This article (2007 promotion) is predominantly sourced to ancient writers who, as the article explains, are considered to be of questionable reliability; modern scholarship is cited only sparingly. That's a problem for several reasons: it means that the article lacks the high-quality sourcing required by the criteria, but it also opens up the article to original research and synthesis issues. For instance, statements like "[Dio's claim] conflicts with the work of Eutropius" can't just be cited to Dio and Eutropius: secondary sources are needed to draw that sort of contrast. There seem to be further issues, for instance with reference formatting, but the sourcing (which has already resulted in the placement of an orange cleanup banner) is the primary problem. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No examples of modern scholarship that should be used are given, either here or on the talk page notification. The talk page notice is only three weeks old, and the cleanup banner was placed the next day by an IP. T8612, please see the FAR instructions; delist or keep are not declared in the FAR phase; FAR is not for automatic delisting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have either of these, but from a quick search I'd be looking at The Oxford Handbook of Sport and Spectacle in the Roman World (with chapters on "The Colosseum" and "Theatres of Cruelty: Games of the Flavian Emperors" looking like plausible starting points) and Blackwell's A Companion to the Flavian Age of Ancient Rome ("Flavian Spectacle: Paradox and Wonder" looks promising). Also possibly A Monument to Dynasty and Death: The Story of Rome's Colosseum and the Emperors Who Built It by Nathan T. Elkins would be worth looking at – it is apparently written for a general audience but is recent (2019!), gets a decent write-up in the Bryn Mawr Classical Review, and looks as though at least it has a decent chunk of notes/further reading to mine. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks; that is the kind of information that should be provided in talk page notifications of pending FAR, else we are perceived as, or become, an automatic delisting page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ideally it would be, yes. I only came across this as a result of this FAR, however! (On further reflection, I'm also struck by how the article uncritically treats De Spectaculis as a description of the inaugural games when Coleman's 2006 edition/commentary, which is cited, begins its introduction "all that one can say with moderate certainty about this book of epigrams is that it comprises an untitled collection of uncertain length celebrating a series of unspecified occasions in honour of 'Caesar' (unnamed); and it is attributed to Martial". Given there's a whole subsection on sources, this is the kind of thing which should maybe be discussed!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks again for providing direction for article improvement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist (I've never been one for too much procedure) - This is based way too much on ancient sources (whole sections of it), which are of questionably reliability (WP:V), as explained above, and whose interpretation by Wikipedian editors opens up all sorts of WP:NOR and WP:NPOV issues. It is clear that an article which seemingly fails, in large parts of its content, all three core content policies, cannot be a "featured article". RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RandomCanadian please see the FAR instructions; Keep or delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for listing items for improvement (and hoping they will happen). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 5 February 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC) [11].

The Well of Loneliness

edit
Notified: buidhe, DrKay, Celithemis, WikiProject Feminism, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Novels, WikiProject Women's History, diff for talk page notification 2021-01-19

Review section

edit

Issues concerning the article were raised one year ago, like possible original research, unverifiable info, inadequate coverage, writing quality, and sourcing. Since then, some improvements were made, but they happened within one month after the discussion last year. Subsequent edits were just cleanups or tiny content changes or something else.

Please note: I've not notified editors who've been inactive for more than one year, who made edits for a very short time, or who made minor edits. You may do so if willing to. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least notify the now-inactives, as even if they are not able/interested in returning they may have talk-page watchers who could help. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Talk page watchers"? Seriously? Besides Celithemis, which inactive editors please? George Ho (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I notified Celithemis, but did not find anyone else active enough to notify. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho, when you do the notifications, please use the subst’d message listed in the FAR instructions; otherwise, newcomers to FAR show up without an understanding of the two-phase process, and start entering declarations. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
George Ho update/status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Realmaxxver has been working on the article since the FAR was brought up. There have been some improvements, but I'm unsure whether the issues are addressed. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Making another comment hours later: If you want my opinion, here it is: Realmaxxver's edits, despite being layout and tone improvements, did vey little to address the issues. I compared the pre-FAR revision to the current one, and the article's almost the same, despite the layout changes. I hope my vote is implied, right? --George Ho (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although there have been improvements, I still see non-cited content, inconsistent refs, and other issues. I quickly removed some instances of original research and unrelated content that I found but the article probably needs a more thorough search for such issues (t · c) buidhe 23:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As I see, you removed non-free images. I applaud the effort. However, the US copyright of File:The Sink of Solitude.gif and of File:Radclyffe Hall - Sunday Express.gif will expire on January 1, 2024, at least ninety-five years after their own first publications, i.e. two years from now, so I would like to reinsert them both by that time. Nonetheless, the UK copyright of the Solitude drawing is still intact until 1 January 2055, seventy years Beresford Egan's death. That neither is nor will be Commons-eligible for now and by then. On the contrary, the UK copyright of James Douglas's article must have expired already for more than a decade. (Saving this diff and that diff...) The File:Children of Loneliness.jpg I would request un-delete in 2034, twelve years from now, as the film was supposed released in 1937 (or 1935?). (Saving this diff...) No comment on other edits for now, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my. Realmaxxver you have partially converted the citations to sfns, but not completed the job. See WP:CITEVAR re changing citation style, which I’m not sure you should have done, but if doing it, it should be completed. We now have mixed citation style and harvref errors everywhere. Buidhe could you identify what text is uncited? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have finished where Realmaxxver left off and reformatted the rest of inline refs, hopefully, for more consistency. I hope I've not made one mistake, but I'm unsure whether I did. George Ho (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! I guess I did. Thanks, Wham2001, for correcting my errors. George Ho (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still littered with HarvRef errors; you can install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to view them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed (most of?) remaining errors without using the user script. I just added ref id and parameters and reformatted a few other references. George Ho (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, this article has been edited, but not clearly in a productive direction. The citation style was changed, with HarvRef errors introduced, and yet there is still a long list of newer scholarship parked in Further reading. It does not appear that any substantial improvement has been undertaken, which would include a sourcing overhaul. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - per Sandy, there are significant underlying issues yet to be addressed. Hog Farm Talk 22:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 February 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [12].

Avery Coonley School

edit
Notified: Nasty Housecat, Moni3, WP Schools, WP Illinois, WP Chicago, WP NRHP, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative education, noticed on 2022-12-23

Review section

edit

This is a 2010 promotion that hasn't really be updated since not long after promotion - curriculum is described as of 2009, technology material is from 2010 (and technology in education has changed massively since then), extracurricular activities is sourced to only stuff from 2010 or before, the student body and finances section is largely badly outdated, etc. This one will need a complete overhaul to still meet the criteria. Hog Farm Talk 05:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section largely concern currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 5 February 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [13].

Michael Woodruff

edit
Notified: User talk:Cool3; WT:BIO; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia; WP:AWNB; WT:MED; WP:NZWNB; talk-page notice (2021-12-18)

Review section

edit

I have significant concerns about this 2006 promotion, most notably with respect to sourcing. The article directly cites Woodruff's autobiography far more than I'm comfortable with, but more importantly it relies very heavily on various tributes by Peter Morris, who, by his own admission, knew Woodruff "quite well professionally" and "obtained considerable information from" the aforesaid autobiography. As such, the grand majority of this article is sourced either to Woodruff or to his friends—hardly the sort of high-quality sourcing that the criteria demand. Additionally, SandyGeorgia has kindly added several additional sources to the further reading section: the fact that none of them are cited in the article raises comprehensiveness concerns as well. Since neither these issues nor the additional ones mentioned in the talk-page notice (e.g. formatting and original research) have been addressed at all, it's worth considering whether the article should retain its current status. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 5 February 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC) [14].

Numerical weather prediction

edit
Notified: Thegreatdr, Titoxd, WikiProject Weather

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced statements in a couple of areas (most of it was removed by DrKay), has grammatical errors, outdated references, outdated section coverage (ie history since 1990s), and is lacking more recent scholarly literature. NoahTalk 16:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Noah another FAR by same nominators just moved to FAR within the last 12 hours; we should take care not to overburden nominators with back-to-back nominations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I nominated another because one of the FARs ended. NoahTalk 17:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, but that was a different nominator (Hink v thegreatdr). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:06, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it doesn't appear Tito has been active in almost a year's time and thegreatdr since May last year. It's really upon the project to take initiative to fix the articles in these cases since the nominators are not available to do so. Keep in mind that thegreatdr nommed the other article and tito nommed this one. NoahTalk 17:09, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Noah, update, status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:22, 5 February 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 5:26, 13 February 2022 (UTC) [15].

Zelda Fitzgerald

edit
Notified: JayHenry, Pantherpuma, Nikkimaria, Scartol, DrKay, AlexiusHoratius, HAL333, Dunks58, Valetude, Merry medievalist, Willthacheerleader18, Zziccardi, WikiProject Alabama, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Women's History, talk page notification 19 March 2021
Flask please notify WP:BIO and WikiProject Womens’ History— both are listed on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 12 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]
SandyGeorgia Done. — Flask (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Review section

edit

As noted on the article's Talk Page nearly a year ago and not addressed, this Featured Article is in a poor state and has a number of issues which would require considerable effort to fix. The article was approved for FA status nearly fifteen years ago in 2008 when standards were more lax, and the Wikipedia user who created the article JayHenry has been inactive for over a decade. I shall list a small sample of the issues:

First, the article fails the FA criterion to be "well-researched." The use of a single source—Nancy Milford's 1970 biography—for the overwhelming majority of the article is insufficient to say the least. Much scholarly research about Zelda Fitzgerald has been undertaken by Sally Cline, Matthew J. Bruccoli, Deborah Pike, James L. West III, and many others since Milford's 1970 biography, yet very little of this newer research appears in this article. Consequently, various claims in the article are over fifty years out-of-date. For example: The article recounts Milford's hypothesis that F. Scott Fitzgerald forced Zelda to rewrite her novel Save Me the Waltz. However, early drafts of Zelda's novel were later analyzed by scholars, and the alterations demanded by F. Scott Fitzgerald were determined to be fewer than Milford supposed (Bruccoli 1991, p. 4). "The revisions Scott finally demanded were actually relatively few, and that the disagreement was quickly resolved, with Scott recommending the novel to Perkins" (Bryer & Barks 2009, p. 164). Accordingly, the article needs to be rewritten both to update such outdated claims and to include a more diverse array of sources.

Second, the article gives a misleading impression of her life. Currently, the article gives the misleading impression that Zelda's final decades were akin to the doomed Dauphin of France. Yet much of Zelda's later years were not spent imprisoned in mental institutions. She actually lived in Montgomery and held a variety of jobs. She had only just returned to the mental institution where she died in a hospital fire. Furthermore, the article gives undue weight to Zelda's novel Save Me the Waltz and implies its failure forever crushed her spirits. Yet, after writing the novel, Zelda embarked upon a career as a playwright and wrote the stage play Scandalabra in Fall 1932 (Bruccoli 2002, p. 343). The play was produced and staged in Baltimore (see her daughter Scottie's preamble in The Collected Writings of Zelda Fitzgerald, 1991). She drafted a second novel Caesar's Things and painted dozens of beautiful paintings. Yet, whereas Save Me the Waltz is given an entire section, there is inadequate coverage of these other important undertakings.

Third, the article fails the FA criterion to be "comprehensive." The article omits many events in the life of the subject. For example: Despite using Nancy Milford's 1970 biography as its primary source, the article ignores pivotal events in Milford's biography, especially regarding Zelda's mental health deterioration. There are no detailed references to her attempts to kill both herself and her child (see Milford 1970, p. 156). These omissions give the misleading impression that Zelda was hospitalized without due reason. Even more odd is the article's implications about Zelda's institutionalization (i.e., "Scott placed her in..."). As documented in her many biographies and her letters, Zelda often insisted on being hospitalized over Scott's objections (see Bruccoli 2002, p. 320: "Zelda insisted that she wanted to be hospitalized"). Scott objected because—as a miser—he didn't want to pay any hospital bills. Hence, it is peculiar how the article omits key events and phrases other events in a way that give a wrong impression.

Fourth, the article fails the FA criterion to be "well-written." Its prose is neither engaging nor of a professional standard. Sentences are inserted haphazardly; events are presented outside of chronological order; the subject and her husband are often interchangeably and confusingly referred to as "Fitzgerald". The article needs a thorough prose audit by the Guild of Copy Editors.

Fifth, the article fails to convey why the subject is notable. Zelda Fitzgerald is often hailed by cultural historians as "the High Priestess of the Jazz Age," and yet the article does not adequately convey why she is historically notable other than as the wife of a famous author. By omitting or occluding many key events in her life, the article does not convey why so many scholars regard Zelda Fitzgerald to be a Jazz Age icon.

In sum, I do not believe this article should qualify as a Featured Article in its current state. This article needs a lengthy, painstaking and complete rewrite as its current iteration gives an incomplete and inaccurate picture of Zelda Fitzgerald's fascinating life. Given that the bulk of the article was written using a single source, this rewrite will be a colossal task as it needs to draw upon at least half-a-dozen reputable biographies in order to fulfill the FA criteria of being comprehensive and well-researched. — Flask (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Zelda Fitzgerald the issue of sourcing was raised then, and in the 14 years since more sources are available. I see that Linda Wagner-Martin has published a biography that may or may not have been available to JayHenry and one of Cline's biographies was published in 2012, four years after the FAC. Updating sources is par for the course with our older FACs. Anyway, I'd like to rewrite this and think it's doable but a.) am currently committed to helping with J. K. Rowling FAR; b.) am a very slow worker. So it's up to the coords as to whether to hold and wait or go ahead with the delisting process. Victoria (tk) 17:46, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Flask would agree to have this put on hold until J. K. Rowling is done; I think that would be less than a month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this article would be better off de-listed as a FA so that Victoriaearle, HAL333, myself, and others could extensively rewrite it over a period of several months. I, too, am a slow worker, and a "well-written," "well-researched," and "comprehensive" FA about Zelda Fitzgerald would necessitate reading and synthesizing about a dozen authoritative biographies about the Fitzgeralds (i.e. Mizener, Turnbull, Bruccoli, Wagner-Martin, etc). Each of these sources often contradict each other in key details (e.g., whether or not Zelda and Scott were physically unfaithful during the early years of their marriage, etc.), and one must sift through mounds of conflicting information. Although a great deal of relevant details could be recycled from other articles such as Save Me the Waltz, Tender Is the Night, This Side of Paradise, etc., there is so much information that needs to be added, and much of that information lies within scholarly mine-fields. The ongoing scholarly debates about whether Zelda was the victim of sexual abuse by her father; the role of formerly enslaved African-Americans in the Sayre household; the question of how much the Sayre family's ties to the Ku Klux Klan protected Zelda from societal sanction in Mongomery, etc., are just a few examples of those mine-fields. Even if we rewrote this article over several months, I'm not sure the revamped article would meet current Featured Article standards. — Flask (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize there was a plan in place to delist and then take to FAC. Sorry for stepping in. In that case, I'll let it go. Just to say, though, in terms of what's needed, I do understand. Unwatching this and the Zelda articles now. Victoria (tk) 19:48, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness and prose. DrKay (talk) 17:05, 29 January 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC) [16].

Torajan people

edit
Notified: User talk:Indon, User talk:Outriggr (2006-2009), WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Death, 31 Dec

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of verifiability issues and lack of RS, as detailed on the talk page (t · c) buidhe 08:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing. DrKay (talk) 17:06, 29 January 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC) [17].

Titanium

edit
Notified: Mav, Smokefoot, Double sharp, Pzzp, Materialscientist, Vsmith, WP Elements, WP Rocks and minerals, talk page notification 2021-03-27

Review section

edit

This 2003 promotion was last reviewed at FAR in 2007 during the push to add inline citations on older FAs. It has uncited text throughout, as well as dated text (see History section as but one example, but uses and production need updates), and a comprehensive literature survey is needed. Also, uses a press release for production forecast, and sources like this one. Marginal external links. I haven't examined the prose or MOS issues, but immediately noticeable are MOS:SANDWICHing and MOS:ACCIM (images at bottom of section). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SG Review:

  • The infobox is a nightmare; I have relocated the first image to avoid MOS:SANDWICH because of the excessive length of the infobox, which pushes the image well below the section where it should be. There is too much content in the infobox for me to check whether all is cited in the body of the article.
  • I have removed punctuation from sentence fragments in image captions, and added punctuation for full sentences in image captions.
  • See also needs attention. I removed those already linked in the article. Why is suboxide listed there, but not used in article? If Titanium in Africa and Titanium in zircon geothermometry and VSMPO-AVISMA are notable enough to be in See also, why aren't they covered in this article?
  • Citation cleanup needs and reliability of sources, samples only on a quick glance:
    • Titanium. Mindat
    • Missing page no. Kleefisch, E.W., ed. (1981). Industrial Application of Titanium and Zirconium. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International. ISBN 978-0-8031-0745-8.
    • This is a press release: not formatted and not adequate for what it is citing - Compact Powerhouse: Inside Corvette Z06’s LT4 Engine 650-hp supercharged 6.2L V-8 makes world-class power in more efficient package. media.gm.com. 20 August 2014
    • Flower is listed in the Bibliography but never used in the article
    • Another press release, MEDRS source needed: "Titanium foams replace injured bones". Research News. 1 September 2010. Archived from the original on 4 September 2010. Retrieved 27 September 2010.
    • Significantly, the Medical uses section sourcing should comply with WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDDATE. There is a lot; here is one sample:
      • One study indicates a possible connection between titanium and yellow nail syndrome.[117] (cited to a 10-year-old primary study).
    • What makes this reliable? https://www.pobjoy.com/us/world-firsts ... sample only, there is more.
  • There are one-sentence paragraphs throughout the article.
    • I stopped checking after these few; a review of all sources and citations is in order.
  • Dated text, sample only, "Because of its durability, titanium has become more popular for designer jewelry (particularly, titanium rings).[96] (Cited to 1988)
  • The next paragraph repeats the same wording: copyedit needed with better organization of text. Titanium's durability, light weight, and dent and corrosion resistance make it useful for watch cases.[96] Light weight and durability are repeated throughout the product mentions. It is obvious that this article has grown over time, with bits added piecemeal, text not well integrated.
  • Attention to wikilinking needed, sample, what is picomolar? is about 4 picomolar in the ocean.
  • MOS:CURRENT (and cited to 1988): "About fifty grades of titanium alloys are designed and currently used, although only a couple of dozen are readily available commercially.[67]"

I stopped there; these are samples only based on a quick look. Sourcing and citation needs attention, and datedness examined, before looking further at prose. Unless someone is willing/able to take on a top-to-bottom refreshing of this article, the nom should move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC. Some relatively easier-to-fix items have been addressed, but the substantial issues will required sustained and dedicated attention, which is not happening. Moving to FARC does not preclude that the real work still could or might happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per sourcing concerns raised by Sandy above. I also think the layout of the article needs work, with many short and one-sentence paragraphs throughout. Z1720 (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness, prose and style. DrKay (talk) 17:04, 29 January 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC) [18].

Rock Springs massacre

edit
Notified: IvoShandor, Quadell, WikiProject Organized Labour, WikiProject China, WikiProject Death, WikiProject United States, 28 Nov

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it cites sources that are not high-quality RS. There are plenty of secondary sources on this incident, we should not be citing breaking news from 1885. (t · c) buidhe 20:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd hate for this to go to waste. I'll look into sourcing starting this weekend. MSG17 (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, maybe waste is not a good word, but the point is that it seems it can be saved but no one else is taking it up. MSG17 (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All FARs are potentially saveable in my opinion, but this one will require more work to fix it up than some since a lot of the citations are not HQRS. (t · c) buidhe 21:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
True... Haven't been able to do much with sourcing right now, but I'll see what I can get up to this evening and this week. MSG17 (talk) 17:44, 23 January 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC) [19].

Surface weather analysis

edit
Notified: Thegreatdr, MiamiProf, Runningonbrains, Tmangray, WikiProject Weather, talk page notification 2021-12-04

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are large swaths of unsourced text. There is also plenty of more recent academic literature that needs to be incorporated. The article's history section is 20 years outdated. Surely something has happened since 2001. Lastly, the article needs a thorough copy edit to fix numerous Grammar issues. NoahTalk 22:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 15 January 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC) [20].

Monarchy of the United Kingdom

edit
Notified: Lord Emsworth, DrKay, WikiProject United Kingdom, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject British Royalty, WikiProject Commonwealth, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, 2021-02-05 2021-11-27

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited sections and bloating. The formatting of the references are also inconsistent, and I think some of the news sources can be replaced with academic sources, if found. Z1720 (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 15 January 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC) [21].

Holden

edit
Notified: User talk:OSX, User talk:GTHO, User talk:Fitzpatrickjm, WP:AWNB, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brands, WT:COMPANIES July 2021 notification

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the heavy reliance on company materials and also unreliable sources, per my talk page notice. Bumbubookworm (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bumbubookworm, neither the talk page notification, nor the listing here identifies which text that is sourced to company materials breaches WP:ABOUTSELF. It would be difficult to write a comprehensive company article without using the company's own sources; we need to know instances where that is done inappropriately. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, 1c) does require high-quality RS, which I believe should not use a large chunk of self-sourcing if possible. Holden was the only Australian car company that existed, so while it was operational, it was the de facto national car company in the way that Qantas is the de facto national airline. If you go to google books there are dozens of full-length books that are specifically about Holden, more than there are on some Prime Ministers of Australia. Bumbubookworm (talk) 20:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article uses many book sources already; could you please provide some specific information that is left out and that should be included to meet comprehensiveness? Company articles (like schools) will use self-sourcing, and as long as it is done appropriately, that is not a reason to delist, and high quality is dependent upon the content area. We should provide specific examples of content from reliable sources that is not included, but should be, to cover major facts, per 1b. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 15 January 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC) [22].

The Green (Dartmouth College)

edit
Notified: User talk:Kane5187, User talk:PoliticsIsExciting (no other users with > 2% edits) WT:SPEAK, WT:UNI, WT:USA, WT:NH, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dartmouth_College, Sept 2021 notification

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because a large part of the sourcing is to the university itself, or a blog called "Dartmo", so it lacks high-quality reliable and independent sources Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(on mobile) @Bumbubookworm: As the nominator is mostly retired, to be fair to them you should at least copy their defense of Dartmo's reliability from the FAC. Regarding non-independent sources, it's typical for higher education articles to have a lot of those, as they're typically the best available, so I'm not sure that'd be enough alone to get me to !vote to delist. What would get me to delist is if the non-independent sources are used to support information that does not fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF criteria. Did you find any such information? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From an outside look, it seems like a lot of the non-independent sourcing is just used to establish basic characteristics of the green or noncontroversial history, although "Given the Green's role as "the physical and emotional center of campus life,"" should almost certainly have a secondary source. On an unrelated note, "Dartmouth is well known for its variety of long-standing student traditions" is something that should ideally be sourced to something more recent than 1999. Hog Farm Talk 14:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tag-bombing of this article should be reverted; Dartmo was covered in the FAC, and it appears to meet WP:SPS, and is not used to cite anything controversial or self-serving. Once that is done, I’ll do minor MOS cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unreliable sources tag and the inline taggings of Dartmo as self-published. Hog Farm Talk 15:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the History section seems to end at 1906. Are there any events of note for this space in the past 100 years? Perhaps renovations, major damage from a weather event, or changes to the space? Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC While the "Rallies and protests" section lists some events, there is no information on the history of this location post-1906 (renovations, proposals to protect the site, damage to the site from weather events, etc.) I raised these concerns in the above comment but they have not been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So delist because just from a quick link we've got some source-text problems. Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 22 January 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_review/archive/February_2022&oldid=1074051975"