Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 2024

< 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) 5:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [1].

Doolittle (album)

edit
Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2021-08-07

Review section

edit

This is a 2007 promotion whose FAC nominator has not edited for five years. It was noticed in 2021 for uncited text and sourcing issues; those issues have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's improved somewhat since I left the notice in 2021, but there's still issues. Uncited text is present, and the sourcing isn't always up to code.
" Bie, Jean-Michel; Gourraud, Christophe. "Pixies Press Quotes". Alec Eiffel. Archived from the original on December 4, 2006. Retrieved January 28, 2007." is a probably non-RS site that has pulled a bunch of quotes from places; not adequate sourcing for FA
Have doubts about rocklist.net
The Genius links are duplicating lengthy proprietary lists from Rolling Stone. A WP:ELNEVER situation?
This is probably fixable, but it'll take someone with some time and interest in this sort of music; that's not me on both counts. Hog Farm Talk 00:27, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hog I'm done here for tonight and wont be back for a few days, but as nominator for the FAR (which should carry a burden so as to disprove the perception of drive-by) and to move this along, would you mind tag bombing the page with cn's needed, and list the sources needing to be replaced - that would be very helpful. Ceoil (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And for others, there is an extensive copy editing also going on. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: - it looks like you've resolved the uncited text issues and have remove/replaced several of the dodgier sources. Am mainly concerned with now:
"albumvote reviews — Doolittle by Pixies". Archived from the original on February 11, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2007."
"NME's 100 Best Albums". Rocklist.net. Archived from the original on March 31, 2018. Retrieved March 16, 2007." - not sure that rocklist is RS, and it seems iffy for the website to be reproducing another source's possibly-copyrighted creative contest lists like that
"Bie, Jean-Michel; Gourraud, Christophe. "Pixies Press Quotes". Alec Eiffel. Archived from the original on December 4, 2006. Retrieved January 28, 2007." - unsure about this one
Beyond that, I think it's mostly reference formatting stuff, which should be more straightforward for a group effort once we've settled which sources are OK to use. Hog Farm Talk 23:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks Hog this is very useful, much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have addressed most of these, but as largely don't edit mid-week, few days pls, and may need a white knight to standardise ref formats, it that becomes a reason to delisting (I dont think it should be). Ceoil (talk) 06:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can tackle them as I have time ... but I don't know when that will be ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No didn't mean you!!! Your already overworked, will I'll ask around, and maybe tackel for an hour or two next weekend. Thanks anyway, I think myself and Hog have this :) Ceoil (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil this is actually the mindless sort of work I can do when I have bits of time here and there or when I'm awake in the middle of the night-- what I'm not able to keep up with right now is work that requires sustained focus or large blocks of time.
But I ran into a stumbling block on converting to sfns. I can't sort Frank, Ganz. Some say 2005, some say 2006, and the ISBN given for both is the same, and neither match the publisher as listed at WorldCat. There are multiple versions of the book, so we could have a page number problem. Do you have the book or do you know which is used? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fool the World is 2005. I wouldn't mind at all reading this, nice no brain pre-sleep zone out reading, so might get on Kindel and convert to that source. Obviously that will mean chapters rather than page numbers, but am personally fine with that. although if preferred, could just order the book - would prob be delivered early next week. Either is good for me. Ceoil (talk) 07:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, as I have time, I will convert all other books to sfn, but leave Frank, Ganz alone for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:44, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I suspect ordering the book and waiting will be easier, because my hunch is that the page nos will be the same and we won't have to convert to chapters as per kindle book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:45, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a plan. Ceoil (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. There was a seller in Dublin (they are slow up there), so will have by next weekend. And might also mean can remove some of the less credible sources mentioned by Hog above, fingers crossed. Ceoil (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we nail this down better ? Sisario 2006, blurb. What is meant by "blurb"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:18, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil both Sisario and Frank/Ganz are available online at archive.org; I've linked them in the sources, so if we can use the page nos from that version (2006), that enhances verifiability. And so far, I'm not able to verify the three things I've checked, so there may be serious source-to-text integrity issues lurking here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, here's one example of source-to-text integrity issues:

Here is page 151 from Frank/Ganz.
Page 151 verifies the text cited to Frank/Ganz about PJ Harvey, footnote 63, in this version as being from page 120 (in a different version?)
But I can find none of the other information cited to page 120, footnote 63, on page 151 of this version. In fact, a search of the book finds no mention of the Philadelphia Inquirer anywhere in the book.

I'm afraid serious problems may be lurking here. That's along with three other citations I checked that fail verification; I'm afraid it may be a long trudge through Frank/Ganz with a rewrite needed, and now I'm worried that all sources need to be checked. Also, Frank/Ganz is interview format, and the article makes some statements that can't be made in wikivoice based on the opinion of one interviewee. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and have also ordered the paperback of Sisario, which is extensively cited, so that an Frank/Ganz should arrive here soon. Lets see what they throw up and take it from there. Ceoil (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also took a 1 month sub to Rock's Backpages, which has a bunch of contemporary reviews and in terviews. Ceoil (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil see my notes above; you don't have to wait for either Sisario or Frank/Ganz, as they are both available to read free at archive.org-- I have linked them in the Sources -- and we have real source-to-text integrity issues. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and will need to go deep to resolve...which is fine knowing the FA nominator, don't think he made anything up, but it is going to need a lot more untangling than had thought. Oh well. At the moment am re-familiarising, and trying to establish a few better sourcesCeoil (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia and Ceoil, as per our discussion on Ceoil's talk page, I've started working through the references and reworking the text to match the citations. I'm only two paragraphs in. My observation so far is that much that is cited to Frank and Granz (2006) is really in Sisario. As Ceoil mentions below, most of F & G, is more "talking head" interviews, but I still use it as a source if it specific enough and doesn't conflict with Sisario, which I'm treating as the main source. I've also corrected a WayBack Machine link to 4AD's 2011 site. The cited page did not support the text, but a search of Wayback showed the previous page did. Unfortunately, Ganz's (2005) review in Spin of Pixies-Doolittle and related text had to go since it has gone into Web limbo. I tried to track it in Wayback, but my search failed. If someone can find it or even has the original url, please let me know. I'll keep going, through progress may be irregular. Life being what it is... Wtfiv (talk) 05:16, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an update to Hog and Nikki, have both the above book sources now :) — Frank/Ganz is "oral history" / talking heads only but checks out (my pg numbers are different again, but would like to use) although reliance could be trimmed), but Sisario (2006) contains A LOT on the individual tracks, that would like to expand on. Ceoil (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia and Ceoil, I just want to let you know that I've completed my fairly quick edit of the article. Here's a summary of what I did.
  • Verified all the book links in the text. For the books, added convenience links for future verification and help keep text-source citation less slippery during future edits.
  • Verified the web and magazine links in the text. Put them in citation formats and added archival links when appropriate and possible.
  • Moved citations from final paragraph of lead to legacy. Rearranged order of legacy to fit them in. Changed last paragraph of lead to summarize legacy and "sales" section.
  • Deleted or changed text or citations to match things up. Sometimes this resulted in some major reworking of sections or paragraphs. I think I may have added a couple of new sources.
  • I tried to hedge Frank & Ganz citations. I used it in wikivoice when it addressed a timeline issue (e.g., touring with Throwing Muses or time spent in studio), but attributed individuals when it gave opinions.
Please note that I didn't verify any of the links that went with the chart templates. I'm done for now. I think it is ready for any larger-scale reworking that is needed. I will probably check in now and then to do gnomish edits cleaning up c/e errors in my edit, but if you need further, more substantial help let me know! Wtfiv (talk) 23:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv, you are a life savor, and thanks so much for ref fixes/comments. Would very much like to save this page, but am travelling atm, so bear with me in a week or so delay in responding, but...tks! Ceoil (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, please let me know when you're ready for me to take another look. I should have several weeks in a row of less busy. Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wtfiv! I am still buried in real life good and bad stuff, but will get to this when less busy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm: If you could look over and list comments/complaints in the next few weeks that would be great. Most of the work has been done, although I want to beef up the "music section" yet. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit behind right now; but this is on my list of things to review and I should have time to look at this before the end of the week. Hog Farm Talk 02:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No panic. I'm travelling for the next 3 weeks, and the book i need for the songs is at home. It would be cool if you could look, but don't stress. Ceoil (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So here we go:

  • Based on the length guidance for fair use music samples at WP:SAMPLE, both of the song samples are too long by about 8 or 9 seconds
Replaced .oggs of both songs with shorter versions (17 or 18 sec., which is about 10% of song.)
  • " to lines in Luis Buñuel and Salvador Dalí's 1929 film Un Chien Andalou." - does this need rephrased? Our article on the film says it's a silent film, so there wouldn't be line in the normally understood sense
shorten to: refers to Luis Buniel
  • The Panorama list of The 30 Best Albums of the Year 1970–98 doesn't seem to be directly sourced anywhere and if this doesn't seme to be a notable publication is it really due weight anyway?
"Panorama deleted"
  • The note about unordered lists does not seem to be necessary
note deleted
  • " In the US, the album Billboard 200 at number 171. However with the help of college radio play of "Monkey Gone to Heaven",In the first week of its release in Britain,[64] the record reached number eight on the UK Albums Chart.[63] the album rose to number 98 and spent two weeks in the top 100.[65]" - something seems to have gone wrong here.
Reworked this to: In the first week after its release in Britain,[42] Doolittle was number eight on the UK Albums Chart.[63] In the US, the album entered the Billboard 200 at number 171. With the help of college radio-play of "Monkey Gone to Heaven", it eventually rose to number 98,[64] spending two weeks in the Top 100.[65]
  • " "Juice All Time 50 Albums". Rocklist.net. Archived from the original on May 15, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2007." - is this RS?
I left this. I don't really know the music magazine field well enough to judge. I'll let Ceoil decide.

I think this article is fairly close to a keep. Pinging Ceoil and Wtfiv. Hog Farm Talk 18:45, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm. I made the easy changes. I didn't do anything with the music samples, as I've not worked with them. And, I left the RS status of "Juice" for Ceoil. Wtfiv (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned that Juice itself is unreliable. My concern here is a little more two-fold: is whatever this "rocklist.net" source is reliable enough that we can trust that it's reproducing the list right and is linking to basically a bootleg copy of a creative (and presumably copyrighted) list a WP:ELNEVER situation? Hog Farm Talk 21:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like we should get rid of the "Juice" reference, then...Done! Wtfiv (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil and Hog Farm. The sound files are now within the fair use guidelines (17-18 sec, about 10% of song length.) Wtfiv (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wtfiv - well, Iruka13 has now removed both samples on a bit of a technicality (the fair use rationale on the article did not provide an explanation for why this would be used on the album article). So I guess someone just needs to craft a fair use rationale for why the samples would be used in the article, which is a fairly standard use of song samples, and then that whole issue will be resolved. Once we get the samples issue figured out and Ceoil is satisfied with the musical content, I think we're good to keep FA status here. Hog Farm Talk 01:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I saw that, but had no idea how to address it. Your post helped a lot! I realized I forgot to reduce the quality of the recording so I did that too. Wtfiv (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I should have mentioned the obvious...after addressing the concerns you made clear (again thanks!) I put the samples back. Wtfiv (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're at a keep here. Hog Farm Talk 02:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hog & Wtfiv, very very much appreciated:) I'll be back home with the book sources in three weeks and will add to the songs sect then: can we keep open until then as pressure is good. To note the work by all since the nom[2]. Ceoil (talk) 11:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This weekend. 03:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Ceoil? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As an apology and update NM am sandboxing a section on the music here[3] and expect to close out in a few days when finished. Ceoil (talk) 03:06, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an update have done an expansion, but it needs a copyedit. Ceoil (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Z1720
edit

In an effort to get this cleared of FAR, here's a review of the article. I will also be copyediting the article as I review.

  • "while the layering of Francis' and Deal's vocal parts are considered a pinnacle of the pop music technique of girl/boy vocal interplay." Needs a citation
    Removed Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The album appeared on several contemporary end-of-year "Best Album" lists. Both Rolling Stone and The Village Voice placed the album tenth, and independent music magazines Sounds and Melody Maker both ranked the album as the second-best of the year." This is still labeled as "citation needed". Has this been resolved?
  • , not shouldnt be too difficult...its probably in an aniversry survey, best sources seeing from a quick search is [4], but wont use that; hang on. Ceoil (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "praised for the quiet/loud dynamic set up between Black's vocals, Joey Santiago's guitar and the rhythm section." I'm not sure what a quiet/loud dynamic means: I don't think this is a musical term and, while mentioned several times in the article, it's never really explained. Considering that it is a major part of this album's success, maybe it needs to be explained in this article.
    Done...quite verse, loud chorus.. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the band's manager Ken Goes suggested two producers" Suggested them for what?
    Produce the album. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the reception section and legacy section contains the "X said Y" sentence pattern. Suggest that the sections be restructured per WP:RECEPTION
    Agree...hold on Ceoil (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a citation for the personnel section?
    Not necessary, it was the classic line up for their first 4 albums. Working on this. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any images of the Pixies from this time period that can be added to the article?
    Sadly no. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added one from 2004. Ceoil (talk) 14:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Thanks for the review, all points helpful :) Ceoil (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Firefangledfeathers would you mind now also looking over...still need to address the reception sect but...gripes and demands much appreciated :) Ceoil (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Soon! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:41, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FFFeedback
edit
@Firefangledfeathers: Decided to tackle these. Double checked the liner notes on Discogs and they are correct, so I just replaced all of the references with the liner notes reference. As for the Charts section, I'm not quite sure what you mean by underinformative. I spruced up the table, and it seems to comply with Charts sections from other FA articles. Famous Hobo (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Chart looks better, thanks. Any interest in adding a column for number of weeks on the chart. At least a couple of the sources give that info. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Famous Hobo added the column. Good stuff. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, By the looks of it, this article seems to be in good shape. Sources are reliable and plentiful throughout, the article has gotten a nice facelift from Ceoil, and I don't see any outstanding issues. Personally I would like to see more info about the side two songs, and considering how influential this album is I would have expected it to be longer, but the article talks about everything it needs to talk about concisely. I would have no problem keeping this article at FA status, but I also should point out I did help update this article during the FAR process (overall minor edits, but I feel like I should mention it). Famous Hobo (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Famous Hobo. Have beefed up the lead somewhat and your right about coverage on the side two tracks being a bit wanting. Working through. Ceoil (talk) 04:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done re side 2 Ceoil (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil
edit

Update for coordinators (ie Nikki): Would like to expand the lead and coverage of the songs on side two, wile keeping Tony1's comments at the FAC in mind.[5] Stuff re the loud–quiet dynamic is met with sources for now but would like to explain further with time. I know this is long becoming tiresome, but getting there, slowly :( Ceoil (talk) 00:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, I believe Firefangledfeathers's concerns have been resolved, and have expanded the music/songs section, and while have put in a request at the GOCE's re any remaining instances of journalese, am now at keep. IOW, any further polish is always welcome, but this IMO is back at standard. Ceoil (talk) 14:41, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Z1720. Ceoil (talk) 21:10, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Z170

edit
  • "he covered his Marshall cabinets with blankets to make that he didn't his live sound to be interfered with." What is trying to be said in this sentence?
The preceding sentence makes clear - "During this period Santiago became unhappy as he felt Norton was adding too much reverb to his guitar parts." In protest he was self-sabotaging by dampening the sound. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree this could be clearer said...but logging off shortly...hold on pls. Ceoil (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to the original track listing, the reissue contained the following tracks, all of which were previously released unless otherwise indicated." This has a citation needed tag which should be resolved.
Removed as I really dislike reissues and don't care enough to verify. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I ran the IA Bot to archive various sources.
  • Lede says " released in April 1989 on 4AD records" but infobox gives an exact date. Should the exact date be used?
Not a big deal but done. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that other editors read through the article for a copyedit: I found a lot of small grammar or phrasing mistakes and another look from someone else would be beneficial.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes seen it and thanks. Hopefully will have time tonight Ceoil (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an update, have read though and copy dited a few times since, and to say again, a request at GOCE was made about a month ago. If Z1720 is going to be vague as to prose issues, except to say that they are out there, not sure how actionable that is. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just did another copy edit and I'm ready to declare a keep. I am still concerned that I was finding really simple mistakes in the prose when I was reading it over. In response to @Ceoil:'s concerns about vague prose issues, some of the simple mistakes that I found in this latest round of copy-editing include: "quite/loud" fixed to "quiet/loud", "beigins" fixed to "begins", "that" fixed to "than" and "They lyrics that the idea of destruction further" fixed to "The lyrics take the idea of destruction further," (this edit), as well as fixing a quotation mark before a song and removing a duplicate "along" in this edit. I am unsure if I have found all of these kinds of obvious mistakes, let along more complicated grammar and phrasing concerns, so I would feel much more confident if other editors could do another copyedit to fix the mistakes that I missed. Z1720 (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To note i am white knighting, which is more than you have ever done; your the MF who nominated. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2024 (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) 8:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC) [6].

The Slave Community

edit
Notified: Dmoon1, WikiProject Books, WikiProject History, WikiProject United States History, WikiProject African diaspora, 2023-04-14

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the overreliance on the book as a source, creating WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY concerns. There are six sources listed in "Further reading" that are not used in the article, while the "Methodology and sources" section is almost entirely sourced to the book. There is also a long "Criticism" section, which should be reworked into a "Reception" section to avoid WP:POV concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I have no experience regarding FA/FAR processes, however about the "primary" aspect, per WP:PLOTCITE and MOS:PLOT, isn't that what you're supposed to do with the contents of books? E.g. "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." Are the rules for this different for FAs, and the contents of the book itself need to be cited to secondary sources - because if so then the MOS directly says otherwise. The other concerns are valid but seem more fixable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I don't think fixing the Criticism section is hard, because that section already incorporates both positive and critical responses. Simply rename the section (or add more positive reception if it exists: it might not). PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing the book is fine when summarising what's in it, but for anything more sophisticated or analytical -- like, for example, a section on its methodology and use of sources -- we need secondary sources. Usually, the book itself should only really be cited in the "Summary" or "Content" section: reviews or responses should be the main or only voice in the rest. UndercoverClassicist T·C 06:40, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC No edits to address my concerns. While plot sections can cite the book, too much of the other information is also cited to the book which makes this article too reliant on the topic of the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and original research. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2024 (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) 6:57, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [7].

Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

edit
Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because... Pharaoh496 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) It was full of cruft, fake infobox, etc. Have merged it into parent article.[reply]

No opinion • Merge discussion. • Article just before merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pharaoh496 does not appear to have followed WP:MERGE in any meaningful way, so the merge should be reverted and a proper discussion should take place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a merge discussion ongoing that seems to be headed for a merge result; will leave this open for the moment in anticipation of a likely procedural delist. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed the discussion as consensus to merge. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has ended with consensus to merge Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody apparently cares to merge, I've just redirected the article to the proposed merge target. If anything is deemed necessary to add to the merge target (which is already over 13,000 words long), it can be taken from the article history. Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I've been reverted by Jpeeling (FWIW, there's been a consensus to merge since the April discussion, not just the 10-day old AFD). Hog Farm Talk 15:41, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD which only just closed had 7 !votes for merge and none for redirect. WP:PROMERGE states: "Don't just redirect the source page without copying any content if any good content from the source page exists." The fact the article was a FA suggests there's good content here. I fail to see why there has been such a rush to redirect. My edit to restore has been reverted and I will not be getting into an edit war about it. JP (Talk) 08:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the current target article is approaching the upper bounds of WP:TOOBIG - what content from this article exactly should be merged over? Hog Farm Talk 21:06, 24 June 2024 (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) 6:56, 25 June 2024 (UTC) [8].

Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

edit
Notified: YellowMonkey, WikiProject Cricket, [diff for talk page notification]

Procedural delist .See discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948,I have merged this article Real4jyy (talk) 05:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have not merged the article, you have placed a redirect. Once again WP:PROMERGE (Don't just redirect the source page without copying any content if any good content from the source page exists.) is being ignored. No notifications have been sent either. JP (Talk) 11:35, 23 June 2024 (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) 7:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC) [9].

Polio

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

Review section

edit

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

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pinging in Ajpolino - no pressure to work on this, but I was hoping we could get a medical editor's opinion as to if this is in a condition warranting delisting. Hog Farm Talk 14:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Traveling, but will take a look in the next few days. Ajpolino (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gave my thoughts here. I think the article would need some moderately heavy lifting to meet the FA criteria. I see there are some editors interested in taking the lead on improvements; I'm happy to help a bit if they'd like, though I don't currently have the time/bandwidth to take the lead. My personal opinion is that an article like this is best de-listed. If improved, it can always come back through FAC, where I'm sure it would benefit from the attention. Ajpolino (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2024 (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) 8:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [10].

Music of Athens, Georgia

edit
Notified: User talk:TUF-KAT, WT:GEORGIAUS, WT:ALM, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Regional and national music taskforce, talk-page notice 2023-11-26

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the concerns about inadequate inline citation and cruft mentioned on the talk page. I'm also concerned about comprehensiveness: the further reading section mentions a 2020 book by Grace Elizabeth Hale that seems to be directly relevant but isn't cited in the article anywhere. Other aspects of sourcing (e.g., high-quality reliable sources) likely need checking too, although I haven't investigated in detail given the more obvious issues. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2024 (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) 8:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC) [11].

Edward III of England

edit
Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-01-02

Review section

edit

This 2006 Featured article was nominated by an editor who has not edited since 2018 (User:Eixo --> Lampman). It was noticed of several deficiencies in January 2023; not all of those issues have been indicated on talk as having been addressed, and there are other items that should be checked. Prose and sourcing need review, there may be unaddressed items on talk, there is uncited text and clutter at the bottom of the article including collapsed family trees, vague text, extraneous detail and dated sourcing that has not been addressed. Considering the change in standards since 2006, a top-to-bottom review should be undertaken. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wearing my FAC coordinator hat, if the article were rewritten we would want the new version to go through FAC again. It may be neater to demote it here, rewrite it and then renominate; or was that what you had in mind? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog, that's not how the FA process works. Discussion of historical FAC processes copied to FAR talk to be continued there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO a well-attended FAR can give the same level or better for cleanup as a FAC can (see the recent-ish FARs for climate change and J. K. Rowling, which were able to get levels of attention that would have been difficult at FAC). I personally don't see a reason to automatically send this back to FAC if it can get a high-quality review from multiple editors here, although obviously there are situations that would require a delist and then back at FAC some time down the road if it ever gets worked back up. Hog Farm Talk 03:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably the worst FA I have ever looked at in detail. Among the numerous other issues, one which stands out for me is the high proportion of the small number of sources I checked which did not, even remotely, support the text. I ended up not trusting any of them and unsurprised that it never formally passed FAC. Among the many other things needed, if this were to be saved, every cite would need confirming, and given that most are to aging sources I am unsure why anyone would bother. It could be rewritten from scratch in less time. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion of historical FAC processes copied to FAR talk to be continued there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles kindly labeled me as the best person for this job, so I thought I would stop by for a look. Unfortunately I am quite swamped with school this month, so I will not be assisting with this FAR at this time. I actually think it needs to be delisted and completely rewritten. It’s current state is far from comprehensive, considering the subject matter. If it is delisted, I will gladly give it a complete overhaul this summer. That would give us the chance to take it through GA and ACR to make sure the article is appropriate for those who have a more complex understanding of English history. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlimitedlead, articles can be rewritten during a FAR without being delisted; there is no time limit, along as work is progressing in the right direction. After at least a two-week wait period in FAR, the options here are to enter declarations like "move to FARC", or "hold in FAR, work progressing". If articles are moved to FARC, then whether to delist or keep is based on consensus of reviewers. You can jump in to help in the rewrite at any stage; for most rewrites, it is more typical for work to proceed on the article talk page, with more-or-less bi-weekly updates to this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, ongoing work can take the form of building a completely new article in a sandbox, correct? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct; J. K. Rowling would be an example of a complete rewrite on talk (there are many, many others). Just keep the page posted on progress, keep work coordinated by letting others know where the work is happening, and when ready for a full independent review relative to WP:WIAFA, then others can be pinged in for a look. There's no time limit, and FAR Coords are patient as long as work is headed in the right direction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More than happy to leave these broader articles open for an extended period to get it right Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Serial Number 54129 has been away from Wikipedia for a few weeks <grumble, grumble>, Unlimitedlead has said they are unable to work on this at this time, and GoldRingChip has dabbled some. I suggest we Hold in FAR for a few weeks in the hopes that SN will return or Unlimited will be able to engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching this FAR page since its creation; I think it would be a shame for this article to lose FA status. I probably will not have the time to do a major rewrite, but if anybody wants to suggest improvements, I may be able to help. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With SN's absence, it may be necessary for someone to take the lead, although I'm hoping SN will jump back in soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making no promises here, as I've got two articles I'd like to improve first. I'll first need to read the article in-depth (I've already read it briefly, but I've not looked at the minutiae of referencing, ALTs, captions, copyediting, etc.). The sourcing, reading this FAR, seems to be the main issue. To- or over- morrow I might be able to read some of the sources to see if they verify the article text or not. Copyediting the text to achieve FA standard I also might be able to take up, although not all of it. Again, nothing is concrete yet. Regards, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:33, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia I've now found the time to look through the sources that I can freely access. Will do so now and then update you in an hour or so. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Progress is slow. Here's my first batch of reference checking, mostly of Ian Mortimer's book. I will do some of the others today or tomorrow.
Findings (accessed via the Internet Archive):
Ref 2: Simon Schama - verifies the article text
Ref 3: Ian Mortimer, p. 1 - does not verify the article text (page one of The perfect king : the life of Edward III, father of the English nation says nothing of the sort, so perhaps the "p. 1" means the book in its entirety, which I would say probably does verify it); I can't access Ormrod, so I don't know. Assuming good faith, I'd pass the sourced assertion (but the refs could do with a bit of work).
Ref 4: Ian Mortimer, p. 21 - does verify the article text
Ref 12: Ian Mortimer, p. 23 - does verify the article text
Ref 14: Ian Mortimer, p. 39 - does verify the article text
Ref 17: Ian Mortimer, p. 46 - does verify the article text
Ref 18: Ian Mortimer, p. 54 - does verify the article text
Ref 20: Ian Mortimer, p. 67 and p. 81 - do verify the article text
Ref 43: Ian Mortimer, p. 205 - does verify the article text (I would recommend the scope of the ref going from just p. 205 to pp. 203–205 though, as it gives a fuller picture; page 205 alone is slightly out of context.)
Ref 121 (part 1): Ian Mortimer, pp. 400–401 - does verify the article text - (will get around to the second part of the ref soon (assuming, of course, that I can access it.).)
That's that for now. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment: this is my first FAR that I've played any sort of a role in, so I'm not sure how we approach this, but I've seen other people declare their support or opposition to an FA proposal. Whilst I have only checked a small sample of the sources as of now, practically all of them do support the text, and I'm hopeful that this represents the rest of them. I think the article itself is well-written enough, and so if I can find that each source backs up each claim, and with some copyediting on each section, I would support this article as an FA. We just need to resolve some issues first. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stuck inside due to the current British heatwave, so I'm doing another round of ref-checking instead.
Ref 5: Pierre Chaplais, p. 5 - does not verify the article text (page six does, page five does not. That's a simple fix).
Ref 6: Roy Martin Haines, pp. 36–39 - does verify the article text
Ref 7: Seymour Phillips, p. 9 - does verify the article text
Ref 8: Anthony Tuck, p. 52 - does verify the article text
Ref 13: Anthony Tuck, p. 88 - does verify the article text
Ref 87: Anthony Tuck, p. 133 - does verify the article text
Ref 102: Anthony Tuck, p. 138 - does verify the article text
Ref 124: Encyclopædia Britannica, Antwerp - does verify the article text
Not much, but going through each individual book and reading the relevant material takes a while. I'll need to pick up the pace if I want to complete all 128, though. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim O'Doherty templates like done and not done are not used at FAC and FAR as they cause errors in archives; could you pls remove them above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim O'Doherty: Per discussion above, the article is almost certainly going to be effectively re-written from the bootstraps up; there's no point in checking source-text integrity now when the text itself is liable to immediate change. SN54129 18:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see why the text needs to be "effectively re-written". As long as the sources are good and everything's accurate and well-written, we should be good, no? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion on the article talk page that started this FAR is also illuminating—"The worst FA I've ever seen", I think Gog called it, and being restricted to checking the internet sources is, well, restrictive. And proscriptive, for that matter  :) nice idea though, and feedback on the process is always useful. SN54129 18:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to diagnose all the sources either today or on Tuesday, which should be at least a good starting point. I seem to be alone in thinking the article, with some general fixes, could breeze past any FAR, as I do think it is, in balance, a high-quality article. I admire GtM as an editor, but I think that "the worst FA" is maybe a bit of an exaggeration, and we shouldn't be WP:TNTing this article just yet. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, I couldn't get around to it today. I guarantee that I will review at least some of the sources tomorrow. Apologies for my "flakiness". Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologize; thanks for the effort so far! @Serial Number 54129: are you still planning to work on this? With @Unlimitedlead: also opining it fails to meet comprehensive, should we continue to hold in FAR for your (SN) work along with Tim O'Doherty'? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sandy, sorry to make you grumble! My hiatus is over, so yes, I was going to work on it this afternoon (UTC) if that suits peeps? SN54129 12:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to work on some further source-checking over the weekend. If I just check one or two refs from each source, that should mean that every ref from that source verifies the text (it's not as if there'll be huge discrepancies between the same source). I can also work on some copyediting; if you'd like me to do that, just ask and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Not sure if I'd be able to do much on expanding the article's comprehensive field of view, so I'll defer to other editors on that front. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ling

  • Fixing refs format, which is yes kinda poor.... make that "very poor". § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 15:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing publisher location
    • Davis, Virginia (2007). William Wykeham. Hambledon Continuum. ISBN 978-1-8472-5172-5.
    • Holmes, George (1975). The Good Parliament. Clarendon Press.
    • Jones, Dan (2013). The Plantagenets: The Warrior Kings and Queens Who Made England. Viking. ISBN 978-0-6700-2665-4.
    • Ormrod (2012). Edward III. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3001-1910-7. OL 25170147M.
    • Phillips, S. (2011). Edward II. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3001-7802-9.
    • Prestwich (1983). "Parliament and the Community of the Realm in the Fourteenth Century". In Cosgrove, A.; McGuire (also see below, missing pageneums)
    • Purcell, M. (2017). The Country House Library. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3002-4868-5.
  • Missing pagenums for book chapter
    • Prestwich (1983). "Parliament and the Community of the Realm in the Fourteenth Century". In Cosgrove, A.; McGuire
  • Missing identifier (ISSN, JSTOR, etc.);
    • Berard (2016). "Edward III's Abandoned Order of the Round Table Revisited: Political Arthurianism after Poitiers". Arthurian Literature. 33: 70–109. [But.... are those Arthurian Literature sources journals or books? the template is cite journal... which may be wrong]
    • Myers, A. R., ed. (1953). English Historical Documents: 1327-1485. Vol. IV (1st ed.). London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.
    • Rogers (2002). "England's Greatest General". MHQ: The Quarterly Journal of Military History. 14 (4): 34–45.
    •  § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 02:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, and as I suggested to Tim above, since this is undergoing a rewrite, it's jumping the gun to start working on the refs. Cheers, SN54129 11:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, publisher locations aren't always needed. Nikkimaria can explain better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Thanks SN & Sandy. Unwatching. § Lingzhi (talk|check refs) 17:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(And not @Ling) Mind you, I'm getting a bit tired of the fixation with refs on this page. What's all that about? As I've said here, there's no point doing them until the page is "complete" (in so far as it ever will be, of course), and in the meantime, it's a load of WP:COSMETIC busywork. That interferes with the actual important stuff, also re. WP:CITEVAR. Can we knock it on the head until the prose is finished? SN54129 14:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: SN54129 13:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
GoldRingChip, I suspect that SN would really like to move forward with the article rewrite here, but citation and ref improvements may be impeding that work at this point. Would you mind holding off until SN has had a chance to rework the content as needed? There is no time pressure at FAR, which means there is plenty of time for clean up once content is more settled. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia and Serial Number 54129: Sorry for getting in the way. I'll hold off as long as you'd like. Hope the FAR process goes smoothly. Cheers. —GoldRingChip 13:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoldRingChip: thanks for understanding! One thing we tend to do at FAR is to ping in involved editors when ready to move to the next stage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you GoldRingChip for being so understanding and I should've talked to you first, sorry. I just hate edit conflicts when I've written a thousand words. They... scare me  :) Pledge1: you can do what you want to the refs when I'm done, and Pledge2: that should be in a day or too; I can't go over 9,999 words, or it'll make Buidhe cross  :) Thanks! SN54129 18:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's my opinion that it isn't the 9999th word that counts but every one. An article that is 9,000 words but could be 8,000 words is equally bad as one that's 10,000 words and could be 9,000. (t · c) buidhe 00:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just so. SN54129 14:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 what are your thoughts? Is this saveable, are you aiming towards saving the star, or should we be thinking of progressing to FARC? If you are planning to restore the article to featured status, what is your time estimate ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, well—I guess there's aways more I could do! but having by now added either 33% or 48% of the text in the space of around 10 edits, I'm not sure there's much more I really should. It's now comprehensive (previously missing sections on his family, personality, legacy, his mistress—almost everything that historians still talk about except the war!). In the course of doing so, I practically re-sourced the thing, going from 122 references to 257 and from using 53 sources to 114. Got rid of the genealogical charts, although that's catnip for fanboys, so god knows how long that'll stay out. I think it's fair to sat that most of the ta;lk page complaints have been sorted, and possibly a few from the original FAC too (!!!). I could probably tweak a bit more—there's a few 'Further reading' I was going to scan, and I think the sons/daughters needs finishing source-wise. And I can't reasonably copy-edit myself; Gog will tell you you wouldn't want that even if it was sensible! Unfortunately, I'm away next week; will have access to ye olde laptop, but might be too hit-and-miss for much beyond minor edits. TLDR, I'd say it was 95% done, and the only important thing was that Gog a collaborative colleague skim through with a copyedit. Oh, also quite I'm capable of doing the literally three things that need to be done to tidy the refs, but I suppose the Lords of Citation Banditry will have to be let loose at some time. What we all think? (Thanks for the ping BTW! I hadn't actually forgotten about Eddie3, but I admit getting distracted by a project as yet invisible to all...) SN54129 19:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Having been so thoroughly volunteered i shall get around to this, but it will have to wait a while. I am away for most of next week and when back I suspect that the FAC queue will be both large and pressing. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While having a quick skim of what I am letting myself in for I made the mistake of reading two paragraphs on the military side of Edward's reign. A horrible farrago of OR, unsourced statements, statements which flatly contradict the source they purport to be based on, comments so vague as to be meaningless and language so technical as to be all but impenetrable. And that just in two short paragraphs and based on sourcing where I know what it says without actually pulling the book off the shelf. Serial Number 54129, could you do something, anything, with the tosh in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th sentences of "Sluys" while I am away, else I shall be tempted to back off and re-recommend that the whole thing be blown up. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Blast! I assumed that the military stuff was the little that could be relied on safely as I believe that some of our Hundred Years War stuff is already of decent quality ;) but I'm also away next week (not with Gog!) so after that, yeah, I'll carry on—but we'll need this time. And i didn't mean to press gang you into copyeditig my stuff Gog but you've got form when it comes to making silk purses out of my pig's ears :) SN54129 21:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A likely tale! Yes you did. Leave it, it is probably best for me to gut and rewrite it all in one go. I was just kicking against the pricks. Given that I have already taken 29 military articles from Edward's reign through FAC - I have just counted, I was a little taken aback - I may be able to cover a goodly part by cut and pasting from stuff I know to at least accurately reflect the source. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I will hold off on having a look until you all say it's time. Please give a weekly update if you remember. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if both/either of you think at this stage it would be easier or faster to rewrite off-FAR, and resubmit to FAC, you can declare "Move to FARC", where others will proceed to vote ... but in the time that takes, you may have already rewritten it. Your choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come what may, I shall be rewriting the military aspects of the article in sandbox and incorporating as little as possible of the existing article, hopefully none - I don't trust a single word of it. Once I am happy I shall gut the article and replace with the new text. Then ask SN and the rest of the FAR team to run their eyes over it. I don't envisage starting for 10-12 days and I'll give you weekly updates once I do. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it; thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not getting back on this. Unfortunately I will not be able to do any work on it for the foreseeable future. (I have not even been able to get work done on my own articles for the past couple of months.) Apologies if I have raised hopes, but can I put this back into the FAR process. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129 see above, without Gog's work on the military bits, do you think we need to proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC to keep the process moving forward. SN has not responded and moving to FARC does not preclude further improvements towards a save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Sandy, I must've missed that ping; I've been reduced to minimal editing at the moment (only 50 edits in two weeks?!) and I doubt I could improve on Gog's military stuff. I'm more of a socio-politico bod with an econo-prosopographical persuasion  :) SN54129 18:24, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - believe SN has now done enough to retain the star. Cheers, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 12:18, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started to review this and I do have concerns. I was making notes on some confusing chronology in the "Background" and "Early life" sections, but then the first two citations I checked (refs 14 and 15 in the numbering as of this post) had verification concerns. They aren't fatally wrong – the general ideas are supported if not the exact wording – but it makes me want to check more of the refs in addition to the commenting on the prose. So I'm posting this as a placeholder for more detailed comments to come. --RL0919 (talk) 00:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Has RL0919's concern been resolved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @SandyGeorgia: That concern is not fixed, and now that I've gone deeper into the article, there are other issues. Since I have extensive comments without even going thoroughly through every section, I am going to follow your example and put them on the talk page here. --RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since there does not seem to be any ongoing activity to address issues raised here, I guess I need to say Delist unless someone is going to take up the banner. --RL0919 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, and in consideration of my earlier position, I'm not sure now that the military stuff needs much of a rewrite; it is reasonably covered here and is comprehensively covered in several other articles. UNDUE and FA?#4 are the considerations here, and while the HYW needs coverage, broad focus must be on the king and his reign, not just events taking place around it. While foreign campaigns defined much of the reign, the article's real weakness was in domestic coverage and general historiography, which I think has been satisfied with addition material. Serial 19:11, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SG comments :

I'll put my other nitpicks and stupid queries on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Review by Z1720
edit

In an effort to get this out of FAR, I am going to review this article. I will make edits as I read, and feel free to revert if anything is not helpful. Comments below:

  • Why are the sources listed in "Further reading" not used as inline citations in the article?
  • The "Background" section confuses me: usually biographies start with the person's birth and their family background. I think this information can be interspersed within the article at its relevant points or removed. I don't think we need as much information about Edward II as the article provides.
  • I cut a lot of information from the article. Many of the quotes repeat information already in the article and make this article read like a university essay instead of an encyclopedic article. Also, there is sometimes information that is not directly related to Edward III. While WP:SIZERULE only recommends a split of the article if it is less than 9000 words, this article could use a serious trim. Remember that the longer the article is, the less likely it is that a reader is going to read the text.

I'm going to stop there because I want to read others' thoughts about the cuts to the prose I have made so far. I hope that editors will continue the work of cutting the prose, and I am happy to continue making cuts if editors agree to it. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by JimKillock
edit

I'll drive by review to say this article doesn't yet have any coverage of Edward III in relation to either Wales or Ireland. It may be that his policies didn't centre on either, but it won't be the case that he did nothing of consequence for either of these territorial possessions. Scotland of course is featured because of wars; I would check the range of literature consulted for alternative perspectives, including that of the evolution of the four countries' relationship. These are quite well-developed. I could take this on, but note I've got a simultaneous job regarding Edward I above, so this may take a bit of time (I should finish I before III). For wider reference, this might point to an issue when relying on biographies to guide what should be included as per WP:DUE; biographies perhaps think from the perspective of their readership, or their subject, or tend to address what the field thinks are "traditionally accepted" areas that are relevant to discuss; this can lead to excluding perspectives present in other literatures that regard the figure as relevant to them. --Jim Killock (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist I am formally making this declaration because progress on the article has stalled and there hasn't been responses to the above comments. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: the list of minor niggles below may seem unimportant individually, but when summed they indicate an article that is not FA standard.
  • Misuse of hyphen in the lead
  • Footnote 'a' makes no sense. He adopted the title in 1337, but didn't assume it until 1340? I've no idea what that's supposed to mean.
  • Background section is repetitive of the next section and reads clunkily to me.
  • Citation overkill in the Early life section
  • Inconsistent formatting of 'de facto'
  • Was he "crowned as Edward III"? Regnal number#History says ordinals were rarely used before the Tudors.
  • It is unclear whether opinions attributed to scholars such as Bothwell and Ormrod are majoritarian or otherwise. Nor is it clear why attribution is necessary for these opinions.
  • No source for "this parliament represented a watershed in English political history."
  • Confused chronology: the default on the Florentine loans is mentioned before Edward's taking up loans from Italian financiers.
  • Repetition: same content covered in the sections "Creating a new nobility" and "Six new earls and the first three English dukedoms created".
  • Comprehensiveness: David II was captured, but we are not told his fate. The death of Edward's eldest son is rather glossed over. "his principal interest was architecture", but the only building mentioned is relegated to a brief footnote. The creation of the English dukedoms is explained in the text, but not the transfer of French duchies to his eldest son in 1362. How did Edward III regain Aquitaine from his son in 1372 (this is neither cited nor mentioned in the main text but is stated without explanation in the succession boxes)? DrKay (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2024 (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/June_2024&oldid=1231694039"