Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and removed from there once posted here).

2. Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article review coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article review coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the ((@FAR)) notification template elsewhere.

Urgent reviews are listed here. Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator.
  2. No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article over at least a two-week period. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place ((subst:FAR)) at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, ((Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN)), filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding ((subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage)) ~~~~ (for example, ((subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1)) ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header.
    Relevant parties include
    • main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools),
    • the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and
    • any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified).
    The Notified:message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified and include a link with the date of the pre-notification given on article talk.

Featured article reviews[edit]

Microsoft Security Essentials

Notified: Eric Corbett, Codename Lisa, Computer Science WikiProject, Software WikiProject, Microsoft WikiProject, Microsoft Windows WikiProject, diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article is effectively stuck in the early 2000s. While on the surface the prose might seem alright, this article does not feature any updated information about the software after 2011. This is somewhat alarming given that Windows 7, the last version to support this product only reached end-of-life in early 2023. I personally find it very unlikely that there has been zero commentary about the efficacy of this aging solution especially given that Windows 7's reputation for being a malware magnet nowadays.

Keeping that aside, the prose of the article relies very heavily on first-party sourcing in the Licensing and impersonation sections and devotes a dubiously large amount of space to one specific antivirus testing organization in the "Reviews and Awards" section. TLDR, I do not think this article represent's our best work in the security topic-area at this time. Sohom (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Irish hunger strike

Notified: FDW777, WikiProject Irish republicanism, 7 July 2024; the original FAC nominator (One Night In Hackney) has been inactive since 2013.

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not, in my opinion, at the level that should be expected from an FA. There are several books sources missing, and several that are present are underused. There are almost no academic papers cited, and some events are not covered (including negotiations between the British government and the IRA. I think the only way to raise this up to current FA standards is a complete rewrite, rather than tinkering round the edges. - SchroCat (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwanese indigenous peoples

Notified: Maowang, Lingzhi.Random, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Taiwan, WikiProject Limited recognition, 2023-11-27

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several uncited sections, a bloated lede, and several sources listed that are not used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pauline Fowler

Notified: Gungadin, Elonka, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Soap Operas, 13 June 2024

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article suffers from a lot of sourcing issues, for example. It is cited as "Wiggins, p. 118" and it is not linked directly to the references at all. It has mostly been using inconclusive sources such as Sunday Mirror, The Stage, and Daily Record. Some sources might be reliable, but the contents are low quality. But sources like this [1] [2] are low quality, and most of them are pretty much dead like ref 3 and other BBC sources (there are other sources that are also dead) + questionable sources such as ref 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 59, 61, 62, 63, 64, 68, 71, 72, 73, 75, 81, 83 (unreliable), 88 and 89. So, this article definitely needs a lot of work in order to survive modern FA criteria. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree with this FAR. I recently had to quick fail three GA nominations of characters from this same soap opera (Gray Atkins, Nish Panesar, Ash Panesar) for largely the same reasoning: poor tabloid sourcing. The nominator of those articles seemed convinced tabloids (mostly WP:METRO and WP:DAILYMIRROR) were an appropriate source for soap operas. It would be ideal if a clearer consensus emerged (here or at WP:RSN) on whether certain British tabloids are in fact RSs on soap operas. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 07:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh, the 3 articles you've mentioned are way better than this one (multiple dead citations). Though, sources like Metro is already classified as unrealiable should definitely be removed. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 09:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how helpful the comments from Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d are in this reassessment. I think Boneless Pizza is taking issue with the amount of deadlinks rather than worrying about your own GA quick fails as part of a GAN backlog drive exercise. At a glance, Boneless Pizza highlights an issue with the use of BBC as a primary source numerous times. An issue likely linked to the BBC also producing EastEnders, making it a reliable source, but a primary source. There is an obvious need therefore of more secondary sources. The suggestion we discuss the blanket elimination of tabloid sources in soap opera articles here is preposterous. Successive quick failing three soap opera articles, mentioning them in an unrelated soap opera FAN and subsequently suggesting a RSN does not sound constructive, neutral or helpful. Back to the FAN, the least we can do is check if the deadlinks are archived in the Wayback Machine.Rain the 1 21:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I’m not sure why there’s such an aggressive tone in your comment. Among other issues, Boneless Pizza highlighted the fact the article uses numerous low-quality tabloids. I reviewed very similar articles that also used low-quality tabloid sources. The suggestion we discuss the blanket elimination of tabloid sources in soap opera articles here is preposterous—-I’m curious who suggested this? It certainly wasn’t me. All I said there should be a clearer consensus on such sources. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagreed with you. Aggressive is a preconceived notion. You suggested it when you advocated: "It would be ideal if a clearer consensus emerged (here or at WP:RSN)" - Consensus on sources being non-RS leads to deprecation and a subsequent blanket ban follows. This discussion is about Pauline Fowler and Boneless Pizza's concerns.Rain the 1 22:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t misconstrue what I said. A “consensus” on source reliability can have many outcomes: marginal reliability, general reliability, blacklisted, deprecation, etc. I have no dog in this fight. If the community wants to treat these tabloids as reliable that’s perfectly fine by me. If the community wants to deprecate such sources, I am also fine with that. Getting back to the Pauline Fowler article, I share many of Boneless Pizza’s concerns. The article, in its current state, clearly does not meet FA standards. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the usage of inconclusive sources seems to be fine at GA articles, as long as the content is not of low quality. But if it is FA, it is not. FA requires high-quality sources (the best examples of FA articles for me are Kes (Star Trek) and Jill Valentine). 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 01:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gwoyeu Romatzyh

Notified: Remsense, Theknightwho, WikiProject China, WikiProject Taiwan, WikiProject Writing systems, diff for talk page notification (2024-06-25)

I initially raised my concerns about the Featured Article's current quality two years ago, like in-depth coverage and sourcing. This year, there have been edits in attempt to address the issues, so I listed the article at WP:FARGIVEN. I was pinged to review what has been done so far. I gave the edit a good review, but I'm unsure how "satisfactory" the article is to this date because I've not been too thorough with the article amid my review. I really hope this Review ends without heading to the FARC. George Ho (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what else to say other than I think I've done a sufficient job maintaining FA status for this article, but if anyone has any concerns I'm glad to address them. Remsense 10:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article seems pretty close to FA criteria, but I notice a few things. 5 seperate sources listed in the bibliography appear to not be cited at all (Chen 1999, Ch'en et. al 2000, DeFrancis 1972, Lin 1972, Simon 1942.) Should these be incorporated or can they be cut from the bibliography?
Additionally, the article doesn't talk about its use by the PRC - neither the date it was adopted or the date it was superseded by the Hanyu Pinyin is mentioned or cited, despite the 1949–1987 in the infobox. Also, the UN used it from 1945–1971 according to the infobox, but this is also not elaborated on at all. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you for the observations! I'll cut the unused sources from the bib for now. Remsense 16:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I lived in Taiwan 20+ years ago, I found GR was not super rare among company names, so I am surprised we have so little examples of use in Taiwan between 1945 and 1986. Shiatzy Chen seems to be an example of a GR name? The "Tonal spelling" section could do with some examples; it is hard to understand the way it is and seems unreferenced. In particular, which sounds are considered sonorants in Chinese? —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have a much better sense of how to source this sort of information now, so it should be little issue incorporating it into the article. :) Remsense 16:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Middle Ages

Notified: Ealdgyth, Johnbod, Reddi, Adam Bishop, Middle Ages, European history, Visual arts, Military history, History [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was heavily edited, partially rewritten and slightly restructured for various reasons since 23 December 2021 ([12]), so it needs a thorough and comprehensive new review. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for your comments. (1) I did not touch the main structure of the article because it has been stable for more than a decade ([13]). I think the article follows a quite common scholarly practice, as its structure is based on chronology instead of topics. This is fully in line with most of the cited books. As I also noticed that the article failed to explain why the Middle Ages is discussed as one period in scholarly literature, I expanded it with two sentences about the period's main characteristics (I refer to the third paragraph in section "Terminology and periodisation"). If we ignore these common characteristics, we can indeed conclude that the three subperiods were quite distinct, as it is presented in the article. On the other hand, the article (I hope) also presents the links between the subperiods. (2) The sentence containing a reference to Dodwell presented his PoV about frescoes in churches in the west. As I prefer facts and wanted to expand the article about details of Orthodox architecture and art, I deleted the PoV sentence, and added a sentence about Balkan church architecture. (3) Miri Rubin is primarily named because I preferred to quote her words instead of paraphrasing them. Furthermore, she is a prominent contemporaneous historian of the period, who is specifically mentioned in John H. Arnold's cited book about problems of medieval history. Borsoka (talk)
To clarify - the below replies to a cmt now huffily blanked by the poster. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always the not-understanding with you! FAR is meant to be a much lighter process, and normally attracts far fewer reviewers and comments. That may be fine for an article that has already been through FAC, but is wholly inappropriate for one that has been changed as much as this one, in effect completely re-done. In the past Borsoka expressed the view very strongly that the previous version was absolutely terrible, and should never have been made FA. What is presented now is a completely new article, that has never been through FAC, as it needs a full review, for the first time. I hope this has clarified. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition

Notified: Bishonen, WikiProject Arctic, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Norway, WikiProject Sweden, WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, 2023-05-24

I am nominating this featured article for review because many paragraphs do not have citations, as well as sentences at the end of paragraphs. Some low-quality sources should be replaced, and new sources mentioned on the talk page or in the "Further reading" section should be explored for its inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Notified: DMacks,Ryboy42, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has had two cleanup banners for years now and a lack of updates for issues such as conservation, the potential new molecular compounds, and applications usage. Real4jyy (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Real4jyy, welcome! Per the instructions at the top of WP:FAR, please make sure to notify the original nominator and main editors about this FAR; you can add that to the notifications above once it's done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the banners was superfluous. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PowerBook 100

Notified: GoldRingChip, Bumm13, Guliolopez, DigitalIceAge, David Fuchs, barrel of cheese, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Apple Inc., diff for talk page notification (2024-02-23)

Issues of adequacy, detail, sourcing, and consistency with other articles about PowerBook 1XX series were raised two years ago. Since then, edits have been made but did very little to resolve those issues, especially within the last few or several weeks. More work is needed before the article would potentially lose its FA status. George Ho (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed my URFA notes and the state of the associated articles, I'm left with the opinion that working on this article and improving it via FAR is a poor use of time; the entire landscape of this and associated articles needs a rethink. I think the best solution is some sort of consolidation: I've gone poking at some of the extant sources from the time and it feels like separating the 100 from at least the other machines in the series is a bad idea since there's a lot of overlap. Right now there's the overarching PowerBook page, the PowerBook 100 series, and then PowerBook 100, PowerBook 140, 150, 160, 170, 180, and 190. I'm not entirely sure if it makes sense to lump this 100 article and what are essentially SKUS released three or four years later into a single PowerBook 100 series article, but most Wikipedia articles on Apple products lump them together in larger categories (such as processor generation) than this. At the very least the 100, 140, and 170 articles, talking about commonly-designed, released, and marketed products, make sense when combined since most of the information on development and marketing would be redundant between them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Notified: CactiStaccingCrane, Nergaal, Headbomb, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Astronomy, [diff for talk page notification]

2006 listing, last reviewed in 2009. As taken note of in the talk page notice from the tenth of May, there are fifteen (and possibly more) unsourced paragraphs and sentences. @ArkHyena: noted that "Given that the last FAR for this article appears to have been done all the way back in... 2009?! I'd certainly agree on one being needed. It necessarily is not only unsourced text which may be an issue too; piecemeal revisions over ~15 years could potentially impact clarity, and I'm pretty sure FA criteria back in 2009 may have been different than they are now.", while @Sgubaldo: said that a lot of references were missing different fields. 750h+ 01:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a first reading, the uncited statements generally seem to be the sort of thing that is written in many books (Sirius being the second-brightest star in the sky, etc.), so fixing that up shouldn't be too difficult. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More of a nitpick, but in the 'Observational History' section, it seems to be that there's a tad too many images. I'm thinking the hydrogen-alpha and ultraviolet light ones could be removed or moved elsewhere? Sgubaldo (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have partially addressed this in diff. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Praemonitus:

I went through the remainder of the citations and tried to make them consistent and more complete. Beyond that, the article has built up a fair amount of fluffy padding and redundancy that can be tightened up so the writing is more crisp. Praemonitus (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter and Praemonitus: any updates? Some comments I have includes the lead section, you might consider removing the references (as that should be summarised in the article) and I think the lead paragraphs should be a bit more balanced in size. 750h+ 10:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing further to add. Praemonitus (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have (re)moved the references from the lead (see diff). CoronalMassAffection (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I don't really care about references being in the intro or not; it's a little more clean without the blue clicky linky numbers, but they weren't egregious. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAR coordinators: what are our thoughts? 750h+ 15:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the issues raised above remain unaddressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop YF-23

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

I am nominating this featured article for review because over the past few months, I've added a considerably amount of additional information about the aircraft's design history gathered from multiple sources. The prose has doubled in length, so I would like other editors to review my work to ensure that it still meets FA standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve7c8, did you discuss this on the article's talk page at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. However, given the amount of content added since it was last listed as FA over a decade ago such that it has more than doubled in size, with much of the new prose written by myself, I believe that this warrants a FA review especially from a neutral party to ensure that it meets the quality standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please notify other editors and relevant WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Steve7c8, I've worked a little bit on the article. I believe you have the technical knowledge of the subject, while I can do source and reference formatting. I changed the sources to cite book or cite journal templates, and changed some of the references to sfn tags. Would this and any further work I do on formatting be okay with you? Matarisvan (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good. I'll notify some other editors and relevant WikiProjects to have another go at it. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, we need a link for the Aerospace Daily article, otherwise any reviewer doing spotchecks would fail the source review. Matarisvan (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original link from years ago is gone and I don’t think it’s ever been archived, but it’s transcribed in a forum post here, which I’m not sure is considered adequate. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post the link here, I can search for it on archival sites. Matarisvan (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have the original link. Perhaps search for key words and phrases in that article that's transcribed in the forum post? Steve7c8 (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll have to remove this reference, we already have another one (Chong 2016) at the same place. Is that OK with you? Matarisvan (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Steve7c8, do you have access to either of Sweetman 1991a or 1991b? I put in these in the sfn tags on a placeholder basis as I wasn't able to get access to them. This is the last thing left to do here, once it is done we can safely say the article is back again at FA level. Matarisvan (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I don't. I have limited access to these sources as I'm in the middle of an SLTE currently, but in a few days I'll check my shelves. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, @Matarisvan, a friend of mine has hard copies of these publications, I can borrow them if need be. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these, @Steve7c8? That would be great, we would be able to finally close this FA review. Matarisvan (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


1880 Republican National Convention

Notified: Nishkid64, Coemgenus, Billmckern, Tilden76, Devonian Wombat, -A-M-B-1996-, WP Politics, WP Chicago, WP Illinois, WP USA, WP Elections and Referendums, noticed in December 2023 with prior issues raised in 2015

As originally promoted, this 2007 FA included a number of references to varied sources. However, in 2015, it was discovered on the talk page that essentially the editor just read the Ackerman book and threw in citations from Ackerman's notes, even though those sources did not entirely support the cited content. I ran into a similar problem from this same editor when I rewrote Thomas C. Hindman, another old FA promotion, several years ago. Coemgenus resolved many of the issues in 2015 but the article is still very heavily reliant on Ackerman alone. I also, in December 2023, found that there are still a number of smaller source-text integrity issues and that the citation placement is messed up.

Awhile back, this article was suggested to potentially rerun as TFA with the upcoming Republican National Convention later this year, but I don't think that is a good idea given the sourcing history here. Given my experiences with Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. R. Richard/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lee Smith (baseball)/archive1, Talk:Thomas C. Hindman#Uncited paras/sentences etc, and Talk:Stede Bonnet#Featured article review needed I have grave concerns about the sourcing from any FA nominations by this nominator. Hog Farm Talk 17:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fn.10 -- Hesseltine p. 432 contains the quoted language and the sentiment it expresses.
fn.20 -- Ackerman makes both points on p. 74 and the quoted headline is there.
fn.30 -- Ackerman pp.66-67 does say this.
fn.40 -- Cites Ackerman p. 58 for two points. the phrasing is a little awkward, but it's accurate.
fn.50 -- Cites Ackerman p. 83 for two quotes, both accurate.
fn.60 -- Cites Ackerman p. 91 for three points and two quotes, all accurate.
fn.70 -- Cites Ackerman p. 103-104 for two points, both accurate.
fn.80 -- Cites Ackerman p. 116 for two points. Both accurate, but the parenthetical near the second point wasn't in the source (it is true, though). So I moved the citation to the right spot.
fn.90 -- I had trouble accessing this -- the Questia page wouldn't load. I found the book on the Internet Archive, though, and it's correct.
Since most of those random citations were to the same book, I picked out a few others to check.
fn.53 -- Cites Muzzey p. 169 -- the quotation and the meaning of the sentence are both accurate.
fn.59 -- Cites Clancy pp. 104-105 for two points including quotations. This is the first problem I found. Clancy and Ackerman both cite a letter from Joseph H. Geiger to John Sherman, but where Clancy summarizes the content, Ackerman quotes it directly. The author of this article uses the direct quote, as found in Ackerman, but cites it to Clancy, which is incorrect.
I think this article relies too heavily on Ackerman's book, but where it does so, it does so accurately. Where it cites other sources, in at least one instance, it does not do so faithfully. There's not much to fix here, but it should be fixed. I have nearly all of these books, so I guess I should be the one to fix it? --Coemgenus (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Notified: Melchoir, Dedhert.Jr, JayBeeEll, Hawkeye7, WikiProject Mathematics; original nominator not notified as they have been inactive for over 6 years

This is the 1.999...nd FAR of this article. The was back in 2010 and FA status was retained. I placed a FAR notice on the article talk back in January and Dedhert.Jr, JayBeeEll, and Hawkeye7 have done some work on it, but the article has whole sections without citation, amounting to OR; while doing basic math isn't OR, there should be citations to the proofs since they're described as known proofs. Other editors have identified SYNTH in the article during the FAR listing. Hopefully more eyes on this can get it back to FA quality. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the only one to identify SYNTH during the previous discussion, and I removed it back in February. There is no whole section without citation; "Elementary proof" has only a single citation for a longish stretch of text, so that can be improved, but overall the situation is not bad at all. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some work on the "Elementary proof" section, and I think now it's in better shape. XOR'easter (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RIgorous proof has no citations. There are also statements that I think need citations, such as:
  • The series definition above is a simple way to define the real number named by a decimal expansion. A complementary approach is tailored to the opposite process: for a given real number, define the decimal expansion(s) to name it. Particularly since it's being described as "simple" (by whom? should that be in wikivoice?).
  • The first paragraph of "Proofs from the construction of the real numbers" has no citations.
  • In 1802, H. Goodwin published an observation ... There's no citation to Goodwin here.
There's also still the issue of deprecated citations being used in "Algebraic arguments"; ((sfn))s were added, but they still need page numbers. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to fix these issues, but I have no math background and wouldn't feel comfortable in case I miscite something. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a Goodwyn cite. Feel free to cross that one off! Tito Omburo (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only ((sfn))s in "Algebraic arguments" that I'm seeing without page numbers are to journal articles, which don't need them. (I mean, journal articles are short enough that giving a specific page number within them provides basically no value beyond giving the page in the journal where they begin. Standard practice around here is to omit the excess detail, as far as I know.)
I've added citations to the opening paragraph of "Proofs from the construction of the real numbers". XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If one works in base-10, then any fraction whose denominator is power of 2 and 5 will have exactly two distinct expansions: for example, 1/8 has 0.125000... and 0.1249999...
  • Similar phenomena happen for base-N for any integer N. (there are always 2 choices)
  • For base-N with N not an integer, there may be 1,2, a countable number or uncountable number of such expansions. When there's only one, it is called univoke. For base-phi, with phi the golden mean, there are a countable number of equivalent expansions: basically, you can repeat a finite number of times, and then switch over, or not, at that point. This continues to be a topic of modern research; I read a paper published in 2010 or 2015 that explored this.
  • Whenever there are such "gaps" (two distinct reps) those two endpoints can be joined, ... or not. Joining them gives the de Rham curves, which are fractal curves.
  • Most or almost all or all fractal watsizz are due exactly to there being two or more non-unique expansions. Whether it's "all" or just "almost all" remains a topic of academic debate. There are "classification theorems" that try to sort out all of the cases; they're called "non-classification theorems" where there's an uncountable number of alternative expansions.
  • Something like this applies to chaotic dynamical systems. But there's argument about that.
  • Some philosophers have used this in arguments about free will: basically: "a hah, I can choose 0.999 ... or I can choose 1.000... and nature (or neurons, or physics or whatever) will automatically amplify this difference to finite size in finite time and this is how/why one has free will" Not that I beleive this argument, but it is out there, in the wild.
I do not have references fro most of the above, only for some (below). Failing to mention any of the above just misses an excellent teaching opportunity, to bridge some old ideas to modern, cutting-edge math. This is not some idea that sits in a heremetically-sealed vacuum; it continues to excite mathematicians and philosophers (and students) and should be presented as such.
Here's some references:
Hmm. Actually, it seems I have 20 more of these. Above is a random sampling. Some touch more directly, some touch less directly on the subject matter. I have no references for the philosophy claims. (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ahh, huh, Perhaps I have to partly retract. Closer review indicates the article does touch on some of this. I suppose I have ADHD and didn't notice on first reading. (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A different definition involves what Terry Tao refers to as ultralimit." Why is Terry Tao mentioned at all here? Would one say that Terry Tao is what Martin Hairer refers to as a professor? Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm not that active on Wikipedia these days, but let me know if there are particular questions about any old edits of mine. For example, if there's a cited reference that is hard for others to access, and we need the page number or the context of a quotation, I could look it up in my notes. Melchoir (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melchoir, thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress being made here? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spate of editing last month addressed the specific concerns that had been raised. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a lack of citations in the proofs sections. While WP:CALC says routine calculations are okay, I think those sections ought to have citations to show that they are common proofs in reliable sources. The "Algebraic arguments" section still has deprecated citations. There are also several sentences and paragraphs throughout that still lack citations. For example:
  • The argument here does not need to assume completeness to be valid, because it shows that this particular sequence of rational numbers has a least upper bound and that this least upper bound is equal to one.
  • The first two paragraphs of analytic proofs.
  • Such heuristics are often incorrectly interpreted by students as implying that 0.999... itself is less than 1.
  • These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although some may be valid in other number systems, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive counterexamples to better understand 0.999...
"Skepticism in education" also has a bulleted list that would be better presented as prose. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is deprecated about the citations in "Algebraic arguments"? As far as I can tell, it doesn't do what WP:PAREN actually says is deprecated. It uses authors' names and publication years inline to include specific publications in a way that flows with the grammar of the sentence. (Compare this with, e.g., Affine symmetric group, a recently-promoted FA that does the same thing.) And the little blue clicky linky numbers are right there, too. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough RE PAREN. I'm still concerned about the lack of citations throughout. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When we worked on this last month, my impression was that we'd ended up with it in a state where everything was, at worst, an expansion of something stated in one or more of the sources, i.e., saying something leisurely instead of curtly but without introducing anything new. Someone other than me should check that, however. XOR'easter (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward I of England

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

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

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

The areas that were not addressed during the FAC process were

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

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

These areas should also be looked at:

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

Key texts that need consulting include:

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

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

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

Comment by KJP1

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

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

and two areas that may need a bit more coverage:

  • Edward's religiosity;
  • Edward and Eleanor.

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

I'm happy with that but I'd note the main reason for non-engagement AFAICT is probably that the main editor is in semi-retirement and no longer working on the page. There will be existing pages for all these topics, but for an FA standard, the page has to reasonably represent all the relevant literatures, AIUI, ie, other parts might need trimming, if it came to a question of overall length. As now the article arguably violates NPOV, through omission of some of the more uncomfortable aspects of his reign.Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, FAR or Talkpage, it would be immensely helpful if JimK could provide suggested paragraphs for inclusion, which would look to address the said omissions. I think that would greatly assist other editors in assessing the issues, and how they might be addressed in the article, having regard to weight, length etc. KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will crack on with this for sure. It may take me a few days to find time to start; altogether I would think probably 3-4 weeks are needed for me to find spare time to look at all the things I've mentioned. The Wales paras are the easiest for me. Jim Killock (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry and no problem! Edward I is not my period, but I do have some experience of compressing prose into tight, FA, pargraphs. If I can help at all in terms of reviewing the prose, I'd be delighted. Serial is your man for reviewing the content. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you for the kind words and offers of (potential!) help. Jim Killock (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1@Serial Number 54129Ping in case you are able to help: I've linked to the work I have already done for checking re Anglo-Jewish policies, and drafted the changes regarding Wales from Welsh sources below. Jim Killock (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JimKillock - Not forgotten this, just busy irl this week. Will take a look at the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward's Jewish policies: text check

Moved to talk page to simplify feedback

Wales I: Edward I of England#Conquest of Wales

Moved to talk page as mostly resolved

Wales II: Edward I of England#Legacy

Moved to talk page


Next steps

I will try to write up the section on Ireland next, once I have Davies 1998 British Isles book. I have access to the two volumes on Ireland, Frame 1998 and Lydon 2008a mentioned. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KJP1

With apologies for the delay in getting to this, a few comments. A caveat to start, Edwardian history is definitely not my period, and thus what I'm not able to judge is the weight that would be appropriate to give to the differing views on the Jewish and Welsh (and subsequently Irish) issues. That said:

I hope that editors with much greater knowledge of Edward will be able to chip in, particularly on the issue of DUE which buidhe notes above. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this @KJP1. I'll wait some further feedback before making edits. Jim Killock (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nikkimaria; I have been busy with other things but want to do the Ireland section next. This won't be so much work as looking at Scotland, and the British context, both of which need me to do significant reading. I think I may as well transpose the edits re Wales at this point. Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irish section drafted Jim Killock (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New sections on Ireland and EWSI perspectives

Fromer status, Ireland: Mentioned in passing as a source of revenue.
Sentences on Ireland added to "early life": Split control caused problems. Between 1254 and 1272, eleven different Justiciars were appointed to head the Irish government, encouraging further conflict and instability; corruption rose to very high levels.[1]
Section on Ireland, added to Law and administration: Edward’s primary interest in Ireland was as a source of resources, soldiers and funds for his wars, in Gascony, Wales, Scotland and Flanders. Royal interventions aimed at maximising economic extraction.[2] Corruption among Edward's officials was at a concerningly high level, and despite Edward’s efforts after 1272 to reform the Irish administration, record keeping was poor.[3]
Disturbances in Ireland increased during the period. The weakness and lack of direction given to the Lordship’s rule allowed factional fighting to grow, reinforced by the introduction of indentured military service by Irish magnates from around 1290.[4] The funnelling of revenue to Edward’s wars left Irish castles, bridges and roads in a state of disrepair, and alongside the withdrawal of troops to be used against Wales and Scotland and elsewhere, helped induce lawless behaviour. Resistance to 'purveyances', or forced purchase of supplies such as grain, added to lawlessness, and caused speculation and inflation in the price of basic goods.[5] Pardons were granted to lawbreakers for service for the King in England.[6] Revenues and removal of troops for Edward’s wars left the country unable to address its basic needs, while the administration was wholly focused on providing for Edward’s war demands;[7] troops looted and fought with townspeople when on the move.[8] Gaelic Ireland enjoyed a revival, due to the absence of English magnates and the weakness of the Lordship, assimilating some of the settlers.[9] Edward's government was hostile to the use of Gaelic law, which it condemned in 1277 as "displeasing to God and to reason".[10] Conflict was firmly entrenched by the time of the 1297 Irish Parliament, which attempted to create measures to counter disorder and the spread of Gaelic customs and law, while the results of the distress included many abandoned lands and villages.[11]
Legacy section on Scotland, Ireland and EWSI perspective
Former text, Scotland: G. W. S. Barrow, in his biography of Robert the Bruce, accused Edward of ruthlessly exploiting the leaderless state of Scotland to obtain a feudal superiority over the kingdom followed by his determination to reduce it to nothing more than an English possession.[12]
Applied replacement text: G. W. S. Barrow saw Edward as ruthlessly exploiting the leaderless state of Scotland to obtain feudal superiority over the kingdom and reduce it to an English possession.[13] In his view, Edward's insistence on war and misapprehension of Scottish capacity for resistance created a "bitter antagonism … which endured for centuries".[14]
Former text, Ireland: nothing mentioned
Applied additional text: (after Wales and Scotland, same paragraph) Irish historian James Lydon regarded the thirteenth century and Edward's reign as a turning point, as the Lordship extracted resources for his wars, failed to maintain peace, and allowed a resurgence in the fortunes of Gaelic Ireland, leading to prolongued conflict.[15]
Prior, EWSI perspective: nothing mentioned
Applied additional text: A number of historians, including Simon Schama, Norman Davies, and historians from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, have tried to assess Edward's reign in the context of the development of Britain and Ireland.[16] They emphasise the growing power of the law, centralised state and crown across Europe, and see Edward as asserting his rights within England and regarding the other nations of Britain and Ireland.[17] Centralisation tended to imply uniformity and increasing discrimination against peripheral identities and hostility to Irish and Welsh law.[18] While this group of historians do not see Edward as having conducted a planned policy of expansionism,[19] they often see the tactics and results of his policies as often having caused unnecessary division and conflict.[20]
Legacy section regarding Edward's assessment
Prior revision: See 09:04, 29 May 2024
Current version: See 07:12, 8 June 2024
Diff: See Legacy section diff
Additional changes to Legacy section regarding modern assessments: The section on modern assessments of Edward lacked depth and contained errors regarding the commentators views. This has been rewritten to reflect the positions of the historians mentioned, which do not uniformly regard Edward as "great" as previously drafted. Rather, all see him as highly significant, but differ in their assessment of his motivations, strategic sense and the nature of his impact as to whether generally or highly positive, or containing negative elements.
Character section on EWSI perspective
Previous: Nothing mentioned
Applied additional text: Edward is often noted as exhibiting vindictiveness towards his defeated enemies, and triumphalism in his actions.[21] Examples include the seizure of fragments of the Holy Cross from Wales after its defeat in 1283, and subsequently the Stone of Scoon and royal regalia from Scotland after defeats in 1296.[22] Some historians question Edward's good faith and trustworthiness in relation to his dealing with Wales and Scotland, believing him to have been capable of going back on his word or behaving duplicitously.[23]
Character section on religion
Previous: missing role of propaganda, crusader angle, personal certitude
Applied additional text: Edward's use of the church also extended to war mobilisation including disseminating official justifications for war, usually through the issue of writs to England's archbishops, who distributed his requests for services and prayers.[24] Edward's architectural programme also had an element of propaganda, sometimes combining this with religious messages of piety.[25]
Note: More to follow
Lead inclusion of additional perspectives
Previous: Did not include impacts on Ireland, negative evaluations of relations with Wales and Scotland, or antisemitic policies in general.
Applied additional text, lead para 2: In Ireland, he had extracted soldiers, supplies and money, leaving decay, lawlessness and a revival of the fortunes of his enemies in Gaelic territories.
Previous text re criticisms: At the same time, he is also often condemned for his wars against Scotland and for expelling the Jews from England in 1290.
Applied additional text re criticisms, end of lead: At the same time, he is also often condemned for vindictiveness, opportunism and untrustworthiness in his dealings with Wales and Scotland, coupled with a colonialist approach to their governance and to Ireland, and for antisemitic policies leading to the expulsion of the Jews from England in 1290.

Feedback requested

I've done most of what I hope to do now, I might tidy up some Scottish points later but for me the FAR changes are done. If @KJP1 or @Serial Number 54129 or anyone else has feedback I would be very grateful. Pings to @Unlimitedlead, @Dudley Miles, @Ealdgyth, @Usernamesarebunk, @Lampman, @Hchc2009, @GoldRingChip, @Gog the Mild, @Surtsicna, @Nev1, @Mike Christie --Jim Killock (talk) 09:28, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Killock, could you move your notes and resolved commentary to the review talk page? This one's getting a bit hard to follow at this point, and that may be discouraging others from weighing in. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria I've moved the notes and commentary I can move and linked to them. Hope that helps. Jim Killock (talk) 07:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Sources for convenience

Not yet consulted

not consulted in this round


  1. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 180–81, 193–4.
  2. ^ Lydon 2008a, p. 181.
  3. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 193–4.
  4. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 185–86.
  5. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 196–7, 202–3.
  6. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 202–3.
  7. ^ Lydon 2008a, p. 201.
  8. ^ Lydon 2008a, p. 203.
  9. ^ Lydon 2008b, pp. 271, 273.
  10. ^ Davies 1990, p. 115.
  11. ^ Lydon 2008b, pp. 272–3, Lydon 2008a, p. 203
  12. ^ Barrow 1965, p. 44.
  13. ^ Barrow 1965, p. 44.
  14. ^ Barrow 1983, p. 408.
  15. ^ Lydon 2008a, pp. 185–86, 203, Lydon 2008b, pp. 272–3
  16. ^ Schama 2000, pp. 168, 185, 203, Davies 1999, pp. 314, 325, Frame 1990, pp. 142–4 Barrow 1983, p. 306-9, 408-9, Davies 1990, pp. 22–30
  17. ^ Schama 2000, pp. 168, 185, 203, Davies 1999, pp. 314, 325, Frame 1990, pp. 142–4 Barrow 1983, p. 306-9, 408-9
  18. ^ Davies 1990, pp. 118–9, Frame 1998, p. 172
  19. ^ Frame 1990, p. 142-3, Schama 2000, pp. 185–6, Davies 1999, pp. 314–5
  20. ^ Davies 1990, pp. 62–3, Barrow 1983, p. 408, Frame 1998, p. 172
  21. ^ Frame 1990, p. 142-3
  22. ^ Davies 1990, p. 125-6
  23. ^ Barrow 1983, pp. 394–5, Davies 2000, pp. 346–7
  24. ^ Bachrach 2004, p. 396.
  25. ^ Stocker 1986, p. 115.

Emmy Noether

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

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

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

Comment Work seems to have slowed down, but several sourcing problems remain. Are editors still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have the time to properly sit down and crack on with this until towards the end of March. After that, I'm happy to continue working on the doctoral students part. As I said above, the citation issues in the "Contributions to mathematics and physics" section may require someone with more expertise than me in the area. Besides, beyond those two issues, I think the article is worthy of FA status, and I made some structural changes that made the article (in my view) neater. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Improvements have definately been made (thanks everyone!) but I still have citation concerns, as there are some paragraphs which do not have any inline citations. Would it be helpful if I tagged the areas that I felt needed citations for others to address? Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note a seems to use inline references, which should be converted to inline citations (footnotes). Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Working my way through as many of those as I can. Will update when I stall out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, now we're forbidden even footnotes from having parenthetical citations within them? So we need a separate footnote inside the footnote to be the reference? No. Just no. This blind fanaticism serves no encyclopedic purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I misindented my comment. I've been working through the cn tags. Haven't looked into the note. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My reply was aimed more at Z1720 than you. Going through cn tags and finding citations for them is a very useful thing to be doing. Putting nested footnotes into footnotes because of an aversion to mixing footnote text with footnote citations, less useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The inline reference issue in Note a has been fixed. Two cn tags remain, and the section on her second epoch might need some citations too. The rest of the article seems good. Beyond that, I had the idea of making her doctoral students part of the prose rather than an explicit table at the bottom of the article, but that shouldn't make or break FA-status. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sgubaldo. Haven't given up on the last few cns. Just been busy. I'll either fix them soon or throw in the towel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found something in Page 99 of Emmy Noether: The Mother of Modern Algebra by Margaret B. W. Tent for the phrase 'Her family paid for her room and board and supported her academic work' as mentioned on the talk page, but i'm a little skeptical of using it as a source since it's mostly aimed at teenagers and the author takes some literary creativity and makes up conversations between historical figures. No luck on the other cn tag yet. Sgubaldo (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the "Her family paid" line. XOR'easter (talk) 21:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Recent news is typically harder to find academic sources for. Therefore, it might be better to look at local sources for information to add to the History section. I would suggest at least a sentence on the island's votes on the Scottish independence referendum and Brexit. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Orkney voted 63.2% 'Remain' and 67.2% 'No' but this data is not broken down by individual island. I am pretty sure this doesn't happen even for local authority elections, Shapinsay being part of the North Isles ward. See also Constitutional status of Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles. Ben MacDui 13:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

@Ben MacDui: are you still working on this article? The last edit was in January. I think there's still some information that can be added in the "History" and the Demography section can be updated with the latest census figures. Z1720 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I'd be happy to continue working on this but (1) per the above the new census data has not yet appeared and (2) if you can make a suggestion or two about what aspects of the history are worth adding I can look into that. Ben MacDui 17:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ben MacDui: I am not too familiar with this topic, so I am not sure what to specifically suggest. However, there must be some post-1980 events that have happened at this location. Is there anything significant in terms of natural disasters, political events, the completion or discontinue of major infrastructure projects, and political events might be information that you could add to the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: There are numerous references to 21st century events under the economy, transport, education and culture headings. I'll have another look but bear in mind that this is an island with a population of 300 (roughly equivalent to Camden East), many of whom are farmers. I doubt there are too many political events of note to record. Ben MacDui 14:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had a trawl through the BBC website again. We have

There was also a story about a jailed rapist who lived on the island – although the crimes were committed elsewhere and I am not keen on an inclusion. Ben MacDui 20:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@Z1720: I moved the bit about the seocndary school closing in 95 and the improved commuting generally. I don't think it makes much sense to discuss the history of the ferrys under "history" and then come back to the same topic again later under "transport". Ben MacDui 11:56, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Reviewing this to hopefully get this out of FAR:

Hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

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

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

I generally agree that FAR is an unlikely solution for this, unless someone seriously commits themselves to this daunting task. This has been one of the big impending FARs for many years... I think the biggest length issues are in the history section, which should be 3/4, maybe even half as long. On the other side, the Literature section seems embarrassingly brief. From my understanding of Byzantine music (I created the List of Byzantine composers article), the emphasis on instruments is hugely undue and much more discussion of composers, genres and music rituals should be instead substituted. Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant to commit, given other constraints, but with a day in the library I could seriously improve the bloated history section. We shall see. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SandyGeorgia. Even if it were thought that a very long article would be needed even to summarize this topic well, this is not in any shape to be considered featured article class. As Sandy points out, there are too many deficiencies for a featured article. It will be a big task to make the needed improvements and, I think, few if any reviewers available to undertake it. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of the above. If there's a collective push to save this article I would chip in but it's way too modern for my usual area and I'm in no position to lead it. Aside from all of the valid criticisms already made, I am surprised to see not a single mention of slaves/slavery in the article. We have Slavery in the Byzantine Empire which seems to suggest that there were major changes to the institution of slavery from how it had been in classical antiquity... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caeciliusinhorto-public it looks like work is progressing; are you in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping SandyGeorgia. Between Christmas and other real-life stuff I probably can't commit to much but I'll watchlist the page and poke my nose in if I have anything useful to contribute. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that this shouldn't be an FA. It would be good to get a clear summary of why it's not and of what needs to change.
I have a lot of respect for Biz's work and especially for their careful section by section approach, but that does mean that the talk page tends to focus on points of detail and nomenclature.
Thus, we don't currently have a holistic overview of how the article should change. It would be good to have that. If FA review could give us that, it would be worth doing. If there is another, better venue, we should do that. Furius (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That said, I do think Kaldellis’s book — the first new academic narrative since the 1990s — should be a standard for us to measure the current article beyond the maintenance tasks. Despite some issues, it’s remarkable well written. If we have a group of people commit to reading it before editing we will be all on the same page and the article will be all the better because of it.
One suggestion on approach is we understand this is a big project and do drives every so often on sections. It will make this a sustained effort then (and action will breed other action). If a regular group of editors have experience working together, they can just jive off each other’s edits. If people revert and becomes a problem, we take it to talk. What’s key is we set the expectation that we are blowing up a section and ask for people’s collaboration in edits rather than hash it out on talk. Biz (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently already reading it as I've said above, and I agree with your praise. Also with your methodology, I am fully onboard. Remsense 05:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can work with Kaldellis as a foundation, I also have access to the relevant Cambridge history; I can get going in around a week, if that's acceptable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Word counts by major section
  • Lead: 571
  • Nomenclature: 307
  • History: 10,090
  • Government and bureaucracy: 924
  • Science and medicine: 528
  • Culture: 3536
  • Economy: 418
  • Legacy: 416
Lead can be done last (and where Talk wastes the most time so let's stay away from it). Nomenclature has undergone a major review recently so no need to focus on that now. The Language section in Culture is 519 words, a good 1/7th of that section and larger than the two sections after it -- the languages section in Roman Empire has undergone a recent deep review by me so we can lean on this to re-evaluate this section. Oh, and history, let's look at that as clearly this needs work:
  • Early Byzantine history: 1026
  • Justinian dynasty: 1081
  • Arab invasions and shrinking borders: 1312
  • Macedonian dynasty and resurgence (867–1025): 2170
  • Crisis and fragmentation: 491
  • Komnenian dynasty and the Crusades: 1694
  • Decline and disintegration: 1282
  • Fall: 309
  • Political aftermath: 725
Was hoping to finish Kaldellis before editing again -- with my travel and other commitments, optimistically it won't be before January -- but hey, throw a dart and we can start. Biz (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, my non-binding pick is Crisis and fragmentation, it may be easiest to identify the article's broader shortcomings with a short cut from the middle. I can also take a closer look at Language.
Oh, also, the presence of File:Bizansist touchup.jpg seems fairly...not for this decade. It needs to be replaced or likely removed, I'll see what I can source. Remsense 04:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the most interesting section! Crisis and fragmentation, or rather that time period, is something Kaldellis will be key for as there is a lot of new research since Treadgold.
It's worth introducing the historian Roderick Beaton (with his very excellent, The Greeks: A Global History) who's book tries to make a case that every generation of Greek-speaking regime collapsed when central government was no longer useful. So in the case of the Byzantine Empire, he said long before 1453 and even 1204 occurred. That is to say, this era of 800-1204 is very sensitive how we edit it. Howard-Johnston, Treadgold and Kaldellis are the leading experts on this 'middle' period so I hope you understand my reluctance to have an opinion on this section until I get further with Kadellis. Biz (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start at the beginning? (I should note that when this FAR was opened a month ago, I trimmed the original six paragraphs into the current two). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also fully support this approach. Remsense 14:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Logical. Ready to roll. Biz (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Per above, it seems like we are going to keep it simple, starting with the history section and go over it chronologically. I've already earmarked several graphics that I plan on replacing or possibly removing. Remsense 14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm willing to work on the article within FAR, but not outside it. To be honest, the size issue is at the moment secondary to more immediate problems (OR, CLOP, etc.) History section first, then others, when we're all hopefully soaked through with knowledge. As we should be going section-to-section, and just move the comments on each to talk after it's satisfactorily completed. This will be a long job but I wouldn't expect anything else for such an important article (Genghis Khan took me 413 days on my lonesome). At the moment, I'm mildly optimistic—we have three competent and active editors, pretty much a blank sheet in front of us, and if it fails then. well, at least we tried? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support working within FAR though these frameworks for review is not something I have useful experience in. Will need to defer to someone else's lead on that. In terms of process, I'm amenable to suggestions.
If we exclude the Lead and Nomenclature, there are 9 history subheadings, 7 culture subeadings and 4 other major sections. By announcing periodic drives on a section and putting eyes on it, even with just 1-3 of us, we'll rip through and make Temüjin-like progress. If we want to do this right, and on balance of all the things needed, I'd say this a 20-80 week project (budgeting 1-4 weeks per section).
I'll put my hand up on the slowest part of this process which is validating existing sources, evaluating other sources people suggest or from other articles, and otherwise assessing current scholarship. This will result in addressing article issues like CLOP and OR, and by extension assist with condensing the narrative which will address the big billboard problem of size. Happy to document notes and note down direct quotes as I read sources which may assist in making this work more accessible so other people can leverage it. Biz (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Sandy is probably right that we should do all the nitty grity on this FAR's talk, so we don't clog up the main FAR page with all our scribblings. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. So if I understand this right:
  • this FAR page (or its talk?) is where we document a FAR review
  • this FAR talk is where we put notes evaluating scholarship and/or other notes
  • Issues from the above two processes will get posted on the articles Talk page
  • We announce updates here every two weeks
  • After (or in parallel?) of the FAR, we do section by section drives?
Anything else? Who will perform the FAR? And we officially start sometime-ish this month? Biz (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that everything happens on this page or its talk, and that the improving of each section is part of the FAR. At the end, some other editors will take a look at the article and see whether they think it meets WP:FACR. Is that right SandyGeorgia? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Biz's question: the FAR is open, the instructions are at the top of WP:FAR, but there is no time pressure. Other editors will evaluate on this page whether the article meets WP:WIAFA, but it is typical for them to wait until after you all are ready for a new look and as long as you keep this page informed and that work is steadily progressing in the right direction. (I am quite concerned that I haven't seen much progress yet, particularly in terms of re-organizing the content towards a trimmer version.) Where you coordinate the work doesn't matter; it can be on the article talk page, or on the talk page of this FAR, but to avoid clogging this page, the nitty gritty need not be conducted here, unless you need broader feedback beyond the day-to-day improvements. This page is for others to eventually declare Close or Move to FARC in the FAR phase, and Keep or Delist if it moves to the FARC phase. Considering there is a very large amount of work to do, my suggestion is that work proceeds on article talk, and that you let this page know bi-weekly how things are going. If progress stalls, editors are likely to suggest Move to FARC to keep the process moving forward. Perhaps an understanding of FAR functioning can be had by reading through Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 (which I I believe is the biggest rewrite at FAR to date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pointers.
I've started the review with some structure on how we approach it in this article's talk page. Open to feedback to do this differently (in the Talk page, of course). Biz (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of approaches may also take place on the article's talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm continuing the rewrite, aided by the others here; @Z1720 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: as the two remaining !votes, is there anything in particular you want to see addressed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one section without a source at the last sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll get to that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still see lots of uncited sections. I am happy to cn tag the article if this is requested. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, that would be a great help! Biz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate feedback on two sections I've been focused on: Transition into an eastern Christian empire and Language. I still want to do more source work (last paragraph of languages needs verification; waiting for a new book on slavery which may improve the narrative) but I thought now is as good a time than ever to ask if I am rewriting this article to the standard that is expected. (I'm finding it a challenge to balance summary prose with comprehensiveness and neutrality...I've never brought an article to FA standard so I apologise for what may seem obvious to others.) Biz (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, Biz, and Remsense: How is it going? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halted, and probably will be for the next three weeks due to RL responsibilities. Working on adjacent topics, however, and intending to return. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same with me. IRL challenges, but have every intention to continue. Appreciate the follow up. Time has flown this past month… Biz (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I copy-edited the "Society" section, does that section look better. CosXZ (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you! @AirshipJungleman29 added that copy editing tag because I wanted feedback on my writing and actually I've been waiting for this and is partly why I paused my contributions. I would appreciate your continued involvement in copy-editing as we re-write sections. Personally, I'm trying hard to write a balanced and modern narrative supported by stronger sources but it's easy to get caught in detail that another editor can easily correct. Biz (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biz please try to iron out your additions in drafts, before adding them to the rewritten article. Take for example the second paragraph of this edit—none of the three sentences make grammatical sense, and I additionally don't see what relevance it has to a section titled "Central government". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By second paragraph, you mean the sentence starting with Phocas?
I'll review the two new sentences on nomos empsychos and re-evaluate which seems to be the only thing you cut from the revision I made. Biz (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, came across this a few days ago and thought I'd offer my help if there are any particular sections that could do with editing/sourcing improvements? @AirshipJungleman29@Biz & co.? Jr8825Talk 21:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! We are working our way down the article, @AirshipJungleman29's driving the history rewrite and also worked on Nomenclature which I also previously worked on, I've completed my work on Society and recently finished Governance. I've gone into a rabbit hole understanding one statement about nomos empsychos and related the impact of Justinian's code, which probably won't belong on this article but reflecting on its relevance still, and plan to focus on military, diplomacy, law after that which has some overlap on the work I've already done.
Economy, architecture, Daily life, Science and medicine, Religion would be next after that so that would be a great place you could pick up on. Arts @Aza24 has previously said they would work on, but otherwise open field! Biz (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting work on literature in my sandbox. Should get to Art and Music after – Aza24 (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed a draft for a new literature section, see User:Aza24/sandbox (perma link: [15]). @Biz:, does it seem too long? I was going for as concise as possible, but don't know if I've overstepped. I'll paste it in after I copy edit and go through the sources once more. Should get started on the art section in a few days. – Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded with feedback. @AirshipJungleman29 should also take a look. Biz (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've made some adjustments (moved your comments to the bottom of the page with replies). Aza24 (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't have much time to take a look at this at present. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! The Byzantine Empire will be waiting, since you can't go back to Constantinople anyways. Aza24 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My new literature section has been added. Thanks again Biz for your feedback! I'll look towards doing Art next sometime soon – Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. I've updated the status of the article here: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3. Let's use that page to coordinate on the work, and keep this page for general updates. Biz (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Nice system you got there Aza24 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

Yes. I guess WikiProject Maps added the interactive maps recently. I placed an old style pushpin map under theirs. Is this OK?
Restored an old version with more details, thank you. It took the Corps of Engineers 6 years or more to stop the Eastman Tunnel leak.
Excellent point. I added a sentence in two places, demarcating the demise of lumbering and flour milling. Does it make better sense now?
Not absolutely necessary and has been removed.
My shorthand, and no problem to omit.
  • The Institute of Technology was indispensible, which the source suggests, but was perhaps overrepresented (say, in comparison to other institutions) by the word "formidable" (we had that discussion before about "fabulous" which I removed).
  • Again a shorthand way of saying "nationally and internationally", opting for shorter words. Omitted.
Good catch, Hog Farm. Reworded that sentence to reflect the sources, and say more precisely, "and supplied about half the generator sets the US military used during World War II."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Topic is over my pay grade. Inquired at WikiProject Weather.
Comment. The National Weather Service can't give me a URL. I submitted a data request to the Midwest regional office but the answer was they don't have a URL. So we're using Minnesota state DNR records which are up to date.
Agreed. Removed that and combined two paras. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a history (probably not an admissable source) and you are correct. Reworded, and cut the "major city" stuff. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source mentions options on futures, but not specific to Minneapolis. Cut, thank you.

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

Extra architects cut for both the Walker and Mia, thanks.
Good thinking. Removed the footnote, refocused the statement, and attributed to Pitchfork, a reliable source per WP:RSMUSIC.
Removed venues that don't have Wikipedia articles.
Agreed, better to reduce the elaboration. Leave the name change to the Alight article.

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

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

I'm not in disagreement on any point you've raised so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Used a better source and trimmed that claim away.
Took it out.
Rewrote intro. At first attribution stood out like a sore thumb, but now it's better.
Yes. It's a summary not a quote.
I was impressed by the numbers during a pandemic, and reluctantly removed.
I'm not going to be dogmatic about having this removed, if you feel strongly it can be re-added. Hog Farm Talk 01:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. In my latest rewrite, this brings a short historical intro up to the present, so I added it back in.

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

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

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

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

I had reviewed that section before that edit and had no objections to the sentence in question; the disputed sentence seems like a reasonable attribution of a subject matter expert to me. Hog Farm Talk 03:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is my impression as well; I don't understand the edit summary about a "non-notable book" when it's a notable author, and relevant information. I suggest the content be reinstated; the content is not UNDUE and there are plenty of sources speaking to status of Parks in Minneapolis. We may be excluding rankings from the article, but we know nonetheless where Minneapolis stands on its system of parks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified. Permission was granted by the Indian agent at Fort Snelling (that's the US government). Added citation and year.
Good idea, done.
Changed to a third party site. It's only a directory listing but is likely better.
Can of worms. I like your idea of RS sourcing but lacking that in general this section has become self-sourced which I know is a red flag for Sandy. I have been through this list for Media now maybe four times and am nearly burned out trying to defend every title. Past discussions were with SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm. I tried asking WikiProject Minnesota to try to track down the now-defunct Minnesota Magazine & Publishing Association (which had 95 members in 2007). Some of these passed WP:RSN where Banks Irk said "There are a lot of these community-based local news organizations that are basically replacing local newspapers." Wikipedia depends so much on these periodicals I cannot bear to cut them. Next to go would be Architecture Minnesota but who are we to choose winners and losers?
  • Removed Restaurant Franchise Monitor, The Tower, and in newspapers, Dispatch.
Changed to "about six". Considered saying "several" because at least two more are under construction.
Source identified inline.

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

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

Added to Census and estimates.
You're right. Everything has a source now.
Agreed. The citation is only there because of the sockpuppet farm that plays with our lead.
  • Because this is covered in Economy, omitted the citation altogether.
Since rankings were discouraged by RfC in 2021, it is tough to quantify "quality of life". For the metro area and sometimes by city, the state had a good source.
Answered below to Buidhe.
OK. Unfortunately Internet Archive only captured the source after that long-standing photo was gone. I am happy to replace it.
  • Picked a scenic one because this is the Geography section. Turned out beautiful, Hog Farm, thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SG Review

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

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

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

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

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


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

Greetings, Dying! Excited to work with you.

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

Wonderful comment (in line with some of Hog Farm's ideas and SandyGeorgia's work to eradicate false claims). Maybe you can help tone it down.
Maybe four paragraphs should do it per WP:LEAD. You're right we've gone over. One point, I would try to compare cities that are featured articles (Wikipedia doesn't have many). Boston, Cleveland, Washington, DC, Ann Arbor, Michigan (although I don't know which ones are recent FAs). Our guidelines at WP:USCITIES has more info.
I agree with you but sadly lost an RfC on the subject.

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

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

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

Will get on it this weekend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I have to be out tomorrow early and need a day or two to complete an item I had thought was done. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Section done. Dying do you have a plan to go ahead with this lead? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for the delay, SusanLesch! unfortunately, another incident on wikipedia took up a good deal of my time recently. i have been working on the lead intermittently, but recently realized that it might be easier to start with the draft of a tfa blurb and then work backwards. i should post something on the talk page within a day or two. dying (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, my! Interruptions in hardware (and email) are the worst. When your stress level recovers, yes, please have at the lead. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Continuing, again apologies for the dely

" renamed it the Falls of St. Anthony of Padua for his patron saint" - was this literally named "Falls of St. Anthony of Padua" as the text suggests or should this just be "Falls of St. Anthony" using a piped link for St. Anthony?
"After closing in 1858, the University of Minnesota was revived using land taken from the Dakota people under the Morrill Land-Grant Acts in 1862" - this seems more relevant to an article on either the University of MN or to some other article than one about the City of Minneapolis
  • Hog Farm, I don't understand. Why remove this? The main campus of the U of MN is in Minneapolis (as the lead says). It's enormous and contributes to the local economy. I found this morning: The university owns 30% of the city's publicly-owned land (about 84 acres) that is zoned for industrial uses (page 34). -SusanLesch (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are the only major concerns I had with the early history material as rewritten. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Beautiful, elegant job. Thank you so much, Hurricanehink. -SusanLesch (talk) 03:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worked out on Minneapolis talk page. I was mistaken that 2020 climate normals are outdated. Next update will be 2030. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dying and all, I wrote a new lead for discussion on the Minneapolis talk page. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead is done. My understanding is that's the last step of FAR. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Z1720

Comments after a quick skim:

Good catch. I asked for help in WikiProject Weather.
Removed, although I don't know of any other Minneapolis charity of Alight's proportions.
I did this reluctantly because WP:USCITIES recommends a separate section for recurring events. I removed the section, and as you suggest, distributed the most important six or so, and omitted about ten. It looks all right.
Because oversight of both consent decrees was approved in February, I was able to cut a whole paragraph. Sorry I must push back on your comments. Mr. Floyd is not off topic, nor does it all belong in History. His death profoundly affected the police force for at least the last four years and it will in the coming four to ten years.
I think Floyd is a significant event that needs to be mentioned in this article. When I skimmed through the article I saw the multiple paragraphs on this subject in the Government section and gave it a thorough read, which is what I used to base my opinion on. There was a lot of information in this section about police reform, which surprised me because usually government sections for cities concern the structure of their municipal government, who their elected representatives are, and significant changes to these structures. While the operation of the police could be part of this section, I am unsure if it should have the amount of space that it does in this section.
Furthermore, Floyd is a significant event in this city's history, but the city's history is hundreds or thousands of years old, and I'm concerned that there might be a recency bias to include this much information on the topic in this area of the article. Los Angeles has one sentence about Rodney King, though it probably needs to be expanded. New York City has a couple of sentences, mostly in its history section, about 9/11 and its aftereffects. As of posting this comment, this article has two significant paragraphs about Floyd: one in the history section and one in government. Considering the length of the article, I would ask that editors consider if that information would be better on daughter articles and if it can be summarised even more in this article. Z1720 (talk) 23:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. We have only one sentence about Mr. Floyd in Government, followed by crime statistics and the consent decree.
Good idea. Asked editors in WikiProject Minnesota.
Thank you.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC) Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, thank you very much for your review. Every point you raised is attended to above, with the exception of the two weather citations that I deferred to the WikiProject. You were right, the Floyd paragraph in History has been trimmed. Waiting for help, I made about 6K of article cuts but stopped after this one hurt. It might have done damage (by omitting hydroelectricity and revitalization of the riverfront).
Done. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cutting prose is tough but I think it's for the best, as it helps with load times and makes it more likely that the article will be read by our readers. I hope you will consider moving this information to a daughter article so that the sources are not lost, especially information in the history section. Are you ready for me to take another skim through the article? Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please. I'll move that chunk to History of Minneapolis. Thank you again. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a closer read, so this will take more time. I am performing a copyedit while I go, so feel free to revert and discuss below anything I change.

The year, 1862, is in chrono order. Removed this.
Restored it. Do you agree it works better in the Education section?
Sourced. Kept as part of intro.
Cited founding of Washburn-Crosby and General Mills.
Removed the whole paragraph.

Those are my thoughts for now. Stopping at "Other industries develop" and hope to continue later. Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done so far. One question above for you. (I think the university is too big to ignore that its land was more or less stolen.) -SusanLesch (talk) 22:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720? -SusanLesch (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Onan has one company citation, however Onan's notability is cited to Stipanovich. (There aren't "lots of" these, only one.)
You removed the topic sentence of that paragraph.
Interestingly you seem to remove topic sentences and transitional sentences. Even though that kind of edit logically cuts the word count, I prefer to have the breathers. They're like asides that don't require hard thought.
I undid deletions of topic sentences twice in History. Topic sentences are needed! They are designed to unite "a list of facts, with no cohesion". I added one topic sentence "Disparate events defined the late 20th century." which will function once as a catch-all.
It's about any non-White race (not only the Black population). Agree this can be done. Still I wonder if having the topic here helps the reader understand Structural racism which now comes first. Does it work in the new spot?
  • Disagree with what you say here. No low-quality sources or non-notable information was added. If anything the quality of sources has improved since 2007. The Works cited section is new.
  • The entire History section is already in close-to-strict chronological order, proceeding from 1000 A.D. to 2020. Yes, there are a few exceptions, likely to be found at the end of a section to bring that topic up to the present day. (See note below about removing everything after Mr. Floyd.)
  • Ways to solve what you're finding:
  • One, omit or footnote information that doesn't strictly follow a timeline, we hope reducing work for the reader. (For example, remove "The city's first commercial sawmill was built in 1848, and the first gristmill in 1849.")
  • Second, rewrite to eliminate awkward jumps in the timeline (for example, drop the first date: "In 1886, businessman George D. Munsing built a textile business called Munsingwear to sell wool underwear covered in silk. The business lasted a century and in 1923 it was the world's largest manufacturer of underwear.").
  • Third, the Structural racism section is undated and could be moved away.

Those are my thoughts. Finished with the history, will move on to other sections later. Z1720 (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My husband and I are sick with the flu (not COVID). I'll try to work at your other comments ASAP. Hamilton history looks nice! Thanks for explaining your viewpoint. I was ticked off yesterday at the clearcut approach, but seeing that helps me understand. Thanks for your review. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:25, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720, can you please sign off on the 3-point plan above? Two editors are waiting to execute it. (I am back 80+ percent.) Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SusanLesch: I think this is good! Most of the information is useful and has great sources, but would be better in other sections or articles. Examples include: the info about businesses, which can move to Economy, and the demographics information can go to the Demographics section. I look forward to reading through this when it is complete. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't think it's possible to move the businesses to Economy where they'd stand out as WP:UNDUE, and we'd have to add origin stories for Target Corp, Ameriprise, Thrivent. The Economy section is better as it is—high level. -SusanLesch (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Z1720, the History section is down from 7000 to 4500 words. Please see what you think. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with the History section. Are we good, Z1720? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720:Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you for your review. I'm not sure that we have your full attention. Some of your comments seem like guesses or just wrong. "Looking back at the 2007 version that passed FAC, I think editors added prose randomly into this section, causing it to become bloated and filled with non-notable information with low-quality sources.", "The biggest problem I see in the history section is that it is divided by theme instead of a timeline.", "lots of the information is cited to the company's website" Nearly a year went by since I brought this to FAR, Wikipedia has WP:NODEADLINE, however, a whole month disappeared since you last posted. This article deserves better. It meets all Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, it is thoroughly researched with a stunning new Works cited section, not to mention that SandyGeorgia helped its development and it passed Hog Farm's painstaking review. I respect that you are busy improving the encyclopedia—but my time has value, too. Are you ready to close this out and declare keep? -SusanLesch (talk) 21:06, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments

Trying to consolidate keep !votes. Postponing seems more and more pointless.

-SusanLesch (talk) 14:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


  1. In §Health care, it would be worth all the downsides of passive voice to start the first sentence with "The city is served by ..." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Can the list of hospitals be cut down? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Readers will take "Cardiac surgery was developed ..." to mean that such surgeries were first done in Minneapolis. I think it's worth spending some words to clarify what exactly was accomplished. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Our article on Hennepin County Medical Center suggests that's the name for the hospital, with Hennepin Healthcare being the name for the org that administers it. Whatever we land on, there should be consistency between the prose and the caption. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Too much attention given to alt names for Hennepin County Medical Center/Hennepin Healthcare. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Should consistently use either "percent" or "%" in prose. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In §Transportation, why the about in "about six bus rapid transit (BRT) lines"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. The part about scooters/bikes needs an update. A glance at this source suggests they were available again in 2024 and implies they were available in 2023. This was the first source that came up, and a better one may be available. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • News coverage stops in 2023 for Minneapolis. As far as I know, these companies are on a one-year contract extension. I sent a query to the city and will update that sentence when I hear back. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It seems like the article trends toward the use of the serial (Oxford) comma. I've added it in a few places where it was missing, but a full pass is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I prefer the serial comma and thank you for the corrections. One more comma quirk: I generally follow the rule that years in numerals are followed by a comma. An example here: Minneapolis was incorporated as a city in 1867, and in 1872, it merged with St. Anthony. Doing a comma check pass now. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I've corrected a couple comma errors, where one was erroneously included to separate the parts of a complex predicate. Needs a full pass. I can help with this and the above item if you want me to. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Compound adjectives like "15th largest" should be hyphenated. Current usage is mixed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Back in §Health care, "the university's Variety Club Heart Hospital": which university? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Since we go a bit into the history of U of M, mentioning the year of establishment would be nice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. "College rankings for 2023 place the school in the range of 44th (2024) to 195th for academics worldwide": the 2023 and 2024 seem to conflict. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Looks like new rankings are available from U.S. News & World Report. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. "the state constitution included the provision: regents are in control": MOS:COLON would suggest against this sort of colon use. Replacement with a "that" would work. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. "revived using land taken from the Dakota people under the Morrill Act of 1862" is unclear. I think maybe we mean "revived under the Morrill Act of 1862 using land taken from the Dakota people"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

Australian Cattle Dog

Notified: Dippiljemmy, WikiProject Dogs, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of self-published content being used as well as some WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK style content on grooming and training that isn't breed specific, more detail about the latter on the talk page. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Traumnovelle that this article is suitable for a featured article and I thank Traumnovelle for nominating it. It is a well-rounded article on a popular topic. Thanks. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
The article is already featured, I'm nominating it due to the self-published and citation needed tag. I think the article just has a few issues that need sorting to retain the status. I notified you due to you having the most contributions whilst still being active on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the editor who did the work to get this article up to featured quality has quit. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh right, yeah I can have a look and fix up those tags over the next week I think for you. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
I think I've sorted out the issues that have been tagged. Hopefully this helps! (Dippiljemmy (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
  • Tail docking claim is still unsourced (I've tagged it).
  • The claim about all Australian states and territories banning it since 2004 is not supported by the source: I've changed it to remove the 'has been illegal since 2004' in favour of 'is illegal'.
  • 'While an Australian Cattle Dog generally works silently, it will bark in alarm or to attract attention.' is still unsourced as the study is about the later general claim about barking and not dogs specifically.
  • The deafness claim was still made to a self-published source: I've rectified it by citing the original study
  • The non-breed specific and guidebook content is still in: If no one objects I will remove this
So overall just the claim about tail docking in the US and how the dogs use their bark whilst working need citing and the guidebook/non-breed specific content should be removed.
But thanks for your help so far, I do think this article can retain featured status with just the above three issues resolved. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed the grooming and training paragraphs, only issue that would disqualify this from being a featured article are the two citation needed tags. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: There are some other sections that need citations; I have indicated these with citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was only able to add a citation for one, I don't have access to any library sources (both offline and online) currently, although I doubt I'd be able to cite everyone even if I were back home. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Voorhees

Notified: Bignole, MatthewHoobin, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Horror, 26 May 2024

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the sourcing issues and etc. I'm gonna copy-paste the issues we've discovered from the talk page. As Andrzejbanas and Belbury noted before, there is just some issue with the headline title, but aside from that, the article has a serious problem when it comes to sourcing and overreliance of the book of Bracke as a source, creating possibly WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY concerns. Most of the sources are poorly formatted or cited, with no authors, dates of publication, websites that aren't italicized, access dates, etc.; usage of DVD as a source for its appearance in films, with questionable sources for refs 25, 26,  37, ref 38, ref 39, ref 40, ref 41, refs 47–52, refs 62, 66, 69,  72, ref 87, ref 90, ref 99 (also dead sources), refs 102, and ref 106.

At the reception section, this definitely needs to be organized properly. Another questionable sources, such as ref 121 to 125, ref 127, and ref 128, seems to be a low-quality source, as do ref 115, ref 131, ref 133, ref 135 (YouTube), ref 137, ref 138, ref 141 and 142, ref 144 to 148, and ref 150 to 153. We also have a quote box in the reception section, and it is literally cited as a line from an Eminem song. Also, his cameo appearances aren't that considered as "Cultural Impact" and should be at "Other appearances section", but anyway this section is poorly organized. This is not what we want from the FA article. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 12:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've tagged the article at the top per the problems BP listed above. I basically agree with all their points we made a month ago and outside the removal of the trivial Eminem reference, a month since we made the comments on the talk page there has only been about two edits. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Red Cliffs

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

Review section

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

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

And a couple I happened to find while searching:
Remsense 18:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some sourced downloaded already, and more set to go once I get back on wifi. I'll copy them over to the § Further reading subheading or the talk page when I get time. `Folly Mox (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox, do you mind if I sometimes endeavor to do some work you plan on doing in your (always very elucidating) edit summaries? When you mentioned Tian 2018 could be useful, I was excited because that's something I could help with easily, but I don't want to step on your toes. But I also also don't want to leave you with all the particularly difficult work in this article refresh, so let me know if you have any particular preferences with me taking the initiative with things you specifically mention, or if you'd prefer your own particular sequence of editing, as it were. :) Remsense 05:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please by all means, Remsense, do whatever excites you! I'm glad for any help!
I think we should probably do any necessary coordination on the talkpage though, to spare the reviewers the watchlist hits, and just report in periodically as advised. Folly Mox (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary update 03 December

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Confirming that I am indeed busy and have updates planned but not committed to databases. Organising thoughts is not my forté. Might be my dump stat (I appear to have many). Stupidly, I've acquired 三國志集解, the standard annotated edition. This has not been an efficient use of focus. Folly Mox (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, @Folly Mox—this is my present understanding:
  • Nothing in the battle map itself requires additional/better sourcing
  • The main unsourced/SYNTH bit in the candidate sites map is the special "fourth region", and a replacement would essentially just replace this.
Remsense 18:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense, yeah the battle map is definitely sourceable. I feel like I linked de Crespigny 2010 p. 267 somewhere already, which is a partial match, showing Cao Cao's movements (unlike the map presently in the article, it's possible to see that his naval forces came downstream rather than overland; the green arrow is almost entirely hidden by Zhou Yu's advance to Jiangling in the aftermath of the battle).
I'm certain I used to have a book with more maps about this, but that hard drive was lost in the past two years in either a move or a breakup. The other movements on the battle map can be sourced to prose records, either Zhang 2006 or Generals of the South, which reminds me I still haven't converted the multifarious de Crespigny cites to author–title for ease of use.
The "fourth possible region" in the battlefield locator map is probably sourceable to Zhang 2006, given how closely that section follows the arguments in that source, but highlighting modern Jiayu county seems to have been a convenience for the original mapmaker, and I'm not sure "possibly somewhere other than these spots" is adequately supported in the literature to add to the map. We could put "not an exhaustive list of possibilities" or something in the caption.
Meanwhile, on the historical research side of things, it should be obvious that I haven't been active in updating this article during the past couple weeks. Apart from offwiki responsibilities, which have consumed most of my energy, the main blockers have been 1. wanting to do a full rewrite of the article because I'm even worse at organising others' ideas than I am my own, and 2. hesitancy with accepting de Crespigny uncritically whilst being unable to locate any broader consensus or lack of it.
The situation with that is de Crespigny has been at the top of the field of English language Three Kingdoms period history for five? decades, and doesn't really have competitors or even collaborators in a narrow sense (I've seen maybe two or three mentions of his work that engage it thoughtfully, rather than just citing it as authoritative). There's really no one else. While I can read Chinese language sources on the topic, I've been running into a lot of dead ends trying to access sufficiently reliable Chinese sources, which are poorly represented in the TWL corpora.
The problem here is that although de Crespigny has become more cautious with age, some of his earlier work is pretty conclusive about questions that don't seem conclusively answerable based on his sources at the time (although I'm certainly missing some of those). For example, the idea for Sun Quan and Liu Bei to ally is credited originally credited to all three of Lu Meng, Zhou Yu, and Zhuge Liang. Pei Songzhi and de Crespigny each pick one. Cao Cao's ships being burnt is originally credited to Zhou Yu, Liu Bei, and Cao Cao himself. The earliest record we have is actually Cao Cao's claim that he burnt his own navy on the way out so his opponents couldn't make use of it, but scholarship tends to accept the Zhou Yu story because it's also early, and it's there and it's compelling. I haven't seen any sources that really address this question other than by mentioning Cao Cao's claim, but it's ultimately unanswerable due to lack of contemporary sources, in a way that even the Battle of Fei River can be more clearly seen.
Anyway, this has been a me problem. Folly Mox (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Remsense: You are correct about the above sections missing citations. There's also two other sentences that need citations, which I have just indicated in the article with "citation needed" tags. Also, "Taiping Chang (2014)" and the two sources in "Dien, Albert E." do not seem to be used as inline citations in the article. Should they be, or should they be removed as references? Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Z1720 et al.—I apologize for my lack of diligence in this FAR. Folly Mox is busy and I've been either elsewhere or wiped out, so now I will now take it upon myself to do what needs to be done to save this. Thank you very much for the additional tags. I am taking a look as we speak and will do what needs to be done. — Remsense 00:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: Sorry for the late response. What prose in the article are you referring to? Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense:, I'm a bit late to this, what are we still looking for? Sources beyond Crespigny? Although he is a wonderful scholar. Aza24 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the one clear thing is the map showing the candidate sites. I think everything else is sourced. I have done a bit of looking, but honestly I am not sure that there is other scholarship to include, save maybe for cultural impact. Remsense 00:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Afaik, the Eastern Han is not nearly as popular as the Western in English-language academia. I'm not surprised that Crespigny is dominating the subject here. We could possibly use more from the CHC, but just skimming it now, I don't see much. Unless anyone has access to some Chinese sources, this might be the best it gets.
I'm think Folly is right above that much of the map can be sourced by Zhang 2006. It looks like pages 215–216 cover it (I've just added a citation there). Aza24 (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

Comments after a review:

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Embarrassingly, I completely passed over Z1720's comments until now. Will add this back into my rotation, though at this point I don't expect people to wait up for me. Remsense 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Villa F.C.

Notified: Example user, WikiProject Football, [17]
Unknown Temptation, could you notify the major editors and record that above please? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications made: [18][19]. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues I raised on WikiTalk Football have not been touched at all in the last two weeks. The middle years of the club's 150-year history are very much undersourced: I count eight full paragraphs with no sources. In many others, there are sentences that follow citations and are probably also unsourced. There is also an argument that this history section is too long as subsidiary articles exist: historic clubs like Liverpool F.C. have a history section with no sub-sections. I haven't evaluated the quality of other sections but the issues of the history section are glaring and quite clearly this is not at Featured Article status as it stands. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - the Birmingham City F.C. article looks more likely to be a featured article than Aston Villa when comparing these two articles. I admit, I never knew about this while adding on the Talk:Aston Villa F.C. page, which may be of use but undersourcing is definitely the reason for this FA review. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all that has been said on the history section. I'd also like to note that the honours section has a new format which is outlined in the WP:FOOTY template, it is seen on the Liverpool and Manchester United articles. If there's a willing editor, this article has the capacity to remain an FA with some work. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Quatermass

Notified: Angmering, WikiProject Television, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Horror, 2024-05-09

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the Poor formatted references, unsourced statements, unsourced voice actors, appearances section are all unsourced, the use unreliable sources, and lacking of reception section. Anyway, most of the sections more likely needed to be rewritten. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

7 World Trade Center

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

Review section

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

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

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

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

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

Some thoughts here:

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

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

Haphazard selection of 7 refs to check:

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

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

FARC section

Verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Carey

Notified: SNUGGUMS, Heartfox, WikiProject Mariah Carey, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

I have nominated the article for TFA, but it was unsuccessful. It stated: "article would not pass FAC in current state. Suggest waiting until 60th birthday (which is a more notable anniversary than 55th) to re-run the article as TFA, after which improvements would have been made." On the talk page, I asked for article issues, but no response was made in the past 2 weeks. Please take your time to review and I would like to address the article's concerns. ScarletViolet (talkcontribs) 00:05, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE March 23, 2024 This FAR has been reopened and please take your time to re-review this featured article. According to Heartfox, some of the article's sources are not high-quality reliable.

@ScarletViolet: As was noted in the TFA discussion, if there is to be an FAR for this article, specific concerns have to be identified on the article's talk page as a first step - I don't see that that was done? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: There are some concerns in the article, like it does not follow some of the Manual of Style. Featured articles follow all style guidelines. ScarletViolet (talkcontribs) 00:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but were these concerns raised on the article talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. ScarletViolet (talkcontribs) 04:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So let's do that first. This will be on hold for the moment to give that a chance to happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScarletViolet, I do not see that you have posted to the talk page - are you still intending to move forward with the review process? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: You say so. This has been reopened. ScarletViolet (talkcontribs) 10:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of reviewers, I'm going to copy Heartfox's comment from the talk page here: "Mainly issues with WP:FACR 1c, and probably others would take issue with 1a. There are some websites that aren't high-quality sources for a biography (or really anything) like TheThings, Fame10, Nicki Swift, Daily Mirror, Gossip Cop, Daily Express, etc. Also, the most significant scholarly work on Carey (Why Mariah Carey Matters by Andrew Chan) isn't cited, as are two recent academic book chapters (ISBN 978-1538169063 and ISBN 978-1-5013-6825-7)." Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, it looks like the sourcing definitely needs some work. Hog Farm Talk 23:38, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply