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. 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 removal 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 removal 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.
The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:
No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator.
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.
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 a two-week period. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
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".
From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
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".
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".
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 message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.
I am nominating this featured article for review because of sourcing concerns and bloated sections. There are citation needed templates from 2017 that need to be resolved. Multiple sources have been added to the article since its FAC, and I am skeptical that they are of the highest quality and should be evaluated for their inclusion, especially because of the vast amount of literature available for this person. There are also some bloated sections such as "See also" and "External links" which need to be reviewed, trimmed or for the See also section moved into "Legacy". I also have other concerns, which I am happy to outline in detail if anyone is interested in working to fix up this article.
This article is of interest to multiple Wikiprojects, task forces, and working groups. If one is not listed above, please add them to the list and place a notification on their talk page. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I've taken a stab at trimming See also/ELs, but have been reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like your trimmed version has been reinstated - FWIW I would consider it clearly better. Both cutting all of the see also links which repeated links in the article body per MOS:NOTSEEALSO and severely cutting back the general reference works in the further reading section are clear improvements. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I've taken a quick glance at the book sources. I have doubts about Bloy 2021, as the publisher's website has a logo of an outhouse and describes it being the publisher for things that other publishers would refuse. Some of the source dates are also misleading - De Quincey and Gower are both given publishing dates in the 2000s, but they're really sources from the 19th century. This needs further attention. Hog FarmTalk 19:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Looking over it, the sourcing needs a lot of work - it doesn't look like it reflects the current academic literature etc. Generally, the article doesn't feel FA to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, I'm back. I am nominating this featured article for review because there are issues with sourcing especially (considerable unsourced content) and as HAL333 noted "The article doesn't rely on any recent academic work on Joyce." That was nearly 3 months ago and there has not been significant improvement since then, so here we are. Original FA nominator has retired. (t · c) buidhe 21:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because per Hog Farm's talk page notice, there is substantial unsourced and outdated comment. I would also like to flag that there seems to be an abundance of information on student clubs and their procedures, which raises undue weight issues and also far too much of the information takes university website materials at face value Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Primary sourcing for racial diversity ranking, which is controversial enough info it definitely needs secondary sourcing.
The university's two-story trading room simulator, located in the College of Business, provides hands-on financial education using 25 dual-monitor computers and can accommodate 50 people at one time. A second lab provides full audio/visual connectivity and 25 additional workstations. Promotional language.
Undue emphasis on Washington Monthly ranking and poor discussion of reputation beyond just rankings.
Failed verification of ref 82 in the "Port St. Lucie–Treasure Coast Campus" section (I'm guessing there are probably many others).
"All full-time freshmen are required to reside in university housing" isn't something that needs to be quoted since it's basic facts (see MOS:QUOTE).
Greek Life Housing task force with a 2010 ref almost surely needs updating.
Degrees and alumni count is uncited, as are several entries for specific alumni.
Lots of reference inconsistency (e.g. using "fau.edu" in some places).
Overall, this will need a lot of cleanup to avoid delisting, both in terms of specific things and in terms of broader reworking to remove primary sourcing, promotionalism, etc. I concur with the nominator and with Hog Farm's points on the talk page. ((u|Sdkb))talk 20:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not up to current FA standards. It has some entirely unsourced sections, other unsourced text, mostly relies on a single primary source (National Hurricane Center), and in general is quite short and lacking in comprehensive analysis. CMD (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
The storm sections are definitely a bit short, but it's not that different structure wise from other FA's. It's not the articles fault that most of the storms affected land and the overall sourcing distribution is similar to other articles. The unsourced bits can be addressed easily as the same references are used in other articles. I do think the seasonal summary section could be beffed up but for something promoted 15 years ago, it's pretty decent I'd say. YEPacificHurricane 17:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has become bloated, with multiple short paragraphs that need to be merged or deleted. The article has an extensive "Further Reading" section, whose works should be included in the article or not listed if they are not high-quality sources. After comparing the current article to the promoted version from 2009, I see sources were added to "Works Cited" that might not be the highest quality; considering the amount of literature on this person, the article can remove less reputable sources that might be acceptable in other FA articles. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:SOFIXIT. Why invoke this ponderous process when you've identified three simple areas of concern you could raise on the talk page or address yourself? However, I will say in advance, with regard to one of those areas, that the idea that paragraphs are supposed to be of a certain length is pure WP:MISSSNODGRASS. And now that I think about it, what about "Further Reading" entries which are not included in the article but are high quality -- are you saying they still shouldn't be listed, that there shouldn't be a Further Reading section? EEng 17:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: I reviewed this article as part of WP:URFA/2020, a group reviewing over 4000 FAs that were promoted between 2004 to 2010. When an article is close to meeting the FA criteria, I try to fix it myself or leave it for others. However, this article's Further Reading section is extensive and would take me months to learn about this subject, read the relevant material, and filter out the high-quality sources and material. This would pull me away from reviewing other articles that are much closer to meeting FA criteria. If you are interested in fixing up the article, I am willing to copyedit it and review it once improvements are complete, as I am doing for several articles already at FAR. Z1720 (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll just chalk this up to the ongoing mystery of why so much energy is invested in deciding which articles should/should not carry the little star, instead of just improving articles, period. The weird thing is that many FAs are close to unreadable. EEng 17:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: If you find an unreadable FA, please notice it and bring it to FAR. This process encourages editors to revisit articles they wrote a decade ago and improve their quality. Sometimes the FAR nudge causes an editor to make improvements. Also, I encourage you to go to review articles at WP:URFA/2020. We always need more editors helping us out. Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I have to concur with EEng. This is one I'm honestly not sure why it was still on FARGIVEN, let alone why it was taken to FAR -- there was quite a bit of editing after the FAR notice to improve the issues brought up. The complaints given here don't strike me as at the severity justifying FAR. Vaticidalprophet 03:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Vaticidalprophet I am happy to help address and fix the concerns that I pointed out at the top. I posted my notice on June 19, 2021, outlining different concerns than what was given by another editor in 2020. No one answered the notice on the talk page, and there was one reverted edit and some minor fixes until I posted here. The goal of this exercise isn't to take away featured status, it's to improve the article. If you (or someone else) is willing to help with improvements, I am willing to help analyse the sources, copyedit, and review the article to ensure this is still meeting FA criteria. Z1720 (talk) 03:48, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Are there issues outstanding wrt the FA criteria, or are we at a place where this should be closed without proceeding to FARC? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
If I am the only one with concerns about its FA status, then there is probably a consensus to close this as a keep. I will respect the consensus. Z1720 (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
This article was promoted over a decade ago and it is showing its age. Much of the content is dated, sizeable portions of the article are unsourced, and there is a heavy reliance on primary sources and even some unreliable sources such as IMDb. Some of the images also lack alt text. I expressed concerns with this article back in early April and no improvements have been made. ~ HAL333 22:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
HAL333, well, this is a bit of a joke. You hardly "expressed concerns with this article back in early April." In fact, you made one single vague statement and question: "I'm concerned about the heavy use of primary sources published by Texas A & M that are used in this article. Could this be fixed?" Just because no one answered your question then doesn't mean a lack of a response equates to "the article is lacking." To the contrary, this was brought up in the FAC nomination and had the requisite support, to include such citations as-is. Your opinion hardly overrides that consensus. The University providing such sources is no different than the Smithsonian or US Government providing such sources on themselves regarding general, uncontentious facts; falsification of such figures and statistics would incur financial penalties and/or criminal liabilities. They are an educational institution and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Accordingly, I don't see that you've satisfied the first requirement for a FAR.
As to the rest of your concerns that were FIRST brought up here (and never brought up prior), I would be happy to address them, but you need to be much more specific.
Which parts are "dated"?
Which portions do you feel are "unsourced"? By my quick count, there are a total of only 14 sentences that do not have a direct reference associated with them. Most of these were referenced by the previous sentences, are uncontentious facts, are frivolous facts that could easily have been removed, or, in the case of the single sentence in the lead, mentioned later in the article.
Which sources are unreliable? The sole reference to IMDb is Robert Earl Keen and Lyle Lovett. REK has told this story at hundreds of concerts. While a better source, such as the youtube video above, would be a better source, the fact itself is not in question.
I'll be happy to address these concerns with specifics, but I'm not going to jump through vague hoops over vaguery/exaggeration. Buffs (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed every unreferenced instance on the page that I could find by either finding a source or deleting the necessary sentence. I've also replaced the REK reference with a MUCH better one.
It should be noted that during the FAC, concerns were made that it was OVER-referenced. Given that there is not a single passage without a reference, I think this point can be pretty much put to bed. I await clarifications on your other contentions. This only leaves things you feel are "dated", which is completely subjective without further clarification. Buffs (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Here are some of the sections which need to be updated:
Most of the Rankings section.
Did the "University era" end in 2013?
The last three paragraghs of the Student body section need to be updated with recent stats.
The entire Endowment section needs to be rewritten and resourced to reflect the present.
Hopefully you get what I mean by dated. The later sections also need such work.
As I said the prose still needs some work. There are several bits the need to be made less authorial/promotional. First off, in the lede we have fluffy language like "over 500,000 strong". (The 500,000 statistic also happens to be unsourced...)
Why are multiple sources sometimes placed all at the end of the sentence and sometimes placed directly after the dependent material? This needs to be standardized.
For it to be accessible to screenreaders, it still needs alt text for every image.
Hopefully we can address those. ~ HAL333 13:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe alt text is part of FA requirements. (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I did not say it was. But if an article is to be featured and exemplify the finest work on Wikipedia, it should be inclusive for screenreaders.18:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The FA criteria require that an article complies with the Manual of Style, and MOS:ACCIM, part of the MOS accessibility guideline, states Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added, it should be succinct or refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text. So my interpretation would be that yes, alt text is required for FAs. If there's a reason to believe that having alt text would make the article worse, I'd be open to considering an IAR argument for leaving it out, but if it's just that no one wants to put in the few minutes of work to add it, I really don't have much sympathy for that. ((u|Sdkb))talk 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I have little sympathy for someone expecting others to jump through hoops for something they could have fixed in a few minutes and threatening to delist a featured article. I do not believe this was EVER addressed on the talk page which should have been the FIRST place to go. Given the misleading rationale for this page in the first place, this feels much more like a person attempting to manipulate/exert control over forcing others to do something.
Now, I'm going to do it., but I do so under protest that this was done in exceptionally poor form. Buffs (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. If you don't like the word choices, feel free to edit. Buffs (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Now, to address each of the other points brought up:
Most of the Rankings section. The rankings section includes some of the latest information from 2021...we will update 2022 when it happens.
The entire Endowment section needs to be rewritten and resourced to reflect the present. I wouldn't say it needs to be rewritten from scratch, but I've since updated it.
Hopefully you get what I mean by dated. The later sections also need such work.[vague]
As I said the prose still needs some work. There are several bits the need to be made less authorial/promotional. First off, in the lede we have fluffy language like "over 500,000 strong". (The 500,000 statistic also happens to be unsourced...) That statistic is 508,000 and is sourced in the Texas_A&M_University#Notable_alumni_and_faculty section. If you have other specific instances, I will be happy to address them.
Why are multiple sources sometimes placed all at the end of the sentence and sometimes placed directly after the dependent material? This needs to be standardized. Unless you have a citation from WP:MOS, that is your personal preference. Citations are provided in the middle of sentences when appropriate and at the end of sentences when the sources apply to the whole sentence. This is consistent throughout and is pedantic to edit
The last three paragraghs [sic] of the Student body section need to be updated with recent stats. While we can update more, it doesn't need to be 100% up to date with the most relevant stats or it should be delisted. I will do what I can to update the figures.
To be blunt, this FAR needs to be pulled as malformed and certainly not within the guidelines of how one of these should roll; borderline done in bad faith (based on the opening logic, specifically "I expressed concerns with this article back in early April and no improvements have been made."). There's no reason this should have even been brought to FAR. Buffs (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Some of the sourcing needs to be revamped. Here are a few that may not be high quality reliable sources:
"Largest.org", currently cited as "largest,org"
Britannica is a tertiary source.
Is the Military Times considered reliable?
Are the cited college newspapers editorially independent?
I'm not being picky either. When I got my first FA through earlier this year, I was told that I couldn't use Politico. I have ignored places where primary sources can/should be replaced with reliable secondary sources. Sources also need to be standardized. ~ HAL333 18:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Re:"I'm not being picky either". Yes you are. And so were the people who said you couldn't use Politico. What is a reliable source depends highly on the claim being made. If I say "Biden/Trump said ______" and cite the primary reference for such a claim, that's perfectly accurate. The same could be said for the KKK or a Black Panther statement. Such a citation is not only appropriate, but desired so people can read the statement for themselves. The accuracy of said claim is irrelevant; so is the source as a WP:RS: they are the stated claims that were made from the organizations themselves. If Ben Shapiro states something on DailyWire.com, it's valid to cite that source as where he said it as it is the publishing arm of his organization. That does not mean the statement is accurate nor does it mean that DailyWire is somehow a more reliable source because of it, but it IS a reliable source for the statement itself even if it is self-published.
Re: "Some of the sourcing needs to be revamped. Here are a few that may not be high quality reliable sources" I'm not going to go through an article and address the few that "may not be high quality reliable sources" if you're going to be so vague and include even simple typos. WP:SOFIXIT applies in spades here. There's VERY little that you couldn't just fix yourself and would require far less work than what you're putting in here. If you are contending that any of these are unreliable sources, it's incumbent upon you to explain why, not vaguely claim there might be problems.
Lastly, this is not the forum for such claims and you have not acknowledged/corrected your deceptive initial statement. I'm not inclined to address such concerns only to have a litany of new concerns and preferences brought to the table ad nauseam every time they are addressed.
So, for that last time...for each of these points"
"Largest.org", currently cited as "largest,org"WP:SOFIXIT; you wasted WAY more space here complaining than it would have taken for what is clearly a simple typo fix.
"brazosgenealogy.org" Do you consider this unreliable? All the facts I see are accurate.
"Britannica is a tertiary source." So? What's your point? WP:RS "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited."
"asumag.com" The only thing it's cited for is an utterly uncontentious claim about where the college came from that neither school disagrees with. 123. I'm truly perplexed as to what the problem is here.
"Is the Military Times considered reliable?" For a statement about what they themselves published? Absolutely. That distinction is made in the very sentence it's cited (and the only citation from that source).
"Kiplinger?" For a statement about what they themselves published? Absolutely. That distinction is made in the very sentence it's cited (and the only citation from that source). This is the kind of asinine standards you're attempting to apply here. You clearly aren't even looking at the context in which they are used.
"Applied Biosytems? [sic]" Again, an utterly uncontroversial claim. The other source was a press release by the school.
"Are the cited college newspapers editorially independent?" In general, yes. This was addressed in the FAC and has been addressed multiple times on the talk page. Please review the archives.
"Etc." Sorry, but no one can possibly address what you're questioning here. There's not enough information.
You come up with a list of problems. I'll be happy to address them. But a vague "Here's a few, maybe, and there are more...because it was done to me" is horrible logic for proposing to delist an FA. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Some issues I spot:
Missing an "organization and administration" section (see WP:UNIGUIDE for what it should contain).
Veterans section is way too short to stand on its own.
Enrollment surpassing 50k in 2011 is history moreso than anything about the student body.
A bunch of the info in the worldwide section belongs in the campus section.
It's promotional to talk about The Battalion's awards before ever introducing it.
Notable alumni section is significantly overlong.
Various prose issues throughout: "Note that", MOS:%, the promotional "over 500,000 strong"
There is probably a bunch more, but that's to start. ((u|Sdkb))talk 21:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:UNIGUIDE is an essay, not a requirement of WP:FA, I'll be limiting my responses to those that are FA requirements for now. Buffs (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Criterion 1b of WP:FACRIT is comprehensiveness; I'm not trying to be picky, but this is something that needs to be fixed. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
So, then let's start with that logic then, not some circuitous reasoning that isn't mandatory. I still disagree that such a section is necessary in order to be "comprehensive", but I've added a section anyway and will update the bare urls in due time. Buffs (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Fixed the Veteran section; merged as part of the rankings.
Removed 50K reference...not really needed.
Fixed the Battalion reference.
Looks good now. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Fixed 500K, "note that", updated percent -> % via rephrasing.
Oh, MOS:% seems to say that writing out percent is more common for non-technical articles, but so long as you're consistent, % looks alright to me. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Notable alumni section was formed by consensus and agreed upon in the FAC.
The FAC was in 2007, so I can't put much stock in it. Notable alumni sections have been discussed frequently recently, and as a WP:HED participant, I have a good sense of the range of them. This one is way longer than most—it'll need significant trimming to avoid undue weight. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
5 paragraphs to summarize the contributions of over half a million alumni (and this excludes faculty)? That's hardly extensive given the number of people and hardly undue weight. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Re: "A bunch of the info in the worldwide section belongs in the campus section." What parts? All of this pertains to parts of the school that aren't on the main campus...I'm confused. Buffs (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The Qatari campus is a campus. On second look, I think most of what's in the academics section is fine there, but the campus section should include at least a bit on the Qatari campus. ((u|Sdkb))talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
So...that one's a bit of an oddity. The campus at Doha, Qatar is considered part of the A&M College Station main campus. It is not considered a separate school. Those who graduate from TAMUQ have "Texas A&M College Station" on their diploma. Buffs (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Corrections last updated: Buffs (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from HAL
I'm going to reset my comments. I wasn't trying to be antagonistic and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I don't think the issues with this article are so severe that it will be delisted, as they are fixable. Ignoring referencing issues for now, these are some of the things I noticed:
A sentence is needed on the Giant Magellan Telescope's completion.
Well...it isn't done and there isn't a scheduled completion date at this point. Not sure what you're looking for. Buffs (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
There's an image sandwiching issue in the cadet section.
This was discussed and accepted during the FAC process, IIRC. Buffs (talk) 04:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
An April 2005 campus survey found that 74% of the students were involved with at least one organization and that 88% participated in a campus organization in the past needs to be updated.
Removed. Without context, this is a pointless statistic. Aggies' involvement on campus exceeds most other Universities, but without that context and a source (which I couldn't find offhand), it doesn't make sense to note it. Buffs (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
drills must be drawn by hand as computer marching programs have returned errors Is this still the case 14 years later?
As of 2019, yes. You can run/diagram the drills by removing safeties in the program, but that introduces other problems. To date, no computer marching programs can create those drills and they are hand drawn or drawn with the aid of a computer, but some portions are hand drawn. Buffs (talk) 23:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
wider world to Texas A&M by discussing issues of national and international importance with top-caliber speakers like then-Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Martin Dempsey, Texas A&M students, and those from across the nation sounds a little promotional.
Could a year be added for Gay Student Services v. Texas A&M University?
Typically, the year isn't used when referencing a case unless there are two instances of the same dispute. i.e. Brown v. Board of Education
Add "(GSC)" after Graduate Student Council
rephrased to eliminate acronym
I assume the Student Recreation Center is not still being renovated 15 years later.
You would assume wrong. It's still under renovation...government efficiency at its finest
Is the The Big Event still the largest? Could a more recent ref be used?
Yes, it is still the largest (easily). We can add more if your wish, but it is still accurate.
I would add an "As of" alongside the most recent ref. ~ HAL333 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The Aggies are a member of the Southeastern Conference in all sports as of 2012 needs an update.
Why? They haven't changed conferences
The reader doesn't care what the situation was in 2012. They want to know what the situation is currently. ~ HAL333 01:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
They joined the SEC in 2012. They haven't left. I'm perplexed as to how that is unclear.
Then there's no need to say "as of". Just say they joined the SEC in 2012. That's not something that changes so often that it needs an "as of". Furthermore, I would move the sentence Texas A&M left the Big 12 Conference for the Southeastern Conference on July 1, 2012 from the history section to the athletics section. And just general reword for clarity. ~ HAL333 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The SEC is more than just athletics. It should stay in the history section, IMHO.
Same with As of 2007, Aggies had earned 173 conference titles and 19 national championships
Should have been 2021...didn't get saved.
The following two sentences need to be updated as well.
First sentence I could have sworn I updated (even noted above); must not have gotten saved. Second sentence was updated. What needs to be added/removed?
After checking, nothing. ~ HAL333 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
UT Austin is linked multiple times in the body.
So is football.
Could demographic stats on the student body be added?
They could be, but they rapidly become dated
But then again a lot of university info becomes outdated. I think one paragraph of 4-5 sentences would be doable and not too hard to update every few years. ~ HAL333
recently renewed rivalries is dated.
Kyle Field is linked multiple times.
It's linked twice, first as a prominent architectural structure and later when it is referred to as the home field of the football team. MOS:DL states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article..." and we took that to mean that it could be added more than once. Given the differing context of both, it made sense to link both. This is done sparingly.
Could a secondary source be used for the claim that TAMU alumni are some of the "most active"?
We can add as many as you want. Take your pick: 
I don't really see those as high quality reliable sources. Could a better one be found? ~ HAL333 01:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Why isn't the local paper not high quality or reliable? It's good enough for many other references. Buffs (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I guess the local paper is fine if you can't find anything better, but I would avoid Insider.15:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Added last reference as requested. Buffs (talk) 17:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Rephrase Rick Perry served as the United States Secretary of Energy, former Governor of Texas, and 2012 US presidential candidate
He was active for some time, how would you rephrase?
Well you can't serve as a candidate. Maybe just say "politician Rick Perry". ~ HAL333 01:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Added a verb. Buffs (talk) 17:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
"mayor" should be capitalized.
Should "Transgender Judge" be capitalized?
Well it currently is in the article. ~ HAL333 01:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Aggies made their mark on the gridiron and Aggies have also made a mark on pop culture are too authorial.
These editorial choices were made during FAC by consensus to address comments there. They are not authorial as they are introductory in nature.
I disagree. I am interested as to what other editors think. ~ HAL333 01:21, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not certain why you disagree with the history of what happened. It's right there in the archives. Buffs (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
That's not what I meant. I don't deny that other editors were fine with this in the FAC. I just personally disagree with it. ~ HAL333 15:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
More comments later. ~ HAL333 00:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Sub-bullet responses last updated by/on Buffs (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Third wave of comments:
Following in Keen and Lovett’s footsteps was a young songwriter named Rich O’Toole who started his career playing on the back porch of the Dixie Chicken. also sounds authorial.
Same as above
Neal Boortz is a nationally syndicated talk show host with the sixth largest listening audience in the United States needs an update and an "as of year".
The info on the Bascom Palmer Eye Institute uses a primary source.
Primary sources are permitted. Added NY Times reference.
and Vice President of the Pappas Restaurants family, is known for his design of the many different Pappas Family restaurants. is unsourced.
It isn't unsourced. The source was just in the middle of the sentence; fixed.
Rephrase many Aggies have become leaders in the armed forces, and were featured in the 1943 film We've Never Been Licked
Where is the source for note 1?
Literally posted right before it
Ah okay. But could you also include the ref in the note for clarity? ~ HAL333 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Seems unnecessarily redundant. The note is about that topic and is clearly referenced. Buffs (talk) 17:27, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The "Notable alumni and faculty" is generally confusing. For many, it's not clear whether they are faculty or alumni. I would break it up into subections for alumni and faculty.
They all appear to be alumni; altered
Ref 274 is dead.
That a link is not currently available doesn't change where it was originally pulled from and it is still valid as that is where the information came from (though the link should be marked as dead); replaced it anyway.
"Nave" typo in ref 267
fixed to "Navy". Good catch
Ref 85 is a bare url.
Works are sometimes wikilinked and sometimes not. Standardize.
Can you cite some examples? References are explicitly NOT required to be linked.
Ref 191, 193, 55, and several others. A quick skim would catch the rest. On a side note, it's my personal preference NOT to link them but it's your choice. ~ HAL333 00:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
updated about half the references to include links for all major publications (currently on ~130ish). Will update more tomorrow. Buffs (talk) 04:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
These are all completed now. Please review. Buffs (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
That's all for now. ~ HAL333 01:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Hal Arbitrary break
Update Combined, the total endowment for the TAMUS stands at $11.1 billion, as of 2015 to conform with figure in infobox.
According to Best Value Schools, Texas A&M ranked number one in the nation for the best college for veterans, as ranked by return on investment. Texas A&M is also ranked number two for veterans in USA Today and number nine for "business schools for veterans" by the Military Times. needs "as of"s.
I will fix all bare urls at the end. It's tedious work best done en masse for the sake of consistent formatting. Buffs (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The way works are cited are still not standardized. Sometimes the works are listed as urls (such as "Qatar.tamu.edu" or "bestforvets.militarytimes.com"). I would get rid of those to make them conform with the rest.
Fixed. These are due to the parameter being "website"...it's confusing. Buffs (talk) 21:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The PETA paragraph is given undue weight compared with the others. I would scale it down.
3 sentences isn't too much of an intrusion. To be blunt, I don't think they need to be mentioned at all, but consensus wasn't with me on that one. This was the best compromise we came up with. Buffs (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
spring 2012, the co-ed Corps boasted an enrollment of more than 2000 cadets still dated
If we are going to give weight to pizza executives, I think one or two paragraphs on notable faculty is appropriate. A&M has had some really great teachers and employees, like Norman Borlaug and they should be covered.
I'll be happy to add Norman Borlaug, et al. Just name who you think is missing. As noted below, the section is too long in the opinions of some adding more could be problematic. Buffs (talk) 20:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
In 2004, Texas A&M System faculty and research submitted 121 new inventions and established 78 new royalty-bearing licensing agreements; the innovations resulted in income of $8 million. The Texas A&M Technology Licensing Office filed for 88 patents for protection of intellectual property in 2004. is dated
The women's basketball team has 1 Southwest Conference Tournament championship, 1 regular season Big 12 Conference championship and 2 Big 12 Tournament championships, most recently in 2011 dated
This was already fixed. Buffs (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
First paragraph of rankings section needs to be updated.
The second and third paragraph of the Student body section needs to be updated.
Should these be addressed (along with the ones above), I'll be happy to support keeping this as an FA. Cheers. ~ HAL333 00:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to see the great work put into this article by Buffs. At this point, I drop any objections and advocate keeping this article as an FA. Cheers. ~ HAL333 14:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Motions to close
Close without FARC At this point, I think it's clear I'm happy to address any issues you find and respectfully request that this FAR be rescinded by its submitter as the pretenses for its listing are unfounded/unwarranted. Buffs (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Review by Z1720
Hi Buffs, let's get this FAR closed as a keep! I am going to review this article and make copy-edits along the way. Please review my edits and, if you choose to revert them, please note them below and explain why. I also have some concerns/questions that I've listed below, which I hope you can resolve.
I removed the 50,000 alumni from a sentence in the lede as awkward. Perhaps it can be mentioned later in the lede, with a sentence talking about notable alumni?
I am surprised by the number of citations in the lede. MOS:LEDECITE says there should be a balance in number of citations in the lede verses repeating citations that are stated later in the body. Perhaps most of these can be removed?
"Under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder in the 1960s, A.M.C. desegregated" This is the first time A.M.C. is used to refer to the university, and there is no explanation that says this acronym is for the university. I suggest that this be stated earlier in the article.
Brings me to "Beginning years". I will continue more comments later. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
First one is fine by me! :-)
Not my preference either. All of these points are well referenced in the body of the article, but there are some that feel having the references in both places is a better placement. That's not a hill I'm willing to die on. I can see both points, but even in this, there are claims that portions are "unreferenced" when indeed they are and in the manner WP:MOS dictates. I'd rather have extra references than too few (too few = "well, it's unreferenced! I'll just delete it!").
If the references are removed, and someone tries to remove the information from the lede for "uncited claims" I will support their reinstatement. Just ensure that the information is referenced in the body. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Your citation also says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged...should be supported by an inline citation...including within the lead." I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but this phraseology basically means everything can be challenged and everything needs a citation. I agree that isn't the intent, but everything in the lead with a citation is there because someone challenged it. Given the dichotomy of this situation, there is no solution that will appeal to all readers. I'm going to err on the side of those who want citations. Buffs (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I undid part of your changes. I re-added the quote about the Morrill Act purpose. This was a major point of contention in the early days of the school. Profs started teaching a "classical education" and cadets got bored. This led to a decline in the population and it was only saved by Lawrence Sullivan Ross, a former governor of Texas, who saved the school from being turned into an insane asylum (the folks at our rival school say that they succeeded beyond their wildest expectations). Including that quote gives context for why there is such a focus on Ag and Engineering. I also re-added the part about the school starting on 2 Oct...and then 4 Oct...There is reasonable debate about the "first day". Including both dates with what happened bridged a divide between multiple contributors. I'm fine with the rest of the changes, in fact, I thank you! Great updates!Buffs (talk) 04:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Re: Morrill Act quote: I think it's longer than it should be, but I'm not too bothered by it. I'd rather that the quote be explained as prose. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I can add more Buffs (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the first day of the school: this description is much better and I now know why it is included in the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Buffs:, I responded under your bullet points above so it is easier to track conversations. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I also see that there are still comments ongoing above. I don't want to make this review too hectic, so please ping me when the above reviewers are complete with their assessment and I will continue with mine. You can also ping me if you need an outside opinion on something. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Z1720 Please simply add them here and I will address as-able. This is nothing close to being overwhelming. Buffs (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm more worried about me getting overwhelmed. I also don't want to overlap on work, so I'll pause here. It looks like other editors are giving great comments, which will make my work easier once they are finished. Z1720 (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Z1720 8 left to address + clean up bare urls. Now's as good a time as any. Buffs (talk) 21:19, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Down to 2 + bare urls Buffs (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry I did not get to this sooner. I made changes as I read along, which I hope you will review. Here are some comments below:
"Ross made many improvements to the school" Like what?
Running water and physical dorms. Many cadets at the time literally lived in tents. the entire year. Clarified this. Buffs (talk) 22:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"During his tenure, many Aggie traditions were born" Since the word "Aggie" has not been introduced in the article yet, I think this name will need to be explained.
The word Aggie is explained in the lead paragraph. But I added a sentence anyway to quickly explain the history of the nickname. Buffs (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"In 2017, the status of this statue" So I understand that this section is here because we just spoke about the statue of Ross. However, I think chronologically it should be in the 2017 section so that it is easier for readers to find this information if they are looking for it. Thoughts?
Moved + added more + bare url refs Buffs (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing in the history from 1948-1960. Anything of note during this period?
Not really historical, no. Student enrollment stagnated. It wasn't until Rudder became Prez that things really started to change from a historical perspective. Buffs (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"On March 26, 1960, Major General James Earl Rudder, class of 1932, became the 16th president of the college. Rudder's tenure (1959–1970)" Did he become the president in 1960, or 1959?
1959...not sure where the other date came from other than a possible typo. Fixed. Buffs (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"Rudder's tenure (1959–1970) marked a critical turning point in the school's history." Delete, this is not in Wikivoice and we can describe the turning point in the follow-up sentences instead of saying it.
This is an introductory statement for the following sentences and is indeed in Wikivoice. This indeed was a critical point and the decisions he made still have ramifications today. From becoming coed, no longer military-mandatory, and admitting black people (this was more of a change in US and Texas policy than anything else, but still happened under his tenure), his decisions changed the school into the powerhouse it is today. If you'd like to rephrase to make it better, you're welcome to do so. Buffs (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
see next item Buffs (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"By his death in 1970, Rudder had overseen the growth of the school from 7,500 to 14,000 students from all 50 states and 75 nations." Does the article really need this? It's a little promo and the timeline is jumping around a little bit, and the next paragraph is going back to 1963.
Fixed the timeline jumps. I think it's appropriate given that students for the first time came from all 50 states and it's notable that enrollment nearly doubled. I'm not against rephrasing if you have a better idea. Buffs (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"Much of the legislative work allowing the expansion of Texas A&M and the admission of women was pushed by State SenatorWilliam T. "Bill" Moore," So I think this is really important to include. Unfortunately, the subsequent sentences talk about Moore's nicknames and life instead of the process of how Moore convinced others to allow women to attend the university. Can more information be included on that, and less on Moore's bio?
Better incorporated into prose. Buffs (talk) 23:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
"Former President George Bush remained actively involved with the university, frequently visiting the campus and participating in special events." Is this sentence necessary for the article?
It's somewhat unusual for a President to spend as much time as he did at such a library/institution. I've reincorporated it into the prose a little better to include that he was buried there on the grounds. Buffs (talk) 23:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
In general, the history section reads like it was written by the university, and not by an uninterested, dispassionate writer as outlined in WP:WIKIVOICE. Part of this might be the overreliance of primary sources for the history section, and I suggest that other sources about the university are sought and used to replace the university's sources. I also suggest that this section is read over by more editors with no personal connection to the university who can identify parts that can be reworded or might not be completely necessary.
Others are welcome to read/re-read these sections and make updates to better phrasing (as they've done over the years), but I cannot address that on my own. Of the 39 sources listed in the History section, only seven come from the University itself (and a few of them are just the University archives). The rest are third party sources. I dispute that this should be categorized as an "overreliance of primary sources". Buffs (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I still think there is an overreliance of primary sources because many of the sentences are cited to the Texas A&M website or to Texas A&M University Press. This, coupled a history section that I felt had too much of a pro-Texas A&M bias contributed to this conclusion. When I do a second readthrough I will look at this section again, but in the meantime I would advocate that the citations be switched with a non-Texas A&M source wherever possible. Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The Texas A&M University Press operates as an independent entity. The school does not exercise editorial control. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
This brings me to Academics. Z1720 (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Z1720 Ok, back down to 2 from Hal and bare urls. Buffs (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
More comments. Sorry for the delay.
Bare url citations need to be expanded upon.
The line right above this states clearly I'm aware of these and I've previously explained I will do so when we are done. It's easier to do en masse.
"who has executive responsibility." What does that mean?
Executive vs legislative or judicial authority. Direct verbiage from the source. Others in the school have judicial authority and others have some legislative authority. This would be similar to authority/responsibility of CEOs. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
"the branch campuses in Galveston and Qatar and other locations across Texas." Is this saying that students are at other branch locations across Texas, or that students are living across Texas and are enrolled in the school?
Students are at other branch locations across Texas. Rephrased for clarity Buffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
"The student body includes students from all 50 US states and 124 foreign countries." I don't think this is necessary and sounds a little WP:PROMO
The fact that a school is representative of all the states is of note. Many state schools cannot say the same. Buffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
"The university consistently ranks among the top ten public universities" Can the article state when this top ten placement began, instead of having the general statement of "consistently ranks"?
This is already on the list (see Hal's) Buffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
"According to the College Board, the fall 2008 entering freshman class consisted of 54% students in the top 10% of their high school graduating class," This should be updated to more current numbers.
This is already on the list (see Hal's) Buffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The whole "Rankings" section should be checked and the most recent available year for rankings should be given.
This is already on the list (see Hal's) Buffs (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
In surprised that the Research section starts with, "The Texas A&M University System, in 2006, was the first to explicitly state in its policy that technology commercialization was a criterion that could be used for tenure. Passage of this policy was intended to give faculty more academic freedom and strengthen the university's industry partnerships." This feels very specific for the opening information about the university. I think this section has more generalised statements about the university's research that should be placed before specific examples.
Fixed/rephrased Buffs (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Why are the dimensions of Texas A&M's research facilities important to this article? Is it perhaps too much detail that should be deleted?
Fixed/rephrased/con solidated Buffs (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the Research section about PETA has a pro-university POV, with language like "targetted by PETA" and much more space given to the university's response than to explaining what PETA's concern is. This should be rewritten.
First, this was PETAs language, not A&M's. THEY stated they were targeting Texas A&M. Second, this entire paragraph was agreed upon by multiple points of view. I disagreed with even including it, but I acquiesced to this choice of verbiage via majority opinion (this is mentioned above). PETA's point of view was that these dogs were being bred for research just to have these disabilities to research on. The fact is, their owners brought them to A&M to help them and gave them up for research to hopefully find a cure. I've personally taken a dog to A&M to have them help him; he was there for ~6 weeks and they ended up writing a paper on how to treat border collies with skin conditions because of it. Their vet school is second to none. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Fixed/rephrased Buffs (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The Research section in general is disorganised and has too much detail. The general information about the university's research, such as the paragraph starting with, "In 2017 Texas A&M ranked 19th nationally in R&D spending with total expenditure of $905.5 million." Should stay, but more specific information about their research should be summarised or removed.
Fixed/rephrased/consolidated Buffs (talk) 15:07, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The "Worldwide" section seems to be a combination of Texas A&M's international research and the Qatar campus. I think this section can be deleted and its information moved to other sections.
The Worldwide section is about more than just research abroad, but the school's international reach of education. It opens with research and study abroad opportunities + TAMUQ. Then it describes international cooperation, a longer TAMUQ paragraph (there is some controversy there, so a little more is warranted), and ends with future campus options/what's been done in the meantime. I think that is a sufficient section that keeps it as concise as possible. Buffs (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Those are some thoughts. I'm at "Campus". Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Z1720, then we are caught up together except for the bare urls, the rankings section, and the Student body section. I'm holding off on these for a couple of reasons. These two content areas are going to take the most work + I'm waiting until the end to see if there's anything else we can/should incorporate. The bare urls are simply MUCH easier to adjust en masse. Buffs (talk)
@Buffs: I am sorry that I have not responded sooner: real life has had to take precedence for the past while. Since there are some sections that would require a little bit of work, would you (or anyone) be willing to ping me once those are complete? That will allow me to assess those sections and complete the rest of the review when I have more time. Again, sorry that this response was delayed. Z1720 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: We're now into the third month of this with 2 people agreeing it's good and then there's yourself. I think it's pretty clear I'll address anything you throw at me. Let's close this FARC and I'll happily work with you to make any improvements when you have time. Keeping this open indefinitely is a no-go, IMHO. Buffs (talk) 21:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Buffs: Thanks for addressing all of my concerns and helping to get this article out of FAR as a keep. I agree that this shouldn't be open indefinitely, but I don't want to review a section that is going through massive restructuring or a large number of changes, as the comments I would give might be moot with the new prose. If the changes are complete, I am happy to continue my review. Are the changes in the sections mentioned above complete? There's also no time limit at FAR as long as changes are being made, so I am going to take my time through this to ensure the article is the best it can be. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Give me your inputs and I'll address them all. I think it's more than a little unreasonable to have a virtual Sword of Damocles hangin over the article. Likewise, I don't have time to constantly address this points whenever you feel like getting around to it with the threat of a de-listing hanging over the discussion. You could fail to reply for a month, then I don't check the page when you do update it, and suddenly it's delisted. If you're in no hurry, let's close this and move it to the talk page where we can make updates a little more leisurely (for both of us) without the threat of delisting hanging over the discussion. Buffs (talk) 22:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because Hog Farm raised concerns about WP:RS on the talk page several months ago and there has been no effort to address the problems. (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
A number of the sources used in this discussion are either dubious, or listed as marginal or unreliable at WP:VG/RS. If these sources are not replaced with high-quality RS, this article may undergo a featured article review. List is below.
Press Start Online
The Gaming Intelligence Agency
Insert Credit (no consensus)
Cane and Rinse
Zone of the Gamers
Kikizo (no consensus)
Thunderbolt (no consensus)
Destructoid (situational, is Chad Concelmo a reliable author?)
Kotaku circe 2007 and 2009 (post-2010 is listed as okay, but two are from before then)
Sources that are listed as unreliable at VGRS and need replaced
Haven't yet looked at every single one yet, but I agree with Czar that Kotaku could be extended some leniency if it was just them; also Chad Concelmo probably qualifies as a reliable author, right? Not a nobody, he's even gone on to be PR Director for Nintendo of America. Ben · Salvidrim!✉ 09:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The The Gaming Intelligence Agency and Cane and Rinse sources are an interviews with the game's director, so does that mean we can use it? Or is unreliable enough that they could lie about quotes, etc? Also Insert Credit sources were written by established author Tim Rogers (journalist) and the Find Articles seems to be an website access site for accessing an Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine copy (though I cannot access it). So far I have removed and replaced the two unreliable sources and most of the dubious sources (excluding those I mentioned in the rest of my comment, in addition to Destructoid and Kotaku). Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 14:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Re-listing of ones that may need replacing
So after seeing that the previous listing included stuff that's probably fine like the old Kotaku ones and some interviews, I'll go ahead and look through again to try to get a better list
Zone of the Gamers
So it looks like most of the dubious sources have been cleaned out. If we can get somebody to look through the prose and some video game folks to make sure that this is good from a comprehensiveness perspective, this ought to be saveable. Hog FarmTalk 02:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: - still at the point of my comment on June 27. Those two sources still need addressed and it needs a prose review. Hog FarmTalk 02:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: I have removed/replaced the two sources (Zone of the Gamers and GameChew) you mentioned. Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
David Fuchs - Would you be willing to give this a look-over at some point? I would, but I've been pretty busy at work and don't really have the time or energy right now. The sourcing looks to have been greatly improved since the FAR opened, so hopefully this one can be saved. Hog FarmTalk 04:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
There's some weird choices in what to cite in the lead, and more or less feels like it was cited at random (e.g. why is the fact that the game was created by the people who made IcoWP:LEADCITE worthy, but not that it's a spiritual successor?)
A few bits n' bobs don't appear to be cited (at the ends of paragraphs, etc.)
The synopsis section scans as excessively detailed to my eyes (roughly 1400 words) and repeats itself at points. I'm not sure the "connections to Ico" bit really belongs as its own subsection versus just a quick line or two.
More stylistic than directly relating to FA criteria, but the organization of the end of the development section feels a bit scattershot, talking about later remakes before we've even talked about reception of the main game, and I'd reorganize.
The reception section could use some expansion given the availability of sources.
Prose needs cleanup, in particular removing unnecessarily convoluted sentence constructions (lots of "it was said"-type passive voice that undermines the authority of the text.)
References do look much better (quick spot-check didn't reveal any issues); there's a blog referenced but I think in the context it meets SPS and "expert self-published opinion" threshold.
Aside from the reception section I think this is much more about cutting and cleanup. If people concur with the above I'll make an effort to effect the changes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: I come to the same conclusions as you. Not sure why we need so many citations in the lede as that info should be supported in the body, and most of the cited claims are uncontroversial. While MOS:PLOTLENGTH doesn't mention video games, it does not recommend more than 700 words for other media so that might be a good goal for the synopsis. Reception needs an expansion to include information on re-releases. I support any efforts to cut when needed, expand with new sources, and cleanup this article. I am happy to do a more thorough review and copyedit once the cleanup is complete. Z1720 (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: Just for the record, I concur with the above and have taken a partial stab at restating the intro of the lead and little tidbits in the body. Hope that those steps will go some way to inform further work on fleshing out this article. Electroguv (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd be up for taking a shot at salvaging the article, however, a cursory glance reveals a large amount of necessary work that I believe calls for a collaboration. Methinks that some time to determine whether a second volunteer will come forward, a week perhaps, should be taken to bring matters to a head with this article. Some offline matters prevent me from attempting a straightforward one-man job, but in the meantime I'll try to patch up things here and there as time allows. Electroguv (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the work you have been doing on the article, very helpful. What particular things do you think you need help with? Spy-cicle💥 Talk? 15:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for coming forward so quickly! I'll make sure to get back to you in the near term with the suggestions. Electroguv (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Pending the response of the other pinged user, my current perspective is that there are still some general text issues across the article (wording, grammar, prose flow etc.) that need to be ironed out, and I think that the Development and Reception sections need an overhaul as regards their coverage and prose construction. As far as those issues go, I'd take the liberty of asking for about five days' worth of extra time to introduce the necessary changes. Thanks in advance for your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Just chiming in that I've seen this ping, but that my wiki-time is currently being focused on arbitration and I will circle back to check the article thoroughly once that's done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 21:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Fourteen years after the first FAR and eighteen years after the article's first FA promotion, article issues were initially raised three months ago (Talk:Punk rock#Article issues). The issues include amount of non-free content (some of which were removed/orphaned since the discussion started), lengthiness of the article, over-detailing, and reliability of sources, those of which would affect the article's compliance with WP:FACR, like #3 (length) and #4 (media). Since the discussion, major edits have been made.
I'm creating this subpage because we want to be sure whether changes made within months of the initial discussion improved or worsened the article quality. Also, this subpage should receive attention from others wanting to improve the article. Whether to keep the article's FA status or delist it can wait for a while. George Ho (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. Dunno. The article is impeccably sourced, but there is a strong editorial POV that calls to mind some of User:Geogre's best work. My suspicion is that the article needs a lot more trimming than it does addition, so hopeful that this can be saved. For the record, was involved in the earlier FAR, and was somewhat friendly with User:DCGeist, the main editor after that, who was widely regarded for his (if verbose) writing style, and banned for socking rather than sourcing issues. Overall this is doable. Ceoil (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I see now that the problems came after Geist. Ceoil (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Further, I think George Ho is right in bring this here, for sure the page needs work, I think his rationales for noming are to the point and bang on, so thanks for pushing GH. Also, I'm planning a two week or so break from the wiki madhouse, but keen to look back in here after that. Nikki, once again you might have to be patient. My impression is that most of the work will be toning down the language, and making it less excitable. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you both and I look forward to being able to !vote keep after we do an overhaul --GuerilleroParlez Moi 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
tense, pace and tone are major issues here...eg By 1996, genre acts such as Reel Big Fish and Less Than Jake were being signed to major labels
every general statement on the music and subculture is followed by multiple examples, and too much detail on the particular band (what US city, who wtrote the song, who produced, bla). eg, picked this random sentence "Somewhere in between, pop punk groups created blends like that of the ideal record, as defined by Mekons cofounder Kevin Lycett: "a cross between Abba and the Sex Pistols". A range of other styles emerged, many of them fusions with long-established genres. The Clash album London Calling, released in December 1979, exemplified the breadth of classic punk's legacy. Combining punk rock with reggae, ska, R&B, and rockabilly, it went on to be acclaimed as one of the best rock records ever. At the same time, as observed by Flipper singer Bruce Loose..." Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Update in 2 days, but not hopeful. Ceoil (talk) 03:15, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
A number of these key rock music articles fail to define what the music style is. These articles talk about the genre's history, and provide lists of bands that are believed by some writers to be influential, and their equipment, and the bands in other genres that they latter had an impact on. The Grunge article recently lost its FA status, and Punk appears to be going the same way for similar reasons. From the third sentence of the Punk Rock article, perhaps someone might explain to the reading public just what "hard-edged melodies and singing styles" actually means. William Harris (talk) 12:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment: After a quick skim, I think this article is salvagable. I think this article needs a trim, and some sections need to be expanded upon, merged or deleted (like "Synth-punk") I am not an expert, so I have some questions outlined below and I am sorry if they sound stupid and ill-informed. Please respond under the bullet point of the question you are answering in order to keep the conversation organised:
The early history and second wave sections focus on the English-speaking world. Is there history to note in other places (maybe Germany?)
Early history in North America seems to just be New York. Is that the only place in NA that punk was happening at this time?
Would it be worth spinning off parts of the history section, like second-wave punk?
In "1979–1984: Schism and diversification" it outlines how punk split off into sub-genres. One of the sections is called "Oi!", which is about an album label and not a genre, AFAIK. Should this label have their own section here?
Why is revival and later success put after the legacy section?
What are the developments of punk-rock in the 21st century? There doesn't seem to be a lot of information on that time period.
Those are my thoughts. Please ping if you need a follow-up. I am happy to do a non-expert copyedit and review when the article is ready. Z1720 (talk) 17:23, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Z1720, this is punk rock - relax knowing that nothing sounds stupid and ill-informed! Regards, William Harris (talk) 09:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
This 2007 promotion (and BLP article) isn't quite to the up modern FA sourcing standards. There's some uncited text throughout, as well as places where the cited sources don't support the text. For instance, the source for "In what would be the last start of his career, Smith picked up his first major league hit, a home run off eventual Hall of Famer Phil Niekro" is a single-game box score that doesn't support that it was Smith's last start, first hit, and that Niekro made the Hall. And for "Smith compiled his worst ERA of the decade—although he saved more than 30 games for the first time in his career. In Game 2 of the NL Championship Series, Smith recorded two outs for the save to give Chicago a 2–0 lead in the best-of-five series against the San Diego Padres, putting them one win away from the World Series", only the first sentence is supported by the source. There are likely more issues with that throughout the article. Significant sourcing work is needed here. Hog FarmTalk 22:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
For instance, the source for "In what would be the last start of his career, Smith picked up his first major league hit, a home run off eventual Hall of Famer Phil Niekro" is a single-game box score that doesn't support that it was Smith's last start, first hit, and that Niekro made the Hall. is quite alarming, especially if said source explicitly refutes such assertions (I haven't checked); while the assertions are probably not controversial enough to trip BLP alarms, such poor sourcing, and especially false information if present, is incompatible with Featured Article status. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:19, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Niekro is a HOF'er; I don't know enough about others for accuracy. The source doesn't refute those assertions, but it is completely silent on them, which is problematic. The stuff is probably correct, but it's not in the provided source. Hog FarmTalk 22:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
The assertions are accurate, although rather spurious points to make, IMO. From the Retrosheet career history of Smith here we can see a) in "Batting Record" the first hit of his career came in 1982, and b) in "Pitching Record" the last start of his career also came in 1982. Drilling into his 1982 batting record (here) and 1982 pitching record (here) confirms that both events (first hit and final start) came in the game of July 5 against Atlanta (boxscore here). That said, a passing mention that Smith's first major league hit was a home run (which likely was covered in contemporary news reports) would suffice, IMO. I should be able to source that via newspapers.com and update the passage in the next day or so. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The article has multiple NPOV(For instance- 'pitched fantastically'. Please define fantastically), OR('He finished the season with 37 saves and a 3.47 ERA, which was more than a point higher than the league average' This isn't supported by the inline citation and I doubt the league ERA was 2.47 that year), and not referenced (For instance- "For 1996, the Angels replaced Smith in the closer role with second-year pitcher Troy Percival." or "His ERA was nearly as high as the league average, his strikeout rate was the lowest in 15 years,") issues. Not one or two. A half a dozen at least and with me only checking bits of the article. The article needs cleanup not Featured Article status....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@WilliamJE: - According to B-Ref, AL ERA for 1995 was 4.71 and the MLB average ERA for same season was 4.45. So it's unclear what's going on here - may be an error for lower and original research comparing against the AL average for said year, or who knows what original research happened here. Hog FarmTalk 00:57, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
What would make sense is: Smith's ERA was 3.47, which was slightly more than a run better that the AL average of 4.71. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I have updated accordingly, along with an added source for that season's league average (AL). Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I cleaned up a few items on 29 May that caught my eye, but I'm not actively working on the article at this point. As noted above, there are some sourcing and NPOV issues ("pitched fantastically" is egregious enough that I'm happy to remove that now). I'm a bit unsure of context here—is there an ongoing effort to revise prior FA articles to meet newer/current standards, or ? Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Replied on Dmoore5556's talk. Hog FarmTalk 02:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Hog Farm. I'll work on the article further, as time permits. Dmoore5556 (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Dmoore5556 has been working on this; it looks like they've gotten a decent chunk of the Chicago Cubs section cleaned up. Hog FarmTalk 03:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm – yes, I've made it through the section covering his tenure with the Cubs, adding sourcing and copyediting per. I haven't done the post-Cubs sections yet, but I plan to update those in coming days. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm – now updated though his tenure with the Red Sox; more to follow. Dmoore5556 (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I still see some unsourced statements and paragraphs, and I would like to fix some formatting. Dmoore5556 are you still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Z1720, yes I am still working on this; I'm going through his career chronologically and I've completed 1980 through 1991 so far. Dmoore5556 (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Awesome. I look forward to reviewing this once the changes are complete. Z1720 (talk) 13:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Completed through 1993; "Late career" has also been updated, I just want to make a final pass through that section, which I'll do this weekend. At this point I would say significant progress has been made, so if anyone wants to go through the article and flag any remaining issues or concerns, feel free to do so. Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 03:33, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
"Smith was called up by Chicago in September." - this duplicates the first sentence of the next paragraph
"Smith made his major league debut with the Cubs on September 1, 1980, against the Atlanta Braves." - presumably there's something that can be used to support the citation for his major league debut part? Current source is a single-game box score
"With his 30th save in 1987, Smith became only the second pitcher (joining Dan Quisenberry) to reach the mark in four consecutive seasons. Even before then, he was known as one of the most feared relief pitchers in the game. One player told writers Bruce Nash and Allan Zullo for their book, Baseball Confidential, that one of the most daunting sights in the majors was Smith throwing "pure gas from the shadows" of Wrigley Field, which did not have lights at the time." - This paragraph needs stuff cited. Hard part will probably be figuring out where in the Nash/Zullo book the quote is from. The Quisenberry bit can be sourced to the SABR bio.
"Nipper pitched only 104 more innings in the majors, and Schiraldi was out of baseball before age 30. Smith, meanwhile, registered nearly 300 saves after the trade. The trade started Smith on a journey involving seven teams in eight seasons, which may have affected his perceived electability among voters for the Baseball Hall of Fame" - source doesn't support the Nipper and Schiraldi post-trade stats
Through the Cubs stuff; will pick back up soon. This is looking much better sourcing-wise. Hog FarmTalk 05:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Cubs/Red Sox transition could be a bit smoother; the Nipper and Schiraldi trade is introduced twice
"Smith and Jeff Reardon are considered two of the top relievers of the decade" - this is just a single listing (it really depends on who you ask. I think from what I've seen Smith is generally considered up there, but I've seen listings with Quisenberry as one of the top two, as well), so recommend phrasing this less strongly
"They both pitched in the same game four times," - source only supports one of these four
"For 1996, the Angels replaced Smith in the closer role with second-year pitcher Troy Percival. After only eight games as a setup pitcher, Smith, who was unhappy in California, was traded." 
"Since his retirement two years later, much speculation had centered on Smith's specific chances of becoming a member of the Hall of Fame as well as the criteria for relief pitchers and closers in general. Only Hoyt Wilhelm, Rollie Fingers, Dennis Eckersley, Goose Gossage, Bruce Sutter, Trevor Hoffman, and Mariano Rivera have been inducted into the Hall of Fame-based primarily on their relief pitching, and only Sutter and Hoffman have been inducted with fewer innings or starting appearances than Smith." - this reads like it was written before Smith got into the Hall
I feel like his Relief Man of the Year awards for '92 and '94 should probably be mentioned in the prose
His Hall of Fame page states that he has a NL record game pitched without an error. Is this worth mentioning?
This is looking much better. That's my second round of comments here. Hog FarmTalk 03:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because this FA from 2007 appears to want for the comprehensive and well-researched FA criteria, as identified by Tayi Arajakate in the talk page discussion from a year ago (1b/1c). I would additionally identify the citation style as something of a mess, which I did some work on to bring it closer to consistent (2c). Izno (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I have notified the editors active within the past year that are reasonably relevant to this page based on XTools and the talk page discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
Izno I’ve done a lot of the bookkeeping for you, but you still need to notify all the Wikprojects linked on talk, and there are several recent editors who have not been notified. If you could do those it would help, as I am iPad typing. The objective at FAR is to cast a very wide net to try to find someone who might address the article deficiencies. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
I took care of the WikiProjects as listed on the talk page as well as the original nominator. The other bookkeeping you seem to have done is not listed in the official instructions, which is why I did not take care of it, though I was aware of at least one of those pages you pinged me for. As for recent editors, they too are not listed as being necessary parties, and I'm not totally certain any would be interested in knowing. There's a lot of reverted edits, a locked account, someone with copyvio notices on their talk page... Izno (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I have been following this article for a long time. Having read up several books, visited several historical locations pertaining to the empire, I feel that content itself has remained fairly accurate (despite several attempts to corrupt it), given the limitations of a summary style article. Improvements are always possible but Tayi Arajakate never really specified what was wrong with the article. So I disregard it as personal dissatisfaction more than gross violation. It is impossible to fully reflect the on goings of an empire that lasted 250 years in a summary article. I will read this article once more in a few days and see if I see any issues.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I did specify quite a few issues with the article? I can see that the history section has been expanded since I left the notice but it is still far from comprehensive. For one it completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees. It's not impossible to fix these issues, it's just going to take a lot of work. There is still a significant amount of text with no inline citations, comparatively poorly sourced material and material with peacocky wording which I wouldn't call accurate, some of which I have already specified in the notice and the rest I'll bring up here shortly. Tayi ArajakateTalk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, the talk page notice isn't ideal, but it's plain to see that the article has issues. There is uncited text, the citation style is a mess, there is stuff that is mentioned in the lead but never in the text and that is OR (such as Paes, Nunes, Kingdom of Bisnegar, from a very quick check), I see several citations that lack specific page numbers, I don't see how this Youtube channel can be considered as a RS, I can't see any of Gadyana, Varaha, Pon, Pagoda, Pratapa, Pana, Kasu and Jital in the provided source (maybe it's the wrong page?)... So the article does need attention. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I will address these issues and others that I see in the days ahead.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I will start working on the "language" section to improve the content and provide better sources. I will do away with the web citations as I have good sources for topics such as 'language of inscriptions', the changing geographical patterns in use of these languages, and provide reliable info on monetization.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe I have improved the section on Inscriptions, sources and coins and denominations with info from numerous sources. By dwelling on the topic of sources and their authors I believe I have taken care of a concern that was raised about foreign visitors to the empire mention in the lead but not dealt with in the article elsewhere.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Just a matter of preference for more succint notices so they can be more easily dealt with, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Sorry if it came across that way. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate Tayi Arajakate concern about the article. But writing "still far from comprehensive" does not help because this is meant to be a summary article, not a comprehensive one. Creating subarticles that you mention on the talk page is a good idea but not an immediate requirement for a FAR. Also "completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees" does not help unless you specify how it can be expanded and what various aspects you mean. Please be aware this is a joint effort and your help in actively upgrading the article will be greatly appreciated. You may have sources on hand that others don't or cant access. Please be actively involved in this upgrade. Lets start with you listing out in the form of points what specifics you want to see improved.Pied Hornbill (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Pied Hornbill, comprehensiveness (1b) and well researched (1c) are requirements of a featured article. I believe, I have already specified some of the aspects that had been completely overlooked in the talk page notice in a point wise manner and with resources which are freely accessible, for a start, something that you chose to disregard. I will need some time to thoroughly review the article to bring up other specific issues.
For an instance of a specific issue with the article which I didn't mention in the notice. The first 8 lines of "social life" which discusses caste appear to be entirely sourced from two colonial period books. In general, the article really needs more contemporary scholarship, if I remember correctly there is a WikiProject India prohibition on the use of Raj era sources. Tayi ArajakateTalk 14:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I have coped and pasted the first 8 lines that you have an issue with. Then I will paste lines from a more modern scholarship to point out how similar the content sounds when looked at from a birds eye view. The main points to note here are:a)The caste system was based on craft production b)The artisans consolidated their rights by having leadership to represent each castec) Competition existed for rights and privileges between castes.
"Most information on the social life in the empire comes from the writings of foreign visitors and evidence that research teams in the Vijayanagara area have uncovered. The Hindu caste system was prevalent. Caste was determined by either an individuals occupation or the professional community they belonged to (Varnashrama). The number of castes had multiplied into several sub-castes and community groups Each community was represented by a local body of elders who set the rules that were implemented with the help of royal decrees. Marked evolution of social solidarity can be observed in the community as they vied for privileges and honors and developed unique laws and customs.[74"
Source: The Political Economy of Craft Production Crafting Empire in South India, C.1350–1650 By Carla M. Sinopoli · 2003, ISBN 978-113-944-0745
"Craft producers were linked by caste memberships into collectivities of various geographic extent, that could, in some cases, act as corporate units; producers also formed large inter-caste affiliations which also served regulatory roles in acts such as social protests...." (pp21-22). There is plenty more to read ofcourse and get the same general idea.
Source:Chopra, P.N.; Ravindran, T.K.; Subrahmanian, N (2003). "Medieval Period". History of South India. New Delhi: Rajendra Ravindra Printers. ISBN 81-219-0153-7
"There were many other communities such as Astisans, Kaikkolas, barbers, dombaras, etc. Artisans consisted of blacksmiths, goldsmiths, brasssimths, carpenters, etc. All these classes were fighting among themselves and wanted some social privileges particularly some honors in public festivals and in temples. These quarrels sometimes led to the allocation of separate quarters in the city...."(pp156, part II)
Point I am trying to make is, we could change the sources, but I don't see the content really changing. The issue of year of publication of the book should matter only in cases where the content also has changed.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
FAs are expected to use the highest quality sources. The year of publication does matter accordingly. Izno (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I Understand. I have identified a few points in first paragraph of the 'Social Life' section to work on. It will take a few days given my other commitments.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I have re-written the top half of the 'Social life' section with better, newer sources of reserach as requested by Tayi Arajakate. Tried to keep it concise though to avoid a run away process. Interested users can create a sub-section under this and expand it.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I have tred to focus on the period Tayi Arajakate had content issues with and tried to improve on it. Looks better now. Will try to deal with this one issue at a time. Inputs such as content, sources, copy edits are welcome from others.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Having dealt with the sections on "History", "Social Life" and "Inscriptions and Sources" I have improved the contents with numerous modern sources. I will continue to work on the article to improve citations by replacing older sources with newer ones and such. Please let me know if there are other specific concerns.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I have dealt with some of the above issues but lack experience handling HarvRef errors and duplicate links. Maybe someone more experienced can help out here.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The Fritz & Michell 2001 source is included per individual section and also as an overall book. I have the feeling the overall book should be removed leaving the "Introduction" source only (in addition to various other sections with different authors), but that will have to be checked by someone with access to the source. CMD (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I own that book. I have removed the 'overall' book reference in the bibiliography section and just used the 'introduction' section reference.Pied Hornbill (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Harvref issues are solved, and have cleared up the image sandwiching a bit (may still need to remove one from in or around the "Epigraphs, sources and monetization" subsection). I've gotten rid of the bunch of overlinking, and this has brought to my attention the copious use of pipelinks throughout the article. They're fine where appropriate, but many here seem to serve to provide an alternative name for no clear reason, and this is sometimes even internally consistent. For example, Sayana initially appears as [[Sayana|Sayanacharya]], yet is later referred to in the prose as "Sayana". I do feel the Culture section may require a copywrite and perhaps some restructuring, but I haven't looked into it closely. No comment on the other issues mentioned. CMD (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Further reading should be alphabetical; are all of those necessary, and should some of them be used as sources? (FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, so Further reading should provide info that cannot be incorporated into the article.)
I will attend to the "endash" issue today and also fix couple of citations that need attention.Pied Hornbill (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment after a quick skim, I think this article is close to "Keep" status, but there haven't been substantial edits since mid-May and Nikkimaria's call for an update was unanswered. Some of my concerns include a "Further Reading" section that should be incorporated into the article for comprehensiveness, the history section should have subheadings, and the Alternate Name section is very short. If editors are still working on this article, please comment below and I will conduct a more thorough review. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Will take a look at your comments sometime this weekend. If there were no more edits from me since mid-May it was because I did not see specific unanswered concerns.Thanks.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad there's still someone editing this article. Can you ping me once the sources in "Further Reading" are removed or incorporated into the article? I will conduct a copyedit then and give more thorough comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: none of the current Further reading sources should be included in the article. Michell, George (2008) appears to be a photography book about particular photographers. Oldham, C. E. A. W. (1936) is from 1936, it is not current literature. The third source is an old web page that may not even be an RS. The fourth is a poor webpage that appears to replicate part of South Indian Inscriptions, which appears to be a collection of inscriptions. Useful for academic research, but not secondary scholarly study on the Vijayanagara Empire. Rice, E.P. (1982)  is from 1921, so also falls out of the scope of current literature. I would say perhaps the older sources and photography sources may be interesting further reading items, but if it's a choice between integrating them into the article or deleting them the better course would be to delete them. CMD (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
My opinion on "Further reading" sections in featured articles is that they should be rarely used; if the source isn't good enough to be included as a reference, it shouldn't be recommended to readers as a place to get further information. Based on your analysis Chipmunkdavis, I would support deleting them. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Consider me a non-expert. I conducted a copyedit of the article, so please review my edits to ensure I did not inadvertently change the meaning of a sentence.
It is unusual for an article to have citations in the lede. Are they necessary? Since info in the lede is expected to also be in the body of the article, we can assume that the information will be cited in the body of the article.
"the empire's power and wealth." Can this power and wealth be described a little bit? For example, were they powerful? How wealthy were they?
"literature to reach new heights in" Can we describe this a little more? This also sounds like an idiom.
The "Alternate name" section is really short. Can this be combined with an "Etomology" section explaining the origin of the empire's name?
The "History" section should be broken up with subheadings
"Differing theories have been proposed regarding the origins of the Vijayanagara empire. Historians propose two theories." Are there just two theories, or a variety of theories? One of these sentences can be removed.
"Historians such as P. B. Desai, Henry Heras, B.A. Saletore, G.S. Gai, William Coelho and Kamath in (Kamath 2001, pp. 157–160)" why is it important to name these people who support this theory, especially when some of them don't have wikipages and are possibly not notable? This origin story has four references, one of which is this footnote, which seems like WP:OVERCITE.
"Writings by foreign travelers during the late medieval era, combined with recent excavations in the Vijayanagara principality, uncovered information about the empire's history, fortifications, scientific developments and architectural innovations." What information was uncovered in this information? Either delete as it is not needed, or put it at the beginning of a paragraph that describes how we know information about the empire.
"Eight years later, from the ruins of the Kampili kingdom emerged the Vijayanagara Kingdom in 1336 CE" I am very confused by the origin story of the empire. Is everything above this line chronological? From my perspective, the first paragraph explains two origin stories, the second paragraph then talks about how the regions in the empire were raided by Muslims in the north, which I think happens before the origin stories of the first paragraph? Then the third paragraph explains the Kampili empire, which I also assume happens before the origin stories of the first paragraph? This should be rearranged so that it is chronological.
I'm going to pause there, because I think this is a lot to work on. Please ping me once this is complete. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
With regards to citations in the lead, I have come across FA's with and without them. There have been occasions when a FA did not have citations in the lead but later had to be added to avoid edit warring. I agree that most of the cited sentences in lead are also heavily cited in later sections but this does not satisfy some users. I am fine either way.Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Were there edit war concerns with this article? If there were, let's keep the citations. If not, I would like to consider removing them; in my opinion, articles are easier to read when there are less footnotes interspersed in the article and if the lede doesn't need them, they should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Some of the citations, such as their pastoral origin and extent of empire were added after some edit warring, though I can't recall when exactly. Removed a couple of citations.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The 'empires power and wealth' has been described succinctly in later sections such as the "History" and "Economy" sections. All that has been merely summarized in the lead with a single phrase. Is there any need to describe that in the lead in detail?Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
After concluding a single readthrough of the lede, I do not feel that I have a sense of the empire's power or wealth. Many readers only read the lede and so it should summarise important aspects of the article. I think one sentence describing the geographical boundaries of the empire at its peak, and another describing its wealth would be appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I have extended an existing line to describe its territorial reach. Its wealth is not a single physical quantity such as gems and precious stones but rather its vibrant economy which lead to construction of numerous fortifications, temples and monuments across south India and patronage to fine arts etc, none of which would have been possible without sufficient wealth. This is already explained in the last couple of lines of the 'History' section and in more detail in the economy, literature and architecture section.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Explained "fine arts and literature reached new heights" by naming specific (but not exhaustive) list of new genres of literature that gained popularity in this period. "..... such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, novel, musicology, historical and theater gaining popularity. The classical music of Southern India, Carnatic music, evolved into its current form". To get a full idea of all this one has to dwell on sub-articles listed such as Vijayanagara literature in Kannada (also a FA) Haridasas of Vijayanagar Empire etc.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
This list is a great addition. Can we change "novel" to "fiction" and "historical" to "historiography"? Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
"Historians such as P. B. Desai, Henry Heras..." All historians cited here are notable. Just because they don't have wiki pages as yet does not mean they are not notable. Their names have been moved into footnotes precisely to ensure there names don't clog up the article. Only those readers who are really interested can refer to the inline citation and do further research if they want to. Just my opinion.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Why is it important for a reader of this article to know that these historians support this origin story? Notable historians without articles should have a redlink. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Added few more links for notable historians. Their names are very important because this is by far the most contentious issue for those who have been following this article over the years.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
"The "Alternate name" section.." Not sure how to handle this right now but the fact is in most books I have read on Vijayanagara empire, the authors use the terms "Karnata empire" or "Karnataka empire" along side its popular modern name. I have touched upon this in the section on "epigraphy".Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I think an etymology section would be good to add. If people living in the empire at the time called it something else, it would be worth mentioning and describing when historians assigned a new name to the empire. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
The "History" section should be broken..." Please go ahead and split it. We can then make adjustments if necessary.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I am hesitant to split it myself because I would be picking arbitrary places and titles. How do sources split up the empire? Is there anything similar to how Ancient Egypt's history is split? Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Initial sectioning done, please improve as required.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Moved the main templates at the top to their subsections, combined "Origins" with "Muslim invasion" into a new section called "Background and origin theories" (to put the information chronologically and avoid a one-paragraph section) Changed "Birth of an empire" to "Early years" (as the section starts with the empire having already been formed, so it is not about its birth per se), Changed "Empire at it's peak" to "Empire's peak" for succinctness. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
"Writings by foreign travelers during the late medieval era..". I moved this line to the end of the "history" section. Is that okay?Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll check it when I get to that section. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The issue I raised above, of pipelinks and inconsistent naming, remains in the article. I would suggest it is addressing it would help Z1720 in their reading. CMD (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks CMD. I will take a look during my copyedit. Hopefully, the restructuring will address these concerns. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I changed "Eight years later, from the ruins of the Kampili kingdom emerged the Vijayanagara Kingdom in 1336 CE." to "The Vijayanagara Kingdom was founded as a successor to the Kampili Kingdom in 1336 CE" as the former was using an MOS:IDIOM. Can you check to ensure the new sentence is verified by the source, and if not change it to more accurate information?
Where does the Battle of Raichur fit into the empire's history, and can its hatnote be moved to the top of its section?
Belongs to 1520 war of King Krishnadevaraya with the Sultan Adil Shah of Bijapur in 1520 A.D.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
"("master of the eastern and western seas")" What language is this translated from, and can it be put as a note?
The source must be an epigraph and the language is Sanskrit.Purva-east, Paschima-west, Samudra-ocean/sea,Dishavara-master of. Not sure how to put it in a note. Do you mean citation footnote?Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
"Italian traveler Niccolò de' Conti wrote of him as the most powerful ruler of India." This is great information for Deva Raya I's article, but I don't think its necessary for this article and can be deleted.
", such as in 1436 when Sultan Ahmed I launched a war to collect the unpaid tribute." I don't think we need to include this example of a tribute war, as it is not actually linking to the war and its unclear why this war is highlighted while others are not.
"He later defeated Bahmani forces and recovered most of the empire's earlier losses." Is there more information on this? A battle perhaps?
Usually if there is a battle of attrition, such a situation one cant expect a specific instance to be gloried.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm confused, do you mean that this is not notable enough to have more info in the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Well there was one Hindu Kingdom and five Sultanates that were vying for control over the entire Deccan for about 250 years. There were many battles won and lost on both sides, some more important and some not so, based on turning points in history. Its unrealistic to go into details of all battles.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
In most cases I have updated the info into the article based on each of your questions and concerns.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to pause there, but so far I am deleting lots of editorializing statements like "astute general", "his able governor" and wikilinking names. Can someone readthrough the whole article and remove editorializing statements like these and help with the wikilinking? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I realized that my comments are going to be numerous. In an effort to keep this FAR short, I am going to continue posting comments and questions on the article's talk page here. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
I will take a closer look at your comments in the talk page over the weekend.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
I have issues with the content. Please keep this FAR on hold for a few more days. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm waiting for Pied Hornbill or another editor to address concerns I left on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I addressed your concerns a few days back and left responses on the articles talk page.Pied Hornbill (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Whoops, sorry I missed that! I will take a look at it in the coming days. If I don't respond by next week, please ping me on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Update: work got delayed because of people's schedules but I hope it picks up this week. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Made updates yesterday based on comments on article talk page.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced text and tables scattered throughout, areas which have not been kept up to date, and short paragraphs and proseline in several sections. I also have concerns about the depth of coverage, the article is quite short and some subsections are tables without any explanatory or contextual text. CMD (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
I see CUA 27 has been working on this some. CUA 27, do you feel like you'll be able to address these points? Hog FarmTalk 04:16, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I've made some improvements, and there is still room for improvement, but I don't think I'll be able to spend much time on this article over the next few weeks. CUA 27 (talk) 15:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@CUA 27: Are you interested in fixing this up when you have more time? If so, FAR co-ords are usually amenable to placing reviews on hold until editors can devote time to an article. Just post below when you think you can devote more time to this article. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the opportunity and your patience. Realistically, it would be September before I’d be able to really dig into this. If you can wait until then, great; if not, I understand. CUA 27 (talk) 23:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
CUA 27, it's now September - are you at a place where you would be able to address the issues raised? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the opportunity, but I’m still short on free time these days and don’t expect to be able to turn to this in the near future. CUA 27 (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, coverage and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The article has a fair few uncited comments, references to books without page numbers or really broad page ranges of 60+ pages. It also in many parts cites a UN Committee report. I don't think these can be used as UN reports are often loaded due to countries trying to make opposition countries look bad and the like Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment There also appears to be some potential editorialising and SYTNH issues. Take for instance citation #5 which explains the schematics of "uprising" vs "revolution" by consulting few sources other than a dictionary. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment I think things like Thus, a peaceful solution briefly seemed to be possible are a bit WP:WEASEL. Strongly worded phrases like "crushing" the resistance are sourced using American sources, and seem a bit WP:NPOV. BeŻet (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Comment - I'm a bit concerned based on some of hidden inline notes that appear in this article. There's notes like Does this reference cover all three facts in this paragraph? A: (30 Oct 2009) the two references, paras 89 and 47, cover the last half of the paragraph. A citation on the ÁVH founding and the interior ministry is yet needed and Question: is this intended to be about the Community for Mutual Economic Assistance (that's a trade agreement) or the Warsaw Pact? As written no one will be able to find a citation and 30 Oct 2–9 - set this text "Austrian neutrality altered the calculus of cold war military planning as it geographically split the NATO Alliance from Geneva to Vienna, thus increasing Hungary's strategic importance to the Warsaw Pact." aside awaiting reference. Please reinstate text when the ref is found, this is an important part of the background of 56. There's also some stuff that's hidden that appears to be text removed to hidden notes because it lacked citations. The quoted notes above do not instill me with confidence about the sourcing here. Hog FarmTalk 01:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC - editorializing issues, and it looks like from the interior notes that it's likely that the references don't support all the text. Hog FarmTalk 04:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Notified: Yannismarou as the FAC/GA nominator and ZxxZxxZ and burh as frequent editors, the projects listed on the talk page
I am nominating this featured article for review because some of the issues raised in March on the talk page - including uncited text and a rather heavy reliance on old/primary sources which may not comply with WP:WIAFA 1c - still exist. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The heavy reliance on primary sources and somewhat outdated secondary sources is a major issue. It is a broad topic, so maybe improvement should begin from child articles (e.g. Roman–Parthian War of 58–63, Parthian war of Caracalla, etc. also in poor condition) --Z 07:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC - Agree the sourcing isn't quite up to par, although its better than Thrasybulus or War against Nabis (both recent FAR delistings). Unfortunately, there has no significant engagement yet. Hog FarmTalk 14:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
This 2007 promotion has not been reviewed since, and has accumulated uncited text and other issues, which isn't surprising, since the team has 6 division titles and a NBA championship since then. There's also some reference formatting issues, and dated text such as "Their television ratings, however, are considerably lower than other more established Toronto sports teams and most other sporting events aired on Canadian television" which is dated to a source from before the team went on the nice run mentioned above, so may no longer be accurate. Given that the team's best history of success is from after the last FA review, this probably needs a significant work-through. Hog FarmTalk 05:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC nothing is happening. Link20XX (talk) 23:38, 5 May 2021 (UTC) striking out for now since it appears things are happening. Link20XX (talk) 01:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: The article has much less activity from the regulars than when it became an FA, despite the fact that it won the NBA Championship since then. I mainly do maintenance on the Toronto Raptors article. Johnny Au(talk/contributions) 00:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC alright you have had almost an entire month now to clean it up and browsing the article, I still see several unsourced paragraphs. Link20XX (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC) Alright, I'm fine with that too. As such, I will strike my move to FARC once again. Link20XX (talk) 03:20, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Stay in FAR - I'm fine with this staying in FAR for now, since active work is still occurring. Hog FarmTalk 03:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I somewhat got caught up with other articles and work so I somewhat forgot about this. I fixed up some of the citations, though a large number of issues remain. I can continue to fix them up at a somewhat slowed pace. However in saying that, I'm unfamiliar with the FAR process (never participated in one)... So if there are constraints on time that limits how long the FAR can go for, I'd feel inclined to not hold the process back and agree with the article's move to FARC (unless theres another set of hands that can correct the issues quickly... many of the issues are honestly easy enough of a fix, just tedious). Leventio (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Leventio: - The only real time constraints for FAR is that the article should generally be getting fairly frequent work at FAR. If it's going to be October or later before this can get tuned up, it may be worth considering if its better to let it go now, and then work it back up to FAC-able state. The goal is for FAR to be an improvement process and to only be a delisting process as a last resort. So I guess it all comes down to time frame. If August or early September is when the work will be mostly done, then this should probably be kept here; if it's gonna be a longer time, it may be best to not keep the article in limbo. I'll support whichever route you think is best for this article. Hog FarmTalk 21:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
I could probably finish fixing up the citation issues by late-August if no one else objects to leaving this up in FAR until than. Leventio (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I at least have no objection to that. I'd rather see stuff kept than delisted. Hog FarmTalk 22:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I could try to at least give some sources for the section named "Pandemic-shortened seasons and Tampa relocation." Other than that the remainder might be a challenge since I have never done Featured Articles. I've done 43 Featured lists and rescued one from demotion, but I have not done articles.
All of those would be great. I would love to see the Raptors remain an FA, especially given that it won the NBA championship in 2019, and by extension, the Larry O'Brien Championship Trophy. Johnny Au(talk/contributions) 15:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
I could actually help a little bit more on this article regarding adding citations as soon as I wrap up on my FLCs for the 93rd Academy Awards and the 56th Academy Awards. I do not plan to nominate any further lists for featured list promotion at least until December 12 when I plan to submit the accolades page of Dunkirk for FLC.
Unfortunately I wasn't able to find the time to get to this (apologies for giving reassurances that I could last month), and I don't see that changing for a week at least. With that in mind, I feel like I've held up this process long enough, and would support this article's move to FARC. Again apologies for holding things up. Leventio (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Size Not necessarily a requirement for this to reach FA again, but the article is getting WP:TOOBIG, currently at 64K of readable prose. What makes sports team pages challenging is that there is a tendency among fans to add in-season minutiae that ideally belong in the team's dedicated season articles. Furthermore, the team page should only provide a macro view of its history, which shouldn't need much maintenance aside from historical events or important milestones. The micro changes from year to year are better dealt with summary style with a dedicated page like History of the Toronto Raptors, which exist for many other NBA teams, including GAs the Los Angeles Lakers, Houston Rockets and Portland Trail Blazers. Again, this isn't required for FA now, but would make it less likely we'll need to revisit the page in a year or two again.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC, I guess - It seems to have largely tapered off here. While parts are much improved, the uniforms section still contains a decent amount of uncited text and I'm concerned that that same section has some excessive detail issue. Bagumba's concerns about length also need some discussion/consideration. Hog FarmTalk 20:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Issues raised in the review section include length and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
This older FA promotion contains substantial uncited text. I'm also concerned that post-restoration maintenance efforts aren't mentioned, as it would seem logical for this article to include information on how these improvements are kept up. Hog FarmTalk 03:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately User:Amandajm, the main author is rarely around these days. But your concern "that post-restoration maintenance efforts aren't mentioned" seems odd to me. What would these consist of? What would "keeping up" consist of? The general idea is surely that you now leave the fresco well alone for a century or more, no doubt monitoring the condition every so often - probably through binoculars - they won't want to put scaffolding up again in a hurry. Johnbod (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod: - When I ran some searching before nominating this, I'm seeing that the concept of preventive restoration is talked about some with the Sistine Chapel. Sort of a "we've done the big deal, so let's do some little noninvasive stuff to keep it steady". I don't think there's a whole lot to say about this, but I'm seeing enough that I think that there probably should be some thought about including some material about the ongoing preventive conservation for this. Hog FarmTalk 04:30, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Links? Closing the chapel & putting up scaffolding must cost a fortune, so I imagine they tried to do everything in one go, "preventive conservation" included. I expect the article says so. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like they have some ongoing things - looks like a decent overview. Because people are in there, there's always the little bits of contamination that comes from crowds, so they apparently do minor cleanings regularly and they have this tiny cherrypicker-type thing that they use to get to them. Special LED lighting has been installed that is less harmful to the painting. This is an extremely detailed journal article discussing to great depth a high-tech HVAC system that has been installed to keep temperature, CO2, and humidity where desired, and also mentions some sensors and diffusers used. Wall Street Journal has a piece (can't tell how detailed, as it's largely paywalled), but I'm not sure that WSJ is top source for art. There seems to be a little more, as well (including what looks like a second journal article on the HVAC system, of all things). While I don't think we should devote more than a paragraph to this topic, it looks like there's enough lower-profile ongoing maintenance to be at least worth mentioning. Hog FarmTalk 18:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC, I guess. Hopefully someone will pick this up later (don't have the experience with this subject to write at an FA level on this topic). Edits since FAR opened are mainly IAbot. Hog FarmTalk 20:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Delist Issues raised have not been fixed (yet) (t · c) buidhe 20:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
This early 2007 promotion has not been reviewed since and needs work to meet the modern FA standards. There is uncited text in places, a few spot with MOS:SANDWICH issues, some of the sources (such as Flags of the World and Vexilla Mundi) are questionable, and there's material about symbolism in the lead that is not found in the body, suggesting that there should be a body section about symbolism of the flag. Hog FarmTalk 00:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Crzycheetah: - I see you've been able to do some good work on the sandwiching/image layout issues. Are you interested in doing some work on the sourcing issues? Hog FarmTalk 06:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
The only issue raised is Flag of the World being a questionable source according to Hog Farm.-Cheetah(talk) 08:19, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I would imagine that a lot of the uncited text probably isn't so obvious as to not require a citation, per WP:FACR #1c. Hog FarmTalk 21:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Users' imaginations are irrelevant in featured article discussions.-Cheetah(talk) 08:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:FACR is, which asks for citations for non-obvious material. Hog FarmTalk 17:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Delist. Sourcing, comprehensiveness and structure. For example, the content about the Artaxiad dynasty is not given a citation in the article and the source on the file page appears to be a personal blog. Copies of this flag have been tagged as fictitious on commons: . The article says the original three colors derive from the Lusignans, but the source used (which is a personal webpage, but appears to be based on Atlas of Historical Armenia  by H. K. Babessian) says that the colors of the flag derive from the Rubenids, which is an earlier period. This early flag (if it existed) is not discussed in the article. The flag of the Lusignans is nominated for deletion on commons for being unsourced: . The sources in the article are generally low quality websites and primary sources. The section on the national anthem is only sourced to the anthem itself and is not well integrated into the text, as there is little context apart from the trivial mention in the lyrics. Parts of the article appear to miss key information: for example, in 1952 a blue stripe was added but there's no explanation of who chose blue and why blue was chosen, or who were the designers. DrKay (talk) 11:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
"the content about the Artaxiad dynasty" - It does not need a citation per WP:BLUE
"the source on the file page appears to be a personal blog" - Armenia is a poor country it either has governmental sites or personal blog sites. Wikipedia doesn't want everything to be cited by primary sources; thus, personal blogs are used.
"Copies of this flag have been tagged as fictitious on commons" - Did you ask that person why he did that? I might as well remove that baseless tag.
"the source used (which is a personal webpage, but appears to be based on Atlas of Historical Armenia  by H. K. Babessian) says that the colors of the flag derive from the Rubenids" - A typo by that blogger. You can clearly see the flag of Rubenids in that blog and it doesn't have any colors that the current flag has.
"The flag of the Lusignans is nominated for deletion" - What does that have to do with this article?
"The sources in the article are generally low quality websites and primary sources" - See above, there aren't any other ones on the internet.
"The section on the national anthem is only sourced to the anthem itself" - Of course, it is! It should not be sourced to the anthem of any country other than Armenia.
"is not well integrated into the text, as there is little context apart from the trivial mention in the lyrics" - Do you think it should be removed?
"in 1952 a blue stripe was added but there's no explanation of who chose blue and why blue was chosen, or who were the designers" - It was Soviet Union, the information you're looking for doesn't exist.
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited sentences and paragraphs in the article, which is especially concerning because there is lots of academic literature on this subject. There are also sources that I am dubious about, including "Cook, Stan; Bender, Roger James (1994)." (self-published?) and the von Papen memoirs, the only source used to verify von Papen's actions. The "Further reading" section should be analysed and incorporated into the article, if appropriate. I am willing to conduct a more detailed review if someone is willing to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC - uncited sentences, some uncited notes. Bender appears to have written heavily on Nazi uniforms, but seems to have been mainly self-published, and we're not citing him for uniform information anyway. I'm also concerned that sourcing "On June 17, 1934, conservative demands for Hitler to act came to a head when Vice-Chancellor Franz von Papen," to von Papen's memoirs is bad sourcing, as stating that this was when things came to a head is either OR or using a weak, involved, source. Hog FarmTalk 14:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Delist. Breach of MOS:LEAD. Unsourced statements include 'his intemperate outburst... deepened the rift between them' and 'embarrassing display of independence'. Concerns over Cook and Bender. DrKay (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe this one meets the criteria anymore. It is very statistics heavy, but all of the statistics are from 10-15 years ago. The article also claims the programs has been controversial, yet it is sourced almost entirely to US government reports, suggesting that there are additional viewpoints not represented. This one may be an accelerated candidate, as it'll need a complete rewrite and a new FAC would probably be the best way to go once this is reworked. Original nominator has not edited regularly since 2014. Hog FarmTalk 17:47, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC, accelerated process - No human edits since last October. This needs completely overhauled to deal with both the sourcing issues and the masses of outdated statistics. With complete rewrites needed, it's probably best to run it through and send it for a new FAC once it gets rewritten. Hog FarmTalk 22:22, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, work started about 25 minutes after I posted this. I'm willing to strike my delist if the work is going to be ongoing. Hog FarmTalk 03:18, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: and @Hog Farm: - I did a small amount of work, but I am not able to do more because I don't have any more current sources. I think you should proceed as you think is best. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: and @Hog Farm: - Update: after my comment above, I found current sources. I can try to work on it, update the statistics to make them more current and remove some of the statistics so it's not so "statistics heavy". --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Delist - The heavy degree of reliance on older US government reports is still present, and still indicates a lack of third-party views. Hog FarmTalk 05:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Do not delist - I updated a lot of the statistics to be more current. I removed two tables with old stats. And Re: missing third party views, I added findings, sources and text from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which is a "nonpartisan research and policy institute".
"A Brief Overview of the Nutrition Assistance Program". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (in Spanish). June 11, 2020. Archived from the original on March 4, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
"The Nutrition Assistance Program Helps Over Half of Puerto Rico's Children". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. June 11, 2020. Archived from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
"Puerto Rico's Nutrition Assistance Program Helps Seniors". Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. June 11, 2020. Archived from the original on January 13, 2021. Retrieved July 31, 2021.
@Nikkimaria and The Eloquent Peasant: - It's looking a lot better, although the program admin stuff isn't quite current I don't think. Is it okay if I try to get some attention elsewhere (like at WT:FAC) to see if I can try to get someone more familiar with politics to look at this? I'm an auditor and could probably assess econ content okay, but I'd rather get a second look for anything political. Hog FarmTalk 04:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks appropriate sourcing (many sources are not RS), POV due to boosterism and out of context for focusing on profiles of successful soldiers instead of a holistic picture Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:25, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep as is - There were several reasons which motivated me to write this article. One of them is that the Hispanic-American contributions in World War II have been omitted in the history text books of the United States and therefore are seldom mentioned. Another reason is that I believe in the educational possibilities of Wikipedia and by writing such an article I would be able to reach and educate millions of readers about these contributions, thereby allowing recognition to those who deserve it. I have tried to make this one of my best articles and one that I hope will continue to deserve FA status. Tony the Marine (talk) 17:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Review - at minimum the sourcing. I've come across issues with use of RS in other articles like this (Military history of Puerto Rico being one), and a quick look at this one shows similar challenges (a Yahoo groups list being used as a source, for one example). I agree the subject is of value, but that value is undermined by the use of non-RS and potential POV issues. Intothatdarkness 15:43, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Comment I did some work on this based on the comments on the article's talk page. You can review here. One challenge with this article, as with some others, is you have to go to other Wiki pages to find the sourcing for sections that seem to have been copy and pasted, and often the sourcing on those pages is poor. The amount of work involved is higher than it might at first appear. Intothatdarkness 14:24, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Comments: I have done some minor editing, but am unable to address the main concerns, sorry. These are my edits: . I don't believe I will be able to do much more due to work commitments. Apologies. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I guess my primary concern here is that this seems to be more of a collection of anecdotal stories in places, rather than a unified topic. Hog FarmTalk 01:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree, but I've also discovered in many of these articles (both the main ones and often the linked individuals) that the sourcing is often suspect. You can't really go after one without looking at the other. Intothatdarkness 13:29, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Sourcing does need some work. I don't have the time or energy at the moment to spot check, but the following sources probably aren't high-quality RS:
The (now broken-linked) Yahoo Groups page
Not familiar with Aerofiles, but have some doubts about this one
A World To Win describes itself as A World to Win is an international revolutionary group that is opposed to the capitalist political and economic system globally. We work with others to develop visions and strategies that can take humanity beyond capitalism. That's not a good source for biographical information about Manuel Llopis
ntlworld.com is someone's personal website
What is valorosos.com?
What makes neta.com relaible?
The reliability of biography.com was hotly debated at RSN in 2018. If it engeders that much debate about relaibility, should we be using this in a FA? I'm not convinced we should.
What makes designshare.com a reliable source
And there's a couple other marginal ones I just didn't get around to bringing up. This needs considerable sourcing work. Hog FarmTalk 04:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I've encountered that valorosos.com site on other articles like this one, and it's mainly a personal research site as far as I can tell. However, it is often possible to replace it (so long as it's information relating to the 65th Infantry Regiment) with the Center of Military history publication listed in the 'Further Reading' section (Honor and Fidelity: The 65th Infantry Regiment in Korea). I discovered this while trying to do similar work on the Military History of Puerto Rico article mentioned earlier. I also discovered with that article (and many of the associated ones relating to individuals) that cleaning these up is a major undertaking. You pretty much have to check every source, as things are often misattributed or pulled out of thin air. Intothatdarkness 13:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Intothatdarkness: - I see you've been working on this. Are the sourcing issues repairable in FAR, or should this proceed to FARC? Hog FarmTalk 01:06, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: I don't know at this point. Some are, but given the methodology used with this article pretty much every source has to be checked and reviewed both for RS status AND to make sure what's said in the article actually exists in the cited source. I hate to say it, but I've found instances where that is not the case. I think it might be better served moving to FARC. It suffers from the same issues found in Military history of Puerto Rico, and that had to move from FAR to FARC. Just my $.02 having worked on some of these and the linked articles (which often need to be reviewed at the same time for the same issues). Intothatdarkness 16:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC, I guess. Needs a top-to-bottom sourcing check, and I still have questions about the scope with sections being more anecdotal stories than a unified topic. This would probably benefit more from work outside of the FAR constraints and then a new FAC once ready. Hog FarmTalk 18:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC: When a reviewer working on the article suggests moving it to FARC, I tend to defer to their judgment. I am concerned that Intothatdarkness has found several instances where the article's prose is unverified by the sources they are cited to and this needs to be actively checked by editors with experience in this field. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I've started working through some of the sourcing issues, but it's slow going. And the question raised above still remains: the organization of the article. Right now it's much more a collection of anecdotal narratives about people...many of whom have articles of their own (some of which are problematic in terms of sourcing) which are essentially duplicated in this article. I'm sticking to trimming and source verification for now. Intothatdarkness 21:02, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Some of the information in this article is duplicated in Military history of Puerto Rico, and the information there is actually better-sourced than what's here. This is especially true when you hit the unit information. Not sure how we want to approach that. Intothatdarkness 16:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that this article would be better as a general concept article, rather than more focused on the anecdotes. As an example, the content like the part in Home front that says "Hispanic women were discouraged from working outside the home prior to World War II, even more than other American women. During World War II, the broad changes in the role of women caused by a need for labor on the home front affected the role of Hispanic women, who worked as secretaries and nurses, helped build airplanes, made ammunition in factories, and worked in shipyards" is good overview content, but then it's unclear why the stories of Ledesma and Solis and Solis-Thomas are presented specifically. Hog FarmTalk 16:31, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree. This is especially true as so many of those anecdotes have articles of their own (which will likely need to be reviewed as well). As many of the general overview items are echoed in the World War II section of Military history of Puerto Rico it may be possible to fold some of that information into this article instead, or link appropriate sections from this one to that article. I've been trimming some of the anecdotal content down, but didn't want to get too aggressive until a broader consensus formed. Intothatdarkness 17:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because more than a month ago, Hog Farm stated on talk, "We've got lots of uncited text here, as well as many of the sources being from before 2005. This needs additional citations and an update with newer sources." There have not been any edits to the article since. I did not notify the FAC nominator as they have retired and not edited since 2014. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Comment: can you explain why you arbitrarily picked the year 2005 as a cut-off criteria? Data collected from before that time should still be relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
Praemonitus I don't know how quickly research becomes outdated in this field but ideally one should only cite current/up-to-date research. The 2005 suggestion is from Hog Farm. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I would have to say it depends on the subject. Some topics get researched more frequently, and others are more or less settled and rarely get an update. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Praemonitus and Buidhe: - 2005 wasn't suppose to have any innate meaning, rather just more of a rough estimate of when most of the sources seem to predate. I lack the knowledge about the topic to deem the pace of research in this subject, but for an article about an active science, there are quite likely new discoveries and theories over the last 15 years. Although astronomy editors may have a better idea of the extent of that. Hog FarmTalk 19:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
References older than 2005 shouldn't automatically, or even generally, be considered inappropriate. Plenty of information isn't going to change, historical stuff most obviously, but also general background astronomy and physics. Obviously, any theories which have changed significantly in recent decades or are still in flux should have up-to-date references. Lithopsian (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Fully agreed (@Lithopsian:). However, one thing that has changed since 2005 is the view that most globular clusters are simple stellar populations, which is now dead (but still canonical, so still worth mentioning). I've updated that with a 2018 review article. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ashill recently saved Star pre-FAR. Does your interest extend to globular clusters? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I took a quick look through. My impression is that the article is mostly pretty good. The statements that don’t have inline references are mostly what I would fit in the subject-specific common knowledge area of WP:WTC (things that are in any introductory astronomy textbook), so I wouldn’t challenge their verifiability. I tagged a couple things that could use improvement and can return when I have the time. Also, many of the older references are totally fine. Globular clusters are slightly odd in that they serve as a lingua franca of “standard” knowledge in astronomy, and Wikipedia should (and does) present that encyclopedic standard knowledge. That’s what older references in the research literature will state; newer ones don’t bother, not because the old references are outdated but because they’re common knowledge in the field. There are plenty of newer results that tweak that common knowledge with exceptions; this article does a good job, I think, of avoiding going down those rabbit holes citing new results. So I actually think it’s a good thing that this article avoids being based too much on new results. That philosophical comment aside, there are clearly some things that could be improved; I’ll try to work on it but may not have time for a while. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I've added references everywhere that was tagged. No attempt to address older references yet. Lithopsian (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Graeme Bartlett
Images need to have alt= text to improve accessibility.
Done. A little repetitive, I'm afraid, but then one glibular cluster looks a lot like another to the average reader. Maybe someone with more imagination could take a look. Lithopsian (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Awkward wording: "contains an unusual number of a type of star" (unusual number could be 0, 999, 1234, large - be specific)
Clarified to "unusually large". (The cited source simply said unusual; another source says unusually large.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:07, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
I was expecting to see a diagram of where globular clusters are in a galaxy, but there is none there. This could be in #Orbits section
That's a good suggestion, although easier said than done. This one is OK (and public domain), although I'm not wild about the fact that they're not very clear to what extent it's an artist's conception and to what extent it is true positions of known globular clusters. There's a good one in Figure 1 of this paper, but we can't use it due to copyright. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
If we add a diagram like one of these, it should go next to the fifth paragraph in the observation history section, which describes the distribution of globular clusters in the Milky Way and its historical importance in demonstrating that the Sun is not in the middle of the Milky Way. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This one? Artist's conception and it says so, labels the Sun and M4, but also has some other text that is a little dated. Lithopsian (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
If we could get the underlying image, that would be great. It's definitely an artist's conception of the Milky Way (can't have a real outside image that includes the Sun!) but may be real (modulo distance uncertainties) positions of globular clusters; the caption isn't clear about that. (That's my issue with the other one too.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
One reference (94) uses authors list with non-standard affilliations.
None of the authors appear to be linked in references. I know at least one of these is famous enough, and I expect several have articles. Some journals should also be linked in references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I added a few author links (necessarily biased towards authors I know or know of, since I know they're worth checking for a link!). I did not link to Charles Messier in the ref list, since he's linked in the main text. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:51, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Femke
I've looked through the article in search of sentences I believe need updating, and found a few.
A total of 152 globular clusters have now been discovered in the Milky Way galaxy, out of an estimated total of 180 ± 20 (source 1992)
Done (in fact, that 1992 source did not actually state the 152 number that I could find anyway, though by 2010 [the last update of the Harris catalog] it had only increased to 157). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 17:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Blue stragglers are mentioned in two different locations. Is there a problem with structure?
However about 20% of the globular clusters have undergone a process termed "core collapse". In this type of cluster, the luminosity continues to increase steadily all the way to the core region
Took a while, but I found and added a 2018 reference explicitly stating that that 20% number from a 1986 "preliminary" paper has stood up. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
A 2008 study by John Fregeau. Is this now common knowledge? If so, modren source + rephrase in wikivoice?
I deleted that paragraph. The paper hasn't been widely cited in the 13 years since, and it doesn't seem to be a significant change in our understanding of clusters (despite a somewhat overhyped press release resulting in some media coverage -- not uncommon), so I don't think this is really worthy of a mention, and certainly not a full paragraph. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 18:58, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
potential computing requirements to accurately simulate such a cluster can be enormous -> next paragraph indicated it was done in 2010, so not that enormous after all?
I clarified that that comment refers to a low-density cluster. I also added a ref from a few weeks ago showing that we're still very much pushing compute power -- saying it was "done" is relative, since there are still lots of approximations, and we need to make fewer as time goes on. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 00:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
How these clusters are formed is not yet known (2005 source)
How they form is still uncertain, but some progress has been made. See Forbes at el. (2018) for a decent overview, plus perhaps some of the modelling results since then. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:9958:D746:E82D:FAD5 (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
The Forbes et al reference is more about generic GCs; I added it in that context. (It is indeed a good overview; there's more from there that could be incorporated.) I added a more recent ref from the same team that originally discovered the unusual clusters with a bit more of an idea about how they form (accretion from satellites). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 23:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
In spite of the lower likelihood of giant planet formation, just such an object has been found in the globular cluster Messier 4. (2008 source). With most exoplanets being discovered in the last 10 years(?), I suspect more have been found in globular clusters. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Update zero edits to the FAR since Mar 13, and zero edits to the article since Mar 18. @Buidhe and Femkemilene: for status check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I think it's worth waiting for Ashill, I think only two more things need to be done: 1) integrate the Forbes et al article the IP mentioned, and 2) check whether "However about 20% of the globular clusters have undergone a process termed "core collapse"." is still up to date (1986 source). FemkeMilene (talk) 19:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Update all the above are addressed, but more cn tags appeared, of which one still needs to be found. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:26, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
No joke, I think I've adequately addressed that last tag. Lithopsian (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
I went over the article once more, and put another set of cn tags in (sorry I didn't check thoroughly before). Six to go. FemkeMilene (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Think I've got them all; thanks for your thoroughness. (Most were just mid-paragraph refs that also supported the untagged sentence after the ref, but these checks did lead to a couple minor but substantive tweaks.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Why are these in External links? The first seems to contain info that should be in a comprehensive article, and the second is a general blog.
Key stars have different birthdays The article describes how stars in globular clusters are born in several bursts, rather than all at once.
Globular Clusters Blog News, papers and preprints on Galactic Globular Clusters
This is going to need a lot of citation cleanup before further prose evaluation can begin.
Why are these listed as "General sources", yet not formatted as the rest of the sources? They appear here as if they want to be External links rather than sources.
Yes, I'll move those to External Links. Separately, I think renaming the "Sources" section to "Further reading" makes sense. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
NASA Astrophysics Data System has a collection of past articles, from all major astrophysics journals and many conference proceedings. And "a collection of past articles" is non-specific; which articles are we looking at for sources? (We can't just tell our readers, well, somewhere in this collection of past articles you can find what you need to verify content in this article.)
Deleted. ADS is invaluable but isn't especially relevant to this article (not any more than it is to any astronomy article). —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
SCYON is a newsletter dedicated to star clusters. Same, which are used as sources? Who is the publisher? Which authors? What makes them reliable?
MODEST is a loose collaboration of scientists working on star clusters. Same
"Review articles", not used as citations, should be alphabetical.
"Books", Binnie and Spitzer each used only once, so why do they require a separate section, and Heggie is not used.
Spitzer isn't used either (a conference proceeding from the previous year is cited). I don't know this specific Spitzer book and don't have immediate access to it, but everything he wrote is brilliant, so it's easy for me to imagine that this book is worth including as a classic reference. Binney & Tremaine is a very widely-used dynamics book that is very relevant to this topic. I don't know the Heggie book, but it too looks relevant. To me, that looks like a decently-curated list of more-in-depth books for further reading, so my vote is to keep it as is. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Footnote a seems to need a citation: Omega Centauri was known in antiquity, but Halley discovered its nature as a nebula.
That's stated in reference 10, which is right next to the footnote. (It refers to the object as having been named by Ptolemy, which is pretty direct evidence that it was known in antiquity, although in different words.) Should the reference move into the footnote? —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I eventually figured out that ESO = European Southern Observatory, which is neither linked nor clarified in any citation that used the abbreviation.
Example, this is an incomplete citation: "Ashes from the Elder Brethren". ESO. 0107. Missing date, missing access date, and tell us somewhere what ESO is. (There are others similar.)
Frommert, Hartmut (August 2007). "Milky Way Globular Clusters". SEDS. Retrieved February 26, 2008. I can't get the site to load and can't even tell what it is, or whether it is reliable.
Works for me. I think this collection of pages is reliable; it's perhaps in a bit of a WP:SPS gray area. But it's also very carefully researched and exhaustive. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Patrick Moore (2005). Firefly Atlas of the Universe. Firefly Books. ISBN 978-1-55407-071-8. This is a book, requires a page number.
This is missing author ... "Messier 13 (M13) - The Great Hercules Cluster - Universe Today". Universe Today. May 9, 2016. Retrieved April 23, 2018.
I will stop there for now; this is only a brief sampling, and the sourcing and citations here need to be cleaned up before further evaluation of the content. Please review all sources and citations for completeness. I am very skeptical that this article can retain status, and filling in the missing citations is not the same as making sure the older content is verifiable to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Ashill can we have an update here? You identified a recent review article by Gratton, which would be good to have included in the text. You convinced me that the science doesn't change much, so I'll be satisfied if it's not used very extensively. Can the section on orbits be expanded? FemkeMilene (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Femkemilene I incorporated the Gratton reference in a few places. I also took the opportunity to cite a bit what hasn't changed much (eg basic understanding of formation). I merged the very short orbits section into the formation section, where it puts the significance of the orbits in context. I also merged a couple see alsos into the main text. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 03:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I hope to work towards the end of the FAR. So let me give another (final?) list of things I'd like to see improved.
Some giant elliptical galaxies (particularly those at the centers of galaxy clusters), such as M87, have as many as 13,000 globular clusters -> uniquely in lede, and relatively old source. Lede should be a summary of the body.
I agree that this information should be in the body of the article, along with some obvious data like the number in the Milky Way, but there doesn't seem to be a good place where it would fit. Perhaps in the observation section? A new section? 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I moved those numbers in to the paragraph in the observation section about numbers in the Milky Way; I think it fits there. Simplified lede to just say there are lots of globular clusters in other galaxies. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The retrograde orbit may suggest that ω Cen is the remnant of a dwarf galaxy which was captured by the Milky Way -> is this level of uncertainty (may + suggest) still valid with modern sources?
Still not entirely settled - added a recent paper on the subject. Lithopsian (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Not sure what this refers to; if it's footnote 41 in this version (footnote 45 in the current version), the author, date, and access date are all listed. I also added an archive-url for that one. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
The typical distance between stars in a globular cluster is about 1 light year, but at its core, the separation is comparable to the size of the Solar System (100 to 1000 times closer than stars near the Solar System) -> I don't know how wide the solar system is, so find it difficult to understand this sentence
Not only confusing, but wrong although it is an accurate reflection of what the reference says. I've provided a more correct reference and rewritten that sentence. Lithopsian (talk) 16:43, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
double parentheses: (more than 25 kiloparsecs (82,000 ly) from the center)
Globular cluster M15 may have an intermediate-mass black hole at its core. cn
That one is discussed in several sentences in the text; I copied the reference over to the image caption. Also tweaked the caption to more clearly reflect the fact that this claim is basically debunked. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Note the characteristic "knee" in the curve at magnitude 19 -> don't speak to reader
There is some dense jargon in here; I had to click out of the lead multiple times to understand the lead. Also, "While his distance estimate was in significant error (although within the same order of magnitude as the currently accepted value), it did demonstrate that the dimensions of the galaxy were much greater than had been previously thought.[c]" is not sourced; rather the footnote looks like original research without a source. That is a brief glance; I don't understand a lot of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:51, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm struggling to find the dense jargon in the lead. Do you mean the bit about Latin? Heavy elements? Tidal forces? Most of the lead seems to be straighforward descriptions in plain English, although there are an unfortunate numbers of references, suggesting information that ought to be in the body. The Shapley piece is definitely a problem. I've tagged it. I'll look for a reference but it might need to be dropped. The footnote is pure original research unless a reference can be found. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
My apologies for the delayed response (real life stuff took over).
What is a "stellar density"?
Reworded to "concentration of stars". —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Spiral galaxy is not defined, and the reader is obligated to click out to know what it is.
Added "like the Milky Way"; hopefully that provides at least some suggestion of meaning without trying to define it. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Ditto for galactic halo ... the lead should be digestible to a layreader, and the layreader should not have to click out to decipher the meaning of a sentence.
Added wikilink, and again hopefully referring to Milky Way provides a suggestion. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Redundancies in this sentence ... and were formed as part of the star formation of the parent galaxy, rather than as a separate galaxy.
I've rewritten that whole paragraph; see next point. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD must be an overview that is digestible to readers who are not well versed in astronomy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
The lead was missing any discussion of the history, and the discussion of formation and significance was a bit limited. I added to both, trying to provide more context. But I'm way too expert to really tell if it's digestible. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Great Debate (astronomy) isn't exactly about Globular clusters, but is a focal point for many of the issues around the distances and distribution of them. This paper summarises that debate and categorises the important factors together with a precis of where Shapley was right and wrong. These could support a useful expansion of the information currently in the article: the statement that Shapley gave a distance and it was too high very much over-simplifies the history. Shapley gave a great many distances to the galactic centre, ranging from close to correct to more than double. He even came late to the idea that globular clusters had an asymmetric distribution indicating a spherical system with the sun off-centre. In 1915, he dismissed it when determining the distance to M13. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that "distance estimate" sentence and footnote c are totally standard textbook statements; I added three textbook references which say the same thing in different ways at different levels. I also incorporated the Trimble paper above to be explicit about Shapley's distance estimates. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 04:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Close without FARC -- Just solved a few more prose issues myself. I'm a bit on the fence here, but this has been open for months, and would like to draw it to a close. I'm sure there is room for further improvement... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Femkemilene (talk • contribs) 18:23, May 14, 2021 (UTC)
What issues are outstanding here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Everything above has been addressed I believe. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: - Do you feel like all of your comments have been satisfactorily addressed here? I intend to make a read-through myself at some point, but would like to wait until everything outstanding is addressed for that. Hog FarmTalk 23:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
No, as stated above, the lead is not an adequate summary digestible to the layreader. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
why are metal rich and metal poor in quotes? See MOS:QUOTEPOV. Ditto throughout (eg, blue stragglers)
I guess that should be italics per Wikipedia style; it's defining/referring to terms. Changed. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
review linking, blue stragglers is used in an image caption before it is linked in the next section.
Moved the image to the section in which it's used. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
de-howevering may be useful ... However, the above-mentioned historic process of determining the age and distance to globular clusters is not as robust as first thought, since ... see See overuse of however and User:John/however. Ditto for also, in addition, etc ... User:Tony1/How to improve your writing has good information on these plagues of Wikipedia.
I picked the section on simulations for a prose check, as that is a topic I do understand ...
subdividing what? An efficient method of mathematically simulating the N-body dynamics of a globular cluster is done by subdividing into small volumes and velocity ranges ...
The simulation becomes more difficult when the effects of binaries and the interaction with external gravitation forces (such as from the Milky Way galaxy) must also be included. ... What is meant by " when ... must be included" ... why are they not always included, and why must they only sometimes be included?
punctuation of this sentence? Over long periods of time this will result in a dissipation of the cluster, a process termed evaporation ... should that be an endash rather than a comma?
Either this is a switch in tense or I am completely misunderstanding the meaning ... The ultimate fate of a globular cluster must be either to accrete stars at its core, causing its steady contraction, or gradual shedding of stars from its outer layers.
I think this article could yet benefit from a closer prose review by non-content experts, although I believe we are on the road to a restored bronze star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The prose issues mentioned by Sandy appear to be still unaddressed. Hog FarmTalk 02:37, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Questions from me:
"" I've gone through several of these with responses inline, although it looks like several of the comments no longer apply as the text they refer to has been edited out. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
"Star clusters are often assumed to consist of stars that all formed at the same time" By whom?
"observed M4 in 1764... Subsequently, Abbé Lacaille would list NGC 104, NGC 4833, M55, M69, and NGC 6397 in his 1751–1752 catalogue" How do these dates work out? Reordered the sentences to what I think was intended
"Globular" was used a handful of times—too informal? I like it occasionally for brevity but I'm not familiar with the topic.
The lede states that "globular" is an alternative way of referring to them, although I don't actually see that usage in the text. I don't think it's too informal and think it's useful to vary the writing, and I far prefer "globular" to "GC" as a shortened form. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
"Both can be regarded as evidence that supermassive globular clusters are in fact the cores of dwarf galaxies that are consumed by the larger galaxies" seems redundant to what we said a section ago
"The proportion of metals can thus be an indication of the age of a star in simple models" In simple models or in reality?
"The Dutch astronomer Pieter Oosterhoff noticed that there appear to be two populations of globular clusters" I changed this assuming there are other populations besides the Oosterhoff groups, but just wanted to make sure
Was wondering whether you all thought it was Wikipedia voice to say "our" when referring to the Solar System or Milky Way. I lean toward no, but I thought I should check.
I don't see the Solar System referred to at all. For the Solar System, "our" can resolve ambiguity between the Solar System every possible reader of Wikipedia lives in and planetary systems around other stars (which are sometimes themselves called solar systems). The Milky Way is unambiguous (but "the galaxy" isn't, so it's typically called "the Galaxy" (capital G) or "our galaxy" or "our Galaxy" to distinguish it from other galaxies), so I changed "our" to "the". —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
"A blue straggler is thought to be formed from the merger of two stars, possibly as a result of an encounter with a binary system" What is "encountering" the binary system? A third star?
Between two binary systems is what the source says. Clarified. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
"Holger Baumgardt and collaborators" Not sure why we're singling their name out specifically; needs more context. I replaced with "Researchers" for now
"When the stars of a particular globular cluster are plotted on an H–R diagram, in many cases almost all of them fall on a relatively well-defined curve" seems to contradict "but nearly all globular clusters contain stars that formed at different times, or that have differing compositions" in the lead. Which is it?
Both. :) I've largely rewritten the H-R diagram section per this and other comments; I hope that clears that up. There are distinct populations which formed at different times in most/all globulars, but the two times are not very far apart. You really have to be looking with the newest camera on the Hubble Space Telescope to see the difference clearly, which is now stated in the main text of the article. (An image would help, but there aren't any free ones I could find; if I have time, I may try to find the data and create one that is suitably licensed.) —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I will edit with this in mind
"The morphology and luminosity of globular cluster stars" What does "morphology" mean in this context? The shape of the curve they make on the HR diagram? I'm not a content expert but that seems like a weird—and unnecessarily complex—word to use
"the blending effect can introduce a systematic uncertainty into the cosmic distance ladder and may bias the estimated age of the Universe and the Hubble constant" what does this have to do with globular clusters
"Certain clusters even display populations absent from other globular clusters (e.g. blue hook stars) or feature multiple populations" don't most clusters feature multiple populations?
"gravothermal instability" what?
"forms a power-law cusp" I don't think most readers will understand this
The second paragraph of "Mass segregation" etc. really confuses me. I don't understand how the first sentence relates to the rest of the core collapse description
"this stellar mass-sorting process" Again, I didn't hear anything about mass in the preceding paragraphs, so I'm really confused
"Numerical simulations of globular clusters have demonstrated that binaries can hinder and even reverse the process of core collapse in globular clusters." Didn't we talk about this earlier?
Not sure how FARC works but agreed with Sandy that the writing is a bit off. I twiddled about with the first couple sections; see if that helped at all. The reading difficulty is highly variable... in particular the Color-magnitude section begins with a relatively detailed explanation of HR diagrams that I think could be shortened. But I don't see anything deal-breaking. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 17:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ashill: By the way, thank you so much for your work on this. The article is just a bit long but I'll get to your comments and everything soon. I think the article is a bit easier to parse so far. Ovinus (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
I went through and did a copyedit + adjustment of material I thought was way extra. But after the above concerns, I'm not opposed to keeping the bronze star. Ovinus (talk) 01:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Drive by comment
Should ", constraining estimates of the universe's age." be moved from the lead as a historical detail? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC: I did a quick skim of the article and here are some concerns: three paragraphs of uncited text, "Mass segregation, luminosity and core collapse" should be copyedited and trimmed, and the classification section might be expanded (it talks about a 2015 proposal for reclassification, is that still ongoing?) No major edits since mid-June and Ovinus has not edited since late-June. Ashill or Lithopsian might be interested in leading these improvements, as they commented above. If work continues, I'll strike my suggestion to move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC - work on the article has been stalled for a month, and I still have concerns
There's some uncited text yet that needs to be assessed for common knowledge or not
"It is unclear why the Milky Way lacks such clusters; Andromeda is unlikely to be the sole galaxy with them, but their presence in other galaxies remains unknown" - Got a source more recent than 2005 to confirm that this is still unclear
Any updates on that 2015 classification proposal?
Some sources need page number citations, such as Moore 2005
Are we sure Universe Today is high-quality RS
This is getting a lot closer, but there's work needed yet, and this is getting a bit stalled out. Like Z1720 above, I'm willing to strike this move to farc if work resumes. Hog FarmTalk 23:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Delist: No edits to the article since its move to FARC, no comments on the talk page, and no engagement here. There are three paragraphs that do not have citations, and I think the article needs a copy-edit to fix structural problems like short paragraphs. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Reluctant delist - a lot of work was done, but not quite enough. This has been stalled out for about two months. Hog FarmTalk 17:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll look at this in further detail when I get the chance (likely next week). Hog FarmTalk 06:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Keep - This article is being proposed to be delisted for what? Page numbers? Short paragraphs? Seems like extremely minor points to me. The uncited information is either common knowledge or covered by adjacent citations. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I find it odd that Omega Centauri is the one picked out in the lead as being known from antiquity, but it's relegated to a table and an uncited footnote in the body. It's either going to be significant enough to warrant more mention in the body, or not significant enough to get a prominent namedrop in the lead
"and 157 in 2010" - of the refs for this, the second looks fine, but the first ref for this is from 1996? Why is it there supporting information from 14 years after it was published?
"Some giant elliptical galaxies (particularly those at the centers of galaxy clusters), such as M87, have as many as 13,000 globular clusters" - This is hypothetical, right, since this is much in excess of the confirmed number? But why is it stated as a matter of fact?
"In 1927–1929, Shapley and Sawyer categorized clusters" - who is Sawyer?
" In 2015, a new type of globular cluster was proposed on the basis of observational data: dark globular clusters" - is it worth saying who proposed this?
After further reading, the uncited paragraph seems to just be a description of a how a specific type of graph is set up, I'd say that's probably fine per WP:WHENTOCITE.
"A blue straggler is thought to be formed from the merger of two stars, possibly as a result of an encounter between two binary system" appears in the Exotic components section, while "How blue stragglers form remains unclear, but most models attribute them to interactions between stars, either by stellar mergers or by the transfer of material from one star to another." appears in the Consequences section. I don't think this is really contradictory, but it would probably be best to discuss blue straggler formation in one place, rather than in two
Recommend citations for "Core collapse may be divided into three phases. During a cluster's adolescence, core collapse begins with stars nearest the core. Interactions between binary star systems prevents further collapse as the cluster approaches middle age. Finally, the central binaries are either disrupted or ejected, resulting in a tighter concentration at the core." - It's not as elementary as the H-R diagrams
Is the uncited stuff in the Tidal encounters section basic knowledge? I'm not sure. If not, it needs cited
" Bennett, Jeffrey O.; Donahue, Megan; Schneider, Nicholas; Voit, Mark (2020). The Cosmic Perspective (9th ed.). Pearson. ISBN 978-0-134-87436-4." could use page numbers for better verification (if possible)
" "ESA/Hubble Picture of the Week". Engulfed by Stars Near the Milky Way’s Heart. Retrieved June 28, 2011." - formatting error. The Engulfed by Stars ... should be the title, and the true publisher needs added
"Schwarzschild, Martin (1958). Structure and Evolution of Stars. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-486-61479-3." - could also use page numbers for verification
NO ACTION NEEDED - just noting that I've looked at the self-published Dave Pooley source, and as he helped discover SN 2006gy, I'd say he's probably a subject-matter expert for stars
This come a long way from when it started in FAR. I see Amitchell125 has done some work on this; do they have any further thoughts here? Hog FarmTalk 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
This 2005 promotion has not been reviewed since 2007, and needs a bit of a touchup for modern FA standards. The primary issue seems to be lack of inline citations in parts, although there are also some lesser layout issues caused by MOS:SANDWICHing. Hog FarmTalk 05:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment I added in line citations and fixed and reformatted the book and other citations. Added more text.
The "current values" is understated, and I don't know when anyway. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 11:31, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
I fixed that. This was in the lead, and the answer is in the sourced body of the article. North8000 (talk) 11:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I see that there has been quite a bit of editing since the nomination was posted; could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
One of the references added during the improvements, Enns, appears to be possibly self-published. What are the author's credentials? Hog FarmTalk 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC Some work done over the last month, but the largest issues remain - uncited text etc. Additionally, one of the sources added (Enns) doesn't seem to be reliable, and I've found (and tagged) a spot where the source doesn't support all of the text, which indicates a possible other concern. Hog FarmTalk 02:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC: 7&6=thirteen made excellent edits in early May, but improvements have been limited for the past several weeks. There are lots of uncited paragraphs that need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Comment The very few uncited paragraphs are basically weather reports about the storm's progress. I presume those are in the newspapers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Not sure that "very few" is the right descriptor. The second paragraphs of November 7 and November 8 are currently effectively unsourced, as the only reference is a note that just consists of an indirect citation for wind speeds, which does not obviously support text such as " Long ships traveled all that day through the St. Marys River, all night through the Straits of Mackinac, and early Sunday morning up the Detroit and St. Clair rivers". Much of the November 9 section lacks inline citations. The only source in the entire November 10 and 11 section is an indirect reference for wind speeds, which doesn't obviously support much of the content. The are two entire uncited paragraphs in On the lakes. There are also a couple spots in the Ships foundered text where I tagged statements not supported by the references. Hog FarmTalk 03:49, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
??To me it appears that the second paragraphs in the November 7th and 8th section s are sourced to: Brown, David G. (2002). White Hurricane: A Great Lakes November Gale and America's Deadliest Maritime Disaster. International Marine/ McGraw-Hill. ISBN 0-07-138037-X. I think that the "for wind speeds see.." note does not limit it's applicability to just that. North8000 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
If that's the case, I would recommend that the reference be placed at the paragraph, instead of in the note. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Z1720 here; its not obvious to those not working on the article that that is the case, and WP:FACR #1c states claims [...] are supported by inline citations where appropriate, and there are a number of specific statements in here that are not self-proving or general common knowledge and require the inline citations. Hog FarmTalk 19:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I'll work on fixing that. BTW, I'm more interested in article quality and not so much about FA status.North8000 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with just applying the current cite directly without having the book in hand. Perhaps someone else can do it. I just ordered the book. I am interested in working on the article and will do so. But it's not going to be fast and I'm not concerned about FA status.North8000 (talk) 02:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I see above that it's thought that some sourcing might be in old newspapers, too - I have access to newspapers.com through The Wikipedia Library, and I'm willing to try to find contemporary sources for stuff, if needed. Hog FarmTalk 02:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Well, my immediate plans are that I'll have the book tomorrow, I'll get the second paragraphs of the November 7th and 8th sections more directly sourced. And I'd be happy to do that for any other specific areas noted. Being an entire book on the topic of the article I expect that it will be pretty comprehensive. But if it were to get de-listed, I wouldn't be working on any re-submittal. Even though I did it once for SS Edmund Fitzgerald I really don't do FA-specific work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
FAR co-ords are very amenable to keeping FARs "on hold" until fixes are complete. After your edits are complete North8000, I can conduct a copyedit and post clarification questions that I hope you will answer. With a little bit of work, this article can remain an FA. Z1720 (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Very happy to try! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I have the book. I'm buried in the real world for the next 5 days but will start on it after that. To start with I'll be focusing on the areas noted in Hog Farm's 03:49, 9 June 2021 post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I fixed and sourced the 2nd paragraph in the November 7th section. North8000 (talk) 02:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
I finished with the November 8th section. Modified text to what I was able to source and sourced it.North8000 (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I finished getting the November 9th section sourced North8000 (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I finished sourcing the November 10th & 11th section. North8000 (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
I removed the Enns source. Being questioned at FAR due to being SPS source. Also not needed. Only cited once, and that sentence is also supported by two other sources. North8000 (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Thanks. Per my edit of my comment I realized that there are still noted areas which need work. I plan to have the rest of those handled within a few days. But before or after that would be happy for any comments on how the improve the article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that the "On the lakes" section is now tweaked to be sourcable and sufficiently sourcedNorth8000 (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I fixed the noted problems in "ships foundered" section.North8000 (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: I think that all of the noted problems have been fixed.North8000 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and layout. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Alternate name of Big Blow in the lead needs a direct citation
Wouldn't hurt to have a direct citation for "By then, the storm was centered over the upper Mississippi Valley and had caused moderate to brisk southerly winds with warmer weather over the lakes. The forecast predicted increased winds and falling temperatures over the next 24 hours." - if I remember when I'm less busy I'll try to poke around in old newspaper articles to see if I can find something
"On November 8th ship traffic continued Traffic allowed traffic to begin flowing again" - not sure what's going on here, but I think something's off
"Immediately following the blizzard of Cleveland, Ohio, the city began a campaign to move all utility cables underground, in tubes beneath major streets. The project took half a decade. - probably needs an inline citation
"Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below" - does this warrant a citation? I'm not sure that it's common knowledge since it's specific to this storm
Is ref 42 intended to cover the victim counts of the sinkings, as well?
This is already looking quite a bit better than when FAR was opened. Someone better with images than me may want to look through licensing, and having someone look through this for some copy editing might help, too (I don't look at prose too closely, as I'm a redneck whose not always great with English). Hog FarmTalk 04:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll work on several of those bulleted items.North8000 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
"Big Blow" moniker has now been sourcedNorth8000 (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Cleveland transition to underground cables is now sourced. North8000 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Resolved "often blew in directions opposite" issue. Edit summary: "Remove "often blew opposite" statement. Unable to source, plus this aspect did not show up to be particularly relevant, plus "rare" statement is probably an un-sourcable overreach" North8000 (talk) 22:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The edit removed the statement of This was the result of the storm's cyclonic motion, a phenomenon rarely seen on the Great Lakes. which I'll trust your judgment on that, as well as if the Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below. statement which still remains should remain, as well.
@Hog Farm: Regarding your "Is ref 42 intended to cover the victim counts of the sinkings, as well?" question, looking at the article state as of your post, ref #42 seems unrelated to that, and so I don't understand your question. North8000 (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I was just wondering, because I've seen instance when the last ref before a table also covers the whole table. Was referring to the ref following The following shipwreck casualties have been documented:. If it doesn't source the individual total deaths associated to each ship, would it be possible to tie that down? I hope I don't seem excessively picky with sourcing, it's just that FA has gotten pretty source strenuous lately. Hog FarmTalk 19:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
No problem. I enjoy improving the article including making it a very accurate article. And the process of providing more specific sourcing has in many cases led to modifications of the text that are improvements in the article in that respect. North8000 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
This is resolved.North8000 (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
In the Plymouth article the text says that (only) that a wreck suspected to be the Plymouth was found. But the reference/cite for for that text flatly says that it was found in 1984. @GreatLakesShips: what are your thoughts? North8000 (talk) 22:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The source we have currently in the article that is stating that it was definitely found wad discussed negatively at RSN once, although that was in 2012. May be best to find a stronger source and then state that it's disputed, if possible. Hog FarmTalk 22:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm:@North8000: Based on the sources I have provided, I think the article should something like "wreckage found near Poverty Island in 1984 was suspected to be that of Plymouth, although this is unconfirmed". GreatLakesShips (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm neutral on all of this.North8000 (talk) 13:26, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Resolved. I went with that. Since only the brief table entry was in question, I changed "not located" to "No confirmed location" North8000 (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The "....By then, the storm was centered...." issue has been resolved by removal of the sentence. I discussed this more thoroughly at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that all of the (six) noted items have been resolved.North8000 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
From a quick look, there's a bit of a contradiction - table says that Plymouth has not been definitely found, while the prose says "In 1984 the previously-unfound Plymouth was located off of Poverty island" which is pretty unequivocal. I think having another pair of eyes to look at prose would be nice. Hog FarmTalk 01:27, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't review the article at the moment because I am busy in real life. If this is still open in August I will take another look, but please don't let my busy schedule hold up this FAR. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll list this at GOCE to see if this can get a copy edit. Hog FarmTalk 01:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll take a harder look at the Plymouth issue. North8000 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I just listened to a 50 minute extremely detailed history of the Plymouth covering from long before the storm through the supposed find at Poverty island and up through 2020. It was put on by an organization that studies such things and produces such hosted video presentations and the expert was a guest on this one who is an author and a very careful, thorough expert researcher. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GJ8mHA_ZBc It's a slam-dunk that the find at Poverty island was not the Plymouth and that circa 2020 the wreck had not been found. Further, the source in the current article that said it had been found was not even about the topic, it was a memorial page for an individual that died on it. I don't want to push a FA into a question area by using a video presentation viewed as a reference, but I think that any statements that it has been found and at Poverty island are false / baseless and have no actually reliable source. I'll take them out accordingly. North8000 (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Done. The Plymouth issue is fixed. North8000 (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
It doesn't help for Plymouth, but this is an RS that discusses the shipwrecks, so it may be helpful for that portion. Hog FarmTalk 03:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
To recap, I finished working on the noted issues. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Review by Z1720
@North8000: I did a review of the article and fixed things that I could. I have some questions below that I hope you or another expert can answer:
"with enormous loss of life" (in Note A) this feels like an opinionated statement and not NPOV. Can it be removed, since it's not really about this storm anyways?
I'm surprised with the amount of citations in the second paragraph of the lede, particularly 5 citations for "the Great Lakes Storm killed more than 250 people." Is this not mentioned in the article body? Are these citations necessary, per WP:CITELEDE?
"The Weather Bureau did not predict the intensity of the storm" Which country's weather bureau? Since this storm affected Canada and US, the article will constantly need to specify which country's department/infrastructure/facts it is talking about. (With a possible added complication of talking about British institutions, since Canada still had several ties to the British Empire during this time, but I will check the article for this.)
" As the cyclonic system continues over the lakes, its power is intensified by the jet stream above and the warm waters below." This needs a citation
WP:OVERCITE is an essay, but I think it raises legitimate concerns. Why does the second paragraph in "Background" have 7 citations? Can some of these be spread out amongst the paragraph, or removed?
I changed the "Big Blow of 1905" to "Mataafa Storm" because the wikilink was a redirect to a section of List of storms on the Great Lakes which had a hatnote directing the reader to Mataafa Storm. If this is not the same storm, please revert and clarify below.
November 9 has a lot of small paragraphs. Can these be reorganised and combined together?
"wait for things to clear." Are they waiting for someone to clear the snow, or for the storm to finish passing through the area?
I am finding that this article is very US-centric. What were the Canadian preparations (or lack thereof) for the storm? There's also not a lot of information about what is happening on the Canadian side on Nov. 9. I don't know much about how weather systems work, but based on the description would the Canadian side be affected by this storm on this day?
First paragraph of "Aftermath" needs citations
"Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below." Needs a citation.
"Post storm conversations were mostly focused on choosing certain ones of these to place blame." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to tell me.
"The Weather Bureau had the perfect defense for failing to predict the severity of the hurricane-strength storm but did not invoke it." This feels POV, as who can decide if something is "perfect"? Also, what was their defense?
"The practice of not "trimming" (leveling) the..." what is the correct technical term to use here, can it be wikilinked, and can a better description of the term be used?
"was also noted and criticized." By whom?
"In general few of these spurred immediate action but instead many influenced the longer-term course of events." I think this needs to be expanded upon further. What changes were eventually made because of this storm? What changes were proposed, but ultimately failed?
"The most recent discovery is Hydrus, which was located in mid-2015. The last wreck found previous to Hydrus was Henry B. Smith in 2013. Among the debris cast up by the storm was wreckage of the fish tug Searchlight lost in April 1907." I think this information should be moved to before the list, with more information added about discovering the otehr vessals. I also thing the information about Searchlight needs to be in a different location in the article.
I did a search for images of the storm from London, Ontario archives, which I find extremely frustrating. I am going to keep looking, as I have connections in that city that might help. I also looked in Lambton County Archives (where Sarnia is located) but their database's coding is terrible and did not garner results. Ontario Archives's database did not yield results, either, though I might give them a phone call to see if a librarian can find better information. Overall, extremely frustrating trying to find Canadian images, because I want to diversify from all the Cleveland images. I won't let this stop me from recommending "keep" later on in the process.
Those are my thoughts. EDIT: Forgot to sign yesterday, so here it is: Z1720 (talk) 18:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Work on items listed by Z1720
Those look like 22 good ideas that I would be happy to work on or address. Two quick notes; my interest is in improving the article rather than being concerned about FA status. Also I just came there recently and only about 5% of it was written by me. I copied your points below in order to organize responses or put them in-line:
"with enormous loss of life" (in Note A) this feels like an opinionated statement and not NPOV. Can it be removed, since it's not really about this storm anyways? Resolved: Good idea, I did it. North8000 (talk) 21:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm surprised with the amount of citations in the second paragraph of the lede, particularly 5 citations for "the Great Lakes Storm killed more than 250 people." Is this not mentioned in the article body? Are these citations necessary, per WP:CITELEDE? Preliminary partial response: I took one out where it was easy. The others will need / trigger more in-depth work including on content because some are used only in the lead.North8000 (talk) 12:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
"The Weather Bureau did not predict the intensity of the storm" Which country's weather bureau? Since this storm affected Canada and US, the article will constantly need to specify which country's department/infrastructure/facts it is talking about. (With a possible added complication of talking about British institutions, since Canada still had several ties to the British Empire during this time, but I will check the article for this.) Resolved: Fixed. Clarified every instance of just "weather Bureau: North8000 (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
" As the cyclonic system continues over the lakes, its power is intensified by the jet stream above and the warm waters below." This needs a citation. Resolved: Added a source North8000 (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:OVERCITE is an essay, but I think it raises legitimate concerns. Why does the second paragraph in "Background" have 7 citations? Can some of these be spread out amongst the paragraph, or removed?
I changed the "Big Blow of 1905" to "Mataafa Storm" because the wikilink was a redirect to a section of List of storms on the Great Lakes which had a hatnote directing the reader to Mataafa Storm. If this is not the same storm, please revert and clarify below. Resolved: I think that that is fine. Also it looks like Mataafa is the overwhelmingly common name for the 1905 storm and that "Big Blow" is seldom used for it. North8000 (talk) 01:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
"The forecast predicted increased winds and falling temperatures over the next 24 hours." Need a citation
"St. Marys River" is this one of the river listed at Saint Mary's River? Resolved: Yes, and I did it. North8000 (talk) 21:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Is note D necessary? It is saying that the reader can go to the source cited in ref 29 to get more information. Why not just include this info in the article? Resolved: Removed this note and similar ones. Edit summaries said: "Removed note that was not useful or informative. Also, there was no specific info on this to present from the source." North8000 (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Should November 7 and 8 be combined, per MOS:OVERSECTION? Response: IMHO not. IMHO the date-based framework provides an excellent structure for the core of the article, and there is already sufficient material for the two separate dates. Also, a natural expansion of the article using that framework (which I intend to do) would add additional material to each of those two separate sections. North8000 (talk) 01:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
November 9 has a lot of small paragraphs. Can these be reorganised and combined together?
"wait for things to clear." Are they waiting for someone to clear the snow, or for the storm to finish passing through the area? Resolved:Change to "wait for the storm to pass" which more precisely matches what the source said. North8000 (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I am finding that this article is very US-centric. What were the Canadian preparations (or lack thereof) for the storm? There's also not a lot of information about what is happening on the Canadian side on Nov. 9. I don't know much about how weather systems work, but based on the description would the Canadian side be affected by this storm on this day? Responded I did a pretty thorough review of this topic and due to it's size and possible future usefulness for the article, I put it at the article talk page. North8000 (talk) 03:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
First paragraph of "Aftermath" needs citations
"Masters also stated that the wind often blew in directions opposite to the waves below." Needs a citation. Resolved: This was old text; I never saw it in any source and it looks unsourcable as written. I removed it. North8000 (talk) 21:43, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
"Post storm conversations were mostly focused on choosing certain ones of these to place blame." I'm not sure what this sentence is trying to tell me.
"The Weather Bureau had the perfect defense for failing to predict the severity of the hurricane-strength storm but did not invoke it." This feels POV, as who can decide if something is "perfect"? Also, what was their defense? Resolved: That wording was my summary of what the source said. I dialed back the statement including removing "perfect". Answering your question, the defense is described in the following section in the article which is: "They did not have enough data (including upper atmospheric data), communications and analysis capability, or understanding of atmospheric dynamics to predict the storm, including wind directions which are key to the ability of ships to avoid or cope with the effects of the storm." North8000 (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
"The practice of not "trimming" (leveling) the..." what is the correct technical term to use here, can it be wikilinked, and can a better description of the term be used? Resolved This has a specialized meaning for bulk carrier ship. It has narrow usage in that context but is the correct technical term. I believe that the description given covers it. I could expand but IMO that might be overkill. I also added a reference and also an internal link to an article section that explains / uses that specialized meaning.North8000 (talk) 17:51, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
"was also noted and criticized." By whom?
"In general few of these spurred immediate action but instead many influenced the longer-term course of events." I think this needs to be expanded upon further. What changes were eventually made because of this storm? What changes were proposed, but ultimately failed? Partial/preliminary response: Regarding change proposals and changes made directly in response to the storm, it appears that there were nearly none except the ones noted in Cleveland. That wording was my summary from the noted pages in the source. But I concur that that area needs expansion and improvement even if to say that little or nothing was proposed or changed in response to the storm. There is good material available. North8000 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
"The most recent discovery is Hydrus, which was located in mid-2015. The last wreck found previous to Hydrus was Henry B. Smith in 2013. Among the debris cast up by the storm was wreckage of the fish tug Searchlight lost in April 1907." I think this information should be moved to before the list, with more information added about discovering the other vessels. I also thing the information about Searchlight needs to be in a different location in the article.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:08, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@North8000: if you are willing to improve the article, I and other editors will focus on whether it meets FA standards. It doesn't matter who wrote the original article, anyone is free to make changes and improvements. Please ping me when the above concerns are resolved or if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: Cool. I know that I can change anything but I always start out more cautiously when I arrive at an article. North8000 (talk) 12:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
For several of these, in order to do a good job, I'll need to obtain and read/absorb more of the sources. I'm buying 2 more of the books but even just receiving them will take a week. North8000 (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
A GOCE copyedit I requested is being performed for the article right now. Hog FarmTalk 01:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
The copyedit has now been completed. Hog FarmTalk 14:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to current FA standards. Hog Farm indicated six months ago problems with sourcing, citations, and the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:23, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I've got some additional concerns from a read-through.
Not entirely convinced that the summary of the Vicksburg campaign is satisfactory. It doesn't really discuss what he did in the Vicksburg campaign, and omits stuff that is likely significant, such as his fairly independent operations in the Jackson Expedition.
Some of the material in the total warfare section isn't really focused on Sherman and would be more relevant in the March to the Sea article
The section about the Jews is just a couple of quotes and does nothing to really present anything unified beyond quotes about a couple instances
While I'm one of the ACW-focused editors active yet, I'm not sure that I'll really be able to help much. There's some concerns about text-source integrity in spots, and the only source listed in the references I have is Warner, who isn't cited inline (although I do have Donald L. Miller's new book about Vicksburg that has some useful stuff about Sherman's early career). The local library appears to have Kennett, but everything else on Sherman they have is from the 1950s and 60s, and wouldn't be great to use here. If some others show up, I can help some, but this needs a lot of work, and I'm not able to tackle it by myself. Hog FarmTalk 00:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
It's a bit weird that the 2020 OUP biography isn't cited at all. I believe it can be accessed with TWL for anyone willing to put in the effort. (t · c) buidhe 10:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC, there has been some engagement for minor copyediting, but major issues are unaddressed. There is also MOS:SANDWICH and grammatical errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC - Significant work needed, minimal engagement. Hog FarmTalk 14:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I played a large role in the work that led to this article becoming featured in 2006 (I used to be User:Eb.hoop until I changed my password and then lost it after getting a new laptop). I think that the results of those efforts were very good. The resulting article was not only well referenced and balanced, but also readable and interesting for a casual reader. Indeed, there was (and still is) to it what I can only describe, for lack of a better term, as a conceptual coherence unusual in the biography of a military officer. I think that this is demonstrated by the fact that the English article was translated verbatim into French, Danish, and Hungarian, and then became featured in the corresponding Wikipedias. Large portions of the English article were also translated verbatim for the Spanish version.
I've not been active in recent years in preparing or reviewing articles for promotion, so I'm not well informed about the current standards. In the past weeks I've sought to address the substantive objections about the content made here that I thought were valid. These include using the 2020 bio by Holden Reid (which, incidentally, has an overarching thesis entirely compatible with the line on Sherman reflected by this article) as a reference, discussing the Jackson Expedition, and clarifying his roles in Vicksburg and Chattanooga. I also tried to unclutter and improve the illustrations.
I think that I've now mostly done what I can do. A user pointed out that the discussion about stamps has only a very generic reference to Scott's US Stamp Catalog, but I don't have the interest or the resources to fix that. Personally, I'd be happy to take out the discussion of stamps altogether, but someone obviously cared about it significantly. The objection that the lead cites Liddell Hart as having called Sherman "the first modern general" but that this isn't discussed in the body of the article seems unjustified to me. There are many references to Liddle Hart and other military historians and theoreticians in the section on "Strategies" that make the meaning of the quote in the lead abundantly clear.
I'm not qualified to judge whether the article meets the current FA technical standards, but I feel that it'd be a great shame if this it were removed. The contents are mostly very good (unusually good, I'd say) and, as I said, the interest that this article attracted among non-US readers is evidenced by the translations made into several other languages. Hopefully, the technical issues that remain can be addressed by more active editors, without de-listing being required. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 16:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Eb.hoop2: Thanks for your amazing work on the article. If you are willing to continue, I think we can "save" its FA status. In response to comments about the lede: the lede is supposed to be an overview of the entire article, and information is usually only there if it is also mentioned in the body. Sherman's designation as "the first modern general" is really interesting to me and I hope the article can explain why he has that designation, perhaps in a legacy section or part of the historiography section? I also noticed that the "Sherman name in the military" section does not have citations. Do you know where we can find sources for those? Once the article is ready, I am happy to review and copyedit the article, just ping me or leave a message on my talk page when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Eb.hoop2 and Z1720: - Should we just dispense of the stamps section? I collect stamps and could probably find a source for it, but I'm not sure that we really need to get into that much detail. Sherman's appearances on US stamps aren't really that significant in the scheme of things, and a lot of them are just one stamp that was re-issued several times in the 1890s. Hog FarmTalk 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing the stamps section. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Hold - Work is currently ongoing, and if pointed to what still needs to be done, I can try to work on it some, too. Hog FarmTalk 21:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Comment: There's still lots of uncited paragraphs and sections, especially in the Historiography section. The last edit to this article was two weeks ago. Have improvements stalled? Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720 and Eb.hoop2: - I got part of the Sherman name in the military section cited, but between having to study for the CPA exam and starting my first post-college graduation job tomorrow, I don't think I'll be able to throw significant attention to this at the moment, especially since I have a few other projects I want to work on with my wikipedia time. Hog FarmTalk 01:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Should we just get rid of the Historiography section? It's one of the things that were added after the FA promotion and which may not have been up to the same standard. The article is already very long, and all of the detail about the various editions of Sherman's memoirs and correspondence may not be necessary. Moreover, the start of that section is not well referenced, not well integrated with the rest of the article, and perhaps too opinionated for Wikipedia. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 17:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
The stuff at the beginning of the section about how he was viewed in the north and south postwar may be useful, but the publishing details and namesakes are poorly sourced and probably undue. Hog FarmTalk 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Eb.hoop2: - As I've seen no objection to removing the bulk of that material, I have just done so now, leaving only the first paragraph of that section. Hog FarmTalk 03:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I believe that all of the specific issues that have been raised here have already been addressed in the edits. If there are other problems that need fixing someone should say what they are. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Review by Z1720
@Eb.hoop2 and Hog Farm:, I am going to conduct a copyedit and review of the article. I will post questions and comments below if I feel like I can't fix them on my own. Let's see if we can get this out of FAR!
"Sherman embarked from New York" is this New York State or New York City?
Done. It's now identified as New York City, although I think this was clear enough in the context. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
"Sherman, along with Ord, assisted in surveys for the sub-divisions of the town that would become Sacramento." This needs a citation or to be removed.
Done. The passage has been improved and a citation given. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
"In 1874, with Sherman having become world-famous, their eldest child, Marie Ewing ("Minnie") Sherman, also had a politically prominent wedding, attended by President Ulysses S. Grant and commemorated by a generous gift from the Khedive of Egypt. (Eventually, one of Minnie's daughters married a grandson of Confederate general Lewis Addison Armistead.) Another of the Sherman daughters, Eleanor, was married to Alexander Montgomery Thackara at General Sherman's home in Washington, D.C., on May 5, 1880." This seems like a lot of extra information about his kids. Should this be summarized? Why is it important in Sherman's article that Minnie had a prominent wedding, and that one of her daughters married a descendant of Armistead?
I would support removing all or most of this. Hog FarmTalk 04:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Done. The material has been removed. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
"and he relocated to New York on behalf of the same bank. When the bank failed during the financial Panic of 1857, he closed the New York branch." New York state or New York City?
Done. It's now identified as New York City. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
"He received a telegram summoning him to Washington on June 7." Who summoned him? Why?
The sentence has been removed because I couldn't easily find a reference for the precise date and contents of the telegram. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I think the article needs more information about the First Battle of Bull Run. The article alludes to a Union loss, possibly due to Sherman's decisions as a military officer, but this is not sufficiently explained.
Agree. I consulted a book about Vicksburg I have that has a summary of Sherman's early career, and it refers to him as "exemplary" at Bull Run, which contradicts the Holden-Reid source a bit (Holden-Reid seems to refer to errors made by Sherman) Hog FarmTalk 04:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
See discussion below. I've added some detail on the subject and I personally think that it's now adequate for the purposes of this article. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
For the Vicksburg section, it starts with a long blockquote. Can this just be summarized and used as prose?
I vote to keep the quote. I find that it's a nice change of pace to have a long quote every one in a while, when it's relevant and the writing is good. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
"generally regarded as a politically motivated distraction from the effort to take Vicksburg" regarded by whom?
I have removed this statement, as I'm not convinced that it's necessarily accurate. Sherman thought it was worthwhile, and the Miller 2019 source, which is one of the best sources on Vicksburg published in the last few years, notes that the Union admiral in the theater at the time (David Dixon Porter) also approved, that Grant was convinced of its value, and that taking Arkansas Post removed a sizable Confederate post in their rear that could have caused problems later. Hog FarmTalk 04:05, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I added back something on the subject. The one who thought that Arkansas Post was a politically motivated distraction was Grant, who got along very poorly with McClernand. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
" According to military historian Brian Holden-Reid, Sherman finally "had cut his teeth as an army commander" with the Jackson Expedition." The jargon of "had cut his teeth" needs to be explained.
It's actually an idiom, rather than jargon. I'm not entirely sure how to explain/rephrase this, so I've linked the phrase to Wiktionary. Hog FarmTalk 18:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
It's indeed a common idiom. I don't think the Wiktionary link is necessary, but I'm happy to keep it. Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
That takes me to Chattanooga. I'll continue once the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Eb.hoop2: - I recently picked up a book about Sherman's March to the Sea, which will hopefully be helpful for this. I probably can't solve the Bull Run one with the sources I have, though. Hog FarmTalk 18:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I really don't think that Bull Run calls for more information in this article. Sherman was not a leading commander in that battle. He was at the head of one of the four brigades in one of the five divisions in one of the two units of the Union army in the field (see First Bull Run Union order of battle). The key points to convey are simply: a. that the Union suffered a disastrous defeat at Bull Run, b. that Sherman was one of the few Union officers to perform well under fire, and c. that the Union defeat left Sherman with considerable self-doubt and apprehension about the outlook of the war. - Eb.hoop2 (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
As a non-expert in this topic or Sherman, I did not know what this battle was in connection to the Civil War. Furthermore, I did not understand Sherman's connection to this battle and was further confused when the article talked about Sherman's outlook of the war based on this battle. I think additional information on the battle and how it connects to Sherman's life is warranted to help give context to the reader. Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720 and Eb.hoop2: - I've gotten a couple of those above addressed, but I don't think I can do a whole lot more due to time constraints and sourcing access. Hog FarmTalk 05:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Eb.hoop2: I think you are in a better place to address concerns, because you know more about this topic than I do, and I am entering a busy time in my real life. When the above concerns are addressed, (except First Battle of Bull Run, as that might need a separate conversation) please ping and I will do another review. If others can't address the concerns, I will try to tackle them in a few weeks; please ping me if that's the case (FA co-ords please ping me before considering delisting if no one responds in a while, as I think this is closer to a keep then a delist). Z1720 (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720 and Hog Farm: I think that all of the concerns raised above have been adequately dealt with (see my point-by-point comments above). Also, I've now actually gone through the entire text and made the copyedits that I thought were called for. Personally, I'm happy with the current state of the article and would vote "keep". Eb.hoop2 (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because I raised issues on the talk page about NPOV and comprehensiveness, but did not receive a response.
One of the major issues with this article is that it neglects recent scholarship that analyzes the post-war situation in Rwanda. I made a long list on the talk page of various sources, at least some of which ought to be cited in the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment - In addition to the comments made by Buidhe at the talk page, I'll note that some of the info is straight up outdated. Under "Foreign Policy", the section on the Democratic Republic of the Congo gives a little too much detail on Laurent Kabila's death—why we need to know of its exact circumstances here befuddles me, as it's not as if Kagame was directly involved. There is also little talk of the rumoured deployment of Rwandan soldiers in Congolese territory, or of Kagame's efforts at a rapproachment with the DRC government under President Tshisekedi since 2019 (some detail on that here). For the Uganda section, there is no mention of the Rwanda/Uganda dispute of 2019. More on Kagame's personal relationship with Museveni could also be helpful (see previous source). American relations with Kigali have also improved since the 2012 freeze. His relationship with Burundi is also worth some exploration, considering the historical spillover of the Hutu-Tutsi conflict there and accusations that Kagame has tried to destabilize the country's government. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment - whoah Buidhe, isn't it customary to do informal discussions before initiating a formal review? Please can I request that we close this FAR, and we can move to addressing issues more informally. This is what I've seen with other FAs I've been involved with. I'm sure we can deal with the issues raised, but I'm not very happy that you've sprung this on me out of the blue. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Looking now I see that buidhe only left their concerns about the Kagame article on the talk page less than a week ago, which makes the time between the first questions about problems to the FAR less than the standard time normally left for people to address concerns there. While I do think this article does have some major areas for improvement, I could see this being moved to the talk page for the time being. -Indy beetle (talk) 12:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru I did follow the instructions: "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 5–7 days to respond to concerns." I both made efforts to improve the article and waited the required period. (t · c) buidhe 14:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: how was I supposed to fix the issues you raised in 5 days? On fact I hadn't seven seen the talk page note until today, and as I said on the talk page today I am willing to work on the article and make the improvements you and Indy are suggesting, but this is likely to take months unfortunately as I don't have huge amounts of time to spare. Maybe SandyGeorgia can advise, as I've worked on other FAs with her, but generally in previous cases time is given to work through issues before FAR, something you haven't given me here. I can see where you're coming from on the article issues, but this bolt from the blue on an article I worked hard on, has honestly ruined my day and left me feeling quite despondent. Please let's come to an understanding on this. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Amakuru my apologies for iPad typing, long medical appts today. Nikkimaria put this on hold so you can have additional time. I have an advantage that Buidhe may not have which is 15 years of knowing who will do the work ;) I know if I ping certain editors or visit their talk, they will bring articles to standard. One thing Buidhe might do going forward is check whether past-FAC nominators are still active, but Nikkimaria has granted time here and removed the FAR from the WP:FAR page. Probably giving Nikkimaria an idea of what time you need will be good. Please do not let this ruin your day, as time is always granted at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I apologize. I assumed that you had seen the post on the talk page but lost interest in the article, because you did not reply. However, as long as improvements are ongoing then please take as much time as necessary. (t · c) buidhe 17:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy and Buidhe. Unfortunately I did miss the talk page notification, and even the subsequent changes that you already made to the article. Probably a sign that I've got too much crap on my watchlist! I feel like it would be very useful to notify regular contributors and/or the FAC nominator at the time of the talk page notice, as well as when the formal FAR is opened. Maybe I'll propose that on the project talk page, unless there are good reasons for not doing so. Anyway, I'll do my best to make progress on updating and making the article more neutral, as time allows. Any tips or assistance from yourself would be gratefully received as well, Buidhe. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
On hold to allow for more time for discussion at talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: apologies, I've lost momentum a bit on this one since January when Sandy last checked in with me but it hasn't slipped my mind. I will make it a priority in the next few days/week to carry on working through the article checking all the sections for updates based on the new sources. Once I'm done with that I'll check back in with Buidhe for any further suggestions or problems they may spot. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru and Nikkimaria: monthly check in. It has now been four months; can we please get this back on the page to get it moving? Buidhe how is it looking to you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Since the start of the review I have made updates to the sections on the civil war and the genocide, to bring in material mentioned in Caplan's paper. I've also added bits to the "domestic situation" covering the exile and death of Sendashonga , and the subject of RPF killings/Kibeho is reiterated there. In presidency, there's a decent discussion on the circumstances of Kagame's taking over from Bizimungu, with the predominant argument that the latter was forced out and mentioning his later address, but also giving a brief mention to the version of events of Kagame himself, as relayed to Kinzer. Additional things that I think will need doing:
Maybe rework "Congo wars" a bit so that the motives behind the wars are more objectively described.
In presidency, more discussion on the claims of domestic human rights infringements.
Some reworking of "personality and public image" to remove bits that at this point look somewhat biased in PK's favour, and also discuss differing views about whether he's truly popular within Rwanda. (I don't think we can give a definitive answer on that one way or the other, so just have to present whatever evidence exists).
Obviously I'll be keen to hear Buidhe's views on what the next steps should be as well. — Amakuru (talk) 21:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
So ... it sounds like we can now bring it back to an active FAR, so we can get other opinions and keep moving forward (towards closing a four-month-old FAR)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I think that the "elections" section could use more perspective. For instance, I don't think there's any reliable source which says that the elections aren't rigged, but that doesn't clearly come across. Scholarly sources explain why the elections occur the way they do:
Around the 2017 Rwandan election, many journalists phoned us to discuss the polls, and most asked the same question: Why does President Paul Kagame bother holding elections at all? He had already won a fantastical 93 per cent of the vote in the 2013 election, and he had eliminated presidential term limits in 2010 meaning that he was legally allowed to stay in power until 2034. So why did he go through the motions of organizing a national poll that he was predestined to win? Why not just get rid of elections altogether?
When Kagame went on to take 99 per cent of the vote, these questions became even more pertinent.18 Kagame had clearly not even bothered to try and manipulate the election in the clever ways described in previous chapters. Yet even in spite of this, he benefited from polls that had become little more than a political charade.
Most obviously, even the stage-managed 2017 contest was important to secure a base level of international legitimacy. While counterfeit democrats often behave arbitrarily, they like to be seen to be men – with a small number of exceptions they are almost always men – of order and responsibility. This means that leaders want to make it look as if they are following the rule of law even when they are not. Kagame is no exception. (Yale UP, How to Rig an Election, pp. 214–215)
Later on the same page, the authors mention that not even pretending to hold elections will get a country kicked out of the African Union. (google books link)
Waldorf also discusses how "the RPF ensures that elections are neither free nor fair", and the historical background on why:
As a rebel movement, the RPF had difficulty attracting Hutu recruits despite its inclusive ideology and its prominent Hutu spokesmen. The RPF conducted an electoral campaign for mayors in the demilitarized north in 1993 but Habyarimana’s party took all the posts. “The RPF realized then that it stood no chance in an open political contest"
With regards to vote-rigging he states the following:
Similarly, Simpser (2013: xv) points out how “[m]anipulating elections excessively and blatantly [i.e. beyond what is necessary to win] can make the manipulating party appear stronger”. This helps explain Kagame winning more than 90% and the RPF more than 75% of the vote. Such vote tallies are not meant to be convincing; rather, they are meant to signal to potential opponents and the populace that Kagame and the RPF are in full control.
In an article called Behind the Façade of Rwanda's Elections(you can access through TWL) Reyntjens states:
Rwanda is a de facto one party state. The RPF maintains its political monopoly through intimidation, threats, human rights abuses, and the elimination of dissent. The regime fully controls the political landscape from the national to the local level. This control is exercised by an elite composed of the minority Tutsi ethnic group, and causes resentment and frustration among the Hutu majority. The RPF is fully aware that opening up the political system would eventually lead to a loss of power.
There's another interesting article, "Entrenched Dictatorship: The Politics of Rigged Elections in Rwanda since 1994" by Susan Thomson and Madeline Hopper
Right now the article is structured to focus on the campaigns, which is the correct structure if these are typical electoral contests where both sides have a chance to win. Instead, I would add an overview with scholarly analysis on the overall strategy and give less detail on the individual campaigns, because the outcome actually is decided in advance. (t · c) buidhe 02:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
@Buidhe: I've rewritten the elections section this morning - it now has two paragraphs of general discussion at the top, as you suggested. I've then reduced the discussion on each individual election to a couple of paragraphs each. I think it's still worth keeping those, as each election did receive widespread coverage worldwide and there were different players around on each occasion, even if the general narratives are similar. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 12:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Relisted at FAR, over four months now since this FAR was opened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Right now I am seeing an issue with WP:FACR#4, length (well over 10,000 words, and the most obvious thing to trim would be the election section as each one has its own article) and some lingering false balance issues (#1d), such as "Assassination allegations" attributed to Human Rights Watch, when I'm not sure there's any reliable source that disputes that the Rwandan government has carried out assassinations. Most scholarly sources state that RPF carried out assassinations after the civil war as a fact, including  (not to mention the new book Do Not Disturb). (t · c) buidhe 12:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
As of 10 April, Amakuru still working on this. I am concerned that five months is much too long to keep a FAR going, and hope that finishing the work here will be a priority. SandyGeorgia (Talk) `
Amakuru in glancing over the prose, I am finding considerable issues, and I am concerned that five months is stretching the good faith intentions of FAR beyond reasonable limits. The idea is to give editors time to work on issues, but the extensions do not seem to have resulted in work done here. Can we expect work on the sourcing concerns to finish soon? If not, I suggest we should think about proceeding to FARC. Once you finish sourcing work, a good deal of prose work is still needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: sorry for late reply - I think I missed your 10 April ping I think because it doesn't have a date on the signature. I'm not really sure what more to do on the content front. I disagree with Buidhe's suggestion that we should do away with the individual election campaigns. Irrespective of whether they were competitive or not, they still garnered significant international coverage and are part of a standard layout for a president's article. Re the "assassinatino allegations" I have dropped the word allegations from that section. I did wonder if it needed its own section, but perhaps as it transcended both the VP and presidency phases it is sensible there. There is some tidy-up needed with the last paragraph of the lead, and as you say prose polishing to do, plus sorting out the refs. But in my opinion it's OK at this point. Probably Buidhe disagrees but would be good to have some specific consensuses! Obviously if you feel it's time to delist it then so be it... It's a shame that we haven't got more people coming in through the FAR process. — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Ack Amakuru, so sorry for the faulty sig-- probably an artefact of my frequent iPad editing. I am desperately behind after three days in the garden, so will catch up here as soon as I can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
It is easy to find places where prose needs tightening:
There are five uses of subsequently, almost always redundant (and they are here). Looking at one sample:
Several Hutu politicians, including the prime minister Pierre-Célestin Rwigema, left the government at around the same time as Bizimungu, leaving a cabinet dominated by those close to Kagame. Bizimungu started his own party following his resignation, but this was quickly banned for "destabilising the country". He was subsequently arrested and convicted of corruption and inciting ethnic violence, charges which human rights groups said were politically motivated.
left ... leaving ... vary the wording ...
"subsequently" arrested ... could not have been arrested previously
Concern about representation of sources:
Text says: Since the end of the Rwandan genocide in 1994, Rwanda has enjoyed a close relationship with the English speaking world, in particular the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK).
The 2012 source mentions Clinton, saying that aid will be cut ... suggesting that large parts of this article may still be outdated or misrepresenting info based on current or broader sources (Clinton is not the US).
as well as supporting development projects.
Based on a primary source only, with no secondary source given. 
My concern is that wherever I look, I can find issues like this, so unless a top-to-bottom rewrite is undertaken, I think we are long past the time when we should proceed to FARC. Keeping an article of this nature updated requires constant vigilance, which this article does not seem to have had. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: - the point about the US is covered in the last paragraph of that section, detailing how they initially cut aid around 2012-13, but have subsequently revived it and remain close as of recently. And no problem with a primary source on a point of fact. But anyway, on the wider point, I'm obviously glad that this FAR has pushed me into updating this article, because I completely agree with the original assessment from l;ast year that it needed some updating based on later developments and the shift in scholarly POV. But I've done that, and I completely disagree that the idea that we now have to throw the whole thing away and start again. But anyway, so be it. I don't disagree that the prose could be polished in places and a few more updates made, but personally I'm satisfied that this article is a good and fair representation of this BLP and that's of more importance than whether it has a shiny gold star at the top or not. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Remaining issues include citations and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the FAR process has resulted in considerable improvement to the article, which is great. However, if this article came up at FAC I would definitely oppose it on the basis that it is not "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The article still has an overreliance on press articles compared to scholarship, which comes at the cost of privileging surface-level events to deeper analysis and understanding of underlying factors. I would also oppose on the lack of summary style and excessive detail in places. (t · c) buidhe 04:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Delist The article needs a thorough review of its prose to summarise and WP:SPINOUT longer sections. Discussion of Kagame's policies seems to be mixed with the Presidential section and should be given their own section. Amakuru had great edits on the article in April, but it still needs more work to bring it to FA standards. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: obviously it's clear that this article no longer has the support of the community as an FA, so I won't quibble on that point, but I'm curious why you think policies don't belong in the section on his presidency? Per other FAs such as Barack Obama, Richard Nixon etc, policies are generally included within that section in an article. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I was thinking of creating a "Political philosophy and views" section, similar to John Adams. However, I looked at other political bio FAs and I think a political philosophy section is not common. My suggestion was to put his personal philosophy into its own section so that the "Domestic policy" and "Foreign policy" sections would only contain what he did while in office and therefore be shorter. I still think those sections are too long and could use a trim. Z1720 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Work has been conducted on the article since I gave my perspective. I will reevaluate in the coming days. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep it's close, but I'm certainly leaning towards keeping. Paul Kagame is a current world leader, there is simply not enough written about him yet (and not enough known—consider what his policies and actions will influence in 50 years?) to split into sub articles, have a deeper understanding or even compare to figures like Nixon/John Adams. I am yet to see examples of the numerous pieces of relevant and significant literature that this article is supposably missing. The standards being held to this article are astronomical and not keeping with the reality of the situation; if this isn't an FA of the current leader of an African country, what is? Aza24 (talk) 02:15, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
there is simply not enough written about him yet Really? I made a long, incomplete, list of scholarly sources on the talk page. There's enough to say to fill several articles, which is why it's important to use summary style on the top level one. (t · c) buidhe 05:28, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes really, "there is simply not enough written about him yet to... have a deeper understanding". What are these pertinent comments and observations that the article is missing? Are we sure these sources do not just repeat information already present? And are we sure that they offer unique insights that are notable enough to even include? Just because there are unused sources is not a fault in itself, notwithstanding the question as to if they will add anything in the first place. Aza24 (talk) 08:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
The article would look quite different if you started over again with the scholarly sources and used news only to flesh out details if necessary. Different emphases, coverage of different topics, deeper analysis of certain topics that are not covered in news with omission of surface-level information that doesn't belong in this article. To cite just one example, Waldorf discusses how the RPF strategy to maintain its power is to offer rewards to a larger segment of the population rather than relying on political repression alone. The article gives a decent overview of many of the relevant policies, but it does not explain why they were decided upon or what purpose it serves. So it cannot be considered to meet FA criteria 1b or 1c. (t · c) buidhe 08:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24 and Buidhe: This process started with the request to update with latest literature, and make sure that the subject was presented from a neutral point of view. I spent considerable time doing that, with (per the original suggestion) strong reference to the Caplan paper, which is one of the latest balanced reviews out there and highlights all the major question marks around Kagame while also noting his achievements. All that is in the article, which now presents the timeline of his life with appropriate caveats everywhere regarding the different viewpoints. As I said before, you could read the latest book by Linda Melvern and you'd think Kagame's a saint, or alternatively you could read the latest book by Judi Rever or Michela Wrong and think he's the worst tyrant ever. This article doesn't take either of those two sides, as indeed it shouldn't per WP:BLP and WP:NPOV and I'm just glad that someone has finally come out to defend it. That's not to say that it's perfect of course, but the goal of FAR is to save the star if possible; and the proposed solution of removing the election campaigns, despite the significant coverage they received, isn't IMHO the answer. — Amakuru (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I struck my delist opinion above, and I'll take a look at this in the coming days. If I don't respond in a week, please ping me as I probably forgot. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Sorry it took so long to take a look at this. I posted comments and questions on the article's talk page, and that is where I will do my review to avoid making the FAR co-ordinators read all of my comments. Please respond to comments there. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Update: Work is continuing, but at a slower pace due to real-life events among editors. I recommend that this FAR stay open. Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are citation concerns from May 2020, an overreliance of the Ezenwa-Ohaeto source and bloated sections like "Influence and legacy" and "Masculinity and femininity". Z1720 (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC No engagement, 23 cn tags. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC - No significant engagement, significant work needed. Hog FarmTalk 21:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
Issues in the review section focus on sourcing and length. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Delist- lots of work needed, no engagement. Hog FarmTalk 03:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Wait - The issues above are being dramatized, this article is pretty close to FA standard. I want to get around to adding some refs to missing places and fix up other issues. I would ask that the coords hold on this. Aza24 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Once the article is fixed up, please ping me and I will conduct a copyedit and re-review. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this, Aza24.. I just don't have time for Wikipedia these days but I would hate to see this article get delisted. Scartol • Tok 19:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy to help, Achebe is truly a gem. Aza24 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I've dealt with all the cn tags (that were there when I got there—there appears to be an IP addressing some) except two thus far. I will note that I found it rather concerning that almost all of the tags were faulty ones; placed on lines that were in fact sourced by the reference at the end of the paragraph (I have, regardless, added additional/duplicate citations for these). I will also note that I checked Achebe's Oxford Bibliography entry and it seems that Ezenwa-Ohaeto is currently the most thorough source on his biography—and (because of this) one can see that almost no Ezenwa-Ohaeto refs are used in the style section. Additionally, the supposed "length" issue commented below the FARC section has not been brought up by a single editor (??). It is somewhat concerning that three experienced editors were so quick to vote "delist", and equally so that none of the issues were properly evaluated. I still have some more work to do, the holdup was due to me reading a few chapters on Achebe... Aza24 (talk) 05:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: I placed many of the cn tags that you fixed. When I reviewed the article, the prose contained many one-sentence paragraphs that were uncited, so I tagged them. Another editor merged the paragraphs together but kept the cn tags as the reference at the end of the new paragraph might not verify the information that was merged together. I am happy that most of the cn issues have been addressed. I don't mind removing duplicate references (and I actually prefer this, as footnotes distract the reader.) The length issues concern some sections that are very large, including the "Masculinity and femininity" section (especially the second paragraph) and the "Influence and legacy" sections. I recommend that someone familiar with this person review the article to try to more effectively summarise the article in the bloated parts. I am happy to re-review and copyedit once these are complete. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Still working Casliber. I'm yet to finish cleaning the life section yet, and have just gotten (like the day before yesterday) access to some sources through resource request, to hopefully diversify the citations in the biography. I know you guys are trying to keep the process moving, but I only really started editing on May 2nd (though I briefly cleaned up some things on April 23rd), so any lenience—if possible—would be much appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 00:05, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
More than happy to cut plenty of slack timewise if articles are being worked on. So take your time, there is no mad rush. We've kept things open for months if it looks like things are heading in the right direction Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping; I've gone through most of the life section and restructured/reorganized the sources. I'm yet to throughly go through 1.6–1.9 or the Influence and legacy section, which I hope to get to this weekend. Aza24 (talk) 02:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Hey Nikkimaria, I do want to continue work on Achebe—which I think is rather close—but I'm hoping to focus on the core contest until it ends on June 15th, would that be OK? Aza24 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: now that Core Contest is over, how are things looking here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Drafting a legacy section that I hope to finish today—will do my best to give an update on that later today. Aza24 (talk) 19:34, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Still working on this in sandbox and outside reading—on a trip until Monday though. Apologies, I know I’m taking a while with this and I very much appreciate everyone’s patience… Aza24 (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Update: The Influence and legacy section is finished, and the "Life and career" is more or less done, though I may try to diversify the sources a little more (everything in it sourced already, regardless). I am still copy editing and trimming the Style and Themes sections. @Z1720:, could you take a look at the Bio and legacy sections if you have some spare time? Aza24 (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Casliber, could you delete this 14 year old Talk:Chinua Achebe/to do page? Aza24 (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: I am sorry for my delayed response; real life has had to take precedence for me. I am putting this on my to-do list and I will review the sections above once I have more time. Feel free to ping/bug me if isn't done in a week. Z1720 (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Z1720, take as long as you need, seriously. Happy to return to this in a few weeks if you're too busy. Aza24 (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
I read through the bio and made copyedit: please review to ensure I did not change the meaning of something by accident. Some questions below:
"Achebe was admitted as a Major Scholar in the university's first intake" What is a Major Scholar? This should be clarified in the article.
"From its inception, the university had a strong Arts faculty; it included many famous writers amongst its alumni: Nobel LaureateWole Soyinka, poet and playwright John Pepper Clark, and poet Christopher Okigbo." Why is this sentence included in this article? Did these people influence Achebe? If so, how? If not, this information should be moved to the university's article.
"Achebe wrote a piece for the University Herald" What is the University Herald? A short description should be included in the article.
"When a professor named Geoffrey Parrinder arrived at the university" Is this Geoffrey Parrinder, and should it be wikilinked?
"Also in 1956, Achebe was selected at the Staff School run by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)." I'm confused by this sentence. What is the Staff School? Is it an institution, a program, or something else?
"By 1957, he had sculpted it to his liking," Is this implying that he finished writing and editing his work? I've rarely seen writing described as sculpting and I think a more direct description would be better.
"The VON's supposedly objective perspective was put to the test when Nigerian Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa declared a state of emergency in the Western Region, responding to a series of conflicts between officials of varying parties." What was the result of this "test"? Was VON able to maintain their neutrality? Maybe something like, "The VON struggled to maintain an objective perspective when Nigerian Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa declared a state of emergency in the Western Region, responding to a series of conflicts between officials of varying parties." And in the subsequent sentence, describe what the VON did to maintain/not maintain this neutrality.
This brings me to "Nigeria-Biafra War (1967–1970)" Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Either delist or don't, but you - the community of editors running the FAR process - need to decide what you want to do. You're pulling in different directions. Roughly in chronological order we've had the following suggestions:
1) POV content: The FAR process was started by a user who wanted to insert value judgements on the British Empire having failed to convince others his cherry-picked sources were representative;
2) MOS compliance: Most of the initial suggestions by the community on this page focused on style (mostly actioned?);
3) New content: A few editors have suggested adding material on aspects of the BE they consider to be important despite (a) reliable sources generally not focusing on them and (b) doing so would massively lengthen the article;
4) Copyediting: And lately we've had editors suggesting we cut material because the article is already too long.
I'm not pretending to be an academic expert with lots of titles and post-nominal letters, but I'm relatively well-read on this subject and can spot when others are not. Some of the suggestions made during this process may be well-meaning, but most of those under (1) and (3) are incompatible with Wikipedia's core policies and the MOS. The FAR process should be leading us towards greater compliance with the core policies, not away from them. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I generally agree with this. While I see no issues in the article with points 1) and 2), it really looks like there's no real consensus on whether or not 3) and 4). Discussion has been going on for months with no real headway. I don't know what the "no consensus" result for FAR is, but @WP:FAR coordinators: may want to consider whatever the no consensus result is, as it doesn't look like a consensus is likely to form either way here in a reasonable amount of time. Hog FarmTalk 05:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The "easy" was is to just conclude no consensus and delist, but that would almost certainly doom any broad article with even a hint of controversy. I have stayed at arm's length trying to look from afar. I'll try and read through in detail and conclude what outstanding issues are actionable and what aren't and where these are situated WRT consensus and policy. Might take a bit though..Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 05:50, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Can I just check what you just said @Casliber:, no consensus in the FAR process and the article would be delisted? That really does seem a charter for disruptive editors to run amok. Arguably the last two FAR have been about editors seeking to get their way to insert POV material into the article. I've been involved in putting a number of articles through FAR before now and I've always found the process to be helpful. But sadly I have found the process to be utterly demoralising this time and my enthusiasm for editing is once again waning. WCMemail 16:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: I'm not telling you anything new. All aspects of the featured article process are (and have always been) vulnerable to blackballing. It is (and has always been) up to coordinators to determine whether any outstanding issues/oppositions are valid. I was highlighting how vulnerable large/broad/possibly controversial articles are in all this. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 20:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Right - digesting all this now....23:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
A no-con here should result in a de-list: if peer-reviewing editors don't agree the article meets FA standard, then it has failed the peer review and shouldn't keep that its current status. After reading the discussion and the article, I also support delisting as well, but that's separate to my point about a de-list being the necessary outcome jf this were closed as a no-con.
Regarding the objection to de-listing because editors aren't willing "to tell us [what] can be done or ... help out in making it happen", that's really an indication that the objections to FA status are deeper than surface fixes. As many have said, it's currently a list of historical facts and lacks coverage of the empire's political, social and economic systems. Some editors argued that these systems continuously changed and therefore dedicated sections discussing these topics would be inappropriate – change doesn't make these institutions/processes any less crucial to full coverage of the topic. They could be integrated into the chronological narrative, but are not. This requires someone sitting down and working methodically through the sources in a way that can't reasonably be done on-demand. To demonstrate how much work there is, here's a list of structural problems and omitted topics/issues/themes:
Overly skewed towards historical events during and between the world wars and decolonisation (despite not covering decolonisation adequately). Dedicates the same amount of words to discussing a 30 year period as it does the preceding 100 years of the empire's height
Three paragraphs on the Suez Crisis – there are far more valuable ways to use those words.
Colonial administration not discussed (at all, really)
No discussion of 'indirect' rule (co-opting local elites in order to rule indigenous populations, particularly in Africa, but elsewhere e.g. Malaysia too; there's extensive academic discussion on how British rule differed in this respect from more direct French or German rule)
Coverage of acquisition and governance of India highly inadequate:
My concerns, just like those of others, are to do with major omissions and systemic bias that can't be fixed without someone putting in a lot of hard graft. I'm keen to put this on my to-do list and work cooperatively with other editors to get this back to FA when my current real life and on-wiki backlogs clear, but future work is quite possibly a long-term project beyond the scope of this FARC. Jr8825 • Talk 17:34, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I might as well dump this all on the talk page to hopefully start discussions on some of these things. Jr8825 • Talk 17:51, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I generally agree with the omissions raised above. (I've made similar points in my comments). Essentially, this article functions as a timeline, with the rebuttal to these suggestions being that because the Empire did not function uniformly across time, it should only consist of a timeline. I don't buy that argument, and think that we should indicate to the readers that the Empire didn't function that way. The rebuttal to this is that there's isn't room, to which the reply is that the excess material (such as the bloat in the Suez crisis stuff) should be moved to a new subarticle, likely at History of the British Empire. For some reason, the splitting off does not want to be done, and instead we wind up with a standstill here, with this functioning as a glorified timeline. Hog FarmTalk 18:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
More of the same. Someone has a quick skim and decides it doesn't mention the things they think are important without offering any assessment of whether reliable sources treat them as deserving significant weighting. Maybe previous editors over the last 20 years have somehow misread those sources. Maybe they missed 47,196 references to 'colonial police'; maybe they missed the chapters on 'Imperial Preference' or the Bengal Famine. Or maybe they didn't and maybe those sources don't consider such issues to require significant coverage: Colonial police don't seem to appear at all in any of the books on my shelf; 'Imperial Preference' gets mentioned twice in a highly rated 700-page book; Bengal Famine got a single line in some more "modern coverage". I guess the rebuttal to that would be that they're systemically biased? Just can't get reliable sources these days? Maybe I need to diversify my reading list?
If someone is willing to put the time in and provide an assessment of whether the topics listed are actually as important - across the range of reliable sources - as some editors think then I'm sure we'd all be willing to offer constructive criticism on any new text they could offer. If not then just close this. I'm sure the world will survive without the little star. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
A "quick skim" isn't a fair reflection of the work I put into to preparing that list. I spent a whole day reading, and obviously that's just scratching the surface of what'll be required to assess how many of my illustrative concerns are borne out across multiple sources. But I'm confident enough that the general problem, lack of content on areas other than political/military history, is sufficient to fail FACRITs 1b and 1d, and most likely 1c by extension too. Yes, the problem is probably the books on your shelf, because the historiography has moved on over the last 20 years and what might've been considered sufficient 20 years ago is not by historians today. The article is heavily reliant on sources from the 1990s and 2000s, and while these are obviously important and valid sources, there's a dearth of academic literature post-2010. I'm confident scholarship has developed considerably, not least because I've read some of it myself, and books published in the last decade are just as valid as earlier ones – potentially more so, as they're more distant from events themselves (how many of those tomes were written by British historians who lived through decolonisation – perhaps that's a reason why decolonisation is given so much weight in the article compared to earlier eras)? Nick-D listed some more recent works above, I hope to do the same in a week or so on the article talk page. I'm not trying to strip the article of a star out of vindictiveness, I've taken these points to the talk page and will do my best to try and engage with feedback there. Jr8825 • Talk 16:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jr8825: Starting of with just one example "British empire colonial police". Please tell us what you mean by this comment. WCMemail 15:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll get back to you on that in a new section on the article talk page in a few days, if you don't mind. Jr8825 • Talk 16:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I think I'd like you to do it now actually. I'll start, there was no "British empire colonial police", there was no such thing. Each individual colony for want of a better phrase had it's own police service. There is no mention of a "British empire colonial police" because there wasn't one. WCMemail 17:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you can't demand that I dig out the sources necessary to demonstrate the importance of an issue on the spot, or characterise my real life commitments as "disruptive", as you did on the talk page. I'm a volunteer just like you, and I'm trying pretty hard to cooperate. I've been putting off my IRL work to respond to your points over the last hour or so, but I can't do keep putting if off any longer so I really must go. I will try to give you a proper response as soon as I'm able to. Jr8825 • Talk 17:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I really should be working, but I just wanted to add that I'm finding your tone, particularly on the article talk page, quite offensive and unpleasant. I never suggested there was some kind of single unified police force. My suspicion is that the role of colonial police forces was a notable element of colonial governance in the British Empire. Jr8825 • Talk 17:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
As you yourself pointed out comment on content not editors. There is no tone in a textual communication and I'll draw your attention to the note I maintain on the top of my talk page:
"As a Glaswegian (born, bred and proud of it) I speak directly and don't pussy foot around. Whilst I'm direct, I do try to be polite. I have observed there are far too many editors on Wikipedia who take offence at comments I and others make. Usually this is because they read into a comment, a totally unintended meaning. Remember text is a crap medium for conveying nuance. What you interpret as sarcasm in all probability was a light hearted or jocular remark. Textual communication is further complicated by cultural differences in the way English is used. For example: An American describing something as quite nice will mean it as a compliment, whereas a Brit is more than likely saying it is crap. If you find yourself here after taking offence at something I've written, breathe, count to ten and assume good faith before posting."
I can't comment on the inference you decide to infer from my comments but so far our interaction doesn't look like you're assuming good faith.
You've made a number of assertions that your list was a result of detailed work and consideration of sources and took issue when another editor suggested it was the result of a skim read. And yet when challenged it seems you haven't done the work to demonstrate the importance of an issue when asked, which rather does suggest your list was the result of a bit of a skim read and there is no substance to it; somewhat amplified by your comment "My suspicion is that the role of colonial police forces was a notable element of colonial governance in the British Empire". We are guided by what reliable sources say not editor's suspicions. It's no wonder that editors who've put in hours of work already are frustrated by these well meaning suggestions and yet still you can't even begin to suggest how we square the circle of expanding the article to cover additional topics with the suggestion the article is already too long. WCMemail 18:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
My comment above explained that the list is a collection of concerns which all together led me to feel confident in the view I came to. Jr8825 • Talk 18:17, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
And yet when challenged you've not been able to sustain them. Lets go through them one by one:
Suez Crisis - three paragraphs is over coverage. Fundamentally I disagree, Suez resulted in a national humiliation and marked a transition between the old world order of European Empires and the domination of the US/USSR. As such it does warrant such attention.
Colonial administration: We don't discuss it at length within the article and that is not unusual for an overview of the British Empire. We do however wlink to articles that do explain the differences. It would difficult to distil this down to the necessary level for an overview.
Indirect rule. As above.
Coverage of acquisition and governance of India highly inadequate. This isn't appropriate for an overview - why pick out India in particular, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong or my personal favourite Sarawak.
Colonial police, which as I've already noted there wasn't a colonial police service. Again how do you in an overview explain in an Empire as diverse as the British Empire how individual police services were organised.
Anglo-Indians - why just Anglo-Indian? What made you pick this one out?
Settler/native social dynamics. Ok given the world wide nature and diversity in the British Empire, how would you distil this into a format suitable for an overview and still be within the article limits? It's a topic worthy of a multi-volume series.
Cultural impact? Again given the world wide nature and diversity in the British Empire, how would you distil this into a format suitable for an overview and still be within the article limits?
Mass migration? We do cover it but this being an overview, its of necessity very simplified and abstract,.
Imperial Preference. Barely mentioned and little more than a stub of an article, which indicates that perhaps not covering it is not inappropriate.
Tariffs vs Free Trade. Personally I think we have the balance right for an overview. I don't see general works on the British Empire giving much attention to this.
Causes of decolonisation not explained. Fundamentally disagree, this is explained and explained well.
Cripps Mission/Quit India Movement not mentioned. So what, this is the kind of detail that you have to prune in an overview.
"Reading the article, it would seem post-WW2 bankruptcy was the sole reason for decolonisation, rather than one factor among many" Then you've skim read. The article mentions anti-colonial movements, the USSR, the Cold War, the anti-Japanese guerilla movements turning against the British etc. I don't accept this as a valid criticism.
Controversies. No, we do cover various controversies in the British Empire, we simply can't cover every single one in depth.
Impact of decolonisation. We do cover this in a manner commensurate for an overview. I don't accept this as a valid criticism.
Military issues? Really on the one hand we're being criticised that this article concentrates too much on military history.
In summary, I've looked at your list. Many of the criticisms I don't accept as valid as the topic is already covered in a manner commensurate with the level of coverage expected in an overview. Others are diving down into a level of detail that is inappropriate or you're asking for coverage of topics too complex to cover in an overview. WCMemail 20:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to respond point by point. I think it's helpful to see how much disagree – the solution will have to be discussions of each separate point on the talk page, comparing notes and sources, as I work through it all over the coming weeks. Jr8825 • Talk 20:09, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Okay - I've read the discussion and compared the British Empire article from October 2020 till current:
Trying to keep reviewer and coordinator hats separate, which is a challenge.
I can see the writers have made some concessions - WRT peaceful 20th century transitions not being so peaceful, and mention of violence and disease being catastrophic to Australian indigenous people. Both are summarised as one-line changes, which I can live with as a concession - it is hard when trying to straddle the line between hagiography and critique and I guess it is safer to veer towards former (???)
I think more discussion about some India-related material is needed.
I can see some copyediting has taken place (which is good), but there has been opposition to more trimming on the talk page, which left Z1720 frustrated (not so good)
As the Requested Move failed, I guess we can assume that thee consensus was that the scope/balance of the current article is reasonable (and I guess cultural influences can be discussed in each of the subject nations). Hence opposes based on concern is more of a "history of..." can be excluded (I guess)
Which leaves the academic issues and length as outstanding. I think the scope is such that some laxity with length can be tolerated.
So - I will keep this open until September 30 and keep an eye on the talk page to determine the ironing out of consensus there. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll take a look at the article, specifically with respect to the Indian empire. Famines in India, in the current thinking by economic historians (such as Tirthankar Roy) not popular authors of polemical trade books (such as Tharoor or Dalrymple or Mike Davis) were not all caused by the British. Most followed back-to-back crop failures. The British wrote the Indian Famine Code of 1880 which became the template of famine preparation and management for the next 100 years (by the UN agencies and others). The concept of entitlements, quantified 100 years later by Amartya Sen was implicit in the Indian Famine Commission report of 1880. Here is a poignant description.
The first effect of a drought is to diminish greatly, and at last to stop, all field labour, and to throw out of employment the great mass of people who live on the wages of labour. A similar effect is produced next upon the artisans, the small shop-keepers, and traders, first in villages and country towns, and later on in the larger towns also, by depriving them of their profits, which are mainly dependent on dealings with the least wealthy classes; and, lastly, all classes become less able to give charitable help to public beggars, and to support their dependents. Such of the agricultural classes as possess a proprietary interest in the land, or a valuable right of occupancy in it, do not require as a rule to be protected against starvation in time of famine unless the calamity is unusually severe and prolonged, as they generally are provided with stocks of food or money, or have credit with money-lenders. But those who, owning only a small plot of land, eke out by its profits their wages as labourers, and rack-rented tenants-at-will living almost from hand-to-mouth, are only a little way removed from the class of field-labourers; they possess no credit, and on them pressure soon begins.
The flip side is that no Briton ever died of starvation during a famine in India, only Indian peasants (usually without land as the quote above suggests) did. So as there are two months, per Casliber, I'm going to try and revise the article for what some see the imbalance. I would request though that editors not spout names of authors. If you have a genuine criticism, paraphrase it in words. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Even famines conventionally laid at the doorstep of the British, such as Great Bengal famine of 1770 (whose lead I am currently revising with citations and quotes with a view to expanding the article) have undergone reevaluation in the recent literature. El Niño has played a much bigger role in Indian famines than hitherto thought. It is not as if India had no famines before the British, only no (or minimal) indigenous records. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
One controversial event I have just realized we haven't discussed yet is the Irish famine. It is mentioned in the article but there is no discussion about its causes. What is your/Wiki-Ed/Wee Curry Monster's opinion on that?--Quality posts here (talk) 16:05, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Quality posts here: - there's not really much point discussing our own views as editors, because we're obviously going to disagree (as can already be seen above). It's more helpful if you could provide the sources that support what you think should be included. Jr8825 • Talk 17:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Casliber mentioned my frustrations with a copyedit above. My assessment of the conversations is that there is consensus that there are places in the article that can be trimmed, but disagreement on what exactly or how much. On the article's talk page, an editor suggested that the post-WWII era might be a good place to start (specifically the Hong Kong transfer section). Unfortunately, no one stepped up to lead in this effort, including me. I am willing to do a copyedit and review of the article again, starting with post-WWII, if other editors are willing to answer questions that will arise and fix things that I do not have the specialty or time to do myself. Anyone interested in joining me in this? Z1720 (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: give me a week (until Sat 15th), and I'll happily lend a hand. As you may have seen on the talk page, I'm minded to create a shortened version of the article in my sandbox by cutting the details I think are extraneous and summarising sections of prose I think are overlong, so that we have something to compare with the existing text and can move on to the more practical task of quibbling over specific wording/details. I'm keen to research and write potential additions to broaden coverage on other aspects of empire, but I'm concerned about resistance to change and can't see how additions can be discussed without first demonstrating where the space for them would come from. If you have another approach in mind let me know. Jr8825 • Talk 19:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jr8825: I agree with your assessment that information cannot be added without analyzing what from the article can be trimmed or deleted. Ping me when you are ready. Z1720 (talk) 19:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Before you start ripping out sections of the article and discarding them, you might like to consider that the article has stood the test of time and over 20 years the wording has been picked over, repeatedly re-appraised, rewritten and whilst it might not be perfect you should be cautious about making sweeping changes. If you want support with copy editing fine, there are already people willing to help. But I note that some of the proposed changes I've already reviewed and many are not suitable and from the last copyedit 3 proposals were simply incorrect. I also note that we're still waiting to see what FAR can offer and how to resolve what are contradictory positions. And no this isn't resistance to change, its a concern about getting the balance right. If you want to start firing off questions, fire away. I would imagine @Wiki-Ed: is keen to pitch in too. WCMemail 07:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
OK so here are it's a week later and nothing. Which pretty much summarises this FAR, lots of well meaning commentary, much of it impractical and fundamentally contradictory. As I noted earlier, in the past I've always found FAR a useful process, this FAR has been awful, simply awful. WCMemail 07:43, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: I'm now working on this – I began reading the books and journal articles I'll need to go through yesterday. For what it's worth, I've put this ahead of the other on-wiki tasks I was working on to try and address my concerns within the extended time period Casliber has offered. I expect it will take some time before I'll be ready to bring suggestions to the talk page for both what can be cut/shortened and what text can take its place to address my concerns – it might take only a couple of days but I can't give an estimate. I have to say that the more I read, the move confident I've become about the problems I raised above (incomplete coverage of the topic, systemic bias). You said above that you think the majority of my concerns are invalid, so this looks like a content dispute to me. I hope you'll engage with my suggestions so we can find compromises which reflect the sources, which I think reflect some of the concerns raised by other reviewers here as well. Jr8825 • Talk 14:13, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
You might want to consider confirmation bias, if you start research with a predetermined outcome then you will subconsciously only pick out those elements of texts that support your hypothesis. As to incomplete coverage, I did already respond to those, so if you think I'm wrong it's up to you to convince myself and other editors differently. To do that you have to engage with other editors, not work on your own as you imply you're doing. I will of course listen to your suggestions but at the same time you have to square the circle that the two main comments in this FAR are mutually incompatible. WCMemail 14:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not in the caliber of editor of any of you all, nor a subject-area expert, but please ping me if you need an additional opinion, basic copyediting, or anything else. I like the article as it is, but I'm sure there are improvements that can be made. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd recommend keeping it as a Featured Article. Frankly I can imagine if you gave a dozen highly-knowledgeable people the ability to write this article, there could be a dozen very different articles that could reach the FA bar. No article covering this topic is going to be what each person thinks it should be. And that's okay. I rather like the article. I do think the Suez coverage is too long--even if you consider it a turning point in the history of the BE, we don't need that level of detail to understand why it is a turning point IMO. But that's a nit. Overall the article is great. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 12 August 2021 (UTC)