Reviewing featured articles

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

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

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns. 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.

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

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

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

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

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

Featured article reviews


Notified: all listed Wikiprojects, talk page notification from March 2021

As per Buidhe's talk page notice in March 2021, there is a dominance of ancient primary sources that are cited directly so there is a RS/OR problem Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Joan of Arc

Notified: Durova, WikiProject Vital Articles, WikiProject Biography/Military, WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject France, WikiProject Gender studies, WikiProject Citizendium Porting, 2021-07-25

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 Farm Talk 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)

James Joyce

Notified: WikiProject Switzerland, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject France, WikiProject Poetry, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Anarchism, WikiProject Socialism WikiProject , 11 June 2021

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)

Florida Atlantic University

Notified: User talk:KnightLago, all listed wikiprojects, notice from March 2021

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)

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)

2003 Pacific hurricane season

Notified: WikiProject Tropical cyclones, diff

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)

Malcolm X

Notified: Malik Shabazz, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, WikiProject Civil Rights Movement, WikiProject Islam/Muslim scholars task force, WikiProject New York City, WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject Religion/New religious movements work group, 05-28-2020 06-19-2021

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)

Texas A&M University

Notified: Buffs ([1]), WikiProjectHigher education, ([2])

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.
Which images lack alt text? Alt text may be desired by you, but does not appear to be one of the requirements of a Featured Article
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.
  • Did the "University era" end in 2013? No, but few major things have happened in the past 8 years. If you feel something has been missed, feel free to mention it, but you can't say you're missing something without specifying what's missing.
  • 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:

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, 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"
  • "", 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.
  • "" 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."
  • "" The only thing it's cited for is an utterly uncontentious claim about where the college came from that neither school disagrees with. 1 2 3. 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)
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:

I'll add more later. Feel free to respond under each bullet if you want to keep it a little more organized. ~ HAL333 22:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll address the rest later Buffs (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I would also like you to strike your initial remarks as they are not accurate. WP:AGF that this was a mistake. Buffs (talk) 04:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Here are some more non-reference issues:

More comments later. ~ HAL333 00:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Third wave of comments:

That's all for now. ~ HAL333 01:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hal Arbitrary break

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)

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.

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)
  • Fixed
  • 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:

  • 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)

More comments. Sorry for the delay.

Those are some thoughts. I'm at "Campus". Z1720 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Shadow of the Colossus

Notified: Ryu Kaze, WikiProject Tokusatsu, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Japan diff for talk page notification

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.


Sources that are listed as unreliable at VGRS and need replaced

Hog Farm Bacon 04:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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 Farm Talk 02:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on the article at present:

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 Fuchs talk 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Punk rock

Notified: Guerillero (diff), Finnusertop (diff), Ceoil (diff), Tony1 (diff), SandyGeorgia (diff), WikiProject Music (diff), WikiProject Punk music (diff), WikiProject Rock music (diff)

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 --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • tense, pace and tone are major issues 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".[202] 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.[203] At the same time, as observed by Flipper singer Bruce Loose..." Ceoil (talk) 00:36, 18 June 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)
  • 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)

Lee Smith (baseball)

Notified: Wknight94, Nishkid64, MisfitToys, WP Chicago, WP Biography, WP Baseball, WP Illinois, WP USA, WP College basketball, Noticed in early April

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 Farm Talk 22:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Dmoore5556? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 28 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)


@Dmoore5556: - I'll give this another quick look-through. Hog Farm Talk 04:01, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Through the Cubs stuff; will pick back up soon. This is looking much better sourcing-wise. Hog Farm Talk 05:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This is looking much better. That's my second round of comments here. Hog Farm Talk 03:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Empire

Notified: Arajakate, Ms Sarah Welch, Pied Hornbill, Dineshkannambadi, WP Indian history,‎ WP Karanatak, ‎ WP Andhra Pradesh, WP India, WP Hinduism, WP Former countries, talk page notification 2020-08-20

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)

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)
What's wrong with the talk page notice? Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:44, 18 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 Arajakate Talk 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.
  • Source:FA
"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).[74] The number of castes had multiplied into several sub-castes and community groups[74] 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)

Quite a bit of work needed here still; I haven't checked further than this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I will start working on this from this weekend.Pied Hornbill (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Some scripts for detecting HarvRef errors are at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 1 May 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)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

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)
Comments from Z1720

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.

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)

Continuing copyedit:

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)

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)

Featured article removal candidates

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

Rugby World Cup

Notified: WikiProject Rugby union

Review section

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)

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)
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)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, coverage and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Hungarian Revolution of 1956

Notified: Every project that is listed; all the original writers have long retired; diff for talk page notification from April 2021

Review section

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)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Roman–Persian Wars

Notified: Yannismarou as the FAC/GA nominator and ZxxZxxZ and burh as frequent editors, the projects listed on the talk page

Review section

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) shows a lot of the secondary sources are not linked to - so if they are still useful they should perhaps be moved to "further reading" Chidgk1 (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Toronto Raptors

Notified: Chensiyuan, Johnny Au, Ergotelis123, Charlesaaronthompson, WP NBA, WP Canada, WP Sports, WP Basketball, 2021-04-06

Review section

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 Farm Talk 05:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Sabbatino, Amchow78, Leventio, and Bagumba for more input. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Agreed. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:15, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Hog Farm: Article hasn't had any citations added to it since May 27. Can you reconsider? Link20XX (talk) 12:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
      • @Johnny Au and Leventio: - Could we get an update on how this is progressing? Hog Farm Talk 03:59, 30 June 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 Farm Talk 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 Farm Talk 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.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
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)
  • 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.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:23, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
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)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include length and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Restoration of the Sistine Chapel frescoes

Notified: Amandajm, WP Visual arts, WP Vatican City, WP Christianity, WP Collections Care, Noticed by Sandy last November

Review section

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 Farm Talk 03:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Flag of Armenia

Notified: Crzycheetah, Aivazovsky, Zscout370, WP Armenia, WP Heraldry and vexillology, noticed in late March

Review section

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 Farm Talk 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 Farm Talk 06:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

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 Farm Talk 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 Farm Talk 17:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Exactly!-Cheetah (talk) 06:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

--Cheetah (talk) 07:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Night of the Long Knives

Notified: Mcattell, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Politics, 30-06-2021

Review section

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)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico

Notified: Mtmelendez, WP Puerto Rico, noticed on June 5, 2021

Review section

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 Farm Talk 17:47, 24 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)
The Eloquent Peasant, are you still planning more work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:16, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
No, @Nikkimaria:. I am not. Thanks. --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 01:19, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
  1. "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.
  2. "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.
  3. "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.
I think it meets the quality for featured article.--The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm, do these updates address your concerns? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@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 Farm Talk 04:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hispanic Americans in World War II

Notified: User talk:Marine 69-71, WT:MILHIST, WT:USA FAR notice from Dec 2020

Review section

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)

  • 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)
  • 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:

And there's a couple other marginal ones I just didn't get around to bringing up. This needs considerable sourcing work. Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

I've encountered that 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 Farm Talk 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)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Globular cluster

Notified: WikiProject Astronomy, diff for talk page notification

Review section

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)

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)
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)
Done. Wretchskull (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
Fixed. Lithopsian (talk) 17:21, 28 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.

  • 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)
This seems to be ok. Both locations, plus the image caption, appear to be sensible to mention this type of star. 2A02:C7F:7428:D200:9958:D746:E82D:FAD5 (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
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 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)
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)
SandyGeorgia comments

This is going to need a lot of citation cleanup before further prose evaluation can begin.

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)
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)
Done. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 20:30, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
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)
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 have expanded the European Southern Observatory and Students for the Exploration and Development of Space acronyms in the references, used the press release templates, updated URLs and access dates where needed, and added ID numbers to releases for additional permanence. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 05:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
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)

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.

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)
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)
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)
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)
Text tweaked. Lithopsian (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I#ve added a much more recent reference and rewritten that sentence, although the sentiment is still the same. 2A02:C7F:FC49:3300:1B8:16B7:6A94:8124 (talk) 14:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Done. I've gone with no spaces. Messier objects are almost universally abbreviated without a space, although Simbad is one of a very few exceptions. Lithopsian (talk) 15:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

FemkeMilene (talk) 19:41, 27 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.
Clarified.—Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Ditto for open cluster.
Clarified that both globular and open clusters are types of star clusters. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
  • What is the "Disk of a spiral galaxy"?
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)
See new replies above. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Continuing ...
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)
Moved the image to the section in which it's used. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I picked the section on simulations for a prose check, as that is a topic I do understand ...

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)

"" 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)
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)
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)
Between two binary systems is what the source says. Clarified. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 07:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
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
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)

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 Farm Talk 23:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

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 Farm Talk 19:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Great Lakes Storm of 1913

Notified: Brian0918, GreatLakesShips, 7&6=thirteen, WP Lakes, WP Weather, WP USA, WP Canada, noticed in March

Review section

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 Farm Talk 05:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

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)
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 Farm Talk 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 Farm Talk 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 through The Wikipedia Library, and I'm willing to try to find contemporary sources for stuff, if needed. Hog Farm Talk 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)
@North8000: - I'll try to give this another read-through son. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 7 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)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and layout. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

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 Farm Talk 04:00, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I'll work on several of those bulleted items.North8000 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

I think that all of the (six) noted items have been resolved.North8000 (talk) 14:03, 14 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:

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:

  1. "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)
  2. 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)
  3. "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)
  4. " 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)
  5. 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?
  6. 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)
  7. For "Prelude" can the two paragraphs be combined, per MOS:OVERSECTION?
  8. "The forecast predicted increased winds and falling temperatures over the next 24 hours." Need a citation
  9. "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)
  10. 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)
  11. 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)
  12. November 9 has a lot of small paragraphs. Can these be reorganised and combined together?
  13. "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)
  14. 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)
  15. First paragraph of "Aftermath" needs citations
  16. "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)
  17. "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.
  18. "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)
  19. "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)
  20. "was also noted and criticized." By whom?
  21. "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)
  22. "The most recent discovery is Hydrus, which was located in mid-2015.[60] The last wreck found previous to Hydrus was Henry B. Smith in 2013.[63] Among the debris cast up by the storm was wreckage of the fish tug Searchlight lost in April 1907.[64]" 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 Farm Talk 01:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The copyedit has now been completed. Hog Farm Talk 14:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

William Tecumseh Sherman

Notified: John Flaherty, Hal Jespersen, Eb.hoop, Hartfelt, WP Science and academia, WP Milhist, WP Louisiana, WP Ohio, WP Georgia, WP Missouri, WP St Louis, talk page notificiation 2020-11-11

Review section

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.

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 Farm Talk 00:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

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 Farm Talk 03:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with removing the stamps section. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 14 May 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!

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 Farm Talk 18:12, 9 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 Farm Talk 05:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Paul Kagame

Notified: Amakuru, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Rwanda, 2020-11-11 talk page

Review section

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)

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)
@Amakuru: Could we get an update on status? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2021 (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:
  1. Maybe rework "Congo wars" a bit so that the motives behind the wars are more objectively described.
  2. In presidency, more discussion on the claims of domestic human rights infringements.
  3. 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 [19](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"[20] 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)

It is easy to find places where prose needs tightening:

Concern about representation of sources:

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)

FARC section

Remaining issues include citations and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 24 April 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)
    Fair enough, thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 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)
  • 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)

Chinua Achebe

Notified: Scartol, WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WikiProject Nigeria, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Disability, WikiProject Igbo, 2021-02-16

Review section

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)

FARC section

Issues in the review section focus on sourcing and length. DrKay (talk) 19:32, 2 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)
Okay @Aza24: where are we up to on this one? Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:10, 8 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)

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:

This brings me to "Nigeria-Biafra War (1967–1970)" Z1720 (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

British Empire

Time to close this?

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:

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 Farm Talk 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)
Thanks, Cas. Hog Farm Talk 05:56, 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:

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. Jr8825Talk 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. Jr8825Talk 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 Farm Talk 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. Jr8825Talk 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. Jr8825Talk 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. Jr8825Talk 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. Jr8825Talk 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. Jr8825Talk 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:

  • 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?
  • 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.
  • 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.

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. Jr8825Talk 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. Jr8825Talk 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. Jr8825Talk 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. Jr8825Talk 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)
Valid points. Keeping an eye. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:09, 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)