Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/February 2022

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 February 2022 [1].

He-Man as a gay icon

[edit]
Nominator(s): PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... He-Man, the Strongest Man in the Universe! But not quite. Specifically, it is about how He-Man has often been analysed and interpreted as being a gay man, with various critics, scholars, and publications pointing out how homoerotic his character is; for a variety of reasons. It is likely for these reasons, as well as a few others, that He-Man has also ended up amassing a substantial gay following, becoming a rare gay icon that isn't a female celebrity. While his sister She-Ra was depicted as openly lesbian in Netflix's reboot, the jury's still out on He-Man himself, although Mattel doesn't seem particularly opposed to it.

I think this might be the first article of its kind—it's definitely the first "XXX as a gay icon" article that is about a male or fictional figure—so hopefully it can become a featured article and possibly pave the way for other similar articles in the future. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from Kavyansh; suggesting to withdraw

[edit]

I have not taken a look at the entire article, but few fundamentally basic issues from a quick read:

  • See MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID for lead's first sentence
  • Single page numbers usually take just 'p.'; we have lots of 'pp.' for single page numbers here.
  • The prose is not fully up-to FA standards. Few examples:
    • "The status of He-Man as a gay icon and application of queer theory to his character dates back decades." — how many decades back? shouldn't we directly mention the year or time-period?
    • "The queer reading of He-Man's character, particularly his relationship with Skeletor, has been referenced in other media as well as being utilized in advertisement and for charity." — what is "other media"?
    • "Regarding the fascination with the male physique and attention given to He-Man's body in the franchise, Cornelius describes this as reminiscent of the Castro clones and gay clone culture that prevailed in the United States around the same period the original cartoon aired."
    • "Given the time period of the show's original airing, it's believed its gay subtext was either unintentional or the result of queer coding." — who believes that?
    • "with Cornelius proclaiming that He-Man’s “clothing and physique are designed to relay a message that otherwise can not be sent”."
    • "The event was inspired by Mason's childhood love for the He-Man franchise and Skeletor was one of his personal heroes, and attracted the attention of fashion designers Helmut Lang and Marc Jacobs."
  • Sources:
    • Suggesting to hyphenated ISBNs
    • What makes the following "highest quality reliable sources", required by the FA criteria?
      • Comic Book Resources
      • Wired
      • IGN — WP:IGN specifically states that IGN's blogs should be handled with WP:RSBLOG. WP:RSBLOG states that "[blogs] may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because blogs may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process". Is the author, Kyle Watson, a professional in this field?
      • PR Newswire — WP:PRNEWSWIRE stated that PR Newswire is generally unreliable.

Nice work has been done, but I am not confident that FA criteria is met, so I am Opposing and suggesting to withdraw the nominating. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: Also noticed that the article just last month failed the GA review: Talk:He-Man as a gay icon/GA1. Pinging the reviewer—@GhostRiver. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:37, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from GhostRiver

[edit]

The most explicit reason why I failed this article during the GA nomination process, as opposed to placing it on hold with detailed comments, is in the quality of sourcing. Namely, I had serious concerns with the use of ironic, catty, clickbaity articles such as 25 Cartoon Characters Who Should Just Come Out Already or 18 Childhood Cartoon Characters Who Were Totally Queer. Both of those sources are still incorporated into the article; the only one I explicitly critiqued that has been removed is one that was from a homophobic bait website. I'm a bit disappointed that this was taken to FA without a serious overhaul based on my GAN commentary, or at least without another good article nomination first. — GhostRiver 16:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If your main issue is with the sourcing, then why not just do the most simple thing and do a source review? I cannot know what your subjective opinion of a good or bad review is. Just because you take issue with one source and think it's "catty" or whatever, doesn't mean everyone else will. I don't know, maybe you skimmed through them and thought they weren't adequate enough, it's likely someone else will think they're appropriate. Unless you provide a listing of which sources you have an issue with and why, there's nothing I can do about them. And if you wanted to, you could have provided actual, thorough assistance either during the first GAN, rather than giving up, or the second one. --PanagiotisZois (talk) 19:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to be my final comment on the FAC itself, as it is waiting to be archived. But I feel as if I need to respond to some points. I did not conduct a source review in full here because it would be redundant to the comments I left on the good article nomination. I did not take issue with one source, I explicitly mentioned two here that stood out to me, and Kavyansh.Singh mentioned others. I am unsure where you get the impression that it's likely someone else would find those sources appropriate, considering, as I said, Kavyansh.Singh already highlighted several areas in which the best available sourcing was questionable. To what I take particular offense is the idea that I only skimmed through the articles in question, as if Prince Adam isn't really fooling anyone with those lavender yoga pants, furry underwear and tight shirt will somehow become a serious piece of scholarly work the harder I look. I did, in fact, include a list of sources I did not find reputable in the GAN, and I was met with resistance, followed by silence after I proposed an example of what I considered a reliable source on what makes (admittedly another individual, but) someone a gay icon. Based on the hostility I received after the first nomination, in conjunction with the fact that I have an occupation and life outside of Wikipedia, including a number of health issues of which others on this website are aware, I felt no strong compulsion to conduct an additional review, particularly when so few of my comments had been initially addressed.
To conclude: I am a volunteer conducting a volunteer service. It is within my rights to fail a good article nomination if the article in question is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria. I mentioned several citations with which I took issue, including the two mentioned in this FAC above, and highlighted specific phrases that gave me pause. The volatile responses I have received both here and at the GAN make me unwilling to give this article the most thorough review that I can. Why would I put energy into providing commentary that will only be met with gruff refusals?
In any case, the point is moot, as it appears you have moved this article from mainspace to a redirect. I only hope that you can clear your head and think about the points raised not just by me but by the previous opposition. — GhostRiver 20:35, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"I did, in fact, include a list of sources I did not find reputable in the GAN, and I was met with resistance, followed by silence after I proposed an example of what I considered a reliable source on what makes (admittedly another individual, but) someone a gay icon". Oh, give me a fucking break. You didn't even wait one goddamn day to give me time to improve any of that shit before you decided to immediately fail the good article nomination. Maybe I'd have been more receptive to your commentary if you hadn't failed the review barely an hour after you started it, which clearly indicated that you didn't care all that much about helping me or the article be improved.

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This article is in need of further work to prepare it for an FAC noination, so I am archiving it to allow this to be done. I would recommend PR. The usual two week break will apply.

Correcting to archived: [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 21 February 2022 [3].

Speak Now

[edit]
Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Swift has always been an overselling singer, but she was an underrated songwriter. With her third album, 2010's Speak Now, she wrote all songs by herself to prove that she was not your average pop star. Some patronizing or slut-shaming lyrics aside, this album appeals to not only Twilight-loving teen girls but also emo fans or even arena rock audiences with its loud, soaring guitars. After taking this article through a GAN and a copyedit by GOCE member Baffle gab1978, I now nominate it for FAC, believing it is comprehensive, well-sourced, and most importantly, well-written. Ippantekina (talk) 04:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Taylor_Swift_-_Speak_Now_cover.png: source link is dead
  • File:Taylor_Swift_-_Back_To_December_(Clip).ogg needs a more expansive FUR. Also the FUR claims that this song is 3 minutes 51 seconds - that doesn't match up with what's in the article
  • File:Mine_Taylor_Swift.ogg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did the source review for Ippantekina's last T Swift Album FAC and I will do this one as well. My first comment is that the Australian Recording Industry Association citation links to an ELNEVER location. Please remove it --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Guerillero: May I know the progress with the source review? Ippantekina (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG

[edit]
  • The mention of the Speak Now Tour should be mentioned after the singles release and sales figure IMO as they happened (at least started) before the tour.
  • "After the album's release, Swift embarked on the Speak Now World Tour, which visited Asia, Europe, North America, and Australasia from February 2011 to March 2012." There need to be non-breaking spaces for "February 2011" and "March 2012".
  • It's probably worth mentioning that the album sold 1 million copies in its first week especially since it gained Swift a Guinness World Record entry.
  • "Some critics complimented Swift's grown-up perspectives, but some others" - you don't necessarily need the second "some".
  • "American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift released her second studio album Fearless through Nashville-based Big Machine Records in November 2008." Same as above (NBSP).
  • "Swift wrote the title track "Speak Now" after hearing a friend's ex-boyfriend was marrying another woman" - I would suggest removing "Speak Now" and piping the song's link to "title track", as it makes it clear the the song is in fact called Speak Now.
  • "Although Swift was 'interested to hear the response from the guys [she'd] written about', she did not publicly name the subjects" - the quote can easily be paraphrased.
  • "She did reveal Kanye West, who interrupted Swift's acceptance speech at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, is the subject of "Innocent"." - The sentence is grammatically incorrect. Take out the parenthesis ("who interrupted Swift's acceptance speech at the 2009 MTV Video Music Awards"), and you can see why.
  • Kanye West is linked twice in the main body.
  • "The recording process started with the recording of a first demo; Swift recorded vocals and played guitar, and Chapman sang background vocals and played other instruments." - derivatives of the word "record" are repetitively used.

I have read to the end of "Composition" section. Nothing major jumping out so far. FrB.TG (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FrB.TG: Hello, thank you for taking time reviewing the article. I will address your concerns when you have examined the whole article. Best, Ippantekina (talk) 07:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coord note we're getting close to the three-week mark without any supports. If there is not progress towards promotion in the next few days, the FAC may be archived. (t · c) buidhe 23:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 19 February 2022 [4].

2021 World Snooker Championship

[edit]
Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2021 edition of the World Snooker Championship. Mark Selby won his fourth title, in a really good event. For reference, six of the previous seven articles in the series are also at FA; so hopefully there isn't too much work to do. This is the second attempt at this one, after the previous one was closed for inactivity. Let me know what you think of the article. :) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ChrisTheDude

[edit]
  • "It was the 45th consecutive year that the tournament had been held at the Crucible" - slightly redundant since you said in the previous section that it's been held there since 1977
  • "Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan" - probably don't need to restate his forename
  • "Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan played debutant Mark Joyce in the opening match" - same again for both players
  • "Reigning Masters champion Yan Bingtao played Martin Gould" - again, probably don't need to restate Gould's forename. Check for any other such instances. I would say that after a player's full name has been established in the body of the article they should then only be referred to by surname.
  • "after serving a year-long ban" - probably worth saying what this was for
  • "The second session opened with Tian" - what does it mean when you say the session "opened with Tian"?
  • "Gary made two half-century breaks" - appreciate that there were two Wilsons involved, but it seems a bit informal to just refer to him as Gary. Might need to use his full name (or find a way to reword a bit)
  • Same with the other usages relating to this match
  • "The second round matches was" - plural/singular disagreement
  • "Trump led 11–5, who won 13–8" - reads a bit oddly. Maybe "Trump led 11–5 and went on to win 13–8"
  • "before frame 19 lasted over an hour, was also won by Bingham" - doesn't quite read right grammatically, maybe "before frame 19 lasted over an hour, and was also won by Bingham"
  • "Selby, then won three straight frames" - no need for that comma
  • That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source & verification review by MrLinkinPark333

[edit]

Hey Lee. I'll do a source review of this one (review version). As this is a lengthy article, I'll have to break up my review into sections. I'll do the easier sections first:

  • Qualifying stage centuries:
    • "made by Mark Davis in his third round win over Stuart Carrington." - Centuries list for qualifiyng doesn't mention winner of each match. Therefore, "third round win over" -> "third round match against" or something similar.
  • Main stage centuries:
    • Archived copy of Centuries in the Main Stage needs to be adjusted to May 14th to show all 108.
    • "surpassing the previous best of 100 set in 2019" - Original Research as only the 2021 centuries are listed
    • "made by Shaun Murphy in his second round win over Yan Bingtao." - same as above, the Centuries list doesn't state the winners of each match. So, I suggest "second round win over" -> "second round match against"
    • "three short of the record held by Stephen Hendry, but made an additional four centuries in qualification" - two Original Research issues here. 1) No mention of Hendry's record of 13 centuries in main stage. 2) While Bingham did indeed made 4 additional centuries in qualifying, only the main stage centuries are cited in this section (qualifying centuries are in a different source).
  • Qualifying
    • No mention of Kowalski and Yize withdrawing / Hussain and Leclercq replacing at WST Qualifiers. New source needed.
    • No mention of Xiwen, Fu, and Mifsud withdrawing / White, Davison, and Fernandez replacing them as Q school entries. New source needed.
    • Also, since White, Davison, and Fernandez are amateurs, a source that states this could also help, as it'd prevent confusion of why there are 19 amateurs instead of 16.
    • "the 16 amateur players selected to participate in the qualifying rounds" - Kowalski and Yize were selected to play by WPBSA, not Hussain and Leclercq. However, you did mention them earlier in the paragraph (withHussain and Leclercq replacing Kowalski and Yize). If it's easier, you can drop Hussain and Leclercq in the last sentence of the paragraph and adjust the sentence to mention the remaining 14 amateurs. Then, in the first sentence of the paragraph, mention Hussain and Leclercq are amateurs so all are covered.
  • Qualifying draw:
    • Allan Taylor & Bai Langning's 1st round match was 6-4 not 6-3 per World Snooker Full Draw.
    • Mark Joyce & Anthony Hamilton's 3rd round match was 6-3 not 6-4 per Full Draw.
    • The rankings do not match the snooker.org rankings. Either a new source is needed or all of the rankings need to be replaced.

More to come later --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Main draw
    • Need source(s) to show the dates each match was held and how many frames per match to win for all rounds [first rounds all the way to final] as snooker.org doesn't say.
    • Session 3 frame 1 was 4-84, not 4-87
    • Session 3 frame 2 Selby has 62 break
    • Per Session 3 break of 62 for Selby, it'd be 15 50+ breaks for Selby, not 14 --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
    • Gotta have to request the Snooker Scene source either by you or someone else as I don't see verification with the other 2 WST sources. Note to self: come back later to fully check afterwards
    • "The first World Snooker Championship took place in 1927" - well, the final was in 1927, but it started in November 1926 per Chris Turner.
    • "Since 1977, the event has been held at the Crucible Theatre in Sheffield, England" - not verified by Historic England.
    • "Organised by World Snooker, in partnership with the World Professional Billiards and Snooker Assoication (WPBSA)" - little bit of rewording needed as it's almost exactly the same as The Star.
    • "The 2020 championship was won by English player Ronnie O'Sullivan, who defeated compatriot Kyren Wilson" - no mention in the three sources that both players are from England. I also think 3 sources is excessive as they say the same thing (apart from the England part).
  • Format
    • "took place between 17 April and 3 May 2021 at the Crucible Theatre" - BBC Sport has all expect May 3rd for the final. Either source can be swapped out or extra source needed.
    • "The event featured a 32-player main draw contested at the Crucible" - doesn't mention Crucible, so can easily be reworded to "at the Championship" or something similar.
    • Ents24 is a website selling tickets to the championship. I don't think this a high-quality source, nor needed as snooker.org already covers the 2020-21 season in the "last of 15 ranking events" sentence.
    • "It was the 45th consecutive year that the tournament had been held at the Crucible" - Not verified by Historic England, so the source needs swapping out.
    • "sponsored by sports betting company Betfred, as it has been since 2015" - SBC News says Betfred has sponsored the torunament since 2009, not 2015.
    • "qualified for the main draw as seeded players. Defending champion Ronnie O'Sullivan was automatically seeded first overall" - not sure if Eurosport if clear enough about the seeded parts to verify. Might be better to combine references with the next one (Race to the Crucible).
    • "released after the 2021 Tour Championship which was the penultimate ranking event of the season." - no mention by WPBSA that Tour Championship was penultimate ranking event.
  • Coverage
    • Not 100% sure about the reliability of Sporting Free per their About Us page. No indication of a editorial team. I don't think this is a high-quality source for FA. Therefore:
      • New source needed to show the Tournament was shown on BBC Television and BBC Online.
      • "Superstars Online, Zhibo.tv, Youku, and CCTV in China; by NowTV in Hong Kong; and by DAZN in Canada, the United States, and Brazil" - majority of this is Original Research. The only channel mentioned by Sporting Free is DAZN. However, it specifically states Canada only, not USA or Brazil. The other channels/countries are not mentioned. There is also the question of whether this is a high-quality source for FA or not. In any case, majority of this sentence is not verified.
    • "broadcast in Europe and Australia by Eurosport, who also covered the qualifying rounds" - Eurosport only mentions it would broadcast the 17 days of the tournament (April 17 - May 3), not the qualifying rounds beforehand.
    • "It was the first and only event of the 2020–21 snooker season not to be staged behind closed doors." - not stated by World Snooker Tour.
  • Prize fund
    • Need source to show maximum break prizes for main stage and qualifying stage (World Snooker Tour doesnt have it).

--MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Going to have to stop here for several reasons: I don't have access to the Snooker Scene source, so I would need to request access. However, I've been finding Original research issues. If it was simple errors like 6-4 instead of 6-3, that'd be okay. However, there are instances where sentences are not backed up by the sources (i.e. Hendry's record, Fu withdrawing, 2021 Tour Championship being pentultimate, streamed on Superstars Online, etc.) I also do not think Sporting Free or Ents24 are not high-quality sources for FA. Please note I have not gone through the Summary or sub-sections. If you are wanting to me to continue to review the rest, both the Original Research & questions of high-quality sources will need to be addressed first. Let me know what you think. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 February 2022 [5].

Christiaan Huygens

[edit]
Nominator(s): Guillermind81 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the little well-known, 17th-century Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens, who was arguably second only to Newton during that century. The article follows all FA criteria, including being well-written, comprehensive, and substantiated with appropriate references. It also follows Wikipedia's manual of style and has relevant images throughout.--Guillermind81 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Buidhe

[edit]

I commend your work on this important article, but I think there are some improvements needed to make this a featured article.

  • Inconsistent lead citing, some lead material is not repeated in the body (i.e. "one of the founders of modern mathematical physics")
  • Bulleted lists of material with unclear relevance, which I removed
  • The works section could be its own bibliography article
  • Inconsistent reference formatting. For example, some ISBNs are omitted
  • Lack of page numbers in citations, eg. "Elzinga, A. (1972). On a research program in early modern physics. Akademiförlaget."
  • "Howard, N. C. (2003). Christiaan Huygens: The construction of texts and audiences (Master's thesis). Indiana University." — cited several times, without page numbers and unlikely to be a high-quality reliable source. Another master's thesis "Christiaan Huygens – A family affair, by Bram Stoffele, pg 80" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 August 2017. Retrieved 16 February 2013. is also cited (the citation is also poorly formatted)
  • Shafer, G. (2018). Pascal's and Huygens's game-theoretic foundations for probability. [2] Archived 5 December 2020 at the Wayback Machine what makes this preprint a high-quality RS, especially when it barely mentions the subject?

Therefore, oppose and recommend withdrawal (t · c) buidhe 08:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'd recommend withdrawal. Those are all things that could be fixed with a bit of elbow grease. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comments. The issues listed may be significant but are not insurmountable. I ask for the opportunity to fix these before considering withdrawal.Guillermind81 (talk) 18:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I partially disagree with this removal. Recording things named after scientists is something we do. Perhaps it could be a separate page, but it doesn't seem out of place here; perhaps it could be more prosified, but a list is not terrible for the purpose. I replaced the citations to Shafer (2018). The citation to Stoffele's thesis appears to be redundant with the footnote to Aldersey-Williams's book immediately preceding and could probably be removed entirely. The other issues mentioned above look like straightforward, though perhaps somewhat tedious, fixes. I wouldn't recommend withdrawal at this point. XOR'easter (talk) 22:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Recording things named after scientists can be encyclopedic, but I see no evidence it's WP:DUE in this article, certainly that all the cases are. It would be more likely to be seen as DUE if it were covered in a source about Huygens specifically rather than universeguide.com or a NASA website about something else entirely.
These examples are only those that I came across in a cursory search. The article has systematic deficits and would need substantial improvement before it could meet the FA criteria. Here are some other examples; just examples, as this is hardly a comprehensive list:
  • "In optics Huygens is remembered especially for his wave theory of light, which he first communicated in 1678 to the Académie des sciences in Paris." —WP:OR since the only source is one of Huygens' own publications
  • Repeatedly citing Huygens' own publications instead of secondary source coverage; an indication that the article is not well-researched
  • Some of the sources are from the nineteenth or early twentieth century and are unlikely to be considered HQRS
  • Repetitive citations with a variety of formats and lacking identifiers. For example, a full citation for "Huygens: The Man Behind the Principle" is repeated eight times in footnotes and the book is again (incorrectly) listed in further reading. There are various valid ways of doing citations, but that is not one of them; either {{rp}} or {{sfn}} should be used. This is a problem with several other books including " A History of Probability and Statistics and Their Applications before 1750" and "Science and Social Status: The Members of the "Académie Des Sciences", 1666–1750."
  • Incorrect use of web archive links (Google Books does not archive)
  • Issues highlighted in my original comment have not been resolved
  • Most of these issues are not something that reviewers should have to point out, they are expected to be correct at the time of nomination. The FAC process should not be used for peer reviewing an article that is not well-prepared or would require substantial improvement to meet the FA criteria.
In short, the article was not sufficiently prepared prior to FAC nomination and should be withdrawn at once. (t · c) buidhe 10:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I agree to have it withdrawn while I work on these issues. It seems I was too hasty and forgiving of prior editors' work. I promise to reach out to one of the FAC mentors for help before re-submitting my nomination. Thank you all for your feedback. Guillermind81 (talk) 13:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: The nominator has "withdrawn" the nomination in this edit. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 8 February 2022 [6].

Ronnie Rocket

[edit]
Nominator(s): ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from a pre-Watergate conspiracy that never happened, we move on to a film which was never made. Ronnie Rocket is one of cinema's better-known items of vapourware, a David Lynch project periodically invoked throughout his career and never realised. Spent a few years searching for any further information to be had on this and I believe this is as complete as an article on a non-existent film is likely to be. A copyedit and peer review were both conducted ahead of coming here so I believe the prose is suitable but as always I expect it to be my weak point. Thanks in advance to anyone having a look at this one. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 16:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47

[edit]

I have participated in the peer review for the article, and I think it is in great shape. I have a few suggestions, but they are relatively minor. I will list my comments below:

  • The infobox has two cast members (Dexter Fletcher and Michael J. Anderson), but it does not include other people attached to the film at some point (Brad Dourif, Dennis Hopper, Jack Nance, Isabella Rossellini, Harry Dean Stanton, and Dean Stockwell). Is there a reason for this? From my understanding Fletcher and Anderson were only considered for roles in the film and were not formally attached to it (as it did not progress to that stage) so they do not seem necessarily more important than the other names mentioned. I could be missing or misreading something though so feel free to correct me.
    As every consideration was tentative, I just listed the two names considered for the title role as they seemed like the most obvious potential "stars". I could omit that field entirely though and it would be no real loss.
    That is understandable. I am honestly on the fence about it. I could see arguments for and against their inclusion in the infobox so I will defer this matter to other reviewers if that is okay with you. This will not hold up my support for the FAC in any way. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a clarification question about this part, feeling he would be unable to find financial backing for the project, from the lead. This wording implies to me that he did not think backing would exist so he either gave up on the project prior to looking into it further or something along those lines, but when I read the article, I got the impression that they did look for financial backing, but they were just unsuccessful. If that is true, I'd recommend something along the lines of "when he was unable to find financial backing for the project.
    I've reworded it to "due to an inability to find financial backing for the project", which I think conveys that he had tried across a span of time.
    That looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this point. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance. For this part, feature many of the elements which have since come to be seen as Lynch's hallmarks, I think "many of" can be seen as filler words and it might be stronger and more concise to say "feature elements which have since come to be seen as Lynch's hallmarks".
    Done.
  • For this part, while Coppola and musician Sting, I do not think the descriptive phrase is necessary. From what I am seeing, a majority of the people do not have this kind of phrase so I would remove it for consistency's sake and there is a wikilink for anyone who wants to know more about Sting.
    I had included the qualifier as Sting is not primarily known for acting or filmmaking so it felt like useful context, but I've taken it out.
  • This is super minor, but for this part, forced Zoetrope to file for bankruptcy, I would say American Zoetrope instead of just Zoetrope for consistency and to avoid any potential confusion that American Zoetrope is a subsection of Zoetrope or something alone those lines.
    Added.
  • I would highly encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid link rot and death. Citations 11, 20, and 21 are some examples of web citations that would benefit from archiving. I only suggest this as it can be a major headache for a link to die (or in case get hijacked) only to find out that there was not a viable archived version of the citation. To clarify this, I would not archive the newspapers.com citation as that is not necessary given where the platform.
    Beginning this process now; currently waiting 173 minutes per page--eep.
    URLs now archived.
    Thank you for arching the citations. While it is not a requirement for a FA (at least to my understanding), I believe it is very helpful in the long run even though it is a pain. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would encourage you to link Titan Books and Plexus Publishing in the "References" subsection as that would be helpful to readers and it would keep it consistent with the other ones that have their publisher linked. Kamera Books does not have an article or a redirect link so that would be okay with leaving alone.
    Linked.
  • For the "References" subsection, I would be consistent with either including the location for each citation or not having them for any of the citations. For instance, Lanham and London are included in the Scarecrow Press and Macmillan citations, but the other ones do not have a location. From what I have been told, it is important to be consistent with this kind of thing throughout all of the citations.
    I removed the locations that were there--I think the publisher is sufficient information here so taking two out feels better than adding them all.
    Thank you. I agree that the publisher by itself should be clear, especially since a majority of the publishers are linked to articles so the readers can look them up further if they wish to do so. Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope my review is helpful. I hope you are having a great start to 2022! Aoba47 (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking another look over this one. I've gotten almost everything raised above--I am currently archiving the URLs used but archive.org is taking its time so I will return to this to note when it's completed. Here are the changes made so far. Hope your year is off to a great start as well. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing all of my comments. I understand that archive.org can be temperamental (for seemingly no reason). My 2022 has been pretty good so far so no complaints here. I will re-read the article again sometime tomorrow to insure that I did not miss anything, but I will likely support at that time. Have a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read through the article again and it looks good to me. I support this FAC for promotion. If possible, I'd greatly appreciate any input on my current FAC although I understand if you do not have the time or the interest. Either way, I enjoyed reading this article again and I wish you best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination attracts further interest over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh

[edit]
  • "of his 1977 film Eraserhead, Lynch" — should there be a comma after 'film'?
    Hmm. I don't believe so (the title is not meant as a gloss or an aside but as the direct subject here) but I can change it if I'm wrong on that.
  • The lead should mention that the film was also titled ' The Absurd Mystery of the Strange Forces of Existence '
    I've added it to the second mention of the title in the lead--this isn't uniformly mentioned in sources naming it so I don't know if it's undue to include it at the first mention of the title, maybe I'm overthinking this?
  • "oil slick, smokestack, steel-steam-soot, fire-sparks and electrical arcs realm" — The prose does not make clear where this quote comes from
    Added the book's author in prose.
  • "the director had seen previously" — I'd replace "the director" with Lynch.
    Done.
  • "Both Dino De Laurentiis' De Laurentiis Entertainment Group and Francis Ford Coppola's American Zoetrope were attached to the project at different times, but both went bankrupt before work could begin" — Repetition of 'both', I feel that removing the second 'both' would not change the meaning.
    Have dropped the second "both".
  • "in the ’50s and ’60s" — Fix the quote mark (’ to ')
    Good catch, I would never have spotted that by eye.
  • "It was still really alive&nbsp... ruined the world for Ronnie Rocket" — this quote is long enough to deserve/warrant a block-quote
    I've wrapped this in the blockquote template and changed the leading sentence to introduce it with a colon, let me know this is correct.
  • The short description is "American film". How about changing it to "American unfinished film"?
    Not hugely familiar with short description norms, I've gone for "Unfinished David Lynch film project" as I think perhaps Lynch is more pertinent than a nationality.
    That works, I think. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, that is it! Short but comprehensive article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for having a look at this. I've been a little awol this week or so but I believe I've addressed the above; let me know if anything else needs to be looked at. Here are the changes made. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making the changes. I support the nomination for promotion as a FA. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on sources – czar

[edit]

Love me some vaporware and Venetian Snares source material. I went to start a source review and had a few questions/thoughts on breadth:

  • Since the article's source list is short, what databases and reference works have you checked? For a 1990s script, it is possible that there are print sources that would need to be tracked down through reference works and indexes.
    A good amount of it has come from print books I own/owned, although I've tried a few other source searches as detailed below. It always seems that another pair of eyes finds a venue not yet used though, which is appreciated.
  • It would be helpful to note the timeframe of the work (when it was conceived, written, mothballed) in the lede
    Sure, I've added a little clarification on that.
  • Structurally, even if the work hasn't been produced, my understanding is that part of its notoriety comes from Lynch publishing the script on his website. There looks to be enough sources to cover the work's plot/summary and conception/development. Since it's a short article, the "Overview" could be reframed as Background on Lynch's oeuvre in general, if needed, but otherwise there looks like enough sourcing for a basic synopsis of the work itself. The current Background section is more about the work's Development. Background sections usually include contextual details necessary for understanding the background to the article.
    Willing to take a read over the script top to bottom again and add a fuller synopsis but I had avoided this in order to not give the sense of there being a finished work--it's a hard balance to know what's correct, is the scope of the article the script or is it the story of it never being made. I could go either way on this.
    Since the scope of the article is the work, if the work's plot is known and described in sources, we should be able to paraphrase what sources have found noteworthy for the sake of completeness czar 00:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Lynch has tried and failed to get the film started several times, as a reader, I'm interested in the context around each time he tried—what was the attempt and what did he take instead and why. E.g., he can't get this film funded but George Lucas offers him Return of the Jedi? The commercial failure of Dune affects his ability to fund Ronnie, etc.

Here are some sources I found with a cursory search, in case they are new:

  • Braund, Simon (2013-10-22). "Five of the greatest movies never made". The Telegraph. Gale A346546649. Retrieved 2022-01-28. – Speaks to the film's conception and has a section potentially expanded in Braund, Simon (2014). The Greatest Movies You'll Never See: Unseen Masterpieces by the World's Greatest Directors. Octopus Books. ISBN 978-1-84403-774-2.
  • Lynch, David; McKenna, Kristine (2018). Room to Dream. Random House Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-399-58920-1. – Appears to discuss the work at length including aspects of its development
  • Kurelić, Zoran (July 2019). "From Hellholes to Hell: On Political Agency in Purgatory". Politicka Misao: Croatian Political Science Review. 56 (3/4): 137–152. doi:10.20901/pm.56.3-4.06. ISSN 0032-3241. EBSCOhost 142389331. – Has a full section and context about the plot and the film's public halflife
  • Sterriff, David (October 9, 1980). "Undaunted moral strength -- the elephant man's story". The Christian Science Monitor. Boston, Mass., United States. ISSN 0882-7729. ProQuest 1039083126. Alaton, Salem (1986-09-16). "Director obsessed with physical, psychological and moral rot An American nightmare". Globe & Mail. Gale A165385670. – talking about the film in 1980 and 1986

I imagine there will be more within each genre above (culture studies journal articles, newspapers, misc. details buried in biographical pieces, if not the holy grail of early 1990s industry sources). czar 05:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Grapple X Any response to this? Do you think it's possible to incorporate some of the sources mentioned above? (t · c) buidhe 19:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry for the delay in getting back to this--I've been trying to sort out a trip which is going to take me out of country for a while but I should be able to incorporate the Telegraph article in now (just started a free trial to get by their paywall). Genuinely surprised this didn't show up for me in my searching--as to the question of where I've checked for sources, I've gone through Newspapers.com, Google (both web and books), JSTOR, and just a sizeable selection of books on Lynch's life and career from my personal collection. The other sources above I don't have access to but I may be able to pick up some of the book sources. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd ask for the sources you can't access at WP:RX. They can get almost anything! (t · c) buidhe 22:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      WP:TWL has a lot of good stuff too czar 00:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

[edit]

I am not sure if czar's is supposed to be a full source review, but I'll do one anyway. The LA Weekly link is broken. Are AllMovie and Pop Matters high-quality reliable sources? Otherwise, it looks like everything is consistently formatted and sources look good. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple X ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • "Begun after the success of his 1977 film Eraserhead, Lynch shelved Ronnie Rocket due to an inability to find financial backing for the project": suggest "Lynch began working on Ronnie Rocket after the success of his 1977 film Eraserhead, but was unable to find financial backing for the project". I'd avoid "shelved" because it's not clear that he ever specifically shelved it -- he just could never get the project going.
  • "The film's art direction would have featured a heavily industrial backdrop": wouldn't this be better as "The film would have featured a heavily industrial backdrop"? The art direction is the process by which that backdrop gets created, but it's the film's backdrop.
  • Can we introduce Olson on first mention?
  • "Cornfeld found four scripts he felt would interest Lynch, but on hearing the name of the first of these, the director decided his next project would be The Elephant Man": a bit difficult to parse; it took me a second or so to realize that the first script of the four was The Elephant Man. How about "Cornfeld found four scripts he felt would interest Lynch, but as soon as Lynch heard the name of the first of these, The Elephant Man, he decided that would be his next project"?
  • "...as the follow-up not only to Eraserhead or The Elephant Man but also...": I think this should be "and", not "or" -- we're getting a list of films of which the same thing is true. It's not that at the start of his career he decided to make Ronnie Rocket the follow up to Eraserhead or The Elephant Man or...; it's that he wanted to be the follow up to Eraserhead, and he wanted it to be the follow up to The Elephant Man, and....

Looks good, just the minor comments above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grapple X ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 February 2022 [7].

Nonmetal

[edit]
Nominator(s): Sandbh (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am seeking consensus that this article now meets the FA criteria.

All concerns raised by the non-committed editor were addressed or resolved by agreement.

In response to some concerns raised by the opposing editor I changed the article accordingly, and in other respects explained my basis for taking no further action including in terms of WP policy, style, or the literature, including having regard to the complex nature of the subject matter.

Since then, and as an outcome of discussions with one of the supporting editors and the non-committed editor, the lede definition has been simplified, associated edits have been made to the main body, and an inset map added to the lede showing the location of the nonmetallic elements in the full periodic table.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Views etc.

[edit]

N.b. At FAC 3, it garnered six supports and 3 opposes, of which two were subsequently withdrawn, one non-committed. A clear majority for support.

That is not an accepted reason for promotion. Graham Beards (talk) 12:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is, however, a good reason to spend a bit more time and effort working out the issues on an article like this one that is getting close to promotion. VanIsaac, MPLL contWpWS 15:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Vanisaac we have a system for that. SN54129 16:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I was happy enough with the state of the article at FAC3 to support it then. It seems to me that the article has only improved since then, so it seems natural for me to offer my support again. Double sharp (talk) 00:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]
  • Ping participants in the last FAC: Double sharp, YBG, DePiep, Dirac66, Graham Beards, Doncram, Michael D. Turnbull, Petergans, Mirokado, ComplexRational, Jo-Jo Eumerus (t · c) buidhe 06:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: I'm afraid your paging of eleven editors is rather beat out by Sandbh's leaving of 30 talk page messages ;) SN54129 07:59, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First thoughts: Is it absolutely necessary to have all these citations in the lead section? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Is it absolutely necessary to have all these citations in the lead section?" from JJE is most certainly relevant to the essential issue. Hog Farm Talk 00:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second thoughts: The sourcing needs some work. Some of the footnotes contain claims that need to be sourced. Some sources have page numbers given and others don't - instead only featuring a "passim" even if the source is a long book. "elemental selenium is occasionally found" and the second paragraph of the chemical sections is unsourced. Unrelated but I also have to object to Petergans's rearranging of comments here; while I don't oppose moving purely procedural comments to the talk page, they did break up conversations seemingly at random and several issues were actionable problems [while I am no fan of WP:WIAFA#2's requirement of MOS compliance, it is one of the FA criteria and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#Citations discourages adding references to lead sections when they aren't needed, and they aren't needed here] were also removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am a bit confused by the distinguishing criteria section. the combination of a (seemingly largely unnecessary) quote, infobox, bullet list and enumeration make it very cluttered. The section also does does not seem to make any attempt to establish what the current most used criteria are, or to explain how any of the criteria suggested would work or what differences it would make. Are all of them E? Licks-rocks (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I stand by the source review I provided at FAC3 for the content and sources it covers. However, the article content has changed somewhat, so I cannot blindly stand by all my comments from there and a new (partial) review would be required. At this time, due to RL, I don't have time to provide such a review, so in all likelihood I won't be voting this time.
Also, in my opinion, this has been rushed into FAC4 and several editors have raised valid concerns, so I would strongly recommend working on the article outside FAC and perhaps send it through peer review again before coming back here. While I'm all for trying again in principle, I get the impression that this is the third time it's rushed back into FAC after a closed nomination and that won't sit well with some reviewers. I sincerely believe the article has potential to reach FA, and don't feel like opposing on these grounds alone, but rushing improvements and re-nominations won't do it any good. ComplexRational (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

Why were these posts removed? And, no, they aren’t “irrelevant “ nor is this one. Ealdgyth (talk) 11:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd like to dispute that this post was "irrelevant". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted them because they have no bearing on the essential issue - is the article up to the required standard. Petergans (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

[edit]

We have an issue [8] with canvassing where it clearly says "don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." Graham Beards (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose due to the canvasing issues, sourcing concerns, and lack of a pause between this FAC and the previous one without addressing the concerns of reviewers. This is starting to feel like an extended exercise in "if I ask enough they will say yes eventually" and is bordering on being disruptive and wasteful of the time of good faith reviewers. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

SandyGeorgia: Oppose and suggest withdrawal

[edit]
Further commentary on the talk page of this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came to this nomination courtesy of the attention drawn to it on the lengthy discussion at WT:FAC. Looking at the article for the first time (on its fourth FAC), I am surprised at the level of deficiencies still present, considering the article had garnered some support in its earlier FACs. (The level of issues still found in the article suggests that previous supports might be disregarded as drive-by or fan support.) My review contains samples only, and consists mostly of what I could easily spot while looking at the article over breakfast. Based on what I found, I suggest the article has not been prepared for FAC, and could benefit from a long and strenuous WP:peer review, involving topic experts, non-topic experts (laypersons, for a jargon check), and MOS/FA-criteria-knowledgeable editors.

Sourcing: The first thing that caught my eye was an odd citation:

  • Boise State University 2020, "Cost-effective manufacturing methods breathe new life into black phosphorus research", accessed July 9, 2021. Boise State University with no author listed caused me to look for an author, where I discovered bigger issues.
    The source is a press release (not indicated as such in the citation, but explains why there is no author).
    The press release is used to cite this text: "Black phosphorus is produced only in gram quantities by boutique suppliers—a single crystal produced via chemical vapor transport can cost up to $1,000 per gram (ca. fifteen times the cost of gold); in contrast, red phosphorus costs about 50 cents a gram or $227 a pound.]"
    See WP:NOPRICE: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information (which can vary widely with time and location) unless there is an independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare prices and availability of competing products or a single product from different vendors. Lists of creative works are permitted." If there is mainstream mention of the cost of red phosphorous (outside of product reviews), those should be the sources used. If there is not mainstream mention of this cost, it does not belong in the article at all.
    But there is a much bigger problem (Copyvio, along with original research):
    Source: black phosphorus is produced only in gram quantities by boutique suppliers – a single crystal of black phosphorus produced using a chemical vapor transport route can cost up to $1,000 per gram; in contrast, red phosphorus costs approximately 50 cents per gram.
    Article: Black phosphorus is produced only in gram quantities by boutique suppliers—a single crystal produced via chemical vapor transport can cost up to $1,000 per gram (ca. fifteen times the cost of gold[original research?]); in contrast, red phosphorus costs about 50 cents a gram or $227 a pound.
    Copyvio insertion at July 9, 2021 (suggests that all hard-print sources should be checked as well). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other odd citation issues, eg, "Johnson[37] noted that physical properties can best indicate the metallic or nonmetallic properties of an element, with the proviso that other properties will be needed in a number of ambiguous cases." (If Johnson noted all of this, why isn't the citation at the end of the sentence?)
  • This whole passage is cited to a 1966 source: "Fourteen elements effectively always recognized as nonmetals are hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur; the corrosive halogens fluorine, chlorine, bromine, and iodine; and the noble gases helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon, and radon. Up to a further nine elements are frequently or sometimes considered as nonmetals, including carbon, phosphorus, and selenium; and the elements otherwise commonly recognized as metalloids namely boron; silicon and germanium; arsenic and antimony; and tellurium, bringing the total up to twenty-three nonmetals.[4]" Why source to something that old? What is the meaning of "effectively", especially in relation to a more than 50-year-old source? Why "frequently", in relation to such an old source? Is all of this still the case, or not? If so, an updated source would be helpful.

At that point, I looked no further at sourcing; this is serious enough to suggest a solid examination of all sourcing is needed, and a strenuous check for copyvio, too-close-paraphrasing, and source-to-text integrity.

Prose The prose is unnecessarily dense and jargon-filled. Some samples only:

  • The distinguishing criteria section has a long-list of red-linked terms that are never defined (anywhere in the article, or anywhere on Wikipedia). This renders the text a mystery to layreaders.
  • One sample paragraph for examination:
    The term "nonmetallic" dates from as far back as 1708 when Wilhelm Homberg mentioned "non-metallic sulfur" in his Des Essais de Chimie.[56] He had refuted the five-fold division of matter into sulfur, mercury, salt, water and earth, previously in vogue, as postulated by Étienne de Clave [fr] (1641) in New Philosophical Light of True Principles and Elements of Nature. Homberg's approach represented "an important move toward the modern concept of an element".[attribution needed][57] Subsequently, the first modern list of chemical elements was given by Lavoisier in his "revolutionary"[attribution needed][58] 1789 work Traité élémentaire de chimie in which he distinguished between simple metallic and nonmetallic substances. In its first seventeen years, Lavoisier's work was republished in twenty-three editions and six languages, and carried his "new chemistry" across Europe and America.[59]
  • There are three uses of the word subsequently (always a tipoff to other prose issues); in this case, they are all either confusing, or point two things that only could have happened afterwards, hence redundant. Looking at one of those:
    • "The discovery of a quasi-spherical allotropic molecule, borospherene (B40), was announced in 2014. Silicon was most recently known only in its crystalline and amorphous forms. The synthesis of an orthorhombic allotrope, Si24, was subsequently reported in 2014." I can't decipher what this text even means, much less the circular reasoning on 2014, most recently, and back to 2014.
    • The other two instances of subsequently (It can lose its single valence electron in aqueous solution, leaving behind a bare proton with tremendous polarizing power.[80] This subsequently attaches itself to the lone electron pair of an oxygen atom in a water molecule,) and (The term "nonmetallic" dates from as far back as 1708 ... Subsequently, the first modern list of chemical elements was given by Lavoisier) are examples of convoluted prose and issues that could not have happened before the first, hence redundant.
  • This looks like original research: "Since there are 118 known elements,[17] as of February 2022, the 23 nonmetals within the scope of this article are outnumbered by the metals several times." While it may be an obvious calculation of simple math, why is it in the article if not citeable to a high quality source?
  • There are unattributed quotes throughout.
  • The distinction between metals and nonmetals arose, in a convoluted manner,[clarification needed]

These are samples only; similar is spotted wherever the eye falls.

MOS issues

  • Incorrect use of "Main" hatnotes. For example, (oddly) the halogen article never mentions nonmetal, so the content in this article cannot be a summary of that article.
  • MOS:ELLIPSES
  • Look at Noble gases in edit mode. Why do short-note citations, which will almost never wrap, use non-breaking spaces, while something like "core may contain ca. 10<sup>13</sup>" does not?
  • MOS:WAW: The term "nonmetallic" dates from ...
  • 2 Concept origin, distinguishing criteria, and use of term as a section heading, followed by the exact same words at 2.1 Origin of the concept, 2.2 Distinguishing criteria, 2.3 Use of the term (don't repeat words at lower levels)

This is not an exhaustive list; these suggest a MOS review has not been done.

Presentation

  • One of the first things the reader encounters is a WP:GALLERY (that did nothing to enhance my comprehension of the article).
  • The juxtaposition of an indented long list with a quote box in the Distinguishing criteria section is visually awful, and I wonder what our screenreading users might say about it. Why isn't that example algorithm prosified ? Why "example" (as in, which sources disgree and have other examples)?

This is by no means an exhaustive review; it only consists of easily spotted samples. The article's sourcing, writing, organization and presentation seem more akin to a sophomore-year high school term paper than what we would expect from a Featured article. The considerable effort that Sandbh has put into this article is to be commended, but a better way forward may help better prepare the article for FAC, and result in a more pleasant FAC experience for the nominator and reviewers alike. I will put suggestions for how to move forward more productively on the talk page of this FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

[edit]

As this article is, still, clearly not yet ready for FAC - as indicated by the numerous examples from Jo Jo and Sandy above - I am archiving it. The usual two week wait before a new FAC nomination will apply. I strongly suggest that all of the comments from this and all of the previous reviews are taken on board and actioned where felt appropriate. I would also recommend then entering into a dialogue with those who have been critical, perhaps at PR, on the basis that they are experienced and honest reviewers who know what is necessary to get an article promoted and who like contributing - free of charge and obligation - to seeing articles promoted.

Re canvassing, a neutrally phrased message was left on my talk page inviting me to contribute. The message explained the basis on which I received it. So long as all of the editors in these categories received similar messages and no others did, I do not see that there is a canvassing issue. Sandbh, perhaps you could clarify whether this was the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 23:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/February_2022&oldid=1074505844"