Wikipedia:Featured article review/Emperor Norton/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC) [1].

Emperor Norton

Notified: Johnlumea, Manning Bartlett, Nishkid64, Paul.h, User talk:Nunh-huh, WP Bio, WP USA, WP California, WP Micronations, noticed in February 202

Review section

This older featured article contains significant uncited text, and discussion on talk has raised concerns about the quality of some of the sources (more details there). Hog Farm _Talk 01:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This would need a lot of work to bring back up to standard, I'm afraid. The main problem is indeed the sourcing: there's a very heavy reliance on marginal and even downright unreliable sources (blog posts, historical newspapers, genealogy sites, YouTube videos, etc.) at the expense of the higher-quality books listed in the references section. I'm not sure the star can be saved without a top-to-bottom rewrite, unfortunately. That said, this article gets a decent number of readers, so it'd sure be nice to get it fixed up. I'd be willing to do what I can, although my hands are tied since I don't have access to some of the key sources (e.g. Lane 1939 and Kramer 1974). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Downright unreliable sources" like contemporaneous "historical newspapers" found on "genealogy sites"? Oh, dear. We're not off to a very good start, are we? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlumea (talk • contribs) 01:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Historical newspapers and the like aren't downright unreliable, but they are primary sources, which under our policies should be used pretty sparingly. Featured articles need to rely on "high-quality reliable sources", which in most cases means books from reputable publishers, scholarly articles, etc. I certainly understand that sometimes lower-caliber sources can contain really useful material, but ultimately as an encyclopedia we just can't be basing large portions of our articles on them. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the general rule. But, I've been "tending the garden" of Norton research for nearly a decade now. And, one thing I've learned is that a presumption in favor of books doesn't usually apply here. Most of the books listed in the references section of the article trade heavily in oral tradition, hearsay and tall tales. Other than myself, Kramer may be the only one in the list who provides meaningful documentation. That includes Drury and Lane, the only book-length biographies that exist. While it's true that the entirety of my nearly 140-article output on issues pertaining to the life and legacy of Emperor Norton is published via a "blog" platform, it also is true that much of the project has amounted to a sustained instance of corrective and reconstructive surgery on "the literature" as it previously existed. Johnlumea (talk) 18:23, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnlumea: You mention above that you have been looking at Norton research for almost a decade. Are you willing to address the citation concerns? After a quick skim, I see lots of places that need citations. Z1720 (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent quite a bit of time already adding better-quality — and correcting low-quality — information in this article, as well as weeding out low-quality references like pop guidebooks and such. But, much more could be done. I don't know that I have the bandwidth right now to do a line-by-line review of the article with the aim of addressing all these issues. But, I do find myself in sympathy with @Extraordinary Writ's view that, although what really is required is a top-to-bottom rewrite, it would be nice to at least "fix it up" — even if that means losing the star. I'd love to be part of a group that would agree on some basic principles on what "fixing it up" should mean. For example, I don't think that "blog posts" and "YouTube videos" should be downgraded by definition. But, I recognize that the vast majority of these are monetized "products" that (a) are written or created by people who did no to little original research, (b) provide no documentation, and (c) bring nothing new or unique to the discussion. Example: The Sam O'Nella video is cute. But, it just summarizes what's already out there in a clever, visually engaging way. The fact that the video has 7M views doesn't make the video or its creator an authority on the subject. Johnlumea (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I weeded out a few more low-quality, or irrelevant, references. I have yet to address two references in particular that get way too much play: (1) Four mentions for a 1923 biographical article by Robert Ernest Cowan that appeared in the California Historical Society Quarterly. Although much of Cowan's account can be corroborated elsewhere, he provides no documentation himself. And, many of his claims are regurgitations of early oral tradition that now have been debunked. I have documented one example from the article in which Cowan seems to shamelessly falsify a contemporaneous account in order to push his own agenda. (2) A whopping 10 mentions of Peter Moylan's 2003 biographical summary for the San Francisco Historical Society. Although Moylan's account is an exceptionally enjoyable read that provides many details, it also includes many claims that since have been debunked. And, by Moylan's own description, his article is, in effect, a book report on William Drury's 1986 biography of Emperor Norton. He relies almost exclusively on that one source — a source that itself has been shown to have many flaws and blind spots. Johnlumea (talk) 02:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, this article has been in trouble for a long time, and the issues raised are unlikely to be resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC the issues have not been fully addressed. (t · c) buidhe 17:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, which does not preclude further work. As an aside, the additions by Nishkid64 need checked for source-text integrity in light of Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. R. Richard/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lee Smith (baseball)/archive1. Hog Farm _Talk 17:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC sourcing issues still evident, no significant edits since Oct. 7. Z1720 (talk) 18:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements and for lacking reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist sourcing concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 12:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, unfortunately the sourcing issues haven't been corrected. Hog Farm _Talk 15:52, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Several paragraphs have no sources at all. Phlsph7 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:11, 5 November 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.