Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/St Kilda, Scotland/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 3:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC) [1].

St Kilda, Scotland

[edit]
Notified: Ben MacDui, WikiProject Scotland WikiProject Scottish Islands, WikiProject UK geography [2]

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are unsourced statements, poor quality sources, repetition of sources when cite bundling should be used, missing urls, bare urls, missing titles, dead links, stubby paragraphs that should be merged, disconnected lists of trivia in the final sub-section, and the lead is in breach of the Manual of Style. Talk page notice a month ago[3] was ignored. DrKay (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKay: Apologies for not seeing the St K. talk page. I am relatively inactive these days but do drop by my talk page a couple of times a month so thanks for letting me know there. This was my first FA and unlike the last review the topic is much less likely to need ten years of new information. I very much doubt that many of the other early contributors will drop by here so I will do what I can to fix things. The main issue for me is timing - I may be a bit slow to respond and the weekends are generally the only times I can put any serious effort in. Ben MacDui 14:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear you will dig in, Ben MacDui; please ping me as you progress if there is some way I can be helpful. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a start but oh dear - I had hoped that going through and fixing the obviously deficient refs might be a way to start but so much extra information has been added - some in in appropriate sections - that I fear this is going to be a long haul. "Wikipedia: the encyclopedia that anyone can mangle". Splendid. Ben MacDui 14:19, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Time is always allowed at FAR: just keep us posted, and let me know if I can help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already, certain problems jump out of the screen to me, and I haven't even read the full thing
    • Many incomplete citations, particularly those that are just a title and link
    • "It has been known for some time" This is too vague and informal
    • "The first written record of St Kilda may date from 1202" In which researcher's viewpoint? This isn't a sentence that defines a fact, "may" implies the date isn't definitely known and has to depend on the research of authorities in a field to pinpoint this. They need attribution
    • Looking at the other parts of this article, there are attribution problems like this, especially in the "Toponym" section; it might've come from this, it might've come from that, it might've started from here, and similar statements. These are not facts, and each hypothesis gets one to two citations, meaning they're liking not widespread enough to be taken as a fact we should accept as the prose in its current condition wants us to.
    • "At 670 hectares (1,700 acres) in extent, Hirta is the largest island in the group" Wait, by group do you mean St. Kilda? Who thinks of group as synonymous of archipelago? Is this just my ignorance in geography terminology? Can someone let me know?... Please?
    • The final half of "Evacuation and aftermath" is just a set of short paragraphs about random topics. I'm sure they're essential to the article, but man is this not a cohesive structure.
    • Why does "Tourism" gets its own section independent of history, yet info on the health care system, military equipment, and a history of native citizens are placed clunkily in a non-cohesive history section.
    • There's a fricking citation needed tag in "Other Islands."
    • "Declining population" Oh man, the problems with... a- ju- just the problems, I mean, gosh, this hurts
      • "In 1764 (according to the Census),[86] there were 90 St Kindans, 105 in 1841, and 112 in 1851." The problem with this sentence is so obvious. There's no consistent flow to this. In fact, I'll fix it right now: "According to Census reports, there were 90 St. Kindans in 1764, 105 in 1841, and 112 in 1851."
      • This is just an indiscriminate list of numbers per year with no analysis to make it interesting or engaging
      • I think there are other parts of this article where this short-ass section could be merged, such during the history section there are reasons attributed to the declining population of the island
  • To put it simply, another outdated promotion from more than 10 years ago that doesn't deserve its FA status, kind of like two other articles I've nominated for review a film with the "THIS! IS! SPARTA!" meme and lots of blood and gore, and a game starring a thicc Mario where, if you're an alpha speedrunner, you could BLJ up the stairs. The original FA nominator still seems to be active, so I'm interested to hear from him. HumanxAnthro (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an inappropriate tone for FAR. Please dial it back, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it came off that way, I apologize, but what part of the tone was inappropriate? Looks like a typical FAR to me. HumanxAnthro (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I will summarize later on your talk, but in short, there is nothing typical about your tone on these FARs, and it is unacceptable; I hope it stops. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC The last edit to the article was March 28. After reviewing the article, I have some concerns including a bloated History section, no information about the history of the island from 1957-2009, many small paragraphs throughout the article that need to be merged or deleted, and a large "Further reading" section that should be evaluated for their inclusion as sources in the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ben MacDui, could we get a status update? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Apologies - real world very busy, will aim to have another look this coming weekend. Ben MacDui 15:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: I spent a bit of time on this essentially trying to figure out the simplest way to address the many issues. It is I think too complex to attempt to edit the existing article directly. I now have a version in a sandbox that I am hoping to get up-to-speed this week. Ben MacDui 14:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a start made. Ben MacDui 17:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The main revisions are that the article now more closely follows the structure of the original FA, but with (I hope) most of the fixes and post-hoc technical changes retained along with many of the additional material contributions. There is less detail about the evacuation and the lives of the islanders after this time, which struck me as being more appropriate for a book on the topic than an encyclopedia article, although it would be easy enough to add them back in if anyone feels strongly. I don't see any glaring ref errors and the notes also seem ok. Further suggestions welcome of course. Ben MacDui 15:34, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Z1720, have the subsequent edits addressed your concerns? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edits have improved the article, but concerns still remain. I skimmed through the article and some of my concerns include a lede that needs to be reformatted into 3-4 paragraphs, the history section is not in chronological order and includes sections that should be moved to other parts of the article (like "Way of life" or "Religion") and there are some cite errors. If someone is working on the article, I am happy to do a readthrough and copyedit once the article is ready. Z1720 (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Looking in detail at the lead only, there are structural and prose problems. There's repetition (e.g "island's evacuation in 1930" and "evacuated from Hirta, the only inhabited island, in 1930"; "stone structure known as cleitean" and "A cleit is a stone storage hut"), contradiction (e.g. "Virtually all of the population lived on Hirta" and "Hirta, the only inhabited island"), unnecessary detail not found in the article body (e.g. "The population was 112 in 1851. According to the 1861 census, there were 71 inhabitants at that time"), an unnecessary tautology/redundancy ("at that time") and related material separated from each other and spread over multiple paragraphs (e.g. "a variety of conservation workers, volunteers and scientists spend time there in the summer months" in one paragraph and "volunteers work on the islands in the summer to restore the many ruined buildings" in another). DrKay (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2021 (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_review/St_Kilda,_Scotland/archive1&oldid=1030603095"