Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2023

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept

[edit]

Delisted

[edit]
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) 5:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [1].

Digital media use and mental health

[edit]
Notified: User:Almaty (Special:Diff/1186564291), User:CommonKnowledgeCreator (Special:Diff/1186564889), WikiProject Addictions and recovery (Special:Diff/1186565165), WikiProject Anthropology (Special:Diff/1186565422), WikiProject Computing (Special:Diff/1186565517), WikiProject Education (Special:Diff/1186566047), WikiProject Electronics (Special:Diff/1186566076), WikiProject Internet (Special:Diff/1186566099), WikiProject Libraries (Special:Diff/1186566112), WikiProject Media (Special:Diff/1186566132), WikiProject Medicine (Special:Diff/1186566156) and Psychiatry task force (Special:Diff/1186566168), WikiProject Neuroscience (Special:Diff/1186566182), WikiProject Parenting (Special:Diff/1186566201), WikiProject Psychology (Special:Diff/1186566225), WikiProject Sociology (Special:Diff/1186566237), WikiProject Video games (Special:Diff/1186566259), WikiProject Science Policy (Special:Diff/1186566263), WikiProject Autism (Special:Diff/1186566275), WikiProject Disability (Special:Diff/1186567557); FAR notice on article talk (Special:Diff/1184198180)

Review section

[edit]

Copied from the FAR notice I left on the article talk page: This article was promoted to FA in 2019. Since then, several additions have been made to the article, including off-topic information (see this diff, showing completely irrelevant information that I just removed). I haven't gone through the whole article, but I have removed a couple of large chunks of prose. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that the "A study in year X said" format is good writing. It makes the whole thing look disjointed and flow poorly. Besides, for a topic this large and important, a single study won't cut it - I'd want studies that satisfy WP:MEDRS requirements, even if the information isn't biomedical MEDRS is a good guidance for the kind of studies one wants to source large societal claims with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing you're referring to much of the content I added in the ADHD, Autism, Insomnia, and NPD sections. I wasn't aware of WP:MEDRS until fairly recently. When I was looking for research to add to the article about the mental health disorders, I started by looking for literature reviews and meta-analyses using Google Scholar, but didn't find very many. About NPD, I found very few studies at all. This was a couple years ago, so maybe there's more research now. However, I am willing to do whatever is necessary to keep the article as a featured article given the importance of the topic to society (despite how few people seem to recognize it as such). I just felt like there should be some focus in the problematic use section about digital media use and specific disorders. @Voorts: I noticed that you removed the content summarizing the work of Randolph Nesse and George C. Williams. Why do you believe this is off-topic? As Nesse and Williams noted, evolutionary mismatch between human psychological adaptations with a technologically modern state society in causing mental health issues is the implicit theoretical assumption behind why digital media use negatively impacts mental health (in addition to other human factors issues like distracted driving in general, texting while driving, other mobile phone use and driving safety issues, the effects of the car on societies in general, and social aspects of television in general). -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @CommonKnowledgeCreator. Thank you for your willingness to work through this process. Hopefully we can get this article back up to FA quality. The portion I deleted did not make the link between evolutionary mismatch and digital media use. Here is what it said, in full:

In addition to noting with evolutionary biologist George C. Williams in the development of evolutionary medicine that most chronic medical conditions are the consequence of evolutionary mismatches between a stateless environment of nomadic hunter-gatherer life in bands and contemporary human life in sedentary technologically modern state societies (e.g. WEIRD societies), psychiatrist Randolph M. Nesse has argued that evolutionary mismatch is an important factor in the development of certain mental disorders. Citations omitted. See this diff.

voorts (talk/contributions) 23:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does not explicitly use the words digital media use but it does where it says "technologically modern state societies". They don't enumerate every last form of technology that effects mental health, but Nesse and Williams do discuss the role that television and films plays play in causing people to become depressed. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not read the phrase "technologically modern sate societies" to imply "digital media"; if that's the claim being made, it should be made explicitly. Additionally, you should not use multiple wikilinks in a row per MOS:BLUESEA. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:59, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nesse, as well as David Buss in The Evolution of Desire, also discuss the role of evolutionary mismatch when talking about the role of media images in causing anorexia nervosa among women. (The role of digital media use and anorexia is also what the 2021 Facebook company files leak was about and I'd argue should be mentioned somewhere in the article.) -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then just reword the last sentence to say "that evolutionary mismatch with digital media technology". -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the only issue with the paragraph that I deleted. Other issues are the wall of blue text, lack of clarity as to what it means for there to be an evolutionary mismatch for someone not familiar with that line of research, and general lack of clarity as to the mechanism that Williams' and Neese's theories propose. Moreover, there should be some sources that talk those theories and evaluate them, rather than just presenting them without context. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:09, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Other issues are the wall of blue text... The links to Stateless society, Nomad, Modernity, and State (polity) can be removed. ...lack of clarity as to what it means for there to be an evolutionary mismatch for someone not familiar with that line of research... That's why the link to the Evolutionary mismatch article was included so that the reader can follow to learn what evolutionary mismatch is (although I don't think I wrote it as "mismatches"). ...general lack of clarity as to the mechanism that Williams' and Neese's theories propose. Moreover, there should be some sources that talk those theories and evaluate them, rather than just presenting them without context. I'm not sure exactly that I understand your meaning. Evolution and mismatch are the ultimate cause. The proximate causes would depend on the disorder. Evolutionary psychology is the application of modern evolutionary theory to the scientific examination of cognition and behavior, and evolutionary psychiatry is the application of evolutionary psychology to mental health. There are whole Wikipedia articles that discuss them and criticism of them. -- CommonKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to another Wikipedia article does not override the need to explain technical terms in an article relying on that term. The point about the mechanisms of the theories is that there's no explanation of what mismatch is occurring and how it expresses itself in human behavior and health. The final sentence means that a theory needs to be presented from a NPOV, which means affording due weight to analyses and criticisms of that theory. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe this star can be saved (because it never should have been promoted FA to begin with). Wikipedia summarizes secondary sources; it follows, does not lead. The article does (and did on promotion) exactly what we're not supposed to do on Wikipedia; it uses a preponderance of non-WP:MEDRS-compliant primary sources to lead the reader to conclusions. And by doing that, the article set up a situation for what would likely and did happen-- addition of more primary sources to reinforce conclusions. My suggestion is that we proceed to FARC for delisting, although interim efforts to reduce the article to conform with basic policy and guideline would also be helpful; short of DSM or ICD recognition, this article was always leading rather than following secondary sources, with a heavy reliance on primary sources, put together in a way that borders on original research. A strong argument to the contrary might convince me, but short of that, I will be a Move to FARC declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SandyGeorgia: I disagree that the subject area is "leading rather than following secondary sources" absent DSM or ICD recognition. My knowledge of global mental health is limited to one graduate level course, but I think we certainly could have an FA quality article on this topic. The version of the article that was promoted cited to several literature reviews and meta-analyses on the issue of mental health and digital media use, including several reviews on then-current debates in the field of global mental health and categorization of mental health disorders. I agree with you that to get the article back up to FA, a lot of OR cruft would need to be cut and the article would need to be updated with more recent meta-analyses/literature reviews. I'm certainly not in a position to do that, but hopefully someone is before we move this to FARC and I think we should wait a little bit; there's no rush. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:50, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm in no hurry, there are no deadlines at FAR as long as work is progressing, and it seems we agree on the direction the work needs to go here ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Is there even a scientific agreement that social media use causes eating disorders? AN like phenomena have been reported long before and even during time periods when thin bodies were not in fashion. the most common eating disorder is BED which is hardly glamorized online and it's hard to see how social media would cause it. That's the issue with citing individual studies or researchers' opinion; it's hard to tell how widely accepted it is. Furthermore, methodology/reproducibility in social science research is a big issue. (t · c) buidhe 06:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Basically, unless a lot of work starts happening here, I will be a Move to FARC, don't think this article should have ever been featured, and don't think it's salavageable. I've started reviewing on talk, and in addition to MEDRS and other concerns, there is a real need to update the article, as it presents very old primary studies throughout that, if not covered by now in secondary reviews, are probably UNDUE at best, or wrong at worst. I've only progressed up to the ADHD section, where I see a whole lot more of same. I don't think this article is savable; it needs a scalpel, and is at best a good example of how not to write a Wikipedia article, much less to have a bronze star attached. The problems were summed up in a FAC comment: "we are meant to be citing reviews not writing reviews", and with the passage of time, these issues have become exacerbated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree this will probably have to move to FARC for reasons I stated on the talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:54, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2023 (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 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) 5:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC) [2].

Shaylee Mansfield

[edit]
Notified: [3], talk page notice 2023-09-24

Review section

[edit]

I first became aware of this article when it was TFA in September. I feel that it was not adequately scrutinised at FAC and that, had it been, it would not have been promoted. It's a nice article and of good GA quality, but lacks the finish of a featured article. My concerns are primarily 1b and c (comprehensive and well-researched) and secondarily 1b (neutrality). There are many major points missing from the article for it to be comprehensive—the subject's date of birth had to be removed because it was inadequately sourced; the article relies heavily on quotes for its bulk, many of which say little about the subject and without them the article is essentially a list of performances; the article contains next to no analysis of her roles; there's no background on the subject (eg the cause of her deafness, which is a big part of her notability); it contains nothing on her opinions on deafness/the deaf community/whether deafness is a disability (again, material I would expect in a biographical FA of someone notable for being a deaf actress). The sourcing is inadequate for a featured article; the bulk of the sources are gossipy entertainment websites which are not high quality reliable sources—the few high-quality sources there are are fairly thin and do not support the bulk of the article's content. Which brings me to neutrality—as I said on the talk page, because there is so little to say about the subject the article is entirely uncritical, almost hagiographical, because most of the sources boil down to "look at this cute little girl signing". I gave notice on 24 September and I had a discussion with the nominator, Pamzeis, who doesn't feel that any any significant improvements can be made. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • In almost all of the sources, Mansfield or or those associated with her are quoted in the articles. This does not establish notability. And those that don't include commentary from the subject, such as The New York Times, do not even mention Mansfield's name. It seems the only sources establishing notability are TheWrap and Animation World Network regarding her role in Madagascar, but this only discusses one role and the articles are written in a somewhat promotional tone. CNET is cited twice but is not considered a high-quality source per WP:CNET. Like the nominator said, there is not one article cited that specifically discusses her career as a whole from an independent perspective. The article is unable to meet 1c—there just isn't enough "relevant literature" available. It may be a borderline deletion case. Heartfox (talk) 20:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By all means test the water, but I think the article would survive an AfD. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, I would oppose deletion. The subject is clearly notable. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on the nomination itself, but the birth date was not removed because "it was inadequately sourced". That happened due to a strange reading of WP:RS ("people have been found not to publish accurate age data on personal webpages multiple times") even when the last line in WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPSELFPUB should have applied, and I didn't care enough to continue debating it. There's a related discussion on the article talk page. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you disagree but I think the fact that we can't even get a secondary source for something as fundamental as a date of birth proves my point on comprehensiveness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've looked at this article before, given its complex status as the youngest BLP FA. I have questions about its FA status, but I agree with Ed that the reason given for the removal of the DOB was wrong. DOBs for minors are tricky, but I have qualms with the fact we're using a photo of her from several years ago while giving no context as to her actual age -- that's more problematic BLP-wise than any other element of the DOB discussion, imo. But yes, the specific reason why the DOB was removed is a misreading/misunderstanding of policy. Not commenting on the nomination itself at this time; it's a difficult one. Vaticidalprophet 02:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share HJ's concerns. I remember being rather surprised when Mansfield's article popped up on TFA. The article seemed so short and lacking in detail that I was shocked it had passed FAC. The FAC review itself was also incredibly short, and frankly, looked more like a rubber-stamping process than an actual review - especially when compared with other more lengthy and critical FAC processes. Aside from the above-mentioned issues with 1b and 1c, I would also highlight 1e: this is an underage person in the early stages of her career, so the article is very liable to change significantly as new news comes up about her. --Grnrchst (talk) 11:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    1e does not apply here; it relates to edit wars and "day to day" changes-- not changes over time, that are good and expected on all articles (which does not mean I dismiss the other concerns about this article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarifying. In any case, I think it's an important point to make. Mansfield has her whole life and career ahead of her, this is quite different than say actors with decades-long established careers. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary of old FAC discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive34. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. The definition of a featured article is that it "exemplifies Wikipedia's very best work", which this does not. Considering the decades long discussions and concerns over "short" articles (only some of which are linked above), this article needed a strong consensus for promotion, which it did not have. It's crucial in a case like this that the process coordinators not (recuse) to take a side on undefined aspects of the criteria (like length), rather remain independent while community consensus forms. This short article was promoted on only three supports, none of which did more than review prose. Two supports were cursory prose reviews with no discussion of comprehensiveness (and one including a quid pro quo request), and the third support was an FA Coord recusal. It's not the Coord's job to push through marginal articles that the community hasn't more broadly supported, and in controversial cases, without broader feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, this one is an interesting case. The concerns raised in the nomination statement are true; in usual circumstances, there should be a lot more on the subject and sources should be of higher reliability. But here at this FAR, we'd be judging on the basis of merits or demerits of this particular article. The FAC nominator, on their talk page, say regarding the sources: "coverage seems no different from what it was a year ago". I have not searched for other sources, but I trust FAC nominator's judgement. Regarding comprehensibility (1b), what can be done if nothing more if available. Are there any hqrs which this article does not include? 'Short' FAs are different that FAs on young people. This is a short FA, the shortest (to be precise). It too lacks exact dates and significant coverage, but by all means, it is an excellent article. Of-course we cannot "compare" articles (especially of a 'horse' and 'human'), but the point which I am trying to raise is that iff this is, in all practicality, a comprehensive account of the subject based on the available information, it shouldn't be delisted just because it lacks information which one would expect on an article of this nature. Let me know if I am missing something. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you brought up Miss Meyers, as Ealdgyth might add her thoughts on that as a short FA relative to this one. In the case of Miss Myers,
    A) she has been dead for over a century, and we know,
    B) that her notability as the the dam of the first AQHA Supreme Champion, Kid Meyers, is enduring, and
    C) there is not and will not likely ever be anything more to be written about her (comprehensive).
    We have the best possible article than can be written about her, but even at that, Ealdgyth stated once somewhere she wouldn't re-submit this article to FAC today-- that some articles by their nature are not examples of our best work, and should stop at the GA level.
    Further my point is not only on what basis it should be delisted (not an example of Wikipedia's best work, which is the overriding definition of an FA), but on what basis was it listed to begin with. Coords should not be recusing to push marginal or controversial (and short is still controversial) FAs up the line-- they should let the community decide, so the community can undecide here, too. If anyone has a hard time figuring out upon what to base that decision, WP:IAR is a thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:33, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be interested to hear Ealdgyth's thoughts. But my primary point still remains that, wouldn't delisting this set a precedent that any blp on a minor should not be a FA? Ofcourse there are many reason for a blp article on minor to not be a FA (and I agree with some of them), but no such reason, to the best of my understanding, fails FA criteria. We should not be referring to this article as "not comprehensive", if there is virtually no other source available to add anything. Like Miss Meyers, iff this article, in context with the available literature, is the most comprehensive it can be, I see no reason to delist it on the basis of comprehensibility. And let me repeat, Miss Meyers is an excellent article, and I agree with everything you assert for it. That is exactly what I tried to raise, 'short' FAs and FAs on 'young' people are fundamentally different issues; this one in an example of both. I have no opinion on coordinators rescuing to review, however, it is wrong to be assuming that the coordinator, in this case, rescued to review just to "push" this article for promotion. There are a lot many reasons any reviewer (whether coord or not) might be interested in reviewing an article (controversial or not), and assuming that the sole reason for their review was to push article indirectly sets a wrong narrative. All I am saying that without consulting that coordinator, we should not be making assumptions on their intentions. Furthermore, if, in your opinion, any article of this nature lies in the controversial territory, and needs a broad consensus to be listed FA, it also needs the same broad consensus to be delited on the basis of merits or demerits of this article. Any WP:IAR is never a strong reason for consensus. Best, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't listing this article FA to begin with set the precedent (that has continued ... which is that stalled FAs can be pushed up the line on scant review by recusing Coords)? Coords shouldn't recuse to support when there is controversy, and short articles are controversial.
    I haven't mentioned that the subject is a minor; I've mentioned this is not an example of our best work.
    When I promoted Miss Meyers, it had six supports from some of our best reviewers. That's a Coord/delegate judging consensus, not engaging in determining consensus by being one of only three supports, on quite marginal (mostly prose) review. As far as setting precedents, I'm concerned we're gong to see more of this down the road; months to get three supports has been the trend at FAC for some years now, rather than shutting down those that don't get support on a timely basis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I really am not comparing this FAC with Miss Meyers one. I have never questioned any coordinators judgement, I trust them (in fact, I didn't even notice it was promoted by you until now). But since we are at it, I really am confused about a thing: "Coords shouldn't recuse to support when there is controversy", is this your opinion or a FAC instruction or a unwritten rule? And who is to decide if the subject is controversial? I see that you have issues with the functioning of the FAC system, and the unwritten "three support" promotion system. But that should not be a reason to argue for this article to be delisted. Humblest apologies for repeating it, but we here should really be discussing which FA criteria this article fails, and should be discussing how this article is "not comprehensive", given that there are virtually ho hqrs to add. Best, – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There are virtually no HQRS at all. Have a look at the sourcing and which sources support the bulk of the content. As far as comprehensiveness goes, the standard is "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context", not just that it contains all the information that can be found, otherwise we'd have thousands of three-sentence FAs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Once again, I'm not sure you're reading what's on the page. I haven't mentioned that the subject (Mansfield) is controversial. The long-standing controversy is over whether very short articles should be featured articles. There are ample reasons given already by HJ Mitchell for this to be delisted; my arguments merely augment them as to why this never should have been featured to begin with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per Sandy. The underlying FAC is an example of why it's for the best that I'm no longer an FAC coordinator. Hog Farm Talk 19:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2023 (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 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) 6:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [4].

Not My Life

[edit]
Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice noticed 2020-06-27

Review section

[edit]

This 2014 promotion is based on a very strange FAC consisting mostly of an almost drive-by support, and an extended conversation with the author of one of the sources. The nominator is banned for considerable sockpuppetry, and one of the other two FAC reviewers has vanished (so no one to notify here). There have been no significant changes since the notice three years ago from Buidhe raised concerns about sourcing. This is one of the oldest entries at WP:FARGIVEN, so I'm bringing it forward for review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Consider accelerated delist process. Neelix is, in retrospect, not particularly trustworthy for prose-source integrity. 1ST7's review seems to have been cursory and Cliftonian is another somewhat controversial former Wikipedian whose FAs have often not withstood deeper scrutiny, so really this only stands on Tim.riley's review. While the Stone Canoe source is wonderful in its own way, Stone Canoe does not appear to be a particularly prestigious source, so its extensive use is a bit questionable, especially given the obviously positive slant Neelix applied using it. Does not appear that close to making FA standards, unfortunately, and may be a topic that is inherently difficult to write a FA on in the first place due to obscurity + patchy sources. SnowFire (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • accelerate process candidate largely per SnowFire. Is heavily reliant on a source that while is decent is not something to base the entire structure of a FA around, and due to all of the issues with nominator and reviewers Fruit of the poisonous tree may apply here for FA status. Hog Farm Talk 21:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2023 (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 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) 6:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [5].

FC Barcelona

[edit]
Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice noticed 2020-11-29

Review section

[edit]

This 2010 FA was noticed years ago of considerable deficiencies that persist. The original nominator has been inactive for ten years. There is uncited text, unvetted text (the article was promoted with less than 5,000 words of readable prose, but now has over 10,000), a very long lead, MOS cleanup needs (image sandwiching, poorly formatted or incomplete citations, all caps, bare URLs, missing publishers), Further reading needs attention, and considering the absence of a regular curator, the article probably needs a top-to-bottom review to reveal any other problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, no engagement, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC While less concerned with the uncited text, I am concerned that the article has doubled in size without vetting. If an editor is not willing to review the new information, then I think it might need to be delisted. The article also has an extensive "Further reading" section with sources that should either be used as inline citations or removed as cruft. Z1720 (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 2 December 2023 (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 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) 6:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [6].

Mário de Andrade

[edit]
Notified: Chick Bowen, WikiProject Brazil, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Poetry, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, 2023-08-18

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because I have comprehensive concerns about this article. I found some additional sources in August that could be included in the article in August and I think a more comprehensive search would find more. Since the article contains so few inline citations, I think these sources can be explored for inclusion. The article also has some unreferenced passages and I think the "Macunaíma" and "Late life and musical research" sections could be broken up into sub-sections or summarised more effectively. There has been no response to my August notice. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2023 (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 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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 4:40, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [7].

Brownsea Island Scout camp

[edit]

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice Noticed 2023-05-15

Review section

[edit]

This 2007 FA has multiple maintenance tags and sourcing issues, at minimum, which have not been addressed since the 2023-05-15 notice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding source types for the camp itself, the website sources for that particular aspect appear to be expert and the best available I did a search for published books on it and couldn't find any (even to buy, except at very high rare-collector-item type prices.) In case that's a deal breaker for maintaining FA status, I thought I'd mention it right up front. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Sourcing. 05:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
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 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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 4:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [8].

Shelton Benjamin

[edit]
Notified: Ribbon Salminen, DTH89, Nikki311, Fylindfotberserk, Paulley, Bmg916, Feedback, WP Biography, WP Professional wrestling, noticed 2023-08-26

Review section

[edit]

As noted on the article's talk page, the 2007 FA promotion and BLP article has issues with sources that are unreliable and/or do not meet the FA standard of high-quality RS. Hog Farm Talk 02:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:13, 25 November 2023 (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 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) 5:18, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [9].

Ethan Hawke

[edit]
Notified: ThinkBlue, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

Review section

[edit]

Noted in May 2022 here, the article falls short of the FA criteria with several notable deficiencies:

  • The absence of any discussion on Hawke's acting style, artistic approach and public reputation, crucial elements for an actor of his caliber.
  • Brief mentions of his recent work lack critical examination, overlooking the reception of his performances and the films themselves. While a daunting task, sourcing material from interviews, reviews, and commercial performance analyses would enhance this aspect.
  • Some statements remain unsourced, such as "Hawke is a member of the LAByrinth theatre company."
  • If we find someone willing to work on these issues, I can help them find sources. Here are some good examples:

I sincerely hope we find someone to bring this article up to par. FrB.TG (talk) 15:39, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 4 November 2023 (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/archive/December_2023&oldid=1192583951"