Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 2021

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept

[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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC) [1].

Spiderland

[edit]
Notified: Brandt Luke Zorn, WikiProject Music diff
  • Issues in the lead were mentioned back in July on the talk page and seem to have gone unfixed.
  • I posted the following concerns on the talk page and none were addressed. Also pinged FA editor User:Brandt Luke Zorn who did not respond despite still being active.
  • Among the concerns:
  1. [citation needed] tag in "Background"
  2. [When] and [citation needed] tags in "Production".
  3. "Music" section is very choppy and has a lot of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. Also the last paragraph is uncited.
  4. "Don't Look Back Concerts" (citation 27) redirects to a hotel website.
  5. Genius.com (citation 91) does not appear to be reliable.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see what I can do. I'm cleaning up a little bit of trivial info on the background section and replacing some possibly unreliable sources with AllMusic, which is definitely a reliable source. It's slow going, especially since I don't have access to the 33 1/3 book outside of the limited preview in Google Books. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These pointers have been handy for a general clean up, though overall the article remains in very good condition.
  1. Have removed Genious.com, and replaced Don't Look Back Concerts with a ref from Pitchfork.
  2. Issue in background removed.
  3. Looking for a source for the 1st two sentences in "Production"...the [when] is gone...its obvious that it was in 1990
  4. Dont agree re the "Music" section being choppy...the short paras are because each discusses an individual song. Having them like this makes it easier for readers to find what they are looking for on a quick scroll through scan.
  5. will update when the Production bit is reffed Ceoil (talk) 21:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. oh and the issues with the lead were addressed during last summer. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, except the statements within "McMahan and Walford began writing together for the band's next record, creating six new songs which the band practiced throughout the summer of 1990. Slint entered River North Records in August 1990 to record Spiderland. At that time there were no vocals or lyrics prepared for the album, so the band wrote them while in the studio" are as yet uncited - cough User:Brandt Luke Zorn. There is no question that they are not true, but text shift has made them out of sorts....hold on. Ceoil (talk) 01:46, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Redacted)

There is still a citation needed tag, there is an awful lot of quoting, and it might be worth looking at a better application of WP:RECEPTION to avoid a lot of Reviewer A said B, Reviewer C said D. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will give another run through over weekend. Ceoil (talk) 09:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glaring issues that pop up to me right away.
    • There's a formatting screw-up in the first sentence of "Background."
  • Done
    • There's a student newspaper citation for a long quote. I don't think writers of student newspapers are reliable.
  • Removed
    • "The album was virtually unnoticed by the American music press or zines.[28][28]" Why are there duplicate citations?
    • Many "dafuq" moments in the prose: "It's black-and-white cover photograph" "which as taken by Noel Saltzman," "but said mitted the band was" "The UK press music press were among the first to notice praise the album." A random "Ho" at the end of the first sentence of the reunion paragraph.
    • Many non-objective statements, each with only one citation, that are presented as fact but would be more accurate to be attributed: "Spiderland has sold in numbers exceptional for an obscure, defunct band who rarely performed live" and "Compared to record sales by contemporaneous alternative rock bands on major labels, sales of Spiderland would be considered modest or underwhelming."
    • "Today, the album is widely considered a landmark indie rock album" "Widely"? There's only two effin citations. How is that considered widely?!
    • "Spiderland has been cited as an major influence on post-rock bands Mogwai, Godspeed You! Black Emperor, Isis and Explosions in the Sky.[64]" Nonsensical. It's only one article of a random alternative weekly newspaper assuming those bands may have been influenced by the record. Too obscure and abstract to include this.
    • Most of the legacy section is a quotefarm of only a few retrospective reviews.
    • Why does ref 69 have no timestamp?
  • fixed
    • Futhormore, why are some single-page sources citation the Harvard way and others as full cites within footnotes? Inconsistent.
  • fixed
    • "| Features | Pitchfork" are not part of the titles of those Pitchfork features. I think that should be obvious.
    • Many work field names are improperly presented as URLs instead of their actual work names? For example, thelist.co.uk" instead of The List.
  • Another promotion from more than a decade ago that hasn't kept its FA status. The prose is broken and filled with grammar problems, the article is disorganized in some places, and the cite formatting is problematic. I'm also sensing this article is incomplete and has garnered many more retrospective perspectives not cited here. HumanxAnthro (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    HumanxAnthro please see the WP:FAR instructions; Keep or Delist are not declared during the FAR phase, which is for listing items that need to be addressed and hopefully seeing that happen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To note, tomorrow is the 30th anniversary of the album, so expecting a lot heavy duty sources to publish lengthy overviews of its legacy and [v. important] placement in alt music history. Rolling Stone' for example, yesterday published a comprehensive overview of the contemporary music scene, the album's genesis and recording, and its enduring legacy. Ceoil (talk) 21:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, agree with everything HumanxAnthro says above. Will address and come back. Ceoil (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update; have addressed some most, but not all, of HumanxAnthro concerns. Ceoil (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Update; 80% there on standardizing refs. Its slow and tedious; no wonder I like such depressing music. Will probably had this over to voting from next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer, Ceoil, and HumanxAnthro: what remains to be done here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few Tom Maginnis refs to be converted to snf, and a rewriting of the reception section to give better sense of the album's slow build in popularity and cult status. Ceoil (talk) 09:39, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest 1 more week, and then voting. Ceoil (talk) 22:35, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia, TenPoundHammer, and HumanxAnthro:: This will be closed out today, so a final look will be appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say to Keep because the problems are being addressed and quickly responded to. Even if there an issue or two we didn't catch, those could easily be resolved on talk and or done by the editors themselves. Good job to everyone! 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but can we keep it open as there is nothing like a little pressure and a deadline to keep the work going! Your points above were very good, and would like to see all addressed before am distracted by other shiny things. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To note HumanxAnthro has kindly sorted the remaining inconsistent ref formatting issues. Ceoil (talk) 20:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Hog Farm

Reading through this article, as it looks like the FAR is winding down

  • "By early 1990, Rusk had agreed to pay for studio time and committed to a release their next Touch and Go" - I think something is not quite phrased here correctly
    Sorted Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baines 2021 does not seem to be used as a reference
Added this afternoon; to be added to the reception sect. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something seems to be off with the way that the Slint Gallery source is listed - it doesn't have a bullet point leading it, and the others all do
  • Not seeing where the exact release date of March 27 is cited anywhere, or the exact release date for the remaster
    Both now reffed to the Touch and Go records website Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band formed in Louisville, Kentucky in 1986, having met as teenagers playing in the Midwestern punk scene, but soon diverged from their hardcore roots. By the time they recorded Spiderland in late 1990, they had developed a complex, idiosyncratic sound characterized by atypical rhythmic meters, harmonic dissonance and irregular song structures." - not seeing this from the lead in the article
    Uh, the lead does say By the time they recorded Spiderland in late 1990, they had developed a complex, idiosyncratic sound characterized by atypical rhythmic meters, harmonic dissonance and irregular song structures Ceoil (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there may have been an understanding - it's in the lead, but is it in the main body of the article? Hog Farm Talk 20:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah...ok. Silly me. The body does say The album's guitar work is noted for its roomy sound,[13] angular rhythms, dramatically alternating dynamic shifts, and irregular time signatures, though I accept this could do with expansion, especially for the many music nerds that will read the page. Ceoil (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like there's still a bit more that needs done before this should be closed. Hog Farm Talk 19:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So with the lead content comment sorted out, (mainly an issue with my lack of caffiene), I think this is good to close without FARC. I don't see anything beyond a few minor quibbles left here. Hog Farm Talk 20:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sound and looks like we were both insufficiently caffinated. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all. Just wanted to pop in to sincerely thank TenPoundHammer for opening this process and to Ceoil et al. for spearheading the much-overdue improvements. Apologies for my unresponsiveness earlier. After a long period of unemployment most of last year, I found a job in February and have had little to no time for Wikipedia since then, especially intensive writing/researching work. I hadn't checked the page in months and was surprised and grateful to find that you all had taken so much time and care to bring the article back in line with current FA standards. —BLZ · talk 00:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Z1720

I conducted a copyedit of the article to determine if it meets the FA criteria. If you are responding to a comment, please post underneath the bullet point being addressed, as it makes it easier to organise our thoughts. Please also review my copyedit of the article to ensure I didn't inadvertently change the meaning of a sentence. Thanks!

  • "Slint's lineup at the time featured" -> "Slint's lineup during the album's creation"? Since the band broke up by the album's release, we might need to define when "at the time" is
    Its self evidentaly at the time of the recording and release of the album. changed now to be even more clear. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for its roomy sound" What does this mean?
    It means that the micks are picking up a lot of ambient, acoustic sounds. Its a well known descriptor, that we don't have an article for; not in favour of removing, as its something the producer would have been aiming for and many readers would recogonise. Ceoil (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "lake of an abandoned quarry, was taken by Will Oldham." Where was this quarry? It is stated in the picture caption but can also be stated in the article prose.
Done - added at Utica, Indiana. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with Julia Brightly as their sound engineer." Why is it notable that Brightly was their sound engineer?
    This is a baffling challenge. She was the engineer. On the album. And is credited on the sleeve as such. During any recording process, sound engineers are even more important than pr0oducers in setting tone. Think cinematographers vs directors. Ceoil (talk) 23:39, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, let me be more specific on why I flagged this: Brightly doesn't have a wiki article and she is the only person listed as part of the production team in that section. As a non-music person, it seems weird that she is the only person mentioned and it felt like she was added at the end of a section without much context. I see in the next section that the sound was critiqued (both positively and negatively) so maybe she can be added more seamlessly in a section about the sound, but if this isn't possible/necessary then we'll leave it. Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotta ya, with apologies. She was sound engineer "at a gig", not at the "album recording". Well spotted. Removed, with a dose of humble pie. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I speed through these reviews all the time; this is not the first time my comments have not been clear. I appreciate the apology. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(whose recording is described as containing one the best drum sounds Albini ever achieved)" why is this included in the article? If it stays, it should get its own sentence.
    I think its certainly notable enough to be mentioned as Albini is very well regarded indeed, espically for his drum sounds, which influenced countless other bands, producers and engineers. To note your two demands (remove or give a separate sentance) seem to contradict each other; what criteria are you using here. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It should be removed if it is a trivia fact disconnected to the surrounding prose in the article. If it is important to keep in the article, which I think it is, then I wish it would get its own sentence about the reception of the box set. I am not the expert, which is why I wanted to flag it and bring it under consideration. Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tennent is cited to whole chapters. Can this be narrowed down to page numbers?
    No as my copy is an ebook. Ceoil (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a copy of the book with page numbers. I'll try to add page numbers to the article right now. Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be great! Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. There is one concern: the new ref 22 to "Tennent 107" was cited to Chapter 4, but the only place "actual singing" appears in the source is on page 107, which is chapter 6. Can you check to make sure that I have the right page number, or cite the passage that is supposed to verify so I can find the page number? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ankeny doesn't have a year.

This article is in a really good condition. Once the above points are addressed I will re-review the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointers Z1720. Give an hour or so and will address. Ceoil (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of WP:OVERCITE, specifically WP:REPCITE (which, although it is an essay, I think it brings up excellent points) there are some places that citations could be merged to help the reader. I have indicated them below, in case there was a reason that the citation needs to remain. If they can be deleted, please do so or indicate below the bullet point:
  • "Throughout the summer of 1990, the band practiced the music for six new songs McMahan and Walford had written for Slint's second album. The songs were recorded in August 1990 with producer Brian Paulson, who was known for his "live" recording style and minimal takes.[11] Paulson later said that the recording "was weird... because I remember sitting there, and I just knew there was something about it. I've never heard anything like this."[11]" Can the first [11] be removed?
  • "Rumors circulated that at least one member of Slint had checked into a psychiatric hospital.[15] Walford later said that there was no truth to such claims, although the band was "definitely trying to be serious about things, pretty intense, which made recording the album kinda stressful."[15]" Can the first [15] be removed?
  • "The opening track, "Breadcrumb Trail", describes a day at a carnival with a fortune-teller.[23] The song is built from complex guitar arrangement with sharp transitions, during which the guitar fluctuates between a clean-sounding riff with harmonics in the verse to heavy and high pitched distortion in the chorus.[23]" Can the first [23] be removed?
  • ""Nosferatu Man" is the second track and was inspired by the 1922 German Expressionist silent film Nosferatu.[24] Its verse includes a dissonant guitar riff which uses high-pitched notes similar to those in "Breadcrumb Trail" and a drumbeat centered on snare and toms.[24] The chorus, featuring "jagged" distorted guitar and a beat with "thrashing cymbals with quick drum fills", segues into an extended jam before the song ends with 30 seconds of feedback.[24]" Can the first and second [24] be removed?
  • ""Washer" is the album's longest track, and features a low volume intro with guitar and cymbals before the rest of the band joins in the recording.[26] The song builds until the final verse, when the tension is broken by loud distortion, followed by a lengthy outro.[26]" Can the first [26] be removed?
  • "The photograph on the back cover is of a dead wolf spider, taken by Noel Saltzman, who also took the uncredited cover photo for their untitled 1994 EP.[32] Saltzman found the spider in a shed while working his summer job. As it would not remain still enough to be photographed, Saltzman killed, froze, and repositioned it with tweezers to take the shot.[32]" Can the first [32] be removed?
  • "The UK music press were the first to report on the album. Albini, who produced Tweez, wrote a review for Melody Maker published on March 30, 1991.[19]" This whole paragraph refers to this source, so can this [19] be removed?

Thanks for considering this. Z1720 (talk) 00:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are excellent points, and have been gladly removed. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC: My concerns, per above, have been addressed and I think this can remain a featured article. Thanks Ceoil for your great work in fixing this up. Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 that was great review. Thanks for highlight some bits, and then fixing others before noticed. You know what you are doing, thanks a bunch. Ceoil (talk) 02:15, 20 June 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.

Removed

[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) 3:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC) [2].

William Goebel

[edit]
Notified: Acdixon, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Kentucky, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject United States, diff for talk page notification

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because major sourcing issues were identified by RD on talk but never fixed. In particular, the article cites book-length sources without giving a page number. Also, since there have been entire books written about the guy, it's not clear that the present article is WP:COMPREHENSIVE. (t · c) buidhe 03:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC limited edits to the article since the notice was placed on the talk page in April, sources still need to cite specific page numbers. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 12 June 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.
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) 3:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC) [3].

Chetwynd, British Columbia

[edit]
Notified: KenWalker, Maclean25, WP Cities, WP British Columbia, WP Canada, WP Canadian communities, 2020-10-25
When closing, note for recordkeeping purposes, this is a re-promoted WP:FFA.

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2007 promotion that has not been maintained to standard. There is uncited text, MOS:CURRENT issues, and portions that need to be updated-- a couple of samples only:

  • It has recently been renovated and now contains a rock climbing wall, indoor walking track and fitness center.[citation needed] Smart Growth BC ranked the town as one of BC's most livable municipalities in 2004, due mainly to its large park spaces.
  • The current mayor, Allen Courtoreille, was first elected in 2018. He was preceded by Merlin Nichol (2011-2018) and Evan Saugstad (2003-2011). The city funds a volunteer fire department, which services the town and nearby rural communities. It also maintains the sewer, water, local road, sidewalk, street lighting, animal control, building inspection, park, and recreation services.

Citations need to be cleaned up and standardized for missing information and date consistency. If someone will take on improvements, this should not be hard to restore, but the deficiencies have stood in spite of a notice last October. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the principal author, I will strive to make worthwhile edits but I am not seeking to retain FA-status. Thanks. maclean (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Maclean25 and Mattximus: thanks for the considerable work. [4] Is this ready for a fresh look, or is there more to come? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the demographics section is not comprehensive enough to be at featured article standard. There should be a few sentences on language/ethnic groups, basic demographic things. Also I checked the first source but it failed to provide the number quoted in the sentence. The second sentence is unsourced and I cannot find that reference using google. It's certainly not horrible but that section does need a bit of work. Mattximus (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK I rewrote the second paragraph and added information which I now think is comprehensive enough for a featured article (I hope the wording is correct). I still have the two outstanding sourcing issues from the first paragraph that I cannot solve, but now the content of that section is essentially complete. Mattximus (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments for HumanxAnthro
  • Honestly, while I will take Sandy's word that this article may need improvements, I don't it's quite in the red zone and I think it's held up extremely well for a 2007 FA. There are issues to make about the cite formatting (inconsistent date formats and whether sources like Statistics Canada have their names italicized or not), but it mostly looks put-together, plus I only noticed one uncited statement: "The area's native tree species include deciduous balsam poplar and coniferous spruce and pine. Many fur-bearing animals—deer, moose, elk, beaver, and bear—comprise the region's mammalian wildlife. Three creeks run south through town. Windrem Creek—which flows down from Ol' Baldy Mountain—and Widmark Creek both flow into Centurion Creek, which itself drains south into the Pine River." Plus, all the sources used appear to be reliable, with government census data and newspaper articles and the like. The prose also looks well-organized and easy to understand, so if the MOS:CURRENT issues and sourcing is fixed, I think it's got a strong chance of being an FA. 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:43, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was compiled in a time when FAC's expectations for citations were more closely aligned with Wikipedia:When to cite so everything should be in the references section but only cited when necessary. To HumanxAnthro's question, the list of animals all comes from the biogeoclimatic references earlier in the paragraph (except for the names of the watercourses which can be easily found on maps). I have made some edits to update and replace some refs, use cites to better explain where content is coming from, and generally provide some content updates. City articles tend to suffer from demands for recentism (understandable for an FA) so I have also tried to future-proof it better. For future editors, to improve this article better use of its local newspaper, the Chetwynd Echo, should be made but its articles are not currently in a searchable database. Similarly, I understand its history book, History Book Saga of Little Prairie-Chetwynd, was updated in 2012. I am okay with it moving to FARC and being de-listed. It was among WP's best city-articles during its day but there are better ones now and I am only going to update it less frequently as the years go by. Thanks. maclean (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What to do? The article has been cleaned up, but Maclean25 indicates they don't plan to keep up going forward. We can't delist an article because of what might happen going forward :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we can't delist an article because an editor says they won't update it. Hopefully other editors will come along to update various section. As for the article right now, I think the History section could do with a little trim, while also adding a line or two about the municipality post-2004. Z1720 (talk) 02:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Identify what issues are present now and those can get addressed now; if this needs to come back again later, so be it. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HF

  • I think this is looking like something that can probably be kept, so I'll give it a read-through
  • Should we have an as of in the lead for the MLA representation? Might be useful, although I reckon those are also things that get fairly well updated.
  • "Little Prairie was homesteaded by Alexander and Lillan Windrem in 1930 and cleared the land by 1935 for hay, oats and gardens" - Should this be "who cleared the land"?
  • CN in the wildlife and climate section
  • Has anyone checked the climate table to see if it needs updated? I see that the source accessdate is from 2005
  • Are there any education statistics more recent than the early 2000s?
  • A dead link or two. Tried to fix with IAbot, but it didn't get those. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So there's still a bit of work to do, but should be fixable. Hog Farm Talk 16:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hog Farm, that if these straggling issues can be cleared up, this should be in Keep territory, and we can only cross our fingers and hope the article will be maintained so we won't be right back here in a few years. User:Maclean25 are you able to address Hog Farm's list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's always a little bit more to edit with a dynamic subject, such as a city article. Best to move it to FARC based on the notes above. To answer one of Hog Farm's questions, the climate table was updated in 2013 and the new data has not been released yet (Environment Canada updates that data every 10 years) so that is still current. That climate table was added by another editor and I'm glad it is there to make use of the Environment Canada weather station at the Chetwynd Airport. Thanks. maclean (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, it is quite a pity that we should have to defeature this article because it is not being updated. I attempted to address the text that is uncited in "Geography and climate" myself, dealing with local trees, wildlife, and creeks. The first thing I found was an indication that citing wildlife would be harder than I thought:

If someone can get hold of a local newspaper or another source to cite that information, this article should be salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I consider Macleans a high-quality source (it is a very reputable Canadian magazine) so I think you can use this source to cite things in the article. I will look for local newspapers later. Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Results of local news source search: Info on caribou herds near Chetwynd in 2020: [5][6]. These reports also mention moose and wolves, and a couple of other animals in passing. It's hard to find sources on the biodiversity because reports mention Chetwynd as part of an area that stretches to Dawson Creek, and doesn't specifically state if these animals or plants exist in or near Chetwynd. A search for balsam poplar produced 0 hits. Spruce's search results were polluted with news stories of a spruce beetle infestation a couple of years ago, and I'm not sure if it involved the city (the news reports mention inspections of Chetwynd but not the results of the inspections.) Pine is next to impossible because streets, neighbourhoods, and other geographical features are named "Pine" so search results were polluted. I couldn't find sources that mention Chetwynd and the creeks. I have never edited a city/geography FA so I am hesitant to add/change info. If others can't read the source, I can add info with a little guidance on what should be included in the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to be bold and add the info myself. Unfortunately, I could only verify three animals and one pine beetle infestation with the sources I found. I removed the info concerning the trees and the creeks; if you find sources for them, please add them back in. SandyGeorgia is there anything else that needs work? If not, I can do a copyedit/review of the whole article's prose. Z1720 (talk) 19:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 22 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.
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) [7].

St Kilda, Scotland

[edit]
Notified: Ben MacDui, WikiProject Scotland WikiProject Scottish Islands, WikiProject UK geography [8]

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[9] 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.
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) 1:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC) [10].

McDonald's Cycle Center

[edit]
Notified: TonyTheTiger, WikiProject Environment, WikiProject Chicago, WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Cycling, WikiProject Architecture, 2021-03-28

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are when? tags from 2019 that need to be resolved. There's also WP:PROMO language, some of which I identified in the notice on the article's talk page. No edits have been made to the article since I posted my concerns in late-March. Z1720 (talk) 00:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include style and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 5 June 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.
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) 1:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC) [11].

Report of 1800

[edit]
Notified: Christopher Parham, WikiProject Virginia, WikiProject Freedom of Speech, WikiProject Law, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Politics, Diff of talk page notice 2021-03-05

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails to meet criterion 1c, sourcing. Large chunks of text are lacking any citations whatsoever, while many others are cited only to dated and/or primary sources. While this article might have met our criteria in 2007, it seems like it would require a great deal of work to bring it up to our present standards. Since there have been no improvements since Hog Farm gave notice over two months ago, it would appear that reconsidering the article's status is appropriate. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 5 June 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.
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) 1:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC) [12].

Transit of Venus

[edit]
Notified: Anthony, WP Solar System, WP Astronomy, talk page notice 2021-02-05

Review section

[edit]

This 2004 Featured article has not been maintained to current standards, and there has been no input since the notice in February 2021. In addition to issues noticed on 2021-02-05, there is considerably poor layout with MOS:SANDWICHing, large amounts of uncited text, and a prose tuneup is needed. There are no currently active editors in the article page stats; like most of the astronomy suite of FAs, this one appears to be untended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC – refs are seriously lacking across large swaths of text; image placement needs work; prose needs to be reworked in places. There haven't been any substantive edits in months, which suggests that there's no one willing to fix these considerable issues. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - In addition, will also suggest that the section for the 1761 and 1769 transits may need attention from a weighting perspective, as even what appear to be more minor observation groups are described in detail there, with much less detail going to other transits. Also, significant image work is needed - there's an image of an ancient clay tablet that isn't mentioned in the article at all. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include organization, prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 5 June 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.
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) 1:33, 19 June 2021 (UTC) [13].

Fourth International

[edit]
Notified: Warofdreams, WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Politics, diff for talk page notification 2021-01-21

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are issues with FA criteria. As noted back in January the article heavily relies on primary and affiliated sources, lacks citations in places, and does not fully utilize independent scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 03:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:12, 5 June 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.
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) 1:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC) [14].

Ecclesiastical heraldry

[edit]
Notified: Gimmetrow, WP Heraldry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity, 2020-12-27

Review section

[edit]

This August 2006 promotion has not been reviewed since and has significant amounts of uncited text. While some work occurred in mid-December, things have stalled since then, and it will take some heavy work finding the exact references used and making sure things haven't crept in. Hog Farm Talk 01:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - no engagement, issues remain. Hog Farm Talk 05:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: unsourced paragraphs and statements, including words to watch. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist still not engagement, issues need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite agree there has been no engagement... from the FAR "reviewers". Kay asserted that paragraphs are unsourced. I looked at the article and that appears to me to fail verification. Kay also asserted there are "words to watch", with no examples of anything problematic. I could touch it up but I see little reason to since nobody has provided a single actionable item in the 4+ months since the article talk page "notice" Gimmetrow 03:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Gimmetrow thanks for responding above. Sometimes editors wait until someone says, "I will fix it" before giving a detailed review, because they are time-consuming and its disheartening when a detailed, time-consuming review is ignored. I'm happy to give some detailed, actionable items below. Although I will not be engaged in the initial cleanup of the article, since I am not knowledgeable in this topic area, I am happy to review the article later as a non-expert to improve the prose and point out areas that are unclear. Some actionable items to improve the article are:
1) At a minimum, I expect every FA article to have a citation at the end of each paragraph. For some paragraphs, the last sentence does not have a footnote. Is this information verified by a source? If so, it should be cited. If not, it should be removed. If it would help, I can add citation needed tags to the article.
2) There doesn't appear to be any post-2007 sources. This makes sense because that's when the article was promoted to FA status. Is there any updated scholarly material we can cite? Perhaps there is some additional information we should add to the history section.
        1. Not quite an expert on ecclesiastical heraldry, so I may be wrong, but my understanding is that this stuff is based on very old traditions and doesn't change much. Hog Farm Talk 14:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm OK with someone doing a search and determining that there aren't high-quality, new sources on this topic. I think a search is still useful to ensure the article is updated if necessary. Z1720 (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3) There is some MOS:SANDWICH happening in the article. Are all the pictures necessary? Maybe some of them should be removed.
Once these are addressed, please ping me and I will conduct another review. Thanks for help bringing this article back to FA standards. Z1720 (talk) 14:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now at strong delist. There's been no engagement at all, just a bit of bad-mouthing of reviewers. Gimmetrow basically calls me a liar for claiming that there are unsourced paragraphs. There are obviously unsourced paragraphs: e.g. first paragraph of the 'Personal design' section, second paragraph of the 'Ecclesiastical hat' section, third paragraph of the 'Mantle' section. Unsourced words to watch include "often" and "traditionally", which are explicitly mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, but there are many, many other unsourced claims and words that require attribution, including "reduced to only their shields", "symbolize mortality", "typically", "entirely", "usually", "intended", "same principle", "entire", "normally", "rather than", "never", "because", "notable", "ornate", "rare", "appropriately", and so on. DrKay (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • They are "words to watch", not "words to avoid". Just about any "rule" in heraldry has exceptions, so the literature itself uses "often", "typically", "traditionally" and "normally". I put a footnote on one use of "often" but I'm not sure it's worthwhile to footnote every one of these, and to remove these qualifiers would usually result in incorrect statements. Gimmetrow 14:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I concur that many of the unsourced sentences/paragraphs do not describe common knowledge and thus need to be sourced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:11, 11 June 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.
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) 2:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC) [15].

Oriel College, Oxford

[edit]
Notified: TSventon, Ravenpuff, Wiki alf, WP Higher ed, WP Oxford, WP Middle Ages, 2021-01-18 talk page notification

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2007 featured article that has not been maintained to FA standards. Some updates were done after the January talk page notification, but the article still has considerable maintenance tags and relies heavily on primary sources. There are bare URLs, inconsistent citations, page numbers needed, citation needed tags, spaced endashes, and considering the overall deterioration in the article, a top-to-bottom rewrite and review is probably in order for datedness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:20, 28 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.
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) 2:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC) [16].

Atomic line filter

[edit]
Notified: nominator long retired,, WP Physics, March 7 talk page notification

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks citations in places, and is likely outdated with sources typically pre-2005, missing for instance this 2020 review. First sentence seems unfinished. FemkeMilene (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 28 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.
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) 2:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC) [17].

Flag of Portugal

[edit]
Notified: Parutakupiu, Portugal, WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, diff for talk page notification May 1

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has a big issue with unsourced content. After removing one patently unreliable source there are now over 20 cn tags, and also unsourced content that's not marked. Hog Farm brought up these issues on talk 2 weeks ago but did not receive a response so here we are. (t · c) buidhe 04:40, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC While there have been a few edits, but the significant work still has to start. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - a little done, but it's largely tapered off and still a lot to do. Also concerned about the reliability of some of the still-present sources, such as the Portugese source "Acção Monárquica Tradicionalista" and I have some doubts about the wargaming site. This needs a lot of sourcing work. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 28 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.
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) 2:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC) [18].

Pierre Rossier

[edit]
Notified: Pinkville, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject China, WikiProject Photography, WikiProject Biography,WikiProject Switzerland, 2021-03-26 talk page notification

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because recent scholarship has been found and needs to be assessed and added to the article (as listed on talk page), there are extensive notes in the references, making it difficult to verify the information, and there are uncited sentences in the "Later years" and "Legacy" sections. Z1720 (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On hold: Pinkville is working on the article. See article talk page for details. Z1720 (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing that the FAR has been placed on hold by the Coords (that is, temporarily removed from the page for extenuating circumstances, which is a different thing than work ongoing). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if my bold "on hold" above was confusing, I was suggesting that the article should be placed on hold because of the messages Pinkville and I exchanged on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinkville there was no feedback between the March 26 talk page notification and the May 8 FAR; what are your thoughts on the time you will need to make the necessary adjustments? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:22, 28 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.
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) 2:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC) [19].

The Pit and the Pendulum (1961 film)

[edit]
Notified: Nominator (as well as the most prominent contributor to this article by many, many edits) has been inactive since October 2017, the only other users with the most edits to this page have only made minor edits, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Horror, 2021-03-29

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this article for featured article review because it is another late 2000s FA promotion nominated by an inactive user that has not been checked. An attempt to discuss and address the issues on the talk page (which I started a month ago) garnered no responses. This article is C-class at best and the amount of major issues are endless. It has no representation from academic literature (of which this topic has plenty), there are un-cited statements, there are sources Nikkimaria or Hog Farm would question in an instant (Teako170.com, Box Office Story, The Astounding B Monster, Mondo Digital) and flat out would not allow (Cinebeats is a self-published blog), the prose is overly dependent quotes, reception section is a WP:QUOTEFARM, the plot section is not only 42 words over WP:FILMPLOT's 700-word limit but also is a bloated sequence of events instead of a concise summary, there are bare URLs for references 2 and 3, and (perhaps the biggest issue with this article) it is extremely non-comprehensive for an article about a film by the king of horror himself. I'd love to see improvements on this, but I am also afraid that is too far away from having the gold star; I don't think a simple discussion would save it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are also issues with overreliance on direct quotes in some sections, IMO, and several citations are missing page numbers. Hog Farm Talk 03:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 15 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/archive/June_2021&oldid=1030466968"