Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October 2022

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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC) [1].

H.D.

[edit]
Notified: Ceoil, WP Gender Studies, WP LGBT studies, WP London, WP Lehigh Valley, WP Women writers, WP Women, WP Bio, WP Pennsylvania, WP Women's history, WP Poetry, talk page notice 2022-03-07

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is some uncited text and after having tried to source some of it and read a bit about the subject I found there is some rather important info either missing or uncited.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see what you mean. Some problems are quick to fix, like the external links in the bibliography, which can become footnotes instead. I do think the article is rescuable, though it would be easier if there was a really good, recent biography to rely on for filling gaps. I would have liked to find something from 2000 or later, but even the HD society doesn't point to one. The best sources might be:
    • this 1995 bio
    • from 2011, the MLA Approaches to Teaching H.D.’s Poetry and Prose might have some very useful overviews
    • Susan Friedman’s article in the Dictionary of Literary Biography, vol. 45, 2nd series (volume is entitled, Modern American Poets) - HD society calls it "excellent and highly recommended"
    • Herself Defined: the Poet H.D. and Her World, by Barbara Guest, an "authorized biography" from the 80s that still seems to be in use
Before I did my source search, I was more alarmed by the fact that the sources in the article are a little old. But now that I have looked for something newer, I am a little less worried that they are out of date. Or, if they are, there isn't an obvious better source. I am pretty busy this week but may see if I can find some of these sources and start poking. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fair nom of an old FAR save and does need to be brought up to standard. The recent FAR driven overhaul of the closely related Imagism[2] will help as is recent, so have the (the near identical) sources close to hand and they are fresh in mind. This one is a lost closer to my heart than say Heavy Metal (although as listening to Sunn O))) now), so slotting highly on priority list. Assessment and estimated timeline to follow. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through some other poetry FAs and seen some have an own article on works or bibliography like Stephen Crane or Maya Angelou. Other FAs also have a selection of works included in the article on the author. I'd personally prefer an own article for her bibliography, but I am not so much into the subject. Or maybe her works could be presented more in detail as in some of the other FAs. What is your opinion on the matter Ceoil? - Paradise Chronicle
Usually would go for a separate article, but think here the section (now retitled "selected works" so we don't have to be exhaustive and converted to two columns so it doesn't take up too much space), we have is concise and manageable. Not opposed to spinning out however. Ceoil (talk) 19:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, am traveling for another week or so, so do not have access to my book sources. Also have ordered [3] which looks promising for expansion. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen your effort in ordering a book on her, I also made some online research and intend to work on the article a bit while you are away for the next week or so.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 00:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am really delighted to hear that :) Ceoil (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I am getting into it. On her relationship with Bryher there seemed to be quite much written and Norman Holmes Pearson, the holder of her copyrights is not mentioned yet in the article. They seemed to have had an extensive, decades-long professional relationship, with him publishing her works also after her death. H.D.'s daughter Perdita seemed to be working with him during WW 2 in the secret service.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an update, my copy arrived yesterday, but am still at the reading through stage. Ceoil (talk) 13:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • How are these two thoughts -- in the same sentence -- related? She met Pound in 1901, and attended Bryn Mawr College between 1904 and 1906.
  • I thought innovate was a verb?? championed her as an innovate poet.
  • Why "already" ... no prior context for this ... By this time Pound had already relocated to England,
  • ???? In 1896, hes was appointed Flower Professor of Astronomy
    I can't explain this, copy or paste or something <hangs head, gets coat>. "Hes" and "flower" removed. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That was added by me, but I made a typo on the hes which meant to be a his. Her father was really the Flower Professor of Astronomy in memory of a Mister Flower.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 18:59, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ???? After she studied at home until 1910.
    Reworded, but intended was "After, she studied...". Doh. Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand the section heading "H.D. Imagiste" ... we shouldn't repeat the article title in a section heading, and why not just, Imagist?
    • It's not nonsensical, and the couple sources I'm skimming do focus on Pound's "H.D. Imagiste" inscription on her poem mentioned in the section. She also places some importance on that moment. Still, Imagism might be a more descriptive heading. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • "H.D. Imagiste" is a thing...amongst aficionados; but we are not writing for them. Sect is retitled as "Imagism", but may become "London and Imagism". Ceoil (talk) 19:56, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ???? He was impressed by her awareness of the aspiration's for contemporary poetry and free verse which had been discussing with Aldington, with whom he had shared plans to reform through tanka and the brevity of haiku. ????
    • Completely re-written as "...(Pound had) already begun to meet with other poets at the Eiffel Tower restaurant in Soho to discuss plans to reform contemporary poetry through free verse, the brevity of the tanka and haiku forms, and the removal of all unnecessary verbiage from poetry." Ceoil (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stopped there, do not understand what is happening here, but unless much more work is planned, it looks like we should be moving to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers does this article interest you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It sure does! How can I help? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:59, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See my post just above ... I started at the top and found all sorts of problems. Thanks for helping! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed a few (hopefully). In general, I think the copy-editing/clarity issues alone are significant. The citations themselves need some fixing up. I'll dig into it. I have no informed opinion on whether fixes can happen during FAR or if a move to FARC is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:40, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With you, Ceoil and Victoriaearle on it (3x competence), theoretically a move to FARC should be avoidable. Thanks again for helping out, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To update, Firefangledfeathers and Victoria have done a lot of heavy lifting re prose, and I'm combing through. Will ping again when ready, and thanks so much for the review. Ceoil (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working from the bottom up and very slowly (well, that's an understatement!). I am familiar with H. D's story - at least the early years, but came to it via the sources to do with Pound and it's better to get her out from his shadow where she's lingered (as Ceoil has suggested), so there's more reading involved. The article makes sense to me, so maybe it's just an issue of rewording? Will continue to watch to see how it develops. P.s I don't see this in FARC territory at all. Victoria (tk) 13:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so now I understand why I found so many problems at the top! Thx, Victoria ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it's under control and others are working the page so I'll go ahead and step away now. Victoria (tk) 18:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Deservedly after so much tinkering, fixing and smoothing. Your edits were significant improvements. Ceoil (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't decipher the problem here, left an inline comment:

  • Aldington, Richard; Gates, Norman. Richard Aldington: An Autobiography in Letters. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1992. ISBN ‎978-0-2710-0832-5 Parameter error in Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: Missing ISBN.: Invalid ISBN.

What's odd is that it links to the correct ISBN on Amazon, so what is the error? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Same prob with the (different isbn) on amazon.co.uk. I let it in assuming it was a local to wiki bug (these things happen, as we are seeing with the duplinks tool. Ceoil (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • The template documentation for the isbn template says "Since invalid ISBNs are sometimes used in publications, it is possible to disable the validity check for individual ISBNs given as parameters. In order to do so, add invalid?=yes (with ? replaced by the parameter number 1 to 9) to the template. In this case, the article will be added to Category:Pages with listed invalid ISBNs." so this ain't necessarily a problem and there appears to be a work-around to kill the error message. Hog Farm Talk 20:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I suspect it's a Wiki bug ... but can we sort the editor/author issue I left in the inline comment ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll look into it after work if nobody else addresses it first - I have an idea what's going on but it may not be right (it could be a collection of writings by Aldington edited by Gates). Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The error suppression worked: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great. One to remember as has happened before. The sources is now listed as Gates only, as its his introduction that is being used as a source. Ceoil (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But irritating is that it is still listed in an error category, that will cause it to show on FA error report ... so I added back the note ... <grrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which version of Levenson is being used ? The ISBN listed goes here (New Directions publisher, 1983, a different book), while the citation indicates Cambridge University Press, 1986, which has a different ISBN: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. The quote its supporting appears in a lot of books; am going to try and remove Levenson and cite to another (in use) source. The list of sources is anyway getting too long, as not all are core. Ceoil (talk) 21:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Now reff'd to King (1981), a book that is specifically about H.D. and Pound rather than a gneral survey of Imagism (and correspondingly doesn't throw up an isbn error). Nice spot! Ceoil (talk) 22:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To note, I imported text from Victoria and Sarah's work on Ezra Pound in this diff. I think I followed att, but mentioning here if further needs to be done as this is the place for confessions. Ceoil (talk) 10:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis good ... you attributed in edit summary, per WP:CWW, so I don't have to go and add a {{Copied}} to talk! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notes that don't match Sources:

Missing:

  • Blau 1981
  • Chisholm 1992
  • Duncan 2011
  • Evans 2010
  • Guest 1985
  • Harrell 2010
  • Hughes 1990
  • Morris 2003
  • Taylor 2001

Short note does not match Source listing:

  • Lohr Martz, (1983), p. 299

Years don't match

  • McCabe

Inconsistent format in short note:

  • Sword, Helen. (1995), pp. 347–62 (last name only ?)

I had to put these sources into a spreadhseet to check this; if the notes were converted to sfns, errors would be caught easily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still on the docket. I'll need a bit of time after Ceoil's pass to work on that. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the errors will still have to be sorted ... McCabe is all over the place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, thanks for the list. I've fixed a couple of mistakes: fixed the transcription mistake for McCabe (2022 > 2002); removed the first name from Martz & Sword. The following sources are currently not used, hence not showing up in footnotes:

  • Blau DuPlessis 1981
  • Chisholm 1992
  • Duncan 2011
  • Evans 2010
  • Guest is quoted in Kakutani (NYT), otherwise not used
  • Harrell 2010
  • Hughes 1990
  • Morris 2003
  • Taylor 2002

Once the lit review and reading is done they can be removed. I've not been doing any of the reading but there's a fair amount and don't want to presume at this point that a source will or will not be used. Ceoil can speak to that. Victoria (tk) 20:15, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly Victoria. As an update

Update: I would very much like Firefangledfeathers to begin the conversion to snf if they are still interested and have time, and SandyGeorgia, Paradise Chronicle and Victoria to begin a final review when they have a chance. Thanks all (incl Nikkimaria for endless patience, eeek). Ceoil (talk) 23:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil, I have to get through Joan of Arc; ping me after Firefangledfeathers is done if I forget to get here next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
np Sandy, and youre help/view is appreciated as always. Ceoil (talk) 00:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! I'll get started. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:18, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy days. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some info on her daughter Perdita, who is described at the section Legacy. I usually add info on family and children in personal life, but in the case of H.D. I am not sure if that works as well. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ping received. Will take a run through when I can. Victoria (tk) 19:36, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victoriaearle pls ping me when you're done so I won't get in your way ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know when I can get to it and am happy to go last, after all the changes have been made, etc. If Ceoil is traveling it's possible I might be able to address points that raised during his absence. Victoria (tk) 19:57, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
P.s regarding the ref reformatting - I've not looked closely but noted that Barnstone is "Barnstone-Doolittle" in the short note. We're not citing Doolittle, we're citing Barnstone. It worked in the unformatted refs, but with templates we may need to split out Barnstone into the separate chapters, "Introduction", "Readers Notes", "Life" to get it right. Victoria (tk) 20:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On the radar! Trilogy is not the only book affected by this. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:39, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Sorry if it sounds as though I'm being picky. Victoria (tk) 23:44, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No apology needed! I went with a style that works for me but am open to feedback. I'm now done (I hope) with converting the references and citations. I'm not sure who is up next exactly, so I'm pinging both Victoriaearle and SandyGeorgia. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:17, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, an update on the unused sources. It's now just:
  • Evans 2010
  • H.D. 1979
  • Laity 1996
  • and Lucas 1993
. Laity seems like the main missed opportunity here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Victoria may be out for health reasons for the rest of the week; the remaining items, and those on talk, are probably best left for her return, although I'll start looking in as I get time. Great work so far !! Thanks for doing the tedious stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Firefangledfeathers, I got sidetracked. But I've been watching and will try to get back to this in the next few days. I definitely need another read through and, if possible, address any of the issues on the talk page. It's possible we'll have to wait for Ceoil to surface. Victoria (tk) 19:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me to review after you're done (and depending on when Ceoil surfaces). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will try to get to it during the week. Victoria (tk) 21:25, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Just for the record am resurfacing, and delighted with all the work since. Trying to catch up. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this needs to be closed one way or another. For happy reasons, I'm probably not around for the next few weeks. However, think Firefangled and Victoria have done great work, the page is much better, weather it retains the star or not, the work was not in vain; we now have a vastly improved article - to acknowledge the heavy duty work by both. Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a read-through then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm free to work on any issues that come up in your read-through. Pseudo-Pseudo-Dionysius thinks they'll be back with is in about a week to overhaul the Selected works and maybe some other improvements. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Nikki is always very patience, but to be fair to her nerves.....22:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to read through this over the weekend with an eye to seeing if this is ready to keep, although I have to admit that the only poetry I've read in the last year or so is the book of Psalms. Hog Farm Talk 22:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Starting in since Hog Farm is busy.

I'm stopping there, as this is more than I should have put on the main FAR page, and will resume later on the talk page with the World War I section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. I knocked out the easy ones as noted above. I'm sure there's more that needs to be reworked in the lead and have been hoping to leave that to the end. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once you're through these (lead last), I'll continue on talk here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once Sandy's satisfied, ping me and I'll take a look. Sorry I could get to this earlier, I got busy last week. Hog Farm Talk 22:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple more done, with some judgment calls made. See comments above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rest are done! Please review and let me know. My eyes are on the talk page for the next set when you're ready. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On it today ... at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/H.D./archive2#SG comments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good progress made on talk page, but there are still a few bits that need to be tidied when Ceoil can get to them (not right away), and we'll ping in Hog Farm for a look once Ceoil has gotten to that, and Firefangledfeathers has had a pass as well ... so Hog Farm you're off the hook for a week or two. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update talk page work still underway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article 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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC) [6].

Josquin des Prez

[edit]
Notified: Turangalila, Aza24, Toccata quarta, Antandrus, Jerome Kohl, WP Composers, WP Bio, WP Christianity, talk page notification 2020-12-17

This is a 2007 FA whose main editor has not significantly edited Wikipedia since that year. After I pointed out some fairly minor issues on talk last year, Aza24 and Toccata quarta raised more significant problems with comprehensiveness, synth and OR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24: - I see that you've done a bit of cleanup - do you think that this one is fixable? Hog Farm Talk 15:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the music section (definitely the most complex section) is so thorough already, I do think it is possible. I would need some time though, as I'm juggling many things right now. I'll see what Josquin books my library has; it really just needs a lot more information from Fallows, which is by-far the best source on Josquin's life. Aza24 (talk) 08:55, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying; keep us posted on your progress! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 when you get to this point … References and further reading might be separated, and some short-note citations have final punctuation, while others do not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy, I've done the former just now. I've gotten a hold of Sherr 2000 and Lowinsky 1976; I've also just now requested Fallows 2020 from my library. Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 are you still thinking this is doable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! The library sent me the book I needed today, so I will take a crack at it this weekend and report back. Aza24 (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were some edits yesterday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, sorry for such a delay. Unfortunately this week I have some other WP stuff higher on my plate but after that (by next weekend) this will be at the top of my list. I have all the sources necessary and have been reading through them for some time now. Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Aza24 has been editing the article this week, and edited the article yesterday. Z1720 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24 do you have an estimate on timing for finishing up here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good question—I'm probably not taking part in TCC so I can focus on this. I'm thinking in the next two weeks I can get most of the preexisting issues fixed up, and add the more obvious omissions. After then I'll try to draft a new reputation section, which will need to include quite a bit of new scholarship. Aza24 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

27 April Update Thanks everyone for their patience, I'm going to give an idea of my general plans from today onwards (for mainly myself, but also so others know progress is being made and areas for improvement have been identified).

  • Life section
    • Need to take another look at the 1st paragraph of Birth and background; last paragraph of Ferrara; and 2nd and 3rd paragraph of Early life
    • Rome section needs a little bit more on when he left(might need more later, not sure, but good enough for FAR purposes)
    • The 'Milan and travels' and 'Departure from Rome; Milan and France' need quite a bit of expansion/updating
    • The 'Retirement to Condé-sur-l'Escaut' needs some expansion and reorganization as well, but not as much as the two above (started this, about 1/3 through)
  • Music
    • Overview section needs a general rethinking, especially in terms of sourcing
    • Masses is solid for the most part, just needs a few more references really
    • 'Chansons and instrumental compositions' needs a bit of rewriting to be more concise and better sourced
  • Influence and reputation needs quite a bit of expansion, hard to sum up here, but this is perhaps what the article lacks the most thus far.
  • What has been done already:
    • Existing sources have been reformatted and organized (almost done)
    • Entirely new Portraits section has been added
    • Name section has been cleaned up and had sources added to it
    • Birth and background has been largely rewritten and updated with newer sources
    • The sections on Rome and Ferrara respectively have been largely rewritten and updated
    • Lead has been cleaned up, but will require a rewrite (a minor task, really) when the above is addressed.
  • My next goal is probably tackling the Retirement to Condé-sur-l'Escaut section. Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very close, aiming for completion by the end of this week. Aza24 (talk) 04:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The two remaining sections that need major work are 'Milan and France' and 'Condé-sur-l'Escaut', though the latter is about half way done. The Masses section and the Legacy may need some clean up as well, but these two are comparatively less pressing than the other two. Aza24 (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Life section is pretty much done. Just cleaning and copy-editing now. Aza24 (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6 August update: I still need to clean up the Canonic masses, Cantus-firmus masses and the Secular music sections, but no major work is needed there. After that I will finish up the Legacy section and should be finished. Aza24 (talk) 05:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
22 August update: took a brief break from this. All that's really left is the Legacy section, which I will be finishing in the coming days. After this I will do some clean up and copy editing, probably a bit of trimming too, as the article size is really getting up there. Aza24 (talk) 00:33, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, everything is pretty much done and I managed to keep the article length below the recommended max of 10,000 (currently at 9,500). Now is just a matter of copy editing clean up and such. Aza24 (talk) 01:04, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will start reviewing on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Progressed to the point of fine tuning prose; I've pinged Ceoil, and if he has no time or interest, I will also ping (next) John. I'll do my full readthrough after the art-knowledgeable are done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24, Can you take a look at the structure/toc, its really long atm - Life/birth/Youth/Early career/Milan and travels/Rome- and would be better summarised. Would do myself, but late in the night and exhausted, night. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit hesitant to cut much more, especially since I already brought it under 10,000 (for the recommended proze length) from what was once around ~12,000. Is there any particular section that stands out? I fear the complexities and uncertainties of his biography often require extra explanation. Aza24 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the need is to cut rather combine ... the TOC is what is long and rambling, and some of those section headings can be combined. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I combined a few; life section is now down from eight headers to five. Perhaps better? Aza24 (talk) 05:33, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from John

Sandy pinged me here for a copyedit. I've only read the article and talk page, and this page, at this point, and started a few very gentle copyedits. I will try hard to put some more hours in over the weekend. It's an interesting and important article, of whose subject I had barely heard, and there's a lot to read and take in. I can see the possibility for some very careful and judicious pruning. If you want to see what I mean, please see my edits to Joan of Arc. I look forward to working with you all. John (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Josquin had hired at least 15 procurators to sort out his inheritance; this and other contextual evidence strongly suggests that by then he was very wealthy. This would explain numerous oddities later in his life, including his ability to travel so often, his demand for an expensive salary and freedom from constantly composing greatly demanded mass cycles like his contemporaries Isaac and Ludwig Senfl.

I don't get it. If he was very wealthy, why would he demand a high salary? What does the source say? John (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Musicians of the time were mostly servants to their employers, and would have very little negotiating power on matters such as salaries. Josquin, already being rich, didn’t need to work much and thus did not need to take jobs that paid badly just to have a job to begin with, if that makes sense. I will try and check Fallows soon, but my copy is back at the library; I screenshotted quite a few chapters, so hopefully this information is from one of those. Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John are you still working here, or is it time to ping in next reviewer? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nudge Sandy. Sorry, real life got in the way, I have only started here. I will try to get to it tonight. John (talk) 14:36, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John, I've clarified that sentence now. I think the original was too confusing, so opted for including a different but related piece of evidence Fallows uses. Aza24 (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive the slow pace here. I have an ill partner and have not had as much time as I might have liked to look at this. On reading and rereading the article, it's very well-constructed and sourced, and seems likely to be comprehensive.

One thing I keep running into is the huge uncertainty surrounding events. This reminds me of one of my favourite FARs six years ago, Vincent van Gogh. Modernist, Ceoil, and Victoriaearle, brave souls, were trying to bring this article on arguably the world's most famous artist, on whom everybody has an opinion, to FA. I started as quite a critical reviewer, and ended up as a co-nom I got so into the improvement process. As much as I love his art, the thing I was really interested in was how we covered his self-inflicted injury of 1888. There is conflicting evidence about how much of his ear he cut off, and it has been hotly debated ever since. This was the discussion, and here is how it currently looks (stripped of references and links):

After an altercation on the evening of 23 December 1888, Van Gogh returned to his room where he seemingly heard voices and either wholly or in part severed his left ear with a razor[note 1] causing severe bleeding. He bandaged the wound, wrapped the ear in paper and delivered the package to a woman at a brothel Van Gogh and Gauguin both frequented.

The experience of working with such great writers and editors, and looking together at the sources, made me realise on a very deep level that all experience is subjective, and all truth is consensual. As Wikipedians, all we can do is dispassionately evaluate the sources, then try to reflect them proportionally and fairly. A key thing is avoiding constructions that give undue weight to (usually) the latter clause. I think the article deals fairly well with the difficulty of saying "X said a, but then Y said b", sounding like Y is right and X is wrong. Unless that's explicitly what a source says. At the same time, we need to tell the story, and the general reader (who this article is supposed to be pitched at) might lose interest if there is too much "he said, she said".

It's one of the things I've been looking at as I trim at the prose. Here's an example from Josquin des Prez that I haven't touched yet:

The well-known letter from Artiganova is a unique reference to Josquin's personality, which the musicologist Patrick Macey interprets as meaning Josquin was "difficult colleague and that he took an independent attitude towards producing music for his patrons". The Josquin scholar Edward Lowinsky connected his purportedly 'difficult' behavior with musical talent, and used the letter as evidence that Josquin's contemporaries recognized his 'genius'. Differently, musicologist Rob Wegman expressed hesitancy in connecting Josquin's supposed personality to 'genius', and questions whether meaningful conclusions can be drawn from such an anecdote. In a later publication, Wegman notes the largely unprecedented nature of such a position and warns that "yet of course the letter could equally well be seen to reflect the attitudes and expectations of its recipient, Ercole d'Este".

How can we balance the prerogatives of comprehensiveness, fairness to various scholarly views on uncertain facts, and telling the story concisely? More footnotes? Maybe. I have to come back to this in the morning. Thanks for writing such an interesting article, and for reading this long comment. John (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Theo and his wife, Gachet and his son, and Signac, who saw Van Gogh after the bandages were removed, maintained that only the earlobe had been removed. According to Doiteau and Leroy, the diagonal cut removed the lobe and probably a little more. The policeman and Rey both claimed Van Gogh severed the entire outer ear; Rey repeated his account in 1930, writing a note for novelist Irving Stone and including a sketch of the line of the incision.
Though I understand your concern, I'm actually rather hesitant getting into the debate on this letter, which I feel would get too detailed too quickly for this general overview article. The meaning of it has, of course, been heavily debated, but the main two camps are the same, those that think conclusions can be drawn from it, and those that do not. Lowinsky is certainly the leader of the former group, and Wegman is perhaps the most vocal in the second, though admittedly less influential. Indeed the traditional narrative of using this as evidence for Josquin being a difficult colleague is the most widespread one, which I hoped to demonstrate by including both Macey and Lowinsky for that side, and just Wegman for the other. Aza24 (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my first run of copyedits; again, apologies for the slow pace. Any comments? John (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Will take a look later today. Aza24 (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi aZa, am following this with interest, but at times the hedging on uncertainty is confusing eg (now copyedited) .."perhaps in the mid-to-late 1480s possibly may have gone to Paris". Or something. Its a bit like me saying: aging hipster, in my early late-40s :) Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any feedback? I am chugging away at trying to copyedit the prose, but I am not a subject expert, even less than I was on VvG. Please inspect my edits to make sure I am not altering the meaning (simplifying is ok, to a point) or being untrue to the sources. John (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will read through your edits in the nearish future (tomorrow?) - thank you for your copyedit; appreciate it. Antandrus (talk) 00:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've look through all of John and Ceoil's copy edits—happy to see a huge improvement in prose quality from the efforts of you both. I made some minor adjustments to preserve some meanings. Re this edit, I am somewhat uncomfortable with removing the line "Though its dating was debated in the past". It is certainly clunky and can be better phrased (and indeed, I'm not sure how to), but the dating of Ave Maria ... Virgo serena was for a long time a vicious and extended debate, so I feel like such detail is important here. Aza24 (talk) 04:12, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thought about this further, and am concluding that having the preexisting note about the piece duplicated beside the sentence is fitting enough. Aza24 (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vagueness (from the France sect):
    "recently" found documents
    Scholars "long" assumed
    Here is an excellent counterpoint sentance as a guide: "Josquin was probably in France during the early 16th century; documents found 2008 indicate that he visited Troyes twice between 1499 and 1501". Aza24 your doing great here. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed... have fixed the given examples, and am double-checking for more. SandyGeorgia, John, Ceoil, Antandrus how are we feeling about this now? I'm leaning very close to a keep, but would rather address any remaining concerns before declaring myself. Aza24 (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's coming along! Searching for the text string "possibl" returns 23 hits. That seems too many for one article. Without getting into elegant variation, are there other ways of saying this? What do the sources do? John (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes - and "may have" has 15 hits. It's rather the nature of the thing, where so much is probable, so little is certain, and so very very much is "maybe kind of more or less" at various levels. Elegant variation seems to be the way most musicologists handle this. (Thank you for your excellent copyedit!!) Antandrus (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    (Aza24, I'm reading through it now and it's very, very good) Antandrus (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks!
    Actually I'm surprised that there's not more instances of those words. Some sources, particularly Fallows, have ample room to discuss uncertainties, and thus do not need to condense such information like we do (which results in the frequent use of words like 'possibility' and such). I looked at the ones in the article, and can see little way out other than elegant variation. Aza24 (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Down to 8 "possibl"s, three of which are in the location table and one in a quotation. I don't mind "may have" so much, as it's more of a verb tense construction, and "X may have Yed" is generally shorter and less clunky than "It is possible that X Yed." Just as well, as they are up to 17! Obviously we can't reduce style to numbers like this but I am getting happier now with how the prose flows. John (talk) 09:00, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My latest round. I will post a longer rationale for some of these edits later, but I need to take a break now. John (talk) 09:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • A singer himself, Josquin's compositions are chiefly vocal, and include... There's a name for this; what is the subject of the sentence? Josquin or his works? --> Josquin was a singer himself, and his compositions are mainly vocal. They include...
    I don't really see how this is an improvement, seems to just make both lines to short—the point is that because Josquin is a singer his compositions are vocal, and then provide a list of said vocal genres. I would still probably prefer what was there before, "A singer himself, Josquin's compositions are chiefly vocal, and include masses, motets and secular chansons" Aza24 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its structure has been used as evidence for dating it both in the 1480s and the early 1500s, as the rigidity of the tenor was interpreted as signs of both immaturity and also mastery. seemed unnecessarily complex so I simplified it to Its structure has been used to date it to both the 1480s and the early 1500s, depending on whether the rigidity of the tenor was interpreted as a sign of immaturity or mastery. I think it's easier to parse this way, but does it still carry the intended meaning?
    Definitely an improvement Aza24 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Printing technology was in its early stages was a fascinating snippet, and I would love to see it fleshed out, perhaps with dates and numbers if the sources support that. As a standalone remark it seems out of place, so I removed it, for now.
    Fair enough. Aza24 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In writing polyphonic settings of psalms, Josquin was a pioneer, and psalm settings form a large proportion of the motets of his later years. Few composers prior to him had written polyphonic psalm settings. Are we saying (almost?) the same thing twice? Edited to Few composers before Josquin had written polyphonic psalm settings, and these form a large proportion of the motets of his later years.
    Agreed, begrudgingly :) Aza24 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reflecting on the sentiment that "Josquin was thus by all accounts the greatest composer of his generation, and the most important, innovative, and influential composer of the late 15th and early 16th centuries", Sherr notes that "As recently as the 1990s, no one would have disagreed with that statement. However, in the early 21st century, things are not so certain". I'm not a fan of long quotes unless their exact language adds something to the reader's understanding of the subject, which I didn't think this one did. So I summarised this to Reflecting on the sentiment that "Josquin was thus by all accounts the greatest composer of his generation, and the most important, innovative, and influential composer of the late 15th and early 16th centuries", Sherr notes growing dissent from that position in the early 21st century.
    Admittedly, I was nervous about paraphrasing this myself, not wanting to incorrectly source his statement on this delicate situation, but your version seems completely valid. Aza24 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We had a very light sprinkling of typos ("wroted") and the usual little tucks and nips. Down from 11,124 words (including notes but not sources) when I started, via 10,866 words last night, to 10,579 now. It's such a complex and nuanced subject that it will be difficult to simplify it further without losing essential shades of meaning. Indeed, you may feel that some of my changes have already gone too far. I hope not. I'll be interested to see what you think, Aza24, Antandrus, SandyGeorgia, or anybody else. John (talk) 12:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    John I looked through them all and found no concerns, save for my response to your first comment here. Many thanks for the copy edit. Aza24 (talk) 19:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks for your trouble. I will try to come back to you on the first one. I see we have Josquin was born in the French-speaking area of Flanders, in modern-day northeastern France or Belgium. in the article, followed up with a footnote: Modern scholarship differs in how it describes Josquin's nationality; his exact birthplace is unknown, and determining nationalities for 15th-century composers is problematic in general. He is only known to have been born somewhere in the French-speaking area of Flanders, either modern-day Belgium or northeastern France. (my emphasis) Your edit summary when restoring that was :"the Flanders information is important to demonstrate the only thing we know for sure". Now, I can see where modern-day nationalists might want to claim Josquin for their own so we might feel we need to spell out what he was and wasn't nationality-wise (I think I recall similar on the Nikola Tesla article), but, as the article states determining nationalities for 15th-century composers is problematic in general because of course the idea of the nation state was pretty different than it is now, and national boundaries have changed. So I can see why this may have seemed important to get right. But I can't see why we have to repeat the same information word for word twice. I propose a briefer mention in running text, with the detailed version (if we must) in the footnote. After this I think there is just one thing bothering me. John (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you are saying now. I guess my rationale was based on how I was treating the note. I was thinking it of less of a supplement, and more of a larger version of the statement, so felt that it required a restatement of the facts so it can be used independently from the proceeding sentence—will think on this. Aza24 (talk) 23:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the "either modern-day Belgium or northeastern France" but kept the "He is only known to have been born somewhere in French-speaking Flanders" in the note, which is hopefully a good compromise. Aza24 (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. My (probably) final comment is about numbered and bulleted lists. These are generally deprecated but of course have their place on Wikipedia. We currently have, under Milan and elsewhere the table Tentative outline of Josquin's life from 1483 to 1489 with eleven rows and three columns, under Music, the "A line of musicologists credit Josquin with three primary developments:" (list of three, numbered but not formatted as a numbered list), under Masses "The Josquin Companion categorizes the composer's masses into the following styles:" followed by five bullet points. Finally under Motets we have "Their style varies considerably, but can generally be divided into three groups:" (list of three, numbered but not formatted as a numbered list).
    I think the table is valuable as a summary and is best left alone, although an argument could be made for putting it into a footnote as it repeats information found elsewhere in the article. I personally found it useful in navigating the complex timeline of events, so I would leave it alone. I wonder though about the others. Could they be rewritten as prose? Would this be an improvement? I think the numbered lists not formatted as such are where I would start. Could they be reorganised so as to be clearer for the general reader? John (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be very hesitant to change the formatting of the Milan table (which you seem to agree with) and categorization of Josquin masses, as I believe the current presentation maximizes both readability and coherency.
    For the other two, I'm inclined to look at how the sources which present such information treat the subjects, an approach which I firmly believe should always be considered. The motet divisions are not presented in their derivative source as a list, so I would be fine transferring this to prose. I am somewhat more hesitant about the list in the Music section, which is clearly given by Grove in a three part list, albeit without numbers, but with a clear three-part division. Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I might try shifting at least the motets one to prose then. Three is an awkward number for this sort of thing. John (talk) 19:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a hack, see what you think. John (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aza24 and John: my apologies for not keeping up with the good stuff happening here. Please see my note at H.D.; is this looking like we might be able to wrap up this week? If so, please ping me so I can have a look. Real life has not been kind, but I can try to have a look this week if you're ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For my part I think we are nearly finished. John (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my third and likely last set of copyedits here. I do think it would benefit from two last looks, one from a subject expert, maybe User:Aza24, to check it still all makes sense, and one from a perceptive non-expert for the same purpose. As a non-expert myself, I found some of the specialist terms a bit difficult and I wonder if we need a few more wikilinks and short explanations. Or maybe I am just being dense. 10,307 words. John (talk) 18:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be another decidedly non-expert when I read through the whole thing :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Read through and restored just a few adjectives and such which I feel are needed to properly reflect the source. The copy edit looks great overall.
I do hope we can finish this week. After working on this for more than half a year, my energy to give this article is increasingly minimal. Aza24 (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, it's hard work, isn't it? But we've (mainly you've) made a beautiful article that will increase the understanding of this fascinating subject, of which I knew very little before we started. Many will benefit from our (mainly your) work. I just want to take one more look at specialist vocabulary and accessibility to the layperson, and I'm afraid it will be tomorrow now as I am getting sleepy. Still be interested in your opinion too, Sandy. John (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
John, you've added a lot of duplicate links, which I'm not sure are necessary. Aza24 (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OVERLINK tells us that less is more when it comes to linking. I've added a few judicious links which I think will help our readers make sense of some specialist terms. I don't think there is any link used more than four times, including tables and captions. I'm an inveterate scourge of thoughtless overlinking; are there specific links you'd like to see removed? John (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, having read the article several times, and not whating to exhaust Aza, think this is very much in Keep tertiary. Expect further from John and Sandy to be finess. So you can rest easy tonight Aza!!! I'm mustering up a special barnstar as we speak. Ceoil (talk) 00:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the very beginning of the article, why do we need to say, Josquin Lebloitte dit des Prez (c. 1450–1455 – 27 August 1521) was a composer of High Renaissance music, variously described as French or Franco-Flemish. A central figure of the Franco-Flemish School, he is considered among the greatest composers of the Renaissance, and had a profound influence on the music of 16th-century Europe.? Isn't it enough that we state "A central figure of the Franco-Flemish School" once? The lead sentence is important and the repetition pf "variously described as French or Franco-Flemish" seems inelegant. Aza24, your edit summary when restoring this redundancy to the lead sentence was "as discussed many times, this can absolutely not be removed, as it is too controversial and its absence will inaugurate more nationality edit warring", so I understand why you did this. But there are better ways to address edit warring than to give nationality twice in the lead of a Featured Article, when nationality is such an unimportant feature of this subject. Let's keep thinking about this. I think an expanded hidden note to editors might be the way to go. John (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, quite apart from the redundancy, we have that weird split subject thing going on again here. When we say Josquin Lebloitte dit des Prez (c. 1450–1455 – 27 August 1521) was a composer of High Renaissance music, variously described as French or Franco-Flemish, is it Josquin or his music that we are ascribing this varying nationalitry to? In the sentence as written, it could be either. The prose needs to be "engaging and of a professional standard". I don't think this passes muster, yet. John (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only thing I can think of is "was a composer, variously described as French or Franco-Flemish, of High Renaissance music." As sympathetic as I am to your prose concerns, I do not think they trump providing clarity in regards to the nationality issues.
    I am rather uncomfortable with removing nationalities entirely because a) (As I already mention) it will invite edit-warring/re-addition of such terms but particularly b) no encyclopedic entries or surveys on the composer use neither French or Franco-Flemish, they all choose one or the other. Aza24 (talk) 20:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great to see things starting to wrap up here. I'd still like to sort the lead sentence; it's very important to get it right. To recap I have a grammatical problem and a redundancy problem with the current version. I'm influenced by my personal antipathy to the sort of "standard wording" for bios: John is a Scottish axe murderer..., Nadeem was an Armenian explorer, as though we were defined by our nationalities more than what we have done with them. I guess it works ok for 19th and 20th century figures, but I'm seeing it as particularly clunky in an article about a guy from a period before the modern nation state, whose birthplace is unknown and who is ascribed as Franco-Flemish. The grammatical problem is the syntactic ambiguity; it's the sort of thing I crop ruthlessly out of articles and I can't yet support until that is fixed. I'll think about a proposed solution though, don't worry. John (talk) 20:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And rather embarrassingly I see that this was all taken care of ages ago. Thanks guys! One final proposal from me re the lead; see what you think. John (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A definite improvement, thank you! Aza24 (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noting for John the the greenification (Tq) templates are not used at FAC and FAR as they cause errors in archives; the few that are here are not enough to cause a problem, so need to fix, just to know for the future, if you put extended comments using the tq on talk, they don't impact archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you especially as I'm sure it's not the first time I've been told. What works better? Blockquote? John (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from me too. As Aza24 says, we probably passed the typical FA standard a while ago, but I always want to make it absolutely the best it can be. I think it's pretty near it now. A pleasure to work with you. John (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Declaring Keep at this point. I firmly believe that this article now validates any reasonable interpretation of the FA criteria. IMO, the more recent edits and discussion have actually been slightly beyond the typical expectations of an FA. To be clear, I am not criticizing that fact, since it has lead to many most welcome improvements, but feel that if this article was at FAC it would have been promoted by now, so see no reason to keep at it FAR. This article now seems properly at home with our plethora of Composer FAs, thanks to the expansion work from myself, the tireless and prudent copy editing from John and Ceoil, immensely helpful council from Sandy and Antandrus, first-class insight (particularly on masses and current Josquin scholarship) from Kahhe, a wonderful map (in the early life section) from Amitchell125 and the patience of the FAR coordinators, particularly Nikkimaria. Aza24 (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article 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) 3:36, 8 October 2022 (UTC) [8].

Alfred Russel Wallace

[edit]
Notified: Rusty Cashman, Version 1.0 Editorial Team, WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, WikiProject History of Science, WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Malaysia, WikiProject Philosophy/Philosophers, WikiProject Southeast Asia, WikiProject Wales, 2022-08-27, 2021-07-03

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unsourced statements and a large "Further reading" section whose inclusion into the article needs to be evaluated, an incomplete "Other contributions" section, and a criticism section (which is not recommended in modern articles because of POV concerns.) Z1720 (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced statements: I've tidied up the text, adding citations and removing a few claims, so the whole text is now reliably cited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading: removed the journal articles so it's a list exclusively of books which focus entirely on Wallace. That seems entirely apposite for this biographical article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Other contributions: as this was just a poetry section, renamed it to "Poetry". I've also trimmed it to a more apposite length. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism section: Well, there isn't one, exactly; there is a section headed "Controversies". The activities named are to an extent not unusual in Victorian times, so I broadly agree that a non-neutral heading is probably inappropriate. I've renamed the section neutrally as "Other activities". Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added alt texts; run the citation bot; checked dab links, ext links, and reflinks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 - I believe I've addressed all your concerns? Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been very busy in real life, but I have been following the edits on my phone and happy with this article's progress. When I have a moment I'll take a closer look at the article and either conduct edits or post additional concerns here (if I do not think I have the expertise to solve it). I also encourage others to leave comments and reviews here. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only a cursory first glance:

I haven't looked beyond this standard stuff; dave souza might you be enticed to review this article as a content expert? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Chiswick Chap please ping me if we get to a place where a full read-through is needed (I'd prefer to see some more topic-area experts weigh in first, since that I am not ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:22, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor who originally put the article through FA. I believe it holds up pretty well. As far as the issue of too many long quotes, that issue came up during the original FA review. I argued successfully at the time that the quotes were the most effective way to convey Wallace's thoughts. I am not happy to loose the quote on invasive species from Island life, but I admit that the paraphrase it has been replaced with is pretty good. I agree with the commenter who said that we should not under any circumstances loose the quote about how he conceived of natural selection. It is too historically important to just paraphrase. One more thing I will mention when it comes to the issue of accuracy and appropriateness of the content is that just prior to putting it up for FA I was fortunate enough to have a fairly extensive correspondence with Charles H. Smith (historian), the curator of the Alfred Russel Wallace Page website and a noted expert with many publications about Wallace and his work. At one point he was kind enough to print out a copy of the article, mark it up with red ink, and mail it to me. I still have it. He helped with a few factual issues as well as with some issues of context and relative emphasis. I did enjoy pointing out that one of the factual issues he caught stemmed from some ambiguous wording in one his own published articles that I had used as source :) One thing I will do in the next few days is take a look for material published on Wallace in the past few years (since the article went through FA) to see if there have been any new discoveries about Wallace, or any changes in conclusions that should be reflected in the article. Thanks for letting me know this review was underway.Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rusty. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I notice that seems to be missing from the article is a brief discussion of Wallace's involvement in the debate over the origin of human races some of which occurred while Wallace was chairman of the anthropology chapter of the British association. The article talks about Wallace's ideas about the origin of the higher mental functions but nothing at all about the debate over the origin of human races that prompted him to publish them. The topic is sensitive of course since nearly all 19th century anthropological ideas were racist and/or sexist by modern standards, but it was an important debate at the time, and Wallace was an important participant in it. It is probably worth a few sentences and I have some good sources. I will do some more reading and then take a stab at it.Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK I took a stab at it. I don't believe the article has any significant content issues. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the above comment about this being ready for review, and since I have some time now, I want to conduct a more thorough review of the article. I have made edits to things I could fix (MOS issues, etc.) but, since I am not a subject matter expert, I am posting some questions and concerns below that I hope can be addressed (and often, the answer is pointing out my own deficiencies of this topic, which are entirely justified to note.) I am also really excited that this is getting fixed up because 8 Jan 2023 is Wallace's 200th birthday, and I think it would be cool if this was a TFA on that date. Anyways, here are some comments:

  • I'm not sure all of the citations in the lede are necessary, as the info in the lede is supposed to be cited in the body of the article. "father of biogeography" probably needs a citation, but does Wallace being British need this? Are his various occupations explained in the article? Is the life on Mars fact included in the body?
  • The citations in the lead are to ward off, or in fact to rebut, criticism that the claims made there were uncited, so yes they are necessary. His occupations are described in the article body. Mars is covered in detail in the 'Astrobiology' section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like Darwin, Wallace did extensive fieldwork," I think this might be here as a connector from the first paragraph, but I don't think it is needed and it might cause the article to become a comparison of Wallace to Darwin, which I think diminishes Wallace's achievements. I think "Like Darwin" can be removed.
  • "His 1858 paper on the subject was jointly published that year together with extracts..." Should this be "His 1858 paper on the subject was jointly published that year with extracts..." or possibly reworded differently?
  • "Wallace's 1904 book Man's Place in the Universe" Should Man's Place in the Universe be wikilinked (even if it is a redlink right now?
  • I guess the rule is that a redlink is good if everyone agrees that a) an article on that topic is needed, AND b) there is a realistic chance of someone's creating that article. I'm not sure either of these conditions are met here. We might make it a redirect, but it would either come back here, or would go to Planetary habitability: but Wallace is not mentioned there, and in any case that article is already linked in the same sentence, so adding it would be an overlink. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:REDLINK says that a red link should be used if the subject is notable and verifiable, so that an article on the topic could be created. If there has been critical commentary on the book, then I think a red link is warranted, and since the article says the book "was the first serious attempt by a biologist to evaluate the likelihood of life on other planets." I think it has a good argument for it to be notable. Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He left London in 1837 to live with William and work as his apprentice for six years." Do we know where Wallace went in 1837 to live with William?
  • I don't think the list of places is necessary, either, but perhaps it could be mentioned that he was moving around a lot. Maybe a sentence like, "He left London in 1837 to live with William and work as his apprentice for six years, and constantly relocated to several places in England during this time." or something similar. Z1720 (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.

Since this is a longer article, it might take me several days to get through my review. Stopping at "Financial struggles". Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments:

  • "Unlike Darwin, Wallace began his career as a travelling naturalist who already believed in the transmutation of species." Similar to above, I don't think it is necessary to start this section with a comparison to Darwin, as his accomplishments are great enough that they don't need the comparison.
  • Done.
  • "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, a controversial work of popular science published anonymously in 1844." I'm not sure what the relevancy of the information after the comma is in Wallace's biography, and perhaps can be removed.
  • Done.

Stopping at "Defence of Darwin and his ideas" Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done all the dabbling I can do in this very fine article, and can find nothing else to quibble about. Once Z1720 is satisfied, I can then also be considered a Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the rest of the article and found no additional concerns. Checked images for alt text and upright/px and everything seems good. Skimmed through the references and don't see any formatting concerns. I'm ready to declare Close without FARC. Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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) 4:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC) [9].

Hurricane Juan

[edit]
Notified: CrazyC83, Hurricanehink, Juliancolton, WP Disaster management, WP Weather, WP Canada, talk page notice 2021-04-23

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2007 promotion that has not been maintained to standard. There have been no improvements or responses on talk to the 2021-04-23 issues raised about comprehensive use of scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

43 references and an FA? God didn’t know it could be that easy. 98.116.128.17 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness. DrKay (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC) [10].

Komodo dragon

[edit]
Notified: bibliomaniac15, WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, WikiProject Indonesia, [11]

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns relating to comprehensiveness, datedness, odd and undue prose, and poor sourcing. More information was given in the initial talkpage notification. CMD (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no improvement. (t · c) buidhe 19:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just ordered this book. I'll get working when it comes in. LittleJerry (talk) 13:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Got the book in today, will work on the article later this week. LittleJerry (talk) 21:33, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taping out. Had I learned about this earlier, I may have been more prepared. But right now, I don't have the energy, time or enthusiasm to rescue an article this close to the clopping block. Sorry. LittleJerry (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article 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) 3:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC) [12].

1930 FIFA World Cup

[edit]
Notified: Oldelpaso, WikiProject Uruguay, WikiProject Football, 2021-05-15 2022-08-07

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unsourced statements, the use of low-quality sources (like self-published works and blogs), and sections that can be removed or added (as I indicated on the talk page). Z1720 (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address the issues, but if this process is already a week into a two week time frame I have no chance of making much headway in that time. Compared to 2009 (was it really 13 years ago?) I have significant pressures on my time and will only be able to make progress at a glacial rate. Oldelpaso (talk) 05:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldelpaso: FAR co-ords are usually amenable to keeping FARs open as long as improvements are continuing in the article. Feel free to ping me when improvements are complete and I will take another look. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing to the promoted version, the questionable sources appear to be subsequent additions. Looks like a case of going through the newer additions line by line and either integrating with better sources or discarding. The most substantive change is the bit about 3rd/4th place. This is somewhat overexplained, though I understand why. The issue occasionally gets attention in Serbia, leading to well meaning but often inaccurate changes advancing thr view of Yugoslavia being the third placed team. There should be a more elegant rewrite possible.
I don't really have any ability to expand a cultural depictions section. Its not something the books covering the tournament go into. I'm wondering if a "Legacy" section might be the way to go for this, and tidying up the last surviving players part. A short summary of how the tournament went on to become the behemoth it is today, into which bits like that could be woven.
My knowledge of FA standards is rusty at best - I think this 13 year old effort might be my most recent. Could there be mileage in tag bombing the statements requiring better sourcing? Oldelpaso (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oldelpaso: Sorry for the late reply, I missed this on my talk page. I think, instead of tag bombing, it might be better to first search for better sources, and then replace the lower-quality sources with the higher-quality (and update the prose to reflect the new source, if necessary). Afterwards, statements with sources that couldn't be replaced can be evaluated for their inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oldelpaso's last edit to Wikipedia was September 11. Are you still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interested yes, but sadly not able to commit, as for family reasons I am unable to spare more than a few minutes here and there. It appears the Almeida book is self published which is a shame. There's good stuff in there; the parts that can be corroborated by other sources suggest it is rigorous, but that doesnt pass muster for WP:RS. Trying to replace those references likely leaves things overly reliant on the Freddi book. Short of finding a friendly South American editor with access to contemporary newspapers I may struggle. I don't think there's a huge amount of work to be done in terms of sorting out the text, it's getting the references to the required standard. Oldelpaso (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my reading of the above, and lack of continued improvements in the article, this probably needs to Move to FARC. Hog Farm Talk 20:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article 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) 7:08, 15 October 2022 (UTC) [13].

Greater Manchester

[edit]
Notified: [14], 7 May 2022

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unresolved issues with summary style, length, citation needed, and failed verification; see the talk page notice for details. (t · c) buidhe 15:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC lack of improvement to address issues, outstanding cleanup tags (t · c) buidhe 19:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include coverage and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article 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) 7:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC) [15].

Flag of India

[edit]
Notified: SpacemanSpiff, Nichalp, SBC-YPR, Zscout370, Yashthepunisher, Ambuj.Saxena, WP India, WP Heraldry and vexillology, noticed in October 2021

Review section

[edit]

This older featured article promotion last formally reviewed in 2010 does not meet the current FA standards. There is uncited text and many of the web sources are of questionable reliability, such as Flags of the World or flaggenlexicon.de. Additionally, the manufacturing section needs rewritten to reflect that code amendment allows for the flags to be made out of polyester now. Hog Farm Talk 20:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's far too much clean up required at this point and a lot of junk has also crept in over the past few years. In addition, I'd placed a tag to update based on the new flag code. At this point I'm also not online enough to focus on cleaning up this article and bringing it up to FA standards either, and therefore it would need attention from someone else familiar with the subject. I was thinking of bringing it here earlier on, but good that Hog Farm beat me to it.—SpacemanSpiff 03:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC lack of improvement to address issues. (t · c) buidhe 19:02, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article 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) 7:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC) [16].

Providence, Rhode Island

[edit]
Notified: various (see User:Buidhe/test), Dec 18, 2021

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unresolved issues with referencing (and lack thereof) and datedness, see the talk page for details. (t · c) buidhe 04:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Citation 133 is a bit ridiculous. An absurd number of different sources are synthesised to reach the given number. ―Susmuffin Talk 05:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Check now. I went in and found some more sources to include. If you have any other higher quality sources, I can incorporate those as well. Louiedog (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Loodog, thanks for your edit. The first order of business is fixing all of the 21 citation needed tags either by finding a source or removing the information, if it does not belong in the article. The second priority is updating outdated information; most of the citations dated 2007 will need updating.
    While going through the article, I also found some coverage gaps:
    • No info on pre-colonial history
    • Insufficient information on local politics and government system, apart from some UNDUE content on particular officeholders that I removed. The article should contain info on what political party dominates local elections, and possibly info on which issues are prominent in local politics.
    (t · c) buidhe 18:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I went a removed a few, since many were dubious cite needed's. In many cases the information was already supported by the source provided, or there was a cite needed for a subtitle for a graphic, when the graphic itself included its own source. In case of Hasbro, requiring a source that they are headquartered in Pawtucket seemed ridiculous, given that it's a non-controversial claim sourced in that article's lede. Louiedog (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, so I'm noticing a lot of these "citation needed" are issues that can be fixed very easily by going into the relevant articles and using those sources. That's going to be a lot more productive than just putting up "cite needed" tags. And again, a number of these tags were added needlessly, as the information was included in sources already cited. We're just not doing in-line citations every sentence. It would save a lot of trouble just to look more carefully at the sourcing info before throwing the tags up. Louiedog (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Loodog I assume that you've checked every source that you've added to the article? You cannot assume that the source actually verifies the fact unless you check it yourself.
    Since this is a FA, the minimum citation requirement is at least one citation at the end of every paragraph that verifies all the content since the last inline citation, except the lead. Being sourced in another article, or covered in a source cited elsewhere in the article, does not count. (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    >I assume that you've checked every source that you've added to the article?
    Yes, I am responsibly sourcing the information in keeping with wikipedia policies. I do appreciate your flagging some of the content people added that seemed like people just adding their favorite rugby team, which had no sources and no evidence of notability.
    >the minimum citation requirement is at least one citation at the end of every paragraph that verifies all the content since the last inline citation
    Yes and it has that. I was actually able to remove all the [citation needed] tags on the basis of either (a) fact was sourced earlier in the paragraph, (b) fact was Wikipedia:Common knowledge, a simple non-controversial observation from a public property, (c) fact did not merit inclusion and shouldn't have been there in the first place. For everything in category (a), I have gone in to confirm that the fact was indeed supported by the source. In general, doing that investigation before adding a [citation needed] tag will just save us all a lot of trouble. You can check the article's past - before the article achieved FA status in the first place, there was a comprehensive review of the article's sources. The only pieces worth worrying about is the new content added before then, but the article's history section, for example, was mature years ago. Louiedog (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Relying on "common knowledge" or sources cited elsewhere to verify the article content is not acceptable for FAs.
    All of the places I added citation needed tags are places that actually require an inline citation if the article is to maintain its FA listing. Since the purpose of this review is to facilitate improvements to cause the article to meet the FA criteria , it is unhelpful to remove the tags without providing an inline citation to a high-quality reliable source. (t · c) buidhe 19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Common knowledge is clearly defined above. E.g. The fact that an "amphitheater and riverwalks line the river's banks" doesn't require a citation. "Interstate 95 serves as a physical barrier between the city's commercial core and neighborhoods such as Federal Hill and the West End." likewise.
    Many of the [citation needed] tags seemed sloppily thrown up, just for the purposes of having the tags up there. Everything is already in-line cited per standards:
    1. E.g. there was a [citation needed] tag apparently on Providence being one of the "earliest towns" in Colonial America at the end of the sentence, despite there being a direct citation for that claim 3 words prior.
    2. The source for "Providence hosted some of the largest manufacturing plants in the country, including Brown & Sharpe, Nicholson File, and Gorham Manufacturing Company." was the same source that had been cited at the top of that very paragraph, 2 sentences prior.
    3. "The city offices moved into Providence City Hall in 1878." was also drawing on the same source, isn't a controversial claim, and could easily been additionally sourced (which I did) by doing into the City Hall article, which was already linked.
    4. "Another 6% of the city has multiracial ancestry. American Indians and Pacific Islanders make up the remaining 0.9%" again the source was the same source that had been used 1 sentence prior.
    5. The claim that "It is the capital of Rhode Island, so the city's economy additionally consists of government services.[citation needed]" seems like one of the easiest things in the world to verify and is unlikely to be false. State capitals are common knowledge if ever there were and the idea that a state capital has jobs in government service? Still, I went in and found a source.
    6. Hasbro needing a citation for its headquarters being in Pawtucket. Again, I'm not sure who would challenge this.
    7. "The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island is located downtown across from Providence City Hall adjacent to Kennedy Plaza". See: Wikipedia:Common knowledge
    The purpose of citation needed tags is to flag something for attention and give the contributor a chance to find a source, especially for dubious or controversial facts likely to be challenged. Otherwise, to have a "fact" removed. Throwing the tags on material that's already adequately sourced to wikipedia standards does not improve the article. I'm open to any other places you believe lack sourcing, but all the tags I saw were superfluous and inaccurate. Louiedog (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure why you wouldn't then just move the location of the reference link then, rather than typing all this. If there is content, I don't expect it to be from a previous reference, without some type of indication.
    Regardless, I have moved some of the refs to match with their appropriate content and added some additional refs to [citation needed]s you had previously removed. I hope this satiates everyone involved. Skipple ☎ 21:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I appreciate your work on this. Hopefully, we're all happy now. Louiedog (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Budhe, how about discussing here or on the article's talk page before going in and revert warring on that article being contested? That's a great way to draw this out longer. Louiedog (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What revert warring? (t · c) buidhe 15:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You made this edit. Louiedog (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I added citation needed tags to statements, after noting repeatedly on here that they required citations. I guess you had previously removed them, however, I doubt that anyone else would consider this a case of edit warring. Anyway, it does not seem like you or any other editor is interested in bringing the article up to meet the FA criteria, so I guess we'll have to Move to FARC (t · c) buidhe 04:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? I sourced every [citation needed] you raised. Louiedog (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First cursory glance only:

  • MOS:SANDWICH, holy terror of a long infobox, MOS:ACCIM placement of images.
  • Considerable overlinking: you can install this script to review: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.
  • Listy text that can be rewritten to organized prose/paragraphs, see for example Neighborhoods.
  • Hidden text in the climate section.
  • Sourcing and datedness review needed, sample.
  • Why does the table in the Crime section say 2019 when it's based on 2013 data ?
  • The Economy section appears dated, self-sources, and lacking context or recent info. It contains a graph based on 2022 data that is not covered at all in the article.
  • This looks OR-ish: Much of Providence culture is synonymous with the culture of Rhode Island as a whole.
  • This is cited to 2004: Providence also shares Rhode Island's affinity for coffee, with the most coffee and doughnut shops per capita of any city in the country.[94]
  • This is really dubious, wonder about the source, and dated. And "reputed"? Providence is also reputed to have the highest number of restaurants per capita of major U.S. cities,[95]
  • Another dubious 2007 source: many of which are founded or staffed by Johnson & Wales University graduates.[96]

I stopped there. Place articles require careful tending over time, and constant updating; this article doesn't appear to have received that, and I concur with Buidhe that a Move to FARC is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include style, sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist core issues identified were never fixed (t · c) buidhe 16:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article 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) 7:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC) [17].

Swedish emigration to the United States

[edit]
Notified: various, Dec 2021

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the issues I noticed last year: "The article has some issues with MOS, especially inconsistent referencing. Some citation needed tags. The lead is too long compared to the article body. There is also a striking gap in coverage in that the effects of the emigration on Sweden are not discussed at all." None except lead has been fixed. (t · c) buidhe 04:14, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies is working on this, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADraken_Bowser&type=revision&diff=1108666365&oldid=1107800599 see discussion. (t · c) buidhe 17:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be removed right away, are there in fact any sources that doucment the effects of Sweedish emmigration on Sweeden itself? Sunriseshore (talk) 15:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few examples:[18] [19] [20] [21] The last source lists more. Those are just some of the sources I could find in English; I would expect the majority to be in Swedish. Sources like this could also be helpful updating the article, which goes into too much detail in some areas but also neglects the economic, cultural, and political impact on the US as a whole. As the article talk page notes, the article also overemphesizes cultural factors and de-emphasizes economic ones compared to sources. (t · c) buidhe 15:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article 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) 7:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC) [22].

Battle of Ceresole

[edit]
Notified: Kirill Lokshin, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject France, WikiProject Spain, WikiProject Italy, 2022-03-31,

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns listed on the talk page about the overreliance and reliability of the Oman source. Concerns with the source were raised in the article's FAC, and the overreliance concern was raised in 2007 and 2008 on the article's talk page, and mentioned again in March 2022. I am opening this review to see if editors more familiar in this subject area can evaluate Oman's inclusion and/or find new sources to include in the article. I did a quick search databases and found potential new sources; I'm happy to list them below if anyone is interested in evaluating them and improving the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll update the article with newer sources over the next few days. I have the following on hand:
  • Jones, Archer. The Art of War in the Western World. 1987.
  • Knecht, R. J. Renaissance Warrior and Patron: The Reign of Francis I. 1994.
  • Mallet, Michael and Christine Shaw. The Italian Wars, 1494–1559. 2012.
  • Miller, Douglas. The Landsknechts. 1976.
  • Potter, David. Renaissance France at War. 2008.
  • Rogers, Clifford J. (ed.) The Military Revolution Debate. 1995.
  • Sherer, Idan. The Scramble for Italy: Continuity and Change in the Italian Wars, 1494–1559. 2021.
  • Turnbull, Stephen. The Art of Renaissance Warfare. 2006.
Z1720, if there are any other potential sources you've been able to identify, that information would be much appreciated. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding to this Kirill. Here's some sources I found in academic journals. This isn't my specialty so I cannot evaluate the usefulness of these sources:
Those are what I found in a search through the databases on WP:LIBRARY. I didn't search Google Scholar. Z1720 (talk) 18:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirill Lokshin: are you still planning on editing this article? Is there anything others can do to help? Z1720 (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, thanks for the reminder; I have the updates drafted, and will add them to the article tomorrow. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill, are you still planning on doing this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, unfortunately, it doesn't seem like I'm going to have any bandwidth for it at this point. My apologies. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to many of the sources needed here, and should be able to start tackling the article shortly. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Oman is really hard to replace (I spent all morning looking in vain for what others have written about to replace him in the prelude section), I'm afraid my offer to here has to be withdrawn. Amitchell125 (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article 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) 7:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC) [23].

Baháʼí Faith

[edit]
Notified: Cuñado, Gazelle55, dragfyre, Bahá'í Faith WikiProject, diff for talk page notification 2021-11-15
Additional notifications: Dominic, Smkolins, WP Iran, WP Religion, WP Islam, WP History, WP Theology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Additional at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Baháʼí Faith/archive1#Notifications SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it hasn't been reviewed formally in over 15 years. The original FAC from 2004 is also (relatively) thin, with the nominator himself conceding that he just stumbled upon it. The FA vetting process has been improved considerably since the noughties, and different standards apply. I posted an informal review notice on the talk page last year, to some response from editors interested in the topic, who nevertheless seemed a bit preoccupied with other tasks. Nutez (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see renewed interest in doing this.Smkolins (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad this FAR is happening, I'll get started with some thoughts. I haven't participated in a FAR before so I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of this, but having edited on Baha'i topics on Wikipedia a lot, I do think there are some problems with this article that need to be addressed. I just went point-by-point through the featured article criteria:
1a. Well-written – no issues to my knowledge.
1b. Comprehensive – one problem:
> I think the article needs to reflect more criticisms. This could be a "Criticism" section (see Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches to presenting criticism) or else just integrating some material from Criticism of the Baha'i Faith where appropriate in the article.
1c. Well-researched – a few problems:
> Some sections of the "Social practices" section have no sources or few sources.
This source seems to cover most of the law mentioned - Schaefer, Udo (2002). "An Introduction to Bahā'ī Law: Doctrinal Foundations, Principles and Structures". Journal of Law and Religion. 18 (2): 307–72. doi:10.2307/1602268. JSTOR 1602268. but need to find a few more maybe though
* Smith, Peter (2000). "law". A concise encyclopedia of the Baháʼí Faith. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 1-85168-184-1.
*Smith, Peter (2008-04-07). An Introduction to the Baha'i Faith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 257. ISBN 978-0-521-86251-6.
might pick up the slack? Smkolins (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
> Quite a few sources (including for some important claims) are from sources that do not meet WP:RS. I could elaborate further on why individual sources aren't RS, but I'm speaking of those by Taherzadeh, Balyuzi, Esslemont, Walbridge, Hatcher, etc. These are written by Baha'i authors and published by Baha'i publishing houses and I believe this compromises NPOV in the article (not to mention using the Universal House of Justice, the governing body of the world's Baha'is, itself as a source).
> The part about the history, particularly the early history, doesn't reflect scholarly disagreements on the topic. Non-Baha'i scholars including Denis MacEoin, Abbas Amanat, and Juan Cole have written in depth about the early history of the Baha'i Faith (and its precursor religion, Babism). In particular, I have a copy of the ebook of MacEoin's extensive work The Messiah of Shiraz published by Brill and its findings are often at odds with those in this article (e.g., did the Bab actually make a prophecy that he would be followed by another messenger in 19 years as the article currently says?). I don't insist on that exact source being cited, but it should be clear to readers that there isn't consensus that the religion's early history happened the way Baha'is now believe it did.
> One citation is simply to "From a letter written on behalf of Shoghi Effendi to an individual believer dated 9 June 1932" and needs to be improved.
1d. Neutral – one problem:
> The "Shoghi Effendi's summary" section is based on a primary non-independent source. Unless this quote is highlighted in secondary sources, I don't think it should be in the article since it is potentially not NPOV, again the Baha'i Faith's view of itself rather than the appraisal of secondary sources.
1e. Stable – no issues to my knowledge.
1f. Copyright compliant – no issues to my knowledge.
2a. Lead – no issues to my knowledge.
2b. Appropriate structure – no issues to my knowledge.
2c. Consistent citations – no issues to my knowledge.
3. Media – no issues to my knowledge.
4. Length – no issues to my knowledge.
So overall, it is a strong article in most respects but there are some important issues to be addressed. Happy to help with improvements to the extent I have time. Also interested to hear thoughts from other editors. Gazelle55 (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding (mostly MOS issues) to this list, quick glance only:

  • MOS:SANDWICHing
    Since we're being detailed, I don't know what that is supposed to link to because the redirect no longer actually exists? Smkolins (talk) 13:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just checked, and yes it does ... ???? ... anyway, don't sandwich text in between images and tables and the like. If you still don't see it, try going to MOS:IMAGES and scrolling down to MOS:SANDWICH, which is linked in the Location section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I had no idea "Sandwich" had anything to do with "images".Smkolins (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I still don't see an instance of text between two pictures. In my view there are pictures staggered left and right as you scroll down but none are directly across from eachother. Perhaps it depends on the viewer's browser/screen size? Smkolins (talk) 13:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at this section; there's a big long timeline template that is sandwiched with the image. The timeline could be converted to a horizontal template, as one example of how to fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    O - I didn't even think of that as an image. To me it's like an extension of the template. Visually it fits? Thanks for the hatnote example. Smkolins (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's good to stop occasionally and view the page on different browsers, for example, your mobile device (iPhone, Droid, etc, as that is what most readers use, according to the WMF). PS, it was not my intent to distract you to the little stuff, when there is so much big stuff that needs to be addressed, rather to call to the attention of anyone working towards a save that there are MOS breaches throughout, so you can correct as you go. It is more urgent to address POV, sourcing, and the prose issues (listiness and overquoting). The lists I put up were just to raise your awareness so you all don't introduce more problems as you go, which will later need to be fixed. For example, the faulty ellipses (see below), just added, along with faulty page ranges throughout, still being added. I also suggest you all become very friendly with scholar.google, as the sourcing seems to include a lot of lesser quality sources (news, encyclopedias). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overquoting
  • MOS:ACCIM (hatnotes go before images) I corrected, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listiness in prose – several lists need to be converted to prose, and sourced/attributed.
  • MOS:OVERLINKing (see for example Universal House of Justice); you can install User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.
  • HarvRef errors abound, indicating sourcing needs cleanup; you can install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js

Overall, fails 1a, 1b, 1c, 1d, and 2. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Faulty hatnotes (eg, the "Main" template should be used when WP:SS is employed).
  • Dated text, sample only, "The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2004 included ... " check throughout needed.
    Another sample of dated text/sources, as found throughout: "Since the Islamic Revolution of 1979 Iranian Baháʼís have regularly had their homes ransacked or have been banned from attending university or from holding government jobs, and several hundred have received prison sentences ..." cited to 2003. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's everywhere: another sample, "However, the government has never produced convincing evidence supporting its characterization of the Baháʼí community.[174] " Cited to 2008. A top-to-bottom rewrite is going to be needed here, as it appears the article has not been updated since the last review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a cumulative diff of the edits made since the FAR opened, if the intent is to save this star, MOS-compliant editing will be needed. This diff shows the introduction of:

  • Several instances of faulty ellipses, see MOS:ELLIPSIS
  • Faulty page ranges throughout, see MOS:PAGERANGE
  • Mixed citation styles (see WP:WIAFA); if sources are being cited with short note sfns, that should be consistent throughout (books listed in the sources, with page ranges specified in the sfn).

Bringing these things up now to avoid having to fix a lot of stuff later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:56, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • You can install user:GregU/dashes.js to keep WP:ENDASHes vs. hyphens in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - I got the working though for some reason i have two showing up on my view. I tried the other tools suggested above but so far I'm not seeing them show up anywhere in my view.Smkolins (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    With the HarvRef script, you don't have to do anything to make it work ... just scroll to the bottom of the article to see the red print showing up with sources that have errors. For the Dup links script, you sometimes have to click it twice, from the toolbox on the left of your screen, and then scroll down through the article to fine indication of dupe links in red. It's tricky. Also, you don't have to eliminate all duplicate links; at times, they can be justified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall, saving this star will require an almost top-to-bottom rewrite and revamping of prose, sourcing and correction of MOS issues involving editors experienced with content at the FA level; a 2004 FA last reviewed in 2007 (which wasn't a review at all) that has not been maintained, the article is not even close to modern FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SandyGeorgia, thanks for the comments and for raising all these points from the MOS that I mostly wasn't aware of. I agree that the page will need a lot of work... in fact as I look at the sources more closely I can see even more of them will need replacing. I won't have time in the next couple weeks to do this scale of revisions. Seems reasonable to me that the page may FA status and can maybe regain it eventually with enough work, but if other editors want to jump in and fix everything in time then great, I can help here and there. Gazelle55 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to dump the trivial on you, when there are larger issues, but it seems better to get everything out at once, in fairness. Others need to decide if this article is really saveable at FAR, or if it should be defeatured, with a later return to FAC when ready. The work needed here would be daunting for experienced FA writers ... Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page has not had a systematic rewrite in many years if ever - mostly people are just trying to tweak update and handle shifting set of sources and things coming published, and shifting content as it expands into separate articles, sometimes several, and sometimes those article being condensed or themselves split into other articles. Wikipedia has certain evolved over time and perhaps several of us who've been keeping up the article and related article developments are in need of a tune up of what that evolving standard is. I look forward, with others, to trying. I happily just hit a window of relative availability to partake I very much hope with others can join in. Some technical points are not my forte, partly because I'm on a Mac and various assumptions it seems wikipedia has decided on are not directly simply supported, some perhaps my own habits - i have _systematically_ used '…' vs "..." not least because Macs automatically change the later into the former. Probably also because I've been in computers as far back as 1990. There are other examples. I also use the source editing environment rather than the other because when I had to learn some techniques I was more successful at that than the mediated type which also sometimes didn't work on Macs using Safari. And what to you all may feel like standard is to me a platform choice and arbitrarily against my habits. And there are so many date patterns across the world - and though I'm limited to English I still read through diverse websites - I similarly find arguments about date formatting tedious. There are almost as many detailed rendering of dates as there are published scholarly sources - far more than 'Chicago' other 'styles' let alone Wikipedia's citation styles and that evolution. Not that I'm trying to get into a platform discussion - just a flavor of where I'm coming from. But don't mistake what may seem like noisey editing to you as clumsiness of me. On the other hand I may have relatively better access to resources through published scholarship and I believe I've show some resourcefulness at tracking things down. And I have had pokes at trying to get actual papers published in diverse professional environments while I still have a day job. I hope that day is much closer than it used to be. Be that as it may, I don't proceed from assumption that I know what I'm doing - I've been open to learning and am open to learning what makes articles better. Smkolins (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did something to my iPad that forced it to let me override the Apple ellipsis style, but I'll be darned if I can remember where that setting is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting you manage on an iPad. Congratulations on that. Smkolins (talk) 23:37, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you all think you have enough committed editors working to save this star, it may be more manageable to switch to using the article talk page for communication, and just keep this (FAR) page updated at least once a week on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions Smkolins... I know I sometimes remove sources that I don't think are RS but in general I do appreciate you digging lots of sources up. Anyway, we can discuss further changes at the talk page. I doubt we have enough editors working hard enough to save the star but perhaps we can get there eventually. Gazelle55 (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a weekly check, I see that not only is this vague, weasly, unattributed list still present, but the tag I put on that section is gone. A section like that needs to be written out in prose, with attribution. Not promising, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is attributed now, and a majority of sources use the bullet-list form. I don't see a problem. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been expeditious to inquire before (someone) removed the tag. Here's what the text says now:
  • When ʻAbdu'l-Bahá first traveled to Europe and America in 1911–1912, he lectured on certain progressive principles that are often listed for a quick summary of the Baháʼí teachings. There is no authoritative list and a variety circulate with various nuances. The following is an example.
    What principles did he include when he lectured ? From the following list, we don't know.
    What is the meaning of "often listed for a quick summary"? Sounds ORish and should be attributed ... And this is an FA; we don't want a "quick summary" list; it should have finely written and attributed prose. Scholars such as a, b, c and d list x, y and z as important principles.
    What are the "various nuances" and according to whom? Cite and attribute.
    The following is an example .. why was that one chosen?
This is not scholarly analysis or FA-level writing. Then the first real prose after the list:
  • With specific regard to the pursuit of world peace, Baháʼu'lláh prescribed a world-embracing collective security arrangement for the establishment of a temporary era of peace referred to in the Baháʼí teachings as the Lesser Peace ...
"Specific regard"? The entire first clause is redundant; FA-level prose isn't happening.
Then in the next paragraph, we do get one person's description of the "distinguishing principles" in the form of over-quoting. It is wonderful to see the article undergoing improvements, but they aren't yet happening at the level to retain FA status. We need to write the defining principles of this religion in our own words-- not a vaguely attributed list, and not over-quoting.
FAR is famously patient and allows time to address issues, but removing maintenance tags without understanding the underlying issue isn't making good use of reviewers' time. Think about inquiring first ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK that's helpful. I'll work on it. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to re-structure the page, as I mentioned on the talk page, but realistically I haven't found the time the last few weeks, and I don't see it happening in the next week. If you feel like removing the featured status, that makes sense for now. If you want to wait a few more weeks, it's my next priority. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 07:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many apologies to SandyG and Smkolins for forgetting to come back to this.
  • Smkolins, I think the main issue is that the text is not accessible. The article needs to be rewritten with two things in mind: (a) Will this be entirely clear to an ordinary reader anywhere in the world; will that ordinary reader be best served by this order of presentation? (b) Have I said this before, if so how does it fit with what I have said; if not, how will it fit with what I will say later? For example, I would rewrite the first paragraph in the lead in the following manner. I'm not saying that I have summarized the teachings correctly, but I have attempted to make it more accessible:

    The Baháʼí Faith is a religion founded in the mid-19th century in Iran. It teaches that all religions have grown from a single blueprint and have been fashioned by the same God; the image of that God is the composite of all humanity. The faith was founded by Baháʼu'lláh, the byname of Mírzá Ḥusayn-ʻAlí Núrí who was born in Iran in 1817. It grew at first in Iran and some other parts of Western Asia but also faced persecution there, leading to Baháʼu'lláh's flight to what is now Israel, where he died in 1892.[1] As of 202?, the adherents of the Baha'i faith—commonly called Baháʼís—are scattered throughout the world and number between five million and eight million.

    Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I would swap the second paragraph for the third.
    There is too much about the founders too early in the lead, but not enough to reel in the reader. By this I mean: there is too much sketchy or offhand mention, but without any hook to catch the attention of a reader who is unfamiliar with the material. When you present such material you have to do it in a way that doesn't overload the reader with details that might appear disconnected to them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I am able to say at this stage. The issues are more those of consistency and comprehensibility than syntax. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate the input Fowler&fowler and hope to see how this will take shape in the article. Historically (though I only go back to around 2005) I would say that contested attempts to edit have tended towards finding more and more citations and finding language that satisfies consensus and participants in the process who are not the "ordinary reader". We keep getting into debates on points that are only settled by fine details. Additionally there has been a here-and-there editing quality to the article though also some consistency, especially by Cuñado I feel, to harmonize the article though it's been an uphill battle to get consensus on changes in language. For example you make the lead a lot easier to read, I agree, but we *often* had editors tweak the language in lots of different ways which Cuñado merged into what I feel has been a stabilizing note that has acted as a 'defense' against the continued history of attempts to tweak the first sentences. I understand and like your sentences but how does one defend against such editing of saying x with cite means it should be included when this approach you outline suggests we have to find an applicable standard that preservers readability instead of bowing to every citation?? Smkolins (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fowler&fowler – I think I've mostly focused on source quality and neutrality in my edits but I will make an effort to focus on making the text accessible to all readers too. And that is good thinking about keeping in mind what has already been said in earlier parts when writing a later part. I also agree with your suggestion of putting the teachings before the details on the founders (i.e., swapping the second and third paragraphs in the lead). Your comments are much appreciated and I think will help me with my editing style on other articles too!
Smkolins, yes this is a very fair point that the text has gotten over-complicated as a "defence" against objections to the wording. I think we need to present things more simply in many parts of the article and this may mean less attention to minor nuances and disagreements between sources. That said, I do think the goal has to be preserving both accessibility and accuracy/neutrality, which may require some careful thought for some points. I've made some bullet points on how we can achieve that balance (though I'm open to alternate ideas from you or Fowler&fowler here).
* If disagreements between sources get too esoteric for this article, we can put them in the more specific articles and link to those in this article. In that case, I think it's essential that, while not explaining the disagreements between sources, our wording is compatible with all majority and significant minority perspectives (as per WP:DUE). So for example, rather than saying the Baha'i Faith is a "relatively new religion" in the lead sentence, I think we could say just that it is a "religion" or an "Abrahamic religion"... this way we dodge the question of whether to call it a world religion vs a new religion.
Except I'm having difficulty imaging a subpage about whether the the religion is a world religion vs a new religion and all the other relatively uncommon or old examples of what it has been called. I would be in favor, instead, of having a settled pov about the description and refer all arguments about it to that settled point which could be a hidden text with basically the current note's contents in it and some summary of this guidance of what is an appropriate content and what isn't for Wikipedia's standards of an FA. Smkolins (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Some nuances or disagreements between sources might be important enough to go in the body of this article, but it would still be better not put them in the lead. In that case, again I think we can phrase the lead in a way that's accurate and avoids taking a side, and then the details will follow below. I think that would be a good idea for the two footnotes in the lead sentence (I was one of the editors quibbling over the wording but I see now that this will just confuse most readers). If there is no way to phrase something accurately without going into a bit of detail, we could try to keep it out of the lead paragraph and then explain a bit of detail in a later paragraph of the lead. For example, I'm not sure there is any way to explain the Baha'i teaching on the unity of religion in the first sentence in a way that's simultaneously concise, clear, and accurate.
Unless there is some policy about how to arrive at a consensus beyond what I have learned about wikipedia - which is what I'm asking for above - I don't know a way except repeated consensus building which has always rested on better and better sourcing and including those sources has been the way that settled development was preserved. Smkolins (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
* Where editors disagree over wording, we can try to reach consensus on the meaning at the talk page and then think of a way to phrase that simply, rather than having that debate in the article by adding extra clauses and references. For example, there was one point where I wrote "a handful" of Babis were involved in the attempted assassination of the Shah, as opposed to "a few" as it said before, and then you dutifully added another reference to clarify it was just three. I wasn't actually trying to change the meaning... I was just using a different word since my source (Warburg) said "few". I'd be willing to go back to "a few" and remove the extra citation to keep things simpler for our readers.
Save that people have debated and tended to color debates about all kinds of things about the religion and if they get into this detail then a 'handful' sounds like 5 which as it turned out was actually an exaggeration - something that has been a feature of many of the debates until we can find an actual source credible and specific enough. I've participated in many years of many vociferous debates which is why I went for the actual detail rather than the generalized terms people went to and it has succeeded in make the page more stable, if, as above, relatively difficult to read as point after point after point has been debated over the years. Smkolins (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, we can discuss simplifying individual parts of the article in more detail at the talk page if there are others that have become too complicated. My bad for any parts where I contributed to making the wording a bit of a labyrinth. Gazelle55 (talk) 19:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that was so long winded! I will make sure to avoid that in the article. ;) Gazelle55 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I'm asking Fowler&fowler (and anyone who can provide guidance) for how or what standard in wikipedia can deal with such debated details without needing to state those details and provide sources for them to maintain readability. In other words what applicable rule or policy actually makes this work? Is it really practical to say 'featured article status clears this level of readability and that point x with source y while credible is actually too obscure for this article and since it is a singular source doesn't rise to being a stand alone article' ? Or do we have to do a hidden note per my suggestion for each point with hidden text pointing to such details? Or is there some other method? Smkolins (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments of Fowler&fowler: Hello all.
I took another look at this article, and also at three sources, which in the ascending order of resolution (i.e. of delving into details) are: (a) Peter Smith's short summary article, An Introduction to the Baha'i faith, available at the British Library web site, (b) Page 3 of Peter Smith's book, An introduction to the Baha'i faith, Cambridge University Press, 2008, and (c) page 26 of Juan R. I. Cole's, Modernity and the Millennium: The genesis of the Baha'i faith in the nineteenth century Middle East, Columbia University Press, 1998.
In my view, the article needs to be written at a level of resolution halfway between (a) and (b) with occasional vignettes of level (c). As it is, it seems to be skimming the trees, kind of like the short articles in the Seventh Day Adventist Magazine in my dentist's office during my childhood (with no disrespect meant to the Adventists.) Please tell me, how did you manage to write an article such as this without mentioning early on (as Peter Smith does in (b)) that the Baha'i faith grew out of Shia Islam in Iran? Or, how can you deadpan your way through the voluntary 19% tax in Baháʼí_Faith#Exhortations? Have there never been objections? Have no stories about its excessiveness been run in newspapers? Why, in the same section, are embalming or cremation frowned upon by the Baha'i faith? It is better to have just two or three examples of exhortations but with explanations, or related stories, than a long vanilla list.
I don't mean to decry the effort put in, which is obviously considerable (with so many parent- or linked articles written), but this article, the flagship in some sense, seems to be the least attractive. Why is that so? Examine History of the Baha'i Faith, for example, which is so much more readable. Is there some kind of unintended effort afoot, a sanitizing POV at work, in the final output, a reluctance to add any juicy tidbit, gossip, rumor, innuendo, or bring in the inevitable shadowy figures, for example? Or are the three of you by being too critical, or too exacting, managing to sap the article of any individuality or character? Or have you interpreted the precis to be an oversimplified summary, written in simple declarative sentences? This is something you need to figure out for yourselves. Also, I notice, since I made my comments on September 23rd, the article has been edited just three times. Is the heart there?
At this point, these are the main issues for me. The way out, from my viewpoint, would be to summarize more from (b) or a source like it, to add more details, more nuance, more controversy, show more of the underbelly, and so forth. But it will require work. At FAR, they give time, if people are willing to put in the effort. That last decision is yours. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have never viewed this article as being able to overcome the deficiencies; it is too far off the mark. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Responding briefly to Fowler&fowler's comment, "how did you manage to write an article such as this without mentioning early on (as Peter Smith does in (b)) that the Baha'i faith grew out of Shia Islam in Iran?" One of the more intractable problems in summarizing the Baha'i Faith is balancing technical accuracy with readability, while fending off attacks from people trying to smear it. Technically speaking, the Babi Faith started in 1844 in Iran directly from Shia origin, and the Baha'i Faith started in 1863, announced by Baha'u'llah in Baghdad (not Iran), but almost all the Babis eventually became Baha'is, and at least 90% of Baha'is were of Iranian descent until about 1950 (now they're a minority). For readability, we should say that it began among Shias in Iran in 1844, but people who are not friendly to Baha'is will try to emphasize the separate religions of the Bab and Baha'u'llah. Another confounding issue is the attempt to assassinate the Shah by three Babis that resulted in collective punishment, mass executions, and the exile of Baha'u'llah, when he chose to go to Baghdad (he could have gone elsewhere, so he wasn't exiled to Baghdad, but from Iran). It is difficult to summarize all this in the lead while keeping it accurate and readable. Thanks for the feedback. I'll make some improvements soon. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 15:44, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was my sense that you guys are worrying too much about optics, about not being smeared. To write a comprehensive article you need to stop worrying and present the good, the bad, and the ugly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding POV issues, I agree with Fowler&fowler -- as I've said on various talk pages, most of the Baha'i articles on Wikipedia have a noticeable pro-Baha'i slant and this one is no different. Yes, I can think of a few editors who seem to have a genuine anti-Baha'i animus, but I think the much bigger problem is that the articles largely stick to the Baha'i narrative. To some extent that's because many of the academic sources are written by Baha'i academics like Peter Smith and Moojan Momen (whose work is WP:RS), but it's also because other researchers haven't been cited as much. I don't see bad faith on the part of other editors (I think they are editing in a way they think is accurate and fair), but I think we can do better. I guess while they feel they get undue pushback from critical editors, I feel I often get undue pushback when I try to use a balanced approach.
Anyway, regarding the necessary push—I don't have much time to devote to this article in the near future so unless there is a big push by others I think we should just remove the FA star immediately and conclude the FARC process. Maybe it can regain FA status eventually but that will take quite a while at this rate. Gazelle55 (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a delist from me, then. Hog Farm Talk 20:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, way too many issues as demonstrated throughout this FAR; this article would be better worked off-FAR and resubmitted to FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sources

References

  1. ^ Affolter 2005.
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) 3:32, 1 October 2022 (UTC) [24].

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy

[edit]
Notified: nominator has retired from Wikipedia. Talk page notice 2021-11-16
Nutez, please notify anyways, and also other active editors and potentially interested WikiProjects. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nutez notifications have still not been done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Belated notifications on 2021-12-29; please hold in FAR for at least two weeks from this date. Fritzpoll, WP:BIO, WP California, WP Death, WP Elections, WP Politics, WP US, WP Crime SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it has prose and style issues. There are tags for {{colloquialism}} in the text, and many paragraphs have no citation whatsoever. The article does not reflect the most recent discourse surrounding the assassination. It does for instance not relay his son, RFK jr.'s thoughts on the murder, or the debate around Sirhan Sirhan's tentative parole by Gov. Newsom.[25] Nutez (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Additionally, I do not think that all of the sources here are high-quality.
    • I don't see why a PRNewswire press release should be used for anything related to this subject. There are guaranteed to be much better sources than that for basically any aspect of this event
    • " "The Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy ABC News Live Coverage". YouTube" - no evidence that WP:COPYLINK is met here
    • WP:RSP lists Democracy Now! as a bit of a marginal source, there should be better sourcing available for an FA on this topic
    • " Pruszynski recording & analysis by acoustic expert Philip Van Praag Archived " - published by rfkmustdie.blip.tv, any reason why this is high-quality RS?
    • "Levin, Robert E. (1992). Bill Clinton: The Inside Story. S.P.I. Books. p. 60. ISBN 978-1561711772." - anyone familiar with this author/publisher? If this is the right linkedin page for the publisher, then the publisher apparently has single-digit employees

There's also a goodly number of reference formatting problems, with one source being simply "California State Archives" and a number using "Archived copy" as the title. Hog Farm Talk 00:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can maybe try to improve the article, give me a day or two to begin assessing it/finding better sources/formatting references/fixing other issues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone have thoughts on whether the caption "Robert Kennedy campaigns in Los Angeles, 1968 (photo by Evan Freed)" ought to have the parenthetical italicized? I'm always confused by {{xref}} and similar. (please use {{reply to|Sdkb}} on reply) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, the article is salvageable! After taking a look, I think it can be saved. This a very important topic, and there are many sources which can be used. I did some minor copy-editing, and am in the process of re-arranging sources (separating books/journals/scholarly works from contemporary news sources). The main issues here is with the sourcing, there are few paragraphs poorly sourced/not sourced. Various YouTube citations and news articles can be replaced by more reliable works. I'll work on the article and will try to improve it to FA status by December 31. @Nutez, do let me know if there is something I'm missing. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update – January 2, 2022: I have re-organised and more importantly, expanded the "Background" section, using WP:HQRS. Broadly, these were my edits, (which includes edits by few other users as well, to whom, I am grateful!) Willing to work rest of the article, if it can be held in FAR till then. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria : I am trying to get this to present FA status. I found this June 17, 1968 issue of Newsweek magazine. It has many images which may be useful for the article. It was published between 1926/77, and I don't see any indication of copyright on the magazine issue. Would {{PD-US-no notice}} apply? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those images are credited to other sources - you would need to track those down in order to determine status. Some have a copyright notice in the caption. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Kavyansh.Singh made significant edits to the article on March 15. Is work continuing? Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Following on this and this, a thorough and independent source-to-text integrity check will be needed if this article heads towards Keep territory, in addition to a rigorous copyedit. That said, I don't see it heading for Keep territory. Here is the Background in the version that passed FAC; the current version is bloated, veering off-topic, and over-quoting. The prose is not at FA level: sample "In 1964, polls showed that various Democrats wanted Kennedy to be Johnson's running mate in the presidential election." Similar bloat and prose issues are found in the next section. Overquoting here, and this is not FA-level prose. Unless more editors plan to step in here to do address the original FAR concerns without bloat and marginal prose, I think we should be in Move to FARC territory, to keep this on target. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SandyGeorgia. I'll again assume good faith on your comment that it was meant to be constructive criticism. But a few fundamental points:
  • The sources used in the article with associated page numbers are mostly from the FA version a decade ago (promoted by you). I don't know how the two FACs you link are important here to demand a "thorough and independent source-to-text integrity check". I have no objections at all with the check being conducted, but what significance does that example of FACs of 2021/22 have on a 2008 promoted article?
  • As for the prose, I very much appreciated anyone copyediting the prose. But for the off-topic background section, I disagree. That section now is not off-topic. Everything in the first sub-section is important:
    Visit to Palestine - important as Sirhan Sirhan was from Palestine and that visit made impact on Kennedy's views on Israel (later mentioned in the article)
    JFK's election and RFK as Attorney general, cuban missile crisis - important as to specify what led to RFK becoming, from President's brother to national leader and an influential figure which ultimately led to his presidential campaign.
    JFK assassination - important to mention as to specify, so called, "Kennedy curse"
    Johnson and RFK senatorial campaign - important as (1) to specify RFK's relations with LBJ (2) Kennedy mentioned his views on Israel in a speech in senatorial campaign.
    Vietnam War - important to specify why a Democrat would run against a Democrat president in primaries.
  • As for the second sub section, it specifies events that lead to RFK becoming the front runner and ultimately being assassinated. Please let me know what else is "veering off-topic", because in few political articles as this, background is very important. Suggesting to see Cross of Gold speech#Background.
  • I will still work on the article, but if others feel my work (from this version to this version) is not leading the article towards the "Keep" territory, feel free to move this to FARC.
– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The prose is not at FA level, and the article will need a copyedit by a fresh set of eyes. The relevance of two recent FACs, in similar territory (politicians)--supported in spite of copyedit and source-to-text issues--is that the person(s) undertaking a copyedit are advised that the task at hand is more than just prose smoothing; it is also assuring that the text is supported by the sources. It is frustrating, and not a good use of time and resources, for a copyeditor to smooth prose only to find out later the prose was unsupported by sources.
On the other hand, who promoted the article over a decade ago, and what was in it then, is unrelated to the purpose of this FAR. Standards have changed, sources evolve, and beyond even that, a given FAC could have received faulty or incomplete review, or could just be a bad promotion. To wit, you offer as a counterexample an article (Cross of Gold speech) promoted by Raul (five days after I resigned, unclear why he was promoting then, as that was rare) on three supports, one of which was from an editor who edited only briefly and never before or after reviewed any other FAC. Do you consider that a strong FAC? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument in content review. Me promoting the article in 2008 has no relevance to what we accept and expect in FAs today.
All of this considered, I will not likely find myself entering a Keep declaration on this article unless independent collaborators work on the prose and analyze the source-to-text integrity. Again, not a criticism: my own writing is awful, so I know I always need collaborators to review it. I am suggesting the same applies here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Thanks! I very much appreciate the feedback, and yes, I'll appreciate other editors collaborating, copy-editing, and spot-checking sources (preferable before ce). The only thing I still disagree is about the length of background section. I did offer a counterexample, not with intention of OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but just to show the importance of occasionally long background section. I also provided reason why each thing in that section is important, for which I received no feedback. Just to specify, I had no intentions whatsoever to imply that your promotion was wrong. I humbly apologize if it was received that way. It was just an interesting fact I found (how you found out that Cross of Gold speech support). I still believe that the article is salvageable, and I will still continue to work. If the improvements (from this version to this version), covering sections till "Sirhan Sirhan" are not leading the article towards the "Keep" territory, be bold and help fix the issues. Because I don't think moving this to FARC would, in any way, help the article. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No apology is needed; of course I have some bad promotions (no comment whether this one is, as I haven't even looked closely enough to say). On the issue of whether there is too much background, removing text is easier than adding text, so I'll hold off on that until sourcing and prose is examined. Since you seem aware of the work still needed here, I will debold my declaration to move to FARC, and check in later. But when serious copyediting is needed, I'm not the best person to do that work; I am always willing to do some copyediting, but I recognize my own prose limitations. Perhaps when Z1720 is back up to speed, they will look in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the article, I'll appreciate feedback on the following issues:

  • The FA promoted version of the article was very concise (around 16,500 characters). Since then, lot has been added about "Assassin's gun" which I feel is not much useful. Who brought the gun, who did he sell it, how did it reach Sirhan, what was the cost, who "paid the $6 balance" has nothing much to do with the assassination. I could just remove much of that section, but would that be seen as compromising with comprehensiveness?
  • I don't feel File:EMK eulogy of RFK.ogg in any ways contribute to the article. It is a non-free media (again, added after the 2008 promotion). Would that be fine to just remove it.
  • I need feedback on sources. For FAs, we need "high quality reliable sources". In my previous FACs, I have been told that contemporary reliable news reports are fine to use as long as they are not used to support any evaluative claim. Because the initial FA version uses few issues of Time magazine's 1968 articles, almost all used to support the events of the assassination. I don't think that would be an issue, but just to be sure, could anyone more experienced take a look at sources in the Works cited section (only), few cleanup is still needed in the "References"

Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My feedback:
  1. The "Assassin's gun" section is an example of the kind of off-topic bloat I mentioned above. There are some relevant bits (illegal for alien to own gun so bought it clandestinely), but there is an extreme amount of unnecessary background detail, like: "The Iver Johnson .22 caliber revolver that Sirhan used to shoot Kennedy was initially owned by Albert Leslie Hertz, a resident of Alhambra, California. Hertz initially bought the gun to protect his business during the 1965 Watts riots, but never used it and kept it in its wrapping paper and box. His wife decided the gun was too dangerous and gave it to her daughter, Dana Westlake. Westlake did not use it and gave the gun to her next-door neighbor, George Erhard. Erhard later sold the gun to Sirhan's brother, Munir Bishara Sirhan, known as "Joe", who George knew was working at Nash's department store at the corner of Arroyo and Colorado in Pasadena. At the time, Erhard was looking to seek more money from the gun sale to finance some work on his car." Holy moly, it goes on and on. It reads like a student editor was getting credit by the number of words added. I agree with you that much of it can be removed, but there are some relevant bits.
    Checking further, the entire section was added by one editor, and the "who Wrote That" tool indicates it has been relatively untouched in the three years since (including the whopping 11-sentence quote). In other words, no FA-level eyes were watching this article. The upshot seems to be to debunk conspiracy theories; that can be done without the blow-by-blow detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am indifferent on that one; someone may find it relevant.
  3. On those contemporary sources, I believe they are typically OK unless (and this is the key) more recent scholarly sources cover the material better or differently. This is where knowledge of all sources comes in to play (survey of the relevant literature). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:12, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, I have an internet archive account (if I can remember the password). I'm willing to spot-check things in a few days, but I'm out of town for the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 13:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ha ... I also have an internet archive account, so we can split the work (if/as I find time, with Rowling heating up); how about if you start at the top of the book sources, I start at the bottom, and we'll see where we meet ? I'll do mine on the talk page here. But many of the books are not available at archive.org ... in a case like this, that is concerning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Few are available at Google books and have preview. Rest journals can be accessed through WP:TWL. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so as of April 25, 2022, I feel that as long as content and source reliability is concerned, I have tried to fix most of the issues. It has also been updated with the most recent information. There may still be few prose issues and old verifiability issues. At this stage, I'd appreciate others commenting on the state of the article and what could be done to improve it. For comparison:

  • The FA promoted version — August 12, 2008 : this
  • The FAR nominated version — December 20, 2021 : this
  • Current version — April 26, 2022 : this
    • Changes since nominated for FAR : this

Pinging everyone associated with this FAR: @Nutez, Nikkimaria, SandyGeorgia, Hog Farm, Sdkb, Buidhe, and Z1720: – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is a long way from featured-quality prose and will need a lot of work; I haven't read beyond that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the FA version lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. A set of comments outlining issues from the lead with the changes you suggest would be much more helpful for me to improve the lead. And I think this is within the radar of the FAR process. Best regards, Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some source-text integrity checks on talk; I have a couple queries (one of which is pretty minor). Hog Farm Talk 04:13, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Those minor issues have been resolved. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:05, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure Nikkimaria. I have tried to resolve the issues mentioned by the nominator of this FAR and pinged all the people involved with this FAR on 18:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC). SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm volunteered to do some spot-checks; HF did it on the FAR talk page. The minor issues raised were resolved. Since then, there has been no progress. I appreciate comments from anyone. Can you check the reliability of the sources and let me know if anything stands problematic? Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720: Would you kindly be willing to give the article a review and let me know what issues to work on? It appears that this FAR has stalled from last 45 days or so. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Summoned here by the above ping: I did a copy edit of the article. Here's some notes:
  • File:Rfk assassination.jpg's caption identifies Kennedy, but does not identify the other person who is prominent in the photo. I suggest that the person is identified.
    • Done.
  • File:Sirhan Sirhan.gif: I assume this is Sirhan's mugshot after he was arrested for this incident? If so, I recommend that the caption mentions this as such
    • Done.
  • I suggest alt text, per MOS:ALT, though this is not necessary to implement for my support.
    • Done.
  • The Assassination section is a little long, at seven paragraphs. I think level 3 headings should be added to split up this section.
    • Done.
  • I suggest that Kennedy's funeral be given its own section, to be placed under "Assassination". I don't think the funeral information fits with the Legacy section, and the Legacy section might be expanded, per below.
    • Done.
  • The "See also" section contains links to additional things that might need to be mentioned in this article.
Those are my thoughts. Source checks, spot checks and image copyright checks were not conducted. Please let me know if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: Thanks for taking a look. I have tried to address the concerns. How does it look now? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Additional comments below:

HF

All of the sources look okay enough. Democracy Now! isn't great for something adjacent to the Arab/Israeli conflict but what it's citing is acceptable.

I checked most of the Witcover refs and one of the news sources, my only real concern is if the pagination issues are more extensive than the two noted above and one I already fixed from Witcover. Hog Farm Talk 23:04, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess to make myself clearer, I don't intend to support keeping until I'm confident that the pagination errors have been cleaned up throughout the whole article, and would like an assurance that this has been thoroughly looked into before continuing reviewing. Hog Farm Talk 02:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I intend to check the pagination for all the sourced. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aaronovitch 2009 — [26] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Ayton 2007 — [27] — checked all 10 references, no issues.
  • Ayton 2021 — [28] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Bass 2003 — [29] — checked the two references, no issues.
  • Clarke 2008 — [30] — checked all 9 references, made these changes.
  • Coleman 2004 — [31] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Davis 1992 — [32] — checked the sole reference, made this change.
  • Gabler 2020 — [33] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Guide to U.S. Elections 2010 — can mail those two pages — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Heymann 1998 — [34] — checked the three references, no issues.
  • Kaiser 2008 — [35] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Kotz 2005 — [36] — checked the sole reference, made this change.
  • Melanson 1994 — [37] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Moldea 1995 — [38] — checked the seven references, made these changes.
  • Mossman & Stark 1972 — [39] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Newfield 1988 — [40] — checked the two references, no issues.
  • Noguchi 1983 — [41] — checked the sole reference, and added a page in range.
  • O'Sullivan 2008 — [42] — checked three of the four references, added a page in the range.
  • Palermo 2001 — [43] — checked the five references, no issues.
  • Sanders 2000 — [44] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Shahidullah 2008 — [45] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Thomas 2002 — [46] — checked the three reverences, no issues.
  • Witcover 1988 — [47] — checked all 8 references, made these changes.
  • @Hog Farm: Above, I have checked all the 23 book sources used in the article, and have fixed the minor pagination issues wherever they were. I feel now the pagination issue had been thoroughly checked and cleaned up throughout the whole article. Let me know if there is anything else I have to address, which I'll be glad to consider. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:45, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since it looks like the book sourcing issues are addressed, I'll move onto the journal articles and other refs I can access.

  • Briley 2007 - single cite okay
  • Clarke 1981 - hard to tie anything down because the page range given is too broad, but I'm not sure that "The interpretation that Sirhan was motivated by Middle Eastern politics has been criticized as an oversimplification that ignores his psychological problems" is a good summary of an article that states on p. 99 "Five persons involved in four incidents were primarily motived by political rather than personal concerns. They are John Wilkes Booth [...] and Sirhan Sirhan" and then on p. 101 "Although the acts of Booth and Sirhan were extreme, it is less clear, given the circumstances of the time, that they were irrational". @Kavyansh.Singh:, which part of Clarke 1981 is this sentence drawing from?
  • Goldzwig 2003 - supports "On March 31, a few days before the Wisconsin primary, Johnson announced that he would not seek the presidency" but cited page doesn't mention the Wisconsin primary
  • Hayes 2019 - single cite is okay
  • Kurtz 1982 - single cite is okay, although you don't really need p. 9 in the range
  • Sieg 1996 - single cite is okay
  • Hodak 2012 - okay
  • Newsweek 1968 - article "Kennedy asked Romero, "Is everybody OK?"; Romero responded, "Yes, everybody's OK." Kennedy then turned away and said, "Everything's going to be OK" but the source gives the actual Kennedy quote as "Is everybody safe? Okay?", Romero's response is different in the source, and p. 29 of the source implies that Romero is actually the one saying "everything's going to be OK".

@FAR coordinators: - I haven't checked anything besides the citations noted above, and while most are okay, I'm rather uncomfortable with the citation to Clarke 1981, as the source is vague to where in Clarke's ~25 pages this is found, and what I read in Clarke on pp. 99 and 101 would seem to contradict our article's statements. I'm also concerned by the misquoting and probable misattribution of a statement from Newsweek 1968. Kavyansh, I keep finding a few source-text issues every time I look at this, and as it's still my busy season with work, I don't think I can commit to checking every citation I can get ahold of. My inclination at this point is to delist so that FAR can remain more focused and then have this worked up outside of the FA-sphere and then eventually resubmitted to FAC once the source-text issues can be verified to be cleared. Hog Farm Talk 01:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly articles

  • Briley 2007 — [48] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Clarke 1981 — [49] — checked the sole reference, it has few issues, made this change.
  • Curtin 2000 — [50] — checked the sole reference, made this minor change.
  • Gardner 2000 — [51] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Goldzwig 2003 — [52] — checked the sole reference, made this change.
  • Hayes 2019 — [53] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Hoogenboom 2000 — [54] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Keene 2013 — [55] — checked the two references, no issues.
  • Kurtz 1982 — checked the sole reference, no issues; removed pg 9 from the range.
  • Meloy 2010 — [56] — Checked 4 references to pg 563, all fine, no issues.
  • O'Neill 2000 — [57] — Checked the six references, all fine, no issues.
  • Sieg 1996 — [58] — checked the sole reference, has minor closed paraphrasing, but it is a case of WP:LIMITED in my opinion. No issues with s-to-t integrity.
  • Socarides 1979 — Would be happy to mail the PFD, if required — Checked the two references, no issues.

Magazines

  • Hodak 2012 — [59] — checked two references, made this minor change, no issues.
  • Newsweek 1968 — [60] — Checked the three sources, made these changes.
  • "All" Time magazine references — checked, made few changes, and everything should be fixed now.

News sources

  • ABC — [61] — Video recording from the official website should be reliable enough for verification of the statement.
  • Allen 2015 — [62] — Checked two references, no issues.
  • ABC (Australia) 2022 — [63] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • BBC News 2006 — [64] — Checked the two references, no issues.
  • Blankstein 2010 — [65] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • CBS 2003 — [66] — checked the sole source, made this change.
  • CNN 2012 — [67] — checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Daily Record 2011 — [68] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Dershowitz 1972 — [69] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Esty-Kendall 2018 — [70] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Hayes 2010 — [71] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Holley 2016 — [72] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Issenberg 2008 — [73] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Los Angeles Times 1995 — [74] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Lovett 2011 — [75] — checked the two references, no issues.
  • Newsom 2022 — [76] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Turner 1982 — [77] — Checked the sole reference, made this change.
  • Reynolds 2007 — [78] — Checked the sole reference, made this change.
  • Segalov 2018 — [79] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Reuters 2015 — [80] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • The Guardian 2006 — [81] — Checked the sole reference, made very change, no issues.
  • The Guardian 2007 — [82] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • The Guardian 2008 — [83] — Checked the two sources, made this change, no other issue.
  • The Guardian 2021 — [84] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • The Independent 2007 — [85] — checked the two references, made this change, all fine now.
  • The New York Times 1968 — [86] — added a cite, all fine
  • The New York Times 1989 — [87] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Willon 2022 — [88] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.

Web sources

  • ANC — [89] — Checked the two references, made this change, no issues.
  • Claire T. Carney Library — [90] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • Democracy Now! 2008 — [91] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • FBI 1977 — [92] — Checked the two references, made these changes, all fine now.
  • Secret Service — [93] — Checked the sole reference, added some more detail, no issues
  • Wells 2018 — [94] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.
  • California Secretary of State — [95] — Checked the sole reference, no issues.

With that, all sources, top to bottom, have been verified and the few issues found (mostly minor, one major) have all been fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC - I've been through a significant number of references since the last redoing by Kavyansh, and I didn't note any issues. The fact that those issues existed that late into the FAR are quite concerning, but they seem to have been addressed, given the spot checks I just did. Hog Farm Talk 02:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FAR break

I looked at one section only: Legacy. First, I found the section starting with a centered quote (oddly unencyclopedic, highlighting a statement by one worker on the scene). The first sentence in that paragraph isn't punctuated correctly:

  • Kennedy's assassination was one of the four major assassinations in the 1960s, the other three include the assassination of John F. Kennedy (1963), the assassination of Malcolm X (1965), and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. (1968).

More problematic is the paragraph structure. What is the third paragraph about, and why does it start out about a movie, and then circle back to the topics in the second paragraph? What does "attempted to recreate the scene of the assassination through a fictional account" even mean? I suspect if I were to get drug in to this FAR, I'd continue to find more of same, so ... I won't. Still at Move. To. FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then move to farc, I guess. I'm not sure how this one is ever going to get resolved. Hog Farm Talk 01:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has to take on an overhaul, not just of sourcing, but also of writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What did you find unencyclopedic? The direct quotation, or it being center aligned? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another random sample: "In August 2021, two of Kennedy's children, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Douglas Harriman Kennedy, supported Sirhan's parole, while many others disagreed.[108] The same month, the California state parole panel recommended Sirhan's parole.[109] Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, denied the parole in January 2022, asserting in an opinion piece for Los Angeles Times that "Sirhan has not developed the accountability and insight required to support his safe release into the community."

  • Did RFK have dozens of children? (Or did six of them condemn the parole attempt?)
  • When the California state parole panel recommended parole in August 2021, two of .. and six ...
  • Why do we need to know Newsom's decision was published "in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times" ... he's the governor, it doesn't matter where or how he denied it-- he did.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another sample: "Kennedy's assassination was one of the four major assassinations in the 1960s, the other three include the assassination of John F. Kennedy (1963), the assassination of Malcolm X (1965), and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. (1968)."

Plain vanilla grammatical issues: "During a re-examination of the case in 1975, experts examination of the possibility of a second gun having been used, and they concluded that there was little or no evidence to support this hypothesis.[117]" SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the flow in the Second gunman section.

  • "During a re-examination of the case in 1975, experts examination of the possibility of a second gun having been used, and they concluded that there was little or no evidence to support this hypothesis.[117] The Pruszynski recording was published in 2004 by CNN's Brad Johnson; its existence had been unknown to the general public previously.[118] In 2007, it was revealed that forensic expert Philip Van Praag had analyzed an audiotape of the shooting known as the Pruszynski recording in which Van Praag had discovered acoustic evidence that a second gun had been involved in the assassination."

Second gunman --> introduce Prusynski recording --> re-introduce the Prusynski recording --> re-introduce second gunman theory! This whole thing needs disentangling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What can be done with this?

  • Some scholars view the assassination as one of the first major incidents of political violence in the United States stemming from the Arab–Israeli conflict in the Middle East.

First, it appears that "some scholar" = Dershowitz. Second, the way the sentence is put together leaves the idea that some don't, which begs the question, then what was? Fixing this requires reading the source and coming up with a sentence that makes sense of what the source says, which this sentence does not.

What we can do is either remove the scholar part, and rephrase it as 'The assassination is viewed as one of the first major incidents...', but it would be a bit less accurate. What would you suggest? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These samples are only from glancing at a few sections of the article. This is a short article whose prose should shine; the prose is nowhere near FA level, and I don't believe this star can be saved unless a new editor steps in to rewrite. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, User:SandyGeorgia, for the findings! Comments like this are much more helpful than just stating that the article is not near FA standard. Please understand that I won't be able to fix the issues if I don't know what the issue is! I would appreciate if you could give the article another detailed read and list out all the issues you find with the article, be it prose, structure, anything. I'll try to fix the issues. I would further request that when you list an issue, also suggest what you think would be better phrasing or would be a better way to address the issue. We may have our differences at few places, but our motive is same: to improve the article. And as always, I am still willing to work on the article! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing the issues is above my prose ability level, and I don't really have the time or energy for that type of rewrite anyway, so I'm going to have to bow out of working on this further unless I'm specifically needed to review something with this. Hog Farm Talk 15:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nutez are you following your nomination here? Feedback would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Nutez (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Prose/style seem to be the remaining sticking points. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Sadly, this nomination is going nowhere. When I took this project last year, I was optimistic to not only save the star, but improve this high page view article for millions of readers. There were many underlying issues discovered during the course of the FAR, including the various source to text integrity issues that precedes my involvement. I fixed most of the issues I identified, but respecting the consensus above, there are some issues which are beyond my abilities to fix. Since the nominator of the FAR has explicitly stated that they cannot help, and no other editor has stepped up to improve the article, I think we should really be focusing on other nominations. I'm still happy that I took article from this to this version. Outside the course of the FAR, I'll still try to take the article to GA level, and FAC if possible. Thank you all who helped at this nomination, especially Hog Farm! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist; it now conclusively appears that no one is willing or able to take this on, and it has flaws deeper than the prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. Hog Farm Talk 17:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/October_2022&oldid=1118828798"