Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 2024

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) at 18:39, 30 November 2024 (arc). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Kept

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 9:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC) [1].

The Notorious B.I.G.

[edit]
Notified: 2Pac, WikiProject African diaspora, WikiProject Hip hop, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject New York City, talk page notification

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2007 FA that was kept at FAR in 2010. I've identified a few issues with this article that bring it below the standards expected of a featured article. Pulling from my comment at TFAR, a brief skim of the article shows unreliable sources, including IMDb, being used in § Awards and nominations, failing criterion 1c. I also question the article's comprehensiveness (criterion 1b) if there are substantial-looking biographies of Wallace unused in the article and stuck in § Further reading. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 04:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC) (please Reply to icon mention me if you need my attention)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the sourcing problems, but would like to offer agreement on the comprehensiveness. I'm not an expert in this area of music, but I will say that I've read and come back to this article on multiple occasions and couldn't help but feel like this FA was old and/or lacking for a performer who, in a very short career, defined an era of rap. 83.4k bytes for this guy? Is that really it? I doubt it, but I don't consider myself knowledgeable enough to definitively say no, just questionable. mftp dan oops 16:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some notes:
  • I conducted a copyedit, mostly to remove extra words like "however" and some phrasing. Feel free to revert if not helpful and let me know the concerns below.
  • "Sullivan, Randall (2014)" is listed in the bibliography but not used as a source. This should be rectified.
  • The "Vocals" section falls into the "X said Y" pattern; WP:RECEPTION might help with ideas on how to reformat this.
  • No other concerns. This is close to a keep. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: both fixed. 750h+ 02:56, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see Z has done much of the heavy lifting for me already. I see nothing that I couldn't fix myself. If I'm being pedantic, there's a wording preference here, a link change there...nothing substantial at this point. Excellent work.
The only thing I have to ask is: why are we using "known professionally as the Notorious B.I.G., and also by the stage name Biggie Smalls"? Are they not both stage names? mftp dan oops 03:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MFTP Dan: fixed. 750h+ 03:19, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do we absolutely have to keep the redlink that is John Van Nest? I know there are scenarios to keep them but I'm not sure this is one of them. mftp dan oops 03:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
removed @MFTP Dan: 750h+ 03:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good. I have a few other concerns here and there, but I'll get to them tomorrow afternoon. We could probably keep this now and it'd be no big deal if it's a hurry to get this closed, but I have minor nitpicks here and there. mftp dan oops 03:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MFTP Dan: do you feel to list your remaining concerns or? 750h+ 01:16, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The impression I get from the infobox stating Evans and Biggie separated in 1996 is that it was a legal proceeding, but this is not covered in the article. Is that not what the infobox purpose for the "sep." is? The legal term of separated?
Cease's quote regarding "Who Shot Ya?" is a little lengthy for my liking and I'd prefer paraphrasing, but other than that, I'm not seeing much left that couldn't just be done on the fly. No need to hold it open any longer, it's clearly up to snuff. mftp dan oops 02:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MFTP Dan: fixed. 750h+ 02:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mftp dan oops 16:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: any remaining comments? 750h+ 10:53, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAR coordinators: having been open for three months can we close this (or would it require more reviews?) 750h+ 08:23, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you yourself feel satisfied with the state of the article? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cas Liber: I believe the article is in a good place as of now and does meet all of the criteria but if there is anything that needs to be addressed I'd be happy to hear. 750h+ 12:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also in a much better state than it was prior to the FAR. Sources have been improved, so as the prose and comprehensiveness (books are used used much more). 750h+ 13:05, 23 November 2024 (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) 3:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC) [2].

Pokémon Channel

[edit]
Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

[edit]

Nominating the article for review as the article has a few conspicuous issues that this process may assist with:

  • Firstly, in terms of research, the article features overuse of quote citations from the game to evidence plot and gameplay mechanics. Secondary coverage should be preferred, other than WP:PLOT which tends to be viewed as self-evidently sourced from the work itself. This approach is arguably WP:EXCESSIVE - over half the article's citations are for quotes as trivial as 'The End' just to evidence that the game ends! Without these, the article is not particularly broadly cited - not that this is any barrier to FA status.
  • Secondly, in terms of comprehensiveness, the article has no actual development information that may shine a light on who made the game, how they made it and what they thought of it. The section relies on pre-release promotional articles that are purely early impressions of the game. This leads to unclear statements - that the game is a "spiritual successor" to Hey You Pikachu! and that it was developed for the purpose of promoting the e-reader - are likely the case but this is assumed from how an IGN preview describes it rather than the developer. Investigation into WP:NONENG sources and the potential for Japanese development interviews could significantly improve this section.
  • Thirdly, this may be a matter of personal opinion about comprehensiveness, but for a game titled Pokemon Channel with gameplay oriented around the channels, the gameplay section is well-written but does not go into much detail about what each channel is and what it features. I understand the channels are a bit superficial, but a list or more detailed description rather than a sentence that says Other channels include X, Y, and Z may be more helpful for readers to know exactly what content is offered in the game's channels. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Vrxces. Unless I missed something, you have not yet brought these concerns up at Talk:Pokémon Channel. Per the instructions at the top of the page, talk page discussion is the first requisite step in this process. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I'm not familiar with the FAR process. I'll do that. Happy to take this down if the FAR is inappropriate at this time. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries on my end either, and I hope you stick around FAR! I know sometimes the coordinators will just put the discussion on hold while talk page discussion occurs, so you should leave this up and let them handle it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your guidance - I've added this feedback on the talk page. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 00:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold recommend that this FAR is place on hold while the notice period (step 1 above) is conducted. Z1720 (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step 1 is now complete (with no response) so hold is off. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ, could you please notify relevant editors and WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant WikiProject has been notified; I will also reach out to key editors when I can. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 05:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC no edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The quote-citations of the game are pretty strange, but since the material would be fine even without citations per MOS:PLOTSOURCE, I'm not sure there's really an FAC criteria issue (although I'm not averse to just removing the citations). Comprehensiveness, on the other hand, is definitely a valid concern, but does anyone have a few examples of good sources that aren't currently being cited? The reason there's no development section may just be that the sources don't talk about it. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No work has been done on the plot section, which should be reduced and all of the inline citations to quotes of the game should be removed. I searched for sources per Extraordinary Writ above and found one source, [3], but struggled to find others in my quick search. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The nomination rationale confuses me. Most of the errors in the article seem to be text-based (Which can be easily fixed per MOS:PLOT and some expansion on the gameplay section) and easily fixable, with the only real concern being the development section. Per Extraordinary Writ, if no additional sources can be found for the development, then it's very likely sources just don't talk about that aspect while talking about others. If more sources per Z1720's Polygon source are found, then those can be added to the article and used to expand the section. This FARC feels very forced when most of the issues could have been fixed with simple edits and research to the article by the nominator (Some of which have already been done by Sjones23). I'm willing to do a search for additional sources + adding anything found to the article if this works best, but as it stands the rationale for delisting this article is very weak and easily fixable. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the feedback. This nomination was made when I had a weaker understanding of the FAR process under the misapprehension it was a vehicle to escalate quality issues on FAs. I think at this point the nomination can be comfortably closed. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been three months. Why is this still open? QuicoleJR (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies, I have not been active in this time. Am I meant to close the review? I assumed the text "A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached." meant another party was meant to do this. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think an FAR coordinator is supposed to close it. One should hopefully close it soon. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - evidently from the nomination this was all a bit faulty but hopefully it can be sorted out. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Concerns over the length and style of the plot section were addressed and searches for additional information and sources were completed. I found no issues. DrKay (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The problems have been fixed. Cos (X + Z) 18:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Edits since February of this year have addressed the nominator's concerns. Game development is still not covered but I don't consider that realistic, nor necessary to achieving comprehensiveness. arcticocean ■ 22:34, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2024 (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) 3:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC) [4].

Michael Tritter

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Fictional characters, Fourthords, WikiProject Television

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because...It is not comprehensive enough, and the prose doesn't read well, and it feels like it just lists everything. "Entertainment Weekly stated that Tritter annoyed House more than any other character, and Variety considered her a "worthy foe"." This is not reception at all, and why was he a "worthy foe"? "Staci Krause of IGN found the first few episodes of Season 3, in which House recovers from being shot, more interesting." This is not him but from the episode. "Tritter all the more scary."There is clear evidence that the article is not comprehensive and has prose issues. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • My general impression of this article, after a quick skim, is "shrug". I don't have any sourcing concerns. I am unsure what else can be added to the article, but I am not well-versed in pop-culture articles about fictional characters. The "Reception" section could use a refresh using the advice from WP:RECEPTION but it's not terrible. There have been no edits since it was posted to FAR as of this comment. I am going to defer to others who are topic-experts: I have no strong feelings, but barring additional concerns I'm OK if this was kept (although I would not suggest this go up to TFA). Z1720 (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps @HTGS can respond here. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC while my opinion on the quality of this article can be summarised by the word "meh", Boneless's concerns have not been addressed, which makes me think that no one is maintaining the quality of this article. I think FARC will be a good avenue to determine if this should be kept. Z1720 (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On comprehensiveness, some additional references were suggested last year[5] but they contain nothing that's worth adding to the article. I see nothing egregious in the prose that I can point to and say 'that needs rewriting'. The article is what it is: a brief summary of a minor character in a once-popular TV show. It's not a great subject matter, but it seems to meet Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. DrKay (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HTGS can you respond? 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; there's nothing glaring here that stands out to me. Sure, it could possibly be polished up a bit with the reception, but I'm not seeing anything worth delisting over. It's honestly about the best that I would expect an article written about such a microscopic and ephemeral topic could be. Hog Farm Talk 21:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, I don’t spend much time with featured article evaluation, but on prose I see no major errors, and the writing is fine, but not at the level I would personally consider worthy of feature. My interest in removing the article’s featured status is maybe more bureaucratic, as its status has been pointed to at deletion discussion before as a valid reason to keep. Personally, I just don’t think a character that relies on a collection of sources that are essentially 1) the episodes themselves, and 2) blogs and TV Guide–type rundowns, is worth keeping as an independent article. It has spun a tapestry out of straw; it makes a lot out of a subject that has been treated very thinly by independent sources. None of the sources discuss the subject with the depth or analysis that one would expect for an article of this length. I don’t honestly know whether this is good enough reason for an article to fail to be given featured status, but it feels like it should be. (I guess this is FAC #4? Again, I’m far from a regular here.) — HTGS (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I feel similar to Hog Farm. This is about as good as this article could be, and the article would probably pass AfD if proposed. This is probably as complete as it is going to be. Z1720 (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2024 (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) 3:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC) [6].

Ann Arbor, Michigan

[edit]
Notified: Pentawing, Lengau, WikiProject Michigan, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject United States, 2024-05-30

I am nominating this featured article for review because since its promotion there has been a lot of information added to the article that is too detailed for the article scope. The article also suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION, particularly in the "Infrastructure" section, there is uncited text throughout, and the lede is too short to summarise all major aspects of the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have started new articles to contain details (right now they are in the Economy and Transportation sections). But before summarizing those sections, can you tag passages where citations are needed? PentawingTalk 01:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Summarized the "Economy" and "Transportation" sections. "Politics" section still needs work (should it be removed entirely and focus only on city government?). I am still the process of clearing "citation needed" tags and addressing the lead. PentawingTalk 05:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: Citations addressed. Lead has been expanded. PentawingTalk 04:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update: All issues noted above have been addressed including citations, lead, over-sectioning, and excessive details (e.g. Government/Politics section summarized with details moved to the "History of Ann Arbor" article). Is there anything else that needs to be addressed? PentawingTalk
I agree with the assessment. It seems there are now two tables showing the exact same racial information in the demographics section. There is a census estimate for 2021 in the infobox but in the historical population box it's 2023. Strongly suggest just getting rid of estimates and keeping the census figure. Crime data almost a decade out of date. Weird paragraph with just one sentence and it contains a statement about the number of Japanese people in 2013 (a year without a census). The entire section from the 2010 census can be removed and replaced with 2020 census information. Also no need for income from 12 years ago to be mentioned. Lots of little things need updating. Mattximus (talk) 02:00, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the duplicate racial information table, updated the demographics using 2022 US Census data, and updated crime information using data from the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). As for population estimates, there seems to be an unwritten consensus to display such information if they exist (as seen in other US city articles).
I agree with the assessment...Lots of little things need updating. - Can you be specific as to what needs to be done? I went through the article and updated any numbers-based information, and moved one-time events (if notable) to "History." PentawingTalk 05:19, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mattximus: ↑ Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is considerably better! If it is to be featured level a few more things need to be added.
  • All non-context data needs to have a reference frame. For example, if the per capita income is $52,276, is that low, high, average? It would be best to give context, for example "higher than the state average of x" or "lower than the national average of x". Crime says it's the 6th safest city over 50,000. But what if there are just 6 cities over 50k in Michigan? Need to say "out of x cities" to give context. There are a few instances where this is done (compared to national crime rate at end of paragraph) but all figures *must* be given context.
    • Done. Though I should add, after looking at other US city articles, that a breakdown of the population is the norm when using census data. Context in terms of comparison to state/US national figures is generally not done unless one is doing a ranking. PentawingTalk 04:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better, but context should always be given. I suppose for data that is related to itself (male:female ratio for example, or male:female income) then no external comparison is needed but certainly for figures like % of people with high school degree (not every wikipedian is American, knows it is a univeristy town, and can infer if that's above average or not). I would say something like poverty levels definitely need a comparison to national/state levels. The crime sentence is also ambiguous now, if it's the 6th safest city out of 10, isn't that actually the 4th most dangerous? I do know the answer, it's 6th out of around 20, but I'm not sure what constitutes a city as per the source. This needs to be fixed for sure. Mattximus (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • I put in comparisons to the U.S. national data where available (e.g. education attainment and poverty levels). As for the crime comparison, the source had it has a "top ten" list (though Michigan has more than 10 cities with populations over 50,000 only the 10 safest are mentioned). Does wikilinking "top ten" clarify the sentence, or is there a better way of wording the sentence? PentawingTalk 06:20, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • We really need to mention what the denominator is to make a "safest city" claim. If we can't list how many cities over 50k were included, then it should be deleted. The reason bears repeating. If there are only 10 cities and it's the 6th, that is quite a dangerous city. Education also needs context, I know from personal experience working in Ann Arbor that is quite an educated town, but since there is no comparison between % people with degrees compared to national averages, no reader would figure that out. Mattximus (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            I went ahead and removed the safety ranking passage as I cannot find any source that lists all Michigan cities; the sources I'm finding all all "top ten" or "top 50," which you seem to find as problematic. Education already has context information in the form of comparison to the U.S. national figure. PentawingTalk 05:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not start the section with a table, table should be below or to the side of the paragraph talking about the table.
  • It's otherwise much better, but I would start the section (or somewhere here) with a comment on population growth from the table (Ann Arbor has experienced consistent population growth since the first census in 1860). The historic population table could thus be referenced in writing.
    • Is this to be used as an opening sentence for the section? Ann Arbor has seen two years of population shrinkage so saying that the city has consistent growth is going to cause a problem. However, the article intro does mention the city seeing explosive growth in the early 20th century. PentawingTalk 04:55, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh no it can be anywhere that fits, but we shouldn't have a table in a section that is not referred to in the section, I believe that is against featured article standards. I would be satisfied with something as basic as consistently grown in population in all censuses since 1860. I wouldn't be concerned with the 2023 estimate, they have been wildly off in the past and are not very encyclopedic. Census data is really all that needs to be considered. Mattximus (talk) 23:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got! Mattximus (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments from Z1720

[edit]

@Pentawing: Sectioning off comments for easier navigation. I think this article is close to a keep.

  • Why are there citations in the lead? WP:LEADCITE says they are unnecessary. Has all this information been cited in the article?
  • "Geography", "Media" and "Infrastructure" are not mentioned in the lead. Since these have level 2 headings, should they be included?
    • I added some mention to geography, but after looking at other city articles I don't think including media and infrastructure in the lead is necessary (unless there is a good example that says otherwise). PentawingTalk 05:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History" does not mention any pre-colonial information. Considering the work on Indigenous history over the past 10-ish years, is there any information about that history that can be added? Which Indigenous peoples occupied the land before colonialism? Is there any archaeological research in this area?
  • I'm not sure this is necessary as the article is about the municipality of Ann Arbor which didn't exist back then and is a rather modern construct. Perhaps a mention any indigenous people on the land at the time the city was formed, or a cursory sentence about who the previous occupants of the land were and what happened to them would suffice? Mattximus (talk) 01:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arts and culture" is quite large. Is there a way to split this with other headings? Perhaps give sports its own section?
  • "Parks and recreation" is quite short. Any information to expand this? Perhaps information about recreation opportunities in the city, connections with YMCA or other recreation-based organisations, or popular recreation activities? Any information about the number of community centres, pools, hockey arenas, or other recreation infrastructure? The "Parks" information seems to be enough, but the recreation side seems to be lacking.
    • Since the information appears to duplicate that in "Landscape" I merged the two sections. As far as recreation in Ann Arbor, it is typical of what is found in small to mid-sized U.S. midwestern cities, and I can't think of a way of including information on recreation without it sounding like it should belong in Wikitravels. The linked park articles already mention some recreation activities. PentawingTalk 05:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are sources listed in "Further reading": should these be incorporated as inline citations, or removed from the list?
  • I have added alt text to all photos, per MOS:ALT
  • There are no px concerns in the images.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, have your concerns been addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2024 (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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC) [7].

The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

[edit]
Notified: Gary King, Pagrashtak, WP Video games, 2022-12-11

Review section

[edit]

Featured article that was first promoted back in December 2005 (current status is from 2008). This nearly two decade old featured article lacks citations in several areas, has a cleanup banner from as far back as November 2021 that addresses a lack of citations, some sources noted on the talk page are missing, and the article itself is largely abandoned. I also believe that it might violate the MOS:VG when it comes to the organization of the Reception section, and some images may not be necessary. No large efforts to improve this articles issues have occurred since they were pointed out, and all edits recently have been relatively small. I might not be too familiar with the featured article criteria, but I'm very certain that this article needs improvement and currently does not meet it. NegativeMP1 21:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm interested in working on this when I can. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Had a busy week last week, still working on this. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marking as on my list to check over. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article definitely needs a lot of TLC...
  • Gameplay section is pretty haphazard, and does a bad job explaining the gameplay to someone who hasn't already played Ocarina of Time. I'm not sure the gameplay makes sense to split into subsections about the masks and time cycle, but that might be just a cosmetic rather than important organizational quibble.
  • The synopsis is much better than it was thanks to edits, but it still repeats itself a lot (the plight of the regions is mentioned in setting and again in the plot) and I think is missing a few details to make sense of it (why does Tatl have no other choice than to help Link?)
  • The Development section has some IMO improper use of sources to synthesize conjectures (like Ura Zelda becoming Master Quest) and generally feels pretty slight for such a recognized and important game.
  • Reception definitely needs beefing up and a rewrite. Likewise the Legacy needs a cleanup. Sourcing throughout is not up to modern standards (Screenrant refs, unreferenced statements, and the like.) Much closer to a B-class article than FA these days. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

  • N-Sider is used in this article as is marked as unreliable at WP:VGRS
  • David Fuchs appears to have been questioned the use of Screenrant above
  • FAs should be using high-quality reliable sources, which is a stricter bar than basic reliability. What makes the following sources high-quality RS: wccftech (marked as unreliable at VGRS), Zelda Informer (also marked as unreliable at VGRS), Game Kudos (not at VGRS, which appears to be a sign of definite obscurity), WWG (seems to be associated with comicbook.com, which is marked as inconclusive at VGRS), Nintendo Everything (marked as unreliable at VGRS - current citation does not name the publisher), Escapist (VGRS notes that this has had issues with insufficient editorial oversight in the past - while this is outside of the unreliable time range, is this really a superior source for FA purposes?), Noisy Pixel (marked as unreliable at VGRS, again the publisher is not named in the citation)

None of these sources are used heavily, but that's still 9 sources there's some reason to have doubts about them being up to the FA standard. I think more sourcing work is needed here. Hog Farm Talk 00:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced all the unreliable sources. The two Escapist articles are from known reliable game critics (Yahtzee Croshaw and Marty Sliva, formerly of IGN). They are high quality sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Clock town.ogg - licensing is problematic. The "own work" does really work because its a derivative copy of the video game music, which would be under copyright. I've nominated for deletion on Commons.
  • "Link in his Goron form. The time limit is displayed at the bottom of the screen." - it's unclear what time limit this is referring to

That's all that stands out to me but I'm not very familiar with video games. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out; I didn't even realize it was filed under a CC license. Definitely not appropriate for Commons. I edited the caption for clarity. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the .ogg file for now per the deletion request; I think we can keep now. Hog Farm Talk 21:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments and feedback! Axem Titanium (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Fuchs, any update on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose still needs some work; I've started doing some edits. I think the major outstanding issue for me is the gameplay section, which doesn't seem like it's a great introduction to the actual gameplay if you don't know what Ocarina of Time is and can backfill in the information. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Fuchs: It has been three months. Have you made much progress? QuicoleJR (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Haven't worked on it much at all, to be honest. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:30, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I had completely forgotten about this (didn't get any pings?). What issues do you still have with the prose? I'll see what I can do about the Gameplay section when I have a spare moment this week. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Axem Titanium I think restructuring the gameplay section so it doesn't start with Ocarina (a game for which someone might have no frame of reference) would be a good start. The prose also flips between describing things in terms of what the player can do, and what Link can do—I think either is fine, but it needs to be consistent throughout. There's also some weird organization—ocarina songs for manipulating the three day cycle are mentioned under that subhead, which makes sense, but then other uses for the songs are discussed that have nothing to do with it (not sure the subhead needs to be there at all, but the organization could do with being a bit more thought-out. (I think the Jackson guitar thing should be cut entirely because it's irrelevant to understanding the gameplay as well.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:24, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Fuchs Thanks for the comments. I made some changes to help clear that up. In terms of player vs. Link, I made some adjustments to ensure that "player" is only used for things that the player does (like save the game or solve a puzzle in their head) and Link is used for things that Link does (like swing a sword). Axem Titanium (talk) 22:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Axem. I'm going to do another pass through and see if there's any sourcing that might help, then edit what's there. It's looking better. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @David Fuchs: Are you still working on this? @NegativeMP1: What concerns of yours remain unaddressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to be honest, I keep forgetting I even started this discussion. It's been over a year. There might be a couple of areas that could be a bit off, but from what I'm seeing right now, I think all of the concerns that I initially had when I made this review have been addressed. All the major blatant issues have been resolved, and the article is far better organized. I think it meets the current criteria, and I feel that this discussion can be closed. On a side note, it might be worth nominating this article for TFA next year, specifically on April 26, for its 25th anniversary. λ NegativeMP1 21:15, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @David Fuchs: given the above, are you satisfied with the article thus far (given we have two keeps) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Stray remaining thoughts:
    -The body is still missing release date info that's in the infobox (unreferenced), would also be a good place to stick it and make the "marketing campaign" not an orphan line.
    Forced to work together to solve the issue unclear what the issue is and why Tatl has to help Link.
    -Skull Kid makes amends with the fairies and Link, which he recognizes. it's unclear who is recognizing who, or why it's particularly notable if the Skull Kids recognizes Link. (Shouldn't he?)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs someone changed the entire story section without discussion. I have reverted it to the previous version that does not contain those unclear passages. I added references for the release dates. Axem Titanium (talk) 08:05, 7 October 2024 (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) 5:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC) [8].

Sun

[edit]
Notified: CactiStaccingCrane, Nergaal, Headbomb, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Astronomy, [diff for talk page notification]

2006 listing, last reviewed in 2009. As taken note of in the talk page notice from the tenth of May, there are fifteen (and possibly more) unsourced paragraphs and sentences. @ArkHyena: noted that "Given that the last FAR for this article appears to have been done all the way back in... 2009?! I'd certainly agree on one being needed. It necessarily is not only unsourced text which may be an issue too; piecemeal revisions over ~15 years could potentially impact clarity, and I'm pretty sure FA criteria back in 2009 may have been different than they are now.", while @Sgubaldo: said that a lot of references were missing different fields. 750h+ 01:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a first reading, the uncited statements generally seem to be the sort of thing that is written in many books (Sirius being the second-brightest star in the sky, etc.), so fixing that up shouldn't be too difficult. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More of a nitpick, but in the 'Observational History' section, it seems to be that there's a tad too many images. I'm thinking the hydrogen-alpha and ultraviolet light ones could be removed or moved elsewhere? Sgubaldo (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have partially addressed this in diff. CoronalMassAffection (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Praemonitus:

I went through the remainder of the citations and tried to make them consistent and more complete. Beyond that, the article has built up a fair amount of fluffy padding and redundancy that can be tightened up so the writing is more crisp. Praemonitus (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter and Praemonitus: any updates? Some comments I have includes the lead section, you might consider removing the references (as that should be summarised in the article) and I think the lead paragraphs should be a bit more balanced in size. 750h+ 10:41, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing further to add. Praemonitus (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have (re)moved the references from the lead (see diff). CoronalMassAffection (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I don't really care about references being in the intro or not; it's a little more clean without the blue clicky linky numbers, but they weren't egregious. XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAR coordinators: what are our thoughts? 750h+ 15:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the issues raised above remain unaddressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added some cn tags. The article should probably be trimmed because it is over 9,000 words (WP:SIZERULE), although I think removing introductory paragraphs in some sections and a copyedit for redundant words might improve this. Some inline citations have quotes, which have fallen out of fashion on Wikipedia, so these can probably be removed. Z1720 (talk) 17:58, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think prose size needs trimming, the size rule it says the "scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material", this is probably one of the most important articles on the site, so i think 9.5K words is perfect; if anything, one would expect this have more. It also says "A page of about 10,000 words takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is close to the attention span of most readers", this page is well below that. I removed the first cn tag you added in "Life phases", as that paragraph summarises the whole section (which is referenced). I also added citations for the second one. 750h+ 03:35, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArkHyena, Z1720, Praemonitus, XOR'easter, and Sgubaldo: do we have any more concerns? this has been idle for about a month 750h+ 11:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time to have a proper look, but I will note a large addition to the article was made on August 22. Sgubaldo (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed part of that addition for being really excessive detail and because it relied upon a journal that nobody should rely on. XOR'easter (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: now the article has 43 words over 10,000. Genghis Khan was recently promoted so I think this can be an exception. 750h+ 08:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without FARC i don't see any issues. Page is 100% sourced and well-written. 750h+ 12:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:TOOBIG states that an article should be split after 9,000 words; this article has over 10,000. Yes, this is a large topic that will be very long but some longer sections might be good places to split or summarise information more effectively, such as "Atmosphere", "Sunlight and neutrinos", "After core hydrogen exhaustion", "Motion", "Development of scientific understanding" and "Solar space missions". In addition, I do not think the last paragraph of "Etymology" is needed in this article as it describes the origin of words like "Sunday": these can be stated in the articles about that word since this article is already long. Z1720 (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without FARC Having addressed the recent addition mentioned just above and the bulleted list discussed earlier, I believe this article covers what it needs to at the level it ought. XOR'easter (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: what value do the equations provide in the Motion section? This seems unnecessary. Praemonitus (talk) 03:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a first stab at condensing all that. If you want to trim it further, I won't object. XOR'easter (talk) 03:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we could move it to Stellar kinematics and put it in a section there called something like "As applied to the Sun"? I have no strong feelings about it. XOR'easter (talk) 03:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My objection isn't intended as an obstacle toward a Keep without FARC; I just view the formulae as unnecessary for a high level article like this. It may even discourage some readers as being too technical. All the reader should need to see is the end results. Praemonitus (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could condense a lot of it down to "The Sun can be modeled as moving in an ellipse around a point that is itself circling the center of the galaxy" and then quoting some numbers, perhaps. XOR'easter (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this section has been trimmed. The result looks good to me. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Not a subject matter expert, so cannot comment if the information in the article is "correct". Instead, I'll look mostly at prose and other concerns:

  • The end of "Atmosphere" has information relating to research concerning the sun (mostly probes). I think this information can be removed from this article as it creates currency concerns (as more probes are sent to the sun, Wikipedia cannot keep adding all these probes). Instead, this information can be moved to the articles about the probes, and this article can present the findings of the probes as verified information (without mentioning that the information came from the probes).
  • "This is 132° away from Cygnus." is uncited. I also am not quite understanding what this paragraph is saying, so I am unsure if this sentence is needed?
  • "Unsolved problems" only lists one problem. Should this section be renamed, or formatted differently?
  • Added alt text per MOS:ALT

This article is looking a lot better and I think it is close to a keep. Z1720 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the 132° line and moved the "Coronal heating" material so that we no longer have an "Unsolved problems" section with only one problem. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: have we come to a conclusion? 750h+ 10:29, 30 October 2024 (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) 8:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC) [10].

Isaac Brock

[edit]
Notified: Scimitar, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Channel Islands, WikiProject Military history, 2024-07-26

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is a lot of uncited text throughout the article and a large "Further reading" section with sources that can be incorporated into the article. The sources used as inline citations are of lower quality; lots of academic literature has been written about Brock, but the article relies on newspaper articles and a source from the 1800s. The lead is too short to summarise all major aspects of the article, but I would not want to expand it until other academic sources are incorporated. Z1720 (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the identified issues. I have no immediate plans to fix these issues and think that the article should be delisted. That said, I live relatively close to Brock University and they're incredibly likely to have the academic sources that would be needed to make this an FA again. I'm not opposed to the idea of going to their library at some point (again, not near future, I'm quite busy). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2024 (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) 3:30, 16 November 2024 (UTC) [11].

Rudolf Vrba

[edit]
Notified: Jayjg, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Jewish history, WikiProject Slovakia, WikiProject Hungary, WikiProject European history, WikiProject Military history, 2024-06-25

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, per WP:TOOLONG, the article at 11,000 words should probably be summarised more effectively and reduced. The article over-emphasises the Vrba–Wetzler report, and the lead is missing biographical information. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2024 (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) 3:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC) [12].

Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Wadewitz; WT:BOOKS; WT:NORWAY; WT:POLITICS; WT:WPWW

Review section

[edit]

This article was noticed last year because of concerns about citation-needed tags and overuse of block quotes. There's also been seventeen years' worth of new scholarship since the FAC, and I'm not sure the article's kept up with it enough to remain comprehensive: there a chapter here, a chapter here, an article here, and probably others too. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2024 (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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC) [13].

Middle Ages

[edit]
Notified: Ealdgyth, Johnbod, Reddi, Adam Bishop, Middle Ages, European history, Visual arts, Military history, History [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was heavily edited, partially rewritten and slightly restructured for various reasons since 23 December 2021 ([23]), so it needs a thorough and comprehensive new review. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Regarding the broad structure, it seems worth bringing up for discussion that the article seems structured as three separate topics rather than a single one, being set up as a summary of each period (Early, High, Late). There are 3 society subsections, 3 military and technology subsections, and 3 Art and Architecture sections. This gives the impression that the three periods are quite distinct with little connecting the historical division as a whole. This may be true (within usual historical fuzziness, although but then why is there only a two-fold division in Romance historiography?), but if so I'd expect something a bit more explicit about such disjunctions in Terminology and periodisation. Aside from that discussion, overall, it does not appear at an initial read through that the quality has obviously decreased since the linked version. Perhaps worth a note that the new version calls highlights a single historian (Miri Rubin) in Terminology and periodisation, while removing the highlighting of C. R. Dodwell in the second Art and architecture subsection. Best, CMD (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your comments. (1) I did not touch the main structure of the article because it has been stable for more than a decade ([24]). I think the article follows a quite common scholarly practice, as its structure is based on chronology instead of topics. This is fully in line with most of the cited books. As I also noticed that the article failed to explain why the Middle Ages is discussed as one period in scholarly literature, I expanded it with two sentences about the period's main characteristics (I refer to the third paragraph in section "Terminology and periodisation"). If we ignore these common characteristics, we can indeed conclude that the three subperiods were quite distinct, as it is presented in the article. On the other hand, the article (I hope) also presents the links between the subperiods. (2) The sentence containing a reference to Dodwell presented his PoV about frescoes in churches in the west. As I prefer facts and wanted to expand the article about details of Orthodox architecture and art, I deleted the PoV sentence, and added a sentence about Balkan church architecture. (3) Miri Rubin is primarily named because I preferred to quote her words instead of paraphrasing them. Furthermore, she is a prominent contemporaneous historian of the period, who is specifically mentioned in John H. Arnold's cited book about problems of medieval history. Borsoka (talk)
  • Borsoka is correct. The rewrite in the last 3 years has been so complete that the usual FAR process is totally inappropriate, & the article should immediately be delisted so that the new owner can, if he wishes, reapply at FAC. The main contributors in the last decade per the page history (Borsoka, Ealdgyth and myself) have all said so in the past, so there should be no difficulty. The stats give Borsoka, who first edited the article 27 December 2021, long after it became FA in May 2013, 70.5% of the "authorship attribution", in 1411 edits. Johnbod (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: It's not so much about ownership as stewardship, and it's encased in policy. ——Serial Number 54129 15:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify - the below replies to a cmt now huffily blanked by the poster. Johnbod (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Always the not-understanding with you! FAR is meant to be a much lighter process, and normally attracts far fewer reviewers and comments. That may be fine for an article that has already been through FAC, but is wholly inappropriate for one that has been changed as much as this one, in effect completely re-done. In the past Borsoka expressed the view very strongly that the previous version was absolutely terrible, and should never have been made FA. What is presented now is a completely new article, that has never been through FAC, as it needs a full review, for the first time. I hope this has clarified. Johnbod (talk) 12:26, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • While one wouldn't expect great detail on military matters, the article does over-rely on a single generalist work (Nicolle Medieval Warfare Source Book), which means a single and perhaps slightly dated perspective. Conflicting views on the roles of cavalry and infantry or the importance of technology in works by Rogers, DeVries and the Bachrachs among others deserve mention. The later medieval section is rather weak on maritime advances, which are a very significant factor going into the 16th century as the reach of European ambition expands globally (economic motivation is fine but it needed the technology to achieve it). This should include advances in navigation (development of portolan charts and so on) not just shipbuilding.Monstrelet (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Matarisvan
[edit]

Hi Borsoka, saving a space, will be adding comments soon. I will try to do a comprehensive review as you request in the introduction here, but given the huge scale of this article, that will take a lot of time. I hope that is ok. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 11:35, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that you are not re-reviewing an existing FA, but what is in effect a completely new article that has never been through FAC. So you should indeed the thorough, if you think it is appropriate to engage in this at all. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Johnbod, I understand the quality of the review would need to be high. I will work on being as thorough as possible, please let me know at any time during the process if I err. Matarisvan (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: Here goes the source formatting review, source review to come soon.
  • Link to Frances and Joseph Gies as done for other authors?
  • I am not sure that the existing link Frances and Joseph Gies is useful, and linking it to both names would be difficult.
  • Remove the second link to Edward Grant, as we have not linked similarly for Chris Wickham, the only other author we have used two works from?
  • Done.
  • Link to Oxford History of Art, Oxford Illustrated Histories, Routledge Studies in Medieval Religion and Culture, as done for other series?
  • Done.
  • For Lasko 1972, why use the old SBN format, and not the ISBN provided by Google Books: 9780300060485? Have there been any material changes between the two texts? If you choose the latter, the formatting would also be consistent with all the other sources in the biblio.
Matarisvan (talk) 10:50, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, the source formatting review is a pass then, will do the image and source reviews tomorrow. Matarisvan (talk) 07:53, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here goes the image review:
  • File:Новгородская грамота 109 от Жизномира к Микуле 12 век.jpg - PD tag could be disputed since the photo seems to be from a book published in 2021, unless this fragment is already in the public domain, say at a museum or public collection, if so then the tag will have to be updated.
The site has the following copyright info: © 2023 – National Research University Higher School of Economics; Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Are these government institutions? If so, then will be PD. Matarisvan (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Venice city scenes - in St. Mark's square, File:Sanvitale03.jpg - St Mark's Basilica (11002237996).jpg and - The photographers may have provided CC license for the images, but are they covered under Italy's freedom of panorama?
  • Based on Nikkimaria's linked remark, I understand that the "freedom of panorama issues specific to Italy are non-copyright restrictions". [25]
  • File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.png, File:Map of expansion of Caliphate.svg, File:Carolingian territorial divisions, 843/855/870.png, File:Europe mediterranean 1190.jpg - I had issues with a map which had colors like these ones in my recent FAC nom, due to MOS:COLOR. Black and white versions of these maps would be better.
  • We do not have available maps of better quality. From a practical perspective, I think the fact that most of the maps have not been challenged for more than a decade indicates that our readers think they are useful. [26]
  • File:Aachen Germany Imperial-Cathedral-12a.jpg, File:Frühmittelalterliches Dorf.jpg, File:Maria Lach 02.jpg: Covered under Germany's freedom of panorama?
  • See my above remark.
  • File:Catedral Gótica de León.jpg: Covered under Spain's freedom of panorama?
  • See my above remark.
  • All other images seem to have proper sources and copyright tags, at least as far as I can tell. @Nikkimaria will be able to provide more feedback on the images.
Matarisvan (talk) 16:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one of the likely closers on this so will leave it to you :-) Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your image review. Borsoka (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, all images seem ok now except for File:Aachen Germany Imperial-Cathedral-12a.jpg. As per Commons, Germany's freedom of panorama rules are: "In the case of architectural works, the freedom of panorama provision is applicable only to the external appearance. Therefore, pictures of interior staircases and interior courtyards cannot be used under § 59(1) even if all of the above-described conditions are met". Now, the image does not show a courtyard or staircase, so it could be allowed on a technicality but it can very well be disputed too. For the St. Mark's Basilica statues and Sanvitale03 images, FoP is "OK for objects where the copyright has expired". The statues are from 290s AD and the mosaic from 547 AD so both are ok. On the maps with color as a legend, I'm not an expert, only Nikkimaria or another editor with image review proficiency will be able to rule on this. So pending the MOS:COLOR issue, everything else is ok. Once that is resolved then we can pass the image review. Matarisvan (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24
[edit]
  • As I've said before, this article is hugely lacking in music content. Despite the lengthy architecture & art sections, there is quite literally eight words on music. This is not acceptable: this period saw some of the most important developments of Western music: notation, harmony, genre etc.—these developments are vastly more fundamental than any innovations in art/architecture. This period was quite literally the birth of Western classical music. – Aza24 (talk) 21:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • More comments (mainly on music):
  • The IB has AD 500 – 1500 but lead has 500 to 1500 AD. I'd think the AD placement should be consistent. Perhaps it should also be included once in the body, ideally in the "It customarily spans" sentence of Terminology.
  • I added some more on late medieval music and a small tidbit on early. I think the main movements are all covered now. The High Middle Ages music is a bit limited, could use one more line talking about how the secular songs had regional variants, Troubadours/trouvère/Minnesang. – Aza24 (talk) 21:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source review
[edit]
@Borsoka: Here goes the source review. Since the article has ~500 refs, I will be doing spot checks for 20 refs, which is 4% of the total refs. I will also be using a random number generator to make the ref selection as random as possible.
  • Would you consider adding DOIs and JSTOR IDs for books? If so, I can provide these. Many sources are from OUP, CUP or other university presses which allow access with the above through The Wikipedia Library that is easier than accessing through ISBNs.
  • Why is David Lindberg mentioned twice as an editor in Lindberg 2003?
  • Fixed.
  • All sources are from reliable publishers.
  • Is there any material in the sources from the further reading section which could be added to the article? If not, you may have to remove the section entirely. I personally don't have any issues with such a section but have seen reviews where editors have criticised the need for it.
  • Could you provide quotations for the following refs? I tried accessing some of them on Google Books but many previews don't have page numbers, making spot checks hard. I'll try to access some of these that have DOIs or JSTOR IDs, for the others you can provide quotations.
  1. 48, #83, #84, #97, #116, #216, #263, #280, #325, #338, #344, #368, #377, #394, #400, #463, #473, #487, #492, #495. Matarisvan (talk) 09:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka, I'm thinking of doing spot checks only after you've incorporated Aza24's suggestions on medieval music. That way, one or two refs from such text added can also be checked. Wdyt? Matarisvan (talk) 15:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
[edit]

I intend to have a look sometime in the next month. Ping me if I haven't got round to it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29 :) Aza24 (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I did a quick read of the lede and skim of the rest. Made some tweaks, but didn't find glaring deficiencies. Sdkb talk 21:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The "glaring deficiency", from the FAR point of view, is that the article has been very largely rewritten and almost completely re-referenced by Borsoka since it passed the FAC, without involvement by the original editors. It is essentially a different article, which has not been through FAC. The only thing to do is to remove FA status, & let it be re-submitted at FAC. The FAR process is not intended to deal with this situation, & is not capable of handling it. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, no other editor has accepted your proposal. I cannot agree or disagree with it because you have not quoted a single text from any relevant WP policy to substantiate it. Borsoka (talk) 05:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This review is going nowhere and frankly is an insult given the article history. Move to delist sadly; page has denigrated and has not received a review on FAC criteria in its entirely re-written form. Borsoka suggest you take it to GA first, then to PR before you present again as FA-worthy; although your aims seems to be to smith your enemies rather than move the page on. Dismal behaviour. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no enemies. Please do not assume that editors are here to fight although I am sure this is a surprise for you. Perhaps you want to take me to ANI for misconduct instead of continuing your boring personal attacks. Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Move to delist nonetheless. Ceoil (talk) 03:36, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Airship
[edit]

Apologies for the delay. Comments to follow.

I've spent some time comparing the current article with the old; I think overall there has been enough improvement to warrant a rewrite, notwithstanding the displeasure of the original authors who also put a lot into this article.
My comments will naturally focus on those areas with which I am more familiar (which, not to blow my trumpet, is most of this), so some points of detail may go unexplored. With a view to length: 13,500 is of course quite long but justifiable with an article of this calibre—still, we should look to trimming more then adding, I think. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do like the structure, most of which seems to have been inherited from the previous version, but it was certainly a good choice to keep it. And a sources section! you know I like a good one of those.
  • Has to be said that the lead is chunky: 625 words is on the top end for any FA. I think the third paragraph especially is slightly problematic—it reads not so much as a professional summary but instead a prosified bullet-point list. You don't have to summarise literally everything in the "High Middle Ages" section with equal weight. See what you can do.
I have given this a prune, as it seemed like no one else was going to. It may be over severe but it is certainly clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which states are mentioned in the lead? Western and Eastern Rome, Franks/Carolingians ... nothing in the High Middle Ages paragraph ... Ottoman Empire. I think that confirms, for me at least, that the third paragraph is too thematic-focused. I would expect at least the HRE to be mentioned.
  • The new periodisation section is a definite improvement—the old "Development of the concept" subsection seems a little bit wasted space.
    • "to use tripartite periodisation" perhaps add a "this" before tripartite?
  • You aren't certain whether the Middle Ages are singular or plural. For the former: "The Middle Ages is", "It customarily spans". For the latter: "the Middle Ages were often known".
    • "It customarily spans" certainly has no direct antecedent.
  • "There is no universally-agreed-upon end date" this was just said; remove and start the sentence with "the most frequently..."
  • It's an odd choice to start the sources section focusing on what we don't have, rather than what we do have.
  • I don't know if three paragraphs on events before even 350 AD is necessarily WP:DUE; the "Later Roman Empire" section certainly seems quite overburdened.
As before, pruned, perhaps over severely but more in keeping I think. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. I have limited access to WP till the end of the week, so I will address them on Sunday. Borsoka (talk) 22:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to participate further in this hostile FAR per this comment below. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Moving to get more input regarding this article's status WRT the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist obviously. The current version is, via attrition,not what was examined at FAC. And per Johnbod above, FAR is designed to repair and shouldn't be able to pass an entirely rewritten article as FAC standard. Borsoka should open a fresh FAC with his new version and see how his bludgeoning tactics work there. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are talking about bludgeoning above. Does it mean that you could prove that the two huge archives where I indicated dozens of cases of unverified statements or statements representing marginal PoVs in the article's "FA" version (FA?) are basically incorrect? If this is the case, please do not hesitate to take me to ANI. The two of the three nominators who can still edit WP perhaps could assist you. Ping them. Borsoka (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missing the point! You yourself have said that the article was (relatively recently, after you had made vast numbers of changes) unfit to be an FA. The version that actually passed FAC is gone, & there is no point in re-opening arguments over its merits. The issue is that the current version that replaced it is unreviewed, and the various points raised above, fine as far as they go, by no means amount to the "thorough and comprehensive new review" that you yourself said at the top here was needed. This FAR has now been open almost 4 months, without attracting any overall support for the current version, and there is no alternative to a Delist. Johnbod (talk) 13:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and regardless of Airship's late intervention, they are just one voice and POV. Resubmission at FAC is the only option. Ceoil (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not going to declare a strict keep or delist, but given that the point of WP is to present information in the best possible, most thorough and palpable way, I don't see why an FA resubmission would be anything but helpful. It would bring a lot of eyes to the new draft and iron out any kinks. I don't think this version is too far from an FA anyways; it's certainly GA but just hasn't had the proper vetting/site-wide consideration that a subject this big requires. – Aza24 (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose an extension so that Airship and Az's reviews play out. They are shaping up to be beneficial for a future FAC, although they shouldnt be allowed to move it over the line here it a step forward. Ceoil (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ceoil—this is fair enough if these reviews were actually playing out, but they seem rather dormant. Perhaps AirshipJungleman29 and Aza24 could confirm whether they intend to return to this review. Furthermore, it appears that the nominator Borsoka is too busy to address any issues raised. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do intend to continue, but if consensus is to delist for "procedural reasons" I might as well save my comments for the FAC.
    I wasn't aware however that you could delist an FA simply for having been rewritten—I thought the important thing was whether it met the FA criteria, and as far as I can see none of the !votes above have provided any evidence in that direction. If one of them could point me to a discussion outlining this type of "procedural" delist I would much appreciate it. Or is the argument that it has not met criterion 1e? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really that (not met criterion 1e). Thanks to Borsoka's vigorous WP:OWNing, stability is the least of the problems here. Johnbod (talk) 17:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if the situation has come up before, and am not going to research the matter - you could ask ask at FAC. Is there a precedent for passing an article like this? But FAR, obviously, is a rather light touch review process for articles that have passed the FAC process, and this one hasn't. Therefore we need an FAC, precisely to determine whether it meets the FA criteria; currently we just don't know. That doesn't seem conceptually difficult to me, and I'm not sure I would call it a "procedural reason". We shouldn't be "grandfathering" articles in. If the rather sparse FAR "rules" don't yet mention this, then they should. Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, this review seems to be heading towards a pass by one person, AirshipJungleman29 (whose comments are being actioned only by Norfolkbigfish (since reverted) also an opposer), with comments on a narrow area by Aza24. That to me seems like falling through the cracks. If I were either of the editors arguing for keep here; I'd be punting towards FAC, for reputational and transparency reasons. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod off the top of my head unresolved precedents would be the war over Global warming, and Moors murders and the second FAR for Byzantine Empire. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I was mercifully unaware of these! Just looking at the last of them, Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Byzantine_Empire/archive3 rather relevant to here, the high priestess of FAR, User:SandyGeorgia, was surely right to say at the start that a full new FAC was needed. But she didn't push for that, so over a year later, the process drifts on in a desultory fashion, that I think inspires no confidence that if the star is kept the article will deserve it. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now also looked at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Moors murders/archive1 (2019), at 74 kb too long and depressing to fully scrutinize if you don't know the article. Some similarities to here, including one of the original main authors. Several of WPs er stronger personalities involved, after a very major rewrite. It was delisted. I doubt I can face "the war over Global warming". Johnbod (talk) 03:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, after reviews proved that the article did not (and potenially had never) met FA criteria. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was busy, but I returned a couple of days ago. I have not addressed the issues because I have been waiting for the outcome of this intermezzo. As I mentioned before, I would accept any conclusion. However, so far this section looks like a private conversation among three editors who (as usual) come to an agreement without referring to any point of a relevant WP policy. Borsoka (talk) 10:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are no editors who are arguing for keep here because for the time being the normal process is being followed. Consequently, those who argue for a delist should refer to a single point in the relevant policies. Norfolkbigfish's "action" demonstrates the destructive consequences of ignoring our rules. By the way, the article was edited based on FAR comments. Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't play both sides here citing on the one hand that there are "no editors who are arguing for keep" while berating "those who argue for a delist" while reverting Norfolkbigfish. That's just embarrassing double-speak. Noting also your attempt to refracture the discussion by placing your reply to recent points after the days old "I was busy" ANI flu-type excuse. Ceoil (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your approach Borsoka, you are so knowledgeable, but obstinate at times, clearly a victory via FA is the best path here. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not play both sides: I have clearly stated, at least twice, that I will accept any outcome but I ask you to refer to a single point of relevant WP policies. Sorry, I do not understand what is the connection between my statement made some hours ago, and my revert of Norfolkbigfish's "edits" yesterday. (Please note those edits were reverted by an other editor as well [34].) I do not attempt to refracture the discussion in any way: I always try to place my comments where they are to be placed in context. I have several times explained you that it is not me who is here to fight or to have my victory. Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is characteristically misleading. There were review comments unactioned since the 21st October, so in attempt to move these on I summarized the lead and another section as the comments suggested. No factual information was added. Both were reverted by the nominator. I attempted to summarize the Lead in another edit and followed with an edit to insert a space. The nominator then reverted the space edit, leaving the first edit in place. The subsequent editor then noticed this mistake, and reverted the first edit to be helpful. There is no evidence that this indicates support for the reverts, only of an editor rectifying an obvious mistake. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping the editor who reverted your edit when assuming something about their motivation. Remsense, before reverting your edit, thanked the remarks I made about your edits on the article's Talk page. You (as it is not unusual) ignored my remarks before partially repeating your edits (that contain unverified claims and obviously false statements). Please also read the article's history before stating that any of my comments is misleading: I made several edits in accordance with comments by other reviewers ([35], [36]) in July and September. Borsoka (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the FAR co-ords Nikkimaria, Casliber and DrKay as this seems intractable and a matter of scope. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Borsoka I dunno at this stage, you are exhausting and given your use of double-hands, I'm bowing out for now least I talk my way into a block. The FAR coordinates are typically even-handed, and I will leave it to them; I'm as likely to get as hammered as you but at least a precedent will be set. Ceoil (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1)It is:
"a) well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard;" - untested by full review. Numerous relatively minor issues with idiom and vocab are normally found by Borsoka's reviewers.
"b) "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;"- untested by review. There have been significant changes here
"c) "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;" - almost certainly NOT based on "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", though that is a huge demand here. As usual on large subjects that are not on his main stomping ground of Central/Eastern Europe, Borsoka tends to pick a single source, not always of top quality, and stick with it.
"d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;" - untested by full review. Very probably there are issues here, suggested by the direction of some of Borsoka's changes.
"e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process;" - untested by full review. Borsoka's vigorous reverting of almost all changes keeps it relatively stable.
"f) compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy and free of plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing". - untested by full review.
  • (1) (ad b): I think the article was without doubt improved from this perspective. For instance, your version of the article did not mention Cyril and Methodius, Cyrillic script, Old Church Slavonic, the Khazars, Mount Athos, the Arab sieges of Constantinople, Arianism and Bogumilism, and almost completely ignored the history of Scandinavia, Central Europe, Eastern Europe and the Balkans.
  • (2) (ad c): Please compare the bibliography of your and this version, and you will be surprised how many specialised new sources were introduced. Indeed, I expanded the article with facts about the history of Central and Eastern Europe, Scandinavia and the Balkans, because one of the weakest part of your version was its almost total ignorance of the history of large regions of Europe (together with obviously false statements, for instance about a powerful high medieval Poland). In addition of using some more general sources (such as Barber's cited book) to improve coverage of Central and Eastern Europe, I introduced the following specific sources: (1) *Curta, Florin (2019). Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages (500–1300), Volume I. Brill's Companion to European History. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-41534-8. (your version referred to Curta's work about the history of Southeastern Europe); (2) Fine, John V. A. (2009) [1987]. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century to the Ottoman Conquest. The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-08260-5.; (3) Grzymała-Busse, Anna (2023). Sacred Foundations: The Religious and Medieval Roots of the European State. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-6912-4508-9.; (4) Sedlar, Jean W. (1994). East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000–1500. A History of East Central Europe. Vol. III. University of Washington Press. ISBN 978-0-295-97290-9. Which one would you qualify as not of top quality? On the other hand, I stopped referring to sources of questionable quality extensively used in your version.
  • (3) (ad d): Examples?
  • (4) (ad e): If you read the article's history, you will find dozens of edits made by other editors that I did not revert because they improved the article. For instance, this case shows that I willingly accepted all suggestions that were verified. (In addition, it also indicates that other editors also realised that your version contained debatable statements.) Yes, I reverted most of your reverts, but I always explained my action. For instance, when you reverted my edit ([37]) because you seem to have (wrongly) associated the Hierarchy of the Catholic Church with the Roman Empire's ecclesiastic structure and (also wrongly) thought that the Desert Fathers lived in Syria as well, I asked you to explain your action before reverting your revert.
  • (5) Sorry, I began not to understand what you want. You are saying that nothing is tested by full review although two editors (Airship and Matarisvan) stated above that they were ready to complete a full review. From the start, you want to prevent them from completing the full review. Similarly, Norfolkbigfish wants to delist the article without a review, but is obviously ready to edit it in accordance with Airship's suggestions during the review. You both should decide what you want.
  • (6) Again, I have always wanted to improve articles not to collect badges, so I am ready to restore your version and initiate a new FAR. I could, in a couple of day, list the unverified statements, misinterpreted facts, marginal PoVs that should be fixed in order to keep its FA status. As you are a native English speaker, I think you do not need more than a month to fix all of them, and coverage could be imporved based on my text. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For 3d, you ask for examples. One significant one, affecting various parts of the article, you boast about yourself: what one might call the drift to the East, bulking up material on Central and Eastern Europe, and to some extent reducing it on France and the British Isles. I'm not saying that some or all of this is a bad thing necessarily, but it amounts (over a number of touches in different places) to a significant shift in the article, and is the sort of thing that should be given the consideration only a full review is likely to achieve. I'm aware there's been a trend along these lines in recent Anglophone history writing, but there is a balance to reach between this and what a preponderance of RS in English cover, and what views on more specific articles show our readers are interested. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. Yes, I reduced materal on England (for instance, we do not need to know in the article's context that the Black Prince was named for his black armour), but expanded coverage on the British Isles by mentioning some relevant details of the medieval history of Ireland and Scotland (I refer to the first sentence of section "New kingdoms and Byzantine revival", footnote 17, and the last sentence in the second paragraph of section "State resurgence"). I also expanded the text with highly relevant details of the history of the Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia and Italy (I refer to sections "Rise of state power" and "State resurgence"). Less than 1,700 words are dedicated to the history of Eastern and Central Europe and the Balkans, that is less than 13% of the article's size. I think this is quite modest, and it is fully in line with the approach followed by several books about the period's general history published in English and cited in the article (Barber, Bartlett, Collins, etc). Borsoka (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another POV example is your removal (which someone else mentions near the top) of the sentence "According to art historian C. R. Dodwell, "virtually all the churches in the West were decorated with wall-paintings", of which few survive.[231]". Your comment when this was raised, which I find totally bizarre, was "The sentence containing a reference to Dodwell presented his PoV about frescoes in churches in the west. As I prefer facts and wanted to expand the article about details of Orthodox architecture and art, I deleted the PoV sentence, and added a sentence about Balkan church architecture." Frankly, who are you to dismiss Dodwell, a very distinguished specialist? So you decided to just remove all reference to wall-painting? There's POV for you. Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I removed a PoV statement. Now the article contains a factual statement about early medieval paintings in the west: "Paintings have mostly survived in richly-decorated Gospel Books, including the Book of Kells and the Lindisfarne Gospels—two examples of the Insular art of Ireland and Northumbria." Of course, the article also contains a statement about religious art in general: "Religious art quickly assimilated several elements of secular style, such as strapwork ornamenting and extensive segmentation." Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC) Dodwell is not "dismissed" because he is cited in the article. If neutrality issue is mentioned, why do you think Dodwell's PoV is the only relevant important PoV in the article's context? Or, to paraphrase your wors "who are you to only emphasise Dodwell's PoV and ignore dozens of other historians?" I think such a comprehensive article cannot contain PoVs, but only facts. Borsoka (talk) 03:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I am ready to revert back to that version, start a new FAR and list all the problems, provided that at least one of the two nominators or an other knowledgeable editor is ready to fix all of them in order to prevent delisting. I think this will be a time consuming process, because that version does not meet FA criteria 1b-1c, 2a and 3, problematic sentences abound and coverage should significantly be improved. Borsoka (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, you do love a WP:BATTLEFIELD! I don't know if this was a serious suggestion, but I'm sure I'm not the only one to find it deeply unappealing, having been through the Crusades etc. You've said many times before, and just now, that the old version was unfit to be FA, so a delist should precede any such revert. Johnbod (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to read a good example of battleground mentality, read your friend's text below ([38]). You can also read your mainly baseless reverts and your and Ceoil's personal attacks in the article's history and in the archives, or during this review. Similis simili gaudet ("Like rejoices in like"). Do you refer to this FA review of the Crusades? It was closed by the following notes [39]: "Okay, we've left this open two-and-a-half months, way more than we generally do, because it was a big article that needed lot of commentary, and not so long ago it looked like we were on track for consensus for promotion. That's not the case now, issues being raised by new reviewers and the prospect of the nom dragging on still longer. I hope that the Borsoka, Johnbod and Lingzhi with continue to work with the nominator on the outstanding points via article talk, after which you could ping previous reviewers for another look, and renominate." It was also a substandard article, nominated by Norfolkbigfish. I am ready to restore the old FA version after a delist as well if you are ready to edit it. Borsoka (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The present version of the article does not meet the FA criteria in a number of fundamenatal aspects. They are:

    1. It is not well-written, the prose isn't engaging or of a professional standard;
    2. while comprehensive, not neglecting any major facts or detail it does not place the subjects in context;
    3. the current situation means it is not stable
  2. Length. It is too long and it doesn't focus on the main topics, but instead enters into unnecessary detail. It doesn't use summary style where appropriate. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1a. As a non native English speaker I cannot comment this, but none of the editors who already reviewed the article mention it as a problem above. 1b. What do you mean? The article was expanded with sentences about the common features of the period, and also with text explaining its long-time effects and heritage (I refer to the 3rd paragraph of section "Terminology and periodisation", the first paragraph of section "Rise of state power", and the last paragraph of section "Modern perceptions and historiography"). What further info do you need? 1e. Why do you think that edits made to implement reviewers' suggestions indicate that the article is not stable? Or do you refer to the revert of your not unusually highly problematic edit [40]? Read your version of section "Background". 2. Are you kidding? The version of Crusades ([41]) that you nominated for FA contained 12,535 words, while this article covering a 1,000-year-long period, including the crusades, contain 13,360 words. In addition, Johnbod's FA version of the article contained 14,349 words ([42]), although it provided almost no information about the history of large regions of Europe (Scandinavia, Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans). So I shortened the article by nearly 7% although I expanded its relevant content. Of course, the article could be shortened during the FAR, and I already started to shorten it weeks ago. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no other editor has touched on the prose apart from @Johnbod and @AirshipJungleman29 in his truncated review. Simply put, as the article is currently written, there is no narrative flow and too many random details dropped into the text because they are considered to be too important to leave out while there isn't space to put them into context. It doesn't cover the topic in a way that is easy to find or read. Most readers only want/need a quick summary or a moderate amount of information. If they want more each of the Periods early, high and late Middle Ages have articles (albeit B and C class that could do with improvement) and there are a number of chunky medieval topics that already have their own articles. The notes are just clutter. It is crying out for a good prune and application of WP:SummaryStyle. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Norfolkbigfish, those are about the vaguest criticisms it is possible to muster while still remaining coherent. Might you have courtesy to provide some evidence of your assertions? You know, like an actual review? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again (and again, and again), I am sure that this article (as all FACs and FARs) could and should be shortened, perhaps even radically. However, in sharp contrast with Norfolkbigfish's above statements, I think the article has significantly been improved in regard to context in comparison with the previous version ([43]). Just some examples: (1) Section "Sources" now explains how available sources have potentially distorted our understanding of the period. (2) Section "Trade and economy" was slightly modified to give a short explanation of the background to changes in the system of currencies. (3) The new versions of sections "Architecture and art" clarify how different artistic traditions influenced each other to merge into new styles durng the Early Middle Ages, or what factors entailed the development of Romanesque and Gothic architecture. (4) Section "Economic revival" now introduces the high medieval "commercial revolution", and its economic background. (5) Section "Collapse of Byzantium and rise of the Ottomans" shortly explains the reasons of the weakening of Byzantine power and the rise of the Ottomans. (6) Section "Scholars, intellectuals, and exploration" now clarifies the reasons of the beginning of exploration. Borsoka (talk) 05:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may well come to me providing a review @AirshipJungleman29, but I am holding off at least until some consensus is reached on next steps at this FAR. Much as it it appears you are yourself. For me the only way forward is for the article to be delisted now and if @Borsoka so desires he can renominate. It will attract more reviewers and get a more thorough fairer review. Undoubtedly this FAR has failed and needs to be put out of its misery.
In the interim I will share my thoughts on the Sources section above. Because in microcosm this illustrates why this article is not at FA standard, if indeed it ever was. Firstly, it is not really a Sources section at all. It doesn't emphasise the key meta-sources the period e.g. Manuscripts and Chronicles, Religious Writings and Church Records, Literature and Epic Poetry, and finally Illuminated Manuscripts and Iconography. In addition there are those derived from archeology such as Architecture and Monuments, Artifacts and Everyday Items and Graves and Burial Sites.
It also doesn't touch on more specific sources such as Book of Kells, Tres Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, Matthew Paris, Jean Froissart, Magna Carta, Capitulary of Charlemagne, Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Divine Comedy, Dante Alighieri, Beowulf and The Song of Roland to name just a few, others are available.
It also lacks coherence. It seems to be a confusion of a sources section and a historiography section, the lack of which is a glaring ommission in the article. Adding all this would add significantly to the word count to an article that is already too large, and too challenging to digest for readers with light to moderate interest in the topic. It would need Wp:Summary, an additional Historiography section perhaps using the the confusingly named main article Dark Ages (historiography) and maybe an additional article Primary Sources of the Middle Ages.
The thing is, this is just one section. There are multiple instances in the article where this process would need to be repeated. It is for this reason that a simple delist now is the only sensible alternative. FAR is not the appropriate place for that amount of reviewing for an article this complex. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Norfolkbigfish: you should decide what is your problem: the lack of summary style or the lack of details. Section "Sources" presents the major types of written sources as they are summarized by a leading medievalist: annals, chronicles and other narrative sources, documents of state and church administration (royal charters and chrysobulls), grafitti, seals, and letters. In addition, the section also mentions images and sculptures. The list covers everything you mentioned above from "Manuscripts and Chronicles" to "Iconography". Sorry, but I must raise the question: are you sure you understand the terms you are using? From among the specific sources you listed above as missing, the article refers to the Book of Kells, Tres Riches Heures du Duc de Berry, Bede, Aquinas and his Summa, Dante, Beowulf, The Song of Roland, Magna Carta. In addition, among specific sources, the article also refers to birch bark letters, sagas, the flourishing Old Church Slavonic religious literature, El Canto de Mio Cid, chivalric romance, autobiographies, works by erudite nuns, the Constitutions of Melfi, the Siete Partidas, etc. You are right, the article does not name the Ecclesiastical History of the English People (only refers to it), Matthew Paris, Jean Froissart, Charlemagne's Capitulary. However, neither does it mentions the Chronicle of Alfonso III, the Primary Chronicle, or the chronicle by Theophanes the Confessor, the Annals of Fulda, and dozens (or rather hundreds) of other important medieval annals, chronicles, romances, laws, etc.. Do you really think that the article should list all sources of the period?? Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC) Please also read the last section before requesting a Historiography section (it was me who expanded the article covering historiography). You are obviously making comments without reading the article. I think I am not the only editor thinking that your "review"/comments/edits on this page are not helpful ([44]). I am blessed that you are not my friend. Borsoka (talk) 11:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Middle_Ages#Modern_perceptions_and_historiography would be better renamed just Historiography. It is also not of a FA standard. It contains WP:UNDUE quotes and sentences on whether the Earth was thought to be flat or not but does not follow a coherent structure of how the historiography developed e.g., Renaissance to Enlightenment, 19th century Romanticism and Nationalism, late 19th – early 20th Century professionalisation of History, the Feudalism debate, 20th century Annales School and Social History, late 20th century reevaluation and expansion and through to today with digital Humanities and interdisciplinary approaches.
Yes, many of these facts are in the article and also sourced but they are not presented methodically or summarised well enough to be meaningfully understood by the lay reader. Simply put it fails to meet FA criteria 1a and 1b. All that is being suggested here is possible approaches to meet those criteria. Whether you choose to take this advice, or take different approaches, is up to you but if you wish to pass a FA review these are problems that need addressing. That is before getting to WP:TOOBIG. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facts can be presented in several ways. For instance, the article provides a very general picture of the period's sources and their relevance and weaknesses in a separate section, then presents specific sources in each subsection, because these works were not only sources, but important representatives of early, high or late medieval art, legislation, intellectual life, etc. What alternative coherent structure would you recommend? In this respect, the article's structure did not change to much (I wrote a section about sources, and added sources from Iberia, Scandinavia, and the Balkans). So you should discuss the structure with the original nominators, such as Johnbod as well. You should also discuss the WP:UNDUE issues with them because the "Modern perceptions" part was radically shortened by myself in comparison with their version. All the same, I fully agree with them that we need to cover modern perceptions, especially the one about flat earth. As to historiography, I again had to raise the question: do you want summary style or a comprehensive study. For the time being, the section summarises the most important trends in medieval historiography as they are presented in two specialised works written by two respected medievalists. We are not here to present our views, as per WP:NOR. Please read the article and familarise yourself with relevant literature before continuing your comments and demanding edits. Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All interesting issues for the new FAC. There is no point in reviewing stuff you have removed! Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read it again: it is about what I did not remove: flat earth. Borsoka (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise! Eg "....You should also discuss the WP:UNDUE issues with them because the "Modern perceptions" part was radically shortened by myself in comparison with their version." Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please, again: "It contains WP:UNDUE quotes and sentences on whether the Earth was thought to be flat or not..." Do you think your reference to flat earth should be deleted or not. I would keep it. Borsoka (talk) 14:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I've told you, many times, I actually wrote very little of the version that passed FAC - essentially the art sections and touches elsewhere. Yet you have insisted throughout in personalizing your attacks on that version, which are in any case now completely irrelevant. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As @Johnbod writes above all interesting issues for the new FAC. Article is still short of criteria 1a, 1b and 4. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not personalization. When one looks at your Talk page, they will find a FA badge on it for the article's 2013 FA version without any caveat or stipulation. As one of your co-nominators was banned from our community, the other withdrew from the review even before it actually began, you are the only nominator still active. Since th 2013 FA version [45] also contained the text sharply criticised by Norfolkbigfish, I again seek your opinion on their proposal. Take responsability for the text for which you have been proudly wearing a badge. Again, I would keep the text. Please also take responsibility for the sources of the same version of the article. Norfolkbigfish claims that four sources should have been introduced to improve it, and one of them is specifically a source about the history of art. Do you think the four sources would have been or are useful? I think they are not needed to improve the article. Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep going back to the 2013 version, but that is not what we are looking at here. As it happens, I did look at it, I think for the first time during this review, to follow up your bizarre remark about C. R. Dodwell, which I've commented on above. Having reverted almost every edit I've made to the article since you came on the scene several years ago, you now demand I "take responsibility" for details of that long-vanished version that I didn't write and can't remember even reading. Guess what, I won't. Ernst Gombrich The Story of Art is a classic that's always worth looking at, but there are other much fuller books, including Dodwell (who I did add all those years ago). When the article is delisted, I expect I will take the star off my page. In fact, on a quick look, most of what I actually wrote myself seems intact - let's face it, art isn't really your area, is it? Johnbod (talk) 03:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, art is not my area. Even so, I experienced that sections about art in the 2013 FAC version contained unverified claims (for instance, here and here; in the second case you were referring to an other WP article to verify the text in the 2013 FAC version, although that article contained a false reference). Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the sources the article uses seem to be of variable quality. I would suggest the following could be useful to anyone taking this on:
  • Marc Bloch Feudal Society for medieval social structures, economies, and the feudal system.
  • Barbara Tuchman A Distant Mirror for a narrative account of the 14th century, covering themes like the Black Death and the Hundred Years’ War.
  • Georges Duby The Age of the Cathedrals for medieval society’s transformation, focusing on agriculture, urbanization, and the economy.
  • Ernst Gombrich The Story of Art to contextualize medieval art within broader cultural developments.
While I am at it Peters is mentioned in the References section but isn't used. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Norfolkbigfish: could you name some of the sources of lower quality? I suggest you should discuss the lack of the specific sources you listed above (Bloch, Tuchman, Duby, Gombrich) with the original nominators, such as Johnbod because they also ignored them. Sincerely, I would not refer to any of those sources in the article either. For instance, Tuchman's book is an excellent source for the history of the 14th century, but not for an article about the Middle Ages; the feudal system is mentioned in the article, but the article also emphasise that feudalism was not the dominant structure in all over Europe. Borsoka (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you do mention Bloch, explicitly by name, and link to his WP article? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because of his role in historiography. I cannot imagine a historiography without a reference to him. I also mention Aquinas, but I do not cite him. Borsoka (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those criticisms are nonsensical and openly disrespectful, Norfolkbigfish. You argue that there are "too many random details dropped into the text because they are considered to be too important to leave out" while simultaneously condemning the exclusion of a legion of titles? You show that you have not even read the article fully by proclaiming that "the lack of [a historiography section] is a glaring ommission [sic]"? You contradict yourself within the same comment, saying that the details you think aren't included would actually complicate things for readers and need to be spun off to a different article—well how about you go work on that then?
In one respect though, you have managed to be correct. I have been holding off, but in the hope that I might see a modicum of courtesy from fellow editors. That has not come, and instead we see more tendentious disrespect like the above. I have not the time, will or energy to take an active role in such a quarrelsome campaign. Borsoka, I am sorry that I must withdraw to leave you to face the strident voices alone—but for me your reputation remains intact. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe you don't want to be the sole reviewer supporting this pass; you were encouraged, though I get that that that would be a heavy responsibility. Ceoil (talk) 01:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. Yes, Norfolkbigfish is quite obviously taking a vengeance of me for having failed or delisted their especially substandard GANs and FACs ([46], [47], [48], [49]). They are unable to accept that blatant plagiarism, original research and the promotion of one single scholar's PoV are totally incompatible with quality. I think their substandard and incoherent comments and apparent incapability to response my remarks speak for themselves. I can face strident voices. :) Sooner or later the storm will be over. Meanwhile, I have begun or completed some interesting reviews and I am working to improve an interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Borska, you once again missing the point. I for one want this article to in some venue retain its star and be something the project can be proud of. But nonetheless its not reviewed in its current state at present, you have acted aggressively against any reviewer save AirshipJungleman who has now has bowed out. What do you honestly expect from here; please please please submit at FAC where you will get a far better and less cranky spin at the wheel, where everybody would more geared up for a promotion .Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are missing the point: you are preventing other editors from completing their reviews and you are suggesting something without referring to any point of our relevant policis. People usually learn in Kindergarten that the method "I want" can hardly work in human communities. Borsoka (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I took myself to the ANI on your behalf ([50]). You have been accusing me of several forms of misconduct, but failed to take me to the ANI. Your frequent assumptions about other editors' hidden agendas speak for themselves. Borsoka (talk) 03:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of the behavioural concerns and accusations on all "sides" above should be removed to ANI or another suitable venue; this is not such a venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Borsoka has opened up Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. It's a pity the FAR delegates have been so passive and not ruled as that this was a test case has been obvious for weeks, and endless bickericking has been allowed with no guidance or openions. Ceoil (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are accusing an other editor, now of negligence. Please remember this revert of one of your usual personal attacks ([51]) and the subsequent message on your Talk page. Borsoka (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well see how that pans out. It did seem odd that she took a position, although I replied politely, but my point stands. It seems like you are bullying through, and if FAR is going to now favour rewrites after a bare review; grand but to hell with FAR then as a process then

. Ceoil (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know you could just accept that your completely rewritten artice could face FAC on its merits. Its seem like you just enjoy the fight and causing trouble, rather than take the approach 99% of other people would take. Ceoil (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but your "obey my demand" approach is boring. I have never experienced it in a healthy working environment. You obviously have not realised that nine editors have commented on the FAR so far, and only three of them propose a delist. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, almost 4 months, and 79,000 bytes, and no one has yet said the star should be kept (except on the image review). Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And no review has proved that the star should be removed. As a compromise, I again offer you to restore the version before I started editing this article. You could work for your star. Borsoka (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not really in the business of "proof", a typical giveaway of your mindset. I will be commenting further on "Dodwellgate", which goes a good way to proving how shoddy your approach to sources is. Would you agree to delisting before a reversion, and if not, why not? Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, "do this because I want it" is hardly the best approach. Three editors bullied all other editors who had been ready to review this article into a withdrawal: one of the Triumvirs has been repeating their will to delist without citing a single community rule or precedent substantating this demand; the second acts like Don Quijote's parody fighting for their Dulcinea without any attempt to do anything else than attacking me; and I will not mention the third one because I could only use extremly negative adjectives to describe their abilities to edit or review articles. I am curious about your argumentation: why do you think that there is one single scholar whose PoV about a relatively minor issue (frescoes in early medieval churches) is so prominent that it should be mentioned in the article? Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is all just deflection and distraction. This is a Featured article removal candidate (FARC) because you nominated at FAR, and after much debate an admin moved it to this stage. Three editors have declared delist. No editors have declared keep. There has been no effort to overcome the article's deficiencies. In fact there has been a marked resistance to any change whatsoever. Full reviews from multiple editors would be broadly welcomed, but it appears this is now unlikely, if indeed it was ever possible at FAR and FARC. As such it appears this FAR has failed in whatever purpose it was intended to achieve. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of you three have reviewed the article. You made comments without reading the article, as it is stated by a reviewer whom your obviously biased agenda convinced to abandon their review. Stop repeating that no action was taken by me because I added links above proving that your statement is not true. If your "delists" are taken into account, a precedent is set for aggressive negligent reviewers to prevent a FAC. Borsoka (talk) 09:03, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It remains the case that not a single editor has declared keep, and it is unlikely that an editor will. This is not a FAC, that is the point @Johnbod has made repeatedly, it is a FAR. This is a far lighter process that is unsuitable for the amount of change this article has undergone over recent years. It needs a number of robust reviews. It would be unusual, if not unprecedented, for an article that already has FA status to be represented at FAC and for this reason alone it makes sense to delist here and then represent at FAC. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have several times experienced during the years that you tend to edit, review and comment without reading, but please read the three precedents listed above. They contradict your assumption. Borsoka (talk) 10:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "three precedents" do you mean? Is it Ceoil's "unresolved precedents would be the war over Global warming, and Moors murders and the second FAR for Byzantine Empire"? I'm amazed if you can draw encouragement from them. Johnbod (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I can, as I explicitly mentioned above. They prove that reviews are needed. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There were no assumptions above, just objective facts. Apart from the attempt to insult. it is not clear to me what your point is here. What exactly is you objection to delisting, closing this FAR and resubmitting to FAC? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"...if not unprecdented" is an assumption which proved to be false. I will not repeat my arguments. Read them above. Borsoka (talk) 10:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well that is not an assumption, much more a question, and if there there is a precedent of an article with FA status being submitted to FAC I am sure everyone would be happy to be given it. In addition it would help anyone reading this thread, particularly if anyone new should come to it, if you would kindly summarise what your objections to delisting this article, closing this FAR and resubmitting the article to FAC. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC) [52].

Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

[edit]
Notified: Z1720, WikiProject English Royalty, WikiProject Women's History

Review section

[edit]

in early August i pointed out some major issues with this article, and while someone did do a small copyedit, the issues remain. below i've just copied my talk page comment, as i believe the points are still valid.

this article has been an FA since 2007 and not reviewed since. it has several issues requiring an FAR if not resolved:

  • this is the only FA with a "multiple issues" template, both issues being over a year old
  • unencyclopedic tone, e.g. "The Duchess was always ready to give her advice, express her opinions, antagonize with outspoken censure, and insist on having her say on every possible occasion.[39] However, she had a charm and vivaciousness admired by many, and she could easily delight those she met with her wit.[39]", "The Duchess died, in the words of Tobias Smollett, "immensely rich and very little regretted, either by her own family or the world in general",[83] but her efforts to continue the Marlborough legacy cannot be ignored."
  • unsourced content, including several whole paragraphs and most of the "children" section
  • in agreement with the "written like a story" tag, the sections are titled weirdly, as if book chapters

in general, this is pretty far from FA-quality and wouldn't even meet the GA criteria if reviewed today; it may even need a full rewrite. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 13:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2024 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/November_2024&oldid=1260430959"