Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and removed from there once posted here).

2. Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Urgent reviews are listed here. Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator.
  2. No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article over a two-week period. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header. Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews[edit]

Irish phonology[edit]

Notified: Mahagaja, WikiProject Linguistics, WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Celts, 2020-12-30, 2021-10-26

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited paragraphs, uncited notes, and inline parenthetical referencing. Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

What parts of the article are uncited? What exactly do you mean by "inline parenthetical referencing"? After a quick skim I was able to find only a single instance of the type that is now deprecated. Could you give examples please? – Uanfala (talk) 22:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
@Uanfala:, answering your questions below:
  • To quote, Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing, "Inline parenthetical referencing is a citation system in which in-text citations are made using parentheses." An example can be found with this sentence: "Dissertations examining Irish phonology from a theoretical point of view include Ní Chiosáin (1991), Green (1997) in optimality theory, and Cyran (1997) and Bloch-Rozmej (1998) in government phonology."
  • Some sections that are missing citations include the whole notes section (each note should have a citation), the "Hiberno-English" section, in which only the first sentence is cited, the first two paragraphs of "General facts of stress placement", and the final paragraph of "Post-vocalic consonant clusters and epenthesis". There are many others, but at a minimum, a featured article should have one citation at the end of every paragraph (except for the lede and other exceptions). Z1720 (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
The notes only point out unusual pronunciations of some of the words, and this information is already present within the text where each note appears (and where it is already cited). Isn't the "Hiberno-English" section cited to Wells 1982 (the ref at the end of the first sentence)? Likewise, the first paragraph of "General facts of stress placement" cites a source and I presume it may also apply to the second paragraph (though yeah, that's not clear). Maybe we could ask the article creator to clarify that? Apart from this one possibly uncited paragraph, what others are there?
As for parenthetical referencing, the type that is deprecates is of the form Some statement (Smith 1989). There was only one such instance that I could spot in the article. What you give examples of are mentions of the sources within the article text. These are used in the overview of the literature and, elsewhere in the article, for the occasional in-text attribution. Should these be removed? Or the mentions unlinked from the bibliography so they look less like refs? I don't believe either of these would be an improvement. – Uanfala (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

European Parliament[edit]

Notified: JLogan, Rossella Vignola (OBC), Boson, Arkhandar, WP EU, WP Politics, Noticed in April 2021

There's a little bit of uncited text, some dated material/statistics/sources, and a lack of scholarly assessment. Hog Farm Talk 04:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - This is a tough one for me. I think I'll defer to those who have better knowledge about the European Parliament. GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe noted on talk:

  • Beyond unsourced statements, the article relies too much on official sources and news reports without much in the way of academic analysis.
  • Balance also seems to be an issue. While it has a long paragraph on "European Parliament Mediator for International Parental Child Abduction" there is nothing to be heard about Euroskepticism,[1][2][3] or the many other issues discussed in academic sources[4]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

San Francisco[edit]

Notified: DaveOinSF, Minesweeper, Paul.h, Kurykh, WikiProject California, WikiProject Transport, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Technology, diff for talk page notification 2021-03-21

I am nominating this featured article for review because of unresolved issues of sourcing—both unsourced content and sources that are not high-quality RS. (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Geography articles are among the hardest to keep up to date, but San Francisco has been a particular chore for as long as I can remember, and has never been well enough tended to maintain criteria, or well watched. As I wrote on talk, “This article has extreme MOS:SANDWICHing throughout, considerable dated text, uncited text, and short choppy sections.” Samples only (there is much more):

  • Jam up of images in History section.
  • Uncited text sample Media section (but its everywhere).
  • Dated text sample, look at the first line in media, which breaches MOS:CURRENT and is cited to a 2007 source. Similar is found throughout the article, and it appears the article has not been updated since its 2008 FAR.
  • Short choppy sections, see Early education, Vision Zero, there are also sections that breach MOS:HEAD (repeating words, eg Transportation is an empty section followed by Public transportation). Buidhe you mentioned sources that are not high quality or reliable, but did not provide any samples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
[5], [6], [7] are just 3 examples, there are more. Also a lot of the sources are outdated, not having been updated/replaced since 2007 or earlier. (t · c) buidhe 11:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This article certainly is suffering from years of Wiki-junk-accretion, but it seems that fixing it fairly easy and is mostly a matter of deleting things. It has been previously suggested that in the majority of cases where there is an assertion of fact without a reference, just delete it. As for all of the pictures, they can be fixed the same way. One item I'm confused about, however, is the complaint that "a lot of the sources are outdated." if a source truthfully backs up a fact in the article, why should we care that it dates from 2007? If a fact is outdated, I can see that it should be updated with more recent information, but I don't understand how the date of a source has any bearing on accuracy by itself. We are dealing with a contemporary geographical place here, not using the 1912 Encyclopedia Britannica for a source on nuclear physics. Paul (Talk)

What it means is that you need to go through every bit of text cited to an old source and determine if newer data is available; it usually is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Alpha Kappa Alpha[edit]

Notified: User talk:Miranda, User talk:Ccson, User talk:Broadmoor, User talk:Grayfell, User talk:Gogo Dodo, User talk:Parkwells WP:AFRO, WP:WHIST, WP:SOROR, WP:CHICAGO, WP:USA, WP:WPDC, Notification Sept 2021

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is overwhelmingly sourced to the organisation itself. Bumbubookworm (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rhodesian mission in Lisbon[edit]

Notified: WP Africa,WP MILHIST, WP International relations, WP UK Politics, WP Portugal, WP Zimbabwe, WP British Empire, WP Former countries, talk page noticed 2020-05-21

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest at WP:FARGIVEN, and concerns were mentioned on talk by @Nick-D, Buidhe, and Eisfbnore: including neutrality, sourcing, paraphrasing, and organization/prose (sprawling content). The original author is now vanished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D I'm travelling at the moment, so will start off with some limited comments, mainly reiterating the comments I left on the talk page. These are informed by my recent work on the roughly comparable Rhodesia Information Centre:

  • My main concern is that the article is much too dependent on referencing on what appear to be self-published works (or works published by a small/obscure press) by JRT Wood. Mr Wood has been professionally published on issues relating to Rhodesia, but does not appear to be such a clear cut authority on this topic that this level of dependence is OK, especially for self-published works.
  • As noted on the talk page, the article includes clearly unsuitable references to Ian Smith's memoirs, as well as a couple of other works that appear to be clearly sympathetic to his regime in ways that mean they are probably not reliable.
  • The article sprawls much too much, even allowing for the complexities of the issues relating to Rhodesia's foreign relations.
  • Oddly, there appears to be little coverage of the UN resolutions that targeted Rhodesia's diplomatic network. This is a prominent issue in the literature on the topic. The consensus in the literature is that Rhodesia's independence was illegal under British laws and UN Security Council resolutions, and its diplomatic network was also illegal due to it breaching several UN Security Council Resolutions.
  • Also oddly, the article is focused on the mission before UDI, and not how it operated when Rhodesia was operating as an independent country. As Rhodesia's relations with Portugal were hugely important (Portugal was one of few countries prepared to engage with Rhodesia diplomatically, and Portuguese rule in Mozambique was essential to Rhodesia's survival, with the country trying to prop the Portuguese there up), this balance seems off.
  • A possible solution to this might be to rework the article to be Establishment of the Rhodesian mission in Lisbon with an explicit focus on the role of these events as a step towards Rhodesia's UDI, but it would be better to broaden its scope given the importance of Rhodesian-Portuguese relations
  • There are some academic works on Rhodesia's foreign relations that have been published since this article reached FA status that could be useful. Nick-D (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nick-D: I've looked at some newer journal articles about Rhodesian-Portuguese relations, and worryingly none of them seem to mentioned the diplomatic mission in Lisbon, or only mention it in passing. This might be our best bet. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes, I've had to stitch together several sources to note how the Rhodesian Information Centre in Australia formed part of the Rhodesian diplomatic network, given that sources on Rhodesian missions other than that in the UK are limited. However, there are a fair few recent recent references on Rhodesia's foreign relations and the UN sanctions that provide useful coverage and context for this topic. Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Some further comments:

  • I agree with Sandy's comments below about the overly dense construction of the article's wording. Between this and the excessive detail on pre-UDI issues, it would make the article difficult to unpick and rework to return to FA status I'm afraid.
  • Some of the text is sympathetic to the Rhodesian cause. In particular, it doesn't really grapple with the basic fact that the Rhodesian Government was determined to break the law by declaring independence. Instead, the article often depicts a false equivalence, where the British are portrayed as simply being too slow or too inflexible to respond to the Rhodesian Government's actions and as a result the Rhodesians were more or less in the right. In reality, the Rhodesian Government's actions were illegal, but there was nothing the British could really do about them due to a combination of domestic political pressures and the difficulty of projecting power into southern Africa. For instance:
    • The 'Britain refuses' section plays up supposed delays by the British as excusing the Rhodesian Government's actions. The problem is that the Rhodesian Government simply lacked the legal authority to do what it wanted to do, so it didn't matter if the British didn't react particularly quickly.
    • Similar issues crop up in the 'Rhodesian disillusionment; Britain adopts delaying tactics' section, which also falsely portrays the views of the white minority government as representing the views of all Rhodesians.
  • "The Unilateral Declaration of Independence was signed by the Rhodesian Cabinet on 11 November 1965, to almost unanimous international acrimony" - this is wrong in a couple of different ways. Firstly, no country ever accepted UDI as being legal or officially recognised Rhodesia as independent, so the "almost" is wrong regarding Rhodesia's formal international relations. Secondly, sizeable minorities supported the white Rhodesian cause in the UK, the white settler Commonwealth countries, the US and some European countries. It is likely that there was strong majority support for Rhodesia among white South Africans.
  • "Wilson therefore put all his eggs in the sanctions basket" - this is false. The UK adopted a range of strategies against Rhodesian independence, albeit none that were particularly effective in the short run.
  • The material on the impact of sanctions is flawed, in that it doesn't note that they made Rhodesia dependent on continued support from Portugal and South Africa. The end of Portuguese rule in Mozambique was a total disaster for Rhodesia as a result (the book 'The Rhodesian War: A Military History' that's cited covers this topic fairly well). The role of the mission in maintaining supplies via Portugese Mozambique and providing intelligence to Rhodesia of political developments on Portugal really needs to be covered.
  • The following articles from the Taylor and Francis database look very useful:
  • Deon Geldenhuys book Isolated States: A Comparative Analysis should be consulted as it is one of the main works on Rhodesia's foreign relations
  • To be comprehensive, the following sources do not appear to be reliable for some or all of the content sourced to them:
    • Berlyn, Phillippa (April 1978). The Quiet Man: A Biography of the Hon. Ian Douglas Smith (published in the last years of UDI-era Rhodesia, in which there was considerable political repression and censorship)
    • Binda, Alexandre (May 2008). The Saints: The Rhodesian Light Infantry (unclear why a history of a military unit published by a press of questionable reliability is being used to cite this material)
    • Petter-Bowyer, P J H (November 2005) [2003]. Winds of Destruction: the Autobiography of a Rhodesian Combat Pilot (ditto)
    • Smith, Ian (June 1997). The Great Betrayal: The Memoirs of Ian Douglas Smith (reliable only for Smith's account of his personal views/explanations, but used to reference other material and should be used with care, preferably being cross-checked against other sources)
    • Wessels, Hannes (July 2010). P K van der Byl: African Statesman (no book with a title like this can possibly be reliable: P. K. van der Byl was a notorious white supremacist and incompetent, and historians are scathing about him) Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


  • Comments by Indy beetle
    • In addition to what Nick has said, it looks like the section headers could be revised; some of them read like newspaper headlines.
    • I don't necessarily have a problem with so much pre-UDI Rhodesia material, since it was very much Rhodesian diplomacy at play here, though I do think it's incomplete of the article to simply brush aside those years in which Rhodesia was acting as a de facto independent country with Rhodesia's Lisbon mission remained open throughout the late 1960s and early 1970s, providing a key link between the Rhodesian and Portuguese governments. More information on this area would probably be needed for this article to count as comprehensive.
  • Between the memoirs and the minutes of the British House of Lords, there seems to be to close a reliance on primary sources.

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Comments from SandyGeorgia. I've read the lead three times and can only scratch my head and rub my eyeballs. Sorry, but apparently not being European or British or familiar with Africa, or maybe just uneducated, but for starters, I had to click on Whitehall and Salisbury (and still couldn't figure out what was being said). The writing is just backwards, sentence construction is not straightforward or direct; the lead assumes a level of knowledge rather than explaining what this thing actually is, and rambles all over the place. (This is why we should always have independent, that is, not familiar with the topic area, reviewers.)
    So, after not being able to decipher the lead, I read only one line in the article, and found the same backwards construction and assumption of basics that left me trying to decipher the lead, eg:
    Having been governed and developed by the British South Africa Company since the 1890s, Southern Rhodesia became a self-governing colony within the British Empire in 1923, when it was granted responsible government by Whitehall.
    How about ... ?
    Southern Rhodesia was developed and governed by the British South Africa Company from the 1890s; it became a self-governing colony within the British Empire in 1923, <after something happened that took it from a company to a country ?) when it was granted responsible government by the Government of the United Kingdom (also known as Whitehall).
    Explain Whitehall (sorry, had never encountered the term). How do we get from a company to part of the Empire? What is the meaning of "responsible government" (jargon). I stopped there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    I honestly think it's bad form to use place metonymy instead of actually saying what is meant. The point of an encyclopedia is to be concise and straightforward. I'll only use place metonymy when it's a direct quote or when the source is unclear about a specific institution. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    Well, now I know what Whitehall is, and I know what a metonymy is! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
    Funnily enough, I first learned about it in 2016 when Nick reviewed my work on Black Sea raid for GA. -Indy beetle (talk) 14:28, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Sasha (DJ)[edit]

Notified: Wickethewok, Lazz_R, Coffeeandcrumbs, Ceoil, Outriggr, WP Biography, WP Electronic music, WP Wales, WP Rave, noticed in March

This 2007 promotion needs some work. Mild amounts of uncited text, and Sasha (DJ) discography reveals that Scene Delete, The emFire Collection: Mixed, Unmixed & Remixed, and several other albums, compliation albums, and EPs are not well documented in the text. The article also uses the user-generated Discogs, the dubious about.com (writers are not listed as okay at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources/About.com Critics Table), and relies very heavily on Progressive-Sounds, which looks like one person's personal website. Hog Farm Talk 17:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree with the assessment above. Additionally, the article was hard to read at times (lack of connective words and overuse of short sentences) and I'm somewhat concerned it might be very outdated, seeing how there is no mention of his career after 2016 (ommitting him being featured on the cover of DJMag, performing at Coachella, and other highlights as can be seen mentioned here). A 5-year gap might be a bit too much to consider the article comprehensive. Santacruz Please tag me! 23:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Joel Selwood[edit]

Notified: User talk:Boomtish, User talk:Allied45, User talk:Johnny Stormer, User talk:LM150, WP:AFL, WP:AWNB, WP:WPBIO, Notice from July 2021

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is out of date with very little information on post-2015 activity (subject is still an active player) Bumbubookworm (talk) 01:40, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Bumbubookworm do you have examples of what is missing, eg, with reliable sources? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Brabham[edit]

Notified: 4u1e, DH85868993, Pyrope, WP Motorsport, WP Formula One, WP Australia, WP Automobiles, talk notifications 2021-01-18 2021-10-31

As mentioned in the talk page notification that is almost a year old, this 2006 Featured article has considerable uncited text, appears not to have been updated since 2010, and there are many statements that do not have as of dates or time context, yet use older sources. Z1720 points out "there is no post-2015 information in the history section. I am also concerned about WP:OVERSECTION in the Racing History - other section". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Another point for consideration: the section "Brabham Racing (2014–)" is nonsense, based solely on an old announcement. Announcements in themselves are not notable, the actual event is. Since it didn't come to fruition, this entire section is fluff and should be removed. IMO the lead should even revert to the past tense (Brabham was...) since there is little to suggest that this currently is an active organization. -- P 1 9 9   03:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The story of this organisation essentially ends in 1992. Anything after that is probably irrelevant, perhaps beyond a few notes about what any individuals who were involved with Brabham went on to do after that time. I don't think it matters if this article relies on older sources (provided they are reliable), as there is very little to say about the team after 1992. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 09:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, the article is called Brabham, not Motor Racing Developments. The later use of the name Brabham is relevant, but I agree the structure needs to be reconsidered. I would move the post-1992 events to a new section like "Revival attempts". 5225C (talkcontributions) 09:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that a section called "Revival attempts" might be more suitable, but it needs to be concrete. The 2014 speculative announcement by a stakeholder is nothing more than marketing buzz (unfortunately this is a problem across WP – many editors fall for this, quickly adding such fluff because it is repeated over and over in the media). WP:CRYSTAL says: "take special care to avoid advertising", "individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is ... almost certain to take place", and "Wikipedia is not a collection of product (or business) announcements". Since no actual revival has taken place, the lead should be in the past tense. -- P 1 9 9   14:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Brabham Racing is actually active in European GT racing with the BT62 and BT63, so in this case it's not a matter of marketing fluff but just out-of-date. 5225C (talkcontributions) 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
A brief mention of the fact that Jack Brabham's son has run a similarly named team could be warranted if suitable sourcing was available. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
I've given it a go, listing the team's plans and its entries briefly. Sourcing could do with a bit of work if it was in a standalone article but I think it's enough to confirm that the name has been used by successor organisations. 5225C (talkcontributions) 12:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
The reason why “Brabham” is used as the article title is WP:COMMON. The lead and the infobox however make it clear that the article does deal with Motor Racing Developments specifically.Tvx1 19:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Regardless, using the common name invites coverage of how that common name has later been used. 5225C (talkcontributions) 00:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • MOS:SANDWICHing needs to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how much the Brabham Racing Organisation logo adds to this article or how necessary its inclusion is (even if it probably is fair use). Would anyone object to it being removed? HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    Not I. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Punctuation per MOS:CAPTIONS (uses punc when it should not, and lacks punc when it should have). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Al-Kateb v Godwin[edit]

Notified: Stephen Bain , no other major contributors, WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Palestine, WikiProject Human rights, diff for talk page notification 2021-10-9

I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues with updating and comprehensivess, discussed on the talk page. (t · c) buidhe 22:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, no improvements. Hog Farm Talk 20:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

John Frusciante[edit]

Notified: Grim-Gym, NSR77, WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Guitarists, WikiProject Electronic music, 2020-11-26, 2021-10-03

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is lots of information in the lede and infobox that is not included or is not cited in the article body. It also needs a knowledgeable editor to copyedit the article and remove bloating. RetiredDuke left some examples on the talk page in November 2020, which do not seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment - It also cites a few unreliable sources: invisible-movement.net (an unofficial fan site), formspring.me (looks like a web forum), groundguitar.com looks like a blog, and as of the revision current right now there's a cite to Wikipedia. Hog Farm Talk 16:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment This one reminds me of how many good music editors we've lost over the years. A lot of them had poor experiences at FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 15:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment have to agree with the feeling that this article isn't in great shape; I'm seeing a lot of shaggy prose and some missing citations. Popcornfud (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, none of the main editors have touched this 2007 promotion in years, one edit since FAR initiated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm assuming FAR is working at a more brisk pace these days. I don't mind working on this article but it would be at a leisurely pace. Perhaps it's best to delist it and I can bring it back to FAC some time in the future. --Laser brain (talk) 23:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    Laser, that is very good news. Would you rather keep the FAR open as you work, or delist and re-submit? FAR is very leisurely these days, so as long as work is ongoing, I suspect the Coords will respect your wishes first. We all know you can do the job, if you undertake it. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Laser brain and Z1720: ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
    Slow progress. I've been comparing the current version with the FAC version and, in some cases, reverting to more preferable text. I've found at least one instance of close paraphrasing from the original version so I've ordered a couple sources. --Laser brain (talk) 04:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

William Henry Harrison[edit]

Notified: Charles Edward, Hoppyh, WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WikiProject Virginia, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Politics/American politics, WikiProject U.S. Congress, WikiProject United States Presidents, WikiProject University of Pennsylvania 2021-09-23

I am nominating this featured article for review because... Hello, I gave a notice on the 23 September 2021, but nothing much has changed since then. I think the article is quite good except for a few unsourced pieces of text. I think it would be good to see if it still meets the FA criteria. Sahaib3005 (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Sahaib3005, just to clarify, are the issues you posted on the talk page the entirety of your concerns with this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
User:Nikkimaria, no there is quite a few bits of unsourced text in the article. For example in the death and funeral section "On March 26, 1841, Harrison became ill with cold-like symptoms. His doctor, Thomas Miller, prescribed rest; Harrison was unable to rest during the day for the crowds in the White House, and that night chose instead to host a party with his army friends.", there is no source.Sahaib3005 (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
There appears to be no problem here. The citation (currently #121) is at the end of the next sentence. Let me know. Hoppyh (talk) 15:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for improving the article. I don’t see any more problems with the article (though other editors might). Sahaib3005 (talk) 14:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: After a quick skim I think this article is salvageable. There's some uncited sentences and paragraphs that need to be resolved. I also think some short paragraphs can be merged, particularly in the "Legacy" section. If someone is willing to address these, I am happy to conduct a more thorough review and copyedit. Z1720 (talk) 20:20, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I have addressed the specific items of initial concern listed on the talk p.; I'll be glad to address other items as I'm able. Hoppyh (talk) 21:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I will be attempting a copyedit including the unsourced material issues. Hoppyh (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
@Hoppyh: Please post here when the copyedit is complete, and other editors will review your work. Z1720 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
My copyedit continues and I will advise when complete—probably another day or two. Hoppyh (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720: My copyedit is substantially completed; glad to help further as needed. I’m continuing to look for improvements that can be made. Hoppyh (talk) 16:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

In this version, unformatted citations, bare URLs, and sources flagged as unreliable by Headbomb’s script. Citation cleanup work needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I'm glad to work on these, though it's not my forte. Perhaps an example or two of corrections needed would instruct me. I'd appreciate the help. Hoppyh (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure … I will add them to Hog Farm’s list below, to keep in one place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment - A source-text integrity check should probably be conducted if possible, to make sure that the issues found at Talk:Battle of Tippecanoe are not present in this similar article, which also uses similar sources and has some similarities in the edit history. From a quick check of reference reliability:

  • " "Harrison dies of pneumonia"." - history.com is considered to be generally unreliable (due to publishing fringe junk unrelated to this subject)
    Replaced. Hoppyh (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • " Milligan, Fred (2003). Ohio's Founding Fathers. iUniverse, Inc. pp. 107–108. ISBN 978-0-595-29322-3." - this is self-published
    Replaced. Hoppyh (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "Coincidence or Something More?". About.com. Retrieved June 9, 2008." - is about.com reliable enough for FA? I'd recommend replacing the ref
    Replaced. Hoppyh (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • " "Statue of William Henry Harrison - Cincinnati, Ohio - American Guide Series on Waymarking.com". www.waymarking.com. Retrieved July 28, 2016." - Probably a better source than waymarking should be used for FA purposes
    Replaced. Hoppyh (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Don't have time for a deeper look into sourcing right now, but I also see instances of the same ref formatted differently and used separately, such as the Thirty-One days historynet.com source. Hog Farm Talk 17:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Reiterating what Hog Farm said, a thorough source-to-text integrity check should be conducted here, for more reasons than those mentioned by HF. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Sample of unformatted citation (also red-flagged by HeadBomb’s script as not reliable)

"Harrison dies of pneumonia".
Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Sample of bare URL in citation:

https://www.thedp.com/article/2017/01/william-henry-harrison-history accessed August 24, 2021
Fixed I think. Hoppyh (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

HarvRef error:

Borneman, Walter R. (2005). 1812: The War That Forged a Nation. New York: HarperCollins (Harper Perennial). ISBN 978-0-06-053113-3. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBorneman2005.
Removed. On further reading list. Hoppyh (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

This, for example, is a book, but is lacking full citation info (eg, Publisher and ISBN)

Peck, J. M. (June 4, 1851). The Jefferson-Lemen Compact. Retrieved March 28, 2010.
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Besides those mentioned by Hog Farm, also flagged by HeadBomb’s script is the about.com source mentioned by HogFarm; about.com is WP:SPS, and is reliable if reliability can be established for the specific author of the about.com article.

These are samples only; all citations need to be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I am initiating a citation cleanup from the beginning. Hoppyh (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
I have completed a review and edit of the article's citations, as well as the bibliography and further reading. Hoppyh (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Barnhart Riker is not listed in the Bibliography, and is causing HarvRef errors throughout: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    Barnhart & Riker 1971, pp. 409–10. Harv error: link from CITEREFBarnhartRiker1971 doesn't point to any citation.
Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Peckham is listed in External links, but should be Further reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Hoppyh (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Borneman, listed in Bibliography, is not used, and is returning a Harv Ref error (see, you can install this script to detect errors):
    Borneman, Walter R. (2005). 1812: The War That Forged a Nation. New York: HarperCollins (Harper Perennial). ISBN 978-0-06-053113-3. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFBorneman2005. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
    Moved to Further Reading. Hoppyh (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoppyh; all of the citation formatting issues I raised are addressed. I have not looked at anything else on this article, and it’s unlikely that I will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

At this point, it looks as though all the concerns raised thus far have been addressed. Hoppyh (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to give this some source-text integrity checks. It looks like I can get Owens from the local library, will try to get it tonight. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Conducting sourcing checks at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/William Henry Harrison/archive1, some problems noted. Hog Farm Talk 08:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

I’ll be glad to look at them and try to solve. Hoppyh (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Commending the excellent use of the talk page by our considered and responsive Hog Farm, as this is just the sort of review that does not need to be conducted on the main FAR page, but can be summarized back to here once it is completed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Worked all the way through the cites to Owens. Anyone have ready access to any of the other sources? Because there were a number of issues revealed in spot-checking. Hog Farm Talk 22:47, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

All I ever had was Cleaves. Unfortunate there is not more interest here, but I live in a glass house in that respect. Hoppyh (talk) 12:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Several of them are linked to archive.org; have you checked all of those, Hoppyh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I have noticed that link and I’m glad you mentioned it–very useful I imagine, especially for older folks like myself. But to answer your question, I have to a great extent limited my work here to what’s already in the article, at least until HF started the source checking. I’m growing a bit unsure how much more I should do here, without the benefit of more editors. Hoppyh (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I understand the dilemma; perhaps someone will check source check all of those archive links, considering that Hog Farm is finding concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Could you instruct me using an example? Hoppyh (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Hoppyh: Sure, I will put that on the talk page here (with my apologies for not being able to help out). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I will initiate a source-to-text review for the Gugin citations. I will attempt to fix and use the edit summary to note location. Hoppyh (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
To update, Gugin review complete, also Burr, now have Carnes in process. See archive link above provided by Hog Farm. Hoppyh (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Hoppyh: - Are you done with the Owens items? I'll return it back to the library soon, if so. Hog Farm Talk 17:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes. Hoppyh (talk) 18:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Hold in FAR, slow but steady progress being made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Hog Farm indicated he may get access to additional sources over Thanksgiving and if so I will be glad to respond to whatever that reveals. Other than that, the only additional source checking I can think of is to perhaps check those citations with on line links. Let me know if there is other work needed here. Hoppyh (talk) 18:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
If the Taylor source is really from 1899, it should be public domain and accessible through Google books or something. Hog Farm Talk 18:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Got it–I’ll do the check. Hoppyh (talk) 18:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Done. Hoppyh (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
To update, I’ve had some success accessing additional sources; results are posted on the talk page here, and we’ll keep at it as time (and turkey) allow. On a side note, it happens that Harrison has a connection to Thanksgiving, as his birthplace at Berkeley Plantation claims to be a site of one of the first Thanksgivings in the country. Check it out.Hoppyh (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
As further update on our audit of sources, I think I have done all I can. It appears there are six sources remaining unaudited, for which I have no access: Barnhart/Riker, Bolivar, Cleaves, Collins, Funk, and Greiff; 19 citations are linked to these. I will be glad to help further if other issues arise. Hoppyh (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I might be able to get Barnhart/Riker and a different edition of Cleaves from a library, possibly tomorrow (no guarantees, though). Collins I can probably get from a nearby library, but it's a bit of a drive that I often don't have time for. Hog Farm Talk 16:37, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

Bradley Joseph[edit]

Notified: Cricket02, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Classical music, WikiProject Composers, WikiProject Jazz, WikiProject Minnesota, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject United States, WikiProject American music, 2020-12-20

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as Toccata quarta pointed out on the talk page in December 2020, there are POV and UNDUE problems in the Yanni section. I am also concerned about the quality of sources used in this article, and that there doesn't seem to be information about him post-2013. No significant improvements have been made to the article since concerns were raised on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC - not much happening, cites an unofficial fansite and some blogs. Hog Farm Talk 15:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. In "Early life", I can't verify any of the info cited to https://www.bradleyjoseph.com/bio ... what am I missing? Also, some of what is cited to there needs to be attributed to him or seems unduly self-serving (eg, "One morning his father taught him how to play a boogie-woogie blues tune and by nightfall he could play the entire piece." might start with, "he says" if included at all). Another example, from the Yanni section, cited to himself is "In the band, Joseph covered a lot of the keyboard parts that Yanni could not for lack of hands in the shows." More independent sources are needed. There is a lot of info here that is not included in the article (using better sources would be required). Nothing since 2013? (I can't find any sources.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Fundamental Rights, Directive Principles and Fundamental Duties of India[edit]

Notified: Shreshth91 [8], WikiProject Indian Law [9], WikiProject India [10], WikiProject Politics [11], 2021-05-19 talk page

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are quite a few serious issues with this article in compliance with current FA criteria. Per the issues raised at the talk page by @Bumbubookworm, and no major edits being made to resolve the concerns, I have created this review page. This article has lot of original research, random text is underlined, and only three major sources are used, with only one of them being a legal scholar. This also leads to be believe that the article is not as comprehensive as required for present FA standards. The "Criticism and analysis" section has random examples and laws listed, with no discussion as of how they are directly related with the topic. It has few vague sntences like "Children are now unemployed in hazardous environments, but their employment in hazardous jobs, prevalently as domestic help, violates the spirit of the constitution in the eyes of many critics and human rights advocates." (emphasis mine) and "Most of the fundamental rights are violated in courtrooms in either criminal cases or civil cases". The prose has few issues with linking and MOS. Needs a lot of work at present. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

MOS:DOCTOR and holy cow with underlining of text in mainspace (I think I removed all the underlining, but this shows it is not a well-watched article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include prose, neutrality and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Yosemite National Park[edit]

Notified: Mav, Hike395, Pistongrinder, SandyGeorgia, Brian W. Schaller, Tadenham, D.Nino, WP Protected areas, WP California, WP World Heritage Sites, WP USA, WP USA History, WP Climbing noticed in 2020

Review section[edit]

A 2005 promotion kept at FAR in 2007, this one has not aged well. There's a couple unreliable sources (history.com is considered unreliable at WP:RSP, and IMDB is user-generated), and there's some uncited text, mainly in the activities section. Also some datedness issues - the Meadow Fire is only mentioned in an image caption, despite there being a section for wildfires, and the management issues section largely uses older sources and could use a revamp to get more up-to-date management stuff. Hog Farm Talk 07:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, but I only figure in the stats because of considerable MOS and citation cleanup work I did when this article was at FAR years ago. I am too old for that kind of work now (that I last did in 2008 :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, no engagement, two edits since FAR nomination in spite of talk notices dating back a year. This article was originally featured before inline citations were required, and at a time when it was considered acceptable to lift text extensively from public domain sources, without citation or quotation or attribution. It was reviewed in 2007 as part of the first WP:URFA. I put hundreds of edits into adding citations from public domain sources which, at that time, were quoted verbatim (many still are, but now with correct attribution templates). Almost none of that information has been updated, and we can see by looking at one example how much of a rewrite would be needed:
    • Current version. "Taken together, the park's varied habitats support over 250 species of vertebrates, which include fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals." Cited to a National Park Service page that no longer exists, but found at an 2007 archive.org page.
    • Update needed. The NPS website for Yosemite has been completely restructured and rewritten, and what was once on one page is now on dozens. From https://www.nps.gov/yose/index.htm, just one entry (on birds) says "An astounding 262 species of birds have been documented in Yosemite, including 165 resident and migratory species."
The 262 species of birds alone shows how far outdated the 250 species of animals all together is. The article would need a significant rewrite, and FA content taken verbatim from public domain websites is not viewed as favorably as it was before 2008, when this article was written. It is sad that we may lose them, but many of our old National Park articles have the same issue. This kind of article requires constant updating, and that is no longer happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - Minimal engagement. Hog Farm Talk 15:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Italian War of 1521–1526[edit]

Notified: Kirill Lokshin, WP MILHIST, WP Germany, WP Spain, WP France, WP Italy, WP Turkey, WP England, 2020-01-28, 2021-06-18

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion from editor extraordinaire and MILHIST maverick, Kirill Lokshin. I am nominating it reluctantly because it is the oldest of our WP:FARGIVEN notifications, and has now been waiting almost two years for edits to bring it to current FA standards. Alack and alas, Kirill has not found time to upgrade the article; as MILHIST is what it is thanks to Kirill's early leadership, hopefully others will have the sources and time to restore this star. The main issue is uncited text, with other minor issues that can be addressed if someone is able to cite the article and check that latest scholarship is represented (at minimum, a MOS review, MOS:SANDWICH, probably needs an image review as we didn't do those back then). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC no improvement (t · c) buidhe 02:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, sadly. I was hoping someone would be able to pick this one up, I don't have the sourcing myself. Hog Farm Talk 15:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Chadderton[edit]

Notified: SheriffIsInTown, Jza84, WP Cities, WP England, WP Greater Manchester, WP UK geography noticed in 2020

Review section[edit]

As noted by Buidhe on the article's talk page in 2020, this 2010 promotion has fallen out of date. The 2001 census is the most recent described in prose, despite numbers for 2011 having been available for years. There are also a number of CN tags, the reference "http://richardjohnbr.blogspot.co.uk/2007/08/chartist-lives-samuel-collins.html%7CChartist Lives – Samuel Collins. Retrieved 17 July 2013" doesn't look reliable, and some content is supported by dated references, such as the reference for "Other major businesses include Costco and Shop Direct Group" being from 2004. This is not an exhaustive list of issues. Hog Farm Talk 03:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC no improvement (t · c) buidhe 02:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, nothing happening. Hog Farm Talk 15:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist no sign of improvement so far (t · c) buidhe 04:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist not a single edit since FAR initiated, problems not addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements and in need of updating. DrKay (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Akhtar Hameed Khan[edit]

Notified: Islescape, WP Pakistan, WP Bangladesh, WP Biography, WP India, WP International development, WP Muslim scholars, WP Economics, 2018-03-02 and 2021-09-18

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because a) it was the oldest listed at WP:FARGIVEN, and b) the talk page notices given indicate that the article is largely sourced to a self-published biography by a non-notable academic and a close relative of Khan. DrKay also mentioned prose and structure issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Look at the first line, & one of the links! Eeek! Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, my :) And it was that way when promoted … in early 2008 … when yours truly was a new FAC delegate. And that ran on the mainpage and no one noticed it! (How did you see that?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Me and my little cursor... You couldn't do that then. I was curious to see where development practitioner led, having a family member who would be one if such beasts existed - it's a nice idea though - would one lie on a couch?Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we did such things back then. Or maybe not :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Up to its last sentence, the paragraph about Lodhran is supported by Hasan (2002) p. 209. But I can't relate "The municipal partnership was itself a new initiative that ensured wider civic co-operation" to the source. The first part of the paragraph already states that the organization which partnered with the municipal committee was purpose formed in 1999, so it seems redundant to say the partnership was a new initiative. The rest of the sentence is vague enough that I'm not sure to what it is referring. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The premise of the FAR notifications on article talk were that “the article is largely sourced to a self-published book by a relative”. Glancing at the first parts of the article, the kind of text that is sourced to the relative is precisely the kind of information we would expect from a relative. Things like where he was born, who his parents were, and the like. I also do not find that the article is largely sourced to Yousaf; perhaps there were improvements made after the notice was left ??
    I think we need to take a closer look at each individual statement sourced to Yousaf; if something inappropriate is found, it can be removed or resourced, but at this point, I am not yet convinced that the problems here are insurmountable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    @DrKay and Bumbubookworm:, I have trimmed some text cited only to his relative. Most of what is cited to Yousaf is personal biographical info that seem appropriate to be sourced to a relative. Yours were the talk page notifications that led to this FAR; could you please have a look and indicate what issues remain? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

This article is very short. Google, google scholar, google books and google news all turn up usable (not written by Yousaf) sources, including scholarly, that could be used. It appears to me that the main problem here is not an overreliance on Yousaf, rather a failure to update the article to a comprehensive survey of the literature that would better cover Khan’s legacy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Move to FARC, the article uses exclusively sources from 2006 and earlier, and there is much more that can be used. The article has not been updated to incorporate newer sources, and is not comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:22, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC per Sandy. Hog Farm Talk 14:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist per sourcing problems unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:05, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist. On prose, in the lead "Doctorate of law" should be "doctorate of law" and "he started a bottom-up community development initiative of Orangi Pilot Project" doesn't read right to me. Surely it should be "he started a bottom-up community development initiative called the Orangi Pilot Project" or "he started Orangi Pilot Project, a bottom-up community development initiative"? On sourcing, I don't think an article extensively sourced from an Xlibris book can be a featured article. DrKay (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Armament of the Iowa-class battleship[edit]

Notified: WP MilHist, WP Ships, ‎WP US, ‎WP Iowa, talk page notification 2020-01-28

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because... the afd was inconclusive towards deletion, merging, or redirecting. This has grown fat and very bloated, not withstanding the fact that it is currently 100% unneeded its no longer written neutrally, contains what would be best described as original research, and is in need of featured article review to identify other areas that may be in violation of WIAFA as the community sees fit to judge. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

TomStar81, please notify the three WikiProjects listed on the article talk page with {{subst:FARMessage|Armament of the Iowa-class battleship}}, and update the top of this page to indicate pages notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Never mind; I see you did the notifications, but didn’t list them at the top of this FAR, which I have now done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I went to list this for FAR/C and then in the middle of filing he paperwork my computer decided it was time to reboot to finish updates so it came down to a contest of time between me and the paperwork. I got most of it, apparently, but this didn't take. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC no resolution of issues (t · c) buidhe 03:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC per nom. Hog Farm Talk 15:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and length. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 04:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist. Tagged as lacking reliable sources. DrKay (talk) 09:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

England national rugby union team[edit]

Notified: User talk:Shudde, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England July 2021 notice
See this discussion; additional notifications to Rugby.change, BRACK66, Cvene64, Rodney Baggins SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced parts and more weight on recent events than the past, and repeats material in the history and then describes it in prose in the results section Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Note to Coords, please extend FAR by one week, as notifications were incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bumbubookworm:
"it has unsourced parts": mostly very well sourced, the main gaps appear to be in the Record section and a few other parts that should be {{cn}} tagged pending some urgent attention.
"more weight on recent events than the past": the "Early years" and "Professional era" subsections in History are pretty much of equal weight. Where else do you think there's too much weight on recent events? The Rugby World Cup only started in 1987, rankings only introduced in 2003, so these are naturally recent developments and described as such.
"repeats material in the history and then describes it in prose in the results section": when you say "results section", do you mean "Record" section? The "Rugby World Cup" subsection just focuses in on that tournament and may contain some slight repetition from the History as a result but I don't think that's a problem (lack of sourcing in that subsection is a bigger problem!) "Overall" subsection talks about the rankings and I don't think any of that is repeated stuff.
I certainly don't think the article deserves to be demoted without the chance for a thorough review which I would be happy to be involved in. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:42, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Rodney Baggins templates are discouraged at FAC and FAR because they cause template limits to be exceeded, which chops the entire page. Would you mind replacing your tq templates above with straight quotes? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist does not meet FA citation requirement (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist edits have been made during FARC, but not to address the issues. There is still considerable uncited text, plus organization problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. DrKay (talk) 09:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Barack Obama[edit]

Notified: Gråbergs Gråa Sång ([12]), WikiProject Biography ([13]), WikiProject Biography ([14]), WikiProject Chicago ([15]), WikiProject African diaspora ([16]), WikiProject United States ([17]), WikiProject Politics ([18])
Tvoz should have been notified of this FAR; since they weren’t, I will go do that now. See this discussion; when proper notifications are not done, FARs can get stalled. And by adding notifications to more pages, we are more likely to draw in not only that editor, but editors who follow that editor’s talk, who may be willing or able to make improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because... the post-presidency section is too bloated and could use a spin-off article. This article suffers from bloat in that section and no longer meets the featured article criteria. I brought this up back in May 2021 [19] but unfortunately nothing has been done about it. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

  • That's it? You're nominating this to be reviewed because a single section (perhaps the least important section) is too big? Not only this, but your "FAR" talk page comment was a single message, that was merely a reply to an earlier thread. I don't really understand how this is acceptable and I imagine that if a substantial effort were given to alert editors to this (rather minor issue, in the grand scheme) on the talk page, it could easily be resolved. Aza24 (talk) 01:08, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
    • It is what it is. I made a talk-page comment, no one did anything. Hopefully this FAR will get someone to create the sub article. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I took a quick skim of the article, and I don't think it should lose its FA status. However, there are still things that can be fixed: The Post-Presidency section is bloated, there's parts of the article with stubby paragraphs that I would like to see merged or deleted, and I want to try to incorporate the sources in "Further reading" as references. @Therapyisgood: do you want to create the spin-out article for Obama's post-presidency and copy-paste the information from this article (after checking for citations)? Once this is complete we can work together to cut down the bloating and do some general clean-up of the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately I'm not able to do anything here. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
      • I did a first pass at copyediting the Post-presidency section, and left some notes/questions on the talk page. I want to take it slow as this is a high-traffic and politically charged page, but I'm hopeful that there will be discussion about what can be removed from this section. Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - The ref " Howley, Kathleen (September 1, 2019). "Barack And Michelle Obama Are Buying Martha's Vineyard Estate From Boston Celtics Owner". Forbes." looks like a WP:FORBESCON issue, as does "Thompson, Loren. "Obama Backs Biggest Nuclear Arms Buildup Since Cold War". Forbes.". " "Wawancara Eksklusif RCTI dengan Barack Obama (Part 2)". YouTube. March 2010. Retrieved February 12, 2018." fails WP:COPYLINK unless the original broadcast was freely licensed. " "Barack Obama: Calvert Homeschooler?—Calvert Education Blog". calverteducation.com. January 25, 2014. Retrieved November 25, 2015." is poor sourcing for a statement involving Obama and the Calvert school. Hog Farm Talk 02:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment I have no problem with a separate "Post-presidency" article. Basically a WP:CWW and publish. It's likely to increase. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I realize it's a massive topic to cover but I think the current article should be made more concise in order to comply with the length requirement. The post-presidency section is the one that suffers most obviously from bloat, although other sections could also use a hard look at what info is really due and what should be moved to sub-articles. It would also be great if the lead could be cut down somewhat to comply with WP:LEAD. This is the longest lead I've ever seen on an article rated "featured" and is longer than other leads of US president articles. Overall length of the article has ballooned from 8,000 words to 14,000 words since 2012, the last time it was reviewed. (t · c) buidhe 11:36, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am working on a complete copyedit of the article to remove unnecessary information (like proposals and intentions) and combining smaller paragraphs and sections. The images also need MOS:ALT; if someone could do that it would be great. The lede will be the last thing I check because I want to get a sense of what is in the article (and remove information that is not cited in the body). Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments:

This amount of over-politicized off-topic content in the lead does not give me a good feeling about what I might find in the rest of the article:

  • Obama nominated three justices to the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were confirmed as justices, while Merrick Garland faced partisan obstruction from the Republican-majority Senate led by Mitch McConnell, which never held hearings or a vote on the nomination.
    That amount of detail in the lead is unnecessary. Something shorter would work:
  • Obama nominated three justices to the Supreme Court: Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were confirmed as justices, while Merrick Garland was denied hearings or a vote from the Republican-majority Senate.
    Done, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • “Interference in the 2016 U.S. elections” is stated as fact in the lead in Wikipedia’s voice, when numerous sources have had to back off on that claim, and indictments about those involved in the hoax have been issued.
    I was mistaken, see note below, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • There is not a single mention in the lead of anything other than success; Britannica.com might provide some helpful hints on controversial topics that might be briefly covered (or we may found them entirely left out— I hope not).
  • https://www.britannica.com/biography/Barack-Obama/Spring-scandals-and-summer-challenges

Criticism can be found even in a successful presidency.

At FA Ronald Reagan, we find the Iran-Contra affair in the lead, FA Hillary Clinton has the Benghazi affair, and the lead of Bill Clinton has his Lewinsky and other scandals, for example.

It is not clear why this book by Zelizer is not used, which leads to concern that the article has not been updated to reflect recent scholarship (this is a VERY old FA, which has never had an adequate review because so many of the previous FARs involved high levels of disruption— a much closer look at sourcing, POV and comprehensiveness should be taken.

The article appears unbalanced (POV), at least from reading only the LEAD. I haven’t gone farther, as this is not a promising start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: The article on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections still says that Russia did interfere in the election, so Obama's article saying that Russia interfered is entirely appropriate. I did fix the Supreme Court sentence in the lede, added basic information about how Obama's Nobel Peace Prize was received, and added info about Obama ending a ban on offshore oil and gas drilling prior to the oil spill, which in mentioned in the Britannica article as well. I do agree that sources and information from more recent scholarship should be added to the article. If there is anything else that can be done to make the lede and the rest of the article more balanced, then please let me know. X-Editor (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
My apologies for a mistake made due to being rushed. I missed that the Steele dossier (a subset of the Russian interference issue) is a separate article, and have struck my point. Just as a note for future reference though; if it had been an issue here, we should not refer back to a different Wikipedia article to justify what we write in this article, rather make sure that everything in this article is sourced and cited here.
I have now taken more time to examine more of the article, so will detail issues next. I will mention upfront that I never support articles that are more than 10,000 words of readable prose, because they are so hard to get through and so hard to maintain. Neither would I oppose an article for being at 12,000 words of prose, but there is clearly a lot of bloat here, and it looks to be an issue related to how this article has been built over time. Because the article is so long, the comments I will post will be based on only very cursory spotchecks so far. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:24, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Overdue for a rigorous Featured article review

This article passed FAC in 2004 with less than 1,600 words of readable prose. I gave the sourcing and formatting a thorough once over in the 2007 FAR, before Obama was even running for President, and when the article was 4,500 words of readable prose. The January 2007 FAR did not have high participation, and now at over 12,000 words of readable prose, most of the content in this article has not been reviewed against WP:WIAFA, as most of the FARs since January 2007 were closed because they were malformed, spurious, using FAR as dispute resolution, or POINTy nominations shortly before elections. We no longer have a problem of ongoing disputes due to elections; we have, in the spirit of URFA, an extremely old FA whose content has not been seriously reviewed for over a decade. Because of the out-of-process way many of those previous FARs were presented, issues raised have not necessarily been addressed over the years.

And problems are evident throughout. We need a rigorous review at FAR because the issues here are not of the type that can be addressed via copyediting, citation formatting, MOS corrections, and the like. The large problems result from how the article has grown over time (reflecting some PROSELINE), mostly relying on current news reports, not using any newer scholarly sources, and containing large amounts of text that are not placed in a historical or scholarly context. Getting through 12,000 words of prose in an article that needs some rewriting is a daunting task, and whether it can be successful will depend on how many editors have access to higher quality sources and know how to rebuild this to current FA standards.

Besides those larger problems, it is concerning that Z1720 found so many issues in only one section (some of which are suggestive of the same PROSELINE without context problem), and that Hog Farm also found a number of issues that would not pass FAC today.

Because this is likely to become a lengthy FAR, in the interest of space, at some point I will move commentary to the talk page of this FAR, but here is a very preliminary list:

  • This scholarly 2018 book (Julian Zelizer, The Presidency of Barack Obama) has not been used at all. Worse, when checking Google scholar and Google books, one can easily find a number of scholarly sources that have not been used (some of which I read through last night but without saving my notes). Another is Leadership and Legacy: The Presidency of Barack Obama, Lansford, 2021-- there are many more, although some of them are clearly hagiography and may not be very useful. This fails 1c. It is up to those wanting to salvage this star to do a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" to identify which books and scholarly articles should be used, and bring the article to WP:WIAFA sourcing standards. Hog Farm found text that failed verification, and in only a precursory check of the Russian text referenced above, I found unacceptable sourcing:
    • Obama's Russia policy was widely seen as a failure.[20] Yes, it was, but that kind of text cannot be sourced in a Featured article to one opinion piece (now five years old) in the New York Times. There are recent scholarly sources that discuss topics like this. If I found that in the one section I happened to be looking at, how much more deficient sourcing, or opinions lacking attribution, are to be found here? I found several more while reading just a few paragraphs last night. This article has 522 citations; checking them is not a worthwhile effort, because the article lacks historical context, and should be rewritten now to less NEWSY and higher quality scholarly sources.
  • In terms of bloated text and extraneous detail lacking in any historical context, I offer as but one example the section Barack Obama#War in Iraq. Pure PROSELINE apparently constructed from NEWSy sources, with almost nothing salvageable, and does nothing to address how history views Obama vis-a-vis Iraq. Almost all of the detail there is about things like numbers of troops, number of sorties, etc. Zero content relevant to Obama's bio and how history views his treatment of Iraq. This is what I found everywhere I looked, and has led me to the opinion that rewriting this article to FA standard will require a huge undertaking.
  • In contrast to the lack of attribution found above to the Friedman opinion in the NYT (which should have been attributed, but isn't an optimal source anyway), we find also the reverse problem:
    • George Robertson, a former UK defense secretary and NATO secretary-general, said Obama had "allowed Putin to jump back on the world stage and test the resolve of the West", adding that the legacy of this disaster would last.[21] Scholarly sources are broadly in agreement about Obama's legacy wrt Russia, and writing this statement as if it is an opinion held by only one individual is misleading. Even worse, the source used is very critical of Obama's handling of Putin, and yet this article has only one opinion attributed to one former UK defense secretary. This article is POV; even the source used (albeit outdated and not scholarly) is not adequately represented in the text here, and there are better sources that say similar. Writing this article correctly, five years after Obama's presidency, means replacing these old newsy sources with a balanced historical representation, with issues placed in proper context. That is likely to mean that the article will need to be restructured, because the sections now are more in accordance with how we organize political candidate articles, rather than how we place a past President in context, summarizing the most important aspects of that presidency.
  • Another issue is that this is Obama's bio, and that is Obama's presidency. A good deal of the unnecessary bloat here can be reduced by remembering that this article is not intended to be all about the Presidency. His life, legacy, personal info, leadup to and time after the Presidency all have a place.
  • How dated the article has become can be seen by looking at the dates in Further reading; this is an article in need of a thorough update and rewrite.
  • Similar bloat, dated sources, and failure to represent sources adequately can be seen in the economic policy section. A whole lot of "he did this, he did that" and numbers, but almost no then-current or historical context for what those numbers mean. This problem is also seen in the Legacy section,
    • Many commentators credit Obama with averting a threatened depression and pulling the economy back from the Great Recession.[22] The source is a link to an ABC news panel with three commentators; not a scholarly source as we would expect this many years later.
    • According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Obama administration created 11.3 million jobs from the month after his first inauguration to the end of his term.[23] It should not be necessary in 2021 to be using then-current news sources to write the Legacy section. Worse more POV, please read the context provided by the source given. In spite of being sourced to CNN, the text says that jobs gained under Obama were not as strong as under prior presidents. So POV again, and a failure to hew to what the source says.
  • Some of the sections covering current events may need to use appropriate news sources. I believe it is customary for the presidential library to be mentioned in pres articles, eg Barack Obama#Presidential library. But, as an example of how the article lacks balance, criticism of what Obama’s library has caused in Chicago is never mentioned. From perusing the talk page and talk archives, it is easy to see that there has been pretty extensive exclusion of criticism over the years. A POV or unbalanced tag might be warranted based on the number of issues I have found even with limited looking.

I saw much much more as I read through last night, but detailing it all would not be productive. Considering that I checked very few sections for this writeup, I am concerned about how much more of same there is, and the idea of checking over 500 citations is ... ugh. The article needs a solid, top-to-bottom rewrite after a thorough survey of better sources. The work will be daunting; I am not confident it can be accomplished in the course of a FAR. The prose is generally competent, but the article has serious structural problems, both in organization (as it doesn't reflect issues in historical context) and in faulty sourcing.

I will stop for now, but there is more; this is only a brief writeup of similar issues throughout. I advocated in almost every past FAR that the FARs were spurious or out-of-process or should be closed, and the last serious FAR (now almost 9 years ago) was rightly closed by Nikkimaria because it looked pointy during an election. That is not the case now; in the spirit of WP:URFA/2020, a rigorous review should continue here. These are samples only: I don't intend to continue reviewing/striking in a piecemeal approach to bringing this article to standard until a major rewrite is undertaken. Just adding newer sources will not address the problem that the article does not put issues and sections in context: per WP:WIAFA, it is time for a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", and a rewrite to scholarly sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Because of the number of serious issues found everywhere I look (now original research, too), I fear this will become an extremely large FAR, and have started adding my commentary at the talk page to keep this page from exploding.

I don’t see how this article can retain its star; the problems are pervasive, relating to poor sourcing and imbalance, and rewriting 12,000 words will be a huge undertaking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC) Moved commentary back to here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Original research and sourcing problems

Seeing that the article never mentions Obama’s huge negative gaps in “right track/wrong track” polling, I took a look at the Cultural and political image section where some polling is mentioned. This is yet another section that appears to have developed piecemeal, over time, and has not been rewritten to reflect scholarly articles or to place any of these numbers in context. This article does similar throughout: chock full of stats, data, and statements with no context. There is also original research and faulty sourcing in the polling content. (Aside: whether Obama’s huge gaps in “direction of the country”, “right track/wrong track” polling should appear hinges upon whether that “survey of sources” to upgrade the article to better sources reveals something useful, but “direction of the country” polling shows that Obama’s large negative gaps were only reached after his term once the pandemic set in (although Biden is now trending towards Obama’s lows.)

The article says:

  • According to the Gallup Organization, Obama began his presidency with a 68 percent approval rating [24] Improper use of a primary source, and no recent or higher quality or scholarly source used to place this number in context (those are easily found).
  • … a trend similar to Ronald Reagan's and Bill Clinton's first years in office.[25]. That is a dead link, and what makes “talkingpointsmemo” a reliable source, much less a high quality one? This statement can surely be sourced to a scholarly source by now.
  • His approval ratings rebounded around the same time as his reelection in 2012, with polls showing an average job approval of 52 percent shortly after his second inauguration.[26]. This is original research— using a primary source to draw a conclusion not stated by the source.
  • Despite approval ratings dropping to 39 percent in late-2013 due to the ACA roll-out, they climbed to 50 percent in January 2015 according to Gallup.[27]. This is more original research— using primary source data to reach a conclusion not drawn by the source.

So … again, I was only attempting to track down one issue (direction of the country polling) and in looking at only one paragraph, found four sourcing issues. This article fails 1c. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Further, at this point, the entire “Cultural and political image” section is poorly placed, and most of that text is not warranted. We should not even have blow-by-blow, PROSELINE polling numbers; we should have statements placed in the Legacy section summarizing his popularity/image/polling numbers based on high-quality, scholarly sources. The entire content about polling is yet another example of bloat that could probably be reduced to several sentences if better sources were used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead

Parts of the lead have the same issue as the rest of the article: long lists but no context for anything. It appears as if this article has avoided saying anything unfavorable about Obama by avoiding actually saying anything at all … just lists, numbers, no context, academic analysis, or historical perspective.

This sentence in the lead is much too long:

In foreign policy, he ordered military interventions in Iraq and Syria in response to gains made by ISIL after the 2011 withdrawal from Iraq, promoted discussions that led to the 2015 Paris Agreement on global climate change, oversaw and ultimately apologized for the deadly Kunduz hospital airstrike, continued the process of ending U.S. combat operations in Afghanistan in 2016, initiated sanctions against Russia following the invasion in Ukraine and again after interference in the 2016 U.S. elections, brokered the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal with Iran, and normalized U.S. relations with Cuba.

One big long list with no idea of how history views any of that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


  • Comments (HF)

Agree with Sandy that there seems to be some imbalance here. This is quite probably the most glowingly positive bio of a political figure I've seen on wikipedia. Will give this a start at looking at this, but this is gonna need a very close look-through. Hog Farm Talk 08:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

  • "she was mostly of English descent,[11] with some German, Irish, Scottish,[12] Swiss, and Welsh ancestry.[13] " - and this is necessary detail because?
  • "Obama's parents met in 1960 in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii at Manoa, where his father was a foreign student on a scholarship.[22][23]" His parent's "How I Met Your Mother" story is probably WP:UNDUE detail here
  • "At the age of six, Obama and his mother had moved to Indonesia to join his step-father." - duplication of material in previous paragraph
  • " supplemented by English-language Calvert School homeschooling by his mother." - Like I mentioned, above, we really should not be using the Calvert School's own blog for this.

The first part of that sources is "Calvert Education Services — once known as the the Calvert School’s “Home Instruction Division” — is proud to claim many accomplished, well-educated alumni such as William F. Buckley and Pearl S. Buck, but none more prominent than President Barack Obama!" Let's cite this to a source that isn't actively promoting the Calvert School

  • ""Wawancara Eksklusif RCTI dengan Barack Obama (Part 2)". YouTube. March 2010. Retrieved February 12, 2018." - probably fails WP:COPYLINK
  • "Zimmer, Benjamin (2009). "Obama's Indonesian Redux". Language Log. Archived from the original on March 3, 2009. Retrieved March 12, 2009." - Wordpress blog. Yeah, it's apparently run off a server in a college building, but do the writers have actual credentials here?
  • "During his time in Indonesia, Obama's stepfather taught him to be resilient and gave him "a pretty hardheaded assessment of how the world works."" - direct quote needs attributed
  • "graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1983 and a 3.7 GPA" - checked the sources didn't see where the GPA is (may have missed it). And is his GPA really a relevant detail, anyway?
  • "Obama's mother was survived by her Kansas-born mother, Madelyn Dunham,[60] until her death on November 2, 2008,[61] two days before his election to the Presidency. Obama also has roots in Ireland; he met with his Irish cousins in Moneygall in May 2011.[62] In Dreams from My Father, Obama ties his mother's family history to possible Native American ancestors and distant relatives of Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. He also shares distant ancestors in common with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, among others.[63][64][65]" - I'm thinking this is all undue detail, and the first two sentences are almost certainly so
  • "When they moved to Washington, D.C., in January 2009, the girls started at the Sidwell Friends School" - is what school their kids went to really that relevant? Carter's decision to put his daughter in public school still gets wide attention, but I don't think this is an automatic significant feature
  • "Per his 2012 financial disclosure, Obama may be worth as much as $10 million.[91]" - Hopelessly outdated; update or remove
  • "On his 2010 income of $1.7 million, he gave 14 percent to non-profit organizations, including $131,000 to Fisher House Foundation, a charity assisting wounded veterans' families, allowing them to reside near where the veteran is receiving medical treatments" - more undue detail; we don't need to know his tax details from 11 years ago
  • The whole section of tax detail from his first term just seems odd to include in a FA about a president
  • Should Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories be linked somewhere?
  • Am I the only one who thinks that the family life and religion material are stuck in a very odd place? They feel like they're just slapped in the middle of the chronological narrative
  • What does that external video involving Prof. Bell have to do with anything? It doesn't seem relevant to what is included in the body
  • I'm seeing little details sprinkled throughout here that I think are likely unnecessary. Why do we need to know that Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland had 13 attorneys, for instance?
  • I've tagged an instance of failed verification in the section about his legal career. Between this and the GPA issue above, this likely needs some serious spot checks for source-text integrity
  • "In 1994, he was listed as one of the lawyers in Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank, 94 C 4094 (N.D. Ill.).[120] This class action lawsuit was filed in 1994 with Selma Buycks-Roberson as lead plaintiff and alleged that Citibank Federal Savings Bank had engaged in practices forbidden under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the Fair Housing Act.[121] The case was settled out of court.[122] Final judgment was issued on May 13, 1998, with Citibank Federal Savings Bank agreeing to pay attorney fees.[123]" - ummm, why so much detail about a fairly random court case that 1) makes no indication that Obama did anything truly significant here and 2) is sourced entirely to court docs

Ready for the material about his legislative campaign. This background material contains a ton of bloat and undue detail. Hog Farm Talk 08:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

On "Should Barack Obama religion conspiracy theories be linked somewhere?"
Like
it's linked in the template at the bottom of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I mean in the text. It also occurred to me that in the section discussing religion, should the public perception of religion, e.i., that many on the right thought he was Muslim, be mentioned? Significant matters should be worked into the text for completeness, not relegated to see also links. Hog Farm Talk 16:00, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Like the the other articles I linked, I don't think so, the template-link is proper "coverage" for this article, and there was more noise about citizenship than religion. They're on Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_primary_campaign (maybe not the "litigation" specifically) and somewhat on Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_campaign. They are due there, but not significant here. I'm not sure many on the right thought he was Muslim, but several of them had great fun writing it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • JJE
No comments on the size of the page as I have a conflict of interest on the subject of page sizes. I can't help but notice that most of the article is sourced to news articles - often very recent news after the event discussed -, and that any kind of academic literature or biographies is omitted. I am inclined to say that this violates the comprehensiveness rules, and that assembling a NPOV-compliant article from news sources is going to be troublesome if not impossible - they almost never give a proper overview and thus you can't "gauge" what is due weight with them. And going by Sandy's sample, there is also some cherrypicking going on. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Something to be improved upon, sure, but that is how these articles are made on WP, isn't it? George W. Bush ("only" GA, but still) is also often sourced to news articles. After the subjects leave office, the bulk of editors move on to the next president. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I know, but that does not mean that it is a good idea to write an article in this fashion, let alone to try to get it to FA in this form. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Bush is not an FA, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a helpful argument or excusing factor at FAR. Obama is at FAR, and whether these issues will or can be addressed here is the focus of this page and our effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
John McCain then, or Hillary Clinton. I'm not saying sources shouldn't be improved when possible, and there's probably some decent Obama-precidency books etc out by now. But he is still a fairly recent person, and "news" is a big part of it. FA:s about living people will have "news." as sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
But they shouldn't be almost completely reliant on news sources. I haven't looked at the McCain and Clinton ones, but this one is almost completely sourced to news sources. By now, there have been several scholarly retrospectives on Obama (Sandy has pointed out a couple above). If scholarly sources are completely or largely neglected and news sources are relied on this heavily, then WP:FACR #1c is not met, as a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" is not present. Hog Farm Talk 15:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
McCain and Clinton are mainly sourced to news media but there are also some biographies cited. It does also not assuage my concern that you can't have a NPOV biography from news sources for methodological/procedural reasons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I can guess that Clinton is as deficient relative to WP:WIAFA as this article is, for similar reasons. I can’t guess about McCain; one would hope it is better, since he has been deceased for a number of years. Nonetheless, this FAR is about Obama, not McCain or Clinton, and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments won’t help us address the issues in this article. Those issues go beyond the faulty sourcing, and have already been documented (samples only— there is more). The focus of this page should be on those issues and this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Arrived here via a circuitous route from COP26. The environmental policy section of this article strikes me as woefully inadequate for an FA. The subsection is dominated by a single incident, and also includes brief mentions of other specific actions; there's no overview of his activities in this area. The lead mentions the Paris agreement, which isn't covered in the body at all; and I'm fairly certain sources do not support the current phrasing, which almost implies Obama was responsible for the agreement in its entirety. I do not have the time to review the rest of this article at the moment. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a specific reason Obama's invoking executive privilege over Operation Fast and Furious isn't mentioned? It really seems like the article tries to avoid anything that could be considered negative or a controversy. Hog Farm Talk 06:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
HF round 2

Some other comments here, as well

  • "The countries' respective "interests sections" in one another's capitals were upgraded to embassies on July 20 and August 13, 2015, respectively" - Bad sourcing. We can't use a source from July 20 2015 to support that something happened on August 13 2015. Also, why is the accessdate for a source published on 7/20 given as 7/19?
  • "Polls showed strong support for Obama in other countries both before and during his presidency." - sourced to mainly two polls. And this doesn't even represent the second piece well, which states "And even in nations where ratings for Obama and the U.S. have been strong, there have been some signs of disappointment in the American president.". This is cherry-picked.
  • I'm generally skeptical of the use of polling stuff in the cultural and public image section. There was enough written about his image in general that we shouldn't be picking and choosing individual polls to discuss. You can get a poll to say anything you want to, there's much better sources for a president's public image than stray data points
  • "The family currently rents a house in Kalorama, Washington, D.C" - source is from during the Obama administration, got anything more recent to support this? It's been 5 years
  • Why are we calling out various Facebook posts in the post-presidency section? That whole paragraph just feels like a disjointed mess, referencing his beliefs on fairly random topics without presenting any sort of unifying theme
  • "The Obama administration asked Congress to allocate money toward funding the Iron Dome program" - the only reference to Iron Dome in the source seems to be a quote from Obama stating that they helped fund Iron Dome, without mentioning an allocation request

And that's just from a brief further look. This needs significant improvements. Hog Farm Talk 06:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Z1720: and @X-Editor: to see how far they've come in addressing these issues, and if they want to participate any further. They seem to be the page's most editors by edit count. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC seems like plenty to justify a move to FARC. Therapyisgood (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Diff of edits since October 30, when most FAR commentary was entered. Basically, nothing; no change, no talk discussion, no attempt to remedy issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC, as there are no indications that the amount of effort required to restore this article to Featured status will be undertaken, or that the massive effort required would not be better suited to a new FAC should the issues be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Move to FARC - my comments about poor sources from October 20 have not been addressed, nor my first larger batch of general comments on October 30. Hog Farm Talk 14:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment: I am very behind on my wiki-tasks because of real-life commitments. I was conducting a copyedit of this article, but I am hesitant to continue if the article has extensive sourcing problems, as that could cause the prose to change drastically. This article is now a lower priority on my to-do list, but I will give more effort to this if someone steps up and finds better sources. I think lots of the POV and bloating concerns will be addressed when the prose is organised and summarised. Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I've done a little bit, but nowhere near enough to fix the issues with this article. X-Editor (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, neutrality and organization. 04:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist there have been some improvements during the FAR but progress seems to have stalled. It would probably need a fundamental rewrite to meet the FA criteria in my opinion. (t · c) buidhe 22:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist per above, little to nothing appears to be being done to the article at the moment. Therapyisgood (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist It seems like most of the issues regarding source usage have gone unaddressed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist unless someone steps forward who is willing to address the sourcing concerns, which will be a considerable amount of effort. Z1720 (talk) 19:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist per Buidhe. I agree that this would require a re-write to meet FA criteria. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist sourcing and bloating concerns have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 20:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist. This article is not at FA standards, and should be tagged POV as well (per at minimum the exclusion of recent scholarship that provides a more neutral view of Obama's legacy, rather than just a list of alleged accomplishments, with no critique of them). In all its previous FARs, I noted that it was in decent shape, and Tvoz seemed to have a steady influence, but they have not edited the article for a year, and no one has made any attempt to address the issues raised in this FAR (diff since move to FARC). Besides the considerable problems with prose, neutrality/balance, original research, organization, and cherry picking already documented on this page (and much more could be written), there are also citations missing publishers, and some indications of talk page gatekeepers:
  • See this discussion of content deemed "not significant enough" and represented as "only [covered] in right wing sources" from October 2021. Yet, the same section where that content would fit (post-Presidential) has a sentence about a rental house (oddly in a paragraph where it doesn’t fit) and goes in to (cherry picked) detail with several sentences about something Trump said while neglecting to a) add the balancing response from the same source used, the BBC), or mention Obamagate, (as the Forbes source used does) to address what Trump meant. Just odd content, hanging out there unbalanced with no rationale for its inclusion: not FA standard.
  • Scrolling back through talk page archives, similar issues are found. There is not a systematic pattern representing WP:OWNERSHIP, rather a persistent reluctance to write a neutral biography representing both the good and the bad of Obama.
    • May 2021 Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_83#Obama_Childhood, an odd exclusion of something that could be covered in one sentence.
    • For years, the lead contained politically charged hyperbole (corrected during this FAR), and yet ACA is listed as an achievement of Obama's, without ever mentioning that it was partisan legislation, passed without a single Republican vote. What is good for the goose is not good for the gander here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Joan of Arc[edit]

Notified: Durova, WikiProject Vital Articles, WikiProject Biography/Military, WikiProject Catholicism, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject France, WikiProject Gender studies, WikiProject Citizendium Porting, 2021-07-25

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of sourcing concerns and bloated sections. There are citation needed templates from 2017 that need to be resolved. Multiple sources have been added to the article since its FAC, and I am skeptical that they are of the highest quality and should be evaluated for their inclusion, especially because of the vast amount of literature available for this person. There are also some bloated sections such as "See also" and "External links" which need to be reviewed, trimmed or for the See also section moved into "Legacy". I also have other concerns, which I am happy to outline in detail if anyone is interested in working to fix up this article.

This article is of interest to multiple Wikiprojects, task forces, and working groups. If one is not listed above, please add them to the list and place a notification on their talk page. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at trimming See also/ELs, but have been reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks like your trimmed version has been reinstated - FWIW I would consider it clearly better. Both cutting all of the see also links which repeated links in the article body per MOS:NOTSEEALSO and severely cutting back the general reference works in the further reading section are clear improvements. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I've taken a quick glance at the book sources. I have doubts about Bloy 2021, as the publisher's website has a logo of an outhouse and describes it being the publisher for things that other publishers would refuse. Some of the source dates are also misleading - De Quincey and Gower are both given publishing dates in the 2000s, but they're really sources from the 19th century. This needs further attention. Hog Farm Talk 19:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Looking over it, the sourcing needs a lot of work - it doesn't look like it reflects the current academic literature etc. Generally, the article doesn't feel FA to me. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC article needs considerable work to be kept as a FA. (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I've begun supplying missing citations, and will continue during the coming days as time permits; I can also correct the other problems that have been identified. GBRV (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
GBRV, are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I can work on it later today when I have time. GBRV (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @GBRV: Please ping me here when you are finished your edits and I will conduct a more thorough review. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I'll do that. GBRV (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    There is still uncited text, marginal sources highlighted by HeadBomb’s script, HarvRef errors, and multiple and inconsistent citation styles. And MOS:SANDWICH, which can be cleaned up if sourcing is brought to standard. Further reading either needs pruning, or those sources should be represented in the article, and External links appear to need pruning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    I’ve adjusted the images for MOS:SANDWICH and MOS:ACCIM, but concerned whether some of the image captions are overly long or should be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Is http://www.stjoan-center.com/ a high-quality reliable source? Who is this author? http://www.stjoan-center.com/military/stephenr.html Also, since he provides a bibliography, could we not better consult the original sources ? The article also uses history.com, and a non-reliable newspaper reporting on info supplied by an auction house (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/joan-arc-ring-dating-back-15th-century-sale-london-auction-1535043) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • GBRV It looks like you've been doing a lot of work on this article. This article is huge. The good news is that the material is all there, though it looks like too much may be there. I prefer to stay out of the lead editor's way, but if at some point, you'd want help, let me know. Be warned: I'd want to move the whole thing to sfn format, sort the notes and the references, diversify and corroborate references. And of course, that probably means some editing too, though this article is fortunately already well developed. (Perhaps overly so?) It seems like you are on a roll, so I'll stay out of it unless you are open to the possibility. I think you'll probably get it in great shape. I would ask that if it remains at risk due to references, that you or the FARC team keeping an eye on it ping me and I'll pitch in before delisting. If I don't hear back, all is good, and I'm not sure how much I'll be able to do until January anyway... Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Wtfiv I'll keep working on it, and can contact you if I need help. GBRV (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
GBRV Sounds good. I started templating references and moving them so they can be separated out. There's two of them. But I'll stop for now until I hear otherwise. Feel free to revert what I've done. See my comments on the article talk page for what I did as well. Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
FAR Committee, I think GBRV is committed to salvaging the article, and is most comfortable without my involvement at this time. I asked GBRV to ping me whenever my skills may be of use in collaborative editing. Additionally, please contact me for some unfortunate reason progress stalls and it comes up for a delist vote again, and I'll put my energy into keeping it featured. It seems pretty straightforward to accessibly, reliably and consistently source. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist still cites non-RS as mentioned by SG above (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Buidhe If the vote now needs to run its course, I'll stay out of it. Otherwise, I'd like to give it a try to not have it delisted, particularly if the references are the big problem. My work would be slow until late January, but I would work at it in the interim.) I just don't want to tread on GBRV's work. Wtfiv (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Striking vote if there is a plan for fixing up the article :) (t · c) buidhe 05:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
FARC team, I think GBRV is committed to salvaging the article, and is most comfortable without my involvement at this time. I asked GBRV to ping me whenever my skills may be of use in collaborative editing. Additionally, please contact me for some unfortunate reason progress stalls and it comes up for a delist vote again, and I'll put my energy into keeping it featured. It seems pretty straightforward to accessibly, reliably and consistently source. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist. There's still significant problems with the sourcing, including the use of primary sources, original research etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Please at least allow me to continue working on fixing the problems first before voting to delist. GBRV (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Hold: Work is ongoing. You may ping me when the article is ready for review. Z1720 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Hold, plenty of active work underway. Please ping me when work is done and I will be happy to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Texas A&M University[edit]

Notified: Buffs ([28]), WikiProjectHigher education, ([29])
See this discussion; additional notifications to WP Big 12, WP Texas, Karancas, Oldag07, BlueAg09, ElKevbo SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

This article was promoted over a decade ago and it is showing its age. Much of the content is dated, sizeable portions of the article are unsourced, and there is a heavy reliance on primary sources and even some unreliable sources such as IMDb. Some of the images also lack alt text. I expressed concerns with this article back in early April and no improvements have been made. ~ HAL333 22:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

HAL333, well, this is a bit of a joke. You hardly "expressed concerns with this article back in early April." In fact, you made one single vague statement and question: "I'm concerned about the heavy use of primary sources published by Texas A & M that are used in this article. Could this be fixed?" Just because no one answered your question then doesn't mean a lack of a response equates to "the article is lacking." To the contrary, this was brought up in the FAC nomination and had the requisite support, to include such citations as-is. Your opinion hardly overrides that consensus. The University providing such sources is no different than the Smithsonian or US Government providing such sources on themselves regarding general, uncontentious facts; falsification of such figures and statistics would incur financial penalties and/or criminal liabilities. They are an educational institution and have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Accordingly, I don't see that you've satisfied the first requirement for a FAR.
As to the rest of your concerns that were FIRST brought up here (and never brought up prior), I would be happy to address them, but you need to be much more specific.
Which parts are "dated"?
Which portions do you feel are "unsourced"? By my quick count, there are a total of only 14 sentences that do not have a direct reference associated with them. Most of these were referenced by the previous sentences, are uncontentious facts, are frivolous facts that could easily have been removed, or, in the case of the single sentence in the lead, mentioned later in the article.
Which sources are unreliable? The sole reference to IMDb is Robert Earl Keen and Lyle Lovett. REK has told this story at hundreds of concerts. While a better source, such as the youtube video above, would be a better source, the fact itself is not in question.
Which images lack alt text? Alt text may be desired by you, but does not appear to be one of the requirements of a Featured Article
I'll be happy to address these concerns with specifics, but I'm not going to jump through vague hoops over vaguery/exaggeration. Buffs (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed every unreferenced instance on the page that I could find by either finding a source or deleting the necessary sentence. I've also replaced the REK reference with a MUCH better one.
It should be noted that during the FAC, concerns were made that it was OVER-referenced. Given that there is not a single passage without a reference, I think this point can be pretty much put to bed. I await clarifications on your other contentions. This only leaves things you feel are "dated", which is completely subjective without further clarification. Buffs (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Here are some of the sections which need to be updated:
  • Most of the Rankings section.
  • Did the "University era" end in 2013?
  • The last three paragraghs of the Student body section need to be updated with recent stats.
  • The entire Endowment section needs to be rewritten and resourced to reflect the present.
  • Hopefully you get what I mean by dated. The later sections also need such work.
  • As I said the prose still needs some work. There are several bits the need to be made less authorial/promotional. First off, in the lede we have fluffy language like "over 500,000 strong". (The 500,000 statistic also happens to be unsourced...)
  • Why are multiple sources sometimes placed all at the end of the sentence and sometimes placed directly after the dependent material? This needs to be standardized.
  • For it to be accessible to screenreaders, it still needs alt text for every image.
Hopefully we can address those. ~ HAL333 13:26, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe alt text is part of FA requirements. (t · c) buidhe 17:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I did not say it was. But if an article is to be featured and exemplify the finest work on Wikipedia, it should be inclusive for screenreaders.18:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
The FA criteria require that an article complies with the Manual of Style, and MOS:ACCIM, part of the MOS accessibility guideline, states Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users. If additional alt text is added, it should be succinct or refer the reader to the caption or adjacent text. So my interpretation would be that yes, alt text is required for FAs. If there's a reason to believe that having alt text would make the article worse, I'd be open to considering an IAR argument for leaving it out, but if it's just that no one wants to put in the few minutes of work to add it, I really don't have much sympathy for that. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I have little sympathy for someone expecting others to jump through hoops for something they could have fixed in a few minutes and threatening to delist a featured article. I do not believe this was EVER addressed on the talk page which should have been the FIRST place to go. Given the misleading rationale for this page in the first place, this feels much more like a person attempting to manipulate/exert control over forcing others to do something.
Now, I'm going to do it., but I do so under protest that this was done in exceptionally poor form. Buffs (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. If you don't like the word choices, feel free to edit. Buffs (talk) 22:44, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Now, to address each of the other points brought up:
  • Most of the Rankings section. The rankings section includes some of the latest information from 2021...we will update 2022 when it happens.
  • Did the "University era" end in 2013? No, but few major things have happened in the past 8 years. If you feel something has been missed, feel free to mention it, but you can't say you're missing something without specifying what's missing.
  • The entire Endowment section needs to be rewritten and resourced to reflect the present. I wouldn't say it needs to be rewritten from scratch, but I've since updated it.
  • Hopefully you get what I mean by dated. The later sections also need such work.[vague]
  • As I said the prose still needs some work. There are several bits the need to be made less authorial/promotional. First off, in the lede we have fluffy language like "over 500,000 strong". (The 500,000 statistic also happens to be unsourced...) That statistic is 508,000 and is sourced in the Texas_A&M_University#Notable_alumni_and_faculty section. If you have other specific instances, I will be happy to address them.
  • Why are multiple sources sometimes placed all at the end of the sentence and sometimes placed directly after the dependent material? This needs to be standardized. Unless you have a citation from WP:MOS, that is your personal preference. Citations are provided in the middle of sentences when appropriate and at the end of sentences when the sources apply to the whole sentence. This is consistent throughout and is pedantic to edit
  • The last three paragraghs [sic] of the Student body section need to be updated with recent stats. While we can update more, it doesn't need to be 100% up to date with the most relevant stats or it should be delisted. I will do what I can to update the figures.
To be blunt, this FAR needs to be pulled as malformed and certainly not within the guidelines of how one of these should roll; borderline done in bad faith (based on the opening logic, specifically "I expressed concerns with this article back in early April and no improvements have been made."). There's no reason this should have even been brought to FAR. Buffs (talk) 03:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Some of the sourcing needs to be revamped. Here are a few that may not be high quality reliable sources:

  • "Largest.org", currently cited as "largest,org"
  • "brazosgenealogy.org"
  • Britannica is a tertiary source.
  • asumag.com
  • Is the Military Times considered reliable?
  • Kiplinger?
  • Applied Biosytems?
  • Are the cited college newspapers editorially independent?
  • Etc.

I'm not being picky either. When I got my first FA through earlier this year, I was told that I couldn't use Politico. I have ignored places where primary sources can/should be replaced with reliable secondary sources. Sources also need to be standardized. ~ HAL333 18:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Re:"I'm not being picky either". Yes you are. And so were the people who said you couldn't use Politico. What is a reliable source depends highly on the claim being made. If I say "Biden/Trump said ______" and cite the primary reference for such a claim, that's perfectly accurate. The same could be said for the KKK or a Black Panther statement. Such a citation is not only appropriate, but desired so people can read the statement for themselves. The accuracy of said claim is irrelevant; so is the source as a WP:RS: they are the stated claims that were made from the organizations themselves. If Ben Shapiro states something on DailyWire.com, it's valid to cite that source as where he said it as it is the publishing arm of his organization. That does not mean the statement is accurate nor does it mean that DailyWire is somehow a more reliable source because of it, but it IS a reliable source for the statement itself even if it is self-published.
Re: "Some of the sourcing needs to be revamped. Here are a few that may not be high quality reliable sources" I'm not going to go through an article and address the few that "may not be high quality reliable sources" if you're going to be so vague and include even simple typos. WP:SOFIXIT applies in spades here. There's VERY little that you couldn't just fix yourself and would require far less work than what you're putting in here. If you are contending that any of these are unreliable sources, it's incumbent upon you to explain why, not vaguely claim there might be problems.
Lastly, this is not the forum for such claims and you have not acknowledged/corrected your deceptive initial statement. I'm not inclined to address such concerns only to have a litany of new concerns and preferences brought to the table ad nauseam every time they are addressed.
So, for that last time...for each of these points"
  • "Largest.org", currently cited as "largest,org" WP:SOFIXIT; you wasted WAY more space here complaining than it would have taken for what is clearly a simple typo fix.
  • "brazosgenealogy.org" Do you consider this unreliable? All the facts I see are accurate.
  • "Britannica is a tertiary source." So? What's your point? WP:RS "Reputable tertiary sources, such as introductory-level university textbooks, almanacs, and encyclopedias, may be cited."
  • "asumag.com" The only thing it's cited for is an utterly uncontentious claim about where the college came from that neither school disagrees with. 1 2 3. I'm truly perplexed as to what the problem is here.
  • "Is the Military Times considered reliable?" For a statement about what they themselves published? Absolutely. That distinction is made in the very sentence it's cited (and the only citation from that source).
  • "Kiplinger?" For a statement about what they themselves published? Absolutely. That distinction is made in the very sentence it's cited (and the only citation from that source). This is the kind of asinine standards you're attempting to apply here. You clearly aren't even looking at the context in which they are used.
  • "Applied Biosytems? [sic]" Again, an utterly uncontroversial claim. The other source was a press release by the school.
  • "Are the cited college newspapers editorially independent?" In general, yes. This was addressed in the FAC and has been addressed multiple times on the talk page. Please review the archives.
  • "Etc." Sorry, but no one can possibly address what you're questioning here. There's not enough information.
You come up with a list of problems. I'll be happy to address them. But a vague "Here's a few, maybe, and there are more...because it was done to me" is horrible logic for proposing to delist an FA. Buffs (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Some issues I spot:
    • Missing an "organization and administration" section (see WP:UNIGUIDE for what it should contain).
    • Veterans section is way too short to stand on its own.
    • Enrollment surpassing 50k in 2011 is history moreso than anything about the student body.
    • A bunch of the info in the worldwide section belongs in the campus section.
    • It's promotional to talk about The Battalion's awards before ever introducing it.
    • Notable alumni section is significantly overlong.
    • Various prose issues throughout: "Note that", MOS:%, the promotional "over 500,000 strong"
There is probably a bunch more, but that's to start. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:UNIGUIDE is an essay, not a requirement of WP:FA, I'll be limiting my responses to those that are FA requirements for now. Buffs (talk) 04:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    Criterion 1b of WP:FACRIT is comprehensiveness; I'm not trying to be picky, but this is something that needs to be fixed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
So, then let's start with that logic then, not some circuitous reasoning that isn't mandatory. I still disagree that such a section is necessary in order to be "comprehensive", but I've added a section anyway and will update the bare urls in due time. Buffs (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed the Veteran section; merged as part of the rankings.
  • Removed 50K reference...not really needed.
  • Fixed the Battalion reference.
    Looks good now. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fixed 500K, "note that", updated percent -> % via rephrasing.
    Oh, MOS:% seems to say that writing out percent is more common for non-technical articles, but so long as you're consistent, % looks alright to me. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Notable alumni section was formed by consensus and agreed upon in the FAC.
    The FAC was in 2007, so I can't put much stock in it. Notable alumni sections have been discussed frequently recently, and as a WP:HED participant, I have a good sense of the range of them. This one is way longer than most—it'll need significant trimming to avoid undue weight. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    5 paragraphs to summarize the contributions of over half a million alumni (and this excludes faculty)? That's hardly extensive given the number of people and hardly undue weight. Buffs (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Re: "A bunch of the info in the worldwide section belongs in the campus section." What parts? All of this pertains to parts of the school that aren't on the main campus...I'm confused. Buffs (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
  • The Qatari campus is a campus. On second look, I think most of what's in the academics section is fine there, but the campus section should include at least a bit on the Qatari campus. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:29, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
So...that one's a bit of an oddity. The campus at Doha, Qatar is considered part of the A&M College Station main campus. It is not considered a separate school. Those who graduate from TAMUQ have "Texas A&M College Station" on their diploma. Buffs (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Corrections last updated: Buffs (talk) 05:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Comments from HAL
Extended resolved commentary (with plenty of tq templates that stall the FAC page) moved to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Should these be addressed (along with the ones above), I'll be happy to support keeping this as an FA. Cheers. ~ HAL333 00:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

    • I'm happy to see the great work put into this article by Buffs. At this point, I drop any objections and advocate keeping this article as an FA. Cheers. ~ HAL333 14:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Motions to close

Close without FARC At this point, I think it's clear I'm happy to address any issues you find and respectfully request that this FAR be rescinded by its submitter as the pretenses for its listing are unfounded/unwarranted. Buffs (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Review by Z1720

I have moved my initial review to the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Intent to review; please hold closing. (Particularly since correct notifications were not done and I just did them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Sweet merciful heaven. It's been under review for 3 months...when will it end? Buffs (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    Apologies, but notifications were incomplete, and it's in all best interest (FAR process, editors, and article content) to make sure no involved parties are left out; that's why we have instructions about who to notify, which unfortunately were not followed. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia: I'm clearly willing to address/fix any shortcomings, but having the proverbial Sword of Damocles hanging over FA status for 3+ months is getting more than a little extreme...Please close this FAR without FARC and let's address it on the talk page. Buffs (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Oldag07: Notes on article[edit]

Comment 1; First off, It seems like this article is in an archive. Does it mean it survived its review? We should move this page to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Texas A&M University/

No, it is in the right place; all FARs start off automatically in the next open archive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Comment 2; I am sorry about the grammar. I wrote this in a rush, and I don’t particularly want to spend the time to proofread it.

Introduction; It is impossible for me to review this objectively. The notion of getting the Texas A&M University article as a "Featured Article" is one of the reasons why I got into wikipedia editing in the first place. Hence my scren name. Originally written as a joke, it hasn't aged well. Moreover, when we made this push, I was a senior at A&M, and I was intimately familiar with the topic. I feel like my knowledge of the topic is not what it was. And while I am proud of the work I put in to this article, but I really don't have the energy to care if this is demoted or enough. I am literally training for a marathon and my job already puts me in front of a screen way too much. That being said, I got a lot better at writing during grad school. I am actually an administrator on a mid size Fandom (Wikia) site. And my unique perspective might help improve this article. While will try to give what feedback I can. Of note, I don't think any of my criticisms disqualify the article. It seems like Z1720 has done a fantastic job nitpicking over the article and Buffs has done a fantastic job of cleaning up these errors. Thank you so much for helping to improve this article. I, instead will look at the forest, not the trees, and go for a big picture critique of the article. Of note is the Georgetown University article, the only other featured university article. I feel that article has just as many problems as this one does.

History I have always found history sections difficult to write in Wikipedia articles, most notably at the end of these. Knowing what is significant and what isn't while history is "being made" is hard.

  • Perhaps adding dates for each section like the History of Texas A&M page would be useful.
  • The Black Lives matter protests belong on this page. But it seems out of place with what is going on with the rest of the history section. It is a weird way to end the section. Perhaps some sort of summary of what Texas A&M has become would be a good way to end the section. Something like "As of 2021, the university growing at a rate of ???. it is a leader in research in the areas of ???? Texas A&M continues the challenges of merging its rich traditions with the challenges of the 21st century". That definitely is a way to end the History of Texas A&M University article. Something shorter?

Student Body

  • This article probably needs something about graduation rates.
  • Conservatism/Religion- The word "conservative" is only mentioned once in the article. And that isn't something that describes the student body. I know we used to mention it more. I know recent events have redefined the definition of "conservative". The average student might even be more liberal than average American. But in academia, A&M is still on the right. The average Aggie is much more religious than most university students.

Research

  • Research sections of any university article are also difficult to write. Summarizing all of the research at a university the size of this university is hard. This section highlights a bunch of interesting research this that A&M does, and then it ignores others. Great, A&M made its uranium safer. What about the university's work with knockout genes in mice? What about the 100 million dollars the university just earned from the DOD to research hypersonics? [30] I don't know how to prioritize what research belongs on this page and what doesn't.
  • Here is some big picture things that could be added. What is A&M's are on total research expenditures, Where does get its funding, how much it spends its money compared to other universities. I also know A&M has been very aggressive in hiring Nobel Prize researchers. The word "Nobel" is not found with a quick Ctl-F search. Researching this critique, I found a great article on that very issue. https://today.tamu.edu/2021/02/10/first-in-texas-am-research-tops-1-billion-mark/

Campus

  • Oh wow, the campus page is really outdated. Obviously not something that affects this article.
  • I feel like this seciton is a very clinical description of the campus. But what does the campus "feel like". How is its architecture styled? What are the the major buildings on campus, notably the MSC and Kyle field.
  • I haven't been back to main campus in years. Some updated photos would be nice.

Student life

  • Certainly the section I am most rusty at. I am mixed on why Texas A&M Hillel is in the article. It is the "oldest" in the nation, but it certainly isn't a particularly large organization. Most people who graduate from the school probably never heard of it.
  • I know Greeks do not own the school like they do at some Universities. But I am not sure how to write that appropriately. The student body has voted against having a Greek block... on several occasions. Maybe that is enough?

Traditions

  • I think this section is pretty spot on. It is emphasizes the importants of traditions, and gives a good overview of the topic. But it doesn't "go into the weeds".

Athletics

  • Really… Is the basketball section bigger than the football section? This is a football school. Make me feel like it is one when I read this.
  • Basketball. Buzz Williams might be in is 10th year as head coach, but we should mention that he has only been at A&M since 2019.
  • Other sports. This certainly could be longer. How many varsity teams does A&M have? I know A&M has one of the only equestrian teams in the nation. One way to discuss how comprehensive the school's athletics programs is to discuss how well the school has done in the NACDA Directors' Cup.

Alumni

  • I think these are horrible on almost all university pages. I believe this section not only should list out notable alumnim, but it should include stuff about the Aggie alumni as a whole. Here are some ideas of what could be added.
  • What are the typical jobs Aggies take after they graduate?
  • Where do they typically live?
  • How do Aggie alumni feel about their alma mater?
  • How large is the alumni association?
  • How generous are Aggies to their alumni association?
  • How many and how large are Aggie booster clubs?
  • How are Aggie alumni perceived by others?
  • I think the hall of fame article in the sports section could be moved into a section like that.

Final Comments. I don't believe anything I wrote above disqualifies this article. They were written as a way to improve the article. I feel like I should add some of the suggestions myself. Maybe I will someday. Thanks and Gig em! Oldag07 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@Oldag07: I'm willing to address each of these points in due course, however, as you state "I don't believe anything I wrote above disqualifies this article", I'm going to refrain from addressing them until after this FAR is complete. It's been 3 months and I'm not going to lengthen it when even the criticizer says it isn't necessary. Likewise, many of the points you address are there because of wikiproject guidelines, which are de facto rules. Changing those would literally require changing thousands of other articles. I don't argue many of your points, but I'm going to refrain from adjusting anything that isn't an FA hangup. Buffs (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Some bits of OldAg's concerns will be an "FA hangup" for me when I do my read-through (which I won't start until others like Z1720 indicate they are ready). I understand your frustration, and it is unfortunate that notifications were incomplete, but we mark an article as passing FAR when it is at featured standard, and FARs have remained open for a year. What I would like to see from OldAg's writeup:
  • History: I don't agree those changes are necessary.
  • Student body: OldAg could well be right, but should have provided sources-- we can't go on a goose chase for that kind of content.
  • I am trying to clean up the mess I gave Buffs. I added graduation rates and a few additional stats. Oldag07 (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Research: OldAg's comments rightly indicate a problem with how we assign due weight to mention of the University's research. Education articles tend to become promotional as we add content based on non-independent sources rather than using independent coverage to assign due weight. I see that here, including press releases from the University, and would rather see more independent mentions used to determine what research activities warrant inclusion in this article (over press releases). Some of the sources in that section, also, are old, making me wonder whether currently significant research is given appropriate weight. A comprehensive search for sources should be done in this area, and I see OldAg already supplied a source.
  • Campus: some of what concerns OldAg can be conveyed with images rather than text (Stanford University is gorgeous, but that is not conveyed in the text, rather than images). If OldAg wants text in this area, then supplying a source would help.
  • Student life: it looks like some of those points should not be difficult to fix.
  • Athletics: some needs to be incorporated, and OldAg even gave sources. But it seems to me that the basketball section is larger than football simply because basketball has a women's team, so I disagree with that critique of OldAg's.
  • Alumni, ugh (as they always are): convert it to a list, move it off the page, link to it, and focus on broader discussion of the type that OldAg mentions.
  • True. Though we already have a list. Oldag07 (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Let me know when some of OldAg's commentary has been completed, along with Z1720's work, and I will read through. In advance, please keep an eye as to whether the article is using good sources, or just a publicity brochure based on University press releases (I haven't looked yet). Also, please remember that when a FAC or FAR closes, that version is marked in the Article milestones, so it would be awkward to close a FAR when there are still improvements needed, leaving a less-than-best version flagged in article history. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Incomplete comments from Sdkb[edit]

First, I acknowledge Buffs' understandable frustration that this FAR has been open for so long. Higher education articles are notoriously difficult, and this one has undergone a lot of changes to bring it closer to the 2021 FA standards. However, looking through the article, I'm not yet persuaded that it has met them. Comments:

Lead

  • ”the only university in Texas to hold simultaneous designations as a land, sea, and space grant institution” reads as promotional and undue, especially since my understanding is that space-grant is not particularly important.
  • MOS:LEADCITE has not been followed; many excess citations in the lead.
  • ”Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas: is a bit of an MOS:EGG link.
  • ”Under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder” Is "the leadership of" needed? Seems promotional.
  • The overall organization of the lead is lacking and needs a bunch of reordering. “The university offers degrees in more than 150 courses of study through ten colleges and houses 18 research institutes.”, the sentence about the university's academics, shouldn't be way at the end. Meanwhile, “The Texas A&M Aggies athletes compete in 18 varsity sports as a member of the Southeastern Conference.” gets to be in the first paragraph, with the double problem that it's then disconnected from the other sentences about student life in the last paragraph. Listing examples of the organizations that fund the university's research also seems questionable for the lead and certainly the first paragraph.
  • ”Working with various A&M-related agencies, the school has a direct presence in each of the 254 counties in Texas.” appears to be uncited and does not appear in the body.
  • Texas A&M Corps of Cadets is linked twice in the lead.
  • Is there a list of largest U.S. campuses to wikilink?
  • Infobox has incorrect capitalization with “College Town”.
  • Accreditation is unsourced (and should be in body).
  • Infobox has the academic staff count but is missing the total staff count.
  • Does The Battalion have official status from the university? Most college newspapers don't and therefore shouldn't be in the infobox.

Other

  • The history section photos need improvement. There's only one actual historical photo in it, the World Wars era section is unillustrated, and then there's a sandwich.
  • The 2017 statue removal paragraph has poor wording.
  • In the student body section, I don't think it's necessary to give the percentage of students that took SAT vs. ACT.
  • The student body section is lacking a bunch of demographic information. There should be coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least.
  • ”as follows” is poor wording.
  • The rankings section just gives a bunch of listings of individual rankings, many of questionable value, rather than a holistic overview of the university's reputation.
  • The campus tree photo in the research section doesn't have anything to do with research.
  • The photo in the worldwide section of four guys in a group photo with a flag is not very compelling.
  • ”Several halls include a "substance-free" floor, where residents pledge to avoid bringing alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes into the hall.” The wikilinking choices here seem odd; why the first two but not cigarettes?
  • ”The Corps welcomed female members in the fall of 1974,[1]. has a punctuation error, and "welcomed" seems promotional compared to "began accepting".
    The university houses the public broadcasting stations: KAMU-TV, a PBS member station since 1970, KAMU-FM an NPR affiliate since 1977, and the student-run KANM, "the college station of College Station".: Needs grammar fix.
  • My concern above that the alumni section is significantly overlong has not yet been addressed. For smaller schools with less alumni, I find it more justifiable for individual people to be noteworthy in the context of the institution as a whole, but for somewhere as large as Texas A&M, I'd like to see mainly numbers (e.g. how many billionaires, how many generals, etc.), with only a few of the very most notable people individually called out. The rest can be moved to the people list page.
  • The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni. I'd like to see its scope expanded to "noted people" to also include notable faculty members.
  • In the external links section, I question whether having a link to the athletics page is justifiable per WP:ELMIN. I would suggest instead linking The Battalion's website (see this thread), the accreditation page from SACS (since it's an independent source with detailed info), and the College Navigator page (since it's from the U.S. government).

For content beyond the lead, I did only spot checks on various areas, not a full read. If I looked longer and deeper, I'm sure many additional concerns would arise, but the above is as much effort as I'm willing to devote. I hope these comments are helpful. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Sdkb thanks for the indepth review! Templates are discouraged at FAC and FAR because they cause the FAC page and archives to exceed template limits, which then cuts off the page. You have made extensive use of the tq template above. Would you mind if I go through and just convert them to straight (non-colored) quotes? Because of problems like this, there is consideration to remove the FAR page from FAC, to the detriment of FAR, so we should be sure to not use templates here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Sure, go ahead; thanks! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 15:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a list of sources questioned (above at 24 July 2021) that does not appear to have been addressed. Just looking at the first on the list, I can find no indication of reliability at largest.org. Sourcing should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Buffs responses to each[edit]

Lead

  • the only university in Texas to hold simultaneous designations as a land, sea, and space grant institution reads as promotional and undue, especially since my understanding is that space-grant is not particularly important.
    NASA would disagree and it has been there for ~14 years based on plenty of prior consensus. Texas A&M is a prominent research institution with ties to US space programs nationwide.
    Actionable (no independent sources for this content in the body), this has not been addressed. If this info is so significant as to be in the lead, it should be covered (better) in the body, with sources other than Brittanica. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Brittanica is an acceptable source. IIRC, the space telescope was the primary piece in the article, but it looks like the space grant reference was omitted; fixed. Buffs (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • MOS:LEADCITE has not been followed; many excess citations in the lead.
    Since anything that may be challenged needs a source, a source has been provided. I disagree as well, but that was the consensus in the FA.
    The FA was passed in 2007; this is a new FA. I am comfortable that the items cited in the lead are worthy of citation, but “one of six” is cited to a 2008 source, and the one of ten is WP:CITATION OVERKILL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    I am 100% on board with removing ALL citations in the lead as all of the lead should be contained in the body of the article. You won't get any argument from me. However, WP:V states "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material." Ergo, MOS:LEADCITE cannot override it. I think it's pedantic too, but you've put me between people who want to uphold WP:V to an extreme degree and MOS:LEADCITE/you. I don't want to do that, but it's also required. As such, I'm not going to comply with it as WP:V overrides WP:MOS. I think it's dumb and probably needs to be rewritten, but that's where we stand. Buffs (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas is a bit of an MOS:EGG link.
    Not at all. It's a link to the history. If you don't like it, feel free to remove it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 02:44, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • Under the leadership of President James Earl Rudder Is "the leadership of" needed? Seems promotional.
    It explains who was in charge and a simple variation in "Under X, ABC happened...Under Y, DGH happened". Doesn't sound promotional to me in the slightest — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 02:44, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The overall organization of the lead is lacking and needs a bunch of reordering. The university offers degrees in more than 150 courses of study through ten colleges and houses 18 research institutes., the sentence about the university's academics, shouldn't be way at the end. Meanwhile, The Texas A&M Aggies athletes compete in 18 varsity sports as a member of the Southeastern Conference. gets to be in the first paragraph, with the double problem that it's then disconnected from the other sentences about student life in the last paragraph. Listing examples of the organizations that fund the university's research also seems questionable for the lead and certainly the first paragraph.
    This sounds very much like preferences, not standards. I have no objection to addressing these, but not as part of FAR. SEC is included in the lead paragraph because there is a very strong popular association with athletic conferences in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 02:55, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    Sdkb raises legitimate concerns about structure and organization (of the article and the lead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    I never said they were not "legitimate concerns". I simply stated they were preferences. Does the lead have to follow the organization of the article? If so, where is that stated so I can make sure to follow each and every requirement to the letter? I'm not against fulfilling every single requirement for FA/MoS that's possible, but I'm also not going to waste time/effort on something that's not required at this time. Buffs (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Working with various A&M-related agencies, the school has a direct presence in each of the 254 counties in Texas. appears to be uncited and does not appear in the body.
    removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 02:49, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • Texas A&M Corps of Cadets is linked twice in the lead.
    Actually, it isn't. The first one links to the Texas A&M Corps of Cadets. The second links to Corps of Cadets (the generic term). Rewritten for clarity. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Is there a list of largest U.S. campuses to wikilink?
    List_of_United_States_public_university_campuses_by_enrollment was removed initially per WP:OVERLINK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 02:55, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • Infobox has incorrect capitalization with “College Town”.
    I see nothing with "College Town" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 02:55, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • Accreditation is unsourced (and should be in body).
    fixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:12, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • Infobox has the academic staff count but is missing the total staff count.
    Is that a standard? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:12, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    WP:WIAFA, 1b, comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    There's a significant line between "comprehensive" and "too much detail". This may not be it, but it's getting close. I'll look those up and add them. Buffs (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
    Added as requested Buffs (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Does The Battalion have official status from the university? Most college newspapers don't and therefore shouldn't be in the infobox.
    This was recently added. I have no objection to its removal or addition. As for whether it should be in the infobox, that's a matter of opinion, not an objective standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs)
    The question was, does it have official status? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    I can find nothing to show it does and I already removed it. Buffs (talk) 23:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Other

  • The history section photos need improvement. There's only one actual historical photo in it, the World Wars era section is unillustrated, and then there's a sandwich.
    What needs improvement? As for photos, some were removed because it was "too cluttered". WP:IDONTLIKEIT applies in spades to preferences. The "sandwich" was noted above; moved photo anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The 2017 statue removal paragraph has poor wording.
    See talk page and history for the rationale behind the word choice. If that isn't to your satisfaction, please specify what is "poor" about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • In the student body section, I don't think it's necessary to give the percentage of students that took SAT vs. ACT.
    Basic acceptance averages seem acceptable. Many look at these pages to look for colleges and this is pertinent information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The student body section is lacking a bunch of demographic information. There should be coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least.
    What would you like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    “Demographic information: coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Consolidated to below list for ease of reference
  • as follows is poor wording.
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Rephrased anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The rankings section just gives a bunch of listings of individual rankings, many of questionable value, rather than a holistic overview of the university's reputation.
    The University confers degrees in such a wide list of studies and various ranking systems have wide-ranging criteria. There is no set standard. What would you propose? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The campus tree photo in the research section doesn't have anything to do with research.
    Swapped with Zachry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The photo in the worldwide section of four guys in a group photo with a flag is not very compelling.
    If you'll note the caption, it's from the TAMUQ campus in Qatar; the part of the main campus located in another country...it's pretty unique. What's not compelling? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • Several halls include a "substance-free" floor, where residents pledge to avoid bringing alcohol, drugs, or cigarettes into the hall. The wikilinking choices here seem odd; why the first two but not cigarettes?
    WP:OVERLINK. If you feel it would be beneficial, please add it. If you think the wikilinks are unnecessary, please remove them. Your criticism could be easily fixed rather than voicing such a vague complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The Corps welcomed female members in the fall of 1974,[1]. has a punctuation error, and "welcomed" seems promotional compared to "began accepting".
    Fixed, but I would argue that they were allowed to attend. I don't think they were "accepted" as readily/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • The university houses the public broadcasting stations: KAMU-TV, a PBS member station since 1970, KAMU-FM an NPR affiliate since 1977, and the student-run KANM, "the college station of College Station". Needs grammar fix.
    Fixed a missing comma. Please be more specific if it's something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    @Buffs: - maybe "three" instead of "the", if that's accurate? Hog Farm Talk 17:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    point taken. Fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 20:41, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
  • My concern above that the alumni section is significantly overlong has not yet been addressed. For smaller schools with less alumni, I find it more justifiable for individual people to be noteworthy in the context of the institution as a whole, but for somewhere as large as Texas A&M, I'd like to see mainly numbers (e.g. how many billionaires, how many generals, etc.), with only a few of the very most notable people individually called out. The rest can be moved to the people list page.
    We indeed have addressed and trimmed the page substantially. Pretending we've done nothing is absurd. All of the people mentioned are on the people page. These were largely chosen during the FA process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    This section needs a tighter summary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni. I'd like to see its scope expanded to "noted people" to also include notable faculty members.
    "The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni"...how exactly is that a complaint? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect in an Alumni section? If you want it to be alumni and notable faculty, we could consider a change, however, most notable faculty are famous for their contributions prior to coming to A&M, not their work while at A&M. As such, it's fame/notability by mere association and the primary reason such people were removed from such a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    This concern is unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    It isn't "unaddressed". It just isn't what you want. I'll see what I can do to address at least some of these issues. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    Consolidated/addressed below. Buffs (talk) 15:45, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • In the external links section, I question whether having a link to the athletics page is justifiable per WP:ELMIN. I would suggest instead linking The Battalion's website (see this thread), the accreditation page from SACS (since it's an independent source with detailed info), and the College Navigator page (since it's from the U.S. government).
    Their athletics page makes since as that and college admissions are the two primary reasons people popularly look up information about a school in the US, and certainly A&M. For the other sources, feel free to add them as you see fit. If you have a link and don't want to add it yourself, post it here and I'll happily add it. Likewise, I will correct any sloppy links after this round is complete (I prefer to address formatting en masse for the sake of consistency). Buffs (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Last updated: Buffs (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

For content beyond the lead, I did only spot checks on various areas, not a full read. If I looked longer and deeper, I'm sure many additional concerns would arise, but the above is as much effort as I'm willing to devote. I hope these comments are helpful. Best, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 19:13, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a list of sources questioned (above at 24 July 2021) that does not appear to have been addressed. Just looking at the first on the list, I can find no indication of reliability at largest.org. Sourcing should be reviewed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Uh...I responded within 5 hours (almost 4 months ago). To say that no one responded is highly misleading Buffs (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No improvements since OldAg's post a week ago, and no movement on Sdkb's list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, still no progress on lengthy lists above, and a move to FARC does not preclude further work happening, but keeps us moving forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    You have got to be kidding me. 4 months of work on this article and tracking this page. I take a week off and we move to FARC based on ONE person's nomination? This is a joke of a process. Buffs (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Many edits were made during the review section but progress seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You have got to be kidding me. 4 months of work on this article and tracking this page. I take a week off and we move to FARC based on ONE person's nomination? This is a joke of a process. Buffs (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    Have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article review/James Joyce/archive2 re the difference between FAR and FARC (none if work continues). (Also, it was ten days, so it did appear you had stopped working.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    I've patiently waited for weeks/a month for a reply (see above). Patience is apparently a one-way street. Buffs (talk) 03:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    So you want me to read Wikipedia:Featured article review/James Joyce/archive2? Why? moved from FAR to FARC after three nominations, no objections, no reply from anyone after 18 days. Contrasting this with an extensive and responsive/patient editing history, I think I've CLEARLY demonstrated any necessary changes can be made. FARC is simply unnecessary at this point. Buffs (talk) 03:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    As the fellow who opened this FAR (feel a bit guilty now), I think Buffs has got it up to snuff. In fact, he got it up to snuff a few months ago. Let's wrap it up here. ~ HAL333 21:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    There are considerable issues listed still at FAR; if Buffs wants to keep working on those, the Coords are always amenable to leaving FARs open as long as needed. We just need to know if Buffs needs more time and plans to keep working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • MOS:SANDWICH in the Student body and Rankings sections, and when I edited to attempt to fix it, I found an inline comment indicating a missing table of data that needs to be completed and uncommented. I suspect it is related to one of Sdkb’s comments, unsure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Fixed sandwich issues. By this interpretation, virtually all images have to be on the right which seems silly...done anyway. Buffs (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There is some other commented out text (has it been resolved), and this is an inline comment: “ Simply adding the low scores together, and the high scores and getting one range of average scores is statistically incorrect.” And, the data used is cited to 2009. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    This was added about 3 years ago, IIRC, due to people adding inaccurate information and to indicate why. It seems to be serving its intended purpose. Are you advocating removal? Buffs (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Why bolding in the Academic rankings chart? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    No idea. It's part of the infobox. Buffs (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Please take note of MOS:ACCIM on images after hatnotes (I think I got them all [31]). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Noted + fixed one more. Buffs (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • You can install User:Ohconfucius/script/MOSNUM dates to keep dates in order (done for now [32]). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Noted Buffs (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It doesn’t appear to me that a MOS review has been done. I’ve corrected some as I go, and run scripts, but for example … “The system is governed by a ten-member Board of Regents, nine appointed by the governor to 6-year terms and one non-voting Student Regent appointed to a one-year term.” Ten, nine, one and yet … 6-year which should be six-year … please review throughout for basic MOS things like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Another example in the lead: “The university offers degrees in more than 150 courses of study through ten colleges and houses 18 research institutes.” Use of digits or spelling out should be consistent within a sentence (ten needs to be 10). Please check throughout for similar. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    fixed both. Buffs (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The entire paragraph starting with “Texas A&M is one of six United States Senior Military Colleges. The school's Corps of Cadets (or the Corps) is one of the largest uniformed student bodies outside the service academies. Many members participate in ROTC programs and earn commissions in the United States Armed Forces upon graduation. Members of the Corps have served in every armed conflict fought by the United States since 1876 … “ is cited to 2004. Inadequate; we don’t know how much of the paragraph is still true. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Um...why? Just because it was cited to a 2004 article doesn't mean things have changed (they haven't). If you have evidence to the contrary, fine, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or outdated just because it is a ref >10 years old. Buffs (talk) 15:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is cited to a 2003 Aggie network email !!! “ Texas A&M has over 1,000 student organizations, including academic, service, religious, Greek and common interest organizations.” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    "It's cited to an email!" is a bit overblown. It's an official e-newsletter (an official publication) of the Association of Former Students that they also hosted/published on their page. Is that invalid? If so, why? Buffs (talk) 15:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Bouncing around the Athletics sections, everything I clicked on is a very old citations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    They are hardly "very old". Many of them simply reference when an event happened. Old rivalries are not going to have new sources until new games are played. Coaches that have been here a while aren't going to have new articles on when they started. Just because a source is more than a few years old doesn't mean it isn't accurate (this is a recurring theme/issue/standard that your critiques have here and it's generally invalid). That said, some needed updates and those have been done. Please cite meaningful errors in the future. Buffs (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This, for example, needs an “as of” date: “ The women's soccer team, formed in 1993, has been in every NCAA Tournament appearances since 1995.” Also, the publisher on the citation is not specified, and the reader has to rummage around to decipher what 12thman.com is, and that the publisher is Texas A&M Athletics. (Suggest using in situations like this, |work= 12thman.com |publisher= Texas A&M Athletics ) Please check that all publishers are specified. Also, original research again (the source does not say the team was formed in 1993, we can guess that from the data presented, but don’t know if that is factual based on the source given). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Added "as of" It isn't original research to say they formed in 1993. No one forms a sporting team with the intent to not play games. Buffs (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • More dated: “ The women's volleyball team is a frequent qualifier for the annual NCAA tournament including 13 consecutive NCAA Tournament appearances from 1993 to 2005.” Frequent is original research, or needs an independent third-party source to say that. It is 2021, almost 2022. And almost everything is cited to Texas A&M; no independent coverage of anything. Do the newspapers not cover sports in TX? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    How is that statement "dated"? "Frequent" is an appropriate descriptor of the referenced facts per WP:SUMMARY. Yes, it is cited to Texas A&M, a government institution with a strong reputation for accuracy. If you want to get technical, they meet all the criteria for WP:SELFPUB. They have no incentive to change the record and no one contests their records' accuracy. No newspapers are going to write articles about the history of the volleyball team every year. Lastly, the snark is not needed. Buffs (talk) 17:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Wikilinking needs review throughout. As examples, Qatar and Galveston are not linked on their first occurrence in the article, there is MOS:OVERLINK (eg World War II), Governor of Texas is linked repeatedly, and returns from user:Evad37/duplinks-alt should be checked (some dup links may be useful, but not all are needed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Governor of Texas was linked twice (as were WWII and one other which escapes me)...hardly the egregious error you imply. Fixed the rest. Buffs (talk) 17:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • “ The University and Colleges are generally accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools and associated professional organizations.[63]” Bare URL in citation, and what is the meaning of “generally” ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    I noted at the time that I would use bare urls until completion. I find it WAY easier to go back and edit urls en masse than as I go. Too many things get changed or details are requested to be added like quotes linking authors, etc. There are a few departments that are accredited by other institutions as they were either initially part of another system or were certified by a professional association's accreditation source (see ref). Putting the certification sources of all 150+ seems onerous and I stuck with a more general tone. If you have other ideas, I'm all ears. Buffs (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Assuming you will correct them before this FAR closes, no problem. This is one of the lengthiest FARs I have seen in a long time, so it is to be expected that not everyone will notice everything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • WP:LQ review needed, sample "Texas A&M University," SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Review complete. Let me know if you see anything else. Buffs (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is cited to a 2007 source (!!). “The university consistently ranks among the top ten public universities each year in enrollment of National Merit scholars.[68]”. This is precisely the sort of thing that should have been detected and updated in the course of this FAR. (It is also original research.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    updated Buffs (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Why are we talking about 2008? “ In the fall 2008 semester, the Dwight Look College of Engineering had the largest enrollment of 20.5%.” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Updated info for all colleges. Buffs (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • This is cited to 2012 (almost ten years old): “ About 80% of the student body receives about $420 million in financial aid annually.” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Updated + new ref Buffs (talk) 23:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There are still copyedit needs, samples:
    The Washington Monthly ranked Texas A&M ranked 21st nationally in 2021 based on their criteria … ) and please find ways to vary the word ranked throughout (eg placed etc).
    In the lead: Many students also observe various university traditions, which govern daily life, as well as special occasions, including sports events.
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    Fixed Buffs (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • “According to the College Board, the fall 2008 entering freshman class consisted of 54% students in the top 10% of their high school graduating class, … “ followed by a lot of text cited to the College Board, but the College Board gets their data from the universities, so this is not independent. And, why are we even mentioning the 2008 class? Has this article been updated to 2020 data? When using promotional data (54% in the top 10%), should we be using the university’s own data ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    I'll be happy to deal with the rest of this once we resolve the underlying complaint: I'm completely perplexed as to what data you would expect us to use? These are the official records. Of course A&M produced them. They are required to do so. By the same logic, every article about the content of the Bill of Rights is based on the same government source...the primary source. By that logic, none of the official US government records can be used in articles about the US government...which is absurd. Buffs (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    Fixed this with A&M data. If that is insufficient, I'm not sure what to tell you. Buffs (talk) 00:46, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
— Review —
  • 1b Comprehensive is also failing, per Sdkb comments in FAR phase. Article organization is odd, and Sdkb’s concerns should be addressed (branches at Qatar and Galveston are mentioned in the Academics section— organization, administration is lacking as a separated section per Sdkb, and the grouping of several sections under “Academics” is odd). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (moved/duplicated/consolidated from above) The student body section is lacking a bunch of demographic information. There should be coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least.
    What would you like to see? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    “Demographic information: coverage of racial and socioeconomic demographics at the very least”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (moved/duplicated/consolidated from above) The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni. I'd like to see its scope expanded to "noted people" to also include notable faculty members. SandyGeorgia (Talk) noted by Sdkb above
    I did not write the statement above. Buffs you have repeatedly moved text from where it was, and in this case, removed the sig attached to it to put it over my sig as you moved it.[33] The constant moving around of text and comments and unsigned posts and sectioning in this FAR have rendered it lengthy, difficult to read, hard to know where to respond, or even determine if my original comments have been left or removed. I hope the @WP:FAR coordinators: will provide some guidance on talk for how to proceed next. A large portion of what is on this page could be better dealt with on talk so that reviewers can determine what remains to be addressed. Please start respecting proper threading of posts and signatures, and please continue off-topic discussions at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Texas A&M University/archive1 to minimize the length of this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
    The attribution was an unintentional error and has been corrected. I didn't "move" anything. I clearly annotated where it came from and have responded directly after each one exactly as you have requested. However, given the verbosity/breadth of the voiced issues, it is nearly impossible to track what has/hasn't been done in the insanely long wall of text/easy to make errors. As such, I consolidated those that were not completed. Otherwise things can be missed. However, if you feel it's an egregious error, I'll simply undo it all and we will be stuck with a wall of corrections and miss each other's replies left and right. If you want a conversation elsewhere, please start it there. Buffs (talk) 19:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • "The alumni section also focuses exclusively on alumni"...how exactly is that a complaint? Isn't that exactly what you'd expect in an Alumni section? If you want it to be alumni and notable faculty, we could consider a change, however, most notable faculty are famous for their contributions prior to coming to A&M, not their work while at A&M. As such, it's fame/notability by mere association and the primary reason such people were removed from such a list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffs (talkcontribs) 03:26, November 15, 2021 (UTC)
    This concern is unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    It isn't "unaddressed". It just isn't what you want. I'll see what I can do to address at least some of these issues. Buffs (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Update bare url refs (this will be done last). Buffs (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Please check throughout that promotional claims are not made based on the University’s own sources, that reliable sources are used, and that all old data (from when this FA was promoted) is updated. This article has not been adequately updated from the FAC version. Regardless of the time this article has been at FAR, it has serious issues and is nowhere near FA quality. These items I have noted are only samples, just from bouncing around the text, not a complete read-through. A considerable and sustained effort is needed to get to the bronze star here. I can revisit when a top-to-bottom rewrite has been undertaken, comprehensiveness is addressed re outstanding comments from both Sdkb and OldAg, Research is rewritten to independent sources, all content is rewritten and updated to include close scrutiny to more recent sourcing, and incorporation of “as of” dates throughout (see the error cats at the bottom of the article, that don’t even capture all of the old data that has no “as of” date listed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
    "Promotional" is in the eye of the beholder. As a government entity, they are the creators of many of these numbers. They are presented as facts from a reputable source, not boosterism. If you find them to be "promotional", then please point them out and I will see what else we can find, but every article will be based on those figures. 4 of 5 people that have commented disagree with your assessment of the status of the article. Just because a source is old doesn't mean it is wrong or needs to be updated. A "considerable and sustained effort is needed to get to the bronze star" is absurd. It already has the star. Buffs (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2021 (UTC)


Buffs, could you please stop duplicating information in new sections that you add? That is unnecessarily chunking up this FAR, where it is near impossible to see what has been addressed, and is adding to the overall length of the FAR. Also, please sign your entries to help avoid confusion about whether work is ongoing (you added answers to Sdkb in the FAR section 13 days after they were entered, and without signing). There remain many unaddressed issues in the FAR section. I have organized my points above so that you can directly respond under each, without the need for creating a separate response section, duplicating my commentary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I did sign my entry...once, SandyGeorgia, rather than several dozen times as you've now added. I did not add answers to Sdkb without signing; it was signed at the bottom upon completion. To jump in here after 4 months and now complain I'm doing it all wrong is getting very tiring. I'm simply trying to address each point the best and clearest way I know how. Of note, you don't seem to have the same irritation toward Sdkb's list or anyone else's and I'm not sure why my list is unacceptable but others are fine. You certainly don't need to accuse me of "chunking" up the FARC multiple times. Very perplexing.
As for the rest of your comments, I'm well aware of the effort needed to have an article reach FA status (as are others). However, if we are strictly discussing personal preferences, then I'm not sure anything will ever make FA status. Objections need to be substantive. "I don't like the phrasing" (I'm paraphrasing from prev remarks) is not something that can be addressed beyond guesswork. Criticism needs to be clear, substantive, and addressable, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. OldAg07 stated that nothing he wrote would keep it back from FA. As such, I see little need to waste time in this forum to address those points, but will be happy to address points of others as able. Buffs (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I am out for the evening, and will catch up tomorrow. If you will put your lengthy comments unrelated to actually resolving items on talk, the FAR will be much less burdensome for all to review. (No, you did not sign most of your entries, which caused great confusion and makes it look like I asked to move to FARC over responses that you only made later: this is easily verified by reviewing the diffs.) I did say that some of OldAg's comments would be concerns for me (eg the Research issue). I don't find any of the comments to be of an IDONTLIKEIT nature, so we are at a point where we need to know if you intend to address issues, or if we should move forward with Keep and Delist declarations. I will catch up as I am able tomorrow, but am at the point of family arriving for Thanksgiving, and suggest focusing on addressing each item on this page, while keeping discussion about the process on the talk page of this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: I appreciate the constructive feedback that SandyGeorgia and the other editors have given this page. I just don't want my feedback to be the thing that is holding the closure of this FAR. I can understand Buffs' frustrations with the process after putting in over four months of work into this page to try to "save" its FA status. Wikipedia is project maintained by volunteers. Ultimately I would like to remind everyone involved with this review why we are here. Because we enjoy it. Oldag07 (talk) 04:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
TAMU FARC Break[edit]

In the FARC phase, editors should declare Keep or Delist. They should not post comments in other editors' name. Thank you, Nikkimaria, for moving commentary to the talk page. DrKay (talk) 18:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

The FARC phase never should have begun in the first place and there was ample support opposing such actions. No one posted comments in other editors' names. Comments were indeed moved to provide clarity (as you have done as well). Jumping in 4 months after the start and saying we've done it all wrong is not helpful. I don't oppose reasonable breaks, but labeling them something more useful than "Break" would be helpful; please be mindful that others disagree. Buffs (talk) 05:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I had to introduce the break because it was the only way I could edit this page. I have difficulty editing any page over 100kB in size because of bandwidth issues. DrKay (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with adding breaks here and there so we have a chance to edit sections and not the whole page/LARGE sections. SandyGeorgia has expressed the opposite opinion. Buffs (talk) 16:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Some breaks are helpful and some are not; they are generally discouraged, and should be used carefully. This one is helpful. As an example of those that are not ... Duplicating entire editor commentary in a new section, and then responding there, just adds unnecessary length. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Shadow of the Colossus[edit]

Notified: Ryu Kaze, WikiProject Tokusatsu, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Japan diff for talk page notification

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because Hog Farm raised concerns about WP:RS on the talk page several months ago and there has been no effort to address the problems. (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)


  • Just gonna copy the list from talkpage here for convenience:
Content copied from Talk:Shadow of the Colossus
WP:URFA/2020

A number of the sources used in this discussion are either dubious, or listed as marginal or unreliable at WP:VG/RS. If these sources are not replaced with high-quality RS, this article may undergo a featured article review. List is below.

Dubious

  • TrustedReviews
  • Press Start Online
  • The Gaming Intelligence Agency
  • Insert Credit (no consensus)
  • Cane and Rinse
  • Zone of the Gamers
  • GameChew
  • Find Articles
  • ControllerFreaks
  • Kikizo (no consensus)
  • Thunderbolt (no consensus)
  • Destructoid (situational, is Chad Concelmo a reliable author?)
  • Kotaku circe 2007 and 2009 (post-2010 is listed as okay, but two are from before then)
  • HeyUGuys

Sources that are listed as unreliable at VGRS and need replaced

  • Neoseeker
  • Nintendo Everything

Hog Farm Bacon 04:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Haven't yet looked at every single one yet, but I agree with Czar that Kotaku could be extended some leniency if it was just them; also Chad Concelmo probably qualifies as a reliable author, right? Not a nobody, he's even gone on to be PR Director for Nintendo of America. Ben · Salvidrim!  09:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The The Gaming Intelligence Agency and Cane and Rinse sources are an interviews with the game's director, so does that mean we can use it? Or is unreliable enough that they could lie about quotes, etc? Also Insert Credit sources were written by established author Tim Rogers (journalist) and the Find Articles seems to be an website access site for accessing an Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine copy (though I cannot access it). So far I have removed and replaced the two unreliable sources and most of the dubious sources (excluding those I mentioned in the rest of my comment, in addition to Destructoid and Kotaku).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Re-listing of ones that may need replacing

So after seeing that the previous listing included stuff that's probably fine like the old Kotaku ones and some interviews, I'll go ahead and look through again to try to get a better list

  • Zone of the Gamers
  • GameChew

So it looks like most of the dubious sources have been cleaned out. If we can get somebody to look through the prose and some video game folks to make sure that this is good from a comprehensiveness perspective, this ought to be saveable. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: - still at the point of my comment on June 27. Those two sources still need addressed and it needs a prose review. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
      @Hog Farm: I have removed/replaced the two sources (Zone of the Gamers and GameChew) you mentioned.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
      • David Fuchs - Would you be willing to give this a look-over at some point? I would, but I've been pretty busy at work and don't really have the time or energy right now. The sourcing looks to have been greatly improved since the FAR opened, so hopefully this one can be saved. Hog Farm Talk 04:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on the article at present:

  • There's some weird choices in what to cite in the lead, and more or less feels like it was cited at random (e.g. why is the fact that the game was created by the people who made Ico WP:LEADCITE worthy, but not that it's a spiritual successor?)
  • A few bits n' bobs don't appear to be cited (at the ends of paragraphs, etc.)
  • The synopsis section scans as excessively detailed to my eyes (roughly 1400 words) and repeats itself at points. I'm not sure the "connections to Ico" bit really belongs as its own subsection versus just a quick line or two.
  • More stylistic than directly relating to FA criteria, but the organization of the end of the development section feels a bit scattershot, talking about later remakes before we've even talked about reception of the main game, and I'd reorganize.
  • The reception section could use some expansion given the availability of sources.
  • Prose needs cleanup, in particular removing unnecessarily convoluted sentence constructions (lots of "it was said"-type passive voice that undermines the authority of the text.)
  • References do look much better (quick spot-check didn't reveal any issues); there's a blog referenced but I think in the context it meets SPS and "expert self-published opinion" threshold.

Aside from the reception section I think this is much more about cutting and cleanup. If people concur with the above I'll make an effort to effect the changes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @David Fuchs: I come to the same conclusions as you. Not sure why we need so many citations in the lede as that info should be supported in the body, and most of the cited claims are uncontroversial. While MOS:PLOTLENGTH doesn't mention video games, it does not recommend more than 700 words for other media so that might be a good goal for the synopsis. Reception needs an expansion to include information on re-releases. I support any efforts to cut when needed, expand with new sources, and cleanup this article. I am happy to do a more thorough review and copyedit once the cleanup is complete. Z1720 (talk) 13:10, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @David Fuchs: Just for the record, I concur with the above and have taken a partial stab at restating the intro of the lead and little tidbits in the body. Hope that those steps will go some way to inform further work on fleshing out this article. Electroguv (talk) 11:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I'd be up for taking a shot at salvaging the article, however, a cursory glance reveals a large amount of necessary work that I believe calls for a collaboration. Methinks that some time to determine whether a second volunteer will come forward, a week perhaps, should be taken to bring matters to a head with this article. Some offline matters prevent me from attempting a straightforward one-man job, but in the meantime I'll try to patch up things here and there as time allows. Electroguv (talk) 09:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
      Thanks for the work you have been doing on the article, very helpful. What particular things do you think you need help with?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 15:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Wow, thanks for coming forward so quickly! I'll make sure to get back to you in the near term with the suggestions. Electroguv (talk) 18:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Electroguv and David Fuchs: Are there still outstanding issues being worked on here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Pending the response of the other pinged user, my current perspective is that there are still some general text issues across the article (wording, grammar, prose flow etc.) that need to be ironed out, and I think that the Development and Reception sections need an overhaul as regards their coverage and prose construction. As far as those issues go, I'd take the liberty of asking for about five days' worth of extra time to introduce the necessary changes. Thanks in advance for your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Just chiming in that I've seen this ping, but that my wiki-time is currently being focused on arbitration and I will circle back to check the article thoroughly once that's done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Having taken a lot more time than previously expected to add the revisions I've been planning to add to the article, I have to make an update on the situation for the sake of clarity. Substantial changes have been made to the development section; basically, it's been rewritten from scratch, fleshed out and expanded in terms of coverage and structure. The Connections to Ico and Remake subsections of the plot and development sections respectively have been rearranged due to their dubious academic value in the first case and tenuous connection with the overall article subject in the second case. As such, the material formerly present in Ico subsection has been removed altogether (as its associated topic is covered by the new development section), and the Remake segment as well as mentions of the game's PlayStation 3 remastered version have been incorporated into the Legacy section, where their placement seems to be well-judged. While I believe that quite a bit of work still needs to carried out to make the article comply with current FA standards (primarily as regards the reception section), I do think that I'll be able to push the matter through by the end of this week. Many thanks for your patience as always. Electroguv (talk) 15:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Electroguv? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Noticed this ping right away yet I'm replying just now because of real-life matters. They are also the reason that has been preventing me from adding changes at a swift pace as befits the urgency of this review. That said, my goal of completing the article revision is not frustrated despite the setbacks, and I intend to proceed promptly with my planned edits. If I might make so bold as to ask, I need a timeframe of 5-6 days to introduce the changes. I'd be truly grateful if granted the opportunity to make good on my promise and to see that this article keeps its status. I am much obliged to be able to count on your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 01:10, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
      That's not an issue, this FAR will stay open as long as improvements are being made. (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
    • There have only been a few edits since 17 October and they are mostly minor. (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Moving as discussion seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe what is outstanding here? There have been no edits since October 30, and Electroguv hasn't edited since Oct 22. If there is still work outstanding, is it time to move to Delist? We have at least half a dozen noms sitting at the bottom of the page, and I question how long we should leave them here if weeks are elapsing with no work progressing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  • It looks like Hog Farm's initial concerns about sourcing that started off the review have been mostly fixed with the exception of Kotaku (pre-2010). The only obvious issue that sticks out for me is that it does not cite any of the academic sources I found and listed earlier in this FAR, which could potentially be a comprehensiveness/well-researched issue. But I really don't know enough about what's expected for video games to say. (t · c) buidhe 03:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Electroguv and David Fuchs: do you support keeping or delisting the article at this point? (t · c) buidhe 03:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
In replying to the collected queries concerning the current state of things with this article, I would first like to plead for a reconsideration of the motion to close. I should mention that my preceding inability to edit the article has to do with IRL issues related to sickness, so the setback that may have contributed to the present dilemma was certainly not intentional on my end, if that point has any relevance. Should you find this circumstance to have any merit, I would like to reaffirm my focus on ironing out the remaining issues with the article (including the ones highlighted above) and ask for the liberty to complete my planned article revision, with reference to the nominator's reply to my October 17, 2021 statement. I am fairly confident about being able to carry out the necessary changes by the end of the week (in particular, the Release subsection is still incomprehensive to my eyes), and so I once again request to be granted the opportunity to implement the edits within the allotted timeframe. I will try to incorporate information from the academic sources described above should I discover the citable parts to be immediately relevant to the subject matter, and will endeavor to make visible progress with the text in the short run. Of course, the final say rests with this article's reviewers, so I can only hope that I have been able to make an acceptable case for the reversal of the FARC motion and that a quality overhaul of this article is still within the realm of possibility. In any event, I will defer to your ultimate decision. Thank you for your understanding. Electroguv (talk) 11:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi Electroguv, I wish you a quick recovery from your illness. Definitely the article looks in much better shape than when we started. I think it was looking like editing had stalled, but if there are still plans to improve the article, I definitely agree that it should stay open. (t · c) buidhe 21:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Vijayanagara Empire[edit]

Notified: Arajakate, Ms Sarah Welch, Pied Hornbill, Dineshkannambadi, WP Indian history,‎ WP Karanatak, ‎ WP Andhra Pradesh, WP India, WP Hinduism, WP Former countries, talk page notification 2020-08-20

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because this FA from 2007 appears to want for the comprehensive and well-researched FA criteria, as identified by Tayi Arajakate in the talk page discussion from a year ago (1b/1c). I would additionally identify the citation style as something of a mess, which I did some work on to bring it closer to consistent (2c). Izno (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I have notified the editors active within the past year that are reasonably relevant to this page based on XTools and the talk page discussion. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Izno I’ve done a lot of the bookkeeping for you, but you still need to notify all the Wikprojects linked on talk, and there are several recent editors who have not been notified. If you could do those it would help, as I am iPad typing. The objective at FAR is to cast a very wide net to try to find someone who might address the article deficiencies. Thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
      Ok. Izno (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      I took care of the WikiProjects as listed on the talk page as well as the original nominator. The other bookkeeping you seem to have done is not listed in the official instructions, which is why I did not take care of it, though I was aware of at least one of those pages you pinged me for. As for recent editors, they too are not listed as being necessary parties, and I'm not totally certain any would be interested in knowing. There's a lot of reverted edits, a locked account, someone with copyvio notices on their talk page... Izno (talk) 02:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I have been following this article for a long time. Having read up several books, visited several historical locations pertaining to the empire, I feel that content itself has remained fairly accurate (despite several attempts to corrupt it), given the limitations of a summary style article. Improvements are always possible but Tayi Arajakate never really specified what was wrong with the article. So I disregard it as personal dissatisfaction more than gross violation. It is impossible to fully reflect the on goings of an empire that lasted 250 years in a summary article. I will read this article once more in a few days and see if I see any issues.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I did specify quite a few issues with the article? I can see that the history section has been expanded since I left the notice but it is still far from comprehensive. For one it completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees. It's not impossible to fix these issues, it's just going to take a lot of work. There is still a significant amount of text with no inline citations, comparatively poorly sourced material and material with peacocky wording which I wouldn't call accurate, some of which I have already specified in the notice and the rest I'll bring up here shortly. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, the talk page notice isn't ideal, but it's plain to see that the article has issues. There is uncited text, the citation style is a mess, there is stuff that is mentioned in the lead but never in the text and that is OR (such as Paes, Nunes, Kingdom of Bisnegar, from a very quick check), I see several citations that lack specific page numbers, I don't see how this Youtube channel can be considered as a RS, I can't see any of Gadyana, Varaha, Pon, Pagoda, Pratapa, Pana, Kasu and Jital in the provided source (maybe it's the wrong page?)... So the article does need attention. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I will address these issues and others that I see in the days ahead.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I will start working on the "language" section to improve the content and provide better sources. I will do away with the web citations as I have good sources for topics such as 'language of inscriptions', the changing geographical patterns in use of these languages, and provide reliable info on monetization.Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I believe I have improved the section on Inscriptions, sources and coins and denominations with info from numerous sources. By dwelling on the topic of sources and their authors I believe I have taken care of a concern that was raised about foreign visitors to the empire mention in the lead but not dealt with in the article elsewhere.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
What's wrong with the talk page notice? Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Just a matter of preference for more succint notices so they can be more easily dealt with, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. Sorry if it came across that way. RetiredDuke (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate Tayi Arajakate concern about the article. But writing "still far from comprehensive" does not help because this is meant to be a summary article, not a comprehensive one. Creating subarticles that you mention on the talk page is a good idea but not an immediate requirement for a FAR. Also "completely overlooks various aspects of the subject and the article can be expanded by degrees" does not help unless you specify how it can be expanded and what various aspects you mean. Please be aware this is a joint effort and your help in actively upgrading the article will be greatly appreciated. You may have sources on hand that others don't or cant access. Please be actively involved in this upgrade. Lets start with you listing out in the form of points what specifics you want to see improved.Pied Hornbill (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Pied Hornbill, comprehensiveness (1b) and well researched (1c) are requirements of a featured article. I believe, I have already specified some of the aspects that had been completely overlooked in the talk page notice in a point wise manner and with resources which are freely accessible, for a start, something that you chose to disregard. I will need some time to thoroughly review the article to bring up other specific issues.
For an instance of a specific issue with the article which I didn't mention in the notice. The first 8 lines of "social life" which discusses caste appear to be entirely sourced from two colonial period books. In general, the article really needs more contemporary scholarship, if I remember correctly there is a WikiProject India prohibition on the use of Raj era sources. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I have coped and pasted the first 8 lines that you have an issue with. Then I will paste lines from a more modern scholarship to point out how similar the content sounds when looked at from a birds eye view. The main points to note here are:a)The caste system was based on craft production b)The artisans consolidated their rights by having leadership to represent each castec) Competition existed for rights and privileges between castes.
  • Source:FA
"Most information on the social life in the empire comes from the writings of foreign visitors and evidence that research teams in the Vijayanagara area have uncovered. The Hindu caste system was prevalent. Caste was determined by either an individuals occupation or the professional community they belonged to (Varnashrama).[74] The number of castes had multiplied into several sub-castes and community groups[74] Each community was represented by a local body of elders who set the rules that were implemented with the help of royal decrees. Marked evolution of social solidarity can be observed in the community as they vied for privileges and honors and developed unique laws and customs.[74"
  • Source: The Political Economy of Craft Production Crafting Empire in South India, C.1350–1650 By Carla M. Sinopoli · 2003, ISBN 978-113-944-0745
"Craft producers were linked by caste memberships into collectivities of various geographic extent, that could, in some cases, act as corporate units; producers also formed large inter-caste affiliations which also served regulatory roles in acts such as social protests...." (pp21-22). There is plenty more to read ofcourse and get the same general idea.
  • Source:Chopra, P.N.; Ravindran, T.K.; Subrahmanian, N (2003). "Medieval Period". History of South India. New Delhi: Rajendra Ravindra Printers. ISBN 81-219-0153-7
"There were many other communities such as Astisans, Kaikkolas, barbers, dombaras, etc. Artisans consisted of blacksmiths, goldsmiths, brasssimths, carpenters, etc. All these classes were fighting among themselves and wanted some social privileges particularly some honors in public festivals and in temples. These quarrels sometimes led to the allocation of separate quarters in the city...."(pp156, part II)
Point I am trying to make is, we could change the sources, but I don't see the content really changing. The issue of year of publication of the book should matter only in cases where the content also has changed.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
FAs are expected to use the highest quality sources. The year of publication does matter accordingly. Izno (talk) 16:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I Understand. I have identified a few points in first paragraph of the 'Social Life' section to work on. It will take a few days given my other commitments.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:47, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I have re-written the top half of the 'Social life' section with better, newer sources of reserach as requested by Tayi Arajakate. Tried to keep it concise though to avoid a run away process. Interested users can create a sub-section under this and expand it.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I have tred to focus on the period Tayi Arajakate had content issues with and tried to improve on it. Looks better now. Will try to deal with this one issue at a time. Inputs such as content, sources, copy edits are welcome from others.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Having dealt with the sections on "History", "Social Life" and "Inscriptions and Sources" I have improved the contents with numerous modern sources. I will continue to work on the article to improve citations by replacing older sources with newer ones and such. Please let me know if there are other specific concerns.Pied Hornbill (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Quite a bit of work needed here still; I haven't checked further than this list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I will start working on this from this weekend.Pied Hornbill (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Some scripts for detecting HarvRef errors are at Category:Harv and Sfn template errors SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I have dealt with some of the above issues but lack experience handling HarvRef errors and duplicate links. Maybe someone more experienced can help out here.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
The Fritz & Michell 2001 source is included per individual section and also as an overall book. I have the feeling the overall book should be removed leaving the "Introduction" source only (in addition to various other sections with different authors), but that will have to be checked by someone with access to the source. CMD (talk) 03:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I own that book. I have removed the 'overall' book reference in the bibiliography section and just used the 'introduction' section reference.Pied Hornbill (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Harvref issues are solved, and have cleared up the image sandwiching a bit (may still need to remove one from in or around the "Epigraphs, sources and monetization" subsection). I've gotten rid of the bunch of overlinking, and this has brought to my attention the copious use of pipelinks throughout the article. They're fine where appropriate, but many here seem to serve to provide an alternative name for no clear reason, and this is sometimes even internally consistent. For example, Sayana initially appears as [[Sayana|Sayanacharya]], yet is later referred to in the prose as "Sayana". I do feel the Culture section may require a copywrite and perhaps some restructuring, but I haven't looked into it closely. No comment on the other issues mentioned. CMD (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Continuing

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I will attend to the "endash" issue today and also fix couple of citations that need attention.Pied Hornbill (talk) 12:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment after a quick skim, I think this article is close to "Keep" status, but there haven't been substantial edits since mid-May and Nikkimaria's call for an update was unanswered. Some of my concerns include a "Further Reading" section that should be incorporated into the article for comprehensiveness, the history section should have subheadings, and the Alternate Name section is very short. If editors are still working on this article, please comment below and I will conduct a more thorough review. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Will take a look at your comments sometime this weekend. If there were no more edits from me since mid-May it was because I did not see specific unanswered concerns.Thanks.Pied Hornbill (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm glad there's still someone editing this article. Can you ping me once the sources in "Further Reading" are removed or incorporated into the article? I will conduct a copyedit then and give more thorough comments. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
        • @Z1720: none of the current Further reading sources should be included in the article. Michell, George (2008) appears to be a photography book about particular photographers. Oldham, C. E. A. W. (1936) is from 1936, it is not current literature. The third source is an old web page that may not even be an RS. The fourth is a poor webpage that appears to replicate part of South Indian Inscriptions, which appears to be a collection of inscriptions. Useful for academic research, but not secondary scholarly study on the Vijayanagara Empire. Rice, E.P. (1982) [1921] is from 1921, so also falls out of the scope of current literature. I would say perhaps the older sources and photography sources may be interesting further reading items, but if it's a choice between integrating them into the article or deleting them the better course would be to delete them. CMD (talk) 16:18, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
          • My opinion on "Further reading" sections in featured articles is that they should be rarely used; if the source isn't good enough to be included as a reference, it shouldn't be recommended to readers as a place to get further information. Based on your analysis Chipmunkdavis, I would support deleting them. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
            • Done. CMD (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Comments from Z1720

Consider me a non-expert. I conducted a copyedit of the article, so please review my edits to ensure I did not inadvertently change the meaning of a sentence.

  • It is unusual for an article to have citations in the lede. Are they necessary? Since info in the lede is expected to also be in the body of the article, we can assume that the information will be cited in the body of the article.
  • "the empire's power and wealth." Can this power and wealth be described a little bit? For example, were they powerful? How wealthy were they?
  • "literature to reach new heights in" Can we describe this a little more? This also sounds like an idiom.
  • The "Alternate name" section is really short. Can this be combined with an "Etomology" section explaining the origin of the empire's name?
  • The "History" section should be broken up with subheadings
  • "Differing theories have been proposed regarding the origins of the Vijayanagara empire. Historians propose two theories." Are there just two theories, or a variety of theories? One of these sentences can be removed.
  • "Historians such as P. B. Desai, Henry Heras, B.A. Saletore, G.S. Gai, William Coelho and Kamath in (Kamath 2001, pp. 157–160)" why is it important to name these people who support this theory, especially when some of them don't have wikipages and are possibly not notable? This origin story has four references, one of which is this footnote, which seems like WP:OVERCITE.
  • "Writings by foreign travelers during the late medieval era, combined with recent excavations in the Vijayanagara principality, uncovered information about the empire's history, fortifications, scientific developments and architectural innovations." What information was uncovered in this information? Either delete as it is not needed, or put it at the beginning of a paragraph that describes how we know information about the empire.
  • "Eight years later, from the ruins of the Kampili kingdom emerged the Vijayanagara Kingdom in 1336 CE" I am very confused by the origin story of the empire. Is everything above this line chronological? From my perspective, the first paragraph explains two origin stories, the second paragraph then talks about how the regions in the empire were raided by Muslims in the north, which I think happens before the origin stories of the first paragraph? Then the third paragraph explains the Kampili empire, which I also assume happens before the origin stories of the first paragraph? This should be rearranged so that it is chronological.

I'm going to pause there, because I think this is a lot to work on. Please ping me once this is complete. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

    • With regards to citations in the lead, I have come across FA's with and without them. There have been occasions when a FA did not have citations in the lead but later had to be added to avoid edit warring. I agree that most of the cited sentences in lead are also heavily cited in later sections but this does not satisfy some users. I am fine either way.Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:52, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Were there edit war concerns with this article? If there were, let's keep the citations. If not, I would like to consider removing them; in my opinion, articles are easier to read when there are less footnotes interspersed in the article and if the lede doesn't need them, they should be removed. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Some of the citations, such as their pastoral origin and extent of empire were added after some edit warring, though I can't recall when exactly. Removed a couple of citations.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    • The 'empires power and wealth' has been described succinctly in later sections such as the "History" and "Economy" sections. All that has been merely summarized in the lead with a single phrase. Is there any need to describe that in the lead in detail?Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      • After concluding a single readthrough of the lede, I do not feel that I have a sense of the empire's power or wealth. Many readers only read the lede and so it should summarise important aspects of the article. I think one sentence describing the geographical boundaries of the empire at its peak, and another describing its wealth would be appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
        • I have extended an existing line to describe its territorial reach. Its wealth is not a single physical quantity such as gems and precious stones but rather its vibrant economy which lead to construction of numerous fortifications, temples and monuments across south India and patronage to fine arts etc, none of which would have been possible without sufficient wealth. This is already explained in the last couple of lines of the 'History' section and in more detail in the economy, literature and architecture section.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Explained "fine arts and literature reached new heights" by naming specific (but not exhaustive) list of new genres of literature that gained popularity in this period. "..... such as astronomy, mathematics, medicine, novel, musicology, historical and theater gaining popularity. The classical music of Southern India, Carnatic music, evolved into its current form". To get a full idea of all this one has to dwell on sub-articles listed such as Vijayanagara literature in Kannada (also a FA) Haridasas of Vijayanagar Empire etc.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      • This list is a great addition. Can we change "novel" to "fiction" and "historical" to "historiography"? Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • "Historians such as P. B. Desai, Henry Heras..." All historians cited here are notable. Just because they don't have wiki pages as yet does not mean they are not notable. Their names have been moved into footnotes precisely to ensure there names don't clog up the article. Only those readers who are really interested can refer to the inline citation and do further research if they want to. Just my opinion.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Why is it important for a reader of this article to know that these historians support this origin story? Notable historians without articles should have a redlink. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Added few more links for notable historians. Their names are very important because this is by far the most contentious issue for those who have been following this article over the years.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    • "The "Alternate name" section.." Not sure how to handle this right now but the fact is in most books I have read on Vijayanagara empire, the authors use the terms "Karnata empire" or "Karnataka empire" along side its popular modern name. I have touched upon this in the section on "epigraphy".Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I think an etymology section would be good to add. If people living in the empire at the time called it something else, it would be worth mentioning and describing when historians assigned a new name to the empire. Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • The "History" section should be broken..." Please go ahead and split it. We can then make adjustments if necessary.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I am hesitant to split it myself because I would be picking arbitrary places and titles. How do sources split up the empire? Is there anything similar to how Ancient Egypt's history is split? Z1720 (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Initial sectioning done, please improve as required.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
          • Moved the main templates at the top to their subsections, combined "Origins" with "Muslim invasion" into a new section called "Background and origin theories" (to put the information chronologically and avoid a one-paragraph section) Changed "Birth of an empire" to "Early years" (as the section starts with the empire having already been formed, so it is not about its birth per se), Changed "Empire at it's peak" to "Empire's peak" for succinctness. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
    • "Writings by foreign travelers during the late medieval era..". I moved this line to the end of the "history" section. Is that okay?Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I'll check it when I get to that section. Z1720 (talk) 16:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The issue I raised above, of pipelinks and inconsistent naming, remains in the article. I would suggest it is addressing it would help Z1720 in their reading. CMD (talk) 14:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks CMD. I will take a look during my copyedit. Hopefully, the restructuring will address these concerns. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuing copyedit:

  • I changed "Eight years later, from the ruins of the Kampili kingdom emerged the Vijayanagara Kingdom in 1336 CE." to "The Vijayanagara Kingdom was founded as a successor to the Kampili Kingdom in 1336 CE" as the former was using an MOS:IDIOM. Can you check to ensure the new sentence is verified by the source, and if not change it to more accurate information?
  • Where does the Battle of Raichur fit into the empire's history, and can its hatnote be moved to the top of its section?
    • Belongs to 1520 war of King Krishnadevaraya with the Sultan Adil Shah of Bijapur in 1520 A.D.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "("master of the eastern and western seas")" What language is this translated from, and can it be put as a note?
    • The source must be an epigraph and the language is Sanskrit.Purva-east, Paschima-west, Samudra-ocean/sea,Dishavara-master of. Not sure how to put it in a note. Do you mean citation footnote?Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Italian traveler Niccolò de' Conti wrote of him as the most powerful ruler of India." This is great information for Deva Raya I's article, but I don't think its necessary for this article and can be deleted.
  • ", such as in 1436 when Sultan Ahmed I launched a war to collect the unpaid tribute." I don't think we need to include this example of a tribute war, as it is not actually linking to the war and its unclear why this war is highlighted while others are not.
  • "Deva Raya II (called Gajabetekara)" Who called him this?
  • "By 1436 the rebellious chiefs of Kondavidu and the Velama rulers were successfully dealt with." How were they "dealt with"? What was the consequence of their rebellion?
    • The rebelling chiefs were defeated and made to accept Vijayanagara over lordship.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "Contemporary Persian ambassador Abdur Razzak attributes" Does Abdur Razzak have a wikipage?
  • "After a few years of tranquility, wars broke out with the Bahamani Sultanate in 1443." What was the result of this war?
    • Some victories and some defeats in a series of low intensity wars, mostly.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • "He later defeated Bahmani forces and recovered most of the empire's earlier losses." Is there more information on this? A battle perhaps?
    • Usually if there is a battle of attrition, such a situation one cant expect a specific instance to be gloried.Pied Hornbill (talk) 01:38, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm confused, do you mean that this is not notable enough to have more info in the article? Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Well there was one Hindu Kingdom and five Sultanates that were vying for control over the entire Deccan for about 250 years. There were many battles won and lost on both sides, some more important and some not so, based on turning points in history. Its unrealistic to go into details of all battles.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
        • In most cases I have updated the info into the article based on each of your questions and concerns.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to pause there, but so far I am deleting lots of editorializing statements like "astute general", "his able governor" and wikilinking names. Can someone readthrough the whole article and remove editorializing statements like these and help with the wikilinking? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I realized that my comments are going to be numerous. In an effort to keep this FAR short, I am going to continue posting comments and questions on the article's talk page here. Z1720 (talk) 17:11, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I will take a closer look at your comments in the talk page over the weekend.Pied Hornbill (talk) 02:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I have issues with the content. Please keep this FAR on hold for a few more days. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm waiting for Pied Hornbill or another editor to address concerns I left on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I addressed your concerns a few days back and left responses on the articles talk page.Pied Hornbill (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
        • Whoops, sorry I missed that! I will take a look at it in the coming days. If I don't respond by next week, please ping me on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Update: work got delayed because of people's schedules but I hope it picks up this week. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Made updates yesterday based on comments on article talk page.Pied Hornbill (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Z1720 and Pied Hornbill: Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I will look into the remaining concerns most probably this long weekend.Pied Hornbill (talk) 21:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Working on the remaining concerns. Will finish in a day or two.Pied Hornbill (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
        • Pied Hornbill, is this now done? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
          • There was one concern that Z1720 had, that is the portion on "caste system" in the section "Social life" was too long and could be trimmed or merged. But I expanded it in the first place because there was a concern that it was too short. I can take a look at it again shortly when I have time. Otherwise I have dealt with all the concerns mentioned in this FAR.Pied Hornbill (talk) 22:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
            • @Pied Hornbill: The caste system is currently part of the "Social life" section. Is there a way to split that section, perhaps putting the explanation of the caste system in its own section? This might solve my length concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Izno, Tayi Arajakate, RetiredDuke, Chipmunkdavis, and SandyGeorgia: What issues are outstanding from your perspective? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I haven't looked at all deeply into the revisions, but I note my specific example of a piping issue from my comment on 8 May 2021 is unaddressed. CMD (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Seems like it was addressed. Only reference made in the bibliography are the introduction (authored by the editors themselves) and sections by individual historians. Did I misunderstand your concern?Pied Hornbill (talk) 23:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
        • I made a general comment on clarity regarding prose and piping, using Sayana as a specific example of an issue. Given that specific example remains in place, it is likely others within the general comment remain. CMD (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Improvements were made in the review section but the review seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Pied Hornbill: I would hate it if your efforts resulted in a delist. Are you still interested in fixing up the article? I think this is salvagable and I'm willing to help. Z1720 (talk) 00:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Hi all. Sorry I was out of the country and just got back last night. Lets see what we can do from this week onward.Pied Hornbill (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Please list further improvements you want. This has been going on for months with no one else interested in fixing the article, least of all the user who brought this to FAR.Pied Hornbill (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

@Izno: could you please summarize any issues remaining? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

  • The article uses some harvnbs and some sfns for citations; one ends with punctuation, the other doesn’t, so citation is inconsistent. Which is wanted?
  • Is is part I and part II, or Part I and Part II in citations? Right now, we have a mixture.
  • There is considerable MOS:OVERLINK (I left a few sample edits, but it is a lot to fix). user:Evad37/duplinks-alt can be installed to review duplicate links (some are useful, but not when occurrinig just sentences apart).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I nominated it for FAR based both on the previous comments (comprehensive/well-researched) as well as inconsistent citation style; I'll only take responsibility for the latter, but since you were kind enough to look already... it's still at issue. Izno (talk) 16:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I have very little experience with citation types and styles and will be dependent on you guys to improve that.Pied Hornbill (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
So, the first thing is just for you all to look at the differences in formatting between the harvnbs and the sfns, and decide which you want. I can (although time limited due to Thanksgiving) help with making them consistent if you opt to switch to all sfns, but I have never used harvnbs— kind of a neophyte myself in this area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for having dropped this midway. I know the article was expanded during the FAR so give me a couple days, I'll take a look at the comprehensiveness/well-researched part. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Tayi Arajakate: Compare this section with Battle of Talikota (drafted by me.) This is far from a FA. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Okay so.. I am sorry to say this but the article needs a re-write. There are some fairly serious sourcing issues here.
  • Nilakanta Sastri 1955 (38 out of 176 citations) is definitely obsolete. It's a tertiary source largely based on colonial period historiography.
  • Kamath 2001 (36 out of 176 citations) is likely a fringe source, the author is a supporter of Indigenous Aryanism. In addition, it's another tertiary source which attempts to recount the history of Karnataka from "pre-historic times to the present". Why not use sources which directly address the topic? This issue exists with otherwise reliable sources in the article, many of which are tertiary sources featuring a simplified account of a "History of India/South India/Karnataka" that only briefly touch upon the subject.
  • Shiva Prakash 1997 (4 citations) is a primary literary anthology being used to source facts in the section on religion.
  • Rice 2001 (3 citations) is very obsolete. It's a reprint of a 1897 Gazette. Lewis Rice was a civil servant from the colonial period.
  • Mahalingam 1940 (3 citations) is again an obsolete source.
  • Sewell 1901 (2 citations) is an obsolete source as well. This is colonial historiography 101, Robert Sewell was a civil servant much like Rice.
  • Karmarkar 1947 (ref 30) is again an obsolete tertiary source based on colonial period historiography.
  • Rebel Sultans: The Deccan from Khilji to Shivaji (ref 53) is a popular history book written by a doctoral student.
  • Subhash Kak's History of Science and Philosophy of Science (ref 166) is fringe by all accounts. Kak, who has no training in history, is quite well known for making some extraordinary claims about Indian History.
In the end, at least 89 out of the 176 citations are to unreliable sources let alone high quality reliable sources. That said, there are some high quality reliable sources present in the article but for some reason they are barely used? For example, The New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara is a secondary source entirely about the subject but is cited on only 3 occasions. Though of course there are others which are not used at all; to give an example Stoker 2016 would have been quite useful for the section on culture. Without even going into comprehensiveness, the article at present is plainly not representative of the relevant literature. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Your rejection of these two sources, K. A. Nilakanta Sastri and Suryanath U. Kamath is for reasons best described as weak (and hopefully not political). You claimed Sastri is British era though his last book was published in 1975. You claim Kamath is a Aryan theory revisionist (making it a post-British era issue) though it has nothing to do with this article and his last book was published in 2009 and pertained to his empire itself. Please make up your mind whether you are anti-British era or anti-post British era. Both are decorated historians and well respected. A quick look at the other sources you have issues with, they usually appear to be used as an 'additional source' and not the 'only source'. Can we expect you to get your hands dirty instead of sitting on a high perch? I would like to excuse myself from this article now.Pied Hornbill (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
It's not very relevant when they published their last books unless those books are being used in the article. Sastri's work that is being used in the article is a tertiary source that extensively cites the likes of Sewell and Rice. There is not much difference in directly using them from using the book, note also that it's not just the British themselves but also their contemporary nationalist scholarship, that are obsolete now. On the other hand, Kamath's support for a fringe theory does indicate that he may deviate significantly from mainstream scholarship in general; it might have been useful if his book was published by a peer reviewed academic press but none of his works appear to have been. We need both recent and mainstream scholarship, one doesn't have to choose between the two. The remaining listed sources are sometimes cited alongside other sources in the article, sure but not most of the times and in many of the cases, the other cited source is Sastri or Kamath. Take for example Shiva Prakash 1997, where in 3 out of 4 cases it's the sole citation while in the remaining one it's cited along with both Nilakanta Sastri 1955 and Kamath 2001. I would suggest that you take a look at WP:HISTRS. This is a volunteer project, one doesn't need to do anything, I'm just pointing out the issues with the article and at present the article needs an overhaul to be of standards. Tayi Arajakate Talk 08:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist per Tayi Arajakate's source analysis. I think it's reasonable to conclude that several of these sources are not in fact high-quality RS as required by the FA criteria. Also, citation formatting is inconsistent. (t · c) buidhe 04:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

2003 Pacific hurricane season[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Tropical cyclones, diff

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not up to current FA standards. It has some entirely unsourced sections, other unsourced text, mostly relies on a single primary source (National Hurricane Center), and in general is quite short and lacking in comprehensive analysis. CMD (talk) 04:11, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

  • The storm sections are definitely a bit short, but it's not that different structure wise from other FA's. It's not the articles fault that most of the storms affected land and the overall sourcing distribution is similar to other articles. The unsourced bits can be addressed easily as the same references are used in other articles. I do think the seasonal summary section could be beffed up but for something promoted 15 years ago, it's pretty decent I'd say. YE Pacific Hurricane 17:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @Chipmunkdavis: - As FAR nominator, how does the progress look? There's been some work, but it looks like the names section is still unsourced, as is the damages section. I'm also concerned that the damages material is a bit contradictory at times - For instance, the table states that Olaf affected both Texas and Mexico, and had "minimal" damage, while the prose describes severe flooding that affected thousands of homes, but makes no mention of TX. Hog Farm Talk 05:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
    • It still doesn't look up to scratch, with (what I presume is) the low-hanging fruit not dealt with. Regarding comparisons to other FAs as mentioned above, my reference was 2005 Atlantic hurricane season which went through FAR in 2020. Even in the case there's not as much to say for this article as there is for that one in Seasonal forecasts and Seasonal summary, the Storm names and Season effects sections are areas this article should match. CMD (talk) 06:23, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I can deal with the low hanging fruit. As for the previous comment about Olaf, "severe flooding"!="minimal damage" per se, as "flooding" is not "damage". YE Pacific Hurricane 08:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: The last edit to the article was September 26. @Yellow Evan: are you finished with fixing up this article? If so, post here and others (like me) will review the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
    • I've done some things but I still need to copyedit it and need to make all the referencing consistent. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist, no improvements since September 26, as mentioned two weeks ago by Z1720. FAR strives to keep nominations open as long as possible, particularly when work is ongoing, but several current FARs are stretching the limits of that generosity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Chipmunkdavis: - would you be able to take another look at this, to see if your concerns are still outstanding? Hog Farm Talk 13:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • They do, there remains an entirely unsourced section. CMD (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • Sourced; in the past, the season effect charts did not have a source option and it is the same information that is presented that's already listed in the prose but since that's changed, I added it. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I see @Yellow Evan: did some more work on 11/2, although a skim reveals some issues to me, as well. There are prose issues such as "Overall, 6,000 people were affected and total damage from the storm was $100 million.[45] Overall, 6,000 people were affected and total damage from the storm was estimated at $100 million" appearing in the Marty section, the predictions table does not seem to be fully sourced, the various low pressure measurements don't seem to be cited anywhere, and some other issues. Hog Farm Talk 18:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Fixed the rest, but what do you mean by "low pressure measurements don't seem to be cited anywhere"? Are you talking about the infobox? Past seasonal articles have passed FAC without that being an issue and I'm not really sure I can squeeze a citation in the infobox. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @Yellow Evan: - Each of the little infoboxes for the storms in the section for each system contains an unsourced statement giving what the lowest pressure for each system was. Surely this can be worked into the prose description of the system and cited there, like the max wind speeds for each storm are? Hog Farm Talk 17:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
          • They should be sourced in the seasonal effects table. YE Pacific Hurricane 01:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Globular cluster[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Astronomy, diff for talk page notification

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because more than a month ago, Hog Farm stated on talk, "We've got lots of uncited text here, as well as many of the sources being from before 2005. This needs additional citations and an update with newer sources." There have not been any edits to the article since. I did not notify the FAC nominator as they have retired and not edited since 2014. (t · c) buidhe 17:54, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment: can you explain why you arbitrarily picked the year 2005 as a cut-off criteria? Data collected from before that time should still be relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Praemonitus I don't know how quickly research becomes outdated in this field but ideally one should only cite current/up-to-date research. The 2005 suggestion is from Hog Farm. (t · c) buidhe 18:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I would have to say it depends on the subject. Some topics get researched more frequently, and others are more or less settled and rarely get an update. Praemonitus (talk) 18:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
        • @Praemonitus and Buidhe: - 2005 wasn't suppose to have any innate meaning, rather just more of a rough estimate of when most of the sources seem to predate. I lack the knowledge about the topic to deem the pace of research in this subject, but for an article about an active science, there are quite likely new discoveries and theories over the last 15 years. Although astronomy editors may have a better idea of the extent of that. Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
References older than 2005 shouldn't automatically, or even generally, be considered inappropriate. Plenty of information isn't going to change, historical stuff most obviously, but also general background astronomy and physics. Obviously, any theories which have changed significantly in recent decades or are still in flux should have up-to-date references. Lithopsian (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Fully agreed (@Lithopsian:). However, one thing that has changed since 2005 is the view that most globular clusters are simple stellar populations, which is now dead (but still canonical, so still worth mentioning). I've updated that with a 2018 review article. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 06:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
@Ashill recently saved Star pre-FAR. Does your interest extend to globular clusters? FemkeMilene (talk) 18:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
I took a quick look through. My impression is that the article is mostly pretty good. The statements that don’t have inline references are mostly what I would fit in the subject-specific common knowledge area of WP:WTC (things that are in any introductory astronomy textbook), so I wouldn’t challenge their verifiability. I tagged a couple things that could use improvement and can return when I have the time. Also, many of the older references are totally fine. Globular clusters are slightly odd in that they serve as a lingua franca of “standard” knowledge in astronomy, and Wikipedia should (and does) present that encyclopedic standard knowledge. That’s what older references in the research literature will state; newer ones don’t bother, not because the old references are outdated but because they’re common knowledge in the field. There are plenty of newer results that tweak that common knowledge with exceptions; this article does a good job, I think, of avoiding going down those rabbit holes citing new results. So I actually think it’s a good thing that this article avoids being based too much on new results. That philosophical comment aside, there are clearly some things that could be improved; I’ll try to work on it but may not have time for a while. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 15:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I've added references everywhere that was tagged. No attempt to address older references yet. Lithopsian (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC)