Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2023

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Kept

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [1].

His Majesty's Theatre, London

Notified: [2], May 2023

I am nominating this featured article for review because of several issues raised on talk by SandyGeorgia and other editors, including "unreliable sources, ... image layout issues, ... appears hardly updated or watched", MOS:LEAD issues, and failed verification (t · c) buidhe 04:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article was taken to FA in 2008 by that fine editor the late Kevin Thompson. He died in 2010, which I think explains why the page has been "hardly updated or watched". I'll have a good look at it and see what I can do. From a first canter through I see nothing of concern so far as accuracy is concerned (though one can't predict what a close scrutiny will throw up). The citation and referencing most definitely need work, and there are some attributions to sources I am unconvinced by.
Detailed preliminary comments:
  • From a first read-through I see numerous books cited without page numbers. I can probably fix those (the British Library is not far away). For any I can't fix I can look for alternative reliable sources to cite.
  • Books are sometimes cited – with or without adequate bibliographical detail – in the Notes section and sometimes in the References section. I can fix all these. I'll put all the books and bibliographical info together in the References section.
  • The lead has been messed up by recent additions that ought to be in the main text with citations (with possibly a brief uncited mention in the lead). I can fix these.
  • As to reliability of sources, I see several to a website I should not personally wish to rely on, The Guide to Musical Theatre, but I can replace those with citations from Gänzl and Lamb's authoritative work, which I have to hand, or failing that from The Times.
  • There are a couple of citations to the Arthur Lloyd site. I don't know if it has been formally recognised as a WP:RS but I have never caught it napping, and I can't recall seeing any conflict between it and Mander and Mitchenson, for example. I'll let those stand unless anyone objects.
  • There are some press citations without page numbers: at first glance I think I can fix all of these.
I'll know more once I have started a line-by-line check on accuracy and verification. I can see that taking at least a week. Report follows. Tim riley talk 08:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My one comment on a quick scan is one of the last lines of the article, and that is I believe Really Useful Theatres has rebranded to LW Theatres. Good luck with the FA Nom Mark E (talk) 08:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley, thanks for taking this on. No hurry at FAR, but please provide weekly updates on progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my apologies for appearing careless in missing the death of Kevin Thompson-- a problem with using WP:MMS for notifications is that you don't go to user talk personally :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has been a labour of love working on the article in Kevin's absence. He was a helpful WP colleague and a delightful man in real life. I fondly recall trips to London pubs and to Chatsworth House with him and his wife. Every time I have made a change to his text here I have asked myself 'What would Kevin have thought?', but how often I got it right I cannot guess. Tim riley talk 10:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the MOS:SANDWICHing and images placed at bottoms of sections (MOS:ACCESS), in this section, see MOS:IMAGELOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • SandyGeorgia, I have finished a first pass through the text, removing uncited/unverifiable material and adding material where I thought it necessary. I have not previously done an overhaul in pursuance of a featured article review, and I should be grateful for your thoughts (and those of any other editors, naturally) on the text as it now stands. Have I replaced so much that the FA status approved in 2008 can still stand? Are the citations now all right? Are the images OK now? Tim riley talk 10:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Image layout looks good.
      A google search (and the Poke article itself) reveals it should be easy to replace the IMDb reference.
      Buidhe are you satisfied with the lead now?
      Will continue reading as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing and citation queries:

  • IMDb can be replaced (higher quality sources are available).
  • I am unfamiliar with http://www.overthefootlights.co.uk/ ... is it high quality/reliable?
    "Over the Footlights" is an online UK theatre and music hall history encyclopedia created by Vivyan Ellacott, an opera and theatre manager and director, who has been researching London theatres for many years. He started his career with BBC TV in Cardiff and soon worked in stage management at the Royal Opera House before moving into management as a staff producer with the Welsh National Opera and then as manager of the Swansea Grand theatre. He was General Manager and Artistic Director of the Kenneth More Theatre in Ilford for 35 years. He served for 8 years on the Theatres Advisory Council, 12 years as Chairman of the Commercial Theatre Managers Association of Great Britain, and 30 years as Trustee of the UK Theatre Council. He wrote a book called "London Theatres from the Ealiest Times to Date". The website uses such sources as Mander and Mitchenson, W. Macqueen Pope, Errol Sherson and Diana Howard, as well as research at London libraries and at theatre institutions like the Theatres Trust. In my experience, when he finds sources questionable, or evidence thin, he usually says so.
    I've replaced it with a book source (Mander and Mitchenson). Tim riley talk 17:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like he meets WP:SPS then; maybe you could keep both sources, for accessibility? Whatever you think best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On citation consistency, I see one journal article (Smith) listed in Sources and using short notes, while some other journal articles use ref tags (eg https://www.jstor.org/stable/3359110); what is the style used?
    My normal practice, as here, is to put refs to a short or single-page journal article in the citations and to put in the sources section multi-page articles of which I refer to various pages (treating them like books in effect) in the citations. This seems to me to give readers the quickest route into the sources, but I am quite happy to alter it here if wanted. Tim riley talk 17:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine (I often do same); just asking for clarification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these steers. Any more will be gladly received. I am still uncertain whether my fairly extensive changes to Kevin's text invalidate the 2008 FAC review, and would be grateful for advice on that point. Tim riley talk 17:09, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley I'm unsure what the concern is or where the notion that an FA must stay as it passed FAC comes from. FAR reviews existing FAs to the same standards as FAC reviews non-existing FAs. Most articles change over time. In no way does updating, improving or changing an FA mean it cannot be determined to meet FA standards via FAR, just as it can via FAC. Perhaps a re-read of the instructions and description at WP:FAR will help? Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding the question. At any point, if a reviewer believes this article does not meet WP:WIAFA, then they can declare "Move to FARC", where !voting can proceed. Else, others can declare in this stage "Close without FARC", if they believe standards are met. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you – that's most reassuring. It was just that I had added and removed so much of the original FA text. (A friend of mine was for some time responsible for the Cutty Sark at Greenwich, and he told me there were none of the original timbers left in place: all had been renewed one by one over the decades: so is it the same ship? And is this the same FA article?) Happy to leave it to you and other reviewers now to decide if the FA status is still appropriate. Tim riley talk 19:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley as an informed editor, your opinion matters, and you can enter a declaration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I have had a friendly hand guiding me through an unfamiliar process, and I thank you most warmly. Tim riley talk 19:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More queries:

  • The Background section near the top ends with this sentence: "These three post-interregnum theatres defined the shape and use of modern theatres." Is it just saying that later theatres were generally modelled on them in terms of the shape and use (meaning proscenium stage, auditorium with seats facing the front?), or does it mean something that I am not understanding about "modern" theatres and the time period being defined? Also, would you please confirm my understanding that it means that the two patent theatres were the only two theatres in London prior to 1705? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the first part of your question, I take the phrase to mean the former. There had been roofed theatres in the early Stuart period before the miserable Commonwealth closed them down, but the Restoration houses were recognisably on the same model as some still operating today, notably Covent Garden. As to the latter, no: it would be more precise to refer to the patent companies rather than to the patent theatres - the King's Company and the Duke's Company - although each was based at only one theatre at a time, and so the term "patent theatre" is not inaccurate. There were other theatres, not licensed to present straight plays.
The sentence (and indeed paragraph) is very confusing. If there were other theatres that, like Queens, were not licensed, why was Queens the first alternative to the licensed theatres? And how did its "use" differ from those other, or earlier, theatres? Can you please re-examine that paragraph? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted para. Tim riley talk 18:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the next section, the article says: "Later in the season Vanbrugh presented a comedy, The Confederacy". Was a non-patent theatre allowed to present a comedy without music? If so, we should clarify this in the Lead and the previous section, where we say that only the patent theatres could perform plays, and also clarify what we mean by "drama", "plays" (including comedies) and plays with or without music -- was incidental music enough to permit a play to be presented? Near the end of the section we use the term "serious drama". The patent theatre article does not clear this up at all. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original plan after the Restoration in 1660 was that the two patent companies were to be the only ones allowed to stage drama, but in the words of one historian, this rule was "frequently challenged and altered". Managers of the two patent companies did not need a licence, but other managers could seek one, and "By the 1720s the rules about who could legally offer plays had become fuzzy and their enforcement lax ... While spoken drama was technically limited to the patent houses, other venues began to stretch the boundaries." This is from Kinservik, Matthew (2003). "patent theatres", Oxford Encyclopedia of Theatre and Performance, Oxford University Press, 2005, and by all means add from it to the text or as a footnote if you think it clarifies something that needs clarifying. Tim riley talk 08:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Would you kindly add a footnote with this explanation, citing Kinservik? -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with the text as it is, but, as I say above, please add from this quote if you wish. Tim riley talk 18:15, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've added a note after the mention of the comedy being presented. Please check that I've followed your note/citation scheme properly. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and slightly tweaked. Tim riley talk 15:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says that in 1708 the actors left the theatre, and "Vanbrugh concentrated on opera". Vanbrugh's article says that he sold his interest in the theatre in 1708. Did he continue to manage it after that? Also, you mention someone named "Swiney" who "fled abroad" sometime before 1719. Did this Swiney buy out the lease in 1708? -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:53, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the article carefully you will see Swiney introduced at the appropriate point. I have no idea what the article on Vanbrugh says, but the facts are as stated here. Tim riley talk 19:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. I couldn't find it because it was misspelled -- the name is Swiny, not Swiney. But did Vanbrugh continue to manage the theatre after that? If not, why do we say that he "concentrated on opera"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He did. Tim riley talk 19:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Do your sources say when his management of the theatre ended? We say that "John James Heidegger took over the management" when Swiny fled, implying that Swiny was managing the theatre, rather than Vanbrugh. Can we clarify the management timeline? -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My sources are available online, via the links indicated. Pray feel free to consult them and redraw here as you wish. Tim riley talk 23:13, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! I see what the problem is. I've clarified that Vanbrugh gave up management by 1708. Swiny took on various partners, and management of the theatre was different in different seasons. It seems too complicated and trivial to put in all the management changes while Swiny was leasholder. Swiny's article says that he declared bankruptcy in 1713, citing the following source, but I cannot access it. Can you, User:SandyGeorgia?: Kenny, Shirley Strum (1972). "A Broadside Prologue by Farquhar". Studies in Bibliography. 25: 179–185. ISSN 0081-7600.. It would be good to add in that year with the cite, if someone can verify that it says so. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:04, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot ... sorry :( I do not have journal access, and I can't get it via WP:TWL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing in that JSTOR link concerning Swiny after 1706, Ssilvers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same section says that a "Royal Academy of Music" was formed to support Handel's productions. Was this different from the Royal Academy of Music that was formed in 1722? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See the footnote that explains this. Tim riley talk 19:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't find where this RADA bit is mentioned in the body of the article? "The building, designed by Charles J. Phipps, was constructed in 1897 for the actor-manager Herbert Beerbohm Tree, who established the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art at the theatre." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oopsie, now found it (but we need some sorting of the acronym, used inconsistently in lead v. body). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Added acronym in brackets in the lead. Tim riley talk 18:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where do I find in the body of the article text/citations backing the spectacular in the lead? "In the early decades of the 20th century Tree produced spectacular productions of Shakespeare and other classical works". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the existing "he staged the plays in ways that appealed to spectators' taste for elaborate spectacle and realistic scenery and scenic effects" should suffice. Tim riley talk 18:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah ha ... good enough. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be insufficiently caffeinated this morning; where do I find in the body the text/citations backing this statement in the lead ? "Legitimate drama unaccompanied by music was prohibited by law in all but the two London patent theatres, ... "
    In Background: "In the late 17th century there were two patent theatre companies, licensed to stage plays without music". Tim riley talk 18:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is licensed enough to encompass prohibited by law; can we tighten that ? The lead of patent theatre does say others were prohibited by law, but it would good for the reader to not have to click out to understand that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. In fact (not sure whether it is Kevin or I who must be blamed) "licensed" is not quite the correct term, for technical legal reasons I shan't bore everyone with. Legally allowed is what we're talking about, and the tweak is duly twuck. Tim riley talk 19:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you all run through the lead and make sure everything is in the body? Then I suspect we are close to closing this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all set here. @Buidhe, Z1720, Hog Farm, Extraordinary Writ, Aza24, and Firefangledfeathers: Tim riley and Ssilvers, you also can opine whether the article is at FA standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Missed some, @Mark E and AirshipJungleman29: to opine whether we are there yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And @DrKay: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope it's still of FA standard, but as I see from the talk page statistics I have now written more of it than Kevin took to FA I don't think I can conscientiously express an opinion. Tim riley talk 20:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to comment on except the rather irritatingly drab and dirty infobox image (I don't think the building has looked that brown in years, and the grey skies don't help!); perhaps there's a more up-to-date one lying around, or with all the good weather right now I might venture out and take a picture myself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's bucketing down here now in N1, a couple of miles or so from the theatre. But point taken. Shall look for better (or take my own if the monsoon lets up). Tim riley talk 19:45, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's any less drab, but File:Her Majesty's Theatre - Westminster, London, England 12298067136 o.jpg is actually of higher quality than the current image (5,137 × 3,425 pixels, versus the current image's 1,244 × 889 pixels). Then again, I don't think I've ever seen the building when it wasn't drab, so take this suggestion with a grain of salt. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to give it a read-through tomorrow afternoon or Monday. Hog Farm Talk 01:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks mostly OK to me, but I don't feel confident evaluating as I know little about the topic. (t · c) buidhe 01:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not finding the "vile and absurd edifice" quote from Malcolm in the cited source? Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1853 Robert Browning's Colombe's Birthday played at the theatre. The Morning Post described it as "a delicate wreath of poetic flowers", too subtle for theatregoers accustomed to coarser offerings, and it was not a success" - the sources are newspaper reports dated 1863 - I'm assuming it's not a 10-year retrospective, so is either the 1853 or 1863 dates incorrect? Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Her Majesty's Theatre in 1867.jpg - licensing is problematic, as there is no file source Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the theatre remained dark until 1874, when it was sold to a Revivalist Christian group for £31,000" is what the article says, but the source only says "The new theatre remained empty until 1875, when it was opened for 'the evangelistic meetings of Messrs. Moody and Sankey" Hog Farm Talk 18:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first in 2008 for the installation of a new sound systems and the second from March 2020 to July 2021 when London theatres closed because of the COVID-19 pandemic – the show has (at June 2023) been running at the theatre since 1986. It is the second longest-running West End musical in history (after Les Misérables)" - not in source, which is an award list Hog Farm Talk 18:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the image with licensing issues. So leaning close w/o FARC now. Hog Farm Talk 19:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Image replaced with appropriate licence details. Tim riley talk 21:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect we are heading towards Close w/o FARC, but I just won't have time to read through until some time next week; life got crazy in both good and bad ways. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some concerns listed below:

  • "The original Victorian stage machinery remains beneath the stage of the theatre; the designer, Maria Björnson, found a way to use it "to show the Phantom travelling across the lake as if floating on a sea of mist and fire", in a scene in the musical." is cited to an obituary without an author. Is this source reliable, or should another source be found?
  • The Daily Telegraph, although editorially a notoriously Tory-biased paper, is a reliable source for news coverage, and like the similarly Tory The Times it never gives its obituaries a by-line. Tim riley talk 17:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The theatre is one of forty featured in the 2012 DVD documentary series Great West End Theatres, presented by Donald Sinden." Why is this notable, and not trivia?
  • Clearly an addition since the article was promoted to FA. Looks all right to me – this was a substantial series presented by one of our leading thesps – but happy to blitz if other editors think it trivial. Tim riley talk 17:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that when that documentary was first mentioned in many of our theatre articles, there was a discussion about whether it was WP:NOTEWORTHY to mention, but I do not remember what the gist of the conclusion was, or even what my opinion was at the time -- I suspect that there was a consensus to add it, as it is still mentioned in 18 Wikipedia articles. User:SandyGeorgia, can you find the discussion(s) about it? What do you think about it from a WP:DUE point of view? If it makes any difference to anyone, I note that removing it would cause the image to the right to run down into the refs section and cause a lot of empty white space. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article looks OK, will take another look after the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep my concerns listed above have been addressed, and are minor enough that their resolution won't make much of a difference to the quality of this article. I have no further concerns. Z1720 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [3].

Tech Tower

Notified: MaxVeers, Disavian WP Architecture, WP Higher Ed, WP Georgia, WP Georgia Tech, WP NRHP, noticed 2023-06-03

Review section

I noticed this article about a month ago due to concerns with low-quality sourcing and source-text integrity issues. This is from the same nominator as Wikipedia:Featured article review/ANAK Society/archive1; our other one or two Ga. Tech FAs might need scrutiny as well given the sourcing concerns in both of these. Hog Farm Talk 02:32, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC) [4].

Sherman Minton

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2022-10-10

Review section

This 2011 FA has similar source-to-text integrity issues found in other articles from the same FAC nominator, which have not been addressed since the 2022-10-10 talk page notice. Because of the similar issues found in all other articles, I suggest a check of all offline sources will be needed if this article is to retain FA status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Per EW's comments below, I look forward to (hopefully) see this saved! Z1720 (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I went through a few paragraphs tonight verifying and rewriting (thankfully most of the sources are online). I think this might be saveable, but I'll have to go through and check/revise everything sentence by sentence, which will obviously take a while. Not sure whether I'll have the time to do all that, but I'll try—how about I give everyone a status update in a few weeks' time? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Extraordinary Writ do you have a verdict yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I've seen, it does still seem to be saveable: source-to-text integrity is a bit of a mess, but most of the issues don't take too long to fix (either by finding the right page number or just removing the claim altogether). I've been pretty busy recently but will try to make some more progress in the next couple of weeks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Extraordinary Writ: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still on my radar, but I've been fairly busy lately and haven't made much progress. I don't want this to linger in FAR forever, but I'm hoping to have more time available soon, so let's give it a few more weeks. If I still haven't gotten anything done by the end of the month, it might be best to go forward with delisting, at least for the time being. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*Move to FARC per the comment above, no significant edits since May. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per EW comment (perhaps more improvements will happen in the next phase). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Verifiability issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This still needs a substantial amount of work, and I just haven't had the interest recently to get that work done. Apologies for dragging this out longer than it needed to be. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per EW. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per EW, no edits since May to the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:32, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per EW. Hog Farm Talk 13:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:33, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [5].

Maria: or, The Wrongs of Woman

Notified: various, May 2023

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the concerns in the talk page notice, which have not been resolved. Only significant contributor is deceased. (t · c) buidhe 17:42, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC outstanding maintenance tags, no edits to address concerns. (t · c) buidhe 23:29, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC missing recent scholarship and citation needed tags have not been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC no progress, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [6].

National Football League Players Association

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2023-04-04

Review section

This 2012 FA has not been maintained to standard. The talk page notice mentions factual errors, failure to meet comprehensive, dated content, and style issues. Additionally, I note short stubby sections, and (MOS:CURRENT) "new" section heading about a 2014 drug policy. It appears that a comprehensive update and upgrade is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC no edits to address concerns (t · c) buidhe 23:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC so significant edits since Tamzin voiced their concerns, and someone will need to verify a lot of statements for this to be kept, which has not happened yet. Z1720 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency, comprehensiveness, verifiability, and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC) [7].

Kākāpō

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notice 2022-12-03

Review section

This 2004 FA promotion (before inline citations were required) was reviewed at FAR in 2007 (before standards improved). It's FAC nominator has not edited since 2006, and the article has not been maintained to standard; it has 16 citation needed tags. The talk page notice from last December indicates that a thorough review of sourcing is in order, and datedness should be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Prose issues are easily spotted everywhere; samples: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • The meat of kākāpō made good eating and was considered by Māori to be a delicacy[58] and it was hunted for food when it was still widespread.[97] -->The Māori considered the meat of kākāpō a delicacy[58] and, when the bird was widespread, hunted it for food.[97]
    • Also taken by the Māori were the bird's eggs, which are described as whitish "but not pure white", and about the same size as a kererū egg.[96] --> Why are the eggs not described elsewhere in the article, then --> The Māori also used the bird's eggs for food.[96]
    • As well as eating the meat of the kākāpō, Māori would use kākāpō skins with the feathers still attached or individually weave in kākāpō feathers with flax fibre to create cloaks and capes.
    • Not only were these garments considered very beautiful, they also kept the wearer very warm.[97][100] They were highly valued, and the few still in existence today are considered taonga (treasures), so much so that the old Māori adage "You have a kākāpō cape and you still complain of the cold" was used to describe someone who is never satisfied.[97] Kākāpō feathers were also used to decorate the heads of taiaha, but were removed before use in combat. (Count the alsos and the redundant very and run-on sentence.)
  • Flow and organization issues: as a sample, look at the Supplementary feeding section, which has relevant information about a lot more than supplementary feeding.

It is hard to find a section with prose and flow at FA standards. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz I see you have done a lot of work here, but there is still considerable uncited text. Is it your intent to attempt to restore the article to Featured status, or should we proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be keen to try and help out where I can to keep the article at Featured, but I haven't done something like this before and may not have time to do the whole thing myself if there are other interested editors. Turnagra (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia: I intend to work a little more on the article and add some citations. I'll also try to replace some of the unsuitable references. But this article is a very long way from the current FA standard and I'm not sufficiently interested in this particular parrot to spend the amount of time needed to bring the article up to the required level. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you; that is as I feared, so Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm Talk 19:33, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, currency and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - sourcing needs additional work yet. Hog Farm Talk 01:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aa77zz: I see in the article history that you worked on updating this article. Are you interested in addressing the article's concerns? Z1720 (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, some improvement but not to FA standard (Z1720 Aa77zz already answered that question above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above, and sourcing concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist to commence the process of bringing the article up to modern FA standards. Arlo James Barnes 20:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria on 15 July and processed manually by SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Miller in the 1946–47 Australian cricket season

Notified: YellowMonkey (last edit was 2010), WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Cricket, WikiProject Australia, 2023-07-06

This is a procedural listing at FAR because this article has been nominated for deletion. Editors are encouraged to join the discussion at its deletion discussion page. Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [8].

Isle of Portland

Notified: [9], 16 May

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues with updating and citations. (t · c) buidhe 04:50, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC lack of improvement (t · c) buidhe 17:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC concerns not addressed. Hog Farm Talk 13:25, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [10].

Conatus

Notified: Lacatosias, Zbxgscqf, WikiProject Systems, WikiProject Psychology, WikiProject Philosophy, 2022-09-27

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues I've discovered with WP:OR along with factual errors in the article prior to my edits in September, where it appeared that a variety of WP:SYNTH inferences were made to connect Spinoza's concept to a variety of similar looking ideas throughout Greek, Roman, and Arabic philosophy. I believe I removed most of the original research at this point, but the article itself is fairly short and I'm not convinced it's comprehensive now that it's been trimmed of all of those unjustified inclusions. - car chasm (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Carchasm I have fixed (above) the talk page notification from September. Please read the instructions at WP:FAR and complete the rest of the notifications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry about that, I believe I misunderstood the instructions; After re-reading I've now notified the nominator, other principal contributors (other than myself) and the three wikiprojects whose templates are on the page. Please let me know if there is anything else I missed! - car chasm (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good now, thanks! (No need to apologize; I just like to make sure first-time FAR nominators learn the ropes :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Carchasm have any of your concerns been addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as the article is concerned, not at all - It appears I'm still the last person to make any significant edits to the page at all; it doesn't look like either of the major contributors notified above are still active. - car chasm (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC I doubt the article is comprehensive, especially since several sources listed as references are not cited. (t · c) buidhe 20:32, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include original research and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Now less than half the size of the promoted version; comprehensiveness concerns. DrKay (talk) 15:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Comprehensive concerns, per DrKay above. Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:29, 15 July 2023 (UTC) [11].

Interactions (The Spectacular Spider-Man)

Notified: SuperFlash101, WikiProject Comics, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Animation, 2021-04-06 2023-05-12

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns about the quality of sources used for the article on the talk page that have not been addressed including If Magazine, Mania, s8.org, and Ultimate Disney. It seems like the quality of these sources were addressed in the FAC but I'm not sure if those arguments would be accepted in a 2023 FAC. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd agree on a look through that Mania and Ultimate Disney probably don't make the cut. If Magazine I'm a little less sure about. S8.org should be fine as a primary source (it's the guy's blog, being used to cite his own contributions.) I will look for additional sources, it's rather thin. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [12].

Edgar Speyer

Notified: this list, Nov 2022

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it may have been well-researched & comprehensive when promoted back in 2009, but it is not now due to the publication of newer, high quality sources like the 2013 biography by Lentin, which is barely cited in the article. An example of lack of comprehensiveness is the non-mention of the subject's role in the Cuban tobacco industry, covered in Liebmann 2015. Instead, there is currently an overreliance on press sources. (t · c) buidhe 18:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An odd FAC; it was rare then for Raul to promote, so it looks like both Karanacs and I may have recused, and Mattisse was in there. Johnbod ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just supported on one point in 2009, & haven't looked at it since. Between the trains and classical music crowds you might find interested editors. Not me I'm afraid. Johnbod (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Trainsandotherthings and Mackensen: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid there's nothing I can help with here. The issues cited by buidhe in opening the FAR require print sources which I do not have access to. I almost exclusively stick to North American topics anyhow. I don't like declining a request to help out somewhere, but unfortunately I cannot assist with this FAR. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been meaning for a very long time to give this article an update since Anthony published his book. We corresponded before its publication and he was kind enough to send me a signed copy and thank me in the acknowledgments. He also does cite this article in the secondary sources section of the book.--DavidCane (talk) 22:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DavidCane, do you intend to update this during this FAR? Or should we delist it and it can be updated outside of this process? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The request for a review is based on needing sources updating. I'm happy to do that but I'll have to re-read Antony Lenton's book and see if I can find a copy of the Liebmann book. Since there aren't any other reasons for review given, does the FAR need to remain open?--DavidCane (talk) 18:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't usually close a FAR until/unless issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, if you want to keep it open. I'll start on an update.--DavidCane (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DavidCane: Are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am. Work is hectic at the moment, but I've got a copy in my sandbox which I'll be making changes. From 1 May I have a break, so hope to get it done then.--DavidCane (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hold in FAR, DavidCane please keep this page updated as you start work in May. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DavidCane made some edits in his sandbox in early May but these did not address the issues that led to the FAR being opened, and ceased nearly 3 weeks ago. (t · c) buidhe 15:44, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist No edits since March. Editors above who are interested can work on the article and renominate it to FAC when it is ready. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 03:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, as it has been stalled out for a couple months now. Hog Farm Talk 23:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [13].

CFM International CFM56

Notified: SidewinderX, Marc Lacoste, WikiProject Aircraft/Engines, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Engineering, WikiProject France, WikiProject United States, 2021-10-09, 2023-05-14

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of overreliance on press releases (particularly in the reliability section) and uncited sections. In a skim of the article today, I also noticed underdeveloped sections missing more recent events, including History, Operational, and Fan blade failure. Z1720 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, bad sourcing. We shouldn't be citing the reliability information to the manufacturer's press releases for what should be obvious reasons. Also needs checking for errors/misc. bad sourcing. For instance, our article states " After three incidents through 1998, CFMI made modifications to the engine to improve the way in which the engine handled hail ingestion.", but per the source this should be 1988 not 1998. Places with updated sourcing needed include passages such as "The chevrons reduced jet noise by 1.3 perceived loudness decibels during takeoff conditions, and are now offered as an option with the CFM56 for the Airbus A321", which is cited to a source from 2004. Work is needed here. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - minor editing since FAR opened has not resolved the sourcing concerns I mentioned above. Hog Farm Talk 15:28, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Minor edits to the article in June have not resolved my concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [14].

CMLL World Heavyweight Championship

Notified: MPJ-DK, Ribbon Salminen, JDC808, WP Mexico, WP Professional wrestling, noticed on 2023-03-01

Review section

Shouldn't be too hard to fix up if someone is familiar with wrestling and speaks Spanish, but that person is not me, and the primary author has made one edit since 2020. Compare to List of CMLL World Heavyweight Champions, which indicates that there has been one vacancy and three separate title holders since the last point the article body reflects. Hog Farm Talk 20:05, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the history section with 3 champions (ultimo, hechicero and gran). I didn't find any tournament for the title, so the tournament section doesn't need any update. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 08:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a look soon (and to double-check to make sure I can't find any sort of tournament either), but I'll be out of town for work all of next week and will have limited editing ability. Hog Farm Talk 13:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Google translate on the Spanish suggests some form of tournament-type things between El Terrible, Ultimo Guerrero, Rush, and Diamente Azul? With Azul > Terrible, Rush being DQ'd, and then Guerrero beating Azul? Hog Farm Talk 15:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since I speak Spanish, I'll look in when some improvements are (hopefully) further along. A LOT of checking will be needed here. I'm not finding anything at the Solowrestling.com About page that speaks to staff, fact checking and other measures of reliability, so perhaps someone can weigh in on that for starters. There are copyedit needs, and we have a current champion (MOS:CURRENT) in 2018 cited to 2017. So there is quite a bit of work to be done here before I even start checking for copyright or source-to-text integrity on Spanish sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made several copy-edits throughout including updating the current champion, which was the most glaring mistake that I saw as the current champion was mentioned in four different places but only two of them matched (and those two were actually correct). Also did a slight reorder, putting the Reigns section last based on WP:PW's style guide for championship articles. --JDC808 ♫ 01:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JDC808 is it your intent to restore this to featured status? If so, work remains; please let this page know before I spend time checking Spanish sources. (I already see problems in the first sentence ... The CMLL World Heavyweight Championship (Spanish: Campeonato Mundial de Peso Completo del CMLL) is a men's professional wrestling world heavyweight championship created and promoted by the Mexican (lucha libre) promotion Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre (CMLL) ... lucha libre is stuck in randomly in parentheses without telling the reader what it means. Promoted by a promotion. MOS:CURRENT undefined date in the lead. Languages are handled inconsistently throughout; sometimes names are given in English and translated to Spanish; other times the opposite. Prose infelicities, vagueness and redundancies abound (eg, "In the late 1980s, EMLL left the NWA to avoid their politics and would later rebrand themselves as "Consejo Mundial de Lucha Libre" (CMLL). Although they had left the NWA, they were still promoting the NWA's titles."). This article looks quite far off the mark for FA standards, and I don't want to start checking sources unless more effort is made first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another sample of inconsistent translations/use of language ... torneo cibernetico SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, I don't want to see the article demoted, but it wasn't my intent to fully take on the burden of trying to restore its status. I was originally a reviewer for its FAC nomination a few years ago, which is why I assume I got notified about this FAR. I saw some issues and fixed them as noted in my previous post. Even if I wanted to try and put in the effort to restore the article, I don't speak Spanish so it would be hard for me to try to do so. --JDC808 ♫ 09:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Looking at the FAC, it's not obvious that anyone ever checked the Spanish-language sources. The MOS:CURRENT problem was in the lead at the time of promotion, but at least we no longer have to wonder what an "overall person" is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC; the prose is not up to FA standards, the FAC was promoted on incomplete (2 1/2) supports (with issues in the lead) and it doesn't appear anyone is willing to rework the article. (If they do, I'll start reading Spanish sources.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS, looking through the FAC nominators other promotions, I am unable to find that a source spotcheck was ever done (only reference formatting and some reliability). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the article is cited to:
    • Duncan, Royal; Will, Gary (2000). Wrestling title histories: professional wrestling champions around the world from the 19th century to the present. Waterloo, ON: Archeus Communications. ISBN 0-9698161-5-4.
      As a source spotcheck on the FAC nominator was never done, does anyone have access to this book? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes cagematch.net a high quality or reliable source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes wrestling-titles.com a reliable or high quality source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This Superluchas.com source is a dead link that archive.org does not have. I cannot find an "about" page at https://superluchas.com/ ... what makes it high quality or reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verification needed:
    • On April 2, 2009, Último Guerrero successfully defended the title against Rey Mendoza Jr. on an independent wrestling promotion show in Gomez Palacio, marking the first time the CMLL World Heavyweight Championship was defended on a non-CMLL promoted show.[o]
      I cannot find anything to support this "first time" claim in the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This source has a faulty trans-title (so it's unclear if the original writer translates Spanish accurately):
  • What makes prowrestlinghistory.com high quality or reliable (has the appearance of a personal website)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes wrestlingdata.com high quality or reliable? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Failed verification:
    • The championship is designated as a heavyweight title, which means that it can only be officially competed for by wrestlers weighing 105 kg (231 lb) and above. In the 20th century, Mexican wrestling enforced the weight divisions more strictly, but in the 21st century, the rules have been occasionally ignored for the various weight divisions. The Heavyweight Championship was no exception as several champions were under the weight limit, including Héctor Garza, who was billed as weighing 95 kg (209 lb) when he won the championship and was thus considered a Junior Light Heavyweight.[v][w]
      I can't find any mention of 105 at [v], and [w] is not online and is an incomplete citation. The entire bit looks like original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sample problem (there are others similar):
    • On December 22, 2008, Último Guerrero won the championship from Dos Caras Jr., who shortly afterwards left CMLL to work for WWE.
      • Cited as: [n] "El Ultimo Guerrero se coronó ayer en la ciudad de Puebla, gracias a un foul tras la distracción del referee por parte de Rey Bucanero, con esto, los Bucanero y Guerrero tienen los dos principales títulos del CMLL (semicompleto y completo)" ("Último Guerrero was crowned yesterday in Puebla, thanks to a foul after the referee was distracted by Rey Bucanero, with this, Bucanero and Guerrero have the two main titles of the CMLL (light heavyweight and Heavyweight)")[15]
        • Reliability of superluchas?
        • Dead url not available at archive.org, and the quote supplied from the source says nothing about "who shortly afterwards left CMLL to work for WWE". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, why are translations provided as notes (awkward) rather than using the quote= parameter? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally, one of the superluchas dead URLs are available at archive.org, so with problems already found, all of these are suspect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Howstuffworks as a high quality source? I can find nothing to indicate that Ed Grabianowski meets WP:SPS.

That's enough for now; I don't understand what FAC was doing here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC - prowrestlinghistory, cagematch, wrestlingtitles, and wrestlingdata all are listed as "unproven" at WP:PW/RS, so it seems quite unlikely they would be the high-quality RS required by the featured article criteria. Significant work is needed here with the sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 02:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC) [16].

El Lissitzky

Notified: all wikiprojects, plus relevant editors,[17] talk page notice May 22, 2022

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because uncited text and other issues identified by Extraordinary Writ have not been addressed (t · c) buidhe 05:38, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I will take a look in a week or so. I have several good sources, so this hopefully shouldn't be the problem. Will be updating here, though please do not expect a fast resolution of all issues, I'm really busy in RL now. (I made only few minor edits to the article before, so if someone who done more work is willing to do it, you are certainly welcome!) Artem.G (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing here is probably the worst I saw in any FA! Half are not reliable (at least by my standards), half is too old, almost nothing available online. Will try to find newer sources, will take longer than I expected. Besides, a lot of sections need expansion and ce. Artem.G (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Artem.G you haven't edited this since 7 August; shall we proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on an overhaul in my sandbox, will update the article in the next couple of weeks. Artem.G (talk) 13:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update: got two important lengthy sources through Resource Request, work is ongoing. I'm also planning to ask somebody knowledgeable in arts to look through the article after the rewrite, as it is generally not my topic. Artem.G (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Artem.G, could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Still working on it. I got really busy irl, but expect to return to it in a week or two. Turned out I greatly underestimate how much should be reworked. Artem.G (talk) 08:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC: work seems to have stalled (last edit was early September, and the last significant progress was in August) and there are still uncited passages throughout. This move does not prevent a later "Keep" declaration, nor prevent further work from continuing in the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Move to FARC per above. (t · c) buidhe 17:19, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Artem.G seems to still be making plenty of progress in his sandbox, so I don't think it'll hurt if we hold in FAR for a bit longer. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the work is still in progress. I also asked Aza24 for help on further copyediting as they are much more experienced in FA than I am; hope to show the final draft to maybe few more people after completion. Artem.G (talk) 09:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Aza
Some comments on User:Artem.G/sandbox3
Thanks a lot!
  • Kamczycki 2003 & Druker & Kümmerling-Meibauer 2005 refs are broken
    • Will fix later today or tomorrow.
  • Infobox needs some works; he's known for his art, not specifically being a part of those two groups, right?
    • I didn't work on the infobox yet, was thinking to update it and the lead after the draft is finished.
  • I still don't find most of the quotes necessary, I think they can mostly be summed up in prose, particularly the early years quote, which seems undue
    • I think it can be reduced - will move part of it to note.
  • More soon. Aza24 (talk) 03:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The family quote is interesting but seems out of place and too specific for a general overview WP article. Aza24 (talk) 03:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the family quote (possibly put it in a note?) and then combine the first and second paragraphs of early life. Aza24 (talk) 03:20, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Will move it to note as I think that the quote is useful - it shows how his family was both religious (his mother) and secular (his father, who travelled to the US and translated Shakespeare), and how (probably) it affected Lissitzky. This quote is also used in many sources on Lissitzky, so it seems that many researchers find it important.
  • Is the "He also worked as a bricklayer..." line saying that he made drawings of the interior and decorations of Jewish historical sites in general, or the Worms Synagogue specifically? Aza24 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worms synagogue is mentioned in all sources, so.e mention it among other unnamed Jewish historical sites. Artem.G (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status, work ongoing in sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Work ongoing in sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking through for the sandbox draft and will provide some comments. After which, we should be good to move Artem's new content to the mainspace and work from there. Aza24 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! Artem.G (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments on finalized draft
  • Starting to read through—I'm not sure that any of the Japanese influence is connected directly with Lissitzky to warrant inclusion. Aza24 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The idea was to show that Lissitzky influenced not only Soviet and European artists, but also people much farther from Berlin and Moscow. One of the Mavo's members created works called "Proun D" and "Construction F", Lissitzky also sent Merz to Murayama Tomoyoshi. The paragraph can be trimmed, though I think the influence is direct - naming the work "Proun" in 1920s, for example. Artem.G (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Early years
  • If you're not going to include "22/23" in the lead for his birthdate, it should probably just be 23 in the prose and the note explains the discrepancy.
done
  • Anything you could link "trade agent" to?
I can think only of merchant or Merchant guild (Russian Empire), but I saw nowhere that he was a member of the guild.
  • Since it's a quote, the "earned extra money" line needs a ref right next to, even if its the same as Kantsedikas 2017, pp. 15–16
done
  • The last paragraph of Early years could use some work to sound less robotic ("In [year]... In [year]... etc)
kinda done
Jewish period
  • Shouldn't the "Lissitzky spent a lot of time" paragraph be built into the early years section? and indeed the next paragraph as well
it can be done, but I was trying to show here that Lissitzky's Jewish roots can be traced to his childhood and youth, so it seemed logical to place it here. If you think it'll be better to move it to Early years, I'll move it.
  • I feel that Perloff doesn't need to be directly quoted and that information can be rephrased and sourced normally
half-done. moved the Pale out of quote, preserve Perloff's quote on Pale's influence on Lissitzky
  • I assume "fix on photo" means document? I've changed it to such
thanks!
  • I don't think the large caption quote for the mural is warranted, there's already enough quoted material in the corresponding prose
moved to note
  • All the description on the yingl story (i.e. the info about the story specifically, unrelated to Lissitzky) does not seem warranted
trimed, quote removed, part of the description moved to note.
  • More soon—by the way, I'm thinking the Scholarly assessment and legacy sections should end up being combined (and less quotes there!) Aza24 (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot! I've got covid again, and will address all the comments later. (I may occasionally revert some vandalism, but wouldn't be very active for a week or so.) Artem.G (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, thanks a lot for great comments, Aza24! I'm back, and will try to finish the Lissitzky rewrite in a reasonable time - it took to much of my time and energy, but after a break I think I can proceed for a while :) I tried to address all your points, please let me know what do you think. Artem.G (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better for sure, I'll try to read more this week. Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somehow missed the message - I took a pause in that rewrite, but will continue the work. Aza is not very active now, but once they'll be back I'll be happy to work together. Artem.G (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, which does not preclude further improvements, but to stay on track. There has been no engagement at the article since 12 January, and no response on this page for two weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sandbox version is 100kB larger than the article and better sourced. Why can't we move it across? DrKay (talk) 09:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had a break from working on it, and Aza started to review the new version, but is probably too busy irl. If you think it looks good, I'll reread it once again and move to mainspace. And it's certainly better sourced, I got all but two sources of those that are used in the article, and it's basically a completely new text, not an updated and copyedited one. Artem.G (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'll be able to get back to this, being too distracted IRL and with other WP things. But I fully support the new text if the amount of quotations are lessened. Aza24 (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe we need followup here; where does this (your nom) stand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:38, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

oh, well, I got too tired on that article and abandoned it for some time. I received some books now, and will update the draft when I'll have enough time to sit and read them, but I think that it is mostly ready, though require some trimming. You can proceed with FARC if you want, because I'm not willing to commit to any deadline, but I'll eventually update and publish the draft. Artem.G (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Artem.G there is no need to hurry to FARC; I just want nominators to keep the rest of us posted so we know when to enter a declaration, and so the Coords don't have to continually ping for updates. Take the time you need! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The issues with uncited text have still not been fixed. (t · c) buidhe 22:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The last serious edit to this article was February, and uncited text still remains. I think it is time to let this go. Z1720 (talk) 02:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Delist same, we're edging up on 1 year here. (t · c) buidhe 02:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:42, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/July_2023&oldid=1167665073"