Wikipedia:Featured article review

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAR)
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).

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.

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. 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 reviewsEdit


Notified: Robth, WP MILHIST, WP Classical Greece and Rome, WP Biography, WP Greece, 2020-12-24

Well, this early 2006 promotion does not meet the current standards when it comes to sourcing. I see three main issues here. First, there's some uncited text, including a significant paragraph assessing the figure and comparing him to Churchill. Second, the first paragraph of the personal life and early career section appears to almost certainly be WP:OR based on passing details mentioned in ancient sources. Lastly, this article relies very heavy on ancient sources. I have nothing against sparing use of primary sources in FAs, but we shouldn't have entire paragraphs in FAs cited solely to authors who died centuries before the time of Christ. This just doesn't muster the bar of current FA sourcing expectations. Primary creator has not edited since 2011, so I'm afraid we won't be able to get any help from that angle. Pinging @T8612: as they asked to be informed when this went to far. Hog Farm Bacon 03:09, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Management of multiple sclerosisEdit

Notified: Garrondo, Juansempere, Fvasconcellos, WP Medicine, WP Pharm, WP Disability, WP Neuroscience, talk page notification 2020-11-10

This 2007 promotion was nominated by an editor who stopped editing seven years ago; the article has not been maintained to FA standards (nor to WP:MEDDATE standard). There has been no response to concerns I raised on talk two months ago. Concerns include datedness in medical content, copyedit needs, citation overkill, MOS and article organization. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Scottish ParliamentEdit

Notified: Globaltraveller, WikiProject Scotland, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Edinburgh, 31 December

I am nominating this featured article for review because I raised several issues on the talk page more than 2 weeks ago, which have yet to be addressed. There are 12 citation needed tags; also, the article heavily cites official sources while neglecting scholarship, as I noted on talk. (t · c) buidhe 22:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Bruno MaddoxEdit

Notified: BillDeanCarter, WikiProject District of Columbia, WikiProject Journalism, Arts and Entertainment, Talk page notification

This is a BLP promoted in 2007 that has been abandoned since 2008, shortly before the FA nominator was blocked. The few edits since then have been minor clean up edits, meaning that the article is severely out of date, with sentences such as "As of 2009, however, no manuscript has been forthcoming." or "As of 2007 there is no further evidence that Maddox completed the script." There are 12 years missing from this person's life.

Then, I am concerned about the quality of the sourcing; a lot of the sources are extremely close to the subject, such as the subject's own writings, interviews or the subject's direct employers. Others mention him in passing and others do not mention him at all. Is it possible to have a balanced Featured Article when so little significant and independent coverage of the subject is available? RetiredDuke (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, should I notify an user that was blocked more than a decade ago? RetiredDuke (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say no, not likely. I think this is a good candidate for accelerated process. (t · c) buidhe 16:17, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FAR no edits made to the article. (t · c) buidhe 03:50, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, candidate for acceleration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


Notified: Hesperain, WP Bio, WP Australia, talk page notice 2020-12-04

I raised concerns about this 2006 FA over a month ago on talk, and there has been no reaction. See talk page notice 2020-12-04 Concerns are lead, comprehensiveness, balance, and some MOS cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Delist has significant POV issues that will require extensive cleanup and past experience shows that even minor changes to the article will only occur with significant discussion in to finite details due to the nature of the subject including the fact that a lot of the sourcing itself comes from colonial bias sources and more recent sourcing published during the History Wars era where. The article also presents Yagan's and Nyungar culture as part of a monocultural group of Aboriginals Australians rather than taking into account that Nyungar and Whadjuk Nyungar people had their own laws, culture, language, and customs which they shared with other Nyungar states comprising the southwest of what is now Western Australia. Gnangarra 01:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Gnangarra see FAR instructions, Keep or Delist are not declared during the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
    Take the section lobbying for repatriation it says " Tribal elders entrusted the Aboriginal leader Ken Colbung with the search." there are no tribal elders. Nyungar culture refers to Elders as people of experience and wisdom the use of tribe is a European anthropological construct. The page erroneously refers to tribe, tribes, or tribal on 19 separate occasions. Gnangarra 10:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Chew Valley LakeEdit

Notified: Rodw, WP Somerset, WP Lakes, WP England, WP UK geography, 2020-11-23

This 2006 promotion doesn't meet the current standards. There's large amounts of uncited text throughout, and some of the material is potentially outdated, such as the bit starting with "During 2005–2006 Bristol Water started restoring two artificial islands." in the birdwatching section. There's also a self-published source cited (Hucker), and the sailing section is entirely about a single organization and that material is only cited to that organization's website, which raises some due weight concerns given the level of detail given. Hog Farm Bacon 02:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

AS the original primary author of this article I agree that it no longer meets current standards.— Rod talk 08:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - doesn't seem to have garnered any interest. Hog Farm Bacon 17:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Royal assentEdit

Notified: WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Commonwealth, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Australia, 18 December

I am nominating this featured article for review because as RD stated on talk, "This needs work to rise to current FA standards." The original nom has not edited since 2006. (t · c) buidhe 18:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • @Ceoil: apparently saved it back in 2007, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Royal Assent/archive1. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    Buidhe, the differences in standards in 2021 vs 2007 are far more stark than between 2007 vs 2004. However, its an interesting topic and hope to reengage during this review. Famous last words, however believe this review is warranted. Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks for offering to work on this article. The review is open as long as improvements are ongoing; it can also be placed on hold if you'd like more time to make any changes. (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - the "other Commonwealth realms" section should mention the two refusals of Royal Assent in the 19th century in colonial Victoria (which occurred 150 years after the last refusal of royal assent in the UK - source here. Deus et lex (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Weymouth, DorsetEdit

Notified: Rossenglish, WikiProject Dorset, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Cities, Talk page notification 2020-10-23

An article promoted in 2006, that has never been reviewed. Issues:

  • uncited text (mainly in History);
  • dated figures;
  • lack of coverage regarding several social issues such as deprivation or teenage pregnancies (You just need to skim through a news article to get an idea of the sort of data that is missing);
  • prose is not of FA standard, for instance Parts of Sandsfoot have fallen into the sea due to coastal erosion. During the English Civil War, around 250 people were killed in the local Crabchurch Conspiracy in February 1645. - in one sentence we're talking about coastal erosion, in the next about the English Civil War;
  • please check the two notes on the talk page, there are more examples listed there. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
RetiredDuke several editors (including an IP) have been working on this; update needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
It's coming along nicely. There are still some inline citations missing (particularly in the notable people and the governace sections). I spotted close paraphrasing of Thewordtravels, I'll leave a note at the talk page. I's a work in progress. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I am currently working on this but have limited time and from next week, when I return to work, will have even less. I am dedicated to saving the article however and hope I will be granted an extension to do so.--Ykraps (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Ykraps There is no rush or deadline at FAR, from what I've seen the FAR coordinators are very flexible with time when there's someone actively improving the article (just check Wii below, for instance, or Earth, that was kept after 2 months). Please ask for feedback here when you feel the article has progressed enough (when everything is cited and up to date), so we can weigh on the smaller stuff. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Climate changeEdit

Notified: EMsmile, Dtetta, RCraigh09, Bogazicili, Dave souza, Efbrazil, Stephan Schulz, WikiProject Climate change, WikiProject geography, WikiProject Meteorology, WikiProject Science Policy, WikiProject Antarctica, WikiProject Arctic, WikiProject Environment talk page diff

This featured article from 2006 was last reviewed in 2007. Since, it has been completely rewritten (twice?). While we have a very active community, I think it is important that this article is reviewed with outside eyes, given its controversial nature. Over the last couple of months, concerns on the talk have mainly been about neutrality: should the article focus more on worst-case scenarios (f.i. talk page discussion a). Should we mention that climate change is seen as an 'existential threat to civilization' by some scientists (cf. talk page discussion b)?

I'm not perfectly aware of everything in a manual of style, and would appreciate feedback on that topic, as well as on the images.

It would be brilliant if this article gets to be main page ready again, so that we can feature it if climate change becomes topical again. In March, when I asked whether it could be run at today featured article, it was indicated that the article wasn't quite ready and a peer review + featured article review would be beneficial.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

MurrayScience, just noticed that you are not on the list above. Thought you would be interested in this discussion....lots of good comments from the reviewers. Dtetta (talk) 15:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from SandyGeorgia

Moved to talk. My initial comments have all been resolved; I will read through again later, after others have weighed in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis
  • A few short paragraphs and sections scattered throughout.
I've expanded one short paragraph. Most of the others (I count three, but maybe I need to be more strict?) are a bit contentious, so I've proposed changes on talk first. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 06:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD I just wanted to say that I think these are great comments. You clearly have spent a lot of time going through the article in order to provide these thoughtful, insightful suggestions. The article will be significantly stronger as a result of responding to them, so thanks very much for your work on this.Dtetta (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Flora and fauna are also behaving in a manner consistent with warming" could use a faunal example as well as a floral one?
I'd rather not expand this section, it's already quite big. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps move the early blooming note to "Nature and wildlife", where it fits in well and is currently missing? CMD (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

  • The paragraph on food security mentions overall trends for crop production in addition to regional variability, but for fish stocks the text hedges much more about potential losses, and provides no overall assessment. Is there such a difference between terrestrial and oceanic food sources? It seems unlikely that polar fish stock increases can balance out tropical losses, not least because there is less polar than tropical water. The 183 million figure sentence needs its page number fixed.
clarified that this is a global decline as well (which is what the sentence intended to say). Fixed page number. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC).
For both land and sea the reason for increased high latitude productivity is the same (becoming more tropical), so perhaps they could be grouped together. However, reading it again now, these seem like detailed caveats that take away from the overall global picture, and I wonder if these caveats are due here or reflections of mercator-orientated worldviews. At the moment, I would leave regional analysis to subpages. CMD (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I have just noticed that the already extant warming of 1.1 °C mentioned in the lead is mentioned nowhere in the body. That figure is completely necessary contextualisation for the 1.5C and 2C goals, as well as perhaps the entire article. I am surprised it (or related figures) is not mentioned multiple times.
I'll make sure the first section and the lede have the same number (now they quote different numbers). This week, an improved data set of warming came out, but it's too early to use that.
  • I would replace "changes would also be necessary in forestry and agriculture" with a more general reference to land use change overall.
With the current placement of this paragraph, I think a slightly more specific sentence works well. The previous paragraph has a mention of land. Do you believe the source isn't HQRS? Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
My note was mostly focused on the article text specifically referring to just forestry and agriculture, when potential land-use changes that affect ecosystems is more expansive that just those sectors. I've just added "sectors such as", happy to otherwise leave it per your arguments. CMD (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The huge imbalance between Mitigation and Adaptation is concerning. Mitigation goes into relatively great detail, while Adaptation gets six lines. In general, this paucity of information on climate change adaptation makes the article feel very incomplete, and is a genuine delisting issue. Adaptation measures make up a huge amount of the response to climate change. Mitigation is half theories that may not happen, and may not work (although this article feels quite positive on the matter). There is adaptation to existing climate change, let alone future change. Whole cities, and even countries, are disappearing into the ocean. Coastal aquifers are becoming increasingly saline. Agricultural yields are decreasing. Disaster risk reduction management is becoming more developed. Sometimes people in Brisbane aren't allowed to wash their cars!
Long answer before I start working on this. The mismatch has multiple reasons, some "valid". It's partially due to my lack of knowledge. Partially due to the fact that the adaptation literature switches between very abstract technical and the very local. This makes it difficult to find out what is due. A third reason, is that the adaptation literature is smaller than the mitigation literature. This is reflected in the IPCC working groups as well. Impacts, vulnerability and adaptations are one volume together, whereas mitigation is it's own volume. Some discrepancy is therefore to be expected here as well. Some scientists have lamented this discrepancy in body of literature, but I think we should reflect it to some extent. I will propose we follow the IPCC WG structure a bit more closely, making mitigation it's own section, and grouping adaptation with impacts. EMsmile, you also indicated you had some insight here (a comment during the edit-a-thon).
An easy one to expand on is coastal protection. I think I can copy/adjust some of my work from sea level rise there. I don't know how countries are adapting to increased salinity, except for two local examples (salt-resistent crops on Texel, and desalination plant in Israel). In the tropical cyclone and climate change literature, I have seen review articles go on about extreme weather disaster risk management, which I might add if I don't find a more general source.
I've already pushed back very hard to get the mitigation section smaller, but open to suggestion to further trim it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
EMsmile I don't have particular expertise here but let me ping ASRASR, and my thoughts are this: The section on adaptation will always be different (and perhaps shorter) than mitigation because many of the adaptation technologies, approaches and concepts are not specific to climate change impacts but have been there already before but have now become more urgent. For example, countries have always had technology options if they were prone to flooding but now they need to intensify those efforts. For example in the area of sanitation: pit latrines and septic tanks have always been bad for areas that get flooded but if flooding is getting more frequent with climate change then the alternative options (e.g. container-based sanitation) are becoming ever more attractive. Same with water saving measures in relationship with droughts. So I would assume that a section on climate change adaptation is mainly a listing of links to sub-articles, pointing people into the right direction where to read more. I don't think that "per se" it needs to have the same amount of text as climate change mitigation (mitigation being far more specific to climate change than adaptation is). EMsmile (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
The IPCC will have a focus on mitigation over adaptation because of their role within an international system focused on the singular goal of mitigation, and because mitigation is inherently more relevant to an international level, with any country mitigating or not mitigating affecting every other country. Adaptation is intrinsically national, or even local, in implementation and in effect. International cooperation on adaptation is mostly related to funding, technology and knowledge sharing, capacity, etc. I find it a bit tricky to have a more technical debate over relative lengths when adaptation is only 6 lines. The two topics of mitigation and adaptation don't have to be linked, so perhaps it's best to consider them separately. For adaptation, perhaps per the sea level example adaptation for various issues may be a good way to consider the topic, which prevents getting too bogged down on a particular local issue. If there is a desire to shorten mitigation, there's a bit of wp:crystal wording which could perhaps be removed leaving the core ideas of what is lacking, and what has been done already. CMD (talk) 14:28, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I've made the first proposal for an additional paragraph on talk, and I'll wait for feedback before posting. I'm seeing some options for improving our coverage of migration, which is now highly problematic (citing old numbers which were based on very little), by placing it mostly in adaptation. I'm tentatively aiming for four well-developed paragraphs. I've rephrased some crystal in mitigation, so that it's clearer it's a projection rather than something that will happen. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
-I think the idea of expanding the adaptation section, in order to make it more consistent with the extent of treatment given to mitigation, is excellent. Some background may be helpful here. When I was doing a rewrite of the Mitigation section in May, it involved an expansion from 500 words to around 1350 words (compared to about 1700 words the the Effects section at that time). In May, like now, there was concern expressed about the mitigation/adaptation length discrepancy, but I still think the appropriate thing to do is to beef up the adaptation section, rather than shorten the mitigation section.
-I’m not sure I quite follow one of your comments regarding the mitigation text; it seems like you are suggesting that since these mitigation actions may not be carried out, they deserve less coverage in the article? While it’s true that the mitigation strategies describes in a number of the major reports (IPCC, UNEP, One Earth, Princeton) may not all happen, I think it’s critical for a reader to understand what are the approaches to NetZero that are generally considered viable, regardless of the extent to which they end up being followed. And the issue of viability (which I think is what you are driving at) could also apply to many adaptation strategies. When I look at AR5WGII Ch.14, and some of the recent UNFCC TEP-A technical papers, I am struck by the lack of clarity on successful, scalable adaptation approaches. Some seem just as theoretical as the idea of decarbonizing the electricity grid, or moving to EVs. The latter have market drivers (and specific government mandates in some cases) that I don’t think are clear in the former.
-My 2 cents is that a reader of this article most likely is concerned with a few main things: what is global warming/climate change; how much global warming/climate change is happening or will happen; what is causing it; what are the problems that this warming/cc is causing; and what can we do about it. From that, I end up thinking that the effects, mitigation, and adaptation sections should be roughly comparable in the extent of coverage they provide. Athough, for a variety of reasons, as noted above by Femke, a top level description of adaptation may end up being somewhat shorter.
-I think the Adaptation to climate change article (which Femke has recently spent time improving), provides a reasonably good starting point for further developing the Adaptation section. Your point about adaptation being a societal response that is happening now is an excellent one, and I think that should be emphasized in any major rewrite of the current section (it’s also a relevant thought for the Mitigation section). As Femke points out, she (and Bogazicili) are currently making some proposals on the talk page for strengthening the Adaptation section, so I will focus on some more specific suggestions there.
-CMD, your comment about the tone of the Mitigation section being more positive than is perhaps merited is an interesting one. Can you give some examples from the text?
I take a positive tone from the parts of the text that seem to more describe an envisioned world than discuss the current one. The opening "Long-term scenarios point to rapid and significant investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency as key to reducing GHG emissions" doesn't indicate if these investments are happening or not, but following it with "that mix is expected to change significantly over the next 30 years" suggests it may be. The text is focused on a maximalist pathway of reductions, saying things like "scenarios envision sharp increases in the market share of electric vehicles, low carbon fuel substitution for other transportation modes like shipping", while not mooring these pathways to the current situation. CMD (talk) 10:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, thats helpful. I will look for ways to address this. One possibility: the original May version had language about how, despite renewables dominating new investment, fossil fuels still comprise about 80% of the world’s energy mix. I’ll look at putting that back in, as well as other possible edits. Dtetta (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
@ Dtetta: I'm not sure why that was deleted. Even with my tendency to shorten, I can't object to reintroducing it. The 80% is still in the text.
@ CMD: I've finished my proposal for the new adaptation text. Feel free to comment, or wait for the 'core group' to polish it first. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC) / 20:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I think the reason the section was too positive is the structure. After renaming the subsections to 'clean energy', and 'carbon sequestration', the decarbonisation pathways subsection became a bit of an odd duck. For instance, one would expect clean energy in heat and transport to be featured under the heading clean energy, but it was only featured under the heading of decarbonisation pathway, which makes it difficult to indicate that these are harder sectors to abate then power. I've made a start of making more concrete subsections, with a new 'agriculture and industry'. I need to do some more fine tuning with the prose to reflect this new strucutre, but I do feel this is the way to go to address MurrayScience's and CMD's comments. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
For me, a lot of the positive vibes stem from what feels like an assumption that theoretical changes will be made. It does sound like a structure shift might help with this by making the surrounding context more obvious, but I think so long as it is kept in mind that'll help. (I haven't found time to track the various proposals in any detail I'm afraid, but undoubtedly the core group knows what it's doing, and there's no single correct answer after all.) CMD (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Political response is another quite positive subsection. It's a bit redundant as a topic to the Policies subsection in Mitigation, and feels like it's going out of its way to try to argue the free rider problem, and I don't even find it that convincing. "further eliminating" feels distinctly weasely.
Hmm.. I think the framing of climate change as a prisoner's dilemma our free rider problem is very common and due, but does not reflect the latest scientific ideas. For the sake of being well-researched, I believe they need to be included too. I've condensed the text and removed the weasel words.
I would like to add a source directly on the Green Climate Fund, which falls short of its goals in terms of adaptation and mitigation finance, replacing its mention in the sustainable development goal paragraph. Do you have other suggestions to make that section more balanced? This will expand the third paragraph make the second paragraph shorter, so that they are out of balance. EMsmile, is there another way to incorporate the sustainable development goals into the article? Maybe a mention in the adaptation section? Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Femkemilene I am not really sure. Perhaps we get inspiration by looking at the 5 targets of SDG 13. They are: "The targets cover a wide range of issues surrounding climate action. There are five targets in total. The first three targets are "output targets": Strengthen resilience and adaptive capacity to climate-related disasters; integrate climate change measures into policies and planning; build knowledge and capacity to meet climate change. The remaining two targets are "means of achieving" targets: To implement the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; and to promote mechanisms to raise capacity for planning and management. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is the primary international, intergovernmental forum for negotiating the global response to climate change." We could also mention that SDG 13 is of course closely related to many of the other SDGs, in particular SDG 7 on clean energy (see here). EMsmile (talk) 07:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
What do you think of the current attempt? The GCF is now discussed in Copenhagen Accord paragraph, and sustainable development (including goals) is the second introductary paragraph of political response? I've also made the link to other sustainable development goals there. I've tried to avoid using UN jargon as much as possible. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
It's great work. CMD (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 15:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  • The Scientific consensus subsection could use a little more on consensus about different issues and/or strategies to deal with climate change, rather than just whether it exists. For example, consensus on the likelihood of meeting the 1.5C and 2C goals. If the Warnings to Humanity are included, there should be some indication as to why they are significant.
I've cut warnings to humanity. I don't think there is consensus on the likelihood of meeting 1.5 / 2C. This is really dependent on how much confidence scientists place on political will/geopolitics and negative emission techniques. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Warnings to humanity have been re-inserted. I assume you want evidence of continuing importance after the mention directly after publication in media? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the current sources are effectively primary sources and a news story which merely replicates parts of the warning.
I've also now seen the new image of the various pie charts for scientific consensus. It also feels like belabouring the point. Is there another subject where a ~3% viewpoint would be given this much space? CMD (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD (talk) 10:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

We just recently had a RfC about the pie chart graph. There was one person objecting on the same grounds, but most editors wanted to include it. I'm constantly changing my mind about it. The current implementation is a bit too shouty, but a smaller picture size and less caption could already help. The text now further elaborates on this, with more numbers than I think are justified. (90-100 and 100%). I prefer the top-level discussion we had before where we didn't mention those numbers. Considering the fact that the 90% was found by explicitly inviting contrarian scientists, it also feels misleading. Bogazicili? Okay if I remove those duplicate numbers from the text or condense those two sentences?
Bogazicili; can you find a source showing continuing importance by using secondary sources? I feel we're framing scientific activism as normal scientific work. Are there other parts of the section you really want to keep. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Scientific consensus and its debate is notable per sources; its length is not undue. Also most of the public in many countries are unaware of the degree of the consensus. Eg: "However, only about one in six (17%) understand how strong the level of consensus among scientists is (i.e.,that more than 90% of climate scientists think human-caused global warming is happening)." [1] So, the comment about "belabouring" is nonsensical.
Those two warning articles themselves are pretty much review articles, and hence secondary sources. They are also massively cited. But if you want more secondary sources:
Eg1: You can find them in books. 2017 warning is on p 9 [2] (author of the book [3])
Eg2:" If the threat of climate change to freshwater ecosystems is not addressed through mitigation or adaptation efforts, we risk extensive environmental, economic and social impacts (Ripple et al. 2019)." [4] Bogazicili (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
To show its length is due, we need to look at sources that have a similar scope to our article (science + society). One of those books is 'Climate change: what everybody needs to know'; which spends one page, or 0.3% of the book on consensus. Similarly, Climate change: what the science tells us spends less than one page on the topic, also about 0.3%. A very short introduction to climate science only mentions consensus off-hand in their discussion of specific controversial issues (methane clathrates f.i.), and their discussion of climate denial, so below 0.3%. Our article dedicates 2.5% of space to the issue, excluding the image caption.
We don't use the warnings to society as a secondary source, we're citing them to talk about themselves. Which is different to the citation 56 you indicate, which cites is as a secondary source. Can't access the book you cite, so not sure whether they discuss it as a warning, or use it as a secondary source.
It's not super polite to say that CMD's comment about belabouring is nonsensical; a friendly atmosphere creates the best articles. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Femkemilene, you recently made a comment about my bolding [5], when it should not have been an issue since it should have been clear that I'm using it to highlight main points (similar bolding usage is also done by others such as SandyGeorgia [6]). These kind of remarks seem to have become a pattern now, which is problematic. I'll refrain from saying nonsensical, but I hope you work from your end too, to improve editing/working environment.
As for the length, the book examples you gave artificially minimize relative weight of core topics. For example, this book has 346 pages. So it has enough space to cover core topics as well as detailed stuff (such as implications of Donald Trump's presidency), which reduces the relative weight of core topics. We can't justify adding an entire paragraph about Donald Trump's policies into the Wiki article based on that book alone, for example.
If you look at other online tertiary sources, which are more similar in format to Wikipedia, the weight of scientific consensus is much larger. Eg: Britannica's Global Warming article, which has an entire section on "The IPCC and the scientific consensus". Or NASA's facts page. One of its 6 main tabs is Scientific Consensus.
Also those 2017 and 2019 warning articles have seen massive coverage and have been cited by other scientific articles many times. 2019 article was also the most impactful scientific articles (top 5) in 2019, as measured by Altmetric [7]. Bogazicili (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
It shouldn't be that difficult to find a secondary or tertiary source about those warnings then (so not simply citing them). I think I'd like to strive to a slightly smaller paragraph, but nowhere near 0.3%. The 'very short introduction' is quite similar in size to our article. Nasa is weird, as it operates in an outlier country in terms of climate denial, but Britannica's 3.6% about the history of IPCC and consensus is an argument I find more convincing ( Even as it's writting by a US author who was in the mids of those American climate wars). I think a more horizontal design of the image (5 pies next to each other), allows for it taking up less space. We now cite that primary source on consensus of 100% in 2019 twice, and we need to choose a location (either text or caption). What is your preference? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
I had found secondary/tertiary sources referencing both 2017 and 2019 warning articles above. Maybe we can keep the text as is and add those two additional sources to assuage any concerns? As for consensus of 100%, I think text is better than image caption? Bogazicili (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You found a paper citing the warning. I don't know whether the book talks about the warning or only cites it. Could you quote the book here?. We're going further than citing by talking about the warning. If the book explicitly describes them, I'm happy for having an extra cite. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
The book talks about 2017 warning at length. I can't copy paste that format, but you can see it through google preview (page 9) [8] Bogazicili (talk) 16:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis; is that acceptible if we make some further small tweaks? (smaller redisigned image / not repeating primary source). To avoid overcitation, we could cut the Independent news story. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
On the warning letters, certainly the book is a better source than the Independent news story, and meets the need for at least one secondary source. Whether the mention is due is then up to editor consensus.
On the importance of scientific consensus, climate change is accepted to the point where it is treated as a basic background fact of life by policymakers around the world, let alone just scientists. The current article highlights the odd empahsis. Currently, the Scientific consensus subsection comes immediately after a number of paragraphs covering 2.5 decades of international collaboration on climate change, and various governments literally declaring climate emergencies. It's odd to read, for example, "national science academies have called on world leaders to cut global emissions" after already reading "South Korea and Japan have committed to become carbon neutral by 2050, and China by 2060". Given the above discussion, I would like to throw out the idea of rearranging so that Scientific consensus (and perhaps parts of The public?), are included with Discovery so that the coverage of consensus becomes part of the progression of scientific knowledge rather than being out on its own. Britannica does similarly, framing its The IPCC and the scientific consensus subsection as a story going from 1988 to the present. CMD (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm open to that suggestion, but we had a giant restructuing debate, so I'm starting to think we should be conservative with restructuring, unless there is a real good reason. I also made the title more clear [9], which addresses some of your concerns I think. Scientific consensus part also goes together with the public and denial and misinformation, etc, so the current grouping also makes sense from an organizational perspective. Bogazicili (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
My comments were made looking at the previous structure, so the details will need to be relooked at. However, in either structure there remains an emphasis that comes across as wp:systemic bias. This is in addition to the textual flow issues I gave an example of above. The first sentence effectively says "There is overwhelming scientific consensus that the things you read in the article so far are true", which feels like it should be implicit. (Imagine the poor reader otherwise.) I do agree it provides good context to the public information. "The public" main section is already in a chronological flow, so it would fit into a chronological summary as well. CMD (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Where is the systemic bias? We are not giving space to 3% opinion, we are giving space to the discussion of the whole issue. Also look at the examples of tertiary sources such as Britannica and NASA. Bogazicili (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
A systematic bias towards discussing an issue that's only really significant in a couple of countries. The Britannica article section is really a section about the IPCC and the broad points of agreement, and is part of a larger section which runs from the development of understanding in the 1980s all the way to current and future policy. It reads as describing the development of understanding, rather than specifically trying to prove a point on consensus. The NASA section is like the one on this article, but is likely framed by its particular national context. CMD (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
We are also not "specifically trying to prove a point on consensus". We just mention the latest understanding per journal review articles, scientific bodies etc. Beyond that we have an IPCC statement similar to IPCC coverage in Britannica. The current percentage devoted to that section (above discussion) is low and not undue. You will have to back up your statements or maybe open an RFC or something like that. Bogazicili (talk) 14:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Back up which statements, with what? The section opens with "There is an overwhelming scientific consensus that...". This is very much a direct, and quite blunt, point. Next to it is an image with five pie charts to make the same point five more times. It is not "just mention"ing something to give it its own subsection. My statements on Britannica referred direclty to the linked Britannica article. CMD (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Back up your statements about systematic bias with something quantitative. You previously had said "feels like belabouring the point". I can't really respond to your feelings.
Britannica article has points similar to our article:
"Nevertheless, a growing body of scientists has called upon governments, industries, and citizens to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases" And it goes on and on about IPCC conclusions (we cannot dedicate such a giant space to each IPCC conclusion, so we just summarize the latest scientific opinion).
NASA article cites the same study where those 5 charts come from, and talks about professional organizations such as scientific communities.
There was also a recent RFC about the image Talk:Climate_change#RfC_about_a_photo_in_the_Scientific_Consensus_section, where there was an overwhelming consensus.
So, if you feel strongly about those opinions, maybe start an RFC and seek consensus. FAR is not the place to suggest backdoor changes going against consensus. Bogazicili (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) FAR is the place to initiate new discussions, nothing backdoor about it. I think the way forward here is (a) very slightly condense the current text to remove/de-emphasize primary source (100% study), (b) I develop a proposal as part of the historical section, in line with Britannica. (c) After we finish ongoing discussions we attempt to find consensus on that, and (d) probably start a request for comment to actually establish consensus. Does that sound okay? Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

100% study looks like a review study to me. The rests sounds goods. I'm just against changes such as these [10], without talk page discussions and consensus. Bogazicili (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Something quantitative to demonstrate systematic bias? There was literally a number about a point made in prose in my last response. More widely, 192/193 UN states are signatories to the Paris Agreement. All UN states are members of the UNFCCC. There is apparently a source saying there is no less than 100% consensus among climate scientists. Also, these quantitative ideas are to compare with what quantitative basis for the current section being systematically balanced? Points that Britannica and this article do share doesn't impact on what I mentioned, which was the points they didn't share. On the aside, commenting and suggesting changes is exactly what FAR is for: "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". CMD (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The sentence on the meaning of global warming could more precisely express its use as a single reference for surface temperature change rather than various surface temperature changes in general.
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
"increased surface warming" could mean any surface tempterature change, whereas the source specifically says "the average global surface temperature increase". A singular meaning, rather than potentially a more general meaning which could discuss different instances or regional examples of surface warming. CMD (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Global warming usually refers to human-induced warming of the Earth system, whereas climate change can refer to natural as well as anthropogenic change." This sentence feels a bit off. For a start, the source goes on to use global warming to include natural changes, "Today’s global warming is overwhelmingly due to the increase in heat-trapping gases that humans are adding to the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels." Overall, the difference feels like far too fine a distinction to draw on this page, and I don't think it helps.
I agree. Removed, but posted on the talk page, as people may disagree.Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
And has been placed back. Talk discussion in progress. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A general note that the lead should be considered and rebalanced once/if the overall article balance shifts. Currently it deviates from the recommended maximum four full paragraphs, but cases can be made for deviations.
The lede is already reflecting the direction we're shifting the article towards: relatively more attention to human impacts, and less to causes. We'll might need some more information on adaptation. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Done. Information on adaptation has been added. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Minor sandwiching
  • On shortening some sections, I think it helps both the encyclopaedia and editor discourse if it's clear that when information is removed it's placed onto the most relevant sub-article if it is not there already.

CMD (talk) 11:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Major issues/article may not meet FA criteria: I made some of these arguments in the talk page, Talk:Climate_change#Restructuring. Right now the article is too focused on mechanics of climate change (eg: Physical drivers of recent climate change, Climate change feedback, Physical environment sections). Effects on humans are minimized. This approach is contrary to how reliable sources structure themselves. For example, see 2020 Lancet review. All of their sections tie into Human effects. As such, the article is not comprehensive and may not meet a major FA criteria. For example, a co-benefits of mitigation section is missing, which is a giant section itself in Lancet review. Physical drivers of recent climate change, Climate change feedback, Physical environment sections could be merged and summarized a bit. Current too much focus on mechanics of climate change may not meet Length criteria as well. Finally, we are talking about a major restructure in talk page, so the article may not be stable, another FA criteria. I think many editors have done great work on this article, and the article is already high-quality with lots of sources, but we might need more work to restructure the article, summarize some sections, expand some sections and rewrite the lead accordingly.Bogazicili (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The lancet review is a review about the health effects of climate change, so of course it focusses solely on humans. That will not help us find the right balance between sections. If there are specific sentences in the physical drivers section you would like gone or shortened, please suggest them here. You know how much I love condensing the article. We do mention co-benefits around air pollution twice now (in mitigation and in political response). What other co-benefits do you think should be included? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
You are not suggesting a systematic approach. First we need to agree on our end goals. Are impacts on humans minimized in the article? I say massively. Then we need to agree on a reorganization. Then we need to shorten and expand based on that. It's too premature to suggest few specific sentences now. I'm not suggesting a band-aid solution, but a more comprehensive one.
Impacts on humans is currently around 6-8% of the Wiki article (rough word count in Microsoft Word: 597 words out of 9,639 for Humans sections plus few other sentences). I don't think such a low number could be justified based on the focus of reliable sources.
For example, IPCC Fifth Assesment has multiple reports too, and some of them focus mostly on humans, economy, etc etc [11], such as this.Bogazicili (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Apart from adaptation, I do not think that humans are minimized. I won't object to additions in the human impacts subsection based on length criteria either. One of three IPCC reports contains impacts on humans (WGII), but that same report also covers impacts on ecosystems, vulnerability, and adaptation (both ecosystem and humans). Say 40% of that report is human impacts only. About 70% of our article is scientific (politics, terminology and history are not really covered by IPCC). So 0.7*0.33*0.4 = 9% of the article should be human impacts. We're almost spot-on, with a bit of space to grow. 18:52, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
In the human impacts section, I only miss an estimate of the people being affected by SLR. That paragraph already already has these pre-2008 estimates of future migration that I still oppose strongly, so for prose reasons I will not add any further numbers. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I had made up the upper limit as I didn't systematically go through the article. The Humans section accounts for only 6% of the word count. Your calculation seems to be extremely preliminary too, obviously. But it's good to have this discussion now. I currently see multiple sections and topics missing. Missing sections:
1) Mitigation co benefits section per Lancet and it's also in IPCC. (Part 3 ties into co-benefits IPCC 5th Assessment Mitigation of Climate Change)
2) Adaptation co benefits section per IPCC (eg: Chapter 11 in IPCC 5th Assessment Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability)
Some missing topics in Humans section (not exhaustive):
1) Tipping point impacts [12] (can find more secondary sources)
2) Climate security /Human Security. We only covered migration, and not potential for violent conflicts (eg: Chapter 12 IPCC 5th Assessment Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability)

I'm not keen on a mitigation co-benefits section. For health, they are extremely important, but less so for other topics. Like any odd 'criticism' section, they may lead to the collection of one-sided (here positive) information about mitigation instead of whatever is due. CMD already indicated that our mitigation section may be too positive. I prefer to note significant co-benifits directly at the point it's relevant (reducing fossil fuel -> less air pollution). That makes it easier to keep track of due weight. I think the case for a specific section on co-benifits of adaptation is weaker, but am learning (trying to edit adaptation to climate change, which is in a right state).

The tipping points literature is difficult. The article you cite is quite exemplary for the wider literature in that it's mainly about the physical impacts rather than the human impacts. I'm open to mentioning it off-hand (f.i. in a SLR sentence), but I don't quite know the literature to justify a general addition. I've got a good source for cliamte security, and will add that. Because of racist media frames connecting migration and security, I will follow IPCC and put it in our livelihoods paragraph. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Link climate change / armed conflict has been added. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Drivers of recent climate change now merged with feedback section per one of first suggestions above. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

For example, we have impacts of mitigation under "Policies and measures" subsection. Specifically, this paragraph:
"Reducing air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels will have significant co-benefits in terms of human health.[253] For instance, the WHO estimates that ambient air pollution currently causes 4.2 million deaths per year due to stroke, heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory diseases.[254] Meeting Paris Agreement goals could save about a million of those lives per year worldwide from reduced pollution by 2050."
This is not a policy effect, as it's not simple as changing the % of tax on the books. So its position on the article is nonsensical. I also think we should mention economic benefits etc. There is simply no space for this kinda relevant information. IPCC gives extended length for co-benefits, look at the tables in each section such as energy and transportation with list of co-benefits.[13] Bogazicili (talk) 16:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
That's a good point. We've struggled a lot with getting a good structure up for mitigation. We could bundle that with negative side-effects of mitigations such as financial instability due to stranded assets. (moving some information from the first paragraph of political response perhaps). Co-benefits and risks could be a subsection if we can make one without expanding the article too much. Let's first focus on those proposals that a) make the article shorter and b) fix the adaptation section. Those two should be easier :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:40, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
PS: I'm going to strike out my original comments about length of Drivers section. Given the discussion in Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_criteria#What_is_the_recommended_article_length?, maybe it'd be ok if we end up with 11k or 12k word count. In any case, we can concentrate on expansion and restructuring, then consider the length after that, depending on the input we get from other editors.Bogazicili (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
11k would be an obese monster that won't be kept up to date, and additions will not be held to standard. Even the current 9k is very challenging. There's room for trimming to make space for adaptation. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
As I have explained in the discussion elsewhere, I will !vote to Delist this article if it expands beyond its current size. (As of now, I am waiting for the long issues raised by CMD to be resolved before I review). Please have a look at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content for my further reasoning on what happens when articles are allowed to sprawl. A major part of good writing is knowing what to leave out; our goal is not to impress with minutiae but to engage average readers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Re: Mitigation section: Femkemilene, Co-benefits and risks subsection might work. I don't think it'd increase the length much, as we will be transferring a certain portion of Policies and measures subsection to there anyways. Policies and measures could actually just be few sentences, I wonder if it can be absorbed elsewhere. Bogazicili (talk) 10:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead may need expansion: One of the FA criteria is a lead that "prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections." Our lead is 525 words (after my last edit) without including pictures and their captions. World War I lead (an article that was given as an example af a good FA article here [14]) has 1,114 words. For example, massive effects on people and societies are summarized with only two sentences, which are 40 words ("Rising temperatures are limiting ocean productivity and harming fish stocks.[9] Current and anticipated effects from undernutrition, heat stress and disease have led the World Health Organization to declare climate change the greatest threat to global health in the 21st century"). I think this is insufficient and lead may need to be expanded. Bogazicili (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

World War I is not featured article, and its lead is clearly too long. It was not given as an example of a good FA article, but rather as a topic to explain the concept of summary style. The manual of style advises 3 to 4 paragraphs for our longest articles. We currently have five, but the first and the last one are a bit short so I think we can defend having more paragraphs than advised. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
You are right it isn't. I had assumed it was given the linked discussion. Looking at top 2019 Wiki pages by views, I found India, which is FA. Word count for India's lead is 715 vs 510 for the current version of climate change. Bogazicili (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
When the lede was 600 words in March, SandyGeorgia commented that it was quite long. India isn't really in compliance with WP:WIAFA (I've always wondered what this abbreviation stands for. We should really prioritize highly read articles for URFA for learning reasons.). @FA experts; what is appropriate. The only sentence I can think of that really misses, is about discovery, which could be added to second paragraph. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
What is a featured article? CMD (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
PS: I have no goals of adding 200 more words into the lead. My point was to show that we are in good shape. Bogazicili (talk) 15:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Tracking Paris Agreement commitments:I think this is missing from the article. Basically this Climate Change Performance Index in words. Could be added to this section: Climate_change#National_responses. We can also add more recent things such as climate change policies and actions that are included in COVID recovery plans. Bogazicili (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree overall, but not sure which source to use. The UNEP emissions gap report is good for tracking Paris commitments, but I think what we want is to say "Russia, Brazil, Australia and Canada are climate baddies", in a professional way. Russia is very well on track to meet its Paris goals however, because those goals were ridiculously low. If we use the Climate Change Performance Index, we'd have to do in-text attribution, as it's an index that is quite subjective and developed by an advocacy organisation, if I read it correctly. I prefer to find a source we can use in wikivoice, but can't think of any. Do you have any ideas? Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking about something like 2-3 summary sentences covering major economies. Maybe Climate Change Performance Index wasn't a good example. But something like this: "The results show that for all countries there is either a significant implementation gap or ambition gap" [15] Bogazicili (talk) 17:47, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I think one or two additional sentences for major economies would be good. The paper is the right direction, but came out in April last year, and since then a lot of new commitments have been made that are quite ambitious. We now only talk about these new ambitions, leaving out the countries that are still lagging, which makes the text overly optimistic. Can we use a different bit of information from this source that is still valid? Pet peeve: the paper only uses equilibrium integrated assessment models, which often underestimate cost reductions of renewables and which frequently struggle with nonmonetary policy, so there might be a slight bias in the results Femke Nijsse (talk) 18:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that was just an example of something we could do, not specifically suggesting using that quote or even that source. Basically a few sentences outlining the latest situation. I just wanted to say that now before finding a specific source, since we changed the article structure a bit (and moved the Montreal Treaty part). Basically I'm hoping that section ("National responses") becomes the section where we talk about these issues and then we can put a sentence from that into the lead as well. Bogazicili (talk) 18:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

CMD, would you mind moving any points you feel have been resolved to the review's talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

CMD, I set up a section for you at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Climate change/archive1#Comments by Chipmunkdavis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy, just dropping a note that I've seen this but haven't been able to get around to it yet. CMD (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Clayoquot

Really great work has been done to explain the mitigation story. In particular, the "Changing sources of energy" section is an excellent summary of a complex topic.

The section on "Carbon capture and sequestration" has some serious issues. As a bit of background, the Royal Society 2009 report that's used as a source is pretty out of date. A newer source from an equally reliable body is the 2019 NASEM consensus report on negative emissions. My comments below are based mostly on the NASEM report. I am open to rewriting this section myself, but since we're in FAR I figured I should post here first.

  • The paragraph beginning with "Earth's natural carbon sinks can be enhanced to sequester significantly larger amounts of CO2 beyond naturally occurring levels" implies that carbon dioxide removal is only meaningful at large scales. I would change this to "Earth's natural carbon sinks can be enhanced to sequester large amounts of CO2."
Agree, but I do think it is only meaningful in large scales in the context of CC. Newer wording still has large in it, so I'm happy with fewer words. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The next two sentences on reforestation, afforestation, soil carbon sequestration and coastal carbon sequestration reflect a much more negative POV of these techniques than I believe is justified. These techniques generally have co-benefits for biodiversity, soil fertility, and flood control. Saying that tree-planting could use land that might otherwise be used for food production would be less scary and more factual than the current wording of "raise food security concerns." Saying that soil carbon sequestration and coastal carbon sequestration are "less understood options" makes them sound scary but doesn't give the reader any facts. If we were to base this sentence on the NASEM consensus report, rather than on the primary study that is currently cited, we could say something like "Soil carbon sequestration and coastal carbon sequestration are other options that can benefit local ecosystems in addition to offsetting emissions." and perhaps follow that by "The sequestration achieved through these methods may not be permanent."
Happy to see some bold proposals here. One of the reasons this currently has a negative POV is the large discrepancy between modelling studies and realised/planned projects. Historical attempts at carbon dioxide removal have frequently not let to the benefits that were promised, and have had trade-offs with more sustainable development goals than food [16]. Nonetheless, this consensus report seems to be a point of view we should include. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "As models disagree on the feasibility of land-based negative emissions methods for mitigation, strategies based on them are risky." Way too scary. The NASEM report says, "Reducing emissions is vital to addressing the climate problem. However, the least expensive and least disruptive solution involves a broad portfolio of technologies, including those with positive, near-zero, and negative emissions." I think the IPCC has some recommendations around negative emissions strategy too - I'll look this up.
I do think the literature on how negative emissions are used to postpone more realistic action is vital here as well. Maybe this could be rephrased strategies that rely on them in large-scale. A lot of the IAMs have an extreme reliance on negative emissions, which are at odds with the literature from land use scientists. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC
I agree that these are important issues. The most important thing in this section is to right-size expectations around the role of negative emissions. I think it's worth taking a few sentences to cover this evenly. (If you want to cut something so that the section doesn't become too long, you could cut the pros and cons of individual methods.) The introduction of the NASEM paper is a good source for this because it specifically evaluates the levels of mitigation that can be achieved without having to do bad things like take over agricultural land, and it also addresses the issue of the moral hazard that negative emissions present. The IPCC Special Report on 1.5 Degrees, Chapter 4, has a nicely balanced discussion about the role of CDR as well. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • "Most other geoengeneering falls into the category of solar radiation management." Solar radiation management has nothing to do with carbon capture and sequestration. It should be in its own section.
It used to be in its own section (geo-engineering on the same level as adaptation and mitigation), but then it would get undue weight. I cannot think for way to put it in a logical space without giving it undue weight. I'm open to suggestions :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy with how Efbrazil fixed the issue, putting it as a single sentence of the introduction of mitigation, avoiding undue emphasis by making it its own section.
Yes, that's a good solution in terms of where to put the content. I still have concerns about the content itself, described below. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The IPCC and NASEM both identify issues with the term "geoengineering". The NASEM consensus report says, "methods that create or enhance carbon sinks are best considered as part of the toolkit for net CO2 emissions reductions, although they are sometimes misleadingly classified with solar radiation management as “geo-engineering." The IPCC says, "Because of this separation [between two meanings of the term], the term ‘geoengineering’ is not used in this report."[17] I suggest we follow their lead and avoid the term altogether.
I'm happy dropping that word, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are other people objecting. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
In the new sentence, we're still using the word geo-engineering (in the strict sense of the word), and I'm open to further rephrasing, but I think it works out quite well. We may need a bigger restructuring of Wikipedia if we decide to now use it. Let's wait a few years to see how this changes in reliable sources. We're using a 2018 source which still uses it. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The term "solar geoengineering" is fine, but it looks like we've introduced the term "climate engineering" which has exactly the same problems as the previous use of "geoengineering". Direct air capture and solar radiation management should not be grouped together under a single term. SRM presents ethical and legal issues, but DAC doesn't. DAC is risky mostly in the sense that it's so expensive and immature as a technology that it might not get deployed at a scale that will make any difference to the environment at all. The 2018 paper (Lawrence et al) is not out of date per se, but it is not the best available source either given that there are 2018 IPCC and 2019 NASEM consensus papers on the topic. Featured Articles should use the best available sources, and Lawrence et al. is not one of them. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 08:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

The "Carbon capture and sequestration" section should probbly be called "Carbon dioxide removal", as "carbon capture and sequestration" is not usually used to refer to natural methods such as reforestation. Also add {{Main|Carbon dioxide removal}}.

My impression from reading the Wikipedia article is that carbon dioxide removal doesn't include CCS. As the section is more about negative emissions than CCS, it would be an improvement, but still not perfect. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
That's a good point. How about "Carbon sequestration" which covers the intention of both paragraphs? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Done (with a note that it's too jargonny, but I don't think there is a non-jargon alternative). Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in! I think this is a difficult section to write and am glad to have your help. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know whether it is too UK specific for this article (obviously UK has plenty of holes in North Sea to store CO2 whereas other countries may not) but there is a short (38 pages), up to date, and easy to read source on BECCS, DACCS and Wood in Construction here Chidgk1 (talk) 09:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Clayoquot’s point is well taken. I think that the earlier presentation of this topic under its own heading was still a preferable way to present it. The topic still has a significant presence in the popular and scientific literature, and that should merit its inclusion as a separate subsection, perhaps within the mitigation section (which would be consistent with how it is treated in AR5). Clarity for the reader should have priority over due/undue policy considerations. In the text it may also be worth acknowledging that there is some work being done on the viability of limited SRM. Dtetta (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Should fix the slideshow of images four basic accessibility concerns. Its using a portal template that is broken that does not work for over 60% of our readers. It's either hidden from view or displays all images at one time stacked. It's why its not used in mainspace anywhere.--Moxy 🍁 22:00, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Even though we seem to be near the end of this featured article review, I must take a wiki break, because my RSI has been flaming up again after a stressful period at work. If nobody takes over from me, could this review be put on hold for up to 2 months? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hasekura TsunenagaEdit

Notified: Per Honor et Gloria, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Biography Talk page notice

This is a 2006 promotion that has never been reviewed since; the main contributor has not edited since 2011. Issues:

  • the article has several unsourced full paragraphs;
  • the article does not have a consistent citation style, with footnotes used as the main "style", and then random parenthetical citations in the text;
  • the article relies a lot on lenghthy quotes;
  • the prose in the "Hasekura today" subsection is not "FA-level";
  • "Timeline and itenerary" is not needed;
  • The notes and the references need work.

RetiredDuke (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I've started working on cleaning things up, but this one is going to take a while. Once the refs are cleaned up and consolidated (there are a number of duplicate refs that I haven't fixed yet), then we can see more clearly where issues are with existing refs and where we need to add in more. I'll slowly chip away at it as I can.
Regarding your points:
  • There definitely need to be more sources used, though some may already be in the article and not be used fully yet.
  • I'll be cleaning up the citation style so it's consistent and easy to read.
  • I've moved all the quotes into a notes section so they don't clutter up the actual references. If possible, it may be good to see if any of them are on Wikisource, and link to those instead of including large quotes here.
  • As you said, the "Hasekura today" section reads more like an "In popular culture" section right now. I think things could be converted to a "Legacy" section (or something like that), and the language can be cleaned up and made more encyclopedic.
  • I agree, the timeline and itinerary section can be sorted out into the appropriate sections of the article.
  • Already addressed the notes and references.
Thanks for your patience while I carve out time to work on this. You can see my recent work on Manzanar (diff) and Boshin War (diff) to see what I have done before. Diffs are from before I started to when I finished, though others also contributed during those times, so it's not entirely my doing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for taking on this article. I don't think we are pressed for time at FAR, as long as the article is being worked on. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
We are working on an AI to automatically identify statement issues around minor POV problems and missing citations. It has identified some statements that need citations on this article. They are given below:
  • He spent his young adulthood at Kamitate Castle (上楯城)[3] that was constructed in Hasekura Ward, Kawasaki City (ex-Hasekura Village), Miyagi Prefecture, by his grandfather Hasekura Tsunemasa (常正).
  • The embassy was probably, at that time, part of a plan to diversify and increase trade with foreign countries, before the participation of Christians in the Osaka rebellion triggered a radical reaction from the shogunate, with the interdiction of Christianity in the territories it directly controlled, in 1614.
  • The galleon, named Date Maru by the Japanese and later San Juan Bautista by the Spanish, took 45 days work in building, with the participation of technical experts from the Bakufu (the Minister of the Navy Mukai Shōgen, an acquaintance of William Adams with whom he built several ships, dispatched his Chief Carpenter), 800 shipwrights, 700 smiths, and 3,000 carpenters. The daimyō of Sendai, Date Masamune, was put in charge of the project.
If the predictions are relevant, and they could have eased the review burden, we appreciate more feedback here to help evaluate our AI and make it robust. More details can be found on the research page. Sumit (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I've cleaned up the refs so they are all using appropriate templates and formatting. Now we can see where we are. @RetiredDuke:, if you will go through the article and add {{cn}} to every place that doesn't have a citation and you think it needs one, that will allow me to know exactly what I need to find. Please ping me here when you've done that. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, my, what a layout, image, MOS:SANDWICH mess. Thank you, again, for taking on a big one, Nihonjoe. Once you are further along, I will volunteer to re-format all the image layout to resolve layout problems. Meanwhile, if you see any that can be deleted ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Went ahead and sorted what I could on the image mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, it's definitely a mess (or it was, anyway). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold as work is being actively done, with some discussion on the talk page. Just to give the coords a heads-up. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I have now tagged the whole article like User:Nihonjoe asked above. However, I respectfully ask them if they are sure they want to do this. This FAR is going to be a major rescue job, and while I greatly admire the work done rescuing Boshin War and Manzanar, those articles were never this bad. Many of the sources in the Hasekura article are primary sources, documents and letters from historical figures contemporary to Hasekura. The article draws conclusions solely from historical documents in several sections of the article. Lengthy quotes from historical documents are used verbatim as part of the narrative, instead of being paraphrased. I've added 80+ cn tags to the article. At some point this will become a completely different article from the current one. It's like a new FAC. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
It may take some time, but I think we can do it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I will help in what I can, but I truly only realized the scale of the job once I read the article sentence by sentence. There's no rush though. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Nihonjoe, progress seems stalled. Are you still on this one? Update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Progress hasn't stalled. It's the holidays, and I have a lot of other things going on. I'm still working on it as I can. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Some of the references would be easier to find for people in Spain, Italy, Mexico, or Vatican City. I've pinged the following projects to see if they can help find some of those sources: WP:SPAIN, WP:ITALY, WP:MEXICO, and WP:CATHOLICISM. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Nihonjoe, you may find the Resource Exchange/Resource Request helpful if you're having trouble finding sources. Aza24 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Aza24: Thanks. That was going to be my next stop. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Renewable energy in ScotlandEdit

Notified: SAMurrai, Ben MacDui, WikiProject Energy, WikiProject Climate change, WikiProject Scotland, talk page 15-04-2020

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is severely out of date. Because developments in renewable energy are very fast, even the structure of the article needs a complete overhaul. Just a few out of many examples:

  • Solar PV is only described under the section heading of microsystems, whereas this is a mainstream technology for electricity production even in Scotland.
  • The recent events section stops in 2014.
  • Wind energy is now massive in Scotland, but gets equal attention to smaller contributions.
  • The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fourth Assessment Report has further increased the profile of the issue. (two major IPCC reports have come out since).

Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  • Also some serious citation issues, as well. We've got bits of uncited content sprinkled in various areas. There's a book cited without specific page numbers given. There are multiple cites to the home page of Scottish Renewables, and as the homepage is frequently updated, that (out-of-date) information is no longer supported by the citation. There's a bare URL in the references. Ref 45 is an uncited footnote, not a reference. A sampling of online references finds multiple dead links. Many of the references are old enough they seem to be outdated. So there's much work needed here. Hog Farm Bacon 18:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Femkemilene: Thanks for alerting me - I can't fault your analysis. It was one of my first FAs and I quickly discovered that keeping a topic like this up-to-date is a fair amount of work. I kept at it for a few years but as the subject became higher and higher profile (which is good news) I became less involved in the industry than once I was and the pressure of life and work has also led to me being much less active as an editor herein. Can you give me a timetable for 'moving the article to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list' (per my talk page). It's not out of the question that I will find the time over Xmas to do a revamp and it would be good to keep the FA star for COP 26 - to be held in Glasgow - if possible. Ben MacDui 16:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
It's great to hear you might have time I'm relatively new here, but I think waiting till Christmas is definitely okay. I might do some small updates in the mean time. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Time is usually granted, and considering my past experience with Ben MacDui, I recommend the wait. It is possible the Coords would put the FAR on hold (meaning they sometimes remove it from the page with a calendar note to bring it back ... in six weeks in this case). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
I think we'll leave it live in case someone else is interested in helping out, but it shouldn't be a problem to extend the timeframe. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Ben MacDui are you still planning to work on this? (Ben MacDui has not edited since 8 December.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Hoping to start today or tomorrow. Ben MacDui 10:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Well that's a start at least. Half of the 'Toolbox' links are not working at present for some reason and manually checking ref links would be a tedious business so that may be it for today. However, there's not much point in tarting up the refs if the content is not close enough to being up to the mark. Comments welcome. Ben MacDui 13:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Great! Improved structure, and many more parts of the article are now up-to-date. I think there still a few parts of the article that will need to be rewritten significantly, removed, because the citations are too old.

  • I'm a bit surprised that there was a small loans in employment found by that consultancy. Typically, wind energy causes an increase in employment. More recent sources available?
  • Wind power now has as much space as wave power, even though it is significantly larger. This warrants expansion and separate subsection for offshore and onshore wind.
  • The first source of tidal power is from 1981.
  • For geothermal, I assume the subsidy scheme has changed since 2007? (The 4000 pounds)
  • Most of the sources in micro systems are too old to be used. I don't think microsystem is a big topic any more, so wouldn't mind if it gets deleted entirely.
  • Grid management should probably mention the European super grid. I know the European Green Deal has made this more ambituous, but not sure if plans for Scotland have been updated. The Brexit deal includes collaboration in terms of energy.
  • Incineration is typically seen are bio-energy. Bio-energy section already quite long, so if merged, you may want to delete/condense some.
  • Local vs national concerns might be better renamed as politics. It could include the stances of different Scottish parties on the topic.
  • The first paragraph of that section has essay-style, and I don't quite see the relevance. Remove?
  • I'm missing Nicola Sturgeon and current support.
  • The relation between independence and energy is interesting in Scotland. There are multiple papers on the topic, such as It states renewable energy and oil were really important in the 2014 referendum.
  • If national vs local concerns is renamed politics, the sentence on the COP would fit in. Doesn't quite fit at current location
  • How many see-also's are needed?

Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  • The article focuses on potential over installed/planned capacity. I think that's not what current sources emphasize, now that the technologies have matured and installations have increased. A shift in focus may be necessary, for instance in the caption of the lede graphic. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Please ping me for a re-visit when Femke's concerns are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Drive-by comments
  • The WP:LEAD should be checked to ensure it is a summary of the article. There are a few citations only present in the lead, suggesting information only present in the lead. Quick spotchecks suggest overall capacity and exporting are lead-only at least, but it should be examined more thoroughly. CMD (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • What is the "Main references" section meant to be?
  • The blueish colour in the "Electricity generated by source" legend is different to the colour of the bars for me. Is that the case for you?

CMD (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

    • Something is wonky; perhaps RexxS would have time for an accessibility and color check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm really short of time right now, but the colour mismatch is because the bars have transparency applied, but the legend doesn't. It's a bug in the Graph:Chart extension. I've reduced the transparency in the blue bars to make them render nearer to the colour in the legend as a work-around for now. I'll try to do a proper accessibility check as soon as I can make some time again. --RexxS (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
BMD reply

Femke Nijsse wrote: Great! Improved structure, and many more parts of the article are now up-to-date. I think there still a few parts of the article that will need to be rewritten significantly, removed, because the citations are too old.

  • I'm a bit surprised that there was a small loans in employment found by that consultancy. Typically, wind energy causes an increase in employment. More recent sources available?
    • >I just removed it.
  • Wind power now has as much space as wave power, even though it is significantly larger. This warrants expansion and separate subsection for offshore and onshore wind.
    • >Done - expanding wind power further would I think just involve listing yet more sites and there is a 'main article' about this topic.
  • The first source of tidal power is from 1981.
    • >This was not so long ago for some of us! Besides, it is referencing past events.
  • For geothermal, I assume the subsidy scheme has changed since 2007? (The 4000 pounds)
    • >Replaced by the CARES system, (which is regretably bureaucratic).
  • Most of the sources in micro systems are too old to be used. I don't think microsystem is a big topic any more, so wouldn't mind if it gets deleted entirely.
    • >I am not of the view that sources from 2007 are "too old" if the information is still accurate, but I agree that the commercial scale of wind in particular has rendered this largely redundant so I have binned it (although the remarkable Eigg has been saved for the wind section).
  • Grid management should probably mention the European super grid. I know the European Green Deal has made this more ambituous, but not sure if plans for Scotland have been updated. The Brexit deal includes collaboration in terms of energy.
    • > I am not aware of any active schemes. I read that "Plans for a subsea renewable energy transmission cable between Scotland and Norway have been put on hold by the government in Oslo." No doubt in the merry land of Brexit all kinds of new collaboration will emerge, although I can't see the UK supporting such a scheme myself.
  • Incineration is typically seen are bio-energy. Bio-energy section already quite long, so if merged, you may want to delete/condense some.
    • >Attempted.
  • Local vs national concerns might be better renamed as politics. It could include the stances of different Scottish parties on the topic.
    • > I don't think so. The 'local vs national concerns' issue is a function of geography and an urban vs rural issue rather than party political as such - but see below.
  • The first paragraph of that section has essay-style, and I don't quite see the relevance. Remove?
    • >I fear you may never have been to the Hebrides. The whole point of this is that the greatest sources of energy are in places that are challenging to live in from climate and marine perspectives. Nonetheless I have relegated Murray's comments to a note.
  • I'm missing Nicola Sturgeon and current support.
    • >I am a bit reluctant to draw the keyboard warriors into the article but I have added a short political parties section.
  • The relation between independence and energy is interesting in Scotland. There are multiple papers on the topic, such as It states renewable energy and oil were really important in the 2014 referendum.
    • >Included in the above.
  • If national vs local concerns is renamed politics, the sentence on the COP would fit in. Doesn't quite fit at current location
    • >Included in the above.
  • How many see-also's are needed?
    • >I removed a few that are in the templates at the bottom of the page.
  • The article focuses on potential over installed/planned capacity. I think that's not what current sources emphasize, now that the technologies have matured and installations have increased. A shift in focus may be necessary, for instance in the caption of the lede graphic. Femke Nijsse (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    • >I take the point - this is probably because recent sources tend to replace coverage of the strategic initiative with comments about the short term tactics as well as being a function of the change from 'potential' to 'installed capacity'. The image has been moved and there are various text changes.
Chipmunkdavis wrote
Drive-by comments
  • The WP:LEAD should be checked to ensure it is a summary of the article. There are a few citations only present in the lead, suggesting information only present in the lead. Quick spotchecks suggest overall capacity and exporting are lead-only at least, but it should be examined more thoroughly. CMD (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    • >No kidding - hopefully now fixed.
  • What is the "Main references" section meant to be?
    • >Removed.
Additional from B. Mac.

There are a few references from books that don't have pages identified. In two cases I think I know where the volumes are, in at least one (Emma Wood) I don't. Arguably the Monbiot ref in the lead is acceptable as this is the topic of the entire book. I hope to ferret out what I have later today - although it may be next year.... Ben MacDui 12:32, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Chidgk1 wrote
Good to see this important subject being updated. Some suggestions:
  • Apparently bold is not mandatory for the subject. First sentence needs to be punchier. Maybe something like: "Renewable energy in Scotland is mainly offshore wind power?" (if that is true)
    • > It isn’t true. See Summary of Scotland's resource potential
I agree. The word issue can be a bit negative. Two alternatives:
  • Renewable energy in Scotland reached x% of total energy consumption in year X. This also helps shift the focus away from electricity.
  • The EU sentence is also more catchy: Renewable energy plays an important and growing role in the energy system of Scotland.
  • Lead could emphasize that we are talking about energy not just electricity, and say what proportion of energy is renewable now compared to 2030 target mentioned. Maybe possible to have graph in body showing all energy sources so we can see how renewables compare oil, gas etc
    • > Actually, this is fascinating. When the article first appeared one drive-by commentator wondered whether the topic was worth bothering with at all, so commencing the article with a statement that “this is important” rather than a string of statistics seem(ed)s to me to be far more apposite. Having said I see that it has been changed already and I am not going to grumble if you prefer it that way – although it is also a hostage to changing data and I presume enthusiasts for this approach will be kind enough to provide updates in future.
  • Add a section on "energy storage" and flexible generation - especially longer term e.g. windless weeks
    • >There is a ‘Grid management section’. There is no question at all that battery technology is going to be a major focus in coming years but at present it’s not really a major issue.
      • >>Ah OK but at the moment that section does not seem to give an overview. For example I understand that for the UK as a whole at the moment the flexibility is mostly provided by natural gas - for example gas-fired power stations ramp up when there is very little wind. But I don't know for Scotland whether the current flexibility is provided in the same way or some other way - for example energy import and export with England. Perhaps it is somewhere in the article and I missed it. Also for the UK as a whole I understand a lot of energy is stored in the natural gas pipelines at the moment - so if that is also true of Scotland it could be mentioned together with how that amount of storage (likely too much for batteries) might be done in future. I see you have info about pumped storage in the hydro section but it seems that will not be enough? Or is that out of date? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Mention demand management e.g. electric car charge timing
    • > I am not aware of anything specific to Scotland that (as yet) is especially noteworthy but I added a tidbit about Sunamp (but note that this is about renewable energy use rather than production – as this becomes mainstreamed it may become necessary to split these topics out – see also below re transport links to islands.)
      • >>Ah I had never heard of those "heat storage batteries". If that is the same as thermal battery perhaps that article could be linked
  • More about using renewable energy to heat homes
    • > I removed this at the suggestion of Femke Nijsse.
      • >> Femkemilene The UKCCC says (in the doc linked below) the Scottish govt should "Set out a coherent strategy for the future of low-carbon heat and energy efficiency in Scotland's homes and other buildings." Although the strategy will obviously cover more than renewable energy I think the arguments (for example for and against heat pumps) should be discussed more here. Because the article title is "Renewable energy in Scotland" not limited to "Renewable energy generation in Scotland" but also it should cover the use of renewable energy a bit more don't you think? Alternatively it could be renamed to "Renewable energy generation in Scotland" which matches the short description. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
it's a difficult one. I'd say that an article on renewable energy should very succintly summarise complementary technologies. I feel that when hydrogen is mentioned, electrification should be mentioned as well. The article now only mentions hydrogen vehicles, which are significantly less common than electric vehicles. Renewable energy in heat and transport are important topics. This should get less weight than the power sector, as there is less renewable energy in those sectors as of yet, but the article is probably slanted a bit too much towards power. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Discuss how much electricity (and maybe hydrogen) links to rest of UK will help UK as a whole achieve net zero
    • >Mentioned in the “realisation section, para starting: “In 2018, Scotland exported over 28% of electricity generation…”. I added “to the rUK” just to make it clear. Hydrogen is (as yet) irrelevant at this scale.
  • Remove "peak oil" as not now relevant
    • >I read at Peak oil that current estimates of the date of peak oil “range from 2019 to the 2040s” so I don’t see how the idea can be considered not now relevant. It was and is a major driving force of public policy.
  • A bit more on transport links to and between islands - electric planes?
    • >There are no passenger, commercial or other links in Scotland using electric planes (although there has been some coverage of amusing ideas to increase carbon emissions by attracting people to go to Orkney to then experience the world's shortest scheduled flight using an electric flying machine.) Caledonian MacBrayne have two or three diesel powered ferries supplemented with lithium-ion batteries. This is mentioned at Sustainable development in Scotland and in my view the topic is more relevant to that article.
  • Add "current annual energy" column to summary table
    • >Don’t understand.
      • >>I was thinking the actual energy generated by each tech in a particular year. But on second thoughts perhaps that would be too much work to keep up to date in future. And I have now read the note beneath the table and I see that the potential energy is actually a quick estimate of what I was asking for.
  • Is offshore wind potential really only 25GW? floating platforms included?
    • > The numbers in the article are very similar to those used here. As an aside, it’s fascinating to see how so much of the recent information is monetised – i.e. phrased as ‘worth £x billion’ or ‘y 000 jobs’ rather than expressed in potential energy. It’s a long way from Twidell’s conference in 1981.
  • Condense bioenergy section and expand offshore wind section
    • >Expand in what way? Listing yet more wind farms already in the main article would not increase interest or readability.
  • Brief mention of politics and economics of closing down (or converting to CCS/blue hydrogen) natural gas electricity and heating
    • > CCS: the political history is of Holyrood vs Westminster brickbat chucking but the end result is (so far) no action. The economics are essentially a UK matter. See ‘Carbon sequestration; section for the current situation.
    • > I added a sentence about the recent policy announcement – although we have been waiting on the ‘hydrogen economy’ since the 1980s and I am not holding my breath.

Chidgk1 (talk) 16:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

    • >Replies by your humble servant, Ben MacDui 10:47, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
More from Femke
  • on biodiesel, the article states " interest is growing in the subject". I can't believe this is still true; bio-energy has fallen a bit out of fashion. Anyway, a modern sources needed for a statement like this entire paragraph (or can be put in the past tense)
  • 'There are encouraging developments', with a citation from 2007.
  • It has been alleged that UK transmission pricing structures are weighted against the development of renewables in Scotland. Links to 2006 sources. Still true? Or past tense?
  • Renewable Energy Association are also leading the way towards the establishment of a digestate standard. I assume there is a standard now? I have the plans been abandoned?
  • Is there a reason to use the word annum instead of year, or utilise instead of use?
  • 'while the smaller EPR Westfield power plant in Fife produces 9.8 MW of output using chicken litter as fuel'. As capacity still the same? Does this thing even still exist?
  • The information about bio capacity is probably also dated. I'm not familiar with the term, and it might not be something scientist use any more.
  • The developed world's economy is very dependent on inexpensive 'point-source' fossil fuels implies that fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables, which isn't true anymore. I'm assuming solar hasn't yet become cheaper in Scotland, but unsure when surely has.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I am now back at work - will reply at the weekend. Ben MacDui 08:39, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • on biodiesel, the article states " interest is growing in the subject". I can't believe this is still true; bio-energy has fallen a bit out of fashion. Anyway, a modern sources needed for a statement like this entire paragraph (or can be put in the past tense)
    • >>I removed this dated statement. Westray's rather fun biodiesel project seems to have ended a few years ago - at least I can't see anything obvious beyond about 2012 so I put it in the past tense.
  • 'There are encouraging developments', with a citation from 2007.
    • >>I amended the wording.
  • It has been alleged that UK transmission pricing structures are weighted against the development of renewables in Scotland. Links to 2006 sources. Still true? Or past tense?
  • Renewable Energy Association are also leading the way towards the establishment of a digestate standard. I assume there is a standard now? I have the plans been abandoned?
    • >>SEPA now have a standard in place. Amended.
  • Is there a reason to use the word annum instead of year, or utilise instead of use?
    • >>They are perfectly good words - what would the reasons be to change them?
  • 'while the smaller EPR Westfield power plant in Fife produces 9.8 MW of output using chicken litter as fuel'. As capacity still the same? Does this thing even still exist?
    • >> Surpringly difficult to find out actually. It seems to have been mothballed in 2011 and then there was a proposal to revieve it 2017 and now Brockwell have permission to re-build some kind of waste to energy plant either nearby or on the same site. I've removed it.
  • The information about bio capacity is probably also dated. I'm not familiar with the term, and it might not be something scientist use any more.
    • >>Biocapacity is used in ecological footprint studies and although these much more complex analyses have received much less attention than the simpler and more immediately concerning carbon footprint studies that does not make them less important. See for example the front page of one of the quoted sources or Chambers (2004) where the word is repeated frequently or indeed Ecological footprint. I have added a better link direct to Biocapacity. Unless someone has done a revised study with different methodology the outcomes are unlikely to have changed much.
  • The developed world's economy is very dependent on inexpensive 'point-source' fossil fuels implies that fossil fuels are cheaper than renewables, which isn't true anymore. I'm assuming solar hasn't yet become cheaper in Scotland, but unsure when surely has.
    • >> Removed inexpensive.
  • it's a difficult one. I'd say that an article on renewable energy should very succintly summarise complementary technologies. I feel that when hydrogen is mentioned, electrification should be mentioned as well. The article now only mentions hydrogen vehicles, which are significantly less common than electric vehicles. Renewable energy in heat and transport are important topics. This should get less weight than the power sector, as there is less renewable energy in those sectors as of yet, but the article is probably slanted a bit too much towards power.
    • >>I hope you'll forgive me if I say that yes it is difficult - and it's also a little confusing to be asked to remove a section that included remarks about '"small-scale 'wind2heat' projects", "air source heat pumps" and waste heat and then be asked to say more about "renewable energy in heat". Tbh I am not at all sure what is being asked for. For example, it is perfectly true that electric cars are going mainstream whereas hydrogen is still essentially experimental. On the other hand, as far as I am aware, other than garages retailing e-vehicles I don't know of a specifically Scottish angle here, whereas there very much is in the context of hydrogen, even it still remains unclear how, when and if it can be mainstreamed. Furthemore, not all e-vehicles are powered by renewable sources, depending on who the energy supplier is. I wonder if any statistics about this exist. Maybe I could use something from here. I'll need to think about this.
I trust your judgement :).
    • >>Thanks - I have added a new para about the relationship of demand management and EVs.

Ben MacDui 16:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry, but my stress levels have been a bit too high recently, so I'm working towards a one or two month wiki break, and won't be reviewing this article further. Loads of progress made so far, and I'm sure other people can help bring this article back to FA status. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

  • >>Understood and hope you recover soon. Ben MacDui 11:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Chidgk1: as Femke is not planning to return can I ask you (and anyone else above) to say whether or not you have any further concerns? Ben MacDui 16:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have the energy to look at this any more. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
More comments

I don't think I have the same grasp of the issue as some here, but I can provide some comment further comments.

  • The lead feels disjointed, without a clear order or structure. I think some shuffling may solve the issue, but perhaps you may have more ideas on how to summarise the article since you have been back into it.
  • Before having a section on "Realisation of the potential", it might be good to have a section on the potential. There is a bit of this in the first paragraph, and there is the table at the bottom which appears to have some sources that could also be added. There is space for a bit more explanation on where the potential for the various forms of energy production comes from.
  • Such a Potential section could also introduce a summary of Scotland's energy and electricity mixes at whatever the best baseline is (2006 from the article?). That provides good context to see the shifts within the mix. Perhaps an explanation on how the grid functions (reach of the National Grid, other smaller grids in Scotland, interconnectors within the grid, import/export of electricity).
  • Comparisons within the EU should be past tense (not just because of Brexit, the EU's expansion may also have altered percentages).
  • Placing the Realisation section in chronological order makes sense, and is mostly done here, but it does swing back and forth a bit. Relating I think to comments above about datedness, the "20 GW of renewable energy projects in the pipeline" part comes from a 2012 source. It does feel like there is more missing, for example the UK has legislated for net-zero emissions, surely there is some Scottish component to this and/or complementary or similar plans by the Scottish government? A later source says Scot Gov has a plan for "100% of electricity and 11% of all heat in Scotland being generated through renewable energy sources by 2020", for example, although this too is out of date now.
  • The bar graphs at the bottom of the article could be used to illustrate the Realisation section.
  • The first paragraph of Hydropower seems dated and some parts are unsourced.
  • The scottishrenewables url in the second paragraph is out of date. It also links to its own sources, which may be preferable. Much of the rest of the paragraph doesn't appear to be sourced, unless it's in the book? The book source needs page numbers.
  • The remaining hydro capacity source is from 2010, is this up to date? What happened to Knoydart and Kingussie?
  • Perhaps make pumped storage its own paragraph?
  • In general throughout the article there is an overuse of "in Scotland", which should be understandable from context.
  • The parts sourced to "Scottish wind power output breaks 100% output milestone" appear to be a straight up copy paste.
  • The explanation of what Tidal Power is seems mostly unsourced.
  • Regarding the sectoral section order, I can't see a pattern. Might it be best to go from the highest producer of power (wind) to the lowest?
  • It seems highly undue that almost half of the Solar energy section is devoted to a road energy system that exists in a car park.

I've read the rest of the article but don't have any specific points right now. The general points touched upon with the specific examples above could probably be applied to other areas of the article. I come away with a similar impression to above of a bit of datedness and some areas where the general information lack sources. That said, your comments above about how difficult it is to keep this article up to date feel quite justified, and I also come away with the impression of a breadth of scope supported through specific detailed examples. CMD (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


Notified: jhsounds, WP Video games, talk page 2020-10-25

This is a 2007 promotion that was last reviewed in 2012, with no major contributors still editing it. It has taken on some cruft since its review eight years ago, and should not be difficult to restore if someone will undertake improvements.

  • WP:NOTPRICE needs review.
  • There are citation needed tags.
  • A MOS review is needed. Samples only: WP:WAW ... The USPTO said they would accept Nintendo's trademark filing if the company disclaimed exclusive rights to the word "remote" in the term and if the word “remote” ... with curly quotes as well. Spaced WP:EMDASHes.
  • In the "Launch titles" section, MOS:DONTHIDE and a footnote
  • Incomplete citations everywhere.

This should not be a difficult restore if someone will undertake the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

    • I'm doing a quick scan related to the prices but I'm not seeing an issue. As a home consumer electronic and particularly with video game consoles, listing the base cost in major release regions is a common practice; the price is noted by most sources and used to compare to other consoles (at the time of its release), so the brief list in the infobox seems appropriate within the context of NOTPRICE. But perhaps I'm missing something elsewhere. Same with noting the typical game price. --Masem (t) 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • These citations are going to need a thorough going-over. I'm not familiar with video game sources, but there's a lot of malformed ones, and references such as "RawmeatCowboy (April 13, 2008). "Korea – Wii launch date confirmed, and more info". Go Nintendo. Retrieved January 17, 2015." look iffy. There's several others I suspect to be blogs. There's a handful of missing citations. I'm seeing sourcing as the primary issue here. Hog Farm Bacon 16:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yep. Big citation cleanup needed, obscuring the WP:NOTPRICE problem. I see at least one press release citing a price. Wikipedia policy (emphasis added) calls for

      An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.

      but with incomplete citations, it is difficult on a quick glance to determine if prices comply. And, while it is possible that mainstream sources do exist for some of these prices, it is not apparent that they have been used, as most use of prices seems to be either product reviews or press releases, rather than mainstream independent media sources. The use of the template:cite press release would be a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm working on a major rework that's addressing sourcing problems (lots of sources that today, we'd not accept at VG/S nor as RS) as well as lacking information we know now (eg after Iwata's death, a lot of his involvement in the Wii's development was better known). There's a bit of Nintendo-fanboy-ism in this which needs to be worked out as well. It is an important console to VG history and thus needs good documentation, but there's some of this that gets a little odd in some places, which I am slowly working through. And yes, I will fix the issues on the price sources, I know I can get third-party RSes for that. --Masem (t) 17:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Masem! Sorry to dump a big one on you; initially I expected this to be a quick save, but am relieved you are willing to do the work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • No, when I starting through, this clearly was a FAC from a different era. It's not terribly far off, but it is going to take more than just a few fixes. I am working on it though, so don't rush to demote, please. BTW, I have fixed the prices issue (press releases nixed, and have third-parties to even address the cheaper costs relative to other consoles). --Masem (t) 18:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Not to worry-- there is never time pressure at FAR, as long as progress is being made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: Obviously I'm still working on this to drastically improve it, but I do have a FAC question to ask related. The current Sales section is currently relatively duplicative (to an extent) of the Wii sales article, but in terms of notability, the latter really shouldn't be standalone. Now, across both there is some additional "fanboyism" elements to strip and focus on the big picture - something I've had to do over at the Nintendo Switch page for comparison. I am thinking of bringing in the Wii sales page into this article as to reduce redundancy, but is there any allowance for the table on the Wii sales page to be started in a collapsed state? Or (and I haven't investigated this in detail), collapsing the middle section and leaving lifetime sales (last row) visible. I know I can show the entire table but I'm curious if there's allowance for collapsing anything. --Masem (t) 22:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: I'm still working on this but one thing I noticed in trying to fix citations is that the Citation Bot link up on the template here (the one I recall using to check for missing/broken refs and to quickly find the ones missing information) is no longer present? Is there a replacement? (This and a MOS check should be all that's left, the CN issues are fixed as well as my overall rework to remove the fanboy-ish coverage). --Masem (t) 20:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, best I can tell ... most of that toolbox is now defunct, and we should probably ditch it. Sorry, not aware of a replacement. I will look in here in a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The external links thing still works for finding dead links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • That's the tool I remember, for some reason I thought it was something else :P --Masem (t) 21:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Masem, do you have User:Evad37/duplinks-alt ? There are way too many duplicate links for me to get them all, and some of them may be needed ... hard for me to tell, but some serious attention to WP:OVERLINKing is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Many missing publishers and incomplete citations, sample, "Anniversary Bundles and Wii Remote Plus Confirmed for US". Too many for me to clean up.
  • Forbes all need to be checked. Older Forbes sources are not necessarily non-reliable, as they changed to a contributor model later, but some of the Forbes pieces used are not Forbes staff, rather contributor. WP:FORBES, WP:FORBESCON. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Masem that is all I have time for right now; I think cleaning up the citations before going in for MOS checks and copyediting is imperative. I am concerned that we might want to ask Miniapolis, who copyedited this article the last time it was at FAR, if they might run through it again, as I am finding too many prose issues. But cleaning up the sourcing and overlinking should happen first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, SandyGeorgia. Let me know when you're ready for the copyedit. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 23:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a prose check would help as I have had to take my hand to fix sections (putting in more reasonably appropriate material for an encyclopedia), and I know I suck at first pass writing. I'll ping VG to see if someone else can also check. I will be doing the source check with the EL tool tomorrow, there's too many to check through and verify right now in addition to completing incomplete references. But yes, it is far closer than it was. --Masem (t) 22:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Also will check the dup wikilinks (now have that script, very useful I see). --Masem (t) 23:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Masem, if you don't get any bites on the copyedit, let me know and I'll make time. My FA chainsaw is rusty but I bet it still works. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments from Jaguar

To compliment Sandy's initial points above I am concerned that this article doesn't meet any of the FA criteria and see that the issues are not restricted to its prose. I will list some broad issues found from a cursory scan:

  • The lead doesn't comply per WP:LEAD. It is far too long at the moment and is riddled with cruft. Are the model names "RVL-101" and "RVL-201" important enough to be chucked in there? While it does make a show of summarising the article the prose is not concise enough to allow for snappy information-taking
  • The main body of the article (particularly the history section) relies too much on quotes and doesn't flow well. It all needs rewriting from an historical viewpoint
  • The majority of the article still gives an impression of it being written in 2007 - reading it feels like we're locked in those dismal years of recession! The launch section contains too many precise dates, some sentences remain in the present tense and generally the focus gives too much weight to how much the console was sold for. This benefits nobody
  • The article contains inconsistent measurements and conversions. Even the prices aren't formatted consistently ($ - US$; £ - GB£). Lose the country prefixes if they are mentioned in the context
  • The hardware section is imbalanced and the whole structure far too choppy. Even discounting the cruft there are several unsourced parts
  • The specifications should ideally be in prose format, though I know how much of a pain this is. A FAC reviewer would most likely request it
  • "Built-in content ratings systems" just contains a list of national rating boards. This isn't necessary
  • The Media support subsection is trapped in time, littered with banalities like when things were released
  • The table list of launch titles shouldn't be in the article, if anything it should be in its own or in List of Wii games or the like
  • The reception section needs nuking and rewritten from scratch
  • I believe enough time has passed to warrant a legacy section in this article. The Wii had a profound impact on gaming and yet it's not clear if this article mentions anything
  • The latter half of the article isn't structured well. After the reception section it jumps to legal issues, and it doesn't feel right that the article closes with "Homebrew and emulation". The final stretch of the article should have a Legacy section, and in it could contain its successor and a few points regarding homebrew
  • The images contribute to the cluttering and general disorientation of the article. There are two images of queues outside and inside shops at seemingly random points, poor quality images like someone holding a remote to a TV (you can't even see anything!) and two bland photos of CPUs. I know there are better pictures out there
  • The sources are also formatted inconsistently, many are missing publisher fields and there isn't even a bibliography subsection - two unused references are lumped right above the citations

I think it's a big task to salvage this in the state that it's in right now. If this article was nominated at GAN it would probably be quick-failed. I am willing to help after I've finished with PlayStation (console) but for this to reach the standards of 2020 would require a lot of work, or a multi-editor project. I'm always sad to see an FA delisted, but if it does happen a better future for this article may await. JAGUAR 00:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

    • I did get a start on addressing some of these points (mostly on a structural standpoint). I *still* need to hit the sourcing issues. I mean, I rid the Forbes contributor pieces (there's a Forbes staff article in use though), but as I started to parse incomplete sourcing, I'm not very satisfied with the general sourcing used on some sections on the article, which may also be tied to how some of the sections were written. (That said I felt I did already try to re-write the history section beforehand from a historical standpoint, knowing what I knew we had from Iwata's death (his contribution to the Wii) and then what retroactively we knew based on the Switch's design back through the Wii U to the Wii.) But the article was in a far "worse" shape beforehand, while it was FAC passed in 2013, I dunno if standards were lower then or if it was edited since but it wasn't great at all. --Masem (t) 01:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
      Masem where do things stand on Jaguar’s concerns? Do you still want to save this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Of the issues: I *have* fixed through the monetary conversions, the hardware section (including removing the hardware specs table), reworked the Media section table, removed the launch title table, added a Legacy section (which could still use some expansion), removed some of the images that were in question, and have done a massive rework of the entire sources to get their formatting complete (via prove-it) and/or replacing poor sources with better RSes, which also has basically had me touch most every other section of the article, save for the Lede and the Reception section. (eg in other words, the point about being in 2007 should also be fixed).
        That would only leave addressing the lede, reworking the development section to remove quotes (but I will add I added those in early stages of fixing this and feel those are actually appropriate considering the confusion/nature of the Wii's name), and the Reception section. The point about the console's cost is something that is standard in how consoles are written about and compared to (eg how take into account the NOT#CATALOG aspect), since these are third-party sources discussing the prices and in comparison to other consoles. I did think I took out a few regions of release that were not the major English-speaking regions or Japan since that list could go on. --Masem (t) 14:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I would hate to pile work on Masem. Comparing this article to other console FAs like Sega Saturn or Mega Drive illustrate that the issues lie in its content, or lack of. This article doesn't just suffer from prose rot but rather it appears to never have had the quality encyclopaedic material to begin with. I will be happy to work on this as a project after I've finished with both PlayStation (console) and my university work (the latter of course takes more time!) but I think the best option would be to nuke some parts and write from a fresh perspective. I'm not an expert on Nintendo however - maybe there are others at WP:VG who could provide pointers on missing content. ♦ jaguar 14:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
          Just to add, I have reworked the lede and also just did a rundown on the duplicate links. --Masem (t) 15:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • No edits since 11 December: @Masem and Jaguar: where do things stand, and should I have another look yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
    • I have a feeling based on Jaguar's comments that while I've been able to correct the issues that brings the state of the article where it was before the FAR was started to where the issues related to all the "mechanical" issues (source consistency and completenss, sourcing quality and trying to improve on various factors), and acknowledging that I know my writing style does tend to some copyediting, we're looking at a content deficiency that was present that had always been there from when the article was first promoted to FAC but which at that point in time a combination of reviewing standards and expected content for VG consoles articles (particularly with the Wii's importance) wasn't identified. Thus as Jaguar has suggested, needs more work in terms of content completion. In other words, I can't see a route that avoids indefinitely delisting this unless more eyes are put onto it soon (I'll ping the VG project again, but I've pinged for help before), but it should at least be seen that if we get editors to help bringing it back to an FA status is not a starting-from-scratch point. --Masem (t) 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
      • I'm going to be pitching in to assist. I think step one, to make this manageable, must be to divide it among us. If myself, you, and Le Panini work on it, this shouldn't take too long, provided we each have a manageable section of the article to work with. Otherwise, it’s going to be chaos — us misusing our time with too much overlap when we need significant coverage. Let me have a look at the article now. I'm going to move this discussion into the Talk page (where SandyGeorgia and any other observers can join us, if they have any follow-ups. ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
        • Thanks for helping, User:ImaginesTigers; should you reach that point, please remember that you have two offers to copyedit on this page (Miniapolis, Czar). I will join in when the article has advanced to the point where a review from a non-gamer will help; we aren't apparently there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Have a look at Talk:Wii#Avoiding the abyss. There's been some good progress. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidatesEdit

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

Grand Forks, North DakotaEdit

Notified: Milk the cows, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject North Dakota, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, diff for talk page notification

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review per RD's comments at Talk:Grand_Forks,_North_Dakota#FA_in_need_of_review. (t · c) buidhe 02:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, the only engagement since nomination was to move a section.[18] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Battle of SvolderEdit

Notified: Haukurth, WP MILHIST, WP Norse history & culture, WP Norway, WP Sweden, WP Denmark, 2020-12-1

Review sectionEdit

Lots of uncited text and the use of primary source ancient texts seems a bit too heavy, IMO given that there seem to be decent recent sources available (although I don't read the relevant Scandinavian languages). Hog Farm Bacon 01:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • When I was writing this I found it surprisingly difficult to find recent secondary sources discussing this battle in any detail. I think the type of historical analysis that would do something like that is probably out of fashion. That said, I'm sure you're right that the article isn't in accordance with modern Wikipedia standards. I thought it had been delisted years ago. Haukur (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Should stay featured. As Haukur says, this kind of matter is not fashionable, and you are unlikely to find a lot of new literature on the subject. It is probably close to as good as it can ever be.--Berig (talk) 13:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Berig and Haukurth: - I don't know if this will be useful to the article or not, but this discusses one of the sagas about Svolder. It's available freely through WP:LIBRARY. After some looking for sources, I have to agree that this isn't the most written about topic. However, there's a number of spots where there aren't inline citations, and inline citations are part of the current FA requirements. If anyone can read Swedish, the Larrson source at [19] may be useful. Hog Farm Bacon 02:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Chunks of uncited text are still not resolved. Hog Farm Bacon 17:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, entire paragraphs still uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Concerns raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

The Philadelphia InquirerEdit

Notified: Medvedenko, WP Brands, WP Journalism, WP Newspapers, WP Pennyslvania,WP Philadelphia, talk page notification 2020-11-25

Review sectionEdit

This is a 2006 FA whose main editor has been gone from Wikipedia for eight years; it has not been maintained to standards. A summary of issues including datedness, sourcing, comprehensiveness and MOS was posted on talk over a month ago, with no response. If anyone engages to improve the article, I can expand the list of issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Well, for an article promoted in 2006, this isn't in bad shape, but that's a low bar. I fixed the citation needed tags and replaced the dead search link for the Pulitzers section with one that works. There's still a bunch of work to be done, and I don't personally think I'll have the capacity, but I really hope someone comes in and saves this. Newspapers of record for major cities are important topics and we should prioritize keeping them up to standard. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 04:05, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, with the exception of Sdkb's edits, and some bare URLs filled in, no other edits, and issues mostly unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include coverage and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Shimer CollegeEdit

Notified: Nasty Housecat, WikiProject Illinois, WikiProject Chicago, talk page notification from 2014, talk page notification from Nov 2020

Review sectionEdit

I'm nominating this article for review. Shimer College was acquired by another college in 2017 and the article needs an overhaul to make its current status clear.

  • The changes should go beyond just putting the text in past tense. For instance, there are still inconsistencies such as When Hutchins left the university in 1951 and it abandoned the Hutchins Plan, Shimer continued to use it and it is still reflected in the college's curriculum. - well, it's now a school, isn't it? Shimer Great Books School?
  • There's no mention of how the acquisition process went down (the History section makes no mention of it) or why. There isn't a single mention of "acquisition" in the body of the text;
  • Several small sentences were added throughout the text to reflect the acquisition, but they are all unsourced:
  • "In 2017, seven Shimer faculty joined the Shimer School of Great Books at North Central College."
  • "As of 2017, tuition and fees for the Shimer School will be identical to those of North Central College."
  • "As of June 1, 2017, the Shimer School of Great Books of North Central College is located on the campus of North Central in Naperville, Illinois."
  • "This inclusive model of governance was unique in American higher education."
  • "... led the College to its new future at North Central College and was awarded an honorary doctorate in April 2017 in recognition of her service."
  • "As students at North Central, Shimerians will have access to the full range of student services and student organizations."
  • "Whether these programs will continue at North Central is unknown."
  • "This program will continue at North Central."
  • Notable alumni subsection is mostly unsourced. Also, that section should not be in bullet points;
  • The lead needs trimming of extra detail pertaining to the college days that is not very relevant now.

(There's an older talk page notice that is not mine and that provides other reservations, prior to the acquisition, but I have not compared the edits.) RetiredDuke (talk) 21:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


Notified: Patrickneil, WikiProject Turkey, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Travel and Tourism, diff

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, like many articles about geography, the article has not been updated, evidenced by the quantity of clean-up tags added by buidhe. The original nominator, User:Patrickneil indicated that their knowledge of Turkish isn't sufficient any more to make updating this article easy. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The short book by Lloyd and Rice on the archaeology and history of the town is listed in the Further reading section. I'm surprised it is not used in the article. Some pages are available from Google books - Aa77zz (talk) 10:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FAR nothing happening here as of yet. (t · c) buidhe 12:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FAR tags are still there, and as buidhe mentioned, it looks like the original nominator will not be able to update it. Deltawk (talk) 01:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


Notified: WP:CHESS, WP:BOARDGAMES, talk page 2020-04-20

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the issues discussed at Talk:Chess#FA_concerns, which have not been addressed in weeks. Setting aside minor problems such as badly formatted references (and several references to youtube or blogs), the article has unreferenced paragraphs and sections and worse, seems not to be comprehensive. Some sections are just one-sentence long, and there are entire issues that are not covered at all (chess and military [20], chess and board games [21]/[22]) or are covered too superficially (chess in popular culture, online chess). Some topics like online chess are mentioned only in the lead and not in the body at all. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:13, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This is the fourth FAR for Chess. This time, I'm not working on improvements; no one will keep this article in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
The last one was 10 years ago. So maybe someone new will step up. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – It looks like I commented briefly at the last FAR, although I didn't have any major involvement; this is one of those topics where I lack knowledge and am afraid that my edits would be more harmful than helpful. In general, there is quite a bit of uncited content scattered throughout the article, which is my major concern regarding the FA criteria. The other items will probably be easy enough to deal with in a summary article like this, with modest additions, but if the content isn't referenced we're not going to have much choice but to delist this down the line. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
User:Piotrus, do you have feedback on whether the issues have been addressed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: Sadly, I still see unreferenced parts, and the missing / indaequately covered content I mentioned above (military training, popular culture, online chess) haven't been touched upon, so despite the article being edited since those issues were raised on talk and here by several editors (whom I'll ping just in case they are not aware of this discussion and maybe one of them would commit to a major rewrite) nothing has been addressed. @MaxBrowne2, TimSmit, Intforce, Bruce leverett, and Quale:. I'll also ping major past contributors because who knows, some may be still active and willing to rescue this: @Ioannes Pragensis, Bubba73, Ihardlythinkso, and KAP03: --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:47, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I haven't even had the article on my watch list for many years. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist, issues unaddressed, thx, Piotr. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced paragraphs and statements. Five-paragraph lead, single sentence sections and gallery sections deprecated by manual of style. DrKay (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @DrKay, Bubba73, Piotrus, and SandyGeorgia: I made a few bold moves, changed the intro, deleted a few sections. I hope that it helped to rise the quality a bit. Could you please look at it and tell me, what is to do now in order to keep the article in FA?Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    • You CANNOT eliminate the absolutely essential rules of castling, pawn promotion, and en passant!!! Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd rather see it delisted than mutilated like this (and probably still delisted anyway). This is wholesale deletionism. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I'd rather have it say what it needs to say and not have it an incomplete FA. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Compromise? If you can't have sections about the castling, pawn promotion, and en passant rules, promotion and en passant could be covered in the movement of the pawn and castling could be covered in the movement of the king, even though it also involves a rook. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 01:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Bubba73: Agree, a short description in the bullets about the King / pawn moves would be appropriate.Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There have been some startling removals:
As mentioned above, there is no explanation of castling, en passant capture, or pawn promotion. Pawn promotion is even mentioned in the section about "Theory", but not defined.
There is nothing about the first move advantage.
There is nothing about zugzwang.
There is nothing about strategy or tactics.
The famous Réti endgame study has been removed. This is absolutely part of "chess canon"; not to mention that it is beautiful.
The reference to the mini-series "The Queen's Gambit", so recently added as a result of a semi-protected edit request, has been removed.
I can't imagine that this article could last very long without proper coverage of these topics. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • @Bruce leverett: Well, Bruce, there was really a lot of very important topics of the chess theory not covered even before my purge (eg. basics of the opening theory or how to mate with a Queen against bare King). It is impossible to mention everything given the limited space. But I have no slightest objection to describe two or three important topics as short examples in the Theory section. Regarding the Réti study, it is beautiful, but not understandable at the beginner level - you need at least some basic knowledge of the endgame theory to appreciate it, and the endgame theory is not explained there.Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 08:12, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I would not expect readers to be interested in, for instance, king-and-queen-versus-bare-king. But, like any introductory article, this should teach basic vocabulary, so that readers can return to their books or movies or whatever prompted them to look up Chess in Wikipedia, and comprehend better what they are seeing and hearing.
Of course there are many beautiful endgame studies and I did not mean to recommend for them to be included. But the concept of "chess problem" or "endgame study" is hard to comprehend without an example, and the Réti study was an excellent choice, because it is very simple, and because countless textbooks and articles have used it.
I see that your changes have been rolled back. I thought that you had done some good work, but I agree with User:MaxBrowne2 that there needs to be time for consensus if major changes are being made. Bruce leverett (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
It is better to have a good article (small "g") than have a bad article that passes the FA test. 07:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand the reason for removal of under-referenced sections, but the best solution is to reference them. Either way this won't help address issues with lack of comprehensiveness (the article seems reasonably ok discussing key topics related to classic chess but fails badly when one tries to look at this from a broader perspective, like chess culture/chess and culture/etc.). I am happy to put my vote on hold if someone wants to expand this, but I want to stress that referencing existing content (and also standardizing the reference style and eliminating some low quality refs) won't be enough. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I understand that FA standards are more stringent now than they were when this article was originally passed. If this article gets delisted for now I can live with that. From my point of view we had a pretty decent article that was getting worked on by several editors and gradually improving. I'm ok with the gradualist rather than immediatist approach, we can discuss what needs trimming and what needs expanding. I certainly don't want a single editor cutting whole sections out, including important parts of the rules, in a rush to pass FA status. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
My point of view is that the article became a bit bloated, and sometimes unbalanced, during the past 10 or so years, and that its structure should be improved. I understand well that my emergency moves can be disputed, but this FA review is a good opportunity to make the important article better and change things that would be otherwise untouchable. I returned the chapters I deleted yesterday, perhaps we can find a compromise - but the purpose to make the article more readable and more useful for general public should be always kept in mind.Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 18:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
I worked on some small parts of the article before it became a FA, but then I took it off my watch list, and haven't looked at it for years. It does seem a bit bloated now. As far as unreferenced paragraphs, I haven't looked through the whole article, but several of them are the paragraphs on the rules. However, other than some general text, all of it could easily be referenced to the FIDE rulebook (which is referenced in the introductory text). There are also a large number of other books that could be used for references, but the official FIDE rules do change change from time to time, making other books not up to date. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Delist. I don't think it’s worth greatly diminishing the article in order to keep it at FA (and it would likely fail comprehensiveness as a result if tried). What is most surprising to me about this is that we don't have an article titled Introduction to chess. That would likely be a far easier article to bring up to Featured Article status, and perhaps even be more useful to readers (if they were properly directed towards it). As it stands, the article really does have too many problems... A shame, but not surprising, given its age (it’s surprising that it lasted this long!). — ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)


Notified: RJHall, Kwamikagami, WP Astronomy, WP Solar System, talk page notification 2020-11-19

Review sectionEdit

This is a 2007 promotion that has not been maintained to standard. There has been an Update needed tag since May 2020, and there has been no response to the talk page notification from 19 November 2020 or the expanded list of items needing attention I placed a week ago. The original author is retired and has not edited in six years. Issues include outdated and uncited text, and some prose and MOS problems. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Femkemilene, maybe you could tackle this like you did for Earth? LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I've had a look, but it's too much work in an area that doesn't give me as much motivation as other regions of Wikipedia. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Rod57 maybe you could update the internal section. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There is an update tag on the "Internal structure" section
Removed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There is an update tag on the "Juno mission" section
Updated. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Tagged dated: The temperature at the core boundary is estimated to be 36,000 K (35,700 °C; 64,300 °F) and the interior pressure is roughly 3,000–4,500 GPa.[49][These estimates are out of date]
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Has the issue in the section just above this one been resolved?
  • There are MOS:SANDWICH and image layout problems everywhere. If knowledgeable editors will delete those that are least useful (decorative), I am willing to go through and improve the layout. There are considerable images here that are not aiding our understanding of the topic; by reducing those, we can get a better layout on the ones that stay.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Not fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Now? LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There are considerable duplicate links. See WP:OVERLINK, but some may be deemed necessary and retained (editor discretion). Installing this script will add an item to your toolbox that shows duplicate links in red: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
  • External links probably could benefit from a trim, per WP:ELNO. FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, meaning there should be little in EL that can't be covered in the article. Ditto for Further reading ... are they all necessary? Do they add something to the article that we can't cover in a comprehensive article?
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Does See also need trimming? That is, why aren't those worked in to the article (in instances where they can be)?
Trimmed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Fixed???? LittleJerry (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It is easy to spot sporadic, uncited text. Samples in the "Moons" and "Interaction with the Solar System" sections. The entire article should be scanned for uncited or outdated text.
  • The "Mythology" section looks like a collection of stuffy, one-sentence paragraph trivia; should be rationalized to paragraphs.
Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 13:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep an eye out for WP:CITATION OVERKILL and remove the unnecessary, sample, Interactions between charged particles generated from Io and the planet's strong magnetic field likely resulted in redistribution of heat flow, forming the Spot.[87][88][89][90]
Fixed some. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Done for now, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

  • The infobox is an unmitigated nightmare, taking over a huge part of the article (and everything in it needs to be checked to see if the content is included in the article, and cited). That infobox needs reformatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The "Analogs" section is a list that should be prosified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep: I think the major issues have been dealt with. Overlinking is not enough to delist it and the infobox is just like the other planet articles. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Keep or delist are not declared during the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC; there is no possibility I can clean up the faulty prose in this article, so I have not checked other issues. Sample para: “Before the discoveries of the Voyager missions, Jupiter's moons were arranged neatly into four groups of four, based on commonality of their orbital elements. Since then, the large number of small outer moons discovered has complicated this picture. Jupiter's moons are currently thought do be divided into several different groups, although there are several moons which are not part of any group.” The Voyager seems to have rearranged the moons. And “Hot Jupitiers are usually tidally locked,“ ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Listed this as a WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors Request. LittleJerry (talk) 02:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Delist this article is now worse than it was when it appeared at FAR. The best way forward is to give this article a fresh start with a new FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strike and rephrase per conversation with LittleJerry on my talk. I don't know if the problems are now worse than before, but now that the MOS issues have been cleaned up (perhaps, I have not re-checked), it is apparent that the prose issues in this article are well beyond what we should expect a copyeditor to be able to clean up. Without fresh and complete engagement by content experts to revise the entire article, I don't think this is doable within the scope of a FAR. The prose is atrocious. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • 'Keep if the Copyeditors Guild gets to this. I think the other major issues have been dealt with. LittleJerry (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Chidgk1 did a copyedit of the article. I know you said that a copyedit wouldn't be enough, but another look wouldn't hurt. LittleJerry (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much, LittleJerry; I will look when I have a free moment. Which may not be soon :) Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, LittleJerry, this is why I say we need a content expert rather than a copyeditor to sort the prose. Perhaps it's just me.
  • Do you know what this means, as it relates to Voyager? Am I just not understanding it because I lack the background? "Before the discoveries of the Voyager missions, Jupiter's moons were classified into four groups of four, based on commonality of their orbital elements. Since then, the large number of small outer moons discovered has complicated this picture. Jupiter's moons are currently divided into several different groups, although there are several moons which are not part of any group." I don't know how to translate that to meaningful English. ::*Do you know what a "captured asteroid" is or how to fix that?
A captured asteroid is an asteroid that ended up in the planet's orbit. LittleJerry (talk) 23:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • In term of copyediting to FA standards, we have in the "Interaction with the Solar System" section, two subsequent paras starting with "Along with ... " vary the prose.
  • How are all of these related, and how can one split up the sentence? "The orbits of most of the system's planets lie closer to Jupiter's orbital plane than the Sun's equatorial plane (Mercury is the only planet that is closer to the Sun's equator in orbital tilt), the Kirkwood gaps in the asteroid belt are mostly caused by Jupiter, and the planet may have been responsible for the Late Heavy Bombardment of the inner Solar System's history."
  • "Due to the magnitude of Jupiter's mass" really? Due to Jupiter's mass ? This is only from looking at one very small section; a copyeditor can do their best here, but a content expert needs to write this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
pinging Chidgk1, Devonian Wombat and Christophe1946. LittleJerry (talk) 23:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

"The infobox is an unmitigated nightmare ... the prose issues in this article are well beyond what we should expect a copyeditor to be able to clean up". How can I possibly resist? I shall endeavour to sort out the prose. It may take a week or two. I mean, could I possibly make it worse? I shall not be adding any citations. As ever with my copy editing, I shall likely be bold - if you don't like something or don't understand why I have done it, either just revert or feel free to query me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Gog the Mild; the problem is, there is no one to revert or check you, as no one from WP Astronomy or WP Solar System has shown up, and there are problems where the prose needs to be made intelligible and checked for source-to-text accuracy ... you are on your own !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I had kinda worked that out. I'll see what I can do. I really am not at all sure that it is salvageable, but it may be; and for a copy editor it looks like a target-rich environment. :-) This is Voyager 1, signing off as I fade into the vacuumous depths. I shall write if I find work. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • From what I've heard, the planet infoboxes were all standardized at some point. So I would advise not altering it (unless someone wants to get a bunch of astronomy folks to create a new standardized planet infobox design, that is), large as it may be. Aza24 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Battle of TippecanoeEdit

Notified: User talk:Charles Edward, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indiana, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, talk page 2020-11-30
Kevin1776 could you also notify the Indiana WikiProject ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Done as requested. [23] Kevin1776 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of reasons detailed on the talk page, going back to 2011. Kevin1776 (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

  • There appear to be significant issues with text-source integrity per Kevin1776's past comments on the talk page and my spot checks of Langguth last month. Primary contributor has noted on article talk page that a lot of the stuff would be in Funk, which IMO may be the weakest of the primary sources, as that publisher seems to be pretty obscure. I also support one-week in each phase, as I have a feeling that this one will need very significant attention, potentially to the extent of a rewrite. Hog Farm Bacon 17:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC This probably needs a complete overhaul. Definitely a one-week FAR and FARC candidate. Hog Farm Bacon 23:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC Support one-week FAR/FARC. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues listed include text-source integrity and reliable sourcing/comprehensiveness Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist very serious issues identified. (t · c) buidhe 01:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist Heavy source-text consistency issues. Hog Farm Bacon 17:50, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Hold in FARC, as work in now ongoing. Hog Farm Bacon 18:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Victoriaearle I see you at work here ... are you thinking this may be salvageable? Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm tied up today but will post here when I get a chance later. Also, I'm thinking about this situation. Removing the star doesn't address source issues, but source issues might not be as bad as they initially appear because of ref bundling. Victoria (tk) 16:52, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm personally uncomfortable with keeping FA and removing the cite check tag unless source-text integrity checks are performed from several sources in conjunction and a source choice check is conducted as well. See Kevin's comments on the talk page about sources that should be used. Hog Farm Bacon 18:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
If you don't want me to work on this, that's fine. There's a lot of work to be done. But my sense is that it's work that's doable. I'm not fast and if there's a deadline, then I should bail out. I did have some comments to make re sourcing, pagination, ref bundling, checking refs during FAC, blah blah, but can easily let it go. Just let me know. Victoria (tk) 18:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
No, I'd like to see this worked on, as improvement is the goal, not removing the star. I just want to make sure that this gets a good source review, since it hasn't. I have a copy of Langguth, if you need scans from it I can wikimail some. Hog Farm Bacon 18:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure Sandy can vouch for me. I'm strict re source reviewing. So far I've spent less than an hour on this and won't know until really digging in whether it's salvageable. That's why I would have wanted to wait to post - when I know what's what. Victoria (tk) 18:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for giving this one a really thorough look! Hog Farm Bacon 19:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Victoriaearle you go, girl :) Just like old times at FAR, the good ones trying to save stars :) We can only try our best, and if we can, good, if we can't, we tried. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Posting to the review section - pls move if in the wrong place. My initial assessment based on a small section is that everything in our article is verifiable, with caveats.
    This is an article from back in the day before verification/citation rules were fully implemented or executed. At that time it was common to read a source (book or whatever) or two or three and then write the article in summary style, with everything from all the sources melded together. References came at the bottom of the page if anyone wanted to verify. It made for much better writing, but now we have to cite each sentence.
    The problem with the that type of article is that it's difficult to tease apart which statement comes from which source. Eventually citations were added to some of these articles, and like this one not always perfectly accurately. I'm finding that page numbers & even sources don't match perfectly so it's a job to fix all of that. Spot-checks on articles like this are difficult for lots of reasons.
    I'm at the very beginning of this process, finding sources, screen printing what I can, and then matching as best I can. My sense at this early stage is that article is salvagable, but it will be a job to fix the citations. I think it's worth doing, but it'll take a long time so if time is an issue, then we should delist. Victoria (tk) 00:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    Victoriaearle, I moved it down. The way these pages work, it may be lost if placed above, and we just continue from the FARC phase once it's opened. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    Also, I failed to respond. The Coords are amenable to keeping FARs open if there is steady improvement. It's really, almost, your call at this point, but they need an idea on your timing. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    Yeah look, we've left open FARCs for multiple months if folks are actively working on articles. I am pleasantly surprised. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:24, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks both. I kinda gulped, because I have to work slowly, so thanks Cas for eliminating pressure. It's picky work matching sentence-by-sentence to refs (plus the reading). It seems that one of the sources isn't available (Funk), so I may come to a screeching halt at that point. I'll keep updating with progress. Victoria (tk) 17:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I've got an additional concern here - I fear the map of the battlefield may need to be replaced, and my faith in Funk's accuracy is declining. The map of the battlefield in the article includes a reference to a "Catholic Mission", the map licensing gives Funk as the source for the information. See Talk:Battle of Tippecanoe#Catholic Mission where the mention of the mission in the article was removed as very dubious, and the article creator stated that this could only be cited to Funk. Unless we can find another RS supporting the presence of a Catholic Mission at the site, that casts some doubt on Funk as a source in my mind. Hog Farm Bacon 01:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'm finding other authors citing Funk so he probably isn't terribly awful. It's moot, though, because unless someone wants to spent $700, Funk isn't available. I've found lots of other sources, still need to read them, but intend to replace Funk. In other words those sections might be completely rewritten.
    As to accuracy: Native Americans are a marginalized people, so when writing about them all sources are suspect. From what I can tell all the sources in this article have accuracy issues. One tells us Tecumseh showed up in Vincennes in 1810 with 300 warriors and 80 canoes, another puts the canoes/warriors a year later, the most recently published book (2020) says 8 canoes, 30 warriors. One source says Harrison went to Kentucky to recruit militia, another to take his wife and children to safety, another something entire different. Oddly all are in agreement that Tecumseh traveled to recruit the southern tribes after the 1811 meeting. Which those tribes are and where they lived is not mentioned in any source, so it's a mystery.
    In other words, there's lots of reading to do, lots of thinking to do, etc. Right now I'm simply working my through to get a sense of the lay of the land. As for the map, I'd intended to remove it. There's a good historical one there which should suffice. And maybe another exists in another source. All that said,
    if you think this article is beyond saving, let me know now before I invest much more time and start the real heavy lifting. Thanks. Victoria (tk) 01:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Adding, as it happens there's a map here, page 8. Does that work? Victoria (tk) 02:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    That map should work. The book was published in 1900, so it's PD, so it could be included. It also doesn't include the disputed Catholic Mission, which is also a plus. Hog Farm Bacon 02:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Of course. I wouldn't post something that's not PD. I do need an honest answer to my question in the above post though. The question at the bottom. Victoria (tk) 02:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    I honestly do not know. The only source used I have is Langguth, and it only devotes a chapter to this. What I know is that it's beyond my ability. I'm an ACW buff, and only know a little bit of War of 1812, so I can't give an expert opinion on comprehensiveness or accuracy. I just don't know if this is fixable or not, but I fear it's gonna require a lot of rewriting. Kevin1776 might have a better idea. Hog Farm Bacon 02:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'm capable of rewriting and often that's what's required at FAR instead of simply delisting. Anyway, I was excited about it - important Native American, important battle, nice little article. But if you don't think it can be done I'll let it go. Not worth pushing a stone uphill so to speak. Victoria (tk) 02:49, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    I hope you continue your work to save it. I have a few sources at hand (Sudgen & Edmunds, others requestable thru local library), and can pitch in as time allows. You're right about the unreliability of sources -- basically anything written about Native Americans before circa 1980 should be considered dated and suspect, so even if I had the Funk book on hand I'd be reluctant to cite him for Native aspects of the battle. Kevin1776 (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'm waiting for clarification re the process from @WP:FAR coordinators: , posted here. Funk is a primary & there are plenty of others that are similar, but not usable. Jortner claims Cave's account is the best & it's being used, which is encouraging. I'm just not seeing that the issues in this article aren't fixable; it's a short article about essentially a skirmish and there are newer books. But if the process is to delist & then rewrite, then it's best the process is followed. I'm not that familiar with FAR processes. Thanks for the offer of books - if needed I'll let you know. Victoria (tk) 16:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    If you are willing and able to address the issues raised, that would be fantastic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    Tks, Nikki. Yes, I am. It's an interesting article. Victoria (tk) 00:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Update: I'm basically finished. The sourcing has been fixed, a bunch of text that I couldn't verify had to be removed throughout so it's about 300-400 words shorter. I'm not sure this is FAC-worthy but if it goes back into the pile without a star it's correctly cited, which was my goal. Thanks for giving me time. Victoria (tk) 21:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Victoriaearle can the maintenance tag be removed from the article then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes. I didn't want to do it myself. Victoria (tk) 21:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
P.s - does anyone know what's happened to the dashes script? I can't make it work. Then forgot about fixing them manually. Victoria (tk) 21:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Not working for me either ... doing them manually ... very weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I've removed the cleanup template with a link to this discussion, and made a couple tweaks involving transferring a footnote from a reference to a proper note and creating a section for notes. The biggest issue seems to have been addressed, and I plan on giving this another read through soon. If any smaller issues crop up, I'm willing to help work on them. Hog Farm Talk 23:14, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Ok. Victoria (tk) 02:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

British EmpireEdit

Notified: Chipmunkdavis, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, Wiki-Ed, Snowded, Wee_Curry_Monster, Buidhe, Slatersteven, MilborneOne WikiProject British Empire, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Commonwealth, WikiProject British Overseas Territories, WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject International relations, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject WikiProject Colonialism

Review sectionEdit

This article was promoted in 2009. It has inconsistently formatted citations. The article also violates MOS:SANDWICH quite heavily, with images on both sides of the text in several places. It also fails to be comprehensive, well-researched, or have a neutral point of view because of it doesn't cover the British Empire's negative aspects properly. Perhaps the most glaring example is that the article doesn't discuss the British Empire's relationship with indigenous people (the phrases aborigine and native american are never mentioned) and doesn't mention the word genocide. Every article about a state should cover genocides the state has been accused of by at least a significant minority of scholars.

The Genocide debate section of the History Wars article is a good example of the kind of discussion that should be in the British Empire article, but isn't. A lot of the information in that article should be in this one. Raphael Lemkin, the originator of the term genocide, considered the Tasmanian genocide perpetrated by the British Empire to be an example of genocide. The Autralian Museum carries articles on its website arguing Aborigines were the victims of genocide. Other editors have argued that such a tiny number of scholars support the idea of the British Empire perpetrating genocide that it should not even be mentioned. That is clearly an unsustainable view.

There are other examples of this article not being comprehensive in its coverage of the Empire's negative aspects. For example, it devotes 247 words to 18th century wars with Spain, but only 80 words to famines in India. It blames the famines on crop failures, neglecting to mention scholars such as Nobel prize winner Amartya Sen who argued that the undemocratic nature of the Empire was the most important cause of these famines. One author went as far as calling these famines the Late Victorian Holocausts. This is a clear WP:UNDUE problem.

In the talk page discussion, Wiki-Ed argued that the article already included all the facts, and my suggested insertions are simply moral judgements by historians that are not necessary. But the article actually omits many important facts about the negative aspects of the British Empire.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: here is the March 2020 talk page notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Quality posts here, could you please notify the other WikiProjects listed on article talk? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I have now notified all of the WikiProjects listed except version 1.0.--Quality posts here (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Some commentary moved to review talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC) As regards neutrality the article is clearly treating the subject in a neutral manner mentioning topics such as the opium wars, the slave trade and topics such as the Indian famines. So the basis of this nomination is clearly to disrupt rather than improve the article. WCMemail 22:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Nick-D

This article needs very considerable amounts of work to retain FA status. Some comments on the sections I'm most familiar with:

  • The article seems weighted towards the last period of the Empire, with the section on 'Britain's imperial century' being shorter than that on 'Decolonisation and decline'
  • Language like "In 1770 James Cook discovered the eastern coast of Australia" needs to be replaced - the European explorers were venturing into populated lands, not "discovering" areas previously unknown to humanity
  • The section on the Second World War more or less ends in early 1942. The reconstitution of the Imperial forces and their successful campaigns are worth covering - this included genuinely Imperial efforts like the Empire Air Training Scheme (which underpinned the RAF), the Eighth Army in Italy, the Burma Campaign and the British Pacific Fleet.
  • " on the whole, Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were established to assume power. This was in contrast to other European powers such as France and Portugal,[186] which waged costly and ultimately unsuccessful wars to keep their empires intact" - totally false. The UK doubled down on much of its remaining empire during the late 1940s and 1950s, for instance by taking a serious interest in West Africa for the first time given it could produce valuable exports and encouraging Whites to move to the East African colonies. The UK also fought to hang onto its Empire when threatened in the 1950s and early 60s (e.g. Suez, Kenya, Cyprus and Aden). This material repeats a now-discredited myth, and acts to obscure the fact that like France the UK also fought dirty wars to try to stop independence movements.
  • The statement that the UK handed over to "stable" governments is also false as it implies that this was a tidy and successful process - the British in general did very little to prepare their colonies for independence, and most have been plagued by instability or single party rule since independence. Many of the African countries had only a handful of university graduates at the time of independence, for instance.
  • "The pro-decolonisation Labour government" - very simplistic. While Labour wanted to get out of India and was more sceptical of imperialism, it didn't oppose the Empire per-se.
  • " while New Zealand's Constitution Act 1986 (effective 1 January 1987) reformed the constitution of New Zealand to sever its constitutional link with Britain." - NZ only recently replaced appeals to the British Privy Council with its own court system.
  • The decolonisation and legacy sections don't describe or discuss the formal and informal arrangements which replaced the formal empire. For instance, UK companies continued to be very important in the economies of ex-colonies for decades, there are political links, and informal and formal diplomatic and military alliances.
  • More broadly, the article seems to more be a history of the British Empire rather than an article on the British Empire. The economy of the empire, how it was ruled, etc, aren't covered in any coherent way. The Roman Empire article's structure might be a good model.
  • I agree with the nomination statement here that there isn't enough on the impact of empire on the populations which had it inflicted on them.
  • The article is missing a discussion of the historiography of the Empire, with historians views on whether it was a good or bad thing evolving over time and continuing to differ. Some commentary moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Buidhe
  • Regardless of whether the nominator is a sockpuppet and/or a POV pusher, I do not think that the article meets the FA criteria, per Nick-D's comments above. (t · c) buidhe 08:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Wiki-Ed

User:QualityPostsHere has been banging this drum for some time and has consistently failed to make a persuasive argument on the talk page.

  • Inconsistently formatted citations: I'm sure that's easily fixed. UserQPH could have done that in his/her spare time instead of writing the blurb above;
  • Too many pictures: Yes. But easily fixed. As above. I see someone has already adddressed that;
  • "fails to be comprehensive..." It covers a period of 500 years and geographically most of the world - there's a limit to how 'comprehensive' it can be - and generally speaking it reflects the way historians approach the topic. It is also written from the perspective of the central entity, not the other state/non-state entities which it interacted with, which is partly why moden perspectives (e.g. from India) are not a major feature.
  • "fails to be... well-researched..." It draws on at least 80 separate sources for the 262 in-line citations. Comparable articles have a similar amount (e.g. Spanish Empire). Other empires (e.g. Roman Empire) have more, but often multiple references for the same statement, so not sure that counts.
  • "fails to... have a neutral point of view" Which is actually what User:QPH is trying to get to - opinions. His argument seems to boil down to he just doesn't like it and wants the article to become a value-laden opinion piece focused primarily on genocide, famine and the relationship between Britain and indigenous peoples. In the past he has supported this argument with a small number of hand-picked sources -not necessarily reliable mind - to demonstrate that some people have views on this particular subject, but is unable to show that those views represent a sizeable minority (or even a fringe) within the historical community debating the British Empire. And arguably there is a case that analysis and opinion belongs in the separate (but linked) article on the Historiography of the British Empire, not the timeline-structured article we have here. To see the 'quality' - I use the word very loosely - of the language he would like to inflict on this article, one only has to look at the (now deleted) contents of the user's page.

User:NickD's comments are worthy of more considered discussion.

  • Without going through each one individually, I note he is challenging sourced statements with his own opinions. That's not a good enough reason to change the text - in particular I'm not sure NickD's analysis of 'Winds of Change' is correct, so maybe we shouldn't be jumping to change things. However, if the sources don't represent the majority of reliable sources then that's a different matter. And if they synthesise incorrectly then they need to be corrected. This should have been raised on the talk page before now.
  • Points of detail (Labour views; NZ constitution; role of companies) might deserve a mention - maybe half a sentence given relative important to topic itself. FA does not mean set in stone so User:NickD could have made these changes himself previously if he saw a gap.
  • Nuances in wording: Maybe a tendency to cherry pick rather than read the whole paragraph in context. For example, "In 1770 James Cook discovered..." - the previous line includes the relevant caveat ("discovered for Europeans"). And lines like "Britain adopted a policy" (of peaceful decolonisation) does not mean it succeeded in executing said policy or carrying it through successive political cycles/leaders;
  • Balance: No one is ever going to be entirely happy with this. User:NickD says in one line that 'Decolonisation' and 'Legacy' are too long compared to the section on 'Britain's Imperial Century', then in another line wants to add yet more content to them. The Second World War gets a few paragraphs, which is considerably more than the Seven Years War - a few lines - for a far, far more important episode (in my view!). Generally speaking I think it makes sense for more recent history to be recounted in more detail because it has more of an impact on the present, but it's a difficult balance to find. Again, I think this could be discussed on a talk page rather than FAR - it's something that can be addressed with comparatively small tweaks - condensing some sections and expanding others.

That brings me to his final point, that "the article seems to more be a history of the British Empire rather than an article on the British Empire" (drawing a comparison to the article on the Roman Empire). Like the articles on the French and Spanish Empires, this article is deliberately structured as a historical timeline, not an analysis of how 'it' (bearing in mind that 'it' in itself is contentious) functioned, nor is it a review of the historiography. A departure from this approach would be a major undertaking and would likely invite a huge amount of edit warring - something we have mostly resolved here after many years of argument. I note, also that the Roman Empire article is so thin in places that it has attracted 'misleading content' tags, so I'm not sure that's a road we want to go down. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

"unable to show that those views represent a sizeable minority (or even a fringe) within the historical community debating the British Empire" - Are there more seminal scholars in their fields than Raphael Lemkin and Amartya Sen? Would the Australian Museum take a fringe position that is not at least a minority among scholars? What process do you suggest for establishing whether an idea is a majority among scholars, a minority, or fringe?--Quality posts here (talk) 17:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
I've never heard of either of them and, it seems, neither have the authors of the books sitting on my bookshelf. They - (genuinely) seminal works about the British Empire - do not cite either of those two people. Establishing whether a view is held by a majority, by a minority or by a fringe was explained by Jimbo Wales himself. You can find his guidelines on the Neutral Point of View page under Undue Weight. In practical terms I think he means a source should be cited frequently by a large number of reliable sources (who themselves are cited frequently) on the topic in question. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Let's discuss the bit of WP:DUE you are citing then. We agree the article ought to discuss the views which are held both majorities and significant minorities of scholars, only excluding fringe ideas with little support. Wales' claimed "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Aren't the creator of the term genocide, a winner of the nobel memorial prize in economics, and the Australian Museum prominent adherents? Isn't the debate now whether these sources present views held by a majority or significant minority, rather than whether they present views which are fringe?
The article has a responsibility to represent views that are not mentioned in the books so far cited, if they are at least significant minority views in the academic literature.--Quality posts here (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
You may have missed the bit I italicised: on the topic in question. From the WP page on Reliable Sources: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable" [for the subject of the article]. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Amartya Sen doesn't mention the Indian famines in passing. He has devoted a number of academic papers and one book to the subject. If you want a summary of his views, you should look at his letter to Niall Ferguson attributing famines in India under British rule to the exploitative nature of the British Empire's governance. He argues the famines were not natural phenomena. The second paragraph is the most important one to look at.
Nor does Raphael Lemkin consider the Tasmanian genocide in passing. He planned an uncomplete 40-chapter book on the history of genocide. He got around to writing the chapter on the massacres of Tasmanians by the British colonissts in Tasmania. The thesis of the chapter is that this is an example of genocide. You can read a summary of the chapter here.
The Australian Museum devotes an entire article arguing the Aborigines were the victims of genocide here. Can you really argue they mention this only in passing, given it the main argument of an entire article?--Quality posts here (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)--Quality posts here (talk) 14:55, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Wes Sirius

Forgive me for my inexperience, but wouldn't the information on the impact on the subject peoples belong on the relevant pages of those groups? WesSirius (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly right. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately no, that would result in a main article with no "bad news." It would be all army, navy, generals serenely becoming Viceroys and then if you dug very deep oh horrors very, very bad things happened! Indeed that is what noted historian Barbara Tuchman found, see quote above. Germsteel (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Since when did Wikipedia report "bad" news (or "good" news)? It isn't a soapbox. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. You can't write about, say, the British Empire in Australia without covering the dispossession and large scale deaths of Indigenous Australians which resulted. However, this article doesn't seem to even mention the topic. Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
It's an article about the British Empire as a whole, not the British-in-Australia. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments by SandyGeorgia

To the original issues:

  • I do not see any MOS:SANDWICH.
  • See also could be pruned.
  • Ditto External links.
  • The Spoken Wikipedia link is six years old; should it be moved to talk, or is it still close enough?
  • Could we please have a clear and simple bullet list of what sources the original poster wants to see included? I am seeing some requests to use museum websites, but I may have missed a piece.
  • The Further reading section contains all harvref errors, so something is off there. And why such an extensive Further reading list; does it need pruning? Oh, turns out that Further reading is supposed to be the source list, so there is a problem there with MOS:APPENDIX naming, and a problem with the citation linking.

Note: since I promoted this article, and there is controversy, I won't be entering any declaration-- just listing things to fix. With a reminder that this article averages 6,000 views per day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

I fixed the sandwiching a few days ago and have now pruned the See Also and External Links. On your point about Further Reading could you clarify where the harvref errors are? I can't seem to see any and no-one has made any changes to the article since you posted. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Harvrefs are still a mystery to me. DrKay could you explain why simply doing this made all the red Harvref error links go away ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, no. I don't see any red error links on the previous revision. DrKay (talk) 18:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Yep, they are gone now ... as if the software did not recognize refbegin and refend before my edit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:MOSNUM review needed, sample, British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to five million, three million of whom were in Hong Kong ... switches from digits to spelling out digits mid-sentence. Sample only, pls check all.
  • MOS:DATERANGE, pick a style, all four digits is preferred ... 1904–05 also limited its threat to the British ... but later all four digits ... the South African Republic or Transvaal Republic (1852–77; 1881–1902) and the Orange Free State (1854–1902).[125] In 1902 Britain occupied both republics, concluding a treaty with the two Boer Republics following the Second Boer War (1899–1902).

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

    • I've fixed the daterange issues I saw. CMD (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Comments by Georgethedragonslayer

I agree with the nom that the article has deliberately omitted all of the negative aspects of the empire despite the global condemnation of colonization, genocide and exploitation. It needs to be speedily delisted as FA. Georgethedragonslayer (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Chipmunkdavis

I note that in the decade since the last FAR (version), the article has expanded about 20% (past the WP:SIZE guidelines) and gained a few short sections. "Transformation into British Empire" in particular, stands out as something that should probably be removed outright, especially given it only has a primary source. CMD (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Another note is that the lead contains sources not used anywhere else (most were added since the last FAR but some were there then too), implying there is information there not in the rest of the article (eg. "Workshop of the world"). CMD (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
Those references are there because those statements seem to attract tendentious/IP editors. I'd argue the very high level summary stuff should not be replicated in the rest of the article, so long as it doesn't imply a conclusion that a reader would not come to anyway. The "Workshop" point is - I think (?) - perhaps the exception that proves the rule (since Britain's industrial progress isn't covered). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is it doesn't need to be replicated directly, if as you say it's a summary of the article's information. My experience however is that a source used solely in the lead (as opposed to used in multiple places) is often indicative that this is not the case. If that is wrong for this article, that would be great, but it does need to be checked in my opinion. CMD (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist I agree with Nick-D's analysis in that the article is not comprehensive of all aspects of British rule. Focusing on political and military aspects leads to neglect of economy, society, and other important topics: "More broadly, the article seems to more be a history of the British Empire rather than an article on the British Empire. The economy of the empire, how it was ruled, etc, aren't covered in any coherent way." (t · c) buidhe 18:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist The article is clearly not of featured standard, as it fails to adequately cover its topic, and the editors most involved with the article seem to have no interest at all in improving it. Nick-D (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist assuming noone (Wiki-Ed?) will be implementing changes detailed above in the near future.--Quality posts here (talk) 23:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep The comments made by Nick-D and SandyGeorgia could have easily been dealt with on the talk page of the article. They certainly do not justify delisting. Other comments on the article are not relevant and are classic examples of WP:GREATWRONGS and represent a historical revisionist agenda that violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. This also does not justify delisting. Finally, the lack of significant outside commentary here is indicative that the article continues to meet FA criteria. WCMemail 02:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • It would be grand if someone would deal with them, because we should be saving this star. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
"classic examples of WP:GREATWRONGS and represent a historical revisionist agenda that violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR" which of the four sources I paraphrase do you argue your criticism applies to?
I disagree that there is a lack of outside commentary here. Taking a glance at FAR, this one has more people commenting in the review section (10) than any other open FAR, and I only recognize 3 from the talk page. It seems like there is significant outside interest in this FAR beyond the talk page regulars like you and I, making the discussions here more valuable than a talk page discussion would have been.--Quality posts here (talk) 02:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Question: If there is a consensus that coverage is lacking in non-history areas, could this article be moved to History of the British Empire, which is currently a redirect? That would preserve the work put into this format of the article. CMD (talk) 03:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It sounds like an acceptable idea. The article is not a comprehensive history of the British Empire, but it's certainly the foundation for one. But what would take the article's place? Is anyone willing to write a replacement article?--Quality posts here (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: In short, no. The article does not provide adequate coverage of its topic, and appears to have been written at present to evade coverage of key topics such as the impact of the Empire on indigenous peoples and the messy decolonisation process which are very prominent in the modern historiography on this topic. Nick-D (talk) 03:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
If you mean coverage within the topic of the History, I also feel given points made above that that discussion might make more sense within the framework of the moved article. A move will not solve all of the problems, but it sounds like it may solve some of them. CMD (talk) 06:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
If the article was moved to (say) History of the British Empire, I think that a new FAC would be needed to determine whether it's a FA on that particular topic. A move wouldn't solve my concerns with the article's unbalanced material on the nature of the Empire. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
A different title would create a coatrack for editors who want this title to cover their pet issue, be that the history of a specific region in great detail (India or Australia) or of some other aspect of the British Empire that this article only touches on. There are separate Content Forks on the British Raj the History of Australia, the Economy of the British Empire, the Demographics of the British Empire and the Territorial evolution of the British Empire etc etc. This article is an overview of a historical entity... so it should be about the history of said entity, not other stuff. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
So to clarify, you suggest the economy, politics, historiography and every other aspect of the subject that isn't history should be in a seperate article, and this one should solely be the history, without even mentioning the existence of the related articles? The more common approach is to give every aspect of the topic gets its own individual article, including history, and then the main article has a top level section for each related article, summarizing them. Why is history more important than the other aspects? A more immediate problem with the article is that the links to related articles are simply listed down at the bottom in the See Also section, without any of their content being discussed anywhere. How can the article be comprehensive if the contents of those articles are never even mentioned?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
By its nature this is an article about a historical entity, so of course it focuses on past events. There was no single economy or political system, and it evolved in different ways in different countries at different times over the 500 year period. Those are subjects in their own right and the links to those articles are in the sections that touch on those topics (not so much at the end of the article). Some of the BE books (of literally several hundred pages) on my bookshelf don't have the space to cover everything (even at a high level), so why would anyone think an article with an MOS size limit could possibly do differently? Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Well with limited space we should summarize everything at as high a level as necessary to fit it in. We can't arbitrarily decide to go into a lot of detail about one aspect of the topic (history) while not even mentioning the others. That is not giving aspects of the topic their due weight in proportion to how they are discussed by historians.--Quality posts here (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
It's not artibrary, it's based on how reliable sources approach the topic. And the entire topic is history of one form or another; there are no other aspects. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist It's such a shame this article hasn't improved much up to now.
  • The legacy section contains one negative aspect as a belated comment, whereas it should be integrated into the section. The section also isn't structured well and should be divided into subsections, such as religion/culture and politics. I cannot find any logic in the paragraph order. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it's really important the first sentence is understandable to basically everybody who speaks some English. The word comprised is a word I only properly learned when I was already C2 level. Consider replacing with 'was made up of' or something else.
  • Too many commas; had to read this sentence a few times before understanding. Two instances of then close together. A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England and then, following the union between England and Scotland in 1707, Great Britain, the dominant colonial power in North America. It then ..
  • comma more appropriate I think. Alternatively, drop the so that: to transform Britain; so that by.
  • other territories throughout the world. Consider removing throughout the world. Where else would the territory be?
  • This sentence is cited to a 2000 source. Much of the discussion of atrocities of the British Empire have occurred afterwards. It would be good to have a more modern source confirming that this is the appropriate way of describing decolonisation: Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were established to assume power. This was in contrast to other European powers such as France and Portugal if appropriate based on more modern sources, some notable exceptions of peaceful disengagement should be mentioned. (I have no idea whether Kenya should be mentioned.
  • I didn't understand the following sentence without searching throughout the rest of the article. The "wind of change" meant that the British Empire's days were numbered, and on the whole, Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement from its colonies once stable, non-Communist governments were established to assume power This is the first time the wind of change is mentioned, and the wikilink refers to a speech, which feels a bit like an WP:egg, as the sentence refers to the concept instead.
  • Is policing sufficiently important to be mentioned? My impression is that the American and British police system are as far apart as any Western policing system; British police being largely unarmed, whereas American police has become increasingly militarised.
  • The British Empire provided refuge for religiously persecuted continental Europeans for hundreds of years that sentence doesn't feel appropriate to the legacy section, as I presume it happened during the Empire. When balancing the section, this is a fact that could be removed or integrated into a different part of the article. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Has anyone worked on the actionable items in Femke’s list? If so, it would be good to indicate that here for the Coords, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@Femkemilene and SandyGeorgia: I've tweaked some of the English concerns, but I'm not sure where the balance is with accessibility. I find "comprised" to be an appropriate and concise word, so I think more opinions are needed on that. The Mau Mau rebellion in Kenya is mentioned, along with the Rhodesian civil war. I can't find that wind of change sentence referenced, so I assume someone else has edited it. The first mention is now "At first British politicians believed it would be possible to maintain Britain's role as a world power at the head of a re-imagined Commonwealth,[188] but by 1960 they were forced to recognise that there was an irresistible "wind of change" blowing", which I believe contextualises that the change is away from maintaining power. I have removed the line on policing as the sources cited didn't support the sweeping claim. I have not removed the religious persecution fragment for now, as I cannot access the source in question, but I would agree it does not feel appropriate to its context. CMD (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Thanks for your efforts! I think the legacy section is okay in terms of neutrality. I tried to get a bit more input about accessibility asking my partner (he agrees) and using automated tools. The Hemingway app indicates that the lead is now written at postgraduate level, and the Flesch–Kincaid readability test score (using [24]) is 32, indicating college level. The sentences I highlighted are also highlighted by those apps, but they indicate a more radical change may be needed to make the lede accessible. With these scores, I think the articles fails WP:EXPLAINLEAD, which I think is the most important aspect of criterion 1a. Femke Nijsse (talk) 09:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm certainly not here to defend the current lead as a whole, I've got my own problems with it. As a comparative point, what do you think about this old lead? The first sentence is almost the same, but what about the rest? CMD (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
from an accessibility perspective, that lead was slightly better, but still scoring a 32. It doesn't contain the word hegemon, and A series of wars in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Netherlands and France left England (Britain, following the 1707 Act of Union with Scotland) the dominant colonial power in North America and India. is understandable at first reading. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Another difficult one in the first paragraph: to hold sway; just had to look it up in the dictionary, wasn't 100% sure of its meaning before. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment
    1. A lot of those commenting delist are stating that the coverage of the topic is inadequate. Please give specific examples, supported by citations of where coverage is inadequate. Bearing in mind point 3 below.
    2. There has been an accusation that the article is deliberately evading coverage of topics. That's a personal attack on the integrity of the editors who have contributed to this article. That comment has no place in a review and should be withdrawn.
    3. This article is intended as an overview of the British Empire, it's not intended to be a complete history. Those suggesting we need to cover additional topics, please can you explain how you intend to address that whilst at the same time reduce the size of the article? WCMemail 16:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Kahastok

My reading of the original objection is that it is essentially trying to push a particular viewpoint into the article, emphasising particular negative caricatures and tropes rather than applying a neutral point of view. Turning the article into an editorial on how evil the British Empire was would not comply with WP:NPOV.

I find Nick-D's comments more persuasive. I do think we should be able to make more of a reference to the different treatments of indigenous peoples in the Empire, subject to WP:WEIGHT given to the point in reliable sources, the fact that this varied enormously from place to place, and the fact that there is a limit to how much detail we can sensibly cover in a single article. This is all stuff that really needs to be thrashed out at the talk page. Some commentary moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC) Kahastok talk 22:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that the last thing that people can complain about at WP:FAR is time pressure; articles typically stay months parked at WP:FAR if people are actually improving them in the meantime. I still don't see any discussion on the article's talk page about how the article can be improved following this nomination. If you want to see how a very difficult article has recently kept its star at FAR, check out Tyrannosaurus. That article needed an entire Wikiproject working on it, and a complete overhaul to make it reflect current scientific consensus. The difference is, WP:PALEO people jumped into action two days after the review started, whereas in this case people felt slighted that an old FA would even be considered for review (including a comment that thankfully has been removed). Nick's first comment in the Review section is very fair and extremely valuable as it comes from someone who knows very well today's FAC process and is completely removed from whatever issues were going on the article's talk page prior to the nomination. I think that the reluctance in even acknowledging that the article does not meet current FA criteria has led to this. FAs have to be reviewed from time to time, especially essential articles like this one, about subjects that receive a lot of scholarly coverage. Several of these issues were already raised 10 years ago, and the very first thing that is mentioned there is bias. I don't think anyone here wants the article to lose the star, we want issues to be addressed. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with User:Kahastok that there are two aspects to this: first, QualitypostsHere's objection to the existing neutral tone/content; second, some of NickD's suggestions, which deserve consideration, but ideally not in what feels like a time-pressured review environment (even if you're saying it's not). Asserting there is "reluctance in even acknowledging [need for change]" is incorrect: editors have been trying to fix legitimate issues when they've been raised. However, I note that most of these issues have been picked out by FAR administrators, not the OP and they're not clearly listed, which makes it somewhat difficult to identify what the problems actually are. And thank you for reminding us that we've been here before ten years ago: the same set of weak POV arguments (made by editors who subsequently earned themselves topic bans) with a few easily-fixed MOS issues. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You didn't reply to my comment summarizing the work of Amartya Sen and Raphael Lemkin on the British Empire, above. Do you call that a weak POV argument? I have done work explaining my argument to you.. You just dismiss it out of hand as a weak POV argument. Can you not explain what specifically about these authors' work means they shouldn't be included?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
You can hunt down my comments all you like, but the onus is on you to understand the Undue Weighting policy and present a valid argument. How many historians have written about the British Empire in the last few centuries? How many of those authors have devoted how much of their page-count to the niche issues you want to refocus the article on to? Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep is what I would like to say but if that would mean introducing POV content and Synthesis then frankly we can do without the little star - adhering to the Core Policies is far more important. For background the article adopts a style used by many general works on the British Empire (many of which are cited), working forward chronologically and covering the most important developments in different geographic regions. Given MOS size limits it does/can not delve into the political/social/economic detail of what happened in each region - each of which was unique - nor provide much analysis of the impact (intentionally so since this would also introduce POV). Insofar as the article does provide analysis, it uses the views of mainstream reliable sources only - on this general topic - and in proportion to the amount of coverage they give those specific issues. In some contentious issues - which we probably shouldn't be touching under NPOV - RS coverage is often minimal anyway (terms like "genocide" don't appear, let alone occupy space) so given the summary style we are using it often means that some issues are condensed into one line (or not even mentioned). There will always be people who are unhappy with this and that is unavoidable.
Going forward I would propose:
  • We separate (a) the original vexatious demand to insert POV content from (b) any genuine issues with the article. And I would propose to the FAR administrators that they should find a more robust system for sifting review applications.
  • Editors with MOS concerns list them clearly and provide time for editors to fix them (it's difficult to track what is being asked for and what has been actioned);
  • Constructive proposals to change the design of the article need proper discussion - presumably on the talk if we cannot debate them here. NB those editors wishing to open a can of worms will need to defend their views, bearing in mind all the other contrary views that people have on this topic (or sub topics) which led to continuous disruption in the time before the article settled into its current, stable, state. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. The article is already very long and there is a legacy section. It's not possible to fit everything into one article. This one needs to be a summary of the main points only, and a chronological history is the most sensible way of arranging the information. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • I asked at 00:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC) for a clear and simple list of reliable sources that are excluded or not given due weight. There is a lot of verbiage on this page, and I may have missed it, but do not see such list.
  • MOS:SANDWICH has been resolved; I have juggled some of the images right-left to address soldiers racing off the page and men gazing off the page.
  • The HarvRef errors and pruning needed in the appendices is addressed, except:
  • Why do we include a link to the British Empire at Encyclopedia Britannica? FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, with ELs only for items that can't be included. What does Encyclopedia Britannica have that we do not?
  • This is not an article about the art depicting the British Empire: why do we have three links to art collections? (Why do we have any links to art collections)?
  • I indicated at 11 Nov that a MOSNUM and DATERANGE review was needed. Best I can tell, no one has put a diff on this page indicating those issues have been addressed. I will re-check the entire article if I must, but the customary way to address issues raised at FAC and FAR is to indicate what has been addressed ... providing a diff is helpful. (But it clearly has not been done ... eg, the number of people under British rule outside the UK itself fell from 700 million to five million, three million of whom were in Hong Kong ... in a list be consistent about digits or spelling out).
  • The image in "Loss of the Thirteen American Colonies" is confusing ... there is a parenthetical about the thirteen colonies, but the map includes all of British Northamerican colonies.
  • This is the dup links tool: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt. Please run it to address the unnecessary and extreme WP:OVERLINKing everywhere.
  • "Current British Overseas Territories have their names underlined in red." Please review throughout for MOS:CURRENT, and see MOS:COLOUR.
  • With the outbreak of the Anglo-Spanish War of Jenkins' Ear in 1739, Spanish privateers attacked British merchant shipping along the Triangle Trade routes. In 1746, the Spanish and British began peace talks, with the King of Spain agreeing to stop all attacks on British shipping; however, in the Treaty of Madrid Britain lost its slave trading rights in South and Central America.
Why the "however" clause is attached to that sentence at all is not explained.
  • What does this "however" add?
  • In practice, however, American anti-communism prevailed over anti-imperialism,
  • There are eight uses of the word subsequent and most are redundant.
  • What does "ultimately" add here?
  • Britain's ultimately successful military response to retake the islands during the ensuing Falklands War was viewed by many to have contributed to reversing the downward trend in Britain's status as a world power.[233]
“By many” could use tightening.

These are examples of prose tightening that could help. I have focused on only the superficial and easily fixed items as I do not intend to enter a declaration on an article I promoted that has become controversial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed "by many" I saw it in two places, it was simply superfluous. WCMemail 11:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Tided up a couple of examples of WP:MOSNUM problems, I have gotten totally confused as it seems a comment I made as I did it has disappeared and I can't figure out where. WCMemail 12:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Prose tightening, removed "ultimately" again simply superfluous. WCMemail 12:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Prose tightening, removed most "however", I left one as the sentence required it. WCMemail 12:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Reviewed used of subsequently, most have been removed as superfluous. One left. WCMemail 12:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Reviewed external links, 3 removed, I am beginning to wonder if the other 2 should also be removed and eliminate the section altogether. WCMemail 12:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for working on this list of minor items. Has anyone looked at Nick-D’s list posted here at ... Nick-D 03:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC) ? Still pending is for the complaints about POV to be backed by a list of sources excluded or not given due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes I responded to it at 11.51 on the same day. There are a number of contentious claims: these need to be supported with evidence that the majority of reliable sources agree and would need to be deconflicted with other articles which assert contrary positions (e.g. Wind of Change (speech)). He has also made some non-contentious proposals to add factual additions - these would need sourcing. His opinions on the balance of coverage of different historical periods... is his opinion. I disagree. No one else has commented. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Multiple people have commented, and you are rejecting all of these comments. I've never seen any requirement for FAR reviewers to provide sources, but would suggest John Darwin's recent major work Unfinished Empire which, as a book written by an Oxford academic and published in Penguin's history series, can be assumed to represent a pretty middle of the road modern perspective as key recent source which hasn't been consulted. Regarding my comments, it discusses how the British tried to double down on holding onto the Empire until the 1960s (a good summary is on pages 342-343) and the messy and bloody end of empire in Africa (pp 366-375). This book also describes in some detail the disastrous impact of the empire on Indigenous Australians (see the large number of index entries on page 458). I'd note that all of these topics were covered in a university history course I attended in the early 2000s, so are nothing new and are covered by many other works (the main work for this course was Bernard Porter's book The Lion's Share, which also doesn't seem to have been consulted here). For more specialised works, Caroline Elkins' book Britain’s Gulag led to a major reassessment of the end of empire in Africa, especially the myth that the the British didn't fight dirty wars like the continental Europeans did (see [25]), David Edgerton's work Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War makes the point that the British Empire was a superpower in the Second World War which played a major role in the Allied victory, John Buckley's Monty's Men describes how the British-Canadian 21st Army Group played a key role in defeating Nazi Germany and Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper's Forgotten Armies discusses the very complex, remarkably multi-ethnic nature of the Empire's war against Japan as well as the complex results of this campaign which together illustrate that the current text focusing on the disasters up to 1942 is inadequate and needs to be reworked. All of these are well known and standard works on their topics. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Please don't conflate my coments: Who else has commented on the balance of periodic coverage? At the time I'm writing this - and I insert this caveat because I've noticed at least three other editors retrospectively adjusting their comments above - you are the only one who's indicated a concern that it's too focused on recent-history or that the Second World War isn't covered properly. On the former I think it's natural that the article tells the reader about events which are more likely to be relevant to the modern day. But that's all based on MOS article-size recommendations. If those limits were removed then I'd agree we should be going into more detail on the earlier periods. On the Second World War: I agree it could say more, but again, if we have to make choices because of MOS limits on article size then we can't go overboard. And I'd argue it would need to focus on what the war did to the Empire, not what the Empire did for the war effort (not sure that's where you're going with the sources you've listed there?).
For the contentious claims: I didn't ask for sources, I asked for evidence that the sources being used to argue for change to the tone represent the majority view. And we should be careful with asserting certain sources support certain view points. I find it curious, for example, that you choose to refer to Darwin's 'Unfinished Empire' - a book in which the author is careful not to impose anachronistic value judgements (of the sort User:QualityPostsHere and his sources would impose). In particular, I don't agree with how you're reading the sections you've pointed us to. On Africa Darwin talks (page 366) about an intent to build a "wide zone of influence" - i.e. not an intent to "double down" on the empire through "messy" or "bloody" wars (Algeria, Vietnam, the Congo etc). But he is quite scathing about the thinking behind that approach - arrogant politicians, unrealistic ambitions etc - and its impact on those countries. This does not undermine the existing line in the article ("on the whole, Britain adopted a policy of peaceful disengagement...") which is emphasising intent, not actuality. However, the article does not have space to go into detail on each country (and so it misses the impacts) and the linked article (which should do that) is very weak. So in that respect there's a need for a caveat explaining that although the British did not intend to cling on to a formal empire, the policy they pursued was both misguided and poorly implemented, potentially setting up a few more lines in the Legacy section. I'll have go at drafting something which brings this out neutrally. Wiki-Ed (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
As a quick note, this article explicitly contradicts the myth of a peaceful withdrawal, and highlights as an example the use of detention camps during the Mau Mau rebellion, among a few other conflicts mentioned. There's always room to shift things around within size limitations, but the suggestions raised that these sorts of topics are avoided by the article is incorrect. CMD (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Although I agree with the specific points you're making there, the line that appears to be drawing ire is making a contrast between the fate of the British Empire and of other historical empires - many (most?) of which were broken up by force. The British Empire's territories were not conquered by allied coalitions, dynasties were not overthrown, London was not sacked by barbarians. That's not a myth. Citation not needed. We should explain that withdrawal and disengagement was marked by conflict and persecution in many places, but it needs to be put into perspective, as the (balanced) sources do. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

For the bazillionth time, please focus on content and stop personalizing. Nick-D suggests the following "well known and standard works" should be represented:

  1. John Darwin's Unfinished Empire (including pages 342-343, 366-375 and index entries on page 458).
  2. Bernard Porter's The Lion's Share
  3. Caroline Elkins' Britain’s Gulag
  4. David Edgerton's Britain's War Machine: Weapons, Resources and Experts in the Second World War
  5. John Buckley's Monty's Men
  6. Christopher Bayly and Tim Harper's Forgotten Armies

(Yes, it has always been required at both FAC and FAR that we use sources to back up claims of POV, lacking comprehensiveness, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed seems to be questioning whether the sources we listed are representative of a significant minority viewpoint, the bar for inclusion in the article. WP:DUE outlines a simple test, naming a few prominent adherents of the view. Some prominent adherents of the view that the British Empire perpetrated genocide and unnatural famines:
  1. Australian MuseumThe Museum carries articles on its website arguing Aborigines were the victims of genocide.
  2. Raphael Lemkin (creator of the term genocide) — He planned an uncomplete 40-chapter book on the history of genocide. He got around to writing the chapter on the massacres of Tasmanians by the British colonissts in Tasmania. The thesis of the chapter is that this is an example of genocide. You can read a summary of the chapter here.
  3. Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada — From the article: "The Commission officially concluded in December 2015 with the publication of a multi-volume final report that concluded the school system amounted to cultural genocide."
Indian famines
  1. Amartya Sen (1998 winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences) — He has devoted a number of academic papers and one book to the subject. If you want a summary of his views, you should look at his letter to Niall Ferguson attributing famines in India under British rule to the exploitative nature of the British Empire's governance.
  2. William Dalrymple (2018 winner of the President's Medal of the British Academy) — From Great Bengal famine of 1770, "Historian William Dalrymple held that the deindustrialisation of Bengal[12] and the policies of the East India Company were the reasons for the mass famine and widespread chaos.[13]"
  3. Shashi Tharoor (former Under-Secretary General of the United Nations) — From Shashi Tharoor's Oxford Union speech: "the British never cared about the starving in India, directly mentioning Churchill and the Bengal famine as example.[2][16][14] Tharoor took the examples of Robert Clive as a colonialist who looted India, the Jallianwala Bagh massacre, and the mutilation of weavers by the British, and concluded that the infrastructure built by the British in India (such as the railways) was not a "gift" to India but a means to loot India even more.[17]" ... "The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, at an event in the Parliament of India in July 2015, responded to the debate by saying that "what he [Tharoor] spoke there reflected the sentiments of the citizens of India""
The above are no ordinary sources (e.g. random historians), they are prominent sources. Surely this satisfies WP:DUE enough for inclusion?
I have done some searches on Google Scholar, and a search for '"British Empire" genocide' brings up about 4% as many hits as a search for '"British Empire"'. Not all of these are in support of the idea the British Empire commit genocide, many of them specifically argue against it. But doesn't this imply around 4% of all research papers on the British Empire concern the topic of genocide? What possible tests would convince Wiki-Ed that this is not a tiny minority viewpoint unworthy of inclusion?--Quality posts here (talk) 23:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
A google hits count is not and never has been a means of establishing notability. As a means of establishing WP:DUE it is specifically excluded by policy, for many reasons including the fact that it is extremely vulnerable to confirmation bias due to the way searches are framed.
As regards, content, no I don't see anything there that would establish WP:DUE has been satisfied. The article already mentions the famines in India and the fact that the East India company policies contributed to that. Reflecting established scholarship for an overview article I would note we already have covered it appropriately.
As regards, genocide, no, these are fringe views and not included in mainstream literature. As noted at WP:RSN most of The New Republic pieces read as opinion pieces by the author, as such you could use them as sources for the opinion of the author but not as statements of fact. You need to separate fact from opinion. I don't see the space for a detailed treatise on the topic in an overview article about the BE. WCMemail 09:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
The modern Australian literature on the history of Australia tends to have a strong focus on the impact of empire on Indigenous Australians, with this stressing that it was disastrous from the outset. 'Genocide' is a minority view, but not a trivial one. I can't think of any work covering the history of Australia since 1788 produced over the last 20-30 years which hasn't included a focus on Indigenous Australians and the devastating effects of the Empire on their society - this is also a strong theme in more specialised works, including regional/local histories, military history, etc. That this article doesn't note the topic at all is a significant omission - I find it really weird to read the material on Australia here and not see coverage of it. Stuart Macintyre's A Concise History of Australia is a good reference as a concise standard work, but literally any book on this topic covers similar issues. Richard Broome's Aboriginal Australians is also well regarded and up to its fifth edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
On Australia, I agree that the balance of its paragraph should be tweaked. Compare it with the subsequent New Zealand paragraph, which covers the interactions with the indigenous population. Inclusion could be balanced by removing some detail on, for example, Willem Janszoon and Joseph Banks in the three sentences dedicated to discovery and mapping. CMD (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
What do you suggest Nick? I don't have the specific Australian texts you mention and having had a quick look they're not available locally to me. I tend to agree the balance of the paragraph could be tweaked but it could do with being drafted by someone with your level of knowledge on the topic - bearing in mind the brevity required for an overview. WCMemail 11:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
I would suggest a line after the bit about the Australian colonies being profitable exporters etc - the counterpoint to 'success' being the impact on the indigenous population. However, neutral wording is crucial - it wasn't a policy of genocide from the government in London - rather a frontier/settler mentality also seen elsewhere (particularly the Americas - some historians would argue the colonists wish to take over indigenous land - i.e. in opposition to London's policy - was more important than "No taxation without representation" in leading to the declaration of independence). Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Such information should go prior to information on becoming profitable exporters, as the interactions with the indigenous population go back as far as Cook shooting a Gweagal man. The displacement of Aboriginal people was part of the expanding British settlement of Australia, which was what led to controlling the land needed to farm wool and dig for gold. I would agree it wasn't a single policy though, it was a combination of disease, individual violence, some policies, land change, and simple numbers. CMD (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
There has been a lot of objections to proposed changes based on the idea that there is no room in the article. The article still devotes 247 words to 18th century wars with Spain, but only 80 words to famines in India. This is indefensible.--Quality posts here (talk) 17:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Perfectly defensible. The Spanish Empire was the pre-eminent european empire until overtaken and surpassed by the British Empire. The conflict between the two largely shaped the British Empire for centuries. Please refrain from unconstructive comments. WCMemail 18:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, can an article regular please describe step-by-step in detail how they propose we verify whether a view is at least significant minority view which should be in the article, or a fringe view which should not? All attempts at doing this have simply been dismissed without an alternative method being advanced. I have described two different methods (listing prominent scholars with the view, and Google Scholar statistics), but you disgree with them. Please describe the method you would agree with. This is our most important disagreement. All of our other disagreements stem from this.--Quality posts here (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
We can't help you: The reason you are struggling to get your argument across is because you are taking a position at odds with the NPOV core policy. The relevant section says "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic..." You are trying to bring disproportionate focus on to a particular set of events (out of all the things that happened across a period of several centuries) in a particular country (one of many that were part of the BE). Even with "verifiable and impartial" (not sure about the latter in this case) reliable sources supporting the position it is not of sufficient significance to this topic (and the main body of reliable sources covering it) such that it deserves more space than it already gets. And your word count is comparing apples and oranges; the relevant stat is that famine gets 80 words out of 430 on the Raj (just over 18.5%), which is a greater proportion than the 435 words (of 18000) in the actual article on the British Raj (2.3%). The argument above does not mean these subjects are unimportant or "minor aspects" (using the language above) of the history of particular countries, but there are separate articles on, for example Famine in India and the History of Australia. Complex and contentious subjects should be explained in detail on dedicated pages where the nuances can be laid out. Whether or not the two articles I've referred to achieve that is another matter. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
You mentioned earlier that you have on your bookshelf seminal works on the British Empire - what works are those and what proportion of them are devoted to which topic? The question of due weight is best addressed by comparison to standard reference texts rather than other Wikipedia articles, which as you note may or may not themselves be appropriately weighted. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I used the word "seminal" in relation to the use of the loaded term "genocide". So, for example, taking Darwin's "Unfinished Empire", which others have recommended: as far as I can recall + from the index + a quick scan of relevant sections he does not use this sort of wording even when he's talking about the "hard racist edge of settler society". To pick two others the article uses a fair bit: Ferguson's 2003 "Empire" is perhaps on the right wing end of the spectrum, so one would not expect him to use such a term; James's 2001 "Rise and Fall..." is more to the centre and also avoids it (I should caveat I've not done an in-depth search just to satisfy User:QPH's interest).
However, I think you're asking about the balance of topical coverage across a range of reliable sources? That's more difficult. I won't pretend to have read every single book or journal article on this subject and even if I had that wouldn't provide specifics of their exact coverage of each topic or the structure. To do that you'd need some sort of sophisticated data-driven analysis which measured frequency of key words, assessed related paragraph relevance and length, took account of (unnecessary) stylistic flourishes etc. Even if that were possible I'm not sure it would be meaningful. What we have to work with is our sense of the approach the authors are taking. My take on this is as follows: The article covers the whole period and the whole geographic extent, so it has a preference for sources which do likewise (e.g. Canny, Ferguson, James, Lloyd, Marshall, Smith), although it sometimes use more specific works for specific topics. The broad-ranging sources often have their own angles and return to similar themes, but structurally they generally work forward chronologically (sometimes jumping back) and almost always use the same marker points (e.g. 1776, 1815, 1914, 1956, 1997), but they don't provide exhaustive coverage of every single event; they usually incorporate new territories into their narrative at the appropriate point in time (but don't try to cover every single country's entry/exit); they all have a huge cast list of people and places, but even so, they do not mention every single country / person; and - most important of all - they rarely examine any one topic in great detail. Obviously the weighting of each topic in each book differs, and some of them are twice the size of others - they have the luxury of several hundred pages to explore issues; we do not. As WCM says above, this is an overview article so it provides headline reporting following the trend of general works, but without offering their analysis (such as it is). Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
"You are trying to bring disproportionate focus on to a particular set of events". My question was, what method do we use to decide how proportionate the focus should be? It seems Nikkimaria has provided the answer, above.--Quality posts here (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
No. The answer is: we already do that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I certainly don't want us to try to equal those works in length. However, short of doing a comprehensive survey of all literature on the Empire ever, referring to the standard works that cover the whole period and geography provides the best sense of relative coverage for subtopics. Given the scope I would then suggest going down a level from there, for example with Nick-D's standard works on Australian history, to ensure appropriate weighting of subtopics specific to a particular geography or time period. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I think that's where it gets tricky. So, for example, if we're writing an article on the History of Australia then we'll align it with the way in which the majority of reliable sources approach that topic. Presumably the ~6% of that article's 28,000 words which covers the impact of European colonisation on indigenous peoples is proportionate to the scholarship. However, in an article on the British Empire the emphasis has to be on how Australia fitted into the Empire, not how the Empire fitted into Australia: we have to give priority to basic facts (when Brits arrived, key events which affected Australia's position within the empire over time (e.g. Gallipoli, Fall of Singapore), and the point at which it became independent of that empire), because we have limited space. Important (localised) issues may well be prominent in all/most scholarship on Australia itself, but the weighting has to change if we're writing about a different subject. To my mind this is where wiki links come in - our advantage over published sources - and hence why I pointed out to those other articles earlier. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC) NB I should say that in this case I do think we have space to mention this particular 'event' - not doing so is not neutral given the rosy picture being painted - but I was talking about general principles of weighting.
Trying to work out where all of this isEdit

Despite being listed at the top I never received a notification of this disussion so I am coming late to it and there is a lot of reading.

As far as I can see there are three questions:

  1. Should it remain as a featured article and to that the consensus seems to be yes
  2. Should it be renamed as a history and I can't see any consensus to do that
  3. The genoicide issue which comes up time and time again and where the discussion should move to the talk page of the article with this being closed? On that matter my own view is that Australia was defacto genocide, but the balance of sources do not say that so we can't use it. The Indian Famine debate has been going on for years and I can't see anything new here.

If I have it wrong apologies, but just trying to make sense of things -----Snowded TALK 11:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

welcome to the discussion!
  1. I don't think there is consensus for either outcome yet. I think however it is doable still to save this article .
  2. I agree with your assessment
  3. Dunno
  4. two more points have been raised. First the difficulty of language. If we get some people specialise in copyediting working with the regulars, the issue of using overly complicated language should be fairly easy to solve. I'm happy if only the lead is improved, I don't mind if the rest of the article is a bit too difficult.
  5. and the second point: the article may not be comprehensive in terms of governance and economics. More difficult to solve. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator comments

Commentary here seems to have reached an impasse and there have been few recent substantive edits to the article. Summarizing where things are at with regards to the FA criteria:

  1. Well-written.
    1. Sandy raised some examples of prose tightening; have these all been addressed?
    2. Femke Nijsse raised concerns around reading level and comprehensibility; where are we at with that?
  2. Comprehensiveness, research, neutrality. Obviously these are the point of greatest contention in this review.
    1. Some editors have concerns that the article neglects areas other than history and military - eg economics. What is the relative weighting of these issues in reliable sources on the topic? What approach is being used here to summarize subtopics?
    2. Femke raised a concern with regards to source datedness. What more recent sources have been consulted, or considered and discounted?
    3. NickD proposed a number of additional sources that could be included (reposted by SandyGeorgia on 21 Nov). Have these been evaluated?
    4. Some editors have raised concerns regarding how the article depicts or does not depict impact of the Empire on Indigenous peoples (including the question of genocide but also including other impacts). What is the relative weighting of these issues in reliable sources on the topic?
  3. Style. Have all of Sandy's MOS points been addressed?
  4. Lead. CMD noted the use of sources only in the lead - has this been looked at?
  5. Structure. Femke raised concerns around how the article is organized - has this been looked at?
  6. Citation formatting. This needs standardization.
  7. Images. Other than sandwiching, has anyone looked at this? Are there issues in this area?
  8. Length. The article is currently slightly over the recommended prose maximum. Where are there opportunities to condense, keeping in mind the comprehensiveness criterion?

(I know the numbering doesn't line up with WIAFA, but if you could cite specific numbers in responses that would be very helpful). Nikkimaria (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

1.1 Has been addressed
1.2 Seems to be stalled, I for one am not sure how to proceed on this one.
2.1 Has been addressed in discussion, general consensus was nothing further was required and the topic seemed a bit specialised.
2.2 Source datedness - missed that one in discussion - what is required?
2.3 Nick D was invited to propose some text - the issue I see here is that the topics are in the main covered albeit briefly. I don't think a clear proposal has been forthcoming from Nick.
2.4 Has been addressed in discussion, general consensus is the proposer was giving undue weight to fringe views.
3. Has been addressed.
4. I would propose removing sources from the lede but this is a perennial issue. The article attracts drive by tagging and the motivation is not always for improvement.
5. Structure I think is fine.
6. Citation formatting still needs work.
7. Images have been sorted.
8. Length - seems to be stalled whilst we have some suggesting additional content, until that is resolved, it's difficult to see how to move forward on this.
Overall, to summarise, some minor fixes in formatting are still required but we still haven't addressed the conflict between additional content and reducing size. Is that a reasonable summary? WCMemail 19:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
On 2.1 and 2.4, I don't see consensus on these points, and would like answers to the specific questions above. Also looking for an answer on 2.2 with regards to recent scholarship, since this was part of Nick-D's points as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
WCM, just making sure you've seen this ↑. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
I hadn't seen it. I do think 2.1 and 2.4 have been discussed above - the topic of economics wasn't raised really in regards to economics but rather one posters obsession with fringe views. In general works on the British Empire do tend to focus on the military aspects and as for governance it would be quite difficult to weave that in. The British Empire didn't have the rigid control structure characteristic of the Spanish Empire for example, rather it was a looser set of controls with almost each individual colony having its own, in many cases unique, form of government. As regards 2.2 I did ask what people thought were required, it still isn't clear to me? WCMemail 17:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
On 2.2, what more recent sources have been consulted, or considered and discounted? On 2.1 and 2.4, yes they have been discussed, but I don't see a strong consensus on these issues, which is why I'm hoping you (or other respondents) will have specific answers to my questions to help sort out what's a fringe view and what is not. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
1.2. Shorter sentences, easier words. We have some prose geniuses running around on WP. Can we ask them?
2.2. This was a side comment in the discussion about neutrality; I'll leave that to the experts.
5: it was specifically about the structure of legacy; has been addressed. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
While there have been improvements along the lines I've suggested, I'm a very firm delist due to the inadequate response to my comments - especially the utter failure of the article to cover the impact of empire on Indigenous Australians despite this being a central issue (arguably 'the' central issue) in the literature on the British Empire in Australia since the 1990s. The request that I provide text is insulting given the dismissive response I received to my comments above. Nick-D (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Nick, see WCM's point re 2.3 above - was that something you were planning to work on, or no? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I have tried to reach out to Nick on his talk page but he blanked my message. I've known Nick for a number of years and he has been my mentor for some time over difficult issues. Hence, I am somewhat perplexed by his response.
To answer the question on content, the article is supposed to be an overview on the British Empire, as such is covers topics at a fairly shallow level. As such coverage of a fairly specialised topic such as the impact of colonisation on aboriginal australia is difficult to cover appropriately. I have tried to do some searching on google and google scholar but I found that many of the top items are advocacy websites and it is difficult to find neutral academic texts. I then looked at wikipedia [26] as a guide. As such I could propose:
Thoughts, criticism, suggestions? WCMemail 18:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
I had a brief look at this last year but didn't find sourcing and wording match I liked. I think it should lean more towards the conflict than the disease, and be worded to fit in between the Joseph Banks sentence (which should be trimmed) and the end of convict transport sentence, to place it within the chronology of settlement rather than as an outside issue. CMD (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
A suggestion: "Unusually, Australia was claimed through proclamation. Indigenous Australians were considered too uncivilised to require treaties,[1][2] and colonisation brought disease and violence that together with the deliberate dispossession of land and culture were devastating to these peoples.[3][4]" CMD (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm ok with that, with one exception, was it unusual? WCMemail 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The sources contrasted Australia to other areas with existing populations, such as North America, where sovereignty was established through treaties with the natives, so I added unusually to reflect that point, and with regard to the importance the Terra nullius claim had on the the topic. In our text the next paragraph on New Zealand includes a treaty for contrast. CMD (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Then I'm OK with adding it. WCMemail 11:30, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not weighing in, per perception of conflict that could arise when there is controversy on an article I promoted. Although we are fast approaching a time where what FAC used to be versus what it is now is no longer relevant, and I may decide to no longer worry about that. For now, I am abstaining. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Delist – I'm not convinced this article is the appropriate format for an "empire". Look at other empire FAs for example, the Han dynasty, has sizable sections on Culture and society, Government and politics, Economy, Science and technology; and similar formats appear in the Parthian Empire or Byzantine Empire. These are all concerns that have been brought up by multiple editors. As unfortunate as it is, this article is a "history of British Empire" or a really well made timeline. Aza24 (talk) 23:31, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


Notified: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted in 2005, and it's now not up to FA standards. There are many unsourced sentences and paragraphs (for example the last paragraph of the Modern historians section doesn't have any proper source). There are also no uniformed source formatting. Then, the article relies too much on primary sources (Cassius Dio and Herodian), even the notoriously unreliable Historia Augusta (see for instance the section "Sexuality and gender controversy"; there are 9 citations to primary sources and only one to a RS (Grant)), despite the article saying this book is unreliable. I am not saying that these sources shouldn't be included in the articles*, but only with modern sources to back or criticise them. Therefore, the article patently violates 1.c (reliable sources) and 2.c (consistant formatting). T8612 (talk) 14:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

T8612 I cannot see where you gave talk page notification, per the FAR instructions, nor have you notified relevant participants or WikiProjects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Here. I didn't use the template, perhaps that's why. Original author retired in 2006. T8612 (talk) 19:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, so Mr rnddude’s 2016 post can serve as talk page notification. I guess. T8612 could you please use the template to notify all of the WikiProjects tagged on talk? The goal is to find someone who might be interested in improving the article, and the template explains how the process works. It would have helped to notify Paul August because the tools show he has a 15-year history on the article, which he edited this year. SandyGeorgia (talkcontribs) 23:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Done. Paul August and Llywrch who contributed on the nomination in 2005 are active on the Wikiproject Classical Greece and Rome. I didn't want to add to their busy talk pages. T8612 (talk) 23:50, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@T8612: Done what? I don't see where you've notified me? Paul August 20:36, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
As I said above, I didn't notified you. As I know you read the Wikiproject. T8612 (talk) 21:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Just a note for future reference: our goals with the notification are to cast a wide net to hopefully find someone to update the article, and give a brief idea of how the process works to people before they pop in here to immediately register a Keep or Delist. It is best to notify everyone even if you think they are following an article or a talk page because we can't assume anyone is aware or sees the nomination, and by posting to talk pages of editors, we may pick up some of their talk page stalkers, who tend to have similar editing interests. Another reason for being sure to notify is so the process is not slowed down. This nomination was ten days ago: should Llywrch or Paul August decide to work on improvements, we would now need to slow down the initial two-week period because they just found out about the nomination. And a final reason is that it can be offputting for editors to realize a FAR is going on that they weren't aware of ... short story: please always broadly notify using the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, thanks. Paul August 10:36, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I made a comment to this effect in 2016: Talk:Elagabalus/Archive_1#Featured Article, serious concers (sic). I didn't take any action in regards to it at the time because I had limited experience with FA and its processes, though I knew there was a delisting process, and eventually it just slipped away. To summarize my comments then: 1) multiple unsourced passages; 2) over-reliance on primary sources; 3) use of unreliable sources (Historia Augusta in particular). Those comments are still applicable, particularly the last two. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Note that ancient historians use "primary sources" to mean "sources published in ancient languages". By their standard, a book published today on Shakespeare would be a primary source, since he lived just four centuries ago and we're also writing in English. Needless to say, this is not the definition of "primary" that modern historians or Wikipedia use. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Dio and Herodian are Elagabalus' contemporaries. They both lived during his reign. I have serious doubts you lived through Shakespearean times. The HA is plain unreliable. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Close discussion
  • I'll take this as a warning from you not to touch the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Huh? The article needs work. Contribute away. Your comparison to modern writers discussing Shakespeare just isn't applicable here, that's all. I'm not sure what part of my comment is warning you not to edit the article? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree that ancient sources should be avoided because they don't necessarily follow WP:RS practices. Arguably there are some that have a reputation for accuracy (e.g. Polybius), but still, if it's true and due it has probably been mentioned in at least one source in the last 200 years. Anyway the HA does not have a reputation for factualness or accuracy, quite the opposite. (t · c) buidhe 06:35, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  • At least some of these issues seem relatively easy to resolve. For example, I just went through and updated the section on Elagabalus's sexuality/marriages to replace the ancient sources with modern ones which provide more details (and which look to additional evidence for e.g. the timeline of the marriages and divorces, which I added based on those modern sources). In turn, I'll try to standardize the article to consistently use a single citation format and sfn templates later if I have time (or is there a gadget/script for this, like reFill?). -sche (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think it is possible to easily save the article, unless you want to rewrite it entirely. As I pointed out, several sections rely on primary sources, and once you dig a bit in secondary sources, you see that there are often many different interpretations among modern historians. Elagabalus was vilified in ancient sources and they make it especially difficult to tell what really happened. If you want to rewrite the article, the first step is to include information from Martijn Icks, The crimes of Elagabalus : the life and legacy of Rome’s decadent boy emperor, published in 2012 (seven years after this article became FA), and Andrew G. Scott, Emperors and Usurpers should be cited throughout the article [Icks and Scott seem to be the two main modern sources]. Imo, the section on religion should be expanded; there must be one on his "black legend", and another on the role of women (his mother and grandmother). I also don't think you should remove all the primary sources, but put them in context. T8612 (talk) 15:12, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do. I've now also revised and ref'ed the Family and Priesthood stuff, so it's supported by modern sources (including modern sources evaluating the ancient sources), removing a few things I couldn't find sources for, and adding some info where there's uncertainty among modern historians, e.g. over precise birth year. (I agree it wouldn't be appropriate to remove all mention of the ancient sources, but replacing the direct citations of them as <ref>s with citations of e.g. Scott's and others' summaries of them seems appropriate. In the section on marriage, I left in-text attributions i.e. "Cassius Dio states that...") -sche (talk) 06:39, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
FWIW, (it's reasonable no-one notified me, since I had not previously done major work on the article that I recall, but) as far as the mention above of slowing down timelines: after I chanced to notice the FAR on the 14th, I've been revising the article, having at this point reworked the "Family" section, rewritten the first half of the "Rise" section, and revised the "Marriages" section, to cite modern sources and note places where there's uncertainty/disagreement among or noted in them. I'll probably make another pass later and trim a thing or two for which I was only able to find a single not-as-high-quality modern source to replace or compliment the period source it had been sourced to. -sche (talk) 10:56, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
The FAR Coordinators will always relax time constraints when work is underway; please keep this page informed of progress ... thanks for digging in! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
I've almost finished revising the "Rose to power" section (I just need to update the last paragraph to follow and cite modern sources). I substantially rewrote the first paragraph of the "Emperor" section, which had simply parroted the loaded (unencyclopedic) language of the ancient primary sources, but now gives an overview based on Scott (who evaluates/discusses a lot of other literature). (The rest of the section will indeed need rewriting, as others noted above, which I will work on.) I also started to edit the section on Dio-as-a-source, to mention places where modern biographers like Scott and Icks note that Dio's accounts are wrong or internally inconsistent. -sche (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
I will look in when you are closer to finished; thanks for the work and the update. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure if he has time, but pinging Attar-Aram syria, who is knowledgeable Syrian/Roman figures. FunkMonk (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Progress update, I rewrote more of the section on Elagabalus' emperorship (about half of the first subsection, having previously done the "Marriages" subsection). User Julia Domna Ba'al expanded the modern history section and added a bit to the section on the Augustan History, and replaced many of the primary source citations with Icks and other secondary souces. :) User Avis has made various improvements. The other half of first subsection on emperorship, the "Religious controversy" section and the "Fall" section remain to be redone (I am getting to them, or other editors are obviously welcome to beat me to it). (Once the body has been rewritten, I figure the lead can be revised at that point.) -sche (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Hold in FAR, good progress being made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Paul August and Llywrch: as others have been at work here, and progress has been made, might you be interested now in engaging or have time for a glance? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I've stayed out of this review because I disagree with one of the criticisms of this article: I have no problem with citing primary sources in history & biographical articles, as long as it is done properly. (And example of "properly" would be to present what the primary source says, then secondary sources to explain what needs interpretation or correction. Another would be to discuss the issues with the primary sources: not only their accuracy, but how thoroughly they cover the period; quality & quantity both need to be addressed.) After all, people access these articles to aid their research, which we can help by providing pointers to these primary sources.
And as I read this article, I see that this is not the direction this article is going, & from other comments believe that it would be a needless conflict to try to push this article in the direction I prefer. (After all, I am not a FA regular, & Wikipedia is not finished; there will be a time when I can prove that I am right on this with minimal conflict, & I am content to wait.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree. I didn't ask for the removal of ancient sources though, just the addition of modern sources to comment on them. Typically, I would prefer to see something like this: "The Historia Augusta tells Elagabalus did that, but modern historians have rejected this.(ref HA) Smith thinks Elagabalus did this instead, while Brown suggests it was that.(ref Smith)(ref Brown)." That said, it's just my preference too. T8612 (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
The HA cannot be cited for 'modern historians have rejected this'. When modern historians state what the HA says, there is no need to rely on the (unreliable) HA. If modern historians don't state what the HA says, then it should not be cited, as it does not meet WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 03:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Sigh. This is simplistic reasoning. For one thing, the primary sources for Elagabalus include more than than the Historia Augusta. There is Dio Cassius, whose fragments is the principal authority for this period; he is augmented by Herodian, who is not as sound as Dio, but his text helps to fill in the gaps; & there is the evidence of coinage & inscriptions -- a quick glance at the Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae alone shows six addressed to Elagabalus, & a more careful survey of the corpora would doubtlessly reveal many more relevant items.
Another matter is that, despite modern research, the statements in the Historia Augusta continue to haunt the non-specialist conception of his reign. Edward Gibbon cites from the HA in his monumental work -- who recounts the emperor's hetrosexual promiscuity while keeping his homosexual activities to a passing mention in a footnote. (I have to wonder how much it influenced similar accounts in such popular accounts such as H.G. Wells' The Outline of History or the Durant's The Story of Civilization.) And the HA provided much of the material for Elagabalus' legacy.
Lastly, one cannot lightly dismiss the Historia Augusta with one word & ignore it. Students of this period of ancient Rome are faced with a deficit of materials, & are forced to look wherever possible to make up the difference: whether wise or not, they plumb its fantasies in hope of uncovering some fragments of information that might cast more light on the subject. Which is why the HA remains a controversial primary source, & not one on which judgment has been passed, found wanting, & condemned to the darkness. -- llywrch (talk) 17:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Just adding to what Llywrch said because of a notice on CGR's talk page. In historical topics, particularly pre-modern history, it's generally necessary to include everything of significance that the historians/chroniclers/antiquarians of the era had to say on the topic—except to the extent that some details are duplicated ad nauseaum by minor sources without any meaningful difference (i.e. Florus briefly alludes to something that Livy, Dionysius, and Plutarch cover in detail, without providing any additional information or a different perspective). After all, without these accounts, modern historians wouldn't have anything to discuss! All modern sources on important Roman figures begin with what ancient writers had to say, and move on from there. That includes the Historia Augusta, because as unreliable as it may be about many things, it also records a great many things that actually happened, and is frequently more expansive than any other source. To the extent that something in the Historia Augusta is contradicted by other writers or careful analysis of historical details, or dismissed by modern historians for other reasons (and there may be disagreement on such things), that in itself is extremely relevant to the article, especially to the extent that one's view of the subject may depend on which parts of the Historia Augusta one chooses to credit or dismiss. P Aculeius (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Sorry Sandy, I don't think I'm able to contribute much here. Paul August 12:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
One of the main things that I use wiki articles on Greek and Roman subjects for is checking what the primary source for a given fact is when I can't remember the reference. If you take the primary source references out, this article becomes substantially less useful to me. Furius (talk) 03:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
Just noting that Aza, and some other editors to lesser extents, have made some more significant improvements to this article after other events called my own attention away. If there is concern about the list of works in the "Legacy" section, it could just be dropped, with individual works that have significance readded (perhaps as prose rather than a list) individually. In general it cites modern sources now. (If there is concern that the classical sources should be re-added alongside the modern citations, it seems like users wishing for that could help with doing it...) -sche (talk) 01:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist inconsistent citation format, does not consistently cite high quality RS as required by FA criteria. In the lead, questionable emphases are given to 18th and 19th century historians, and parts of the Legacy section do not have sources. (t · c) buidhe 01:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you mean when you say 'questionable emphasis' given to older sources. There's two citations to older sources in the lede and they're both for quotes that support the statement that Elagabalus held a particularly negative reputation with writers of the early modern age. Ideally though, there shouldn't be citations in the lede. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Buidhe I think your first two statements are worth clarification here. I'm seeing ~5 primary sources, all used in reasonable context, where the author is quoted directly or referenced in the text itself. Likewise I'm see 3 citations from a 1911 source, 1 from 1966, and the rest from newer sources, at the moment your characterization fails to convince me. Aza24 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps some things have been fixed since I made my comment. However, the Legacy section still tries to give an excessive list of works mentioning him, most of which are unsourced. "In popular culture"/Legacy should be discussed in prose rather than listing (t · c) buidhe 00:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Agreed, let me take a crack at that section later today and get back to you. Aza24 (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry this is going to take a few days, if that's okay with the coords; my irl schedule is getting busier, but should die down soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:04, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I've made some additions, adding the years of the consulships and adding some firm dates cited to Kienast. There's more to do on the various comings and goings of the imperial Julii Severi. GPinkerton (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with the classicists' complaints above. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not keen on the Legacy section, but the article has improved substantially over the course of the review and I think the rest of the article (which is the substantive and important part of it) meets the criteria. DrKay (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aza24: Any update on the work you had planned? @T8612 and GPinkerton: What is the status of this article from your perspective? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I don't have much to say about FA criteria; I don't know enough about the process. The article is not perfect by any means, but I think it has been much improved. The wives and family members still need attention. GPinkerton (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: The article may be of GA status now, but not good enough to retain FA status. For example, citation formatting is still inconsistant, with at least three different formats. Then, several questionable sources are still there (eg. is interesting, but not a RS; An Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture by an "amateur historian"; Cohen and Babelon [notes 106-107] are now outdated (1892 & 1886)...).
I am also concerned by the removal of primary sources and their replacement by modern sources. I think that because of the large discrepancies between the two, it would have been useful to keep the primary sources. For example, in the lede you have the sentence "He was also reported to have prostituted himself." with a citation to a modern source, which implies that this sentence could be true. However, when you look at the source it says that it is a "tale" coming from the Historia Augusta, a notorious ancient source full of made-up stories. In the section "Religious controversy", the text follows the narrative of Cassius Dio and Herodian as if it were historical truth, while the main source cited here (Icks) is more careful about the things told in this section ("Of course, we should keep in mind that Dio was probably more interested in portraying the emperor’s religion as ‘weird’ than descriptive accuracy, which calls his remarks into question.", p. 54). You have to go down in the section "sources", to find comments on the reliability of ancient writers.
Finally, the fourth paragraph in the lede should go. The statement "considered by some historians" is strange, considering I only see one ref, which doesn't support this claim. T8612 (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I also remain frustrated by the removal of the citations to ancient sources. As mentioned above, I find that this makes the article substantially less useful to scholars, students, and the general public. Of course they should always be accompanied by references to secondary sources that explain how to interpret them, but they should be there (cf. Wikipedia:PRIMARY). On the other hand, I'm not convinced that isn't a reliable source; the entries on it are produced by reputable scholars and it is usefully easy to access. Furius (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Primary sources, when accompanied by modern scholarly sources interpreting them, are extremely useful, and should be included. Paul August 21:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Sometimes I wonder whether WP:PRIMARY should be amended for ancient history (or periods for which most academic literature relies on very few sources) and say that important primary sources ought to be mentioned alongside secondary sources. T8612 (talk) 03:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about primary sources. Sure, you could use some to state mundane facts, but what matters only is that the article as a whole is factually accurate and uses good secondary sources. Wikipedia doesn't need to be, as someone said above, "useful to scholars, students": an encyclopedia builds upon their work, not the other way around. Anyway, in a couple of years the copyright restrictions for Elagabalus's RE entry will lapse, someone will transcribe the original text to Wikisource, and all the relevant primary sources will already be stated therein. Avilich (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I began standardizing the reference formatting (just formatting – I wasn't apart of the primary vs secondary debacle) and there's only a little left to be done there. I started referencing the "legacy" (now changed to "cultural references") section, but found it rather tedious and seem to have forgotten about it. Frankly, I'm not convinced the legacy/cultural references section should exist at all; it is perhaps the essence of WP:TRIVIA, and I would strongly encourage that (if others agree) it be removed entirely. I will reiterate what -sche said above, that those who are promoting the use of ancient sources, should feel free to reinsert them along with the secondary sources now in place themselves. As far as promoting or demoting, from solely looking at our other FA roman emperors, Augustus and Domitian, this one just stands no where near the sourcing, prose and comprehensiveness unfortunately. Aza24 (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
If anything is done, it should be hived off to Cultural references to Elagabalus, rather than just removed. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I support that. And, must we have eleven images of coins? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
The ones that are portraits of Elagabalus seem useful, maybe even the ones that are portraits of family members whom nearby article-body text discusses, but I have no objection to removing File:INC-2961-r Ауреус. Элагабал. Ок. 218—219 гг. (реверс).png, File:Baetylus (sacred stone) on four-horse chariot.jpg, File:Baetylus_(sacred_stone).jpg or File:INC-1854-r Ауреус Элагабал ок. 218-219 гг. (реверс).png. -sche (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I object to not having at least one coin of his namesake the black stone. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 07:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I also think the baetyl should be retained. As it was I that added many of the coin images, I defend the inclusion of the coin reverses along with the obverse portraits, though I admit that some could be removed. I would prefer the family members' images (usually reproduced on their own pages) be sacrificed in favour of those images directly related to Elagabalus and his reign. Perhaps instead the coins should be grouped into multiple image templates? GPinkerton (talk) 07:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
The reverse/obverse is not my concern; that there are just too many coins is. They aren't aiding understanding of the topic; narrowing it down to an illustrative view will. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
I struck above and changed my mind on how to handle the Culture references section. The problem there is the listiness and the extreme segmentation, giving UNDUE emphasis to a cluttered Table of contents. All of that could be prosified to, rather than seven sections, seven paragraphs. See similar concept at Lewy body dementias#Notable individuals, where different paragraphs are used for different industries, to avoid listiness and separate sections. This allows for retaining the content without having it appear to take over the article as TRIVIA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
A minor matter: why does the infobox list Elagabalus' wives as "supposed spouse"? The main body gives no indication that the existence of the marriages is in question. Furius (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't read the article as meaning that Elagabalus and Hierocles were really married, but if that is not clear then it should be strengthened in the text. DrKay (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist per everything which has already been said: questionable sources, inconsistent citation format, and questionable excerpts. That this review wasn't immediately set aside, and indeed has been going on for months, reinforces the merit of the arguments for delisting. Avilich (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
    Avilich since this review has been going on for quite a while, could you please point out specific instances of where those are still present in the article? For your comment to be actionable, editors need to have specific examples of what you want fixed, and the article is not the same article that appeared at FAR months ago (for better or worse). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
    The citation style is, as I said, inconsistent: here and there you have shortened footnotes, over there you have full citations, and sometimes full quotes in a single footnote. Footnote no. 124 is a lazily set up link to an archived work. Questionable excerpts include the 4th paragraph of the lead, for whose removal a compelling case has already been made above. The *Cultural references* section is basically a set of baldly listed cultural works with very little discussion of the emperor's role in each, their importance, and how these reflect the emperor's image transmitted through history. Obviously a detailed discussion needn't be set up for each cultural reference, but that section equally must be more than a simple catalog of every cultural trivia on Elagabalus produced over the centuries up til now.

    As for the sources, this has likewise already been discussed above and the problem still persists. You have Babelon and Cohen which are showing their age (though I'm not against keeping them if their relevance to the article can be demonstrated), and others which are plainly suspicious and inappropriate such as Encyclopedia of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer Culture. There's also a very broad-covering Untimely Deaths by Assassination, which one may safely conclude is at least unimportant to the article.

    Overall, Elagabalus simply does not feel like a FA, whether you're simply skimming or actually reading. Yes, it's changed these past few months, but a FA isn't made or maintained by belated tweaks here and there in response to a threat of it losing its status. Problems remain, and it seems natural inertia rather than the article's quality is the reason why Elagabalus hasn't lost its featured status yet. Delist, let someone improve it, and only then submit it again. Avilich (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Aza24, update? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry Nikkimaria, I should have been clearer above, I think we should delist, as I said above As far as promoting or demoting, from solely looking at our other FA roman emperors, Augustus and Domitian, this one just stands no where near the sourcing, prose and comprehensiveness unfortunately. – even if I continue fixing ref formatting, we still have significant prose, comprehensiveness and high quality source issues that I'm not equipped or motivated to deal with. Aza24 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

  1. ^ Macintyre, Stuart (2009). A Concise History of Australia. Cambridge University Press. pp. 33–34. ISBN 9780521516082.
  2. ^ Broome, Richard (2010). Aboriginal Australians: A history since 1788. Allen & Unwin. p. 18. ISBN 9781741765540.
  3. ^ Pascoe, Bruce (2018). Dark Emu: Aboriginal Australia and the Birth of Agriculture. Magabala Books. ISBN 9781925768954.
  4. ^ McKenna, Mark (2002). Looking for Blackfellas' Point: An Australian History of Place. UNSW Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 9780868406442.