Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 2020

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is not well-written and not well-researched, as raised by Femke Nijsse and Graham Beards. RJHall nominated this article for FA status in April Fools' 2007 (19 years ago). --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 17:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

"Not well-written and not well-researched" is rather nonspecific. Can you offer some specific criticisms that might help in this review? --Kent G. Budge (talk) 18:13, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Femke Nijsse pointed out the following issues:

• Too much of the article is too difficult (not well-written). This article should be understandable to a 16-year old. Yes, I'm struggling as a physics graduate.
  • the very first paragraph is too difficult. Per WP:ONEDOWN, words like sidereal day should definitely be avoided.
  • Further examples of things that may be too difficult include sentences like: . At the equator of the magnetic field, the magnetic-field strength at the surface is 3.05×10−5 T, with a magnetic dipole moment of 7.79×1022 Am2 at epoch 2000, decreasing nearly 6% per century
  • No idea what mean solar time is meant to be.
• Many of the key facts are outdated (not well-researched):
  • for instance, the article now states that the oldest material ever found in the solar system is 4.56 BYA, while a 2010 study found an older piece: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/8/100823-oldest-solar-system-two-million-years-older-science/. Dunno if that is the oldest one still.
  • Future section is full of research that has specific years and often based on one old primary source.
  • The final brightness of our Sun (5000 times as bright) is referenced to 1993 article. Still up-to-date?
  • Human population in 2050 is estimated using 2009 UN numbers
  • The amount of irrigated land is given for 1993
• Quite some unsourced paragraphs (not well-researched)
• I don't think individual weather events are due (summary style). The article now mentions a very controversial heat record, without giving context but it's likely an artefact of poor measuring. I think both temperature records should be deleted.

I had resolved some of them, but since I am underexperienced (a 16-year old dole), I have to leave it for someone else. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not convinced this was a good example of talk page discussion with identification of issues, but scanning the page, one easily finds indications of deterioration since RJHall retired, including being crammed full of sandwiched images, some uncited text, and some repetition in the lead. A tune-up might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

I am unfortunately relatively busy both on Wikipedia and finishing my thesis, but I will try to improve the under-sourced parts of the atmosphere and climate section over the next two weeks. There are a few sections that need either expert attention or quite a big time investment to update I think, for instance the future section, but possibly also the geological history and early life sections. Do we know any geologists that might be willing to help?

(@SandyGeorgia: what would be a better example of a talk page discussion?) Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Because a number had been resolved, and Graham Beards questioned others, it might have been better to ping involved editors to talk, or ask for help from WikiProjects, and to give it more time ... but here we are, no problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Soumya-8974: thank you very much for your help with this (although I have no idea what a "dole" is) - hope you are enjoying your return to education. I could fix this article but I would rather spend the considerable time needed on some more specialist articles which there is no chance of others updating. All I can suggest is that if anyone does fix it they ask an intelligent 16 year old such as Soumya-8974 to read through it once they have finished to make sure it is understandable.Chidgk1 (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what a "dole" is – "Dole" is a clipping of adolescent. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 09:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson

• I'll note that this is a Level 1 Vital Article, so I'm going to be stricter in my interpretations of the FACR with this than I would an FAC of a "normal" article (or even anything that's not our Top 10 most important subjects).
• Sourcing is of the utmost importance, especially here. From a brief inspection of the references list, I see a citation to The Alcalde (an alumni magazine) and Live Science. While I'm sure that Live Science is an adequate source, it is by no means the top-notch source in discussing something as scientifically commonplace as winds. Speaking of winds, that Live Science citation (Ref #157 as I type this) is part of a bulleted list whose other constituents are uncited without adequate excuse. There are also a few journal articles from the 1960s. Already these issues would severely compromise if not sink an FAC, IMO.

Partly done: the wind paragraph is now fully cited to a HQRS. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:15, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with Nijsse that the lead, while understandable to me as a Geology graduate, is inappropriately dense, not to mention disjointed. I would put About 29% of Earth's surface is land consisting of continents and islands. The remaining 71% is covered with water, mostly by oceans but also lakes, rivers and other fresh water, which all together constitute the hydrosphere. The majority of Earth's polar regions are covered in ice, including the Antarctic ice sheet and the sea ice of the Arctic ice pack. Earth's interior remains active with a solid iron inner core, a liquid outer core that generates Earth's magnetic field, and a convecting mantle that drives plate tectonics. right after the first sentence, as the first paragraph.

 Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• In the "Etymology" section, the Beowulf image and notes, while cool, are ultimately "cruft" that should be removed to streamline the article, IMO.
• "Billion years ago" should be clarified to refer to the short-scale "billion" (10⁹, not 10¹²); very ideally (though this is admittedly just my preference) "Ga" would be substituted for "BYA".

We could use "Billion years ago (10⁹ years or Ga)" at the first mention in the lede, and Ga thereafter, but I'll go with what the consensus is on this. Whichever we go with, there needs to be consistency - the lede and the "Origin of life and evolution" both use billion (although the latter switches to Ma in its second paragraph).Mikenorton (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

• to form linking to Phase transition (in "Geological History") should either be dropped or have the link be reduced to simply form.

 Done: part of a rewrite of that paragraph. Mikenorton (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This is a non-exhaustive run-through. Overall this is salvageable but needs attention. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Femke Nijsse

• in addition to previous comments, I've now added 11 citation needed and six update needed tags in the article. Most of those are beyond my sphere of knowledge. Mikenorton, you seem to be knowledgeable about geology. Do you think you might have time to further help out here? Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:46, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• I'm happy to take a look at the tagged statements in the geological parts of the article. Mikenorton (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Partly done:I've rewritten the paragraphs on continental growth and tweaked the bit on supercontinents - I hope that's clearer now. Mikenorton (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Partly done:I have attempted to clarify how the age of the Jack Hills zircons matches with the Acasta Gneiss being the oldest known continental crust. Mikenorton (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

I've also reworded the bit about mass extinctions. Mikenorton (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Update: in trying to address the issues raised by me and others, I'm constantly finding new issues and have come to the conclusion that concerted efforts are needed to save this article. There are now 13 citation needed tags, and I'm discovering more prose that is subpar ( and it is of the lithosphere that the tectonic plates are composed), I'm finding many dead links to sources, and it is not always clear whether all the sourcing is high quality, with a high reliance on self published websites by what seems to be academics (f.i. http://hpiers.obspm.fr/eop-pc/models/constants.html). Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Hold Delist per Femke (above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Devonian Wombat has been great in getting high-quality citation into the article; only four citation needed tags left. The major lay-out issues have also been resolved. I'm confident we'll get this back to at least GA quality, and maybe FA (never have done a FA, so not sure how high we have to aim). Slow but steady progress. Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Holding, per Femke. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment everything bar two statements now has a citation. I've been going over the entire text of the article to identify which parts need updating, did some updating myself and tagged a remaining 10 statements in need of updating. Once that is done, I'll ask some of the more experienced FA people how far we still have to go. Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  All needs updating tags have been dealt with . The current project is to improve the organisation of the article, identifying parts that don't have summary style, identifying omissions and making sure the lead is a proper summary of the article.

There is one part of the article dealing with the historical notions of earth that were struggling with. I've asked help from the WikiProject history of science, but no response as of yet. Femke Nijsse (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment Why is the image for the Life on Earth section a volcano? Should it be replaced with an image of a living thing instead? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Hanif Al Husaini, I've replaced it by a fungus and noticed the article doesn't even talk about fungi. Will add a sentence talking more about how life interacts with Earth, recycling minerals and other stuff like carbon and nitrogen. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

From the lead: "Over 99% of all species that ever lived on Earth are extinct." But it is not mentioned in body. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:17, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Now mentioned in the body and cited.

• Request for final(?) feedback I believe all comments above have been addressed. Considering the vast amount of work that had to be done I suspect there are some more details that need addressing. FAR regulars, John M Wolfson, would you be willing to give some more feedback so that we can work towards closing this FAR? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Per Femke, a new review

Alert: I am less strict on older FAs that have already run on the mainpage. And it is important to save as many stars on broadly important articles as we can.

• Noting that it is commendable that this article on a clearly broad topic stays below 8,000 words of prose (reinforcing my long-standing argument about the proper use of summary style and that we should not need to expose our readers to 45 minutes of reading).
• I recommend moving the Spoken Wikipedia link in External links to the talk page ... it is 8 years old.
• Why the CNN link in External links? I would think that belongs at that country article or elsewhere ... otherwise, should that information be incorporated into this article?
• In the section Origin of life and evolution, there is MOS:SANDWICH and image links go after article links in the section hatnotes.
• Overall, I suggest there is an excess of images, causing clutter, and the least useful should be eliminated.
• There is quite a sea of blue: need to run the dup links checker, User:Evad37/duplinks-alt
• How much of that "See also" is already linked in the article (or should be already linked in the article)?
• Clear on most of the other MOS items I usually check. And no unnecessary "however"s ... nice!
• The prose is quite competent!

All  Done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Suggest that Jo-Jo Eumerus might have a quick glance, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Also, @Graham Beards: for a re-check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson 2, Earthbound Boogaloo

• I still think the notes in the "Etymology" section ought to be removed and if applicable incorporated into the prose.

I missed that before. I moved the notes to the talk page for if anyone wants to incorporate them. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• definite in definite sense should link to definite article, whose link should be removed from "the", which if need be can be emphasized using <em> tags or {{em}}.

 Done. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• From Greek Gaia and Gaea comes Gaian and Gaean. should be cited, which should be easy to do.

 Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Is the Google Earth in the External Links duly licensed? If so, is it appropriate?

  How would I figure this out? I think Google Earth is one of the most relevant external links you could have for this article.. Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• There are a lot of duplinks, using the highlighter.

 Done Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

• Sourcing seems fine.

Other than that, this is acceptable to retain the star, although do fix the issues Sandy and I were talking about. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep, fine work, Femke ... you own this bronze star now, and it will take constant vigilance to keep it at standard :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Soumya-8974, are there outstanding issues from your perspective? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Keep I've finished copyediting; found nothing major, just a few dead links in the references (that I updated) and a few random uppercases in the text. I did some spotchecks of the hard data while I was reading, and found no problems. Some of the sources are a bit more "general" instead of "scholarly" (National Geographic, some newspapers, Iberdrola, you know what I mean), but they are supporting stuff like "Earth has resources that have been exploited by humans." and "The seven continents of Earth", so they're fine in my view. To Femke: could you please change that "To second order" in the text? It's the only thing that I did not get and my "research" only led me to Second-order, which left me even more confused. Thank you for your work on this article. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article relies overly on primary sources, including unreliable sources. There are some secondary issues as well: the lead suffers a bit from WP:RECENTISM, and has too many small paragraphs. The HIV subsection is one sentence long. There are too many external links, many of which go to the own website of the initiative. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC No progress Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - No progress, and significant issues. The comparison section, in particular, is a mess. The statement "In other words, Folding@home's strength is modeling the process of protein folding, while Rosetta@home's strength is computing protein design and predicting protein structure and docking." is uncited and probably OR, "Of all the major distributed computing projects involved in protein research, Folding@home is the only one not using the BOINC platform" is backed up by sources from 2011 and earlier and possibly out of date, "More information on the relationship between the HPF1, HPF2 and Rosetta@home can be found on Richard Bonneau's website" is borderline spam IMO, and almost the whole section uses either dated or unreliable sources. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:32, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section mostly centre on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delist still no progress. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist as no meaningful progress has been made. --Laser brain (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist: unsourced statements from August 2020. DrKay (talk) 18:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist, very significant sourcing issues. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:39, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Review section

This is a featured article, but some sections have 0 ref such as literature and entertainment sections. That's quite unacceptable. And the "popular culture" section has 1 ref, clearly not enough. Another problem is that they look more like a list of things than an encyclopedia section. This needs to be fixed, or FA status should be removed. I raised this issue about 4 months ago in the talk page, and it has been ignored until today. 2402:800:4383:7390:6535:B839:43C2:590E (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

IP, I have completed the notifications for you. Also, noting that this is a 2006 promotion whose nominator is no longer active. Also, the article has considerably more issues than identified by the IP (out of date). Most of the article is uncited, the third line of the lead is redundant (The state has many lakes, and is known as the "Land of 10,000 Lakes"), and have a look at this about a surprising claim that has been at both Minnesota and Minneapolis for more than a decade. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by RD

Well, the article actually starts in a good way, at least when compared to Oklahoma below: well-cited, good use of scholarly works in the more science-based sections, good organization and use of images. Then it completely falls off the rails once it hits the second half of the article. Issues spotted:

• The economy section data is stuck in 2006. I find it hard to believe that no more figures have been released since then;
• The Culture section is practically unsourced (performing arts, entertainment, literature, popular culture - the whole of it). Sections about culture are also very prone to fluff, advertising and digressions into not very relevant stuff, all of which can be found here;
• Transport, media, politics, sports sections - large unsourced paragraphs can be found in these sections;
• I actually found the tribal component of politics (?) very interesting, but it's not explained well (what issues do they negotiate with the state in a "bilateral basis"?), also unsourced;
• The organized sports subsection is unsourced, and not well written in the way that we just go from fact to fact without seeing the big picture. Why are these teams important, viewership numbers, money generated by them/their respective sports in the state?;
• The intro to tourism is largely unsourced and when sourced, it's with poorly formatted links to Explore Minnesota, which constitutes advertising.

The article does not meet the FA criteria at the time and needs a lot of work to rise up to the current standard. RetiredDuke (talk) 13:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Move to FARC, no improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

RD, I agree with many of your points, and have removed the tourism section entirely. I have posted at the talk page of the Minnesota wikiproject to see if there is interest in upgrading the article to current standards. I suggest we wait a week to see if someone steps forward, and if not, the FA star should be removed. Kablammo (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kablammo: the convention is generally two weeks if no or little activity, stretching to as long as it takes if there are serious attempts at fixing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and maintenance of outdated sections such as Economy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delist per above. (t · c) buidhe 00:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delist per RetiredDuke. Unsourced subsections in Culture section. Poor structure, paragraphing and sourcing and unclear notability in the Organized sports subsection. DrKay (talk) 12:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist article needs significant improvement as detailed above. Does not meet the FA criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist - Uncited bits, out-of-date information in the economy section, along with other issues. Substantial work needed to reach the criteria. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Review section

Nominating due to unresolved problems with tone and flowery language. -- Beland (talk) 00:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson

This writing is just atrocious for an encyclopedia article. Leaving aside neutrality, I could barely understand what was being discussed from the lead, and to the extent that I could this is more an essay. Restoration comedy, while not an FA, is much better written in that I could more easily deduce that a type of play is the subject of the article. While I don't entirely oppose flowery language in an FA, there's a way to do it (Chartwell) and a way not to do it (this). Notwithstanding all that, the last two paragraphs are completely uncited. Overall, this needs work to even be a Good Article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:16, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm

Oh goodness, this is just a mess. Large quantities of uncited text, there's some points where statements don't seem to be supported by the citation (see reference 9), the whole thing is written like an essay. This is far from even a GA. 2005 promotion where no significant comments other than categorization were brought up. Definitely not an FA under modern standards. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:03, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Johnbod

A vintage piece from 2004. Unless User:Bishonen feels like doing a lot of work integrating the huge number of academic sources used into inline citations, it's probably best to leave this alone, allowing it to slip beneath the FA waves. The results of today's generation of nit-pickers crawling all over it are unlikely to be beneficial. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements and style issues. DrKay (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Review section

There was a talk page discussion all the way back in 2011 that still has relevant criticism towards the article. Both its prose and sourcing does not meet the criteria in any way and overall seems clean cut in why it should be delisted in its current state. GamerPro64 16:58, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yikes, this is so far gone that I say move it straight to FARC. Nearly 2/3 of the damn article is completely unsourced and there are [citation needed]s all over the place. @Nikkimaria: @Casliber: @DrKay: can we invoke WP:IAR and yeet this straight into removal? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't see that there is any great urgency with this. Usually WP:FAR is very quiet. I will have a look later when I have an uninterrupted segment of time to do so though so am not ruling out fast-tracking, just highlighting it is not what we usually do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• This didn't meet the current FAC criteria when it was promoted, and there is no way it is salvageable in a reasonable period of time from its current state. It needs someone with some in-depth sources on British military handguns (they may be out there in Wikiland, but I don't know any members of Milhist that qualify). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• I'm not usually given to supporting dramatic moves in featured-level processes, but I agree with the suggestions above that we move straight to FARC here. The article clearly doesn't currently meet the B-class criteria due to the large qualities of unsourced material and I'm not convinced that any of the current sources are reliable. The huge amount of work required to bring it up to FA standard means that the resultant article would be almost entirely different from the current version. As a result, a FAC process would be the most appropriate way of confirming that a redeveloped article meets the the featured criteria, with the lighter-touch FAC/FARC process being inappropriate. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I went through and applied a number of maintenance tags. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay - had a look now and tend to agree, so moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and layout. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delist per my comments in the FAR section above: the amount of work needed to bring this article to FA status is such that it's unlikely to be achieved through a FAR, and a new FAC would be required to re-certify the article is actually a FA. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delist Pretty cut and dry here. GamerPro64 23:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delist -- agree all above, just citing all the users reliably would be a bit of an undertaking, let alone the rest of the article. Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delist per above, article is clearly too far gone. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 06:32, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist, significant uncited material. Fixing this would be better suited for a new FAC, not trying to cram it into a FAR. This isn't even B-class right now. Hog Farm _Bacon 19:14, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist, I’ve long wondered how this is a FA. Cavalryman (talk) 10:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC).
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the multiple issues discussed at Talk:Oklahoma#Lack of citations/data in need of update, since last year, without much in the way of improvement. Verifiability/lack of citations is a pressing issue. (t · c) buidhe 06:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by RD

I did a review last year on Talk, but I suppose I can expand on it a bit:

• lack of citations throughout, full paragraphs at times;
• quality of sources is extremely poor in the geology/ecology/topography areas
  • TravelOK should not be supporting a full paragraph about ecological diversity;
  • I doubt Netstate or Geology.com are the best sources around that mention the state's borders or its mountains or general topography;
  • The full section on fauna and flora of Oklahoma is almost solely sourced to TravelOK; although apparently a state-owned website, this is the sort of information that is easily found in scholar literature, and failure to integrate any of that literature is a serious breach of 1.c) - well-researched;
• Gigantic white space created because editors just come in the article and add whatever pictures they like;
• More substandard sourcing with this gem written in 1998 by someone on the Internet; then the same website is used to make claims about Indian territory, a subject that seems to be well covered on Google scholar;
• Substandard prose: "All Five Civilized Tribes supported and signed treaties with the Confederate military during the American Civil War. The Cherokee Nation had an internal civil war. Slavery in Indian Territory was not abolished until 1866."
• Several substancial claims about first-nation peoples and (then later on) other race relations that are poorly sourced or even completely unsourced at times;
• Several random, one-sentence paragraphs just added in the middle of the text, such as "On May 31, 2016, several cities experienced record setting flooding." or "The center of population of Oklahoma is in Lincoln County near the town of Sparks.", that are not properly integrated in the text of their respective sections;
• There is data on OK languages available from 2018 so it makes no sense that we have a whole section based on 2000 data;
• The wind generation sub-section just has a table, with no context provided on the data;
• The Sports section provides a nice overview about all the different teams/franchises in the state, but then we have a series of tables that do not add anything to the discussion? Just visual clutter, apparently.
• "On June 26, 2018, Oklahoma made marijuana legal for medical purposes. This was a milestone for a state in the Bible Belt." - I don't doubt it, but citation needed and NPOV;
• These are just examples, I powered through many issues just to keep this review under a decent size. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll add that while not being in a very good shape (so much so that it's also being reviewed at FAR above), Minnesota currently gives 10-0 to Oklahoma in terms of including scholarly works in the geology, fauna and flora, and history sections. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Hog Farm

• I'll focus on sourcing

• What makes State Symbols USA a high-quality RS? I've seen worse, but there's likely better sources available (It's used quite a bit)
• What makes StateFossils a high-quality RS?
• NetState.com looks a bit dubious
• Studylib.net looks pretty dubious
• From what I've seen, rootsweb is generally seen to be non-RS
• What makes Geneaology Trails History Group an RS?
• What makes ustravelweather.com a high-quality RS?
• Consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Is History.com (formerly History Channel) generally reliable? is that the History Channel publishes enough wacko content its generally not an RS
• A lot of the refs are missing various parameters
• Capitalization in ref titles is all over the place
• Notable people is almost entirely unsourced
• What makes City-Data.com a high-quality RS?
• What makes shaleexperts.com a high-quality RS?
• What makes Ask Men an RS?
• "Sports Illustrated magazine rates Oklahoma and Oklahoma State among the top colleges for athletics in the nation" - Is cited to two articles from 2002.
• I'm gonna say WebMD is probably a bit iffy of a source for FA, despite it being the go-do medical diagnoser at the university I attend
• What is BurellesLuce.com?
• What makes Legends of America an RS?
• Large swaths of the article are sourced to websites from 2007, suggesting that there may be much outdated information in here.

Other comments I'd make on sourcing, but stopping here. It's not looking good. Hog Farm _Bacon 15:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Move to FARC, nothing happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delist - Extensive issues, no progress made. Besides the iffy sourcing mentioned above, there are also a good deal of outdated material. The statistics in the religion section all appear to be over 10 years old, the first bit of economy and the industry section are both very dated. Most of the material in the language section is based on the 2000 census. The images have some location issues, as they're stuck everywhere with no real connection with the section they are within. The history section contains two events after the OKC bombing. The military section is two further information links with no text. There are bits of uncited material. The layout is god-awful. This needs substantial work to reach the standard, and it doesn't look like anyone is stepping up to do so. Hog Farm _Bacon 18:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delist per above. (t · c) buidhe 23:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delist. Tagged for citations needed. DrKay (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Review section

This is a 2005 promotion that has not been maintained and whose principal author (Garrondo) has not edited since 2013. Problems have been detailed on talk since July 29, 2020. A top-to-bottom overhaul is needed for this article which receives 5,000 daily views! Besides the datedness, there are stubby sentences throughout, suggesting piecemeal additions over time ...many of which are now dated “as of” sentences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Move to FARC, zero interest, zero activity, nothing happening, even with mention at WPMED multiple times well before the nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include datedness and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• Delist. Tagged for specifically marked weasel-words, unsourced statements since July 2020, and in need of updating from September 2015. DrKay (talk) 10:47, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
• Delist per above. Femke Nijsse (talk) 12:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Review section

This is a 2007 promotion (whose nominator is barely active anymore on Wikipedia) that has not been maintained to standards. There have been no improvements since the 2020-08-27 notification, and there are more issues than listed in that notification. For example, the article is cluttered with images and graphs and MOS:SANDWICH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

• The last paragraph seems to dismiss the scientific consensus around climate change as well as: There is one scientific opinion which states that in South Asia such climatic events are likely to change in unpredictability, frequency, and severity Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, marginal progress made in a few edits, but not scratching the surface and no serious engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, style and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delist per above. I have removed the climate denial but don't plan to work on this any further. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist - Significant uncited text. Nobody's working on it, and it's beyond my scope to fix it. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist per above. Insufficient progress. --Laser brain (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist doesn't meet the criteria at present (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has many of the same issues as Oklahoma, by the same author. Two weeks ago I wrote on the TP, "This 2007 promotion needs to be revisited. It has significant issues with citation format, excessive use of primary sources, and non-cited content." (t · c) buidhe 00:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Review from RD

The FA nominator and main contributor has not edited since June 2009, which is problematic if no one has been keeping an eye on the article. And that seems to be exactly the case with the ammount of problems spotted and the sheer number of bad additions that have crept in:

• Unreliable sources

• NativeLand.ca openly says it's not reliable when you visit it: "This map does not represent or intend to represent official or legal boundaries of any Indigenous nations." and "it is a work in progress with tons of contributions from the community". - Not ideal to source info on Indian tribes;
• Citydictionary.com is used in the article, a blog which main page says "What Defines Your City - Share your knowledge by creating definitions for local slang, events, restaurants and more!"
• What makes "TulsaWeb" a reliable source?
• What makes "city-data.com" a reliable source?
• What makes "mostlivable.org" a reliable source?
• What is even RelocateAmerica? The site is blatant promo;

• WP:PROMO everywhere:

• Blatant promo for International Art Deco Congress;
• Promo link to Red Carpet Charters;
• Promo link to Trailways.com;
• We have the the Tulsa Port of Catoosa sourcing "The facility is one of the largest riverports in the United States";
• Three links to TravelOK, which constitute advertisement;
• Random promo link to Holberton School Tulsa - "Learn to code in Tulsa", they say - we even have the fee mentioned in the link!;
• Promo about higher learning private schools - I don't see how half of that info is relevant to the city of Tulsa, since those institutions have their own articles to go on about campuses and enrollment and courses;

• The "prose" in the "In popular culture" subsection is substandard;
• Unsourced text everywhere;
• Stubby sentences everywhere;
• The article puts exactly the same emphasis on professional soccer and high school sports, which seems extraordinary to me;
• The Culture section is full of fluff; half of the festivals mentioned do not seem that relevant and lack the sources to support their relevance.

This needs work to retain FA status. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• There are 2 extra-small, one-sentence long subsections, "Walkability" and "Bicycling". 1) Why? 2) There's a "Running, biking and trails" subsection down below, that's where the info belong. Curiously, the section is named "Running, biking and trails" but there's no mention of trails there;
• There's a subsection on the "August 6, 2017 tornado". I don't see the need for a whole subsection on it in an article about the city. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include neutrality and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 00:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist since apparently nobody's working on. Citations needed everywhere, unreliable sources abound. Image placements issues: they don't always match up to the accompanying text. There's a bare URL in the sources. Having a section just on the wild onion dinner seems like possibly undue weight, there's several similar things. Not an FA as it stands, or even a GA. Hog Farm _Bacon 16:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist geography articles are among the hardest to keep current ... this one is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delist as per neutrality and sourcing concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

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