Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2022

Review section

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

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

I've taken a stab at trimming See also/ELs, but have been reverted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks like your trimmed version has been reinstated - FWIW I would consider it clearly better. Both cutting all of the see also links which repeated links in the article body per MOS:NOTSEEALSO and severely cutting back the general reference works in the further reading section are clear improvements. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• Move to FARC article needs considerable work to be kept as a FA. (t · c) buidhe 21:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I've begun supplying missing citations, and will continue during the coming days as time permits; I can also correct the other problems that have been identified. GBRV (talk) 00:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

GBRV, are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I can work on it later today when I have time. GBRV (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

• @GBRV: Please ping me here when you are finished your edits and I will conduct a more thorough review. Z1720 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. GBRV (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  There is still uncited text, marginal sources highlighted by HeadBomb’s script, HarvRef errors, and multiple and inconsistent citation styles. And MOS:SANDWICH, which can be cleaned up if sourcing is brought to standard. Further reading either needs pruning, or those sources should be represented in the article, and External links appear to need pruning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

  I’ve adjusted the images for MOS:SANDWICH and MOS:ACCIM, but concerned whether some of the image captions are overly long or should be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Is http://www.stjoan-center.com/ a high-quality reliable source? Who is this author? http://www.stjoan-center.com/military/stephenr.html Also, since he provides a bibliography, could we not better consult the original sources ? The article also uses history.com, and a non-reliable newspaper reporting on info supplied by an auction house (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/joan-arc-ring-dating-back-15th-century-sale-london-auction-1535043) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• GBRV It looks like you've been doing a lot of work on this article. This article is huge. The good news is that the material is all there, though it looks like too much may be there. I prefer to stay out of the lead editor's way, but if at some point, you'd want help, let me know. Be warned: I'd want to move the whole thing to sfn format, sort the notes and the references, diversify and corroborate references. And of course, that probably means some editing too, though this article is fortunately already well developed. (Perhaps overly so?) It seems like you are on a roll, so I'll stay out of it unless you are open to the possibility. I think you'll probably get it in great shape. I would ask that if it remains at risk due to references, that you or the FARC team keeping an eye on it ping me and I'll pitch in before delisting. If I don't hear back, all is good, and I'm not sure how much I'll be able to do until January anyway... Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Wtfiv I'll keep working on it, and can contact you if I need help. GBRV (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

GBRV Sounds good. I started templating references and moving them so they can be separated out. There's two of them. But I'll stop for now until I hear otherwise. Feel free to revert what I've done. See my comments on the article talk page for what I did as well. Wtfiv (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

FAR Committee, I think GBRV is committed to salvaging the article, and is most comfortable without my involvement at this time. I asked GBRV to ping me whenever my skills may be of use in collaborative editing. Additionally, please contact me for some unfortunate reason progress stalls and it comes up for a delist vote again, and I'll put my energy into keeping it featured. It seems pretty straightforward to accessibly, reliably and consistently source. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delist still cites non-RS as mentioned by SG above (t · c) buidhe 01:22, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Buidhe If the vote now needs to run its course, I'll stay out of it. Otherwise, I'd like to give it a try to not have it delisted, particularly if the references are the big problem. My work would be slow until late January, but I would work at it in the interim.) I just don't want to tread on GBRV's work. Wtfiv (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Striking vote if there is a plan for fixing up the article :) (t · c) buidhe 05:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

FARC team, I think GBRV is committed to salvaging the article, and is most comfortable without my involvement at this time. I asked GBRV to ping me whenever my skills may be of use in collaborative editing. Additionally, please contact me for some unfortunate reason progress stalls and it comes up for a delist vote again, and I'll put my energy into keeping it featured. It seems pretty straightforward to accessibly, reliably and consistently source. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 21:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• Delist. There's still significant problems with the sourcing, including the use of primary sources, original research etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 10:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Please at least allow me to continue working on fixing the problems first before voting to delist. GBRV (talk) 17:51, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hold: Work is ongoing. You may ping me when the article is ready for review. Z1720 (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
• Hold, plenty of active work underway. Please ping me when work is done and I will be happy to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

  I see Wtfiv is still quite actively working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy! I am working on it, but this month my pace is slower than normal so it may take until January. It's been a bit tough since the sourcing in this article was looser than I expected. I'm also glad that GBRV is pitching in too! Wtfiv (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

• A minor suggestion for Wtfiv, who I'm thrilled to see working on this. It is probably worth briefly mentioning Schiller's The Maid of Orleans at some point in the article, in addition to (and mainly because of) the four operas it inspired by Verdi, Tchaikovsky and to a lesser extent Klebe and Pacini. Aza24 (talk) 08:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Aza24 I think it would be great to get the operas in there! Wtfiv (talk) 21:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Aza24 I didn't mention the operas and plays, as there is a separate article, Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, with a huge list. There is so much art inspired by her story! Wtfiv (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Wtfiv: you're doing a job of work on this, nice one! For the record, this is pretty much my area of specialism, so if you want a hand, let me know, and if there's anything specific I can get to without getting under your feet, I will—I've got most of the major scholarship. Happy New Year all! SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

  Awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sandy Happy New Year!

SN54129 Happy New Year to you too! Right now, I'm at the retrial section, as I'm working forward sequentially. Just let me know what you would like to do, and I can stay out of your way while you are working on it It looks to me there is a lot of work: Retrial, Canonization, Legacy, Visions, Cross-dressing all seem to need a lot of TLM (tender, loving maintenance). If you want to pick a section (and I have no problem handing off the "Retrial" section before I dive in deeper into the research- let me know and I'll stay out of your way. If one of us gets done a section and is ready for another, we can just message each other here.

Also, if you want to edit any preceding section, please do. And, I can follow up with citation formatting as you complete sections, if you find it a hassle. Ideally it'd be great if all citations be linkable, but of course, that is just a preference on my part. (Verifying citation to text integrity- and assessing reliability of sources- has been one of the major issues.) Just let me know what you would like to do. Wtfiv (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

SN54129 — Review here please :) 16:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll volunteer to edit the Visions and Cross-dressing sections. GBRV (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

GBRV That sounds great! You have a good editor's eye! I have a couple of not too strong requests on those sections that I'll post on the Joan talk page. Wtfiv (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Just mentioning that the edits for the review are still underway. There's definitely headway, I think, but once more the progress may slow a bit, but hopefully its moving along well enough that it can remain part of the review process. If there is a concern, please let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Update: Many editors are still working on this article and improvements are being made. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi FAR committee, I think the draft sections in which I took on the lead role in editing (all but "Visions" and "Cross-dressing") are now ready for review. I am particularly grateful to GBRV for all the follow-up editing: patience as my aligning text to source modified much of the original story, opening discussion when needed, addressing issues of detail, cleaning up poorly worded prose, and the tireless copy editing.

GBRV has taken on the lead role in editing the "Visions" and "Cross Dressing" sections and is still working on them. Once GBRV feels they are ready to go, and the FAR review begins, I'll be ready and available to address any concerns raised. Thanks for your patience so far! Wtfiv (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead has a series of one- or two-sentence paragraphs which could probably be re-worked to four or five paragraphs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it is fixed: merged post-Paris activities into one paragraph; combined religious legacy with cultural legacy. Wtfiv (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Also merged all military activity up to the Siege of Paris into one paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - I see that GBRV has been sock-blocked. Hog Farm _Talk 14:21, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  With a direct impact on the integrity of this article. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryn78 and User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/AWilliamson. Wtfiv how can the integrity of the article be checked? Is it only sections Visions and Cross dressing, or is there more? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Reading the Durova subpage, I happen to notice that both Williamson and Frohlick are cited in the article. Hog Farm _Talk 14:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  @FAR coordinators: just to make sure they see this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  Serial Number 54129 you offered (above) to look in here; considering the recent development (considerable and decades old socking), your help may be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

  This is a 34-page PDF of Williamson in Wirth.

  ^{[unreliable source?]} Williamson, Allen (2006). "Context". In Wirth, Robert (ed.). Primary Sources and Context Concerning Joan of Arc's Male Clothing (PDF). Joan of Arc: Primary Sources Series. Translated by Williamson, Allen. New York: Historical Academy (Association) for Joan of Arc Studies. ISSN 1557-0355. OCLC 61118807. Archived from the original (PDF) on 16 August 2006.

  The Academy for Joan of Arc Studies was incorporated in April 2005. Its president is Williamson with an address listed as Sartell, a suburb of St. Cloud (as established by Durova at User:Highest-Authority-on-Joan-of-Arc-Related-Scholarship/AWilliamson sock puppets). The registered office of the Academy is in Minneapolis at an address that appears to have been owned by Wirth. This may be a self-published source (as discussed at the community ban discussion, although the connection between the address was not made there). I have tagged it as "better source needed", although I first tagged it RS, mistakenly thinking it was a non-peer-reviewed journal. Considering the earlier stunt of adding a period on to the end of Durova's user name, to make it appear that she had made some edits, we should take care to establish credentials in these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

• As an aside, I've still got quite a few problems with the content of this article, and it badly needs a decent copy-edit. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:38, 25 February 2022 (UTC)I

I'm away from my usual place dealing with personal issues, but can return to the editing around mid-week of next week. If the team is good with what I've done so far. Here's my perspective:

• I agree that Williamson and Frohlick are problematic. I'm careful about them because I also try to negotiate the concerns of other active editors.

• Removing Williamson is no problem. I too ha questions about the Williamson site. I put it in as a compromise with another editor who wanted to keep the issue about Joan's clothing preventing rape. IBut I did look the article over, and it seemed to me that it didn't misquote its primary sources. It's major contribution was the one about Joan's clothing, which I implicitly offered as a collaborative compromise for another active editor. Removing it, and leaving the issue in the "cross-dressing" section with the more reliable sources seems to me to be a reasonable solution. (But I do think there was a lot of Williamson's language in the original article, such as stating the retrial declared Joan innocent when sources state her trial was annulled, incorrectly calling the second trial an appellate court, and removing all language implying that the original trial had inquisitional powers and the suggestion that Joan was primarily executed for cross-dressing)

• I thought I minimized reliance on Frohlick. I just checked, and there's only one reference, accompanied with another source, Pernoud and Clin, who are acknowledged scholars who make a similar point. That said, Frohlick can be edited out with no problem.

• Except for the visions and cross-dressing sections, I feel the sourcing of the article is otherwise solid, though I have no doubt there is need for further editing. I am glad to begin the editing of those two sections, as I've been collecting sources on them and think that they need a great deal of work. I just wanted to make sure that GBRV had had the opportunity to edit first, as I want to ensure respect for the article. I'll begin working on these next week. (Though it means there'll be a lag before I start on the G. Fox article.)
• Finally, there is the biggest problem that I may not be able to address. I have no doubt that Hchc2009's point about copy edit is correct. As Sandy knows, I'm awful at copy editing. I leave a wake of errors behind in my editing. I get too immersed in sourcing and getting it right, and after hours of peering at prose, lose sight of the typos and grammos. That's where I particularly appreciated GBRV's critical editorial eye, even when we disagreed on interpretation and nuance.

My thought was once we get the drafting taken care of- which would be the cross-dressing and visions sections- the team comes in and makes all the needed suggestions allow the article to maintain its featured star. I'm open to whatever solution the team deems appropriate, though my own desired goal would be a solution that keeps the featured article status. To my eye, this seems straightforward if we complete the major revision on the visions and cross-dressing sections , remove the Williamson and the Frohlick (references, which is easy), and if the problems of copy-editing are not fatal to the articles integrity. Thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

If you are able to accomplish all of that, and if we don't have any socking interference, we should be able to round up people to copyedit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that finishing up shouldn't be hard nor take overly long. Frohlick and Williamson are already deleted. (The Frohlick was just a reference to an image of Joan's signature, but it's not really needed, as it's already in the saint infobox.) That just leaves the last two sections. My major editing concern to date- and the part that leads me to work more slowly- has been ensuring that the project respects the perspective of all editors who felt passionately.

What I do have concerns about is that many of the ancillary Wikipedia articles related to Joan of Arc topics that are linked in the article reference many of the same problematic sources and make many of the same (IMO) poorly sourced and, most likely, incorrect claims. But that's beyond the scope of my commitments. Wtfiv (talk) 22:33, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv this article is the mother lode, from which the unscrupulous would desire to derive hits.

Please remember to keep Wikipedia:Featured article review/George Fox/archive2 updated, as to whether you can still work there. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the Visions and Cross-dressing sections. I think the article is now well-sourced and has a consistent format throughout. I have no doubt that there are egregious first pass (first public draft) copy edit errors in those sections. Still, please take a look and if you think the article is ready for copy editors, if it should wait until I do more cleanup, or if major concerns still remain. just let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a copyedit is needed, although most of the issues are minor typos, missing words or wikilinks, punctuation, and such. @Hchc2009, Z1720, Serial Number 54129, and Aza24: I stopped after I realized I may be messing up the tenses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. Let me know when folks think the text and sources are up to FA standard and I'll happily give it a thorough review. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Hchc2009, At this point, I think the sources should be pretty good. There's also more cleanup I'm working at (cleaning up residue of possible sockpuppeting, and cleaning up the "Background" section.) Also, I'll keep at the copy editing, which you had previously mentioned. Its not my strength and its a slow grind, but I'll keep at it to salvage the article. But my question for you, is when you glance at the article what are the major issues you'd still like to see addressed? If possible, I will do what I can to take care of them before you give it a more thorough review. Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 06:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Buidhe, Z1720, SandyGeorgia, Aza24, Serial Number 54129, and Hog Farm: What issues are outstanding from your perspectives? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The number of footnotes is vastly excessive, failing the summary style requirement. Some sources such as Sackville-West, Victoria (1936). Saint Joan of Arc, Lowell, Francis Cabot (1896). Joan of Arc, Mackinnon, James (1902). The Growth and Decline of the French Monarchy., etc., it's questionable if they are HQRS. (t · c) buidhe 02:53, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The lead is too long for optimal readability and should be shortened to meet MOS:LEAD (t · c) buidhe 02:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Yikes. There are 2,600 words in footnotes; that's an entire article. Wtfiv, how did this come to be ? I have to agree with the terms vastly excessive.

SandyGeorgia Regarding footnotes: I've removed most of the Latin quotes taken from Quicherat. (The Latin quotes were added to ensure that uncited quotes were verifiable. Many quotes originally in Latin were being cited as English-language citation without attribution. This may be related to socking. And even some of secondary source cites are questionable translations when compared to the Latin original.) I've reduced the citations. I also removed a miscelleny of other footnotes. Using LibreOffice to verify, there are now 36 footnotes with a wordcount of 1,398. For comparison, the footnotes for Joyce come in 54 for a wordcount of 1,920. (If there is a WP tool for word counting footnotes, please let me know). So, I'd suggest this is no longer excessive, but FAR can decide this. (Personally, I like the footnotes, as they amplify controversies and interesting but subsidary points without detracting from the text.)

Sample: She was captured by Burgundians troops on 23 May and afterwards exchanged to the English. She was put on trial by the pro-English bishop, Pierre Cauchon, on a charge of heresy ... could lose the date and three sentences in a row starting with she and later is implied/redundant ... something like ... Burgundians troops captured her and exchanged her to the English; the pro-English bishop, Pierre Cauchon, had her tried for heresy. I'm not a wordsmith, but this gives me the idea that word trimming and redundancy reducing may be in order throughout. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Back on the question of 2,600 words in footnotes, as one example, why isn't this footnote just a source with a note or quote attached ? What is the distinction here between footnotes and citations? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• She was a warrior,^[1] whose leadership helped restore the kingdom of France.^[a]
• SandyGeorgiaThe Piccolimini quote was footnoted because an indirect quote. I tend to footnote supporting quotes (e.g., opinions, letters, trial transcripts, and indirect quotes); I tend to reserve citation template post-scripts to quote foreign text, which I try to tie to a linkable source, and provide an accompanying and verifiable English translation. Wtfiv (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I will look in tomorrow; I can only look at generalities, as the topic is out of my comfort zone. Could someone bribe Ealdgyth to at least glance over this one? Like, offer her a prize Arabian horse or something ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand editors feeling a need for topic sentences, but sentences like this leave me cold:

• Joan remains a major cultural figure.

It says nothing, and means nothing, and why "remains"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

There are multiple instances of the also redundancy: for example:

• She is also a saint in the Roman Catholic Church.

The also is unnecessary; a review throughout would be helpful, with an eye towards Graham and Tony1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Something is off in this sentence in the lead, which could also be trimmed:

• In 1456, an inquisitorial court authorized by Pope Callixtus III investigated the original trial, which was found to have been by deceit, fraud and incorrect procedure.

  --> ?? --> Pope Callixtus III ordered an investigation in 1456, which determined the original trial was marred by deceit, fraud and incorrect procedure.

All in all, as Wtfiv asked/indicated above, a copyedit by a new set of eyes is in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned about a few sourcing bits here:

• " that she was secretly the half sister of King Charles VII" - is sourced to the original 1819 claim, which has been soundly rejected. (FWIW, Alternative historical interpretations of Joan of Arc suggests the significance of this claim isn't that she was his sister, but that it would have made her a bastard child). A modern source should probably be used here, and if supportable by sources, the true significance of her being a bastard child should be mentioned.

The alternative historical interpretations also cites the 1819 Caze as its first case. But the Joan article citation is more verifiable. The page number links to a freely accessible source, and the quotation in French is also directly linked in the citation, and a translation is offered in the citation post-script. The reference links to the freely available book in Google Books as well. Wtfiv (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• I'm unsure of the quality of "Russell, Preston (2014). Lights of Madness: In Search of Joan of Arc. Savannah, GA: Frederic C. Beil, Pub. ISBN 9781499040562. OCLC 1124448651." - Frederic C. Beil at least partially does something called "assisted self-publishing". What makes this high-quality RS if the publisher is dodgy?
• Egan is a master's thesis, what makes it pass WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
• What makes famous-trials.com a high-quality RS?
• Shouldn't de Pizan be in primary sources, instead of the online refs?

I have not done source-text checks (which should be done, given the socking in the history), nor have I checked to make sure that more than a couple of the primary citations are appropriate. Hog Farm _Talk 15:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe and Hog Farm; between your comments and mine (prose, plus sourcing, plus source-to-text integrity check on a long article), I am getting the impression that bringing this article over the line is going to require a sustained effort from a number of us (similar to the surprise we got at J. K. Rowling, where we found bigger issues once we dug in). Z1720? Am I overstating the case? If this is the case, what is the plan? My prose is not good enough to do the copyediting on an article in this content area of this scope. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

My thought is that it depends on the results of the spot-checking. Of the sources I flagged, Caze (the 1819 bastard claim) is only used once; Russell 2014 is only used once, and for a historical backgroundstatement that should be easier to replace; Egan is only used once, and for a historical background statement; Linder is only referenced as a translation of the abjuration in a footnote in a spot that should probably be an EL instead of part of the footnote, so at least the one's I've flagged should be easily fixable. Hog Farm _Talk 15:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

So depending on what Buidhe and Z1720 say, perhaps a spotcheck should be next, before attempting a copyedit? I'm concerned about that, as there are so many book sources. (I wish the Ealdgyth bribe had worked ... ) Am I correct that library access is needed to spotcheck here ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia spot checking should be simple.

• I think every book citation links to a work that is freely available and verifiable. (Archive.org needs a registration).

• When possible, a page link is provided at each citation, so that the reader can just click it to verify.
• Just a note on citations. In addition, to showing consensus, multiple sources also provide differences of context and interpretation, which is fascinating to that very small percentage of readers who want to go deeper into the sources. Wtfiv (talk) 00:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I would feel much more comfortable making sure the sources were right before fixing prose, since this article's socking history seems to go back some time. Hog Farm _Talk 15:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, fix the sourcing issues first and axe notes, then work on the prose. Issues are not insurmountable but they will require sustained effort to fix. (t · c) buidhe 17:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

At this point, my editing on Wikipedia is much slower and more "catch as catch can". Though I'll continue to work on the article.

buidhe I don't know what HQRS means, but I think it has to do with old reliable sources? Here's some background. Because the primary source is stable, most points in the older works have not been superceded:

• Lowell's work remains a good detailed summry of even older data from the perspective of a legal scholar.
• Sackville-West's work is a classic, which is cited throughout the literature. Though it must be used carefully, she often makes the strongest points about Joan's role as a non-traditional woman. And Sackville-West dug deeply into the literature. Sproles 1996 provides a good summary.

More importantly, when I was working through the article, almost every statement I edited was challenged, so I wanted to make sure that each change could be verified and it wasn't the opinion of one source. Now that much of that issue has been resolved, I'm willing alter this. But the citations do solidify the article and challenge any future changes to the article to rely on cited sources. Please let me do what you suggest.

SandyGeorgia The footnotes are vast because when working with GBRV, I wanted to ensure that the quotes were exact as most changes were challenged. Each change was challenged, and I wanted to make sure they were justified and cited. (As you can gather, at one point after finishing the biography, I was exhausted with making the changes and just handed it to the challenging editor.) But now, a great many can easily be removed.

The sourcing bits seem fairly minor.

• Pizan can be moved to a primary source, though it is second-hand.
• I added Egan when I found it in my research. I have no issues about citing a well-sourced thesis. I like to lead readers to such articles. But it can certainly go.
• Preston Russell was an artifact of an earlier article (and the previous "Visions" section had an unattributed quote from him, too.) I didn't have the heart to remove Russell, given he recently died in the last two years. The book seemed informal but interesting and had citations. The publisher is a minor one, the citation is a minor one too. And it could certainly go if that's the consensus.
• Famous-trials.com just cites documents. I used it because it seemed to translate things accurately based on my research and is easily accessed. I may be able to find the documents elsewhere in the depths of archive.org, but it was convenient.

Hog Farm I'd really appreciate somebody source checks! I have no doubt I've made errors along the way. I've caught and fixed a few myself, as I often click them repeatedly when editing. I do think, however, that the majority of errors made are minor. I'd appreciate those being addressed, since almost all are linked and I'd like them to be appropriate.

• I cited Caze verbatim to ensure the claim was right. I'm not big on the revisionist history section at all, but if we keep it, I want it to be verifiable. Wtfiv (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to address why this article is where it is with so many footnotes (with exact quotes) and citations. Sandy and Hogfarm have gotten to the key of why this article is where it is. When I started, I was wondering why it was semi-protected. Then I've encountered my first deep-sock work in this article. My work has been an attempt to thoroughly vacuum out the socking. Unfortunately, even as I was working on the article, I had to thoroughly support each edit for an editor who seemed committed to the sock version. Every change had to be supported by multiple authors to ensure they wouldn't be softly reverted. (For example, the overly long footnote on Charles VII attempt to save Joan, when the overwhelming consensus is that no effort was taken.) I think I've scoured out the vast majority of socking related material. However, you can see that I did keep the points made via the socking if there were reliable sources to back it up. Usually this was done in the context of presenting it as one opinion amidst others. (e.g., the cross-dressing section). Though I'm not the best copy-editor, I went through each source and tried to verify it. Keep in mind that this socking may occur again. Having solid verifiable sources, and requiring them for new edits, seems to be the best tool for challenging future attempts, which seem decades old and will probably return again.

This has started me on a secondary project. Although it is not directly related to the Joan of Arc article, I've been also working on Joan of Arc related articles (e.g., Trial of Joan of Arc,Retrial of Joan of Arc, Pierre Cauchon,Canonization of Joan of Arc). Most of the issues are related to content brought up in the investigations. Whether direct or not, much of the information is close to verbatim from same few articles and websites that are associated the sock-puppet investigations. Interestingly, these verbatim sources sometimes have English-language quotes with quotations marks for difficult to access sources in French.

Frankly, this one has been a tougher haul than I expected given the complexities of the socking, but its been educational too! As always, my posts are far too long, but that said, I'm willing to continue to help out with this article as the FARC sees fit. Just let me know. Wtfiv (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Feeling badly that you had to go through this :( All things considered, we probably should keep the footnotes, as the sock is persistent. Maybe just chip away at the prose for now? I'm socked in trying to wrap up some difficult issues at another FAR for at least a few more days, and always have my own list of socks trying to make my editing here a miserable experience :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The image caption's ref says "It is not impossible that this miniature comes from the collection of Georges Spetz" — but the image caption itself says "most likely an art forgery by the Alsatian painter Georges Spetz" — how is this an equivalent interpretation? Aza24 (talk) 05:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Aza24 Good call! I'm not sure if the footnote translation helped catch it, but that's why I like everything being verifiable. I'll remove mention of Spetz. Wtfiv (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

In Talk:Joan of Arc 25 July 2021, Z1720 raised the following concerns. This is how they've been addressed:

• There are citation needed tags from 2017 (Done: Most statements are cited. Almost all citations have live links, and are verifiable.
• Many Sources may not reliable. (Done: Almost all sources are WP:RS. Many, many have been added. A small number of these have been questioned by reviewers. I'm comfortable with them, but editors can remove them or others. Potential sockpuppet sites had already been addressed, and were trivial to remove.)
• References need to be standardised. (Done: all references are sfn)
• Sources in the "Further reading" section need to be evaluated, incorporated, or deleted. (Done: no further reading, all have been incorporated or deleted.)
• "See also" section is bloated and needs to be trimmed. (Done: See also has been deleted)
• There's no legacy section; see also could be incorporated (Done: Legacy section added.)

Sinking into reality noted in the same section above:

• Used French sources, not English (Addressed: There are still a small handful of French sources when English source is not available, but they are linked and verifiable. A translation of text is provided.)
• Reduce reliance on Pernoud. (Done: Pernoud's three books are still major resources, but the article no longer relies on it.)

In the delist discussion above, Hchc2009 mentions issues with:

• Primary sources (Done: there are few primary sources in citations (e.g., Aquinas may be one, but is appropriate to support paraphrase). Most have been moved to footnotes when used.)
• Original research (Done: there was a bit of this due to the sock puppet issue, these have been removed and statements now have verifiable citations.)

Other issues:

• Questions about the lead. (Addressed: It try's to summarize the article. Thank you SandyGeorgia for suggesting the lead appears adequate, and for your suggestions.)
• Questions about the number of sources. (Addressed. This article, and other Joan-related articles has misrepresented through unverifiable sourcing. Now nearly every statement has a citation, and often multiples. Everyone of these had been worked through by me, except for a couple by GBRV, which I verified after they were added. Spot checking these might be worthwhile though. I'm sure I made some errors.)
• Footnote length (Addressed: ~36 footnotes/wordcount of ~1,398. For comparison, the footnotes for James Joyce are ~54/1,920)
• Sock puppet issues. (Addressed: I think almost all have been caught by using verifiable references.)

• Unverified claims and original research has been removed.
• I've kept a number of points advocated by the sock puppet if WP:RS also support the point. But the points have usually been reduced to one perspective among others. Sock puppet sources are not used. (The three sources questioned are not part of sock puppet investigation. As mentioned, they can be removed by editors having doubts.)

From my understanding, the remaining issues raised are trimming and copyediting. (Ongoing: trimming and copyediting will continue for a while.)

Otherwise, I'm thinking the major concerns that triggered the FAR have been addressed? (Though, there is always more for editors to do!) Wtfiv (talk) 04:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

• MOS:FIRST: ". Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc., which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information should be placed elsewhere." Can the other names she is known by be moved out of the first sentence, to the end of the first para? What a mess of clutter in the first sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Some/many people will read only the first para ... a big leap is made here that omits the British and leaves the impression the French killed her: "is considered a heroine of France for her role during the Lancastrian phase of the Hundred Years' War. She was convicted and burnt at the stake as a heretic, but her conviction was later overturned." Adding something about captured and transferred to British would help ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Curious about why all Saints are not linked here, and why Baudricourt makes it into the lead ... " later testifying that she had received visions from the archangel Michael, Saint Margaret, and Saint Catherine instructing her to support Charles and recover France from English domination. Her request to see the king was rejected twice, but eventually the garrison commander Robert de Baudricourt relented and gave her an escort to meet Charles at Chinon." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• What does successive add here? ") after the successive deaths of his four older brothers." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

• Sentence in first paragraph on Joan's death added L'Origine du monde on 6 April 2022. Seemed like a good addition. Just edited it slightly by adding "by the English".

SandyGeorgia

• I just deleted the name and nickname items. La Pucelle is mentioned in the article with references. Maid of Orleans is not mentioned or cited in the text, but if you feel it is important we could move it to the Early Legacy. I can find a reference somewhere. Just let me know. Otherwise, I'll leave it out.
• There's a footnote on why the saints are not linked. They were linked in the past, but this is one of the times the suspected sock puppet was right: Joan never specified which Saints were Margaret and Catherine. I looked it up. Many scholars assume it is Margaret of Antioch and Catherine of Alexandria. See Sullivan, 1999, pp. 88–89, who is cited in the footnote. There are links in the footnote too. But, if you prefer to link them in the main text. Let me know. Both options make sense: one is slightly more accurate. The other gives readers context.
• Baudricourt was there when I arrived. It's a critical point in Joan's story, but I agree Baudricourt shouldn't steal the lead limelight. Baudicourt is out of the lead now.
• "Successive" is gone. Wtfiv (talk) 06:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I reviewed the article and made some MOS changes. Overall, I think this is ready to keep. Z1720 (talk) 02:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• (Non-Joan-reviewer comment) Imho, 'Maid of Orléans' should absolutely get a mention; it's more than a nickname as we would recognise it, it had a deliberate double symbolism; Maid, emphasising her virginity, and Orléans, where the French resurrection began. It's not a modern invention of lady novelists either; a little known French writer called Voltaire wrote a lengthy poem in 1796 called La Pucelle, or, The Maid of Orléans. Great stuff it is too—draws a direct link to the rebellion of Joan against the English with the sans culottes] against the French crown. Á la lanterne, aristos!  :) SN54129 15:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  SN54129, I added a sentence in her early legacy, mentioning that she was called the Maid of France. During her life she called herself La Pucelle, but Pernoud and Clin mention that the first literary mention of Maid of France is in 1630. The Voltaire is mentioned in the cultural depictions of Joan article. I usually think of his work in the context of Schiller's play, which stikes me as a kind of romantic response to Voltaire's vision. Wtfiv (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  Excekllent analysis, Wtfiv, and apologies, I was only looking at this page, not 'daughter' pages  :) SN54129 16:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• Also, on sourcing. There are several curious omissions; Allmand's HYW is of course great, but his Lancastrian Normandy is specifically on the Henrician period; Crane's article on the significance of clothing ditto, but she later expanded her thesis into a full-length work, The Performance of Self: Ritual, Clothing, and Identity During the Hundred Years War; surprised not to see anything from René Ambühl on the 15th C. period of the wars; and not forgetting, of course, L. J. Andrew Villalon's trilogy. Yet, Vita Sackville-West is an appropriate source while Anne Curry is an external link?! SN54129 16:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

  SN54129 I replaced two Crane article citatons with citations of her book. The book is later and adds a bit, but the article is strong because it is more focused. The sources I used were used because they are reliable and can be verified by link. I didn't attempt to cover the vast breadth of the Joan bibliography, though some reviewers may feel the references is already too large. Do feel free to add any other citations you'd like to the article. I would ask that if at all possible, it'd be great to pick sources that can be link verified. This article had previously been subject to a number of citations that didn't make the claims given to them.

An accessible work by Curry et al. (2015) was added as a source and used as citation for two points. Wtfiv (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• As an aside. Sackville-West keeps getting critiqued. Perhaps because she is not an academic historian. Yet, she was careful in her biography and research, going through the source material and amply footnoting. The academic literature responds to her work respectfully, though as usual questioning some of her point of view, and it strikes me as well written. If editors wish to delete her, I think it could be done without too much impact to the article. So please do so, if you wish. But I think her biography provides an enriching perspective.Wtfiv (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Hog Farm, Buidhe, and Hchc2009: Any outstanding issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  Way too many notes. I would oppose at FAC on this basis—notes should only be used sparingly because most content should either be in the article text or is not important enough to include at all. Most of these details belong on sub articles. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

From my side, although the article is much improved on its condition last year, I think there's still quite a bit to do to meet FA standards:

• The text is well below FA standard. Even just in the lead, we have phrases like "is considered a heroine of France" (considered by whom?); "Nearly 500 years after her death," - why force the reader to calculate the approximate date?; "Her request to see the king was rejected twice" - who is the king at this point? Presumably not Charles...; "Charles sent Joan, who was about 17 years old," - why tell the reader her age at this point?; "She arrived at the city on 29 April 1429" - does the exact day of the month matter for the lead?; and so on. Similar problems throughout the main text, which needs a serious copy edit.

• Heroine falls out of her legacy role explained in sections below: she is seen a symbol of France, a saint, a martyr, a heroic women. All cited. However, please feel free to substitute appropriate word for "heroine".
• 500 years changed to "Four hundred and eighty-eight".
• Joan's age is emphasized to remind readers of her youth at the beginning of her role. Please delete if not seen as appropriate.
• Specific dates are given to show the speed of Joan's Orlean campaign: 29 April to 16 July. Please delete if not seen as appropriate. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• The lead correctly notes that the first trial was politically inspired, but it doesn't pull out that so was the later investigation - as the main text highlights, the second investigation was politically orchestrated by Charles (for the opposite reasons to the first!)

• I'm not sure where the lead directly addresses the political issue. It does mention that Cauchon was pro-English. If that is problematic, please delete. I didn't catch anything else, but please reword any other sentence in the lead that states trial was political. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• The term "peasant family" in the lead is a tricky one. It is correct - it refers to the family's place in the feudal landowning system - but for many readers "peasant" is the same as "poor"... and Joan's parents were, as the main text says, relatively well off. Well worth avoiding the term in the lead - it will be misinterpreted.

  As mentioned, "peasant" correctly describes family's status. The main text qualifies their status within this class by pointing out how Joan's family was in the higher echelon of the village. But if the connotations of the word "peasant" in the lead is seen as having the potential to mislead readers, please substitute an alternative word. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  I wiki-linked peasant (a pre-industrial agricultural laborer or a farmer with limited land-ownership, especially one living in the Middle Ages under feudalism and paying rent, tax, fees, or services to a landlord) and repeated the words in the body of the article, of some means. This gives us the opportunity to enlighten our readers about the word peasant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• "Alleged relics" section title - several problems with this. The content of the section doesn't actually mention any religious relics, and suggests that the ring might be genuine - in which case "alleged relic" is a bit pejorative.

  "relics" changed to "artifacts". Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Describing the ring as an "alleged" artifact seems appropriate its provenance has not been established, but please feel free to substitute a synonym less negative connotations.

  This text is gone, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• "The accepted version of Joan of Arc's life has been challenged by revisionist authors." - this needs a citation that the authors then listed are considered revisionist. Is it even worth discussing Case's views from 1819, btw?

  Revisionist authors" replaced with "Alternative historical interpretations". Revisionist author link deleted.

  Case's interpretation is historically interesting and occasionally crops as a topic, but please feel free to delete if it is considered irrelevant. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  Many of these sub-headings were unnecessary, and I've removed them. Also, Caze's revisionism is no longer in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• Some "current voice" statements need checking for dates. e.g. "She is the topic of thousands of books." is cited to a work in the 1961. That tells us something about the state of play in 1961, but we're now sixty years down the line in 2022. Might still be thousands, or could be tens of thousands, or might be that no-one writes books about her any more (OK - we know that last one isn't correct, but you get the point...!)

  The 1961 citation supports the statement that she is the topic of thousands of books as of the time of the citation, which remains true. The more current 2014 Cohen citation in the following sentence reinforces and extends the point other media. However, please feel free to remove the sentence about the books if desired. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have added time context for the thousands of books, and will watch for similar when I do full read through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm a little concerned about the reliance on Sackville-West, and whether it meets the criteria for still being a high quality source (as opposed to Sackville-West being referenced in current high quality, fact-checked works - which is a different issue.)

  The article does not rely on Sackville-West in an essential way. Many Wikipedia articles reference biographies by authors who are not necessarily professional historians but are published by major houses. In addition, the references to Sackville-West mentioned in the article discuss the care of her research. discuss how she researched and sourced her material. There's no question it is an older citation. In my opinion, Sackville-West functions like the work of Thomas Carlyle's. It provides an interesting, readable alternative narrative of Joan that relies on the research, is accessible to interested readers, is historically interesting in its own right, and provides a somewhat different perspective on Joan. Yet, these citations can be deleted without major impact to the article if there is a consensus of opinion that Sackville-West's work does not merit consideration. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Frederic Harrison's "The New Calendar of Great Men" - what is the justification for this being a high-quality reliable source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy etc.? Particularly when you read the quality of the text... (NB: the bibliography says that the work dates from 1920; the link goes to a volume that says 1892).

  Link fixed for Harrison, Swinny & Marvin. Now goes to 1920 version. Citation is also supported by Chenu 1990. Both sources support point about Joan being seen as a martyr for her faith. But please delete the whole clause "and her faith" and its citations if you feel the sources don't make the case strongly enough. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

• Captions on the images vary considerably and need some work: some give the location of painting, others don't; some make statements that need a source, etc.

  I didn't address caption issues as this was not mentioned in original FAR, though some have been updated in the editing process. If there were problems, please correct them. Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

  I am checking these on my read-through; yes, this is a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

  I have addressed these (I hope) and pinged Hchc2009 to talk for another look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Buidhe about the volume of footnotes. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

  I disagree about the footnote concern(s). Many big-topic FAs are full of footnotes, which are an effective way to provide extra information without ruining the text continuity—I also don't see how removing information is productive in any way. There is nothing in the FA criteria that aligns with this complaint. Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

  Buidhe's and SandyGeorgia's original footnote concern was addressed March 30, 2022. Previously to that time, there were 58 footnotes (wordcount ~2,600). Many were exact quotes from Quicheret's Latin text to address sockpuppet concerns. There are now 36 footnotes (wordcount 1,398). For comparison, the footnotes for James Joyce 54 (wordcount 1,920). The remaining footnotes are meant to amplify controversies and interesting, but subsidiary points without detracting from the text. Please delete any that are considered irrelevant or uninteresting. Wtfiv (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  I/we have further reduced the footnotes (considerably)-- because some of the text in them was worthy of being in the article body, and the article is not overly long at this point, at 7,000 words of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

• I just realized that I forgot to save a recent edit of the Joan article that made some of the changes to the article mentioned in the above statements. The changes in response to the comments above have been added to the article. Wtfiv (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

"Creative psychopathy" is a very concerning term vis-à-vis this article

I feel it pronounces judgment upon what this visionary and creative genius was expressing by calling her psychopathic. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am extremely well-versed in DSM-V symptom descriptions and diagnoses, and I feel that it is unfair to her character to call her a psychopath. I suggest removing it entirely. I'd love comments before I do so, just to make sure I'm onto something here. The myopia of Western scientific thought as like, the ONLY way Wikipedia tends to operate, means that her uniqueness doesn't get a chance to be subjectively interpreted, which is the purpose of visionary art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anktrumpet (talk • contribs) 06:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

It is sourced and balanced by the follow-on sentence. DrKay (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with DrKay, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv re this objection from July to creative psychopathy (which both DrKay and I disagreed with), now that you've had to remove the clarifying footnotes, with this edit, the creative psychopathy issue has to be revisited. (For the record, I think the footnote deletions are unfortunate, but que será será.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

As per the comments below. I put the footnote back in. But it is fronted by a cited claim. I will remove them if that is the consensus. Wtfiv (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Review section

Hog Farm raised concerns about source-to-text integrity on this 2007 FA on 2022-03-01. The recent sales section is listy proseline, and some of the entries may not comply with WP:NOTPRICE. There are MOS issues that should be looked at, should someone engage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:46, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

IMO I found the source-text integrity here to be less bad than at Lee Smith (baseball), J.R. Richard, and Thomas C. Hindman (all from same FAC nominator) but the sourcing still needs work. Hog Farm _Talk 03:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Move to FARC, source-text issues unaddressed. Hog Farm _Talk 01:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC few edits to the article, source-to-text integrity issues are unaddressed. Z1720 (talk) 00:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include verifiability and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Delist issues still present. (t · c) buidhe 06:13, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, no engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist - source-text integrity issues, like most of the original FAC nominator's other work. Hog Farm _Talk 04:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist No edits since August, source-text integrity needs to be checked before this can be kept. Z1720 (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2022 (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) 02:44, 24 September 2022 (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 some months ago I raised concerns on the talk page—especially length/conciseness/summary style and the related issue of overreliance on news sources (also relevant to FACR #1c) rather than scholarly analysis or retrospective which is helpful to sort out which issues are of lasting importance and merit a mention in this article (as opposed to sub-articles that exist or could be created). There wasn't much article improvement in response to these concerns, so I'm hoping to bring in more FAR regulars to comment on the criteria and hopefully improve the article. (t · c) buidhe 04:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Off the bat, I'm not seeing much unsourced content. Has that been addressed since your initial concerns comment? If not, it might be helpful to elaborate or tag unsourced content. ––FormalDude talk 06:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• As explained at the original notification months ago, the abusively excessive verbosity (at over 17,000 words of readable prose) is the first indication of an article that a) is no longer watchlisted or tended to FA standards by its FAC nominator (Wasted Time R has not edited the article for six years), and b) an article that has expanded to an absurd length in news style rather than reflecting due weight of high quality sources or c) maintained in summary style. Saving this article's star is unlikely to be possible within the remit of FAR. It (and all other political bios like it, reflecting excessive verbosity and failure to reflect highest quality sources with tight prose) need to be delisted and rewritten top-to-bottom and re-submitted to FAC. Tagging unsourced content would not be a productive use of time, as radically trimming and summarizing to high quality sources is instead in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged and mentioned here ... I won't repeat what I said earlier about article size and sourcing at Talk:Hillary Clinton/Archive 49#FA sweeps. But re "is no longer watchlisted or tended to FA standards by its FAC nominator", yes I am guilty of that. For various reasons I retired from working on this article (and other contentious hot-topic political articles) during 2015/2016. Rest assured, if I had known I was going to be leaving the article soon, I never would have put it up for FAC in 2014. But I didn't know. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC it does not look like anyone has committed to improving this article as necessary to meet the FA criteria (t · c) buidhe 18:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC This article needs a major trim, including removing unreliable and low-quality sources and spinning out or shifting information to daughter articles. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC. Without Wasted Time R, I see little hope of the article being restored to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC per above. Hog Farm _Talk 13:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and summary style. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delist no progress in addressing concerns, issues remain (t · c) buidhe 06:08, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist those who might correct the deficiencies have not engaged; exists have not been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist per above. Hog Farm _Talk 04:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist This article is still way too long, and sources really need to be trimmed. A prominent figure like Clinton should have excellent, high-quality sources. Z1720 (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2022 (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) 02:44, 24 September 2022 (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

As I noted on the talk page back in March, there is uncited text throughout and a number of the web sources are of questionable quality. This 2007 promotion is not up to the modern sourcing standards. Hog Farm _Talk 00:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC Minimal edits in August, unsourced statements remain. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, sourcing issues persist. Hog Farm _Talk 02:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, uncited text, MOS:SANDWICH and insane infobox causing sandwiching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Largely sourcing issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delist sourcing issues still present (t · c) buidhe 06:09, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist per buidhe. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, issues persist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist sourcing is quite poor. Hog Farm _Talk 04:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist sourcing concerns are still present, no edits since August. Z1720 (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2022 (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) 02:44, 24 September 2022 (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

The original nominator of this 2006 FA retired in 2008 and the article has not been maintained to standard. The issues mentioned on talk are unsourced statements, academic literature that isn't covered, grammatical issues and prose, duplicate links, and possible missing information on preparation and impact. If someone works to save the star, a CCI check will be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, no edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC per Sandy - issues aren't huge but haven't been addressed. Hog Farm _Talk 13:46, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC no edits since December, issues remain. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delist no engagement to resolve issues. Hog Farm _Talk 02:12, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist cleanup tags still in the article (t · c) buidhe 06:10, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, unaddressed, narry an edit since nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist: No edits since December, improvements are still needed. Z1720 (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2022 (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) 02:44, 24 September 2022 (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 2006 promotion has basically one editor, the nominator, who has not edited the article since 2007. It has not been maintained to standards, and appears to be unwatched and untended. The issues are quality of sources, failure to incorporate recent scholarship, some uncited text, and a MOS review is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm also concerned if those photos really are compliant with our usage policies...I'll have a look at this over the following days. Feel free to ping me if I don't respond within the week. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  I don't believe the statue image is useable. Only freedom of panorama in Cameroon is non-commercial (image policy treats non-commercial only images as essentially non-free). It wouldn't hit public domain until 50 years after the death of the creator, so it would take further research to prove if it is useable. Hog Farm _Talk 18:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

  See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Statue of Charles Atangana. Hog Farm _Talk 22:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

  Indy beetle we're "within the week"; I see you've tagged two sources with {{rs}}, but there have been no more edits. What are your thoughts on moving to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  We might as well. With something this old and the need to revamp sourcing, I don't think I have the resources atm to attempt a full rescue. -Indy beetle (talk) 07:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC per nom, concerns about sourcing remain (and image use too, although one image has been deleted off of Commons). Hog Farm _Talk 13:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC seems like no one has stepped forward yet to look at incorporating additional sources. Z1720 (talk) 02:11, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, currency, images and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delist per Indy beetle's sourcing concerns. Hog Farm _Talk 02:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, if Indy beetle doesn't restore this article, unlikely anyone will. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist - I've read over this article multiple times, and there's simply put a lot of work that would need to be done, and I'm not in a place to do it at the moment. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist No edits since August, and I would like to see more recent sources be included. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2022 (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) 02:44, 24 September 2022 (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 2007 promotion and has not been maintained to standard, and there has been no improvement since the February 2022 talk page notice. There is considerable uncited text, indications throughout that the text is dated and has not been maintained current, there is practically no lead (here is the lead of the version that passed FAC in 2007), there is listy prose with excess detail, there are image layout problems, and heavy reliance on press releases for sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• First things first, I had to add a lot of that text between 2007 and 2010 to get it on the main page in December 2010. The last time I remember doing any real work on this was June 2013. If we can agree that this version, or any past the Main Page appearance is FA-worthy, I will do a clean-up. Palm_Dogg (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think cleanup will suffice; that's almost ten years ... what about new developments? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Also, if you are suggesting an almost-ten-year revert, are you planning to go section-by-section to work back in the good edits made since then? (The lead in the 2013 version needs better paragraphing.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:35, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

  Section-by-Section; I'll try and integrate as much of the new edits as possible, but only if they contribute to the overall quality. I'll try and get the intro knocked out today or tomorrow because it looks the easiest. (i.e. all somebody did was dump it under "Origin") and we can take it section by section. It looks like the easy part is cleaning up the images and extra text that got dumped there, as well as updating a bunch of the links. If you've got a suggestion for breaking up the paragraphs, or anything more substantial, I'm all ears. I'd say use the June 2013 version as a starting point for any more substantial critiques. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

  I'll stand aside then and wait for you to indicate you are ready for a new review. You know the topic; proceed as you think best. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D From a quick read:

• The 'organization' section seems out of place right at the start of the article, given that it really covers the current organisation. It probably needs to be updated given the USMC has been adjusting its structure recently.
• " the 3rd Marine Division was relieved by the Army's Americal Division and 3rd Battalion left Bougainville for Guadalcanal on Christmas Day, 1943 with the rest of the division" - a bit clunky
• Not enough context is provided for most of the events in the battalion's history (e.g. why it was raised and re-raised, why it was deployed to lots of places, etc).
• For instance, the 'Bougainville' section needs to provide more background on the two operations the battalion was involved in.
• Similarly "Operation Desert Storm began on 17 January 1991, but for the first two weeks 3rd Battalion only conducted sporadic engagements with its Iraqi counterparts across the border" would make no sense to people unfamiliar with this war.
• "653 marines who served in 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines lost their lives during the Vietnam War or were killed while operating with other units" - this is a bit confusing: does it include members of the battalion who were killed after they left the battalion, or Marines who were attached to other units but technically remained part of the battalion at their time of death? (likely the latter)
• "During this time the battalion lost two Marines, James Cunningham and Anthony Stewart" - unclear why they need to be named?
• The 'Post Cold-War (1991–2004)' section includes lots of unreferenced material
• The coverage of the battalion's operations in Iraq and Afghanistan seems too detailed
• Some paragraphs are much too long
• "En route back to the United States one of the companies was detained in Mumbai, India for two days" - unclear, and the reference appears to be someone's blog
• "With the exception of Weapons Co. who was deployed back to Fallujah under 1st Battalion 7th Marines. To assist in combat operations, and turn over to Iraq authority." - seems random
• The 'Notable former members' containing only a single person (with no reference) is sloppy and odd.
• The article is a fairly bland history of the battalion's organisational arrangements and deployments. There's not much 'colour' about the experiences of its members, and nor is the way its composition changed over time noted (e.g. the integration of African Americans and women into the unit goes unremarked).
• The sourcing seems excessively reliant on USMC works. I'm surprised that Gordon Rottman's work on the USMC's orders of battle in World War II hasn't been consulted, for instance.
• There's some inconsistency with how the unit is referred to across the article: the full name is used at times, as is '3rd Battalion' and '3/3'. '3rd Battalion' is likely the best option in most cases, given the article is explicitly about the unit. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Palm dogg is still making active improvements (pls ping when ready for a new look and when Nick-D's issues have been addressed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Step one is a clean-up, which is going easier than I expected. Sounds like the more modern stuff is where the problems are. Palm_Dogg (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Not really: there isn't enough context for the unit's activities or insights into the experiences of its members across the article. The sourcing is also not at the standards expected of a modern FA. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Palm dogg this doesn't seem to be progressing adequately. There are still dead links, non-reliable sources, the issues raised by Nick-D, and a real mess of too many images and faulty image layout, including MOS:SANDWICH and MOS:ACCIM. And the editing pace isn't keeping up. A move to FARC, to keep this on track, might be the best next step. Improvements can continue while an article is in the FARC phase. What are your thoughts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

OK. Let's do that. Palm_Dogg (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, structure, and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Palm dogg, progress has stalled, and it appears we may need to proceed to Delist; any thoughts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Palm dogg hasn't edited since 2 September; Nick-D have your concerns been satisfied, or are we in delist territory? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid I'm currently a delist here. The article would need a fair bit of work to reach modern FA standards. Nick-D (talk) 16:34, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Delist per Nick-D then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delist Improvements have stalled, and I trust Nick-D's judgement. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2022 (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) 02:44, 24 September 2022 (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 2006 FA has considerable uncited text, a lead that does not do a good job of summarizing the article, and MOS issues including overlinking and MOS:SANDWICHing of images. Its main contributor has not edited since 2011. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, issues not addressed, negligible edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, sourcing issues remain. Hog Farm _Talk 13:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. Cite overkill in a couple of places, which usually indicates POV problems; stubby paragraphs in the lead. DrKay (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
  • At least in Indian articles, Cite overkill certainly does not indicate POV problems; it's how they roll. It's a pity someone can't do the fairly small amount of brushing-up this needs; it gets some 470 views pd, far more than most FAs. Johnbod (talk) 02:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
• Delist sourcing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, unsourced statements, several probably non-RS web sources, and dated sources such as Rice. Hog Farm _Talk 13:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
• Hold–Amitchell125 has been working on this just recently, lets see where they go. Aza24 (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think this one is fixable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Firstly—and as a priority—working on getting the citations consistently formatted before weeding out the ones that shouldn't be there, and adding new ones where needed. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Amitchell125 no edits for ten days; where do you stand? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I was on holiday, and unable to work on the article until my return this weekend. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, no response from Amitchell125, no recent edits, citation tags still in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist It has been over two weeks since the last edit to the article, and I do not know if Amitchell125 is going to return to this. There are still many cn tags throughout the article, so it is not ready to be a keep. I suggest that this is delisted so that work can continue at a slower pace, and it be renominated at WP:FAC when ready. Z1720 (talk) 01:16, 24 September 2022 (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) 02:44, 24 September 2022 (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 unresolved issues with sourcing, comprehensiveness, inconsistent ref formatting and lack of page #, see talk page notice (t · c) buidhe 04:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Buidhe the bot does not seem to have delivered the notice to Jkelly; not sure what went wrong there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC: No improvements for several months, unsourced text and missing page numbers remain. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, issues remain. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Delist no improvement (t · c) buidhe 18:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, no edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, nothing happening. Hog Farm _Talk 13:30, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, issues remain, nothing happening. Z1720 (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2022 (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) 02:38, 10 September 2022 (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 there are missing citations, updates needed in the "Wind power density" section, a six-paragraph lede that needs to be reformatted, and perhaps updating some of the sources to higher quality sources (like replacing BBC with academic journals). There is also no mention in the article about wind's use in modern literature or religion (while it is spoken about in relation to various mythologies and its interpretation in military campaigns in the shear "History" section). Should an overview of this be added in order for the article to be comprehensive? Z1720 (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the wind power density section, as it partially duplicated the wind power section. Wrote the power section to avoid yearly updates. Merged two paragraphs in the lede, I think a five paragraph lede works well for this article.

The article has good bones. A couple of citations missing, most notably in the measurement section (WikiProject TC may help?). I'm unlikely to do more, but if the article needs little push to get it over the line, please ping me. Femke (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is not listed at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones, but should have a copyvio check for all the same reasons. If someone intends to save the star, I'll do that ... otherwise, no, as it is not listed at the CCI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC No edits since Femke's work above. Concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC ditto (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Femke are you still interesting in trying to finish this up? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Nah, I'm sorry, don't have the sources at hand, and I'm focussing my energy on a few energy-related articles. Femke (talk) 19:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, issues not addressed, work stalled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, comprehensiveness and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Delist issues not addressed (t · c) buidhe 18:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, issues remain, no engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, it's sad that we couldn't get anyone to push this over the hump. Hog Farm _Talk 13:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, no one engaged to address my concerns. Z1720 (talk) 00:18, 9 September 2022 (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) 02:38, 10 September 2022 (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 2006 promotion has some sourcing issues - on talk back in April I listed several academic sources brought up by quick searching, and Hurricane Noah has also suggested that this is lacking in academic coverage. Additionally, a few of the sources are questionable as to if they are solid enough for modern FA sourcing (see talk for details). Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Since its nomination, @12george1: has added information to the article. Are you interested in fixing this up and writing information from the academic coverage? Z1720 (talk) 01:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

IF someone picks this up, please ping me for a WP:CCI check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I keep wanting to reply here, but I noticed this has already been opened for almost three weeks. Anyway, yes, I intend to work on this article. Of the four sources suggested in the talk page, I have added the report from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and just moments ago added the Evans and Prater-Mayes journal. The Lawrence, et al. journal (Atlantic Hurricane Season of 1999) doesn't appear to have information worth adding to the article. This is because it is nearly identical to Preliminary Report: Hurricane Irene. In fact, much of it appears to be word-for-word with the Lawrence, et al. journal (presumably because one of its author also wrote the preliminary report - Lixion A. Avila). For the last remaining source suggested, I can't get passed the paywall for Agusti-panareda, Thorncroft, Craig, and Gray research article. I also added a conference paper for the American Meteorological Society (my edit summary mistakenly says "WMO")--12george1 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks 12george1! I can dig around some more for additional sources, but I don't know where good places to look for hurricane sources are. Yellow Evan did good work with 2003 Pacific hurricane season - maybe they'd be able to look for a bit of sourcing here too? I'm still concerned about a few of the web sources as noted on talk. Hog Farm _Talk 19:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Will do CCI as soon as I have time, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

CCI clear, see Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Hurricane Irene (1999)/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, fiddlesticks, I had already done a CCI on article talk long ago :\ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@12george1: - are you ready for me to take another look at this article? Between work and a broken computer I've been sadly unable to get back to this, but things are finally calming down for me. Hog Farm _Talk 00:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Nvm, I was just informed that it could take up to a week to get the computer issues resolved, and I won't have access to the computer at all until this batch of work is done :( Hog Farm _Talk 01:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Should be available again if this is ready, 12george1 Hog Farm _Talk 03:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC to keep the process on track; FARC does not preclude further improvements or that the star still migth be saved. No response to Hog Farm's ping to 12george1 and no recent edits, and we are two months in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:59, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Delist, main issues unaddressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist no major edits since Sandy's July 17 edits, and academic coverage listed on the talk page should be evaluated and integrated into the article, as necessary. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
• Delist - while some of the identified academic coverage has been worked, it's been about a month and a half since the last substantive edits were made and the three apparently weak web source I noted on talk have neither been removed nor defended. Hog Farm _Talk 14:25, 9 September 2022 (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) 02:39, 10 September 2022 (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 is in serious need of an update. The article stops at 2007, so additional sources will need to be found and updates on her career need to be added. Z1720 (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

The most cursory google search reveals that Kydd was planning to retire at the end of the 2019 season, so there must be something to say about her career from 2007 onwards. I'm concerned about the neutrality of §Defection to the Melbourne Phoenix: repeatedly describing her transfer as "defection" in both the header and the text seems pretty loaded! Also, there's uncited text which will need citing, and some fairly ugly prose: "despite often missing matches as a result of her national U-21 team was a key part of the team" jumps out at me as a real clunker (and an uncited one to boot!) Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, no edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:06, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
• Move to FARC, so out of date that it's hard to tell even where to begin looking for sourcing to update with. Hog Farm _Talk 13:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency, sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• Delist. Fails 1b (comprehensiveness): Kydd retired in 2019, so there's 12 years of her 20-year playing career missing from the article. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
• Delist, comprehensive, sourcing, neutrality. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Delist comprehensive concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 22:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
• Delist - major comprehensiveness issues. Hog Farm _Talk 13:52, 31 August 2022 (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) 03:04, 3 September 2022 (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

In late January, I brought up the article's problems at its talk page. It was last reviewed in 2007 and is unfortunately the poorest quality of all composer FAs. Sourcing is the most critical issue. Some pages are missing, and there are multiple CN tags present, though there should be far more. Some paragraphs rely on a single inline citation; the entire "Recorded legacy" section is an example. The article lacks enormous amounts of information available both in print and online. The "Early career" and "Later life, and death" sections both display elements of "list of events" rather than prose. They are also dull and monotone. Thank you and good luck to anyone who is willing and able to keep this FA. Wretchskull (talk) 16:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with Wretchskull above, and also the English is often unacceptable shoddy, e.g. "Even before the postwar Stalinist anti-Semitic campaigns, Shostakovich showed an interest in Jewish themes", and "Thereafter, Shostakovich would celebrate the date of his symphonic debut for the rest of his life." The 'Music' section is painfully thin to the point of transparency. But where and how to begin reconstruction?--Smerus (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the biography is largely salvageable with some care and a few more citations. I'm concerned that the music section would need a complete rewrite. There seems to be three approaches to music sections on WP, those considered with genres, those with style and those with chronology. The style group works best when composers stuck to a single or few mediums/genres, like in Chopin or Mahler. The genre approach works well with diverse oeuvres (Berlioz, Ravel), and the chronological approach can be used in similar situations effectively (Debussy, Holst). Currently Shostakovich is using a poorly written stylistic approach, which I don't think works well, and either the genre or chronological one would be considerably more effective. Aza24 (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm starting to realize that the lead is like, really bad... Aza24 (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

    Yes but the thing is there's not much point rejigging the lead until the article has been rewritten. The lead presently contains much text which is not validated by the article, and contains a host of citations referring to matters not covered in the article - as well as contradicting itself (e.g. "Long dismissed by Western scholars"/" throughout his life was regarded as one of the major composers of the 20th century".) Really all a bit of a mess. The article should certianly be stripped of FA status at present.--Smerus (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

    Tbf I added the "Long dismissed by Western scholars", only because Grove says "For many years, serious scholars in the West had scarcely bothered with Shostakovich", but the situation is impossible to explain properly without a well-researched reputation section to pull from (and the one at the moment is not ideal). Aza24 (talk) 08:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

• CurryTime7-24 has made some edits to the article. Are they hoping to continue working on this? Z1720 (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

  When time permits, yes. I do what I can in the moments available to me to improve this article and other Shostakovich-related articles. I will add that as perhaps the editor who has worked on this article the most in the past few months, Smerus' gripes about my contributions being among those whose "English is often unacceptable [sic?] shoddy" is incredibly discouraging. I don't purport to be the second coming of William Strunk Jr here or anything, guy, but to me matters of prose style are secondary to the slips, errors, personal speculations, and outright falsifications that passed for "facts" here prior to my involvement. Moreover, I think in the few exchanges we have ever shared, I've been unfailingly polite and encouraging to you. Yes, much more work remains to be done, but I'm not a retiree with vast amounts of free time at their disposal. So rather than complain about other's hard work, please do feel free to grab a shovel, so to speak, and help out. Thanks. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:19, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• Move to FARC just to keep the process going; it looks unlikely that this article can be brought to standard, but should a monumental effort occur, it can still be saving during the FARC phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies CurryTime7-24, I did not realize that some of the contributions I criticised were from you - I thought they were accrued over the ages, and no personal affront was intended. You have absolutely correctly hit on the shortcomings of range and fact in the article. The prose quality of course is also an important component of FA. I am indeed a retiree, but with no vast amounts of free time at my disposal alas due to all sorts of commitments (so I'm not the only one to make assumptions), but I will do my best with you over the forthcoming period to polish the article up. --Smerus (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

No progress whatsoever in last two weeks, I am still at Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@CurryTime7-24: are you still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I will begin work next week starting Monday, editing section by section. Have not been able to start yet or do much editing here in general because of pressing commitments elsewhere, but I should have enough time to work on this over the next two weeks, at least sporadically. If any other editors can help me by chipping in with improvements to style and grammar, I would be very grateful. Thank you all. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI: Work will start Tuesday, followed by a day-long interruption Wednesday. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I've gone through the first couple of sections and tried to make a few small improvements to the prose. I may get around to editing a few more sections in the next several days, but I can't promise that I will. For what it's worth, my main reaction so far is that the high level of detail in much of the article (especially the Biography section) makes it more challenging to write clear, concise paragraphs - so far I have left this alone, and as someone who finds Shostakovich interesting I'm reluctant to say that we should have fewer details about him on Wikipedia, but overall I think the article might benefit from someone going through and considering which details could be moved to other articles or removed as less important. --Opus 113 (talk) 03:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Opus 113, CurryTime7-24, and Smerus: Are you still interested in working on this article? Is it ready for new reviews? Z1720 (talk) 19:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I would love to work on the article but I have little time for serious application to WP at present because of other commitments. These ease up at the end of this month so I will make a real effort then. Smerus (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Smerus, we're arriving at the end of the month - is it still your intention to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, it is still my intention but I still don't have the space at present to do the necessary work. Every time I look at the article I am increasingly aware of how much needs doing. Smerus (talk) 19:43, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Delist. No progress. Article would need huge work to be retained. Ceoil (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Delist. Too big of a cleanup per Ceoil. Would take weeks of dedicated work (in the quickest possible scenario). Aza24 (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Delist. Essentially echoing Ceoil and Aza24. Wretchskull (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Delist Ceoil was doing some great copyediting, so if their recommendation above is to delist, then I trust their judgment. No other editors have been editing the article. Z1720 (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Delist per Ceoil and Aza24, whose judgments I trust here. Hog Farm _Talk 13:56, 31 August 2022 (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) 03:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

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