Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia:FARC)
Reviewing featured articles
Shortcuts

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

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

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

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

2. Featured article review (FAR)

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

3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC):

Featured article review (FAR):

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

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

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

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

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

Featured article reviews

[edit]

Kingdom Hearts

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Square Enix, Favre1fan93, SubZeroSilver, Guyinblack25

I am nominating this featured article for review because...The media section wasn't written to a prose style, but as a list of each of its games, + the usage of a lot of unreliable/low quality/primary sources (Square Enix and random sources citing the devs' info) instead of secondary sources that exist. The media section was also written in lists instead of prose style. Additionally, the story section was incomplete and has an active tag template that is getting too long. There are plenty of unsourced statements, such as at the Gameplay section. The reception section was mostly written about KH being included in the rankings/listicles, which is trivia and irrelevant to readers. It should be rewritten entirely. What makes NAG and GamingDead reliable? There is also usage of low quality and out of place sources such as Twitter/X. Overall, the article obviously is in bad shape. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:31, 12 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Boneless Pizza!, I believe this is your sixth open FAR (after Tasha Yar, Homer Simpson, Hydrogen, Edgar Allan Poe, and Goblin shark); do you have permission from the coords? Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I didn't. I thought the requirements for us to do FAR is to open them once for week only. I apologize about that. Pinging @FAR coordinators: 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 17:09, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine for this to proceed, but mind the limit in future plz. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the main contributors to the article when it passed its FAC in 2007. The assessment above looks pretty accurate; although I'm not sure if this needs to be closed or temporarily on hold for procedural reasons. Pending what the FAR coordinators say, this article should be reviewed and fixed at some point. I'm not sure how much I can help with clean up (looks like it'll be a big task), but I'll see what I can do. Any and all help would be appreciated. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:20, 13 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Surrender of Japan

[edit]
Notified: Raul654, Wwoods, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject History, [[Notified 2023-06-30|]]

As noted in June 2023 by Wretchskull, this 2009 FA has significant problems relating to the FA criteria. These include:

  • Unreferenced statements and paragraphs
  • Excessively numerous lengthy quotations
  • Use of webpages for citations instead of high-quality reliable sources
  • Over-reliance on two academic sources (Frank 1999 and Hasegawa 2005) when there is a huge amount of scholarly literature available
  • Undue weighting of certain topics: for example, 2.6% of the article's prose is dedicated to summarising this airspacemag.com article.

I hope this level-5 vital article can be brought to current FA standards. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goblin shark

[edit]
Notified: Ambrosia10, Junsik1223, Chiswick Chap , WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Fishes, WikiProject Sharks

I am nominating this featured article for review because...Article might need to be expanded with modern scholars/sources. Not sure but there are no migration information, and instead of having conservation status, it was mashed up at "human interaction" section. Taxonomy and evolution could be expanded more. Additionally, the main problem is the usage of unreliable sources questionable sources, which include references 22, 28, 31, 32, 40 (Most of the content were added by the student User:Miguel Yaniz). 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now: I think your jumping the gun, if there are modern sources that are neglected then point them out. Also this species doesn't seem to be well studied anyway, FMNH even states "Not a great deal is known about this rare shark". [1] LittleJerry (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me what should be updated here. The IUCN assessment from 2018 is still current, which is a good sign that the pace of research for the shark is fairly slow. I don't see how there could be substantial information on migration, given the infrequency of catches and the fact that obviously these things aren't getting tagged for migration tracking. Is there something in particular that you are expecting to see in the taxonomy and migration. I guess the concern here is just the usage of the Tokyo Zoo Net, the two citations to Taiwan News, and the YouTube video. The YouTube video and its content can probably be culled without major loss unless there's a better source for this sighting. The other stuff I can't really speak for, but I don't think there's a whole lot of work needed here. Hog Farm talk 03:01, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for this. Since you guys said that there are not that much issues, I will say its the remaining issues are the unreliable sources. I was expecting for the article also to be updated, but I guess not. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:29, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm a bit confused: I was expecting for the article also to be updated - what specifically did you feel needed to be updated? I'm not an expert in this subject matter; it's possible that I'm missing something here. Hog Farm talk 03:56, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the choice of words that I use. I was just only "expecting" it, but since Goblin Shark was researched just a little bit, there is not much info I guess. As long as the unreliable ones have been removes already then I think this is fine for now. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:41, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redshift

[edit]
Notified: ජපස, Praemonitus, Marisauna, Iantresman, Art LaPella, Vsmith, AP Astronomy, WP Physics, WP Color, WP Measurement, original notice in January 2023

Since the original notice in 2023, there have been periodic comments on the article's talk page regarding sourcing and other issues, including one from January raising possible OR concerns. There are 9 CN tags in the article. This is one of the last 48 remaining pre-2007s to be at the WP:URFA/2020 listing. Hog Farm talk 04:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I worked over the History section using secondary sources and removed my OR concern. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided citations for all the remaining CN tags. jps (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed and removed "broken anchors" template. PianoDan (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a note to the talk page, encouraging a review of Tong's textbook "Cosmology" which points out that even Hubble and Silpher, credited with discovering that redshift correlated with distance, did not understand that this implied an expanding universe. Apparently, they called it the "de Sitter effect" for a while; it took a while to figure out that galaxies are receding because the universe is expanding (and they were not the ones to figure this out). Science is non-linear. The obvious, canonically-accepted answer today is usually confused and muddled when first stated. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yukon Quest

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Dogs, WikiProject Alaska, Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject International relations, JKBrooks85 2024-11-22

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article needs to be updated with 2023 changes to the race, but this has not happened yet. There's also a lot of unused sources in the "Further reading" section, suggesting that this article might be missing major pieces of information. There's also a couple of uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hurricane Isabel

[edit]
Notified: Hurricanehink, Hurricane Noah, Zzzs, WikiProject Weather, WikiProject United States, [[Noticed 06-12-21|]]

As noted in December 2021 by Hurricane Noah, this 2007 FA does not make use of significant scholarly literature published on the subject, and thus may not meet FA criterion 1c).

In November 2024, the article was significantly expanded when three subtopic articles were moved in; the three resultant lengthy paragraphs in "Elsewhere" seem unduly detailed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah @FAR coordinators: , I appear to have misremembered the one-per-week nomination limit as two-per-week. Would you mind effecting whichever procedure is used when some blunderer like myself makes such an error? Apologies to all I pinged/notified unnecessarily ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fine to proceed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this has proceeded yet, but I'll reply to this one. I've been very busy this past week but I finally got around to looking at the article. I have cut down on the sub-articles that were merged over the last year, and I've updated a lot of references. I'm going to work on adding more scholarly information as well. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few journal articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flag of Hong Kong

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, WikiProject Hong Kong, WikiProject China, Deryck Chan

I am nominating this featured article for review because there seems to be missing information throughout this article. The "Colour specifications" section says that it is the same colour as China's flag, but then doesn't specify what that is. It also doesn't specify what other colour(s) are used in the flag. The flag has also been used as a symbol in recent events concerning Hong Kong, but this has not been outlined in the article. There are some unreliable and lower-quality sources used as inline citations, which should be replaced by higher-quality sources. Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, I added other colors and the protest use of the Black Bauhinia variant. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@History6042: There is still a citation needed tag, and missing information about more recent events. Are you interested in addressing these concerns? Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What more recent events are you referring to. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe they are referring to the use of the last colonial flag of Hong Kong, particularly during and after the 2014 protests, as a symbol of Hong Kong independence or autonomy. I moved the details to Flag of Hong Kong (1871–1997) to keep this article concise.
I doubt this is the case, but if they are referring to the current flag of Hong Kong being used alongside the PRC flag by pro-Beijing demonstrators, well, that's not really a recent development (or rather a significant change since its introduction). Yue🌙 02:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see the previous question. Yes, I am referring to the flag's use in post-1997 protests. While it is not a significant change, its continued used by pro-Beijing protesters is worth mentioning and the intended symbolism. Is the flag also used by protesters for other causes? Z1720 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do sources distinguish that from the general waving of one's flag as a show of patriotism/nationalism? It seems reasonably run-of-the-mill symbolism. CMD (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felice Beato

[edit]
Notified: Pinkville, Hoary, GillesdeF WP Bio, WP MILHIST, WP Photography, WP Japan, WP China, WP Italy, WP Journalism, 2025-02-24

This article met the lower inline citation standards in 2005 when promoted, and improvements were made in a 2011 FAR. However, there is still some work to be done here in that respect as the featured article criteria now stand - mainly in the Burma section. I also wonder if there is more to be said about his legacy; Beato's work seems to have been fairly significant in its time. There were some discussions on the article's talk page regarding ongoing improvements in 2023 and 2024, but these seem to have stalled out. A lot of this uncited content was added in 2013, after the FAR - editors with more familiarity in this subject matter may be able to determine if this content is actually suitable for the article. Hog Farm Talk 03:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I notice is the lead is kinda short for a feature article, only ~137 which is lower than the usual 250 to 400 words for WP:FA articles which is also stated in MOS:LEADLENGTH. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:58, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problematic addition was made by GillesdeF, who I think hasn't been seen hereabouts since 2018. Material, as yet untapped, about the Burmese period is available. ¶ When a lead is kinda short, I'm kinda happy; indeed, I'm kinda irritated by requests to bulk up a lead. (To me, "Too short leaves the reader unsatisfied" sounds kinda dumb: the lead-reader is thereby invited to proceed to the body of the article.) A different matter, of course, if somebody points out that the lead omits mention of such-and-such but should include it.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It gladdens my heart to drop in here after a long absence and see your "name". I couldn't agree more abut "ledes". Wikipedia has some peculiar conventions that don't have much to do with useful ways to present content. Oh, the lost cause against infoboxes... Pinkville (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pinkville and Hoary: - The Burma content has been sourced now - do either of y'all have any additional thoughts about this one? Hog Farm talk 02:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm, there's nothing in particular that I'm now planning to do to the article, but certainly I'd consider requests to do this or that. -- Hoary (talk) 04:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holkham Hall

[edit]
Notified: Giano; WT:ARCH; WT:UK; WT:WPENG; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject East Anglia; Talk-page notice 2023-01-25

Desertarun has listed a number of concerns on the talk page, but I think the most immediate problem is the dearth of citations, which was acceptable in 2005 but is not consistent with current expectations. I notice KJP1 offered a couple years ago to spruce things up, and that would certainly still be welcome—but the issues are numerous and have been noted for well over a decade, so I do think it's time for FAR. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely understand why Desertarun flagged it initially, and why it's been listed now. Don't understand why I forgot about it - apologies - but 2023/4 was a busy period IRL. The main issue is indeed the "cite-lite" nature of the article as it stands. I think that can be addressed and, in doing so, I think the other issues can also be rectified. Let me have a go over the next few weeks and than people can see what they think. I'm afraid I will need a few weeks, as I have some off-Wiki commitments, and on Wiki am just finishing up another piece of business. KJP1 (talk) 08:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

A few immediate thoughts

  • Prose - the intention will be to retain Giano's prose/flow as far as possible;
  • Citation style - I hope it won't cause too much concern if I sfn the article. I find any other style very difficult to work with. As part of this, I will split the footnotes and the references. Having done this on a number of other articles, I'm confident it can be done without violence to the prose/flow;
  • Art collections of Holkham Hall - I agree with Johnbod that the Collections sections of that article (1-5 inclusive) should remain separate. However, Sections 6 and 7 are rather different in that they are very much focussed on the Design, the Influence, and the Interiors of the house. There is much of value, which appears to have been written by User talk:Architon, an editor who has not contributed since 2021. My immediate thought is that there is much that could be brought here - with attribution. There is also an immediate downside, in that it will make the current absence of citations issue worse rather than better, as there is not a single reference in any of it, setting aside the one footnote which in fact comprises the entire referencing for the whole Art collections article.

Let me know if any of this raises concerns. KJP1 (talk) 10:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, take your time and use whatever citation style you like. On prose, some of the more colorful/opinionated turns of phrase may need to be reined in (I see SN54129 has already made a start on this), but that'll probably happen naturally as you see what's supported by the sources. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I'm not sure that retaining the original prose will necessarily make for a better article; pace the original author, but in many places it reads like a National Heritage guide. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 10:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, from the perspective of 2025. But I’m not aware of another editor who has written articles of higher quality about architecture on Wikipedia. That’s something I’ll try to respect. KJP1 (talk) 22:00, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
[edit]

Creating this for now. They'll all ultimately be used. KJP1 (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ackerman, James S. (1991). Palladio. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-141-93638-3. Archived from the original on 5 May 2023. Retrieved 19 March 2023.
  • Our great master Kent
Notes
[edit]
  • Need to sort the "who designed" parts which are currently split over two sections. Must use this KJP1 (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listed building status - need to make more of that bureaucratic detail.
  • History - needs a short History section at the end, incorporating Holkham today.
  • Art - needs a short summary, with a {main} link to Art collections.
  • The Archive - see Talk above. It is an important archive, maybe a short mention?
Update
[edit]

Fortuna imperatrix mundi / Extraordinary Writ / User talk:Desertarun / Johnbod

A quick update and a few questions:
  • Article size - We're now at 55kb as against the 28Kb when it started, but much of that is cites. On which point;
  • Cites - we're now at 100, more if you count a/b etc. as double. That compares with 28 at the start of the FAR. I don't think there are any uncited para.s left;
  • Sources - The article is now supported by a much wider range of sources, principally a load more book sources;
  • History - I've tried to balance the understandable desire for something, with the equally understandable concern not to fill a article on the house with loads of biographical stuff. All the owners do have their own articles.
  • Art collection / library and archive - as discussed on Talk, all of these are important and could be expanded. But they are now covered;
  • Image placement / captions - I've tried to address the "ugly arrangement" of images. I've not yet looked at the captions, but will;
  • Blockquote - I've tried to give a bit of context to this. More? Lees-Milne and John Goodall both discuss it.
  • Tidying - There's quite a lot to be done here, particularly with the book sources where many are missing full details. I'll obviously do these.

I'd be very grateful if you were able to have a look, bearing a few issues specifically in mind:

  • Length - is it long enough? I'm particularly thinking about the Interior section. I could go for a room-by-room approach, as does Art collections of Holkham Hall, and bring some of that over, with attribution. But it has NO cites!
  • Design - I'm not happy with the Design section, and the big architectural question that has rumbled since the house was built - Who designed Holkham? First, it's actually spread over two sections, Architects and patron, and Design. Second, and this reflects the date of the article's creation, it is probably a little over-assertive as to Kent's dominance, "Kent was largely responsible for the external appearance of Holkham". Much research has taken place since 2005. It's messy and inconclusive, but I think a fair summary would be to say that research has "bigged up" the contributions of Brettingham, and Coke himself, while downplaying the contribution of Burlington. Kent's still the main man, but far from the only man. I think we need a bit more nuance, but would be grateful for any thoughts.
  • Are there any other immediately noticeable gaps/issues?
  • Have I addressed the main FAR concerns?
  • Should I mention the bowler hat - which was originally designed for Holkham's gamekeepers? Trivial, but quite interesting, footnote?

I'd very much appreciate any input. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 13:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I’ve begun a recast of the Patron and Design sections which I hope will address one of the above issues. KJP1 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update to the update
[edit]

As at 6 8 March, we are:

  • at 70kb as against 28kb pre-review;
  • at 135 cites, with 15 footnotes, as against 28 cites and 2 notes at the start of the FAR;
  • with a much expanded range of book sources. I've also tidied/expanded the sources with isbns/urls etc.;
  • with expanded sections on the origins of, and attributions to, the design of the hall;
  • with a short history section, and coverage of the art collection etc.
  • with a revised lead;
  • I've also attempted to address the other concerns raised, i.e. image placement, confusing block quote etc.

I have not fully understood the concern over the image captions (is it the need for alt text?). If this could be clarified, I'd be pleased to address it.

I think that basically leaves the question of whether to further expand the article with some text on individual rooms from Section 7.2 of this, Art collections of Holkham Hall. I can certainly do this but it would take some more time, as it is completely without citations. I would very much appreciate views as to whether this would be (a) an improvement and (b) a necessary step to avoid FARC. Thanks and best regards. KJP1 (talk) 12:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I have now created sourced sub-sections on the major rooms. These could certainly be expanded further, but I think they may suffice for the purposes of the FAR? KJP1 (talk) 08:03, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update to the update to the update
[edit]

As at 10 March, we are:

  • at 77,465 kb;
  • at 150 cites, with 16 footnotes;
  • the book/journal sources are further expanded;
  • separate sections on the main rooms.

I could go on adding things, but would very much appreciate some feedback as to whether the changes made to date meet the FAR concerns. KJP1 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edgar Allan Poe

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Poetry, Midnightdreary, Jm34harvey, Susmuffin, Reify-tech

I am nominating this featured article for review because... The article has a lot of "citation needed" tags, is outdated, and isn't comprehensive enough to be FA. Aside from unsourced statements, the Commemorations and namesake section might need some hand or possibly some paragraph needs to be rewritten. This article is very important to be looked at. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify in what way you feel the article is "outdated"? --Midnightdreary (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is simply not comprehensive enough. There are prpbably more scholars that can added to the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just randomly passing through... I think these kinds of critiques need to be much more specific. I'm sure there is recent Poe scholarship, but for a topic like this, we can't include everything, so people need a better sense of what you think is missing. Zagalejo (talk) 01:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'm not really an expert when it comes to this article. The main reason why I brought this article to FAR was because the article needs some hands. So, I believed other FAR reviewers can point that out. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 01:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to more specific commentary on what might be missing. So far as I know, the article here is comprehensive and up to date with scholarship. There may be more recent critiques related to his writing, but his biography hasn't changed much. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:22, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Center for Science and Education "English Language Teaching" journal article needs to go; the Canadian Center of Science and Education is on Beall's List. I don't see why we should be citing crimelibrary.com/truTV in a FA about Poe. The Burns School of Communication piece looks like some sort of undergrad/journalism school web piece; there is going to be much better sourcing available. This needs some general cleaning-up. Hog Farm Talk 18:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The poeboston.blogspot.com blog needs to go too 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 19:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tumbler Ridge

[edit]
Notified: Maclean25, Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, WikiProject Mining, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Organized Labour

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements in the article, the "Demographics" section is underdeveloped and there is information in the lead that editors cannot find in the article body (outlined on the article talk page). Z1720 (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am working on the article Cos (X + Z) 22:58, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.

[edit]
Notified: Epicadam, Dmford13, PRRfan, Keystone18, JohnInDC, Aude, (notified top 5 editors in edit count and all users with over 5% authorship except for one whose contribution is mostly an IAbot run( WP Cities, WP USA, WP Library of Congress, WP urban studies, WP Geography, noticed August 2024

Discussions on the article's talk page have identified sizable issues with sourcing and and focus. Hog Farm Talk 01:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • D.C.—my birthplace, my family's home for over 100 years, a city I love so much that I have its flag on my body. I would love for its article to remain an FA. But it definitely needs work. I've shared my thoughts on talk about the article's problems, particularly overuse of low-quality sources and meandering focus. D.C. is an actual city that people live in, not just somewhere for government workers in Maryland and Virginia to commute into and tourists to visit. The article ought to reflect that. I'm open to attempting a save, but I've never done anything like that before, so I would appreciate any advice, or for that matter a coconspirator. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 03:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Having read through the discussion I tend to agree with your points on scope. Perhaps if that sort of information was shifted to Washington metropolitan area (which could use the help), that would more clearly define the subject of this page? One thing I note looking through is the article has a couple of sections (Culture and Infrastructure stand out) where it jumps straight into details without placing items in context. Surely there is something to know about Washington, D.C. culture? CMD (talk) 03:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main objection is that the article focuses mostly on NW over the other areas of the city. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrono Trigger

[edit]
Notified: Zeality, Mazewaxie, WikiProject Video Games, WikiProject Square Enix

Given that it has been two weeks since I posted my concerns about this article and have received no response, it's time to start a formal FAR. Here is every criterion that I'm concerned about this article's compliance with.

  • Criterion 1a: The writing of the reception section is not very engaging, especially given how bloated the second paragraph and how aimless the third paragraph is. I go more into detail in my talk page notes.
  • Criterion 1b: The legacy section contains little information on the game's overall retrospective reception and reputation, with any retrospective review that could help being buried in the reception section.
  • Criterion 1c: I'm skeptical of the reliability of N-Sider, Setlist.fm, Squarebrain, The Gaming Vault, Game Watch, Android Police, Chgeeks, Game Tyrant, Gossip Gamers, Demiforce, Goo ゲーム, and Gameky. Some references appear to be misattributed to Chrono Compendium and Schmpulations. Both websites are self-published and are focused on republishing other sources that should be cited instead. Also, there are passages in the gameplay section that don't have citations.
  • Criterion 2: The paragraphs in the plot, development, and reception section are too long, violating MOS:LAYOUT's provisions regarding paragraphs. In fact, the plot section itself is too long, being over 500 words past the recommended limit according to WP:VG/PLOT. I mentioned in my notes that the presence of single-paragraph sections in the release section are discouraged by MOS:LAYOUT; I was wrong. It actually only discourages single-paragraph sections when they are very short, meaning the only section that might be suspect is the one on the mobile port.
  • Criterion 2a: The lead section contains no information about the gameplay and little about the development beyond credits, both of which should be key elements of the subject.
  • Criterion 2c: The citations are not consistently formatted. For example, sometimes the work is italicized, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the work is linked, sometimes it isn't. Sometimes the title isn't included, sometimes the work isn't included. That's the level of inconsistency we are dealing with here.

I find these issues to be far too extensive to do myself in a day, and I worry there might be issues I am missing. As such, I feel a formal review is necessary. Any additional concerns you may have are welcome. Lazman321 (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acknowledging this FAR. Not sure if I can commit to working on this soon but keep me in mind. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:42, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since there has been no discussion here a week in, I might as well start working on the article, starting with the abysmal reception section, which I just realized doesn't even cover the reception of the Nintendo DS release. Feel free to comment here in the meantime. You can see my work here. Lazman321 (talk) 17:41, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to place my work on hold as IRL obligations have come up I cannot ignore. Feel free to work on this article while I'm gone. Lazman321 (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrogen

[edit]
Notified: Clayoquot, Smokefoot, WikiProject Astronomy, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Elements, WikiProject Climate change, talk page notification 2023-11-01

I stumbled upon this after doing some research for my niece's homework. However, I believe the article is not in good shape after all. The article was last reviewed in 2008 and there is considerable uncited text. The "Phases" section is only a list, including Niche and evolving sections. There is also overquoting, the citations at lead asap should be removed or moved to the body of the article, and other complaints from several users at the talk page that are left unaddressed. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 03:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per house style: the presence of citations in the lead is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
I see only one long quote, the passage from Robert Boyle in § Discovery and use. Whether that is excessive is a matter of taste. I agree that § Phases should be more than a bare list; I took a stab at starting that. XOR'easter (talk) 04:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quote as undue. The material surrounding it had good references but they did not say what the article said. I repurposed them. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion the FAR should not pass as long as the infobox content does not match the article content. Please see Talk:Hydrogen#Discovery_in_article_vs_template. Johnjbarton (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the energy carrier section should be severely pruned and the details moved to another article. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1, why should it be severely pruned? When I do a Google or Google News or Google Scholar search for "Hydrogen" nearly everything in the first few pages is either a general overview, focused on producing H2, or focused on using H2 for energy. There is a lot of interest in this aspect of the topic. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clayoquot No objection to production or use as energy, just as energy carrier as niche I think. But it seems your question is moot as someone else has already removed that subheading Chidgk1 (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I created and revised a section on chemistry. Some needs:


  • "Hydrogen is highly soluble in many rare earth and transition metals[40]". I'm not sure that solubility is the correct term or maybe we should expain that H2 is split (I think) and these metals make hydrides.
  • safety section is sorta contrived. If the stuff is liquified, one can get burns. Anything that cold will burn the crap out of you! Also the fire thing is a little redundant.
  • compressibility is an issue but is not mentioned. It is very unfortunate that compressing H2 costs a lot of energy.
  • diffusivity of H2 gas is another big deal. If I were a better man, I would understand the diffusion constants. But H2 gas moves quickly at RT, another reason that it is very difficult to have an H2 fire (see Graf Zeppling story).

Some other really big changes

  • Storage is emphasized
  • BioH2 is largely combined
  • "Energy carrier" section was redone and is now "Energy source". The carrier concept is now in storage.

--Smokefoot (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Energy carrier" versus "energy source" seems a bit pedantic. Something can be the source of energy in a particular application without being the way in which human society originally obtains energy. Among the million-plus GScholar hits for "hydrogen" and "energy source" are, no doubt, plenty that call hydrogen an energy source. Surely the important thing is to explain what goes into making hydrogen industrially, rather than to get hung up on the terminology. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I changed "energy carrier" to "fuel" which is clearer. Further explanation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydrogen#Carrier_business Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed a few things and found a few more things that I won't have the energy to fix in the near future. Will list the issues below. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:57, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hippocampus

[edit]
Notified: Iztwoz, Boghog, WikiProject Animal anatomy, WikiProject Anatomy, WikiProject Neuroscience 2022-12-09

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has uncited passages, some of which have been marked with "citation needed" since December 2022. "Computational models" is underdeveloped and the source is not high-quality. The "Further reading" section seems extensive: I think the sources listed should be evaluated for inclusion as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two citation needed tags are pretty minor - the sentences themselves could be removed without real content loss. It's been a while since I looked at the page and noticed the uncited passages added fairly recently seemingly from a merge. Shall have another look as per your comments. Iztwoz (talk) 09:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Citations have been provided for the four citation needed tags. Also several of the further reading citations are primary and therefore not good candidates to move in-line. I have deleted these. Boghog (talk) 09:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The computational models section was really about the Hippocampome.org portal. I have moved the single Hippocampome citation to the external links section which I think is a more appropriate place for this source. Boghog (talk) 10:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Boghog: I added cn tags to the article. I also notice that there are several sources listed in "Further reading": should these be used as inline citations or removed from the article? Z1720 (talk) 02:09, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The requested citations have been added. I don't have any strong opinion on the further reading section. Perhaps this section could be trimmed further by removing the older sources. Boghog (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, later work did confirm that the olfactory bulb does project into the ventral part of the lateral entorhinal cortex, and field CA1 in the ventral hippocampus sends axons to the main olfactory bulb,[47] the anterior olfactory nucleus, and to the primary olfactory cortex. There continues to be some interest in hippocampal olfactory responses, in particular, the role of the hippocampus in memory for odors, but few specialists today believe that olfaction is its primary function.[48][49]" - do we have some WP:MEDDATE issues here? "Later work" being a rat study published in 1990, "There continues to be some interest " to 1991 and 2001? Hog Farm Talk 22:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A later theory (2020) proposed – without questioning its role in spatial cognition – that the hippocampus encodes new episodic memories by associating representations in the newborn granule cells of the dentate gyrus and arranging those representations sequentially in CA3 by relying on the phase precession generated in the entorhinal cortex" - Frontiers has been a controversial publisher - is it due weight to throw this in here only cited to the original Frontiers publication? Has this been followed by anything since? Hog Farm Talk 22:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Despite skepticism from other investigators, O'Keefe and his co-workers, especially Lynn Nadel, continued to investigate this question, in a line of work that eventually led to their very influential 1978 book The Hippocampus as a Cognitive Map." - we're citing this tothe O'Keefe and Nadel book itself; it's puffery to call this "very influential", at least without a strong independent source Hog Farm Talk 22:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whether theta can be seen in primates is not yet clear" - MEDDATE again? "not yet clear" from 2003? Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have been going through sections - there has been a lot of work published since its last review. I shall look at your noted points.Iztwoz (talk) 11:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Homer Simpson

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject The Simpsons, WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Television, 750h+, Xeroctic

I am nominating this featured article for review because...The article is now outdated in some parts (the lead should be updated) + the design (not entirely), reception, and cultural influence sections need to be overhauled and expanded to meet the modern FA criteria. It also has no appearances section, the notes section is irrelevant, and more. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on this. Like Bart Simpson, an appearances section is irrelevant, as he only appears in one show, The Simpsons. 750h+ 11:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are citation errors - Sito 2006; Terrace 2014; and Jackson & Moshin 2013 are used as sfn short citations with no corresponding long citations
    • fixed
  • The Character development section seems to trail off around 2007 - I know the TV show's quality has generally gone downhill in recent years, but is there no such material like that for the last 15 years?
    • there's not many dates mentioned here; there's sources from much more recent than 2007.
  • "While Homer's thoughtless antics often frustrate his family, he consistently proves himself to be a loving husband" - "consistently proves" yet cited to what appears to only be a single episode?
    • fixed
  • "The show occasionally hints that Homer forgets he has a third child, Maggie. " - yet again only appears to be sourced to a single episode (and one in which Homer apparently rearranged his life for Maggie)
    • while copyediting before i actually tried to find a source for this but i couldn't find that any reliable ones so i'll probably just remove the forgetting Maggie part. Though I think the part for Homer rearranging his life for Maggie is acceptable since it does say the event in the text.
  • "Homer frequently engages in debates with his own mind, expressed through internal voiceovers. His mind often provides questionable advice that occasionally steers him in the right direction but more often results in catastrophic failures. In some instances, his mind even becomes so exasperated with Homer that it "walks out" on him, symbolized through sound effects. These internal dialogues were initially introduced as time-fillers and were relatively simple for the animators to create" is sourced to "Vitti, Jon (writer); Lynch, Jeffrey (director) (February 4, 1993). "Brother from the Same Planet". The Simpsons. Season 4. Episode 14. Fox." which appears to just be a single episode and not some sort of season commentary?
    • will do this soon

I don't think this is ready to be kept yet. Hog Farm talk 00:36, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sgubaldo pinging also just incase they may be interested at reviewing the article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 22:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: ? 750h+ 09:42, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article removal candidates

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

James Nesbitt

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Bradley0110; WT:BIO; WT:IRELAND; WT:NIR; talk-page notice 2023-03-29

Review section

[edit]

The older material still seems to be in reasonably good shape, but sentences like Nesbitt will reprise the role in a second series, which is due to begin production in 2012 make clear that the article is sorely in need of an update. Incorporating some of the more recent roles listed at James Nesbitt filmography would be a good first step; for instance, a lead role in Bloodlands (TV series) isn't discussed at all. New sources need to be considered too, such as this scholarly article and no doubt plenty of intervening press coverage. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC - issues unaddressed. Hog Farm talk 04:01, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:46, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wood Badge

[edit]
Notified: PumpkinSky, Evrik, WikiProject Scouting, Noticed 15-05-23

Review section

[edit]

As noted in May 2023 by SandyGeorgia, this 2007 FA contains significant uncited text, sourcing of dubious quality, and prose and MOS issues such as MOS:OVERSECTION. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, uncited text and several sources are self-published personal websites. Hog Farm talk 04:03, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nahuatl

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Indigenous peoples of the Americas, WikiProject Mexico, talk page notification 2024-08-04

Review section

[edit]

User:Z1720 originally noticed this article for WP:URFA/2020 and brought up a number of concerns at the talk page, in August of last year, and many are still unresolved. I'll list them:

  • lead - WP:LEADLENGTH no longer recommends leads be 4 paragraphs or less, but at ~500 words the lead could still use some trimming.
  • uncited text - the "numerals" section is no longer uncited. There are a few paragraphs in the history section, at the end of the "Pre-Columbian" section and near the end of "Colonial", where I'm not sure everything is supported by the citations given. Additionally, there are some uncited glosses in the "Morphology and syntax" section - I haven't checked, I'm presuming they come from the sources cited in the prose near them. However, there is a footnote saying that, unless otherwise noted, the glosses come from one section of Suarez 1983, and not all these uncited glosses are really from Suarez 1983.
  • Comprehensive A number of sections needing updating or more work.
    • "Demography and distribution" and "20th and 21st centuries" - need to be updated to reflect more recent censuses, scholarship since the early 2000s, developments since the Ley General de Derechos Lingüísticos de los Pueblos Indígenas and establishment of INALI, drug war violence affecting some Nahuatl-speaking communities.
    • "Writing" - doesn't provide a good summary of orthographies developed and used after the colonial period and the ideological/motivational issues and debates involved. Also, the big "Classical Nahuatl orthographies" table isn't really representative of things, only including IPA, APA, colonial and Launey's orthography - in contrast, Pharao Hansen's Nahuatl Nations provides a nice table showing how different consonants are represented in a variety of orthographies.
    • "Vocabulary" - right now it's just about Nahuatl words which have been borrowed into Spanish and English and place-names.
    • "Contact phenomena" - almost at a glance, doesn't seem to address or summarize the major facts & details
    • "Phonology" - maybe more on the saltillo - the consonant table right now has both ʔ and h, with h in parentheses and a little note on the saltillo, citing an article in French from 1980. Table should make it clearer they're allophones in different dialects, with maybe a bit more explanation.
    • "Morphology and syntax" - I'm not sure this would be good enough for an FA by today's standards - some content maybe could be added, maybe not all subsections really represent the literature in the best way, and while looking for glosses in Suarez 83 I found some grammar points which just weren't addressed here
  • consistent citations - Most shortrefs don't include parentheses around years, some do.

I can't really address well-written or possible style/MOS issues. Some of these issues should be fairly simple to resolve, but others would require more effort. Erinius (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing: I restructured the "terminology" section, but I think that and the enclosing "Classification" section could use some looking over, and I'm not really sure how to improve it structure and writing-wise. Also, the way that section presents the term mēxihcacopa could be problematic - Hill & Hill 86 say it's a neologism.
And I've been working on the article as of late, I'll continue to do so, but I'm not sure I'll be able to get everything done within any given time period. Erinius (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Empire

[edit]

Notified: Mass Message Send notifications, talk page notices 2020-11-21 2022-12-10

Review section

[edit]

This 2001 FA which dates to Refreshing Brilliant Prose days was last reviewed at FAR more than 10 years ago, and its most significant contributors are no longer active. The talk page notifications from 2020-11-21 and 2022-12-10 barely scratch the surface; the article is riddled with maintenance tags and there are concerns about image licensing, uncited text, prose, MOS compliance, and a good chunk of the very large article has never been vetted in a review process, as it was added after the last review. I believe the problems here are too deep and wide to be addressed at FAR, and the article should be delisted and re-submitted to FAC if it improves, but maybe someone is up to the task. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review details
I generally agree that FAR is an unlikely solution for this, unless someone seriously commits themselves to this daunting task. This has been one of the big impending FARs for many years... I think the biggest length issues are in the history section, which should be 3/4, maybe even half as long. On the other side, the Literature section seems embarrassingly brief. From my understanding of Byzantine music (I created the List of Byzantine composers article), the emphasis on instruments is hugely undue and much more discussion of composers, genres and music rituals should be instead substituted. Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am reluctant to commit, given other constraints, but with a day in the library I could seriously improve the bloated history section. We shall see. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SandyGeorgia. Even if it were thought that a very long article would be needed even to summarize this topic well, this is not in any shape to be considered featured article class. As Sandy points out, there are too many deficiencies for a featured article. It will be a big task to make the needed improvements and, I think, few if any reviewers available to undertake it. Donner60 (talk) 06:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all of the above. If there's a collective push to save this article I would chip in but it's way too modern for my usual area and I'm in no position to lead it. Aside from all of the valid criticisms already made, I am surprised to see not a single mention of slaves/slavery in the article. We have Slavery in the Byzantine Empire which seems to suggest that there were major changes to the institution of slavery from how it had been in classical antiquity... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Caeciliusinhorto-public it looks like work is progressing; are you in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping SandyGeorgia. Between Christmas and other real-life stuff I probably can't commit to much but I'll watchlist the page and poke my nose in if I have anything useful to contribute. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, it looks unlikely anyone can or will take this on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per the above. Z1720 (talk) 14:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC it seems like even basic maintenance tags are unaddressed. Apropos of nothing, I am surprised that this article manages to be even longer than my own African humid period. I caveat though that I see though that Biz is doing a bit of work on the article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been taking a break due to life, but before I touch this topic again I want to read Anthony Kaldellis's The new Roman Empire and complete my research on a draft I'm working on. I think there are some easy improvements that could be made. I prefer to collaborate with people and take a section by section approach as I go deep into the sources and more interested in factual accuracy as it supports a narrative than word smithing. Biz (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also reading this book, and I would like to contribute to improving this article the best I can. If I can help you in an adequately directed way, I would be happy to. Remsense聊 13:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Biz and Remsense: What is your timeline like - are you hoping to work on this within the context of FAR? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure. I don't have time to commit due to life circumstances, have not finished Kaldellis yet because I'm 4 deep in other books, but throw me a bone... @Future Perfect at Sunrise @Furius @DeCausa what do you think is best to improve the article? Biz (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Conversely, I do have time, but I am intimidated in the task and would feel most comfortable as the "junior partner" in an article cleanup where I'm possibly doing tasks specifically requested by others with more intuitive expertise, like I am presently doing at the other FAC Battle of Red Cliffs. This is a big topic of my interest, but it's not my specialty.
    If anyone else wants to help and knows exactly what to do, but doesn't have the time to do it—I have that time at present. I hope that's useful. I've been grabbing the sources cited so I have them on hand. Remsense留 15:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have time, and like to read sources, then I have a project that will prepare us for productive editing. It's the approach I would take and if we set this up right, I'll happily involve myself as well when I find a minute as this is the fun bit for me but also the most time consuming. This can be a parallel process to any editing that occurs. It will align people and can be used to settle Talk disputes. If more people want to involve themselves, it gives a common reference point for editing.
    1. Read all the sources referenced to statements and document with quotes and/or bullet points what they say.
    • Check they actually say what was written
    • Check for patch-writing
    • Use this an opportunity to identify historians who might have written more research that updates our knowledge. Bruno Rochette on language is a good example of that, as he wrote a more recent paper (2018) that, I think, responded to misinterpretations of what he wrote in 2012 (and that Wikipedia used as the basis of its narrative in the Roman Empire article section).
    • Documenting this means you can have other people help with the evaluation
    2. Read the article and sources in Roman Empire and see if there is anything there we can use.
    • There should be synergies between these articles
    • When these articles talk about each other as different empires, we should probably understand why.
    3. Finish reading Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire. See if anything he introduces supports the sources, the narrative or challenges them (the Iconaclasm is an example).
    • If you want to take this article to an even higher level, chase down Treadgold’s 1990s work and see where he and Kaldellis agree or differ in views.
    • In my view, this article should read with what Treadgold and Kaldellis have written in their books as the primary sources as they are the most recent academic historians to write about the topic at length.
    • Specialist historians on sections should be used of course to delve into issues but as we are looking for consensus what Kaldellis and Treadgold have said should be the test for consensus.
    The act of doing this will give us plenty of inspiration to start editing and improving the article on what substantively it needs. As it’s a large topic, I suggest this is done in sections to make this less over-whelming. If there is a way to set this up as a project, other people can contribute. By reading the sources, the edit prioritization will just naturally emerge.
    Further, by doing this, copy editing I think will be more informed and it will allow us to make the article more concise with the content that matters. Biz (talk) 18:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we all agree that this shouldn't be an FA. It would be good to get a clear summary of why it's not and of what needs to change.
I have a lot of respect for Biz's work and especially for their careful section by section approach, but that does mean that the talk page tends to focus on points of detail and nomenclature.
Thus, we don't currently have a holistic overview of how the article should change. It would be good to have that. If FA review could give us that, it would be worth doing. If there is another, better venue, we should do that. Furius (talk) 07:41, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That said, I do think Kaldellis’s book — the first new academic narrative since the 1990s — should be a standard for us to measure the current article beyond the maintenance tasks. Despite some issues, it’s remarkable well written. If we have a group of people commit to reading it before editing we will be all on the same page and the article will be all the better because of it.
One suggestion on approach is we understand this is a big project and do drives every so often on sections. It will make this a sustained effort then (and action will breed other action). If a regular group of editors have experience working together, they can just jive off each other’s edits. If people revert and becomes a problem, we take it to talk. What’s key is we set the expectation that we are blowing up a section and ask for people’s collaboration in edits rather than hash it out on talk. Biz (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently already reading it as I've said above, and I agree with your praise. Also with your methodology, I am fully onboard. Remsense留 05:55, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can work with Kaldellis as a foundation, I also have access to the relevant Cambridge history; I can get going in around a week, if that's acceptable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Word counts by major section
  • Lead: 571
  • Nomenclature: 307
  • History: 10,090
  • Government and bureaucracy: 924
  • Science and medicine: 528
  • Culture: 3536
  • Economy: 418
  • Legacy: 416
Lead can be done last (and where Talk wastes the most time so let's stay away from it). Nomenclature has undergone a major review recently so no need to focus on that now. The Language section in Culture is 519 words, a good 1/7th of that section and larger than the two sections after it -- the languages section in Roman Empire has undergone a recent deep review by me so we can lean on this to re-evaluate this section. Oh, and history, let's look at that as clearly this needs work:
  • Early Byzantine history: 1026
  • Justinian dynasty: 1081
  • Arab invasions and shrinking borders: 1312
  • Macedonian dynasty and resurgence (867–1025): 2170
  • Crisis and fragmentation: 491
  • Komnenian dynasty and the Crusades: 1694
  • Decline and disintegration: 1282
  • Fall: 309
  • Political aftermath: 725
Was hoping to finish Kaldellis before editing again -- with my travel and other commitments, optimistically it won't be before January -- but hey, throw a dart and we can start. Biz (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, my non-binding pick is Crisis and fragmentation, it may be easiest to identify the article's broader shortcomings with a short cut from the middle. I can also take a closer look at Language.
Oh, also, the presence of File:Bizansist touchup.jpg seems fairly...not for this decade. It needs to be replaced or likely removed, I'll see what I can source. Remsense留 04:21, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the most interesting section! Crisis and fragmentation, or rather that time period, is something Kaldellis will be key for as there is a lot of new research since Treadgold.
It's worth introducing the historian Roderick Beaton (with his very excellent, The Greeks: A Global History) who's book tries to make a case that every generation of Greek-speaking regime collapsed when central government was no longer useful. So in the case of the Byzantine Empire, he said long before 1453 and even 1204 occurred. That is to say, this era of 800-1204 is very sensitive how we edit it. Howard-Johnston, Treadgold and Kaldellis are the leading experts on this 'middle' period so I hope you understand my reluctance to have an opinion on this section until I get further with Kadellis. Biz (talk) 04:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let's start at the beginning? (I should note that when this FAR was opened a month ago, I trimmed the original six paragraphs into the current two). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also fully support this approach. Remsense留 14:17, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Logical. Ready to roll. Biz (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With three "Move to FARC' declarations, I'm unclear which way this FAR is headed. If you all are intending to save the star, it will be a very long effort, with work best conducted on talk with bi-weekly updates here, while a discussion of how you intend to tackle the size issue will be helpful. How will the article/work be divided, where will summary style be employed? Alternately, if the thought is that the article will be better served by having it delisted, and re-appearing at FAC once reworked, we need to know that, too, so we can move to FARC. I understand people are still reading the necessary new sources, but over a month in, we've seen very little actual article progress, so direction is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, it seems like we are going to keep it simple, starting with the history section and go over it chronologically. I've already earmarked several graphics that I plan on replacing or possibly removing. Remsense留 14:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I'm willing to work on the article within FAR, but not outside it. To be honest, the size issue is at the moment secondary to more immediate problems (OR, CLOP, etc.) History section first, then others, when we're all hopefully soaked through with knowledge. As we should be going section-to-section, and just move the comments on each to talk after it's satisfactorily completed. This will be a long job but I wouldn't expect anything else for such an important article (Genghis Khan took me 413 days on my lonesome). At the moment, I'm mildly optimistic—we have three competent and active editors, pretty much a blank sheet in front of us, and if it fails then. well, at least we tried? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support working within FAR though these frameworks for review is not something I have useful experience in. Will need to defer to someone else's lead on that. In terms of process, I'm amenable to suggestions.
If we exclude the Lead and Nomenclature, there are 9 history subheadings, 7 culture subeadings and 4 other major sections. By announcing periodic drives on a section and putting eyes on it, even with just 1-3 of us, we'll rip through and make Temüjin-like progress. If we want to do this right, and on balance of all the things needed, I'd say this a 20-80 week project (budgeting 1-4 weeks per section).
I'll put my hand up on the slowest part of this process which is validating existing sources, evaluating other sources people suggest or from other articles, and otherwise assessing current scholarship. This will result in addressing article issues like CLOP and OR, and by extension assist with condensing the narrative which will address the big billboard problem of size. Happy to document notes and note down direct quotes as I read sources which may assist in making this work more accessible so other people can leverage it. Biz (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Sandy is probably right that we should do all the nitty grity on this FAR's talk, so we don't clog up the main FAR page with all our scribblings. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. So if I understand this right:
  • this FAR page (or its talk?) is where we document a FAR review
  • this FAR talk is where we put notes evaluating scholarship and/or other notes
  • Issues from the above two processes will get posted on the articles Talk page
  • We announce updates here every two weeks
  • After (or in parallel?) of the FAR, we do section by section drives?
Anything else? Who will perform the FAR? And we officially start sometime-ish this month? Biz (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that everything happens on this page or its talk, and that the improving of each section is part of the FAR. At the end, some other editors will take a look at the article and see whether they think it meets WP:FACR. Is that right SandyGeorgia? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand Biz's question: the FAR is open, the instructions are at the top of WP:FAR, but there is no time pressure. Other editors will evaluate on this page whether the article meets WP:WIAFA, but it is typical for them to wait until after you all are ready for a new look and as long as you keep this page informed and that work is steadily progressing in the right direction. (I am quite concerned that I haven't seen much progress yet, particularly in terms of re-organizing the content towards a trimmer version.) Where you coordinate the work doesn't matter; it can be on the article talk page, or on the talk page of this FAR, but to avoid clogging this page, the nitty gritty need not be conducted here, unless you need broader feedback beyond the day-to-day improvements. This page is for others to eventually declare Close or Move to FARC in the FAR phase, and Keep or Delist if it moves to the FARC phase. Considering there is a very large amount of work to do, my suggestion is that work proceeds on article talk, and that you let this page know bi-weekly how things are going. If progress stalls, editors are likely to suggest Move to FARC to keep the process moving forward. Perhaps an understanding of FAR functioning can be had by reading through Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1 (which I I believe is the biggest rewrite at FAR to date). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pointers.
I've started the review with some structure on how we approach it in this article's talk page. Open to feedback to do this differently (in the Talk page, of course). Biz (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of approaches may also take place on the article's talk page. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm continuing the rewrite, aided by the others here; @Z1720 and Jo-Jo Eumerus: as the two remaining !votes, is there anything in particular you want to see addressed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is at least one section without a source at the last sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We'll get to that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still see lots of uncited sections. I am happy to cn tag the article if this is requested. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, that would be a great help! Biz (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate feedback on two sections I've been focused on: Transition into an eastern Christian empire and Language. I still want to do more source work (last paragraph of languages needs verification; waiting for a new book on slavery which may improve the narrative) but I thought now is as good a time than ever to ask if I am rewriting this article to the standard that is expected. (I'm finding it a challenge to balance summary prose with comprehensiveness and neutrality...I've never brought an article to FA standard so I apologise for what may seem obvious to others.) Biz (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christmas Day update: Biz has been working on the language section, while my grand reduction of the history section has gotten slightly distracted; I will be back there shortly, however. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've completed my read (40+ hours) of Anthony Kaldellis's The New Roman Empire which was my precondition before I start work on this article.
    • I'm currently focused on "society". It's two-thirds done. @AirshipJungleman29 is taking point on History and it's not an easy task.
      • Languages: need to validate last paragraph sources and final review of copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
      • Transition into an eastern Christian empire: need to validate two sources still and final proof read to make sure I'm happy with the copy. This section was completely rewritten by me.
        • when I thought I had finished this, someone added a paragraph on slavery, and as I validated the sources, I ended up reading a book Slaveries of the First Millennium by Youval Rotman which helped rewrite it and which is also helping with a lot of other content (like marriage which sits in women right now)
      • I've asked for feedback on the above because I'm not confident in my ability to meet FA standard, and before I embark on the rest of the article.
      • I'm currently reviewing the "women" section and have more literature to read as it's a topic I have no expertise in
        • I'm drafting a new section on socioeconomic and legal rights, that will incorporate sources from the women section I'm reading and that will reduce that section but also make the content stronger I hope (ie, combined with other sources, broader perspective).
        • I'm still evaluating if there needs to be something on "gender" (as part of women or separate) which is something that is coming up in modern scholarship. Can only resolve this by reading a book by Leora Neville
    • Due to life commitments, I expect to be slow moving until February 5th.
    Biz (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    History rewrite is ongoing...slooowwwwly. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, Biz, and Remsense: How is it going? QuicoleJR (talk) 19:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Halted, and probably will be for the next three weeks due to RL responsibilities. Working on adjacent topics, however, and intending to return. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same with me. IRL challenges, but have every intention to continue. Appreciate the follow up. Time has flown this past month… Biz (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I copy-edited the "Society" section, does that section look better. CosXZ (talk) 21:26, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you! @AirshipJungleman29 added that copy editing tag because I wanted feedback on my writing and actually I've been waiting for this and is partly why I paused my contributions. I would appreciate your continued involvement in copy-editing as we re-write sections. Personally, I'm trying hard to write a balanced and modern narrative supported by stronger sources but it's easy to get caught in detail that another editor can easily correct. Biz (talk) 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Biz please try to iron out your additions in drafts, before adding them to the rewritten article. Take for example the second paragraph of this edit—none of the three sentences make grammatical sense, and I additionally don't see what relevance it has to a section titled "Central government". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By second paragraph, you mean the sentence starting with Phocas?
I'll review the two new sentences on nomos empsychos and re-evaluate which seems to be the only thing you cut from the revision I made. Biz (talk) 01:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, came across this a few days ago and thought I'd offer my help if there are any particular sections that could do with editing/sourcing improvements? @AirshipJungleman29@Biz & co.? Jr8825 • Talk 21:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! We are working our way down the article, @AirshipJungleman29's driving the history rewrite and also worked on Nomenclature which I also previously worked on, I've completed my work on Society and recently finished Governance. I've gone into a rabbit hole understanding one statement about nomos empsychos and related the impact of Justinian's code, which probably won't belong on this article but reflecting on its relevance still, and plan to focus on military, diplomacy, law after that which has some overlap on the work I've already done.
Economy, architecture, Daily life, Science and medicine, Religion would be next after that so that would be a great place you could pick up on. Arts @Aza24 has previously said they would work on, but otherwise open field! Biz (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Starting work on literature in my sandbox. Should get to Art and Music after – Aza24 (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've completed a draft for a new literature section, see User:Aza24/sandbox (perma link: [3]). @Biz:, does it seem too long? I was going for as concise as possible, but don't know if I've overstepped. I'll paste it in after I copy edit and go through the sources once more. Should get started on the art section in a few days. – Aza24 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've responded with feedback. @AirshipJungleman29 should also take a look. Biz (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I've made some adjustments (moved your comments to the bottom of the page with replies). Aza24 (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, don't have much time to take a look at this at present. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! The Byzantine Empire will be waiting, since you can't go back to Constantinople anyways. Aza24 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My new literature section has been added. Thanks again Biz for your feedback! I'll look towards doing Art next sometime soon – Aza24 (talk) 02:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your work. I've updated the status of the article here: Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Byzantine Empire/archive3. Let's use that page to coordinate on the work, and keep this page for general updates. Biz (talk) 03:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood! Nice system you got there Aza24 (talk) 16:32, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • After 8 and a half months, this article is still not close to meeting the FA criteria. There are still uncited sections, including the entire "Military", "Clothing", and "Relationship with Western Christendom" sections. Progress also seems to have stalled, with information added recently getting reverted several times. While I appreciate the work done to try to save this, it might be better if it goes to FARC so that it can be evaluated for delisting. Z1720 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the three sections until more work can be done on them.
    If there is a list of specific issues you want done by a certain time period, I'm happy to prioritise this over the line by line by section review that is currently occurring (albeit at a leisurely pace as I did not think there was a rush and it requires readings and reflection)
    As for the reverting of some of my edits, this has not been a problem for me, as it keeps me to a higher standard when done respectfully. And of the litany of other editors where this occurs, it's been appropriate as we've had talk page consensus on these issues. But I can understand it does not look good. Biz (talk) 20:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern is not about specific sections: it's that FAR is about evaluating whether the article should still be considered an FA. Having extended comments on a review makes the FAR page difficult to load, and discussions on article improvements should happen on the article's talk page, while small corrections should be discussed on nomination pages such as FAR. If the article is so far away from the criteria that it cannot be fixed in a couple of weeks, my opinion is to delist it and work on it without the time pressures of FAR, and it can be renominated at FAC when it is ready. Since this has been open for 8 months, and citation problems still exist (even after the above sections were removed) my opinion is that the article probably needs a lot of work to get it back to FA status, which should happen on the article's talk page. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. I defer to yours and others judgement. Personally, I like the idea of keeping this as the oldest FA on Wikipedia so would prefer a process where I have time to improve it which is how I understand FARC with extensions is.
    I do want to say that the articles talk page has been inhibiting progress on this article these last few years. Since this FAR started, I've become along with others one of the top authors in the articles history. The work I do is not superficial and will take months. For example, the previous FAR editors added citations but when I checked one, it was to the contents pages (as I read all the sources); and this Bleicken book I've hunted down that is referenced in modern scholarship I've come across is referenced in other articles (ie, Principate) and now that I've read half of it says something completely different to what people think it says (ie, terms like principate/dominate need to be dropped, it was the same legal system since Augustus, there was no hellenistic autocracy change in the emperor which nomos empsychos has been used to represent, etc). Biz (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went down a nomos empsychos rabbit hole, reaching out to academics as it's a multi-disciplinary issue across history, jurisprudence and philosophy. As for why, I've come to realise it's important for this topic, as it underpins narrative bias historians have (ie, Prinzipat und Dominat, Bleicken 1978, 22–24 uses it for periodisation of the Roman Empire that others refer to; Kaldellis all together rejects it; and it separately has had a huge impact on medieval and modern law but that's beyond the scope of this article though it does link to the section about law as it was in Justinian's code). If someone can help me obtain access to Bleicken which I've had trouble with, I would appreciate that. UPDATE: it only took a few hours and two months but I found this out-of-print book that all the scholars reference; now I just need to learn German...
Military is a complex topic I'm reading about now and plan to draft new copy hopefully this month when I get some free time. Biz (talk) 20:17, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria and @Z1720, I've worked on the bibliography formatting, namely the links to authors and editors, locations of publication and consistent use of ISBN13. Could you review this? Once this is OK'd then I can start work on the reference formatting. Matarisvan (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: Feel free to ping me when this article is ready to be reviewed. I could consider the article ready when there is no uncited text, the prose size is reduced (currently at over 13,000 words), and the article has been copyedited (anyone can do that, or even split the work). Z1720 (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was looking for a review of just the formatting of the bibliography. I believe it would be much better to do piecemeal reviews since, as you said, the article size is large. Wdyt? Please let me know, Matarisvan (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: I'd prefer to wait until the whole article is ready: there have been times when editors asked me to review parts, only to disappear later. However, the following listed sources are not used as inline citations, and should either be included or removed: Dennis, George T. (1985), Chrysos, Evangelos (1992), Bury, John Bagnell; Philotheus (1911), Antonucci, Michael (1993), Seeck, Otto, ed. (1876). Z1720 (talk) 15:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will look through these sources and see if anything in there can be added here. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those are all references that were previously in the diplomacy section, a review completed after Matarisvan's review. I reviewed diplomacy in late July and agree that they can be removed (except the Chrysos that in now listed as a chapter in Shepherd). Biz (talk) 17:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Biz, could you confirm whether it would be alright if these 5 unused sources were removed? If so, I will remove them. Matarisvan (talk) 08:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though I think since this was discussed it has been removed. We would love it if you could continue to join us in the review, the more eyes the better. Let's discuss the work on this talk or the articles's talk and keep this page just for pulse general updates. Biz (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Doing... History and Arts are progressing but I defer to Airship and Aza given they are updating here. I'm working on Law next
 Doing... Religion was rewritten by an editor with expertise in the topic (Jenhawk777), Economy similarly for the first paragraph by another editor (Graearms) but needs more work, and both will need to be reviewed by different editor later.
 Done Governance and Diplomacy have been recently reviewed.
 Done Also reviewed, but new since the FAR started: Geography, Military (Army, Navy).
 Done Previous sections that are now finalised: Society. They include Transition into an Eastern Christian empire (previously in history), Slavery (new section), Socio-economic (new section partially from women before), Women, and Language.
 Done Nomenclature from before
 Done Infobox has now more tightly regulated and simplified.
 Done Matarisvan has improved the bibliography and converted the remaining references into SFN on the unreviewed sections.
 Not done Other than the before mentioned, what remains is a review of the more straightforward topics of Flags and insignia, Daily Life (Cuisine, Recreation, and we might add Clothing), Science/medicine, and legacy.
 Not done Airship will be proposing a new article layout, which we may implement once we complete the review to restructure the content and address lingering word count issues, as well as to make the content more accessible
Overall: We may not be done but the work we've done has now made all of us in the before mentioned 5 of the top 10 authors of the current article which reflects how extensive this content review has been. We also have a battle tested standard on source usage which if we stick to will put it in the strongest state its ever been while also reflecting the latest scholarship, breathing in a new life for this FA. Biz (talk) 22:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria, we now have only three sections left to rewrite, namely Science & medicine, Legacy and Arts. Other than that, there are only two sections yet to be fully reviewed, namely Daily life and Economy. Once these are done, we have 6 images which need sourcing (compared to the original 12) and TOOBIG issues left to address. I think we could then put the FAR up for voting, though other editors working on the rewrite have raised some more issues which might take a little more time to resolve. Matarisvan (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The reviews for Flags and insignia, Education, and Clothing are now complete. I plan to focus on Recreation, Cuisine, and Religion next. Biz (talk) 05:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't we simply go ahead with delisting at this point? It's been over a year now with no real end in sight, and much as I appreciate the efforts at reworking and fixing parts of the article, none of the newly contributed text has been of a quality that we can simply assume to be fit for an FA (just had a quick browse through the "society" and "cuisine" sections, and they are definitely nowhere near FA quality at this point.) All of this will have to go through a new, rigorous review in any case, and that new review can just as well be a fully fresh FA re-nomination. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:04, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be for the best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it’s a fair to say the rewritten content should not be assumed to meet some standard. But given the ordeal it has been to go through this article, I can confidently say it’s better now than it was before. I am including the work done by previous FAR reviewers who did not do as thorough a job on the sources. Which is to say we should have de listed it a year ago.
    De listing it now may impact the drive to complete this work. I’ll support whatever decision. Biz (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Future Perfect at Sunrise, the Cuisine subsection was rewritten recently, and its rewrite has not been completed yet. As for the Society section, could you point out some issues so that they can be ironed out? As for the rest of the article, once the pending Arts and Daily life sections have been reviewed by the editors working on the article, we were planning to put up the article for reviews and voting by other editors. I don't think a delist would be wise at this time, the standards will always keep rising and FACs or FARs may never pass. Matarisvan (talk) 16:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it's just the overall impression of turgid, tortured prose, pretty much throughout. Over-use of heavy nominalizations for describing events and developments (which could be more naturally expressed by verbs); over-use of heavy post-modifiers; imprecise connectors; incorrect relatives; over-use of "would" for things that should be narrated in simple past tense, overuse of "with..." participial clauses, and so on. And much of this incoherence on the purely stylistic level is a symptom of incoherence on the content level – incoherently detailed claims in one part of a sentence that remain impossible to understand because of lack of detail in the remaining context. It's pretty much everywhere, most pervasively in the texts contributed by Biz, who introduces new problems with virtually every new content edit he makes (e.g. the latest one: [4]. Game-boards became increasingly popular in all parts of society, and which along with dramatic performance and sports, reflected the transition to entertainment for private pleasure.. Where to start? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Examples from the "cuisine" section, for illustration: Back in August this year, this section had a sentence, in the context of describing Byzantine foods that seemed strange to foreigners: The garos fish sauce condiment was also not much appreciated by the unaccustomed; Liutprand of Cremona described being served food covered in an "exceedingly bad fish liquor.". Arguably a bit too much detail, but overall decently written. When Biz first rewrote this in November [5], it came to sound as if the sauce was universally disliked (i.e. including the Byzantines themselves): … while the garos fish sauce condiment which still had a presence from classical times was not much appreciated and described by Liutprand of Cremona as food covered in an "exceedingly bad fish liquor" (which also has an incorrect relative clause, and an incoherent description of a sauce as "food covered in" a sauce). In the latest revisions since then [6], the sentence was left out, but now we have "fermented fish sauce" in an enumeration of the foods that continued from Byzantine times into the modern era (with a link to the modern fish sauce used in East Asia). Problems just keep coming and going. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is feedback you're willing to continue, I'm happy to action. It's a Wiki, which means to me this is a constant work-in-process. Validating sources takes a lot of time. Writing as close to the source language but not close captioning leads to awkward language sometimes. Writing simply can also contribute to turgidity and nominalisation. All this is compounded by the fact that we need a quicker turnaround.
    Whereas the content incoherence you reference, using game-boards, that I worked on this week with recreation: it's a new but much stronger single source I added and it's one of the conclusions that the Roman culture that formed the Hippodrome led to something that resembles private sport today. With the contrast to the start of the paragraph "Chariot races.... and some wild-animal shows..." of how it started as public entertainment. My philosophy is a paragraph should communicate one big idea but yes if you look just at this sentence you will miss this.
    For these reasons, it's appreciated as having more eyes on the copy once sources are verified/expanded is helpful. As was the case with this section this week, I end up spending hours reading/searching sources. However, if this is a systemic criticism of my participation, let's delist as we need to remove the spirit of Momus on this article that's haunted the Talk page for years and that prevents well-intentioned progress.
    A comment on the Garos fish sauce given this reflects my incoherent thinking. This entire section was written as if it was by (and for) Greeks. Using universal language (who cares it was called Garos) to a page about fermented fish sauce (which mentions Garos) seemed appropriate. While an article talking about East Asian cuisine is not relevant to the people not part of the 700m in East and South East Asia, you can scroll a bit further to see Worcestershire sauce, which makes it relatable to modern English audiences. There's something there for everyone. Further, removing a Lombard diplomat's primary source that was entertaining takes away some style, yes. But more valuable, it's the elimination of these unnecessarily opinionated Western European sources that's needed, as it disproportionately denigrates. Biz (talk) 19:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do I have the feeling you didn't take in any of the concrete points of criticism about these two passages I raised? Do you really not notice the grammatical and logical fallacies even when they are right there in front of your eyes? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate the feedback and would like more of it. I think I made that clear. However the tone of your commentary comes across as a character assassination. Which is why I'm asking: if it's feedback, let's continue this and implied in that is not here and perhaps on Talk or with tags to do it in a more consistent way, if not let's delist and find some one else who cares to take this back to FA one day. Biz (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Biz you have made three attempts to write one paragraph. Out of interest, do you see anything to improve in the prose of the third attempt? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If my third attempt is bad, I will need you to explain that. The first two reverts you made, I appreciated your reverts. My first edit tried to use source language and it was too abstract (the original text was egregiously off). My second attempt created a double speak first sentence when the text was simplified. Not sure what else you saw. My third attempt the only thing I can see you have issue with is "gradually began to impact all facets of life" is not informative enough. Biz (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "especially after the support of Constantine" is very clunky; it should be "especially after Constantine supported it" or similar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By clunky, is it an issue of tone? Less words is my preference as well, but it also shapes what is expressed.
    If we're comparing (A) "Christianity gradually began to impact all facets of life, especially after the support of Constantine" versus (B) "Christianity gradually began to impact all facets of life, especially after Constantine supported it" whats the difference
    • Tone (A) is more formal and abstract. It emphasizes the support as a concept rather than Constantine's personal action versus (B) being being more direct and active, giving a conversational tone
    • Focus (A) shifts focus slightly towards the broader effects of Constantine's support, treating it as an event or state. Versus (B) which focuses on Constantine's personal decision or action as a turning point
    • Immediacy (A) creates a sense of distance, suggesting that Constantine's support was a factor, but not necessarily emphasizing his active role versus (B) which makes Constantine's agency clearer, underlining his active participation in promoting Christianity
    The issue for me, and why I wrote it like this, is do we want to say Constantine was the decision maker or do we want to show instead the historical impact of his support? Biz (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is an issue of grammar. Very little of what you wrote above is relevant, or even correct. This whole sequence is making me seriously doubt if you can write at the prose quality needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Biz, perhaps we should reach out to some prose people on Wikipedia. Both John and Tenryuu come to mind. I could leave one of them a message? Or you're welcome to do so. Aza24 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You are correct in assessing an issue because you know the prose standard better than most, but you're not diagnosing this usefully or answering my questions to help me align, which makes me question this sequence as well. The sentence is grammatically correct from the English I know (subject-verb agreement, logical phrasing, use of the prepositional phrase) and it has clarity. The issue you raised is more precisely specifically tone and emphasis. The tone I can change to less formal which you imply but the emphasis you're not addressing and is most relevant as it impacts the meaning.
    "Christianity gradually began shaping every aspect of life, especially as it gained support from Constantine." changes the tone without changing the meaning. Your version changed the tone and meaning.
    @Aza24 That might be helpful. Absent another opinion on this minor issue which is representative of a bigger issue, I endorse the original post to delist. Biz (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (pinged by Biz) I was pinged by the aforementioned user to give some input. As I do not deal with FARs, I do not concern myself with the criteria it has for articles. I will only offer my thoughts on the sentence in question.
    The issue with sentence A is that there's a misplaced modifier. I could assume that Constantine decided to support all facets of life as opposed to Christianity. Sentence B avoids this problem because of the two antecedents in the sentence, only Christianity agrees with the pronoun it.
    That being said, you can try and preserve the construction support of Constantine if it were placed as a parenthetical element immediately after Christianity. Personally I prefer using the Saxon genitive here to cut down on the wordiness. That is,

    Christianity, especially with Constantine's support, gradually began to impact all facets of life.

    —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Arts update: My schedule has cleared up, so I'm able to give this much more attention. I'm working on expanding the Art section (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Aza24/sandbox&oldid=1260909021) and should be finished within the next few days. I'm planning to combine the art and architecture sections (already done at the Middle Ages artcle); the two are typically treated together in all the sources I'm coming across. After that I'll tackle the music section, a topic I'm already familiar with.
    I suspect the 12th-century renaissance section will be removed entirely. Its not really a thing in Byzantine literature/art, both of which have an earlier 'renassance' amid the Macedonian Renaissance. It seems rather haphzardly constructed, with information better belonging to other sections. – Aza24 (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, art/architecture done... Aza24 (talk) 00:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Music section done! Aza24 (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

[edit]

Two things about the history section @AirshipJungleman29:

  • I'm not sure the Sasanian map makes sense, seems too out of place to have an entirely different empire's territory here; if it was a map of both the Byzantine and Sasanian at that period, it might make more sense. At the moment, it may just confused unsuspecting readers
    • I am not attached to any of the images, providing they are relevant; feel free to adjust as you want.
  • I would definitely suggest that the section headers have more than just dates. They would seem more helpful as navigational tools with something like "Justinian and Heraclian dynasties: 518–717" – Aza24 (talk) 20:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several things seem to be missing in the article.
    • Byzantine Empire was a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic empire.
      • Literally the first sentence in overview source chapter: The Byzantine Empire, for most of its existence, was a multi-ethnic and multilingual entity
      • Hellenization can be mentioned.

      • Thus the majority of traditional 'Greek' lands, including the coastal areas of Asia Minor, remained essentially Greek-speaking, despite the superimposition of Latin and the later Slavic incursions into the Balkans during the sixth and seventh centuries. Even on the Anatolian plateau, where Hellenic culture had come only with Alexander's conquests, both the extremely heterogeneous indigenous populations and immigrant groups (including Celts, Goths, Jews, and Persians) had become heavily Hellenized, as the steady decline in epigraphic evidence for the native languages and the great mass of public and private inscriptions in Greek demonstrate. Though the disappearance of these languages from the written record did not entail their immediate abandonment as spoken languages,...

The Oxford History of Byzantium, Chapter 11: Palaiologan Learning

      • An indicator of changing perspectives is provided by the word ‘Hellene’, which, before the thirteenth century, had predominantly meant ‘pagan’—a pejorative term whose origin goes back to the books, apocryphal and genuine, of the Old and the New Testaments. There ‘Hellene’ simply denotes a non-Jew, i.e. a gentile. The negative meaning of ‘Hellene’ was absorbed by ecclesiastical and secular elites in Byzantium’s early centuries, almost completely eliminating its neutral use. By the thirteenth century, however, intellectuals started proudly affirming that they were members of the ‘Hellenic nation’. Under the new conditions of relative ethnic homogeneity and even some xenophobia, their search for roots led them back to the glorious Hellenic past. So with many intellectuals, but not all: when Demetrius Kydones translated into Greek the Summa contra gentiles of Thomas Aquinas (in 1354), he still called it Book against the Hellenes

  • Thank you for the feedback.
    • "multi-cultural and multi-ethnic": Yes, that same chapter also asserts, ...by the time of the Macedonian ‘renaissance’ in the ninth and tenth centuries, Constantine Porphyrogennetos could assert (in the preface to his work On the Themes; Pertusi 1952) that his seventh-century predecessors had been Hellenized and discarded the language of their fathers. Though clearly still thinking of themselves as Romans, members of the Byzantine elite had apparently begun to construct a specifically ‘east Roman’ identity by reference to Greek and the Greek elements of their heritage, elements which, in combination with Orthodoxy, now distinguished them sharply from their Latin/Catholic western counterparts This statement contradicts the assertion, as the empire lasted 1,123 years, and at this point, it was already 350–600 years into its history. So best to cover this in the languages section.
    • Hellenisation: this is a complicated topic and we've discussed this in Talk before when we had an RfC. In short, we decided not to delve deeply into Hellenisation. To quote an editor, now in the archives of Talk: the Roman East had already been linguisticaly and culturally Hellenized by the time the Romans first arrived there as a conquering force. Second, the article's introductory sentence claims to discuss "the spread and intensification of ancient Greek culture, religion and language in the Byzantine Empire". Language, culture and religion and three distinct entities. It is only with regards to the first of the three that the Byzantine Empire can be indisputably said to have been "Hellenized". The inheritance of ancient Greek civilization and, of course, religion were elements of Byzantine/East Roman culture at tension with Christianity and Romanness. This is why we explore Hellenisation in the Languages section. It is clear that Greek became dominant not because it was actively pushed but because Latin fell out of use.
    • Self identity: This section is about the term Byzantine so not really relevant, but it's why we link to Names of the Greeks as a see also which covers this.
    • Language is detailed, but still shorter than what was there before. Like many other sections, will likely be reduced per SS once we complete the content review which has been primarily concerned with scholarship and appropriate narrative. The reason we have not done it yet, is the main articles, which in this case in Languages of the Roman Empire, are a piece of work in itself and will be prioritised once we assess the final word count of the article which right now is only ~1k above the 10k target of readable prose.
    • Massacre of the Latins: could be a mentioned in history but Airship to make that call as he is focused on this section and the scholarship's treatment of it. IMHO it's a major event that happened yes, but to link it to the Fourth Crusade is potentially undue.
    • Legacy We will take this into consideration for this section which I plan to focus on next, thank you.
    Biz (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ethnicity. Biz, here are more sources:
Ethnicity and identity
Mango, Cyril A., ed. (2002). The Oxford history of Byzantium. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press

The cohesion of the empire down to the twelfth century is all the more difficult to explain in view of its ethnic diversity. Of the make-up and geographical distribution of its constituent population groups it is only possible to speak in very approximate terms, but there can be no doubt that next to old native stock there were great numbers of Slavs (throughout the Balkan peninsula), Caucasians (Armenians, Georgians, and Laz) and various other orientals, mainly Syrians, Turks, and Christian Arabs.

The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium p.26:

Modern historians routinely call the Roman empire “multiethnic” but rarely name the ethnic groups in question. To be sure, the ancestors of these new Romans came from vastly diverse cultural backgrounds: they had built pyramids, written the Hebrew Bible, sacrificed children to Baal, and fought at Troy, and many once had empires of their own. They had different norms, practices, memories, gods, cults, and languages. They lived in the Nile river valley, in the rocky uplands of Cappadocia, in the fertile coasts of western Asia Minor, on Greek islands, or along the forests of Thrace. Yet this diversity, except for the ecological, was measurably on the wane. A great convergence was taking place toward a set of universal norms, especially in the regions closer to Constantinople. Local languages and cultures were going extinct.

The strong anti-Latin feeling in Constantinople culminated in 1182 in the massacre of the Latin colonists and the destruction of their churches. Then there was the disaster of the Fourth Crusade

    • Self identity. It's not just about the names of Greeks. There's an entire handbook on this: The Routledge Handbook on Identity in Byzantium There seems to be disagreements among historians, so this might be challenging in WP:Summary style. Bogazicili (talk) 11:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ethnicity: Ok. We could put a sentence in Demography to cover this point. Perhaps this, with three sources you mention: "The Empire was multi-ethnic, which beyond the Latin-speaking and Greek-speaking Romans progressively saw more Slavs, Caucasians, Christian Arabs and Turks." But those sources are not enough. Case in point, one of the sources you list is Kaldellis, who is also an author of a chapter in Routledge, and he is well known in pushing Roman as a ethnicity and in his Chapter 14 text is saying all these identities were regional varieties and not actual ethnicity that historians confuse with. So again, I propose a more neutral way to cover this is just in languages, where we have a paragraph on it.
      • Massacre of the Latins: Indeed there is a link to explaining the hostility between Christians but that's different. My concern is neutrality. That said, Eustathios considered the sack of Thessaloniki as payback for 1182 (Kaldellis 2023, p702). I've previously looked into the historiography of whether the 1204 sack was premeditated, particularly reading the primary sources of Villehardouin and Choniates. My view is to say it was opportunistic, not premeditated due to other events. @AirshipJungleman29 will leave this with you to decide.
      • Self identity I'm not really sure how to address self-identity. I had previously added Roman people as a see also in Nomenclature to hat tip this but @aza24 removed it. The Routledge book I look forward to reading but this is complicated and I don't know where we could put it in the article. The issue of Romanitas is covered by Rochette's work in languages so yes a big topic, but why I invested in the languages section (he also discussed the toga's usage debate but it's not relevant here). Literature is another point of Romanitas but this is more for the Roman Empire article than this where you'll see I've added to: Roman Empire#Languages. Another major theme of the book -- gender -- I also looked at when reviewing the Women section, and Leonara Neville (who also has a chapter) has a book that I've decided is an emergent historiographical view and not consensus. The view is that Roman is masculine and Byzantine is feminine and it's used by historians to talk about the same empire when it was growing versus declining, and with the renaissance is a historiographical invention by western Europe to create its identity by contrasting itself to the weaker, authoritarian version it emerged from but now idealises (ie, Europe came from the Romans, but that same empire became Byzantine when it was its competitor for the Roman identity). Gender in this regard, is effectively deconstructing the Late Antiquity view that the Roman Empire ended with the Arab conquests. Which is to say, more relevant for Roman Empire than here which is not battling itself to call itself Roman and is running with this historiography as fact due to the Use–mention distinction that is mandated for this article. (But which I do think it is inappropriate for history articles as its effectively making opinion appear as fact, so a section on historiography beyond the Nomenclature section I'd support.)
      Biz (talk) 13:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      @Biz, I removed it because its linked in the first sentence of the section, and since its not the primary topic of the section, two links did not seem warranted. Aza24 (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ethnicity: This is how a non-Byzantine source cover it:
Davison, Roderic H. (1990). Essays in Ottoman and Turkish History, 1774-1923: The Impact of the West. The University of Texas Press. doi:10.7560/720640. ISBN 9780292720640., pp. 3–4:

So the Seljuk sultanate was a successor state ruling part of the medieval Greek empire, and within it the process of Turkification of a previously Hellenized Anatolian population continued. That population must already have been of very mixed ancestry, deriving from ancient Hittite, Phrygian, Cappadocian, and other civilizations as well as Roman and Greek.

I think you will need to mention Hellenization. See the quote from The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies pp. 778–779 above.

Proponents of the clash of civilizations theory had only to cite the words of contemporaries to uncover what appeared to be indisputable evidence of this deep mutual antagonism. Byzantine writers often described western European crusaders as uncouth barbarians, while their Western counterparts fulminated against the effeminate and treacherous Byzantines, their schism with the Church of Rome and their supposed collusion with Muslim powers.5 The massacre of Latins in Constantinople in 1182, and the Norman capture and sack of the Byzantine city of Thessalonica in 1185, both seemed to be the inevitable outcome of this growing tension and to stand as milestones on a straight road which was to lead to the catastrophe of 1204.

  • Byzantine Studies: A short Byzantine studies section can also be added, including its historical development and a critique of it. For example: Is Byzantine Studies a Colonialist Discipline? Toward a Critical Historiography Bogazicili (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bogazicili, a Byzantine studies article exists, and adding details better placed in that article would just expand this one. There's already a TOOBIG article size issue here. On the Massacre of the Latins addition, I concur with @Biz; @AirshipJungleman29, who is working on that section, will have to decide. Matarisvan (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Matarisvan, that's not a good enough argument. Byzantine studies exist as a chapter in overview sources: 1.1 Byzantine Studies as an Academic Discipline.
    I think history section can be cut, it gets into excessive detail: Basil, who for unknown reasons never married or had children, subsequently refused to delegate any authority: he sidelined the military establishment by taking personal command of the army and promoting officers loyal to him.
    This is not WP:Summary in a high level article like this. Does every emperor need to be mentioned one by one? This currently seems to be the case. Bogazicili (talk) 16:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    More examples of excessive detail: Manuel's death left the empire rudderless and it soon came under intense pressure. His son Alexios II was too young to rule, and his troubled regency was soon overthrown by an uncle, who was himself replaced by Isaac II in 1185;
    His reign, which brought peace with Bulgaria and successes in the east under the general John Kourkouas, was ended in 944 by the machinations of his sons, whom Constantine soon usurped in turn.
    I would say the article currently fails 1b comprehensive and 4 length (summary style) FA criteria Bogazicili (talk) 17:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That is original research. If you feel that your selected examples are excessive detail Bogazicili, please find high-quality reliable sources that do not address these events in detail, and please explain why we should ignore the high-quality authors (namely Jonathan Shepard, Anthony Kaldellis, Catherine Holmes, and Paul Magdalino) who do. For Featured Articles, we do not bother thinking about what editors think. If you read the article with List of Byzantine emperors open in a separate tab, you will see that not every emperor is mentioned, and if you seriously think that the reign of Basil II is not worthy of one extra sentence, do me a favour and read literally any source to correct your misapprehension. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Length: As of today, the readable prose is 10,971 words The lead is currently 547 words and Legacy which has also not been reviewed yet is 907 words. If we trim the lead once we are done to the recommended 250-400 per WP:WORDCOUNT and Legacy for the balance, we are at 10k so not warranted to fail the article on length. Alternatively, the Languages and Diplomacy sections can have work done there moved to main articles.
    Comprehensive: A one sentence about multi-ethnic in Demography like I proposed I'm open to if this suffices. To mention Hellenisation, aside from the consensus in Talk two years ago, then to argue this is to show it supported in the main narrative histories of Kaldellis (2023), Treadgold (1997), and the Oxford (specifically, The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, Part 2.3.2 Political-Historical Survey) and Cambridge multi-author compendiums. Kaldellis mentions the word once on p31 in the context of his recurring argument that Roman was the only ethnicity. Treadgold in pages 26 and 169, the former with regards to Alexander the Great which is consistent with what I've shared before and the latter with regards to the clergy in Anatolia and that the region had a common language in the 5th century, which again supports covering this in languages only. Massacre of the Latins and Byzantine Studies I defer to others, as I've shared my perspective. FWIW, we've prioritised scholarship in this review for issues like this, as Wikipedia as a whole and on this topic in particular needed an upgrade. How I've explained it above is how we prefer to evaluate these decisions, which is primarily consensus with 2-3 narrative historians with other sources only if it supports that view or on a case by case basis when the narrative histories fail to give adequate coverage the sub-topics. Biz (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AirshipJungleman29, we can refer to WP:DUE and WP:PROPORTION. I haven't found any good WP:Tertiary sources, but we can look at overview WP:Secondary sources to see how much space an issue takes in the sources to get an idea how much space it should take in this article. Here are some overview secondary sources:

If you look at Table of Contents in those sources, you can see the information is categorized by themes.

That's why I immediately suggested cutting history section, since it takes a lot of space in this article. I also saw  Doing... and thought it wasn't done yet. Now it's possible this article is organized differently, and some of the information presented as themes in above sources is in history part for example. So perhaps I was too rash.

However, Byzantine studies definitely needs to be mentioned. Entire Part 1 is about the discipline in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. It's also a chapter in A Companion to Byzantium [8]. I would also consider Byzantine studies a child article of this article.

Perhaps, Byzantine_Empire#Nomenclature section can be renamed as Nomenclature and Byzantine studies. The information there is covered in Part 1 The Discipline in The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies. We can add a few more sentences about the discipline, and a sentence for criticism of discipline. There's a chapter for some of the criticism in the overview source [9]. For the book I previously linked, here's the review published in a journal:

Anthony Kaldellis and Averil Cameron further critique the persistent Eurocentrism within Byzantine studies, a methodology that has shaped the field while simultaneously hindering the adoption of innovative approaches

Building on the critique of Eurocentrism and colonial entanglements in Byzantine studies, several contributors delve deeper into specific power dynamics within the field. Arietta Papaconstantinou reviews the over-reliance on Greek sources in Byzantine scholarship, arguing it neglects non-Greek experiences

What do you think?

Biz, Hellenization, languages: There are two issues. Switch from Latin to Greek, which is already covered. Greek replacing other languages such as Anatolian languages, Thracian languages, and others, which is not covered. Here's a quote from another overview source:

The rest of the Prefecture of Illyricum, the Diocese of Macedonia, was the old Greek homeland. Its glorious past notwithstanding, the prolonged effort of colonizing and Hellenizing the whole eastern Mediterranean basin had left Greece depopulated, and recent barbarian raids had not helped. Yet neither of these dioceses was much worse off in the mid-fifth century than it had been in the mid-third. Both remained joined to the Western Empire under the ecclesiastical authority of the Pope, and Dacia was still partly Latin-speaking.
Within the huge Prefecture of the East, the Diocese of Thrace and the dioceses of Asiana and Pontica in Anatolia made up the core of the new Byzantine Empire. They formed the empire’s geographical and political center and the natural hinterlands of its new capital of Constantinople, which as it grew in population and wealth was already becoming the hub of the empire’s trade routes. With the decline of the native Thracian and Anatolian languages and the spread of Greek, Anatolia and Thrace had also become the real center of the Greek world, richer and more populous than Greece itself and linked to the Hellenized coastlands of Syria and Egypt. All three dioceses fell under the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

This is the second quote from a second overview source. The previous one is above, from The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies pp. 778–779.

Given these sources, this is what I'd suggest for Byzantine_Empire#Language, perhaps at the end of first paragraph:

During the early Byzantine period, use of Greek language among the population continued to increase while use of others such as native Anatolian and Thracian languages continued to decline [sources above]

Ethnicity and identity: The relevant policy here is WP:NPOV. By the way, even Kaldellis notes new Romans came from vastly diverse cultural backgrounds I'm ok with a modified version of the sentence you suggested: The Empire was multi-ethnic, which beyond the Latin-speaking and Greek-speaking Romans progressively saw more Slavs, Caucasians, Christian Arabs and Turks.. For example, something like below in Byzantine_Empire#Demography. This is very provisional, I need to check with sources and check WP:CLOP:

Byzantine Empire was called "multiethnic" by various historians. Kaldellis argues that people of diverse cultural backgrounds were coalescing around a Roman common identity [Kaldellis, 2023, p. 26] Beyond the Latin-speaking and Greek-speaking Romans, the empire progressively saw more Slavs, Caucasians, Christian Arabs and Turks [your suggestion]

And perhaps something about potential shift in later period of Byzantine Empire (the quote from above from The Oxford History of Byzantium, 2002, chapter 11: Palaiologan Learning). I need to check that with other sources. I'll respond to other issues later, as this response is already getting too long.

As a side note, I understand this review has been going on for a long time now. Sorry that my comments came very late and if it's causing some extra double work. Bogazicili (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions regarding Languages and Demography. Please feel free to make direct edits once you have identified more sources. Ideally, there should be at least three credible sources for each issue, ensuring that every sentence is supported by at least one citation. I’ll review the changes once they’re made and provide further feedback if necessary.
Regarding the article’s structure, we’re open to exploring new approaches. With the main content review nearly complete and now that we have gained a deeper understanding of the topic, now is a good time to focus on making the content more engaging. This includes revising the structure, refining the prose, and reducing the word count where possible — all of which we recognise as necessary next steps. Biz (talk) 00:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks and sure, I'll take a more active role in editing. I have several things on my plate though, so it might take awhile.
For language, the third source would be this, which gives a good overview Greek in the Byzantine Empire: The Major Issues. page 208 makes it clear native languages were still present in in c. 560.
Now that I looked at more sources, my edits might be more extensive than discussed though. I might have to shift things around a bit in first or second paragraphs in language.
Besides language and demography, the issues I mentioned before:
  • Byzantine studies
  • Massacre of Latins
  • Legacy, including architecture and modern-day popularity among far-right
Another issue:
No problem and no rush, as long as you communicate.
  • Byzantine studies: Matarisvan is against, I'm in support of better marking the historiography but it depends on the proposed text. Will need other people to speak up. "Nomenclature and Byzantine studies" doesn't vibe for me.
  • Massacre of the Latins: As previously discussed, it depends on how 2-3 of the latest narrative scholarship cover it (Kaldellis 2023, Magdalino 2009, Holmes 2008 in this case). If you want to propose text, with citations, that can speed it up otherwise I defer to Airship as he's looking at this period currently
  • Legacy: yes, I will be looking into this as previously stated. I tried to look up the Routledge text to get started on the scholarship, unfortunately it is not available in the WP library. Unless I get an alternative way to access, I'm only going to review the existing scholarship for now.
  • Secondary sources: Additional topics per a scan, that is a good idea. We added Military, Clothing, social-economic, Slavery to the article this year. Every thing else was existing and we expanded, and in some cases, significantly. Given the article size, we're hesitant at adding more so will need to be compelling
Biz (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Byzantine studies is a major component of coverage for Byzantine Empire, as shown by overview sources above. It might not be due for the lead, but it should be mentioned in the body.
The type of source that this isn't covered much could be something like The New Roman Empire: A History of Byzantium. But that source is an overview for Byzantine_Empire#History section or History of the Byzantine Empire article.
Comprehensiveness is an FA criteria. Bogazicili (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I usually have access to Routledge by the way, so I can help some of those areas as well. Bogazicili (talk) 10:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a mention of Byzantine studio is a good idea. Maybe a like 2–3 sentences; perhaps the legacy section would be the best place. Aza24 (talk) 17:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy is highly relevant, particularly if we adopt Bogazicil's perspective that incorporating revisionist historical views to influence modern politics is essential for comprehensiveness. In this context, we can also discuss Greece's Megali Idea, which continues to influence contemporary politics as an undercurrent. A recent article in The English Historical Review touches on this topic, noting that Byzantine Studies has historically been employed for three types of political purposes: nationalist, colonialist, and imperialist agendas. Biz (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some of these are indeed talked about in one of the overview sources, for example this chapter: Writing Histories of Byzantium: The Historiography of Byzantine History
Is there a deadline for the FAR by the way, I seem to be behind in everything including on Wikipedia? Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No deadline. We had assumed it would take all over 2024, and possibly until June 2025. However, things are clearer now that we are nearing the finish line. How about January 28? That marks 413 days since we started this review and a good point in time for us to evaluate this FAR’s status. Biz (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

[edit]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria, the only tasks left remaining are the rewrite of the Science & medicine section, and the correction of grammatical errors as listed in the talk page of this article. I believe we should be able to move to voting and comments in half a month (best case) and one month (worst case). Matarisvan (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are also the above issues. I'll try to take a look at this article this week. Bogazicili (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bogazicili I've not seen you touch the article. I believe we were waiting on a sentence about language/ethnicity and the scan on secondary sources from you since we discussed this a month ago? Otherwise:
    • Your points about Byzantine studies and the Routledge text are incorporated in the Legacy section.
    • My read of the scholarship does not show anyone directly linking the Massacre of the Latins to 1204.
    • I don't think there are any other issues, the article is comprehensive in my view and has appropriate length (10,179 words as of today's work)
    @Nikkimaria: All sections have been reviewed. We're doing a prose review now, with @John giving us his time today and this weekend, and once that is done in the next few days, I believe this article's review is complete. There are some review issues outstanding (if we're asking for perfection that is), I'm asking for feedback now that we are done, but overall, I believe it's time we put this to vote. Biz (talk) 01:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Biz: sorry about the delay, I made the changes in the Language section. I think only Slavic languages from Slavic incursions into Balkans in 6th and 7th centuries is missing. I'll take a look at this and other issues tomorrow, as I will have more time.
    I also trimmed some parts after adding new content, let me know if there are any issues. Bogazicili (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the sources I removed was dated (for example: Versteegh, Cornelis H. M. (1977)) [10]. I'll also remove them from Bibliography, unless you want to restore some of these sources. Bogazicili (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, it appears you removed all the sources. Generally speaking, I'd rather we add than remove sources -- and only remove if they are low quality, which is not based on age necessarily.
    I'll review your addition and evaluate all the sources again. To not clog up this page, let's continue further discussion in Talk. (Also, thank you for the new sources and the contribution.) Biz (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have several concerns about your revision [11]. I have made a new topic in the talk page: Talk:Byzantine_Empire#Language_section
    About the sources, all sources except one were before 2000, including 1977 and 1986 sources [12]. First of all, WP:AGE MATTERS. Second, why do we need those sources when there are excellent overview chapters in overview sources such as [13]?
    I don't object to those sources being re-added but when you have so many sources for non-controversial and simple things, that makes it harder for other people to check your work. For example, I'm seeing potential WP:CLOP in Byzantine_Empire#Cultural_aftermath.
    There are really dated sources in the article (for example: Apostolides (1900)). I'm not sure if they are needed given that there are so many available high quality overview sources. Bogazicili (talk) 14:37, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Biz, if you want to retain sources in Wikipedia, you could consider a bibliography article for Byzantine Empire or Byzantine studies such as Bibliography of World War II Bogazicili (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good idea and yes, I support clearing up these sources. Back when I was reviewing it, I was only removing low quality sources but we can look at pruning now. Biz (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be WP:NPOV issues in Byzantine_Empire#Legacy section. Positives (from a certain perspective) in the sources seem to be mentioned while negatives are omitted. For example, multiple source mention lack of scientific progress in Byzantine Empire:
  • The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, p. 958:

    However generous the assessment, Byzantium is not credited with any advance in science, philosophy, political theory, or with having produced a great literature. ...

  • A Concise History of Byzantium, p. 130:

    By the mid-seventh century, professors had died out as a class, and with them an intellectual community that had begun in Athens in the fifth century BC. If anyone still had a serious scholarly interest in such fields as philosophy or science, he was an unusual and isolated figure. ...

  • Review article:

    During the long Byzantine period, Orthodox scholars did not develop groundbreaking new scientific ideas; in fact, “innovation” had a rather pejorative connotation in late antiquity and the Middle Ages. They mainly taught and commented on the Greek science received from the past, adopting some elements of Islamic science as well. Byzantium contributed only indirectly to the European Renaissance, transmitting precious texts and knowledge through the mediation of eminent Byzantine scholars who moved to the West ...

    Bogazicili (talk) 14:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is an area of scholarship being challenged. The Science and Technology section expands on some of the innovations. Pagan philosophers (there were no professors then) faded out due to politics, which is why most scientists were in the clergy (as they were the most educated, this is also mentioned in Science and Technology but the recent copy edit I think hides this fact).
The current coverage in legacy is: It also preserved and transmitted classical learning and manuscripts, making important contributions to the intellectual revival which fuelled Italian humanism where there is strong consensus in scholarship. Your point about not talking about the negatives, in legacy, is redundant, because if they did not make any contributions, then there is nothing to say. Documenting a lack of progress (against what standard?) is not an NPOV issue. Biz (talk) 17:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[14] is a review article from 2016. What is more recent that challenges it? Is it a review article or original research article?
For the second part, if the sources mention it, we cover it. The relevant policy is WP:DUE. Bogazicili (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The review essay you proposed, with the section you are referencing, supports the statement in the article currently. WP:DUE is not relevant either in this case. I'm going to request we continue these types of discussions on the Article's Talk page so that we can spare everyone here and keep this page just for status and voting, thanks. Biz (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NPOV is important though for the entire article. What you said Your point about not talking about the negatives, in legacy, is redundant, because if they did not make any contributions, then there is nothing to say suggests a misunderstanding of core Wikipedia policies.
Wikipedia editors are supposed to follow sources. If you are including "preserved and transmitted classical learning ..." (among other things) from the source (Mango 2008), but excluding lack of scientific progress which is also in the source, you are being selective about what you include in the article from the source. That is why it's a WP:DUE issue.
I'll open another topic in the talk page. Bogazicili (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold' temporarily; issues are being worked on at a faster pace than anticipated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This article has seen a radical rewrite over the last year, but that rewrite has been over-ambitious and the article is still far from stable, with the newly written material having at least as serious quality issues as the material that was there before. There are problems of prose quality, problems with quality of summarizing content and pervasive issues with referencing (referencing is almost exaggeratedly dense, but dangerously imprecise in the few instnces where I've checked). See some detail findings in the talk section Talk:Byzantine Empire#Quality issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hold for as long as it shows people are giving specific critiques in Talk. A second review is effectively being performed right now, but on a solid baseline that took 15 months of frontier fighting. Rome wasn't built in a day... Biz (talk) 05:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tasha Yar

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Star Trek, Miyagawa

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because...The article doesn't meet the modern standard of FA right now. The article is missing a lot of content like its appeareances section for example. When you search for the character in the "news" section, a lot of content needs to be added, mostly for updating. It also used low-quality sources like Tor.com and IndieWire + the prose/writing at reception isn't FA quality. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Not sure what the complaint is about Tor.com (it's fine, as far as I know, at least by pop media coverage standards? but not super-familiar), but even if we take a dim view and presume that it's on par with Forbes Contributor sections, WP:EXPERTSPS applies here. It's only cited once and it's citing Keith DeCandido, who is IMO a leading expert / commentator on Star Trek, and a published author. I've certainly cited DeCandido before elsewhere. (I agree the IndieWire listicle is weak, but it's just one sentence, so I think that can just be deleted.) SnowFire (talk) 12:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: Interestingly, WP:FILMRS lists IndieWire as usable, and it's cited in over 500 different articles, so I'm not sure it's that bad... but I agree that source should go, not because it's IndieWire, but because the article sucks. Went and commented it out. Also added a recent-ish IGN source. For the "Appearances" section, it would probably be better to cite secondary sources than the episode directly, so that DUEWEIGHT can be applied for irrelevant cameos vs. major appearances... but... I suspect this will involve citing DeCandido even more, for the record (as a bit of FUTON bias, although I know there's various dead tree TNG guidebooks out there too.) SnowFire (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@David Fuchs: - Do you have any thoughts here? This is more in your topic area. Hog Farm talk 02:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly think it's in bad shape. The only ref I'd remove is TrekToday as it's more a direct fansite than a strongly-edited publication; I'll see if there's a better ref to cite for the same info. I don't see an issue with Tor or DeCandido per above; I'll have to check on additional useful sources to incorporate. I don't see an issue with citing the episodes per WP:PLOTCITE, although I'd argue if the text itself says what episode something happened the reference templates are unnecessary clutter; that said, it would be good to find secondary sources as a matter of determining due weight and seeing if the section should be trimmed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop YF-23

[edit]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation 14:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because over the past few months, I've added a considerably amount of additional information about the aircraft's design history gathered from multiple sources. The prose has doubled in length, so I would like other editors to review my work to ensure that it still meets FA standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Steve7c8, did you discuss this on the article's talk page at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Negative. However, given the amount of content added since it was last listed as FA over a decade ago such that it has more than doubled in size, with much of the new prose written by myself, I believe that this warrants a FA review especially from a neutral party to ensure that it meets the quality standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please notify other editors and relevant WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Steve7c8, I've worked a little bit on the article. I believe you have the technical knowledge of the subject, while I can do source and reference formatting. I changed the sources to cite book or cite journal templates, and changed some of the references to sfn tags. Would this and any further work I do on formatting be okay with you? Matarisvan (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes look good. I'll notify some other editors and relevant WikiProjects to have another go at it. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, we need a link for the Aerospace Daily article, otherwise any reviewer doing spotchecks would fail the source review. Matarisvan (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original link from years ago is gone and I don’t think it’s ever been archived, but it’s transcribed in a forum post here, which I’m not sure is considered adequate. Steve7c8 (talk) 15:56, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post the link here, I can search for it on archival sites. Matarisvan (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I don't have the original link. Perhaps search for key words and phrases in that article that's transcribed in the forum post? Steve7c8 (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'll have to remove this reference, we already have another one (Chong 2016) at the same place. Is that OK with you? Matarisvan (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine then. Steve7c8 (talk) 21:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @Steve7c8, do you have access to either of Sweetman 1991a or 1991b? I put in these in the sfn tags on a placeholder basis as I wasn't able to get access to them. This is the last thing left to do here, once it is done we can safely say the article is back again at FA level. Matarisvan (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently I don't. I have limited access to these sources as I'm in the middle of an SLTE currently, but in a few days I'll check my shelves. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a follow-up, @Matarisvan, a friend of mine has hard copies of these publications, I can borrow them if need be. Steve7c8 (talk) 14:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these, @Steve7c8? That would be great, we would be able to finally close this FA review. Matarisvan (talk) 14:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan, I'm not quite sure how to Wikimail these sources. My friend has the physical books on hand which I borrowed. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You would just need to photograph the pages we have cited here, and attach these photographs to an email which you can send through Wikipedia. Also, I'll be reviewing the YF-22 article at ACR soon, I haven't forgotten about it, just have too much work both on WP and IRL. Matarisvan (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan I have emailed you one of them, working to borrow the other book again to get pictures. Steve7c8 (talk) 13:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, received. Working on spot checks on refs cited to this source. Cheers Matarisvan (talk) 13:48, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan I have emailed you the other one. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • What establishes that Speciality Press located at Forest Lake, Minnesota has a reputation for fact checking, etc? The article is cites several works published by this company, which appears to lack and internet presence.
  • If File:FB-23 Rapid Theater Attack.png is a Northrop Grumman image as stated, it's been wrongly uploaded. The source PDF doesn't establish that it was released under a creative commons licence.
  • I suspect that none of the external links are needed. Nick-D (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with Specialty Press overall and I believe they went under just recently. However, the cited books in this article are written by people with direct connections to the YF-23, namely Alfred "Paul" Metz, YF-23 PAV-1 test pilot, and Air Force Materiel Command researchers and archiver, Tony Landis and reputed aviation author Dennis Jenkins.
  • If that is the case, I can upload a non-free thumbnail version under fair use.
Steve7c8 (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D, before you leave for your break, could we have your vote? Matarisvan (talk) 13:49, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, I would suggest removing the FB-23 image, since its copyright status is uncertain per Nikkimaria's comment above. I would reccomend adding an image of the FB-22 in its place, because it was competing with the FB-23, and because I reckon there would be more copyright free images of the FB-22 available. Matarisvan (talk) 17:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced the FB-23 image with a fair use version (it will be automatically downscaled) to resolve this issue. Furthermore, I've removed most of the external links, except for the NASA gallery which I think is relevant. Steve7c8 (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I forgot about the external links, and I agree that none of them seem necessary. I'm okay with removing them, but I'm not sure if I should without consensus from others in this review.
Steve7c8 (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a number of areas where a copy edit is needed. Some examples below.
  • Translation of technical terminology per Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and Wikipedia is not a scientific journal is needed in some places. Eg: "The YF-23 was statically unstable — having relaxed stability — and flown through fly-by-wire with the flight control surfaces controlled by a central management computer system." and the following five sentences. Or "the chiseled shape of the nose generated vortices to improve high angle of attack (AoA) characteristics".
  • There seems a lot of reliance on providing Wikilinks rather than in line explanations, falling foul of MOS:NOFORCELINK: "Do use a link wherever appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links." Implementation of this is subject to debate, but taking the article as a whole it seems to me to fall the wrong side of the line.
  • There seems to be an overuse of upper-case initial letters. Eg "Engineering and Manufacturing Development" or "Avionics Ground Prototype"
  • Some abbreviations are given but not reused. Eg "a domestic 5th/6th generation (F-3) fighter" or "Avionics Ground Prototype (AGP)".
  • Or "infrared homing (IR) missile detection" where the abbreviation is given at the third mention of infrared, which is not mentioned again.
  • The paragraph starting "The Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF) launched ..." should be deleted. Its only connection to the F-23 is "there was speculation that it could offer a modernized version of the F-23 to the JASDF". This seems to be "going into unnecessary detail" and/or not using summary style.

The article is not IMO to FAC standard. It is getting there and has clearly had a lot of TLC, but it needs a little more. Note that the examples given above are just that - examples. Resolving just these will not bring the article up to scratch. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can address these in stride.
  • Would the phrase "flown through fly-by-wire which provides artificial stability" help clarify that?
  • "the chiseled shape of the nose with its sharp edges generated vortices to improve high angle of attack (AoA) characteristics"
  • I'll do a pass through this article to try to address this, although I would appreciate it if others can help because as an engineer, some of the terminology that's intuitive for me may not be for most readers.
  • Those are formal names in DoD acquisition language and also ATF program language, so I'm not sure how they should be handled.
  • I'll do a pass through to eliminate unneeded acronyms.
  • In this instance, I agree that there is a bit of undue weight. The only reported fact is that Northrop Grumman had offered to partner with the Japanese industry for the F-3 program, but no information was given on what was proposed, and as far as I know, the F-23 derivative is the journalist's own speculation. So again, this may be undue weight and if others agree I can adjust the wording.
Steve7c8 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild, do the above changes address all the issues you raised? Do you have any further comments? Matarisvan (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, it's been 26 days since the last comment on here. Could you ask Nick and Gog if they have any further comments? This FAR has been open for 9 months now. Matarisvan (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Moving to get additional perspectives. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I did extensive prose, image and source reviews, and I think the article passed on those counts. Matarisvan (talk) 08:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The external links still obviously don't comply with WP:EL. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See my amended reply above. Steve7c8 (talk) 17:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Missing page ranges for chapters, p/pp errors, gratuitous upper-case initials (Dem/Val, Statement of Operational Need, System Requirements Reviews, many more), inline indecipherability ("The chiseled shape of the nose with its sharp edges generated vortices to improve high angle of attack (AoA) characteristics", "It was an unconventional-looking aircraft, with diamond-shaped wings tapered symmetrically at 40° in both the leading edge back sweep and trailing edge forward sweep, a profile with substantial area-ruling to reduce aerodynamic drag at transonic and supersonic speeds, and all-moving V-tails, or "ruddervators" " etc). Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Steve7c8, please address these comments. Matarisvan (talk) 19:18, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    System Requirement Review (SRR), Statement of Operational Need (SON), Demonstration/Validation (Dem/Val), etc. these are all formal nouns in DoD acquisition language. The capitalizations may seem "gratuitous" but that’s because the sources also capitalize them that way.
    I’ve adjusted the two sentences to make them less awkward and more understandable, and putting commas where appropriate. Ideally, if a lay person can read through it and highlight more of the prose that’s hard to understand, I’ll work to fix it. As an engineer who works in this industry, I might not be able to catch all the prose that may be difficult to understand for a lay person. Steve7c8 (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild, any responses from your end to this reply? Matarisvan (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have just checked (only) the first two points I listed above. Neither have been addressed. I see little point it checking further as we are well into WP:FIXLOOP territory. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, if you could add the page numbers for Williams 2002, Winchester 2005, Sweetman 1991b and the Quadrennial Defense Review Report, then I think Gog's first two issues will be fully resolved. Matarisvan (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Williams 2002 and Winchester 2005 already have page numbers. I've added them to Sweetman 1991b and the QDR. Steve7c8 (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, what I meant was you should add page numbers for Williams 2002 and Winchester 2005 in the biblio, not in the citations. Those are the only two chapters missing page ranges per Gog's comments. After that, we can start copy editing the article to reduce its technical complexity and make it more clear for the general reader. Matarisvan (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Steve7c8 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve7c8, now we just need citations for notes 1-4 and 7-8. I'm starting the copy editing and hope to be done soon. Matarisvan (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review&oldid=1280615161#Featured_article_removal_candidates"