The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because this is one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia and it hasn't been reviewed since 2012. I would like to get consensus on whether this still qualifies as a featured article. Interstellarity ( talk) 12:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 2:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC) [2].
I am nominating this featured article for review because... it no longer meets
WP:FACR due to instability, length/unnecessary detail, and lack of summary style. ––
FormalDude
talk
10:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Note: I have made a proposal to split off the award list to its own article. I don't see the point in listing all the awards an immensely successfuly writer has received in the BLP and the major ones could be easily summarized (see Laurence_Olivier#Honours for an example, and the relevant discussion in the talk page here). It's just one of the many issues this article has with summary style, as identified in the general case above by FormalDude, in my opinion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment: I have been pinged in a couple of different places, with the possible implication that I have granted extra time to this FAR. ( here and here by Ipigott). To avoid confusion, @ WP:FAR coordinators: can one of you clarify possible timelines for this article, and specify if time has been granted? This looks like it might be a complicated FAR, so this might also need a dedicated FAR coord to be the only point-person for decision making, similar to how Cas Liber stepped up in British Empire and laid out timelines for closing that FARC. Z1720 ( talk) 17:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
"we have no examination of what exists in sub-articles"That is asking the reviewers here to prove a negative. Has anyone examined more specific articles and determined that there is enough material to cover all her themes? I have examined a few, and what's there isn't encouraging. It's heavily based on interviews with Rowling (which have their place, but aren't a substitute for independent analysis); and on media sources. Scholarly sources are few and far between.
"we have no indication if high-quality reliable sources are excluded"yes we do; there's no substantive use of any high-quality literary criticism. I could easily provide a couple dozen sources; I'm not doing so because I'm not concerned about the exclusion of specific sources, but the exclusion of the entire body of literary/scholarly source material.
"we have had no discussion about how much of what would be included where in a properly summarized main bio"; because, at the moment, we have no substance to discuss at all. We aren't at the stage where such a discussion is meaningful. Very few of us are giving any weight to any RfCs; I haven't bothered to read the one referred to above, as it has no bearing on my argument. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Due to its commercial success, fantasy became a dominant genre in the children's market, a sea change from its declining status in the 1980s.seems like a promising start for a really interesting paragraph). I think another interesting source of academic analysis on her legacy is on The Death of the Author and how fans are starting to disassociate the Harry Potter IP with the author. I don't have any sources on hand atm, but thought it would be of help to mention this here. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
In becoming so, it seems to me, her intentions and responsibilities as author diminish and fade into irrelevance. She ceases to be the author of the phenomenon and simply becomes part of the phenomenon as author. Note this phenomenon of separating Rowling from HP is not necessarily based only on the trans controversy, but also on the merits of her being able to tweet that Dumbledore is gay and how that affects the canon, see this journal article. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
NOTE, for anyone not familiar with FAR, work here is not typically done in days, rather weeks, and sometimes takes more than a month. The LEAD is usually best addressed last. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
To Do List
Update 8 Jan
Update 14 January
Update 1 February 2022
Update 15 February All items above have been addressed, work on the Transgender section is still deferred, editing has slowed, and we are working on a draft of the lead (with the exception of the Transgender portions). There has been no article instability since the brief edit war of 5 January. Aza24, Buidhe and Z1720 have looked at the article so far; this might be a good time for Barkeep49 and Johnbod to have a more thorough look, recognizing that we haven't yet worked on the TG people section, and lead work is in progress. Hog Farm might you look in now as well ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Nothing new to add; article remains stable, content improvement has slowed (basically finished except for TG people section), all commentary raised here has been addressed, and I'm aware of no MOS, prose, comprehensive or any other deficiencies, outside of the TG people section. Work on an interim lead has begun, with the idea to progress to the Transgender people section after some interim improvement to the lead is settled on. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The new lead was installed on 2 March with no kerfuffle; the article remains stable. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Update 17 March
The interim lead that was installed on 2 March has held up with no kerfuffle, and the article remains stable. Rowling made some news during the last month because of long-standing involvement with orphanage advocacy reform in Ukraine, and a personal appeal for donations towards Ukraine relief, along with a tweet she made in March related to interpretations of UK laws on gender issues. A very minor amount of disruptive editing was seen at J. K. Rowling, as well as at sub-articles Politics of J. K. Rowling and Featured List of awards and nominations received by J. K. Rowling; all have been handled by normal editing and discretionary sanctions. Disruptive editing, misinterpreted sources, or otherwise fixed-through-normal-processes edits were:The article is stable, the interim lead has held, and we should be ready to move on to cleaning up the issues remaining in the section on Transgender people. The issues to be addressed in that secion include:
These adjustments should not be difficult, but when I asked on talk who was ready to begin, I got little response, so will ping people this week if there is no further feedback re addressing the remaining section. If other editors see other issues that need to be addressed, I hope they will list them and we can get moving. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Workshopping the transgender section is underway on talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Discussion has remained largely collegial and productive, advancing steadily to the third draft of the transgender section. Progress has been slower than anticipated as it turns out the RFC conducted on the lead in December revolved around some text that was not even sourced in the article, so there has been more re-writing than anticipated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC) [10].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues with the sourcing and POV, see the talk page for details. ( t · c) buidhe 17:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by Nick-D
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC) [11].
This article no longer meets the FA criteria. There are a lot of statements that need citations. There is an evolutionary history section that only contains a single paragraph that could be merged somewhere. Almost the entire article could be needed for rewriting and expansion, especially the anatomy and morphology, evolutionary history, etymology, and taxonomic history and conservation sections. There are also some questionable sources have been used at the article such as ref 2? ref 11, ref 12, ref 24, ref 26, ref 54? ref 56? and possibly others. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC) [12].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are major issues with datedness and citation issues, see the detailed list on the talk page. ( t · c) buidhe 23:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC) [13].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of disorganised references, with some media described in the inline citation and others placed in the bibliography section. There's also works placed in the bibliography that are not used as sources and their quality should be evaluated and considered for inline citation use. The "War with Rome" section has been expanded since its FAC and I think it should be trimmed and summarised. The "Visiting Rome" section has pretty much stayed the same since its FAC, but I also think it can be summarised and trimmed, especially Tiridates and Nero's interaction and the direct quotes. The "Cultural depictions" section is one sentence and uncited. Eponymous-Archon made some improvements after I noticed it in December, but these seemed to have stalled. HistoryofIran commented on the talk page that this article's FA status should be reviewed. Z1720 ( talk) 17:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC) [14].
This 2006 has not been maintained to FA standards. The issues listed on talk on 2021-12-20 include datedness, comprehensiveness, an overreliance on non-independent sources, prose and MOS issues. The article appears to be unwatched, and needs a tune up to retain status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [15].
This 2006 promotion needs a bit of touching-up to reach current standards. There are patches of uncited text throughout, and some spots appear to lack needed detail, such as an explanation of why the 2020 change occurred. Some of the image licensing needs checked as well: the image of the building in Minsk needs checked because there is no freedom of panorama in Belarus, and the book dust jacket image may well be copyrighted. Some of the sourcing needs upgraded as well, such as citing a statement about Pahonia Publishers (which may not even be all that relevant) to the publishing information of a novel. Hog Farm Talk 17:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
There are a lot of W:NPOV issues here:
The entire section should be rewritten based on reliable sources, written by professional academic heraldists. Marcelus ( talk) 20:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
It is not well-researched: instead of relying on the major scholarly publications on Pahonia in Belarusian history by Tsitou and Shalanda, it leans on a substandard article in the Britannica and a number of irrelevant publications not dealing with the Belarusian use of Pahonia directly. The article is not neutral, it has signs of disruptive editing reflected in its incosistent style and structure. It contains mistakes or requiries further clarifications ("The Pahonia derives from the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" - Pahonia was the coat of arms of GDL, unless the sentence is supposed to mean that the first state emblem of the Republic of Belarus derived from the coat of arms of GDL.) -- Nieszczarda2 ( talk) 05:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article instead of explaining the history and the meaning of the Pahonia for Belarusians is trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem, he is misconstruing the article. What he claims goes against WP:RS like Encyclopedia Britannica, various academic books and journals, even the expert vexillologist Whitney Smith among others. Some of Marcelus' criticisms are simply untrue, as there are explanatory phrases like
Belarusian nationalists viewed the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a historical form of Belarusian statehood along with medieval principalities of Polotsk, Turov and othersand there is also an explanation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania vis-à-vis its Slavic populations which are connected to the Belarusians. This is necessary for context. Toynbee's phrase also adds to that context, so it is unreasonable to remove it. Blaming statements that rely on Western sources for
trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblemis inaccurate and also a suspicious statement that reminds me of WP:POV. At its essence, the phrase blames WP:RS for being WP:POV. I must point out that the statements about
ancestors of Belarusians are called "Russians", their culture is called "Russian"come from WP:RS. This does not mean that they are undoubtedly true, but still, just erasing it would be improper and against Wiki guidelines. As for "Lithuanian mythologists", those are included because of the sentence
Some Belarusian historians make a connection between the Pahonia and the cultural context, religious and mythological beliefs of Belarus's earliest inhabitants. Belarus' earliest inhabitants include Balts/Lithuanians. Ergo, they must be written about. Finally, the proposed solution that there should be more
reliable sources, written by professional academic heraldists, is totally OK. However, care should be taken, as even some professional historians are NOT WP:NPOV (not according to me, but to academic sources), e.g. Jan Zaprudnik (named as nationalist in John Stanley's Book review of Jan Zaprudnik's "Belarus: At a Crossroads in History" (from 1994): Zaprudnik's views are those of a moderate nationalist).-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblemaccording to you, then it can't be helped. Also,
it proves the worst about these sources- you are talking about Encyclopedia Britannica. Calling it unreliable is very strong language.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 19:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [16].
I am nominating this featured article for review because, as stated on the talk page, there are issues with non-cited content, overreliance on primary sources, and lack of updating. ( t · c) buidhe 03:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [17].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues with datedness and comprehensiveness, which were raised last month at talk but have not been addressed. The state of FAs in post-secondary education is truly dire at this point—of the 15 FAs on contemporary post-secondary institutions from September 2020, this and United States Military Academy are the only ones remaining, and there's only been one new FA passed in the past decade. A save here would be really nice. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [18].
This 2006 FA was noticed as having considerable uncited text a year ago, and there has been no progress. If someone engages, other deficiences can be listed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
If we can get consensus for a name change and scope of article, and if the article is moved mid-FAR, please ping me to fix this page to the corrected names and moves, etc. No changes are needed in the articlehistory template on talk, as it was designed to withstand article moves (I sometimes see editors moving all the old pages in articlehistory, which is not necessary). My choice would be Cyclol hypothesis. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [19].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of serious reservations in the quality of the sourcing, particularly the excessive use of ancient or dated sources. These were raised 2 months ago on talk without improvement. ( t · c) buidhe 04:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [20].
As noted on the article talk page, a read-through of just two sections resulted in the discovery of about 15 instances of original research and/or failed verification. The big problem here is the improper use of box scores to source details not actually found in box scores, as well as a few instances of editor-provided judgment of the quality of statistical results. Hog Farm Talk 22:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [21].
The issues I raised on talk a year ago are unaddressed. The main concern is datedness (the article appears unmaintained), along with MOS concerns, including external jumps in the text. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [22].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns related to FA criterion 1c: uncited claims, insufficiently high-quality sourcing, and lack of reference to recent high-quality reliable sources. I raised these issues on Talk:Hippocrates at the end of January; in four weeks no attempt has been made to solve any of these issues. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 19:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [29].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of Extraordinary Writ's talk page comment a month ago. The issue is that the article is not well researched or comprehensive due to over-reliance on self-sourcing at the expense of scholarship into Fox's life. ( t · c) buidhe 21:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 3:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [30].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the extensive issues as noted on the talk page by Hog Farm. These include: original research, unverified statements, sources that should be replaced with higher-quality ones. SandyGeorgia posted concerns about canvassing in the original FAC, and the nominator is blocked as a sock. A peer review in 2015 identified issues with non-NPOV and comprehensiveness, problems which do not seem to have been resolved. Due to the extensive problems with the article, Nikkimaria (FAR co-ord) gave permission to wave the two-week notice requirement. Z1720 ( talk) 02:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 3:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [31].
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because this is one of the most viewed pages on Wikipedia and it hasn't been reviewed since 2012. I would like to get consensus on whether this still qualifies as a featured article. Interstellarity ( talk) 12:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 2:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC) [2].
I am nominating this featured article for review because... it no longer meets
WP:FACR due to instability, length/unnecessary detail, and lack of summary style. ––
FormalDude
talk
10:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
reply
Note: I have made a proposal to split off the award list to its own article. I don't see the point in listing all the awards an immensely successfuly writer has received in the BLP and the major ones could be easily summarized (see Laurence_Olivier#Honours for an example, and the relevant discussion in the talk page here). It's just one of the many issues this article has with summary style, as identified in the general case above by FormalDude, in my opinion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply
Comment: I have been pinged in a couple of different places, with the possible implication that I have granted extra time to this FAR. ( here and here by Ipigott). To avoid confusion, @ WP:FAR coordinators: can one of you clarify possible timelines for this article, and specify if time has been granted? This looks like it might be a complicated FAR, so this might also need a dedicated FAR coord to be the only point-person for decision making, similar to how Cas Liber stepped up in British Empire and laid out timelines for closing that FARC. Z1720 ( talk) 17:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
"we have no examination of what exists in sub-articles"That is asking the reviewers here to prove a negative. Has anyone examined more specific articles and determined that there is enough material to cover all her themes? I have examined a few, and what's there isn't encouraging. It's heavily based on interviews with Rowling (which have their place, but aren't a substitute for independent analysis); and on media sources. Scholarly sources are few and far between.
"we have no indication if high-quality reliable sources are excluded"yes we do; there's no substantive use of any high-quality literary criticism. I could easily provide a couple dozen sources; I'm not doing so because I'm not concerned about the exclusion of specific sources, but the exclusion of the entire body of literary/scholarly source material.
"we have had no discussion about how much of what would be included where in a properly summarized main bio"; because, at the moment, we have no substance to discuss at all. We aren't at the stage where such a discussion is meaningful. Very few of us are giving any weight to any RfCs; I haven't bothered to read the one referred to above, as it has no bearing on my argument. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC) reply
Due to its commercial success, fantasy became a dominant genre in the children's market, a sea change from its declining status in the 1980s.seems like a promising start for a really interesting paragraph). I think another interesting source of academic analysis on her legacy is on The Death of the Author and how fans are starting to disassociate the Harry Potter IP with the author. I don't have any sources on hand atm, but thought it would be of help to mention this here. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
In becoming so, it seems to me, her intentions and responsibilities as author diminish and fade into irrelevance. She ceases to be the author of the phenomenon and simply becomes part of the phenomenon as author. Note this phenomenon of separating Rowling from HP is not necessarily based only on the trans controversy, but also on the merits of her being able to tweet that Dumbledore is gay and how that affects the canon, see this journal article. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC) reply
NOTE, for anyone not familiar with FAR, work here is not typically done in days, rather weeks, and sometimes takes more than a month. The LEAD is usually best addressed last. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply
To Do List
Update 8 Jan
Update 14 January
Update 1 February 2022
Update 15 February All items above have been addressed, work on the Transgender section is still deferred, editing has slowed, and we are working on a draft of the lead (with the exception of the Transgender portions). There has been no article instability since the brief edit war of 5 January. Aza24, Buidhe and Z1720 have looked at the article so far; this might be a good time for Barkeep49 and Johnbod to have a more thorough look, recognizing that we haven't yet worked on the TG people section, and lead work is in progress. Hog Farm might you look in now as well ? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC) reply
Nothing new to add; article remains stable, content improvement has slowed (basically finished except for TG people section), all commentary raised here has been addressed, and I'm aware of no MOS, prose, comprehensive or any other deficiencies, outside of the TG people section. Work on an interim lead has begun, with the idea to progress to the Transgender people section after some interim improvement to the lead is settled on. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The new lead was installed on 2 March with no kerfuffle; the article remains stable. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Update 17 March
The interim lead that was installed on 2 March has held up with no kerfuffle, and the article remains stable. Rowling made some news during the last month because of long-standing involvement with orphanage advocacy reform in Ukraine, and a personal appeal for donations towards Ukraine relief, along with a tweet she made in March related to interpretations of UK laws on gender issues. A very minor amount of disruptive editing was seen at J. K. Rowling, as well as at sub-articles Politics of J. K. Rowling and Featured List of awards and nominations received by J. K. Rowling; all have been handled by normal editing and discretionary sanctions. Disruptive editing, misinterpreted sources, or otherwise fixed-through-normal-processes edits were:The article is stable, the interim lead has held, and we should be ready to move on to cleaning up the issues remaining in the section on Transgender people. The issues to be addressed in that secion include:
These adjustments should not be difficult, but when I asked on talk who was ready to begin, I got little response, so will ping people this week if there is no further feedback re addressing the remaining section. If other editors see other issues that need to be addressed, I hope they will list them and we can get moving. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Workshopping the transgender section is underway on talk. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Discussion has remained largely collegial and productive, advancing steadily to the third draft of the transgender section. Progress has been slower than anticipated as it turns out the RFC conducted on the lead in December revolved around some text that was not even sourced in the article, so there has been more re-writing than anticipated. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:54, 30 April 2022 (UTC) [10].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues with the sourcing and POV, see the talk page for details. ( t · c) buidhe 17:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Comments by Nick-D
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC) [11].
This article no longer meets the FA criteria. There are a lot of statements that need citations. There is an evolutionary history section that only contains a single paragraph that could be merged somewhere. Almost the entire article could be needed for rewriting and expansion, especially the anatomy and morphology, evolutionary history, etymology, and taxonomic history and conservation sections. There are also some questionable sources have been used at the article such as ref 2? ref 11, ref 12, ref 24, ref 26, ref 54? ref 56? and possibly others. OnlyFixingProse ( talk) 22:40, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC) [12].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are major issues with datedness and citation issues, see the detailed list on the talk page. ( t · c) buidhe 23:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC) [13].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of disorganised references, with some media described in the inline citation and others placed in the bibliography section. There's also works placed in the bibliography that are not used as sources and their quality should be evaluated and considered for inline citation use. The "War with Rome" section has been expanded since its FAC and I think it should be trimmed and summarised. The "Visiting Rome" section has pretty much stayed the same since its FAC, but I also think it can be summarised and trimmed, especially Tiridates and Nero's interaction and the direct quotes. The "Cultural depictions" section is one sentence and uncited. Eponymous-Archon made some improvements after I noticed it in December, but these seemed to have stalled. HistoryofIran commented on the talk page that this article's FA status should be reviewed. Z1720 ( talk) 17:43, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC) [14].
This 2006 has not been maintained to FA standards. The issues listed on talk on 2021-12-20 include datedness, comprehensiveness, an overreliance on non-independent sources, prose and MOS issues. The article appears to be unwatched, and needs a tune up to retain status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:26, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [15].
This 2006 promotion needs a bit of touching-up to reach current standards. There are patches of uncited text throughout, and some spots appear to lack needed detail, such as an explanation of why the 2020 change occurred. Some of the image licensing needs checked as well: the image of the building in Minsk needs checked because there is no freedom of panorama in Belarus, and the book dust jacket image may well be copyrighted. Some of the sourcing needs upgraded as well, such as citing a statement about Pahonia Publishers (which may not even be all that relevant) to the publishing information of a novel. Hog Farm Talk 17:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
There are a lot of W:NPOV issues here:
The entire section should be rewritten based on reliable sources, written by professional academic heraldists. Marcelus ( talk) 20:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
It is not well-researched: instead of relying on the major scholarly publications on Pahonia in Belarusian history by Tsitou and Shalanda, it leans on a substandard article in the Britannica and a number of irrelevant publications not dealing with the Belarusian use of Pahonia directly. The article is not neutral, it has signs of disruptive editing reflected in its incosistent style and structure. It contains mistakes or requiries further clarifications ("The Pahonia derives from the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" - Pahonia was the coat of arms of GDL, unless the sentence is supposed to mean that the first state emblem of the Republic of Belarus derived from the coat of arms of GDL.) -- Nieszczarda2 ( talk) 05:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article instead of explaining the history and the meaning of the Pahonia for Belarusians is trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem, he is misconstruing the article. What he claims goes against WP:RS like Encyclopedia Britannica, various academic books and journals, even the expert vexillologist Whitney Smith among others. Some of Marcelus' criticisms are simply untrue, as there are explanatory phrases like
Belarusian nationalists viewed the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a historical form of Belarusian statehood along with medieval principalities of Polotsk, Turov and othersand there is also an explanation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania vis-à-vis its Slavic populations which are connected to the Belarusians. This is necessary for context. Toynbee's phrase also adds to that context, so it is unreasonable to remove it. Blaming statements that rely on Western sources for
trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblemis inaccurate and also a suspicious statement that reminds me of WP:POV. At its essence, the phrase blames WP:RS for being WP:POV. I must point out that the statements about
ancestors of Belarusians are called "Russians", their culture is called "Russian"come from WP:RS. This does not mean that they are undoubtedly true, but still, just erasing it would be improper and against Wiki guidelines. As for "Lithuanian mythologists", those are included because of the sentence
Some Belarusian historians make a connection between the Pahonia and the cultural context, religious and mythological beliefs of Belarus's earliest inhabitants. Belarus' earliest inhabitants include Balts/Lithuanians. Ergo, they must be written about. Finally, the proposed solution that there should be more
reliable sources, written by professional academic heraldists, is totally OK. However, care should be taken, as even some professional historians are NOT WP:NPOV (not according to me, but to academic sources), e.g. Jan Zaprudnik (named as nationalist in John Stanley's Book review of Jan Zaprudnik's "Belarus: At a Crossroads in History" (from 1994): Zaprudnik's views are those of a moderate nationalist).-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC) reply
that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblemaccording to you, then it can't be helped. Also,
it proves the worst about these sources- you are talking about Encyclopedia Britannica. Calling it unreliable is very strong language.-- Cukrakalnis ( talk) 19:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [16].
I am nominating this featured article for review because, as stated on the talk page, there are issues with non-cited content, overreliance on primary sources, and lack of updating. ( t · c) buidhe 03:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [17].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues with datedness and comprehensiveness, which were raised last month at talk but have not been addressed. The state of FAs in post-secondary education is truly dire at this point—of the 15 FAs on contemporary post-secondary institutions from September 2020, this and United States Military Academy are the only ones remaining, and there's only been one new FA passed in the past decade. A save here would be really nice. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 03:28, 19 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 2:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [18].
This 2006 FA was noticed as having considerable uncited text a year ago, and there has been no progress. If someone engages, other deficiences can be listed. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply
If we can get consensus for a name change and scope of article, and if the article is moved mid-FAR, please ping me to fix this page to the corrected names and moves, etc. No changes are needed in the articlehistory template on talk, as it was designed to withstand article moves (I sometimes see editors moving all the old pages in articlehistory, which is not necessary). My choice would be Cyclol hypothesis. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [19].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of serious reservations in the quality of the sourcing, particularly the excessive use of ancient or dated sources. These were raised 2 months ago on talk without improvement. ( t · c) buidhe 04:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:34, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [20].
As noted on the article talk page, a read-through of just two sections resulted in the discovery of about 15 instances of original research and/or failed verification. The big problem here is the improper use of box scores to source details not actually found in box scores, as well as a few instances of editor-provided judgment of the quality of statistical results. Hog Farm Talk 22:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [21].
The issues I raised on talk a year ago are unaddressed. The main concern is datedness (the article appears unmaintained), along with MOS concerns, including external jumps in the text. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:46, 1 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [22].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns related to FA criterion 1c: uncited claims, insufficiently high-quality sourcing, and lack of reference to recent high-quality reliable sources. I raised these issues on Talk:Hippocrates at the end of January; in four weeks no attempt has been made to solve any of these issues. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 19:26, 28 February 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC) [29].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of Extraordinary Writ's talk page comment a month ago. The issue is that the article is not well researched or comprehensive due to over-reliance on self-sourcing at the expense of scholarship into Fox's life. ( t · c) buidhe 21:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 3:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [30].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the extensive issues as noted on the talk page by Hog Farm. These include: original research, unverified statements, sources that should be replaced with higher-quality ones. SandyGeorgia posted concerns about canvassing in the original FAC, and the nominator is blocked as a sock. A peer review in 2015 identified issues with non-NPOV and comprehensiveness, problems which do not seem to have been resolved. Due to the extensive problems with the article, Nikkimaria (FAR co-ord) gave permission to wave the two-week notice requirement. Z1720 ( talk) 02:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot ( talk) 3:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC) [31].