The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous statements and paragraphs that are missing inline citations. Also, the "North American Palladianism" section contains many one-sentence paragraphs. Z1720 ( talk) 18:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Z1720 - We’ve moved from 38 citations (12 June) to 108 (and rising), and increased the number of book sources from 16 to 37. Every paragraph is now cited, I think! Where I couldn’t source a statement, e.g. Palladian adaptations to suit Northern European climates, I’ve removed it. I’ve also tried to standardise the referencing - although I may not of caught absolutely everything as I’ve been working with a referencing style that I’m not really comfortable with, far preferring {{sfn}}; added ISBNs/OCLCs, and split the footnotes from the references. While there’s certainly more that could be done, can you/the coordinators let me know if this is sufficient to take the article off the FAR list. Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 08:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues beginning 28 June moved to
Unresolved from the moved commentary is at
Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2#Carryovers.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
09:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
In
Irish Palladian architecture, this passage:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm done; ping me when you are ready for me to revisit, and we can then expedite this up to the other FARsters (Z1720, Buidhe, and Hog Farm). Only new comments are in this section, with some stragglers at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I am going to review this as if it was an FAC, although I will fix smaller concerns myself. Please note that I have no speciality in this area, so consider this a non-expert prose review. Anything that I think I can't fix, usually because I am unfamiliar with the topic, are listed below:
These are my comments. Please ping when these have been reviewed. Z1720 ( talk) 18:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I skimmed through the article again and didn't notice other prose concerns. Some of the sources don't have ISBN numbers, though a Google search finds one. Should these be added to the references? Z1720 ( talk) 15:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
KJP1 a new note from me: there are some items left over in the lead that are not contained in the body of the article. The lead must summarize the article, and some of the text that has been removed from the article is still in the lead, and uncited. Please revisit the entire lead: one sample is "This immense mansion outside London was one of the first, and among the most influential, of Campbell's Palladian designs." Not sure about the flowery wording here: "After the Stuart Restoration, the architectural landscape was dominated by the proponents of the more flamboyant English Baroque." So, a doublecheck that the lead is still in line with the body is needed. Another: "but its development was halted by the onset of the English Civil War" is not precisely what the body of the article says. Check flowery language in lead, eg, "to develop a new architectural style for the fledgling American Republic." I don't believe this is in the body, or cited, either: "while its inspirer is regularly cited as among the world’s most influential architects." SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
HF
I was about to question the CSHIHE source but am convinced by the defense of the source on the FAR talk. I think I'm at close without FARC, as none of these were really dealbreakers for me and its fairly obvious that minor improvements are going to continue even after the FAR closes. Hog Farm Talk 01:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Remaining KJP1, in trying to keep the lead in sync with the body, might we work further on the following?
Palladianism flourished briefly in England in the early 17th century, led by Inigo Jones, but its development was halted by the onset of the English Civil War.
The article says:
Those were all 1610s to 20-ish, correct? Then,
I'm sure you can find a more eloquent way to address this, and we need not hold up the FAR over it, but perhaps this can be fine tuned? The original word was "flowered", implying something that briefly blossomed but quickly died. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I’ve attempted to fine tune both the lead and the TFA blurb, to match the changes made to the article through what I think has been a very productive FAR. Thanks to all who contributed, and particularly to SandyGeorgia for her exceptionally detailed and helpful review. While there’s always something that can be further improved, I hope we’ve collectively done enough both to close out the FAR and allow for the article’s TFA appearance in August. And finally, thanks to User:Giano, who began the article and whose writings on architectural subjects have contributed so much to Wikipedia. KJP1 ( talk) 12:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia - Sandy, I think we’ve got you, User:Z1720, JohnBod, Ceoil, User:Hog Farm and me, if I’m allowed a vote!, favouring Close. Is there anything we can do to wrap it up? I’m conscious it’s due on the main page next month and it would be good to know it’s ready to go. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 17:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [3].
Notifications
|
---|
|
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been over a decade since it was promoted and the article now has a number of issues. I am not sure it satisifes WP:FACR criteria 1.a,b,c,d, or 2,a,b. I have cleaned up a lot of the articles content, and the scope of the previous separate Chicxulub impactor article has been merged into this one, because there is not enought that can be said about the impactor to justify separation. One of the issues I have is that the energy values given for the impact are based on an unpublished preprint, and ideally should be replaced with a more reliable scholarly source. It's also not clear that the article comprehensively covers the recent literature. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
A more thorough review of the article:
I've addressed some of the complaints I've made. However, the extinction section remains a complete mess. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Mikenorton and David Fuchs: I am taking a look, please review my edits.
Volcanoguy I have entered quite a few comments above, but the going gets rougher towards the bottom of the article. Might you be interested in helping to finish up some of this? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Astronomical origin of impactor
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Borehill drilling
Lead:
Where is this cited in the body of the article? "It is one of the largest confirmed impact structures on Earth, and the only one whose peak ring is intact and directly accessible for scientific research."
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
05:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Sourcing issue:
I thought the sourcing was done and checked here, or I would not have spent so much time on prose. Almost none of that sentence is verified by the text: now a more comprehensive check is warranted. I only discovered this because I was trying to check the spelling on Haciende, a word I have never seen in Spanish. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply
@ David Fuchs, Buidhe, Hog Farm, Z1720, and Wretchskull: I've done all the damage I can do, with Mikenorton and Hemiauchenia; ready for a fresh look. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'll give some thoughts below. I have not read the above, nor have I been following this FAR, so I am sorry if my comments repeat what has already been stated. I will fix minor prose things as I read, and post below what I don't think I can resolve:
Overall, this is a well written article that, even though I am not science minded, I was able to follow. Great job everyone. Z1720 ( talk) 00:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
What is this?
It says it is a PBS Video, but it's linking to IMDb? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [5].
I am nominating this featured article for review because I have found a few "non-perfections" at the article, I talked about it at the talk page but got no replies and its been more than 10 days. Since I am not an astronomer and I am quite unfamiliar with these kind of topics, I can not fix them myself, so I ask the community to review the article (which overall, I found pretty good tbh) Cinadon 36 08:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Update? @ Cinadon36 and XOR'easter: where does this stand? I see too many images with a mess of MOS:SANDWICHing, and lots of uncited text still. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
XOR'easter it's looking so much better. Back on the images issue, this section is dreadful. It has three images and a table, all conveying the same information (which I note is also covered in images throughout the article) in a way that creates a visual assault and a jamup of images over text. I can't figure out what to remove to improve the layout, but a table stuck below two huge images is ugh. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
There is a huge duplicate links issue: user:Evad37/duplinks-alt is helpful. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
What makes this guy reliable? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/ SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Inconsistent author format ... some have first name last name, most have last name, first name. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Praemonitus has been doing good work on this. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I made the new Solar System infobox image and cleanup media layout in general for this FAR. I hope you found it satisfactory. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 10:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [8].
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [9].
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [10].
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has two unresolved sourcing issues (permanently dead link and uncited text) and weasel words that make an unsupported claim about the relationship between two living people. I fixed some issues with the article half a year ago, but these are the ones that I couldn't find any citations for. ArcticSeeress ( talk) 10:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [11].
This very old Featured article has considerable uncited text. Top editors are either relatively inactive, or blocked; one is blocked for disruptive editing, so edits should be checked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [12].
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Review of sources and citations by Vami
Reviewed version. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 11:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
To begin, I could not find,
These books do exist, but I think their use speaks to the age of this article. Just googling the poem allowed me to find it online.
For the second, "A Song for Simeon", Eliot turned to an event at the end of Nativity narrative in the Gospel of Luke., from pages 118 and 119.
[...] that Eliot was at his most brilliant in his prejudice.), and the article misquotes the book. It reads, "It is also suggested that Eliot is at his most brilliant when he incites prejudice", in the context (so it would seem) of ill-advised satire.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [13].
I am nominating this featured article for review because the "Article does not seem to be well-researched or comprehensive. There's too much reliance on news stories as opposed to scholarly sources or retrospectives such as the Benze biography." Another issue I noticed is POV issues such as "Although the bill was criticized", and where characterization of Just Say No program as ineffective is attributed to "critics" and not mentioned in the lead. However, the (in)effectiveness of the program has been empirically measured. This is a widely viewed article so I hope someone will step up to improve it. ( t · c) buidhe 04:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [14].
I am nominating this featured article for review because, to quote from the talk page, it's a long, well-written article with many citations, yes. It's also riddled with POV statements -- many unsourced -- as well as a lot of meandering to cover up the truth that there is just not a lot of fact out there about the subject, and double-checking, I've already found several statements unsupported by the cited sources (and have removed or corrected fifteen citations so far). Much of the article is a coatrack for her husband's political career. While her notability is not in question, I certainly question whether enough is known (as opposed to conjecture, innuendo and gossip) about Lady Rosebery to make this a genuine, viable FA article. Several editors, besides myself, have questioned whether the article meets current FA criteria (it was promoted in 2007), as the article's talk page demonstrates. Ravenswing 02:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
But if you'd like the specific examples of statements unsupported by the listed cites I've found just so far, [15] [16] [17] [18] Ravenswing 02:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Obviously, some t8me over the last few years, refs have been muddled, I’ve no idea why this [19] is listed at as 112 which is odd as it’s fully referenced to McKinstry page 211. If you want to check facts accurately, just look on the glossary at the back of the book, to find refs to Mrs Humphrey Ward. Giano (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
There is uncited text (I tagged some, but there is more) and an inconsistent citation style; I intended to clean up all citations, but cannot discern what style is intended, as there is a mix. A fascinating article, I hope someone with sources will work towards saving this FA; I will help with citation formatting if the article is cited and a style is established. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
For over thirty years following her death, he wandered in a political wilderness, directionless and exceedingly eccentric...– While the Biblical allusion is charming (if somewhat misplaced), Wikipedia doesn't talk of wilderness-wandering in its own voice -- unless of course someone did, in fact, literally wander in a literal wilderness. If there's an RS using that image in a striking way, quote it; otherwise, no.
Widowhood changed Rosebery, both mentally and physically: he aged overnight– People don't actually age overnight, so (again) it's startling to see an article saying this in its own voice. As before, if e.g. a sympathetic friend said that he seemed to age overnight, then we should attribute that characterization to that friend.
Rosebery seems to have disliked his first son, who he claimed looked "Jewish." On seeing his son for the first time he remarked Le Jew est fait, rien ne vas plus, which must have been disconcerting for the child's Jewish mother.– A severe case of WP:ELEVAR. Given that this is the article on the child's Jewish mother (that is, Hannah -- and I believe by this point the reader has picked up that she was Jewish), why in the world can't it just say
...which must have been disconcerting for Hannah, or (come to think of it) just leave the whole "must have been disconcerting" bit out, since readers would have to be especially dense not to get that on their own.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 8:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [20].
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. In the case of this article, as noted on talk on 2 July 2022, there are source-to-text integrity issues found in this article, similar to other FAs by the same nominator. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Inspection of sources and citations by Vami Reviewed version.
In 1864 the State of New Jersey named Rutgers College as their sole land grant college.is not substantiated by this citation.
Cook was appointed state geologist in 1864 and later became the college's vice president.is not substantiated (though p. 88 does say he was "For some years [Cook] had been carrying on the work of State Geologist under the sponsorship of the New Jersey Agricultural Society [...]."), nor is
With the college's land grant status and new funding for scientific studies, Cook expanded his research and teaching into geology and agriculture.
(in addition to Schanck Observatory); no mention whatever is made of any observatory on this page.
[...] and his grandfather, Rev. Jacob Janeway served as vice president of the college and had turned down the post of president in 1840.
From here on, I have no further comment. Some very large holes have already been blown in #Rutgers Geology Museum by comparison of the text to its nominal sources. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 08:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 8:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [21].
Discussions on the talk page have noted signficant content issues including datedness; work has occurred but a fair bit still needs to be done and it's been stalled for some time. Its sad to see another one of our preciously few medical FA in this condition. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 8:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [22].
This 2004 FA (last reviewed in 2006) has considerable uncited text (only some of which is tagged), missing as of dates, a listy lead, and some content that may be dated based on old sources used. Per the abundance of the use of the word today, a MOS:CURRENT review is also in order. The word also is often redundant, and often is here; there are other indications that a good copyedit is overdue, such as faulty punctuation throughout. Along with MOS:SANDWICHing, images should not be left-aligned when that offsets a list. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 8:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [23].
Right now, there is too much weight placed on Waters' political views and activism, while the high quality RS focus more on his musical output. There's a lot of proseline issues where individual incidents are mentioned without enough connection, and excessive weight to reactions to Waters' stances/actions where it would be better to let the reader decide. The article needs a substantial cleanup/rewrite as was done at the JKR article. Unfortunately, my efforts to clean up some of these issues were reverted. ( t · c) buidhe 03:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Move to FARC issues haven't been addressed ( t · c) buidhe 17:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [24].
No improvement or response so here we are ( t · c) buidhe 03:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC) replyThe lead does not meet MOS:LEAD and there are sourcing issues. I'm not convinced that news articles from the 1930s are high-quality reliable sources when there are a ton of scholarly sources out there. Article can't be considered well-researched given that it doesn't incorporate the new 2019 scholarly biography by Shirley Jennifer Lim.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [25].
I am nominating this featured article for review because, as buidhe noted, there are several paragraphs and sections that are uncited. One source has also been questioned for its inclusion. Z1720 ( talk) 14:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [26].
As noted by Indy beetle, this older (2006 promotion) featured article needs a bit of work to get back to up standard. There's a bit of uncited text, and I'm concerned that a few spots may represent original research, such as "The choice of de Castries as the local commander at Điện Biên Phủ was, in retrospect, a bad one." being cited to a contemporary newspaper account. This should be fixable, but it will need some work. Hog Farm Talk 18:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [27].
I am nominating this featured article for review because those issues that Hog Farm brought were still not addressed yet. Notes: "Looking at this as part of the ongoing sweeps of older FAs, and I'm seeing some issues here. The material about going missing is uncited/failed verification and should definitely be cited per WP:BLP as possibly controversial. I'm not even sure if it truly warrants a mention. Wrestling-titles is listed at WP:PW/RS as "unproven", does this source meet the high-quality RS requirement for FA? Wrestlingfigs.com is cited at one point (publisher not in citation, its the "Here is a statement from Bobby Eaton" source. Is this RS? Is Solie's Vintage Wrestling RS? Kayfabe Memories does not look like RS, and is listed as unreliable at PW/RS. There is a self-published book cited (the CreateSpace one, CS is a self-publisher). It appears that Archeus Communications has only published books by Gary Will and I can find basically nothing about it online, which makes me wonder if there's really much editorial oversight going on with that source. A number of the book sources also lack page numbers, which is needed for verification. This needs significant work, and a featured article review may be necessary". There are also several unsourced statements. BloatedBun ( talk) 07:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I replaced the Kayfabe Memories sources. Most of it was replaced with PWInsider, which WP:PW lists as a reliable source. The specific author is Mike Johnson, who Bob Kapur of Slam Wrestling (a reliable source) calls "one of the most credible internet wrestling reporters in the world" ( [29]). GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Haven't reviewed fully but there is a need to add citations, I have used cn templates to indicate where. starship .paint ( exalt) 08:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [30].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns about uncited text and original research. SandyGeorgia raised these issues on the article's talk page in March 2021, and the concerns have not been resolved. The original FAC nominator is deceased so I will not leave a notice on their talk page, and xtools says there are not other major contributors yet. Z1720 ( talk) 13:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
which claimed that women should not be taught to reason since they were formed for men's pleasure-- citation is mid-sentence, which I believe MOS disallows
Definitely needs some work. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC) [31].
I am nominating this featured article for review because Hog Farm brought up issues with updating and potential undue weight on Guthrie (I'd prefer an "in culture" prose section, if warranted by RS coverage). Another issue that I noticed is that while the article mentions displacement and compensation to Colville Indians, it doesn't say that these people were never even consulted before the dam was built. ( t · c) buidhe 04:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC) [32].
This 2006 promotion has not been maintained to standard, and its only main editor has been deceased for years. The main issues raised on talk are reliability and quality of sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply
<ref name="Scott">Bressart, Scott. ''Anarchy'', Alyson Publications, 2004, pages 251–255</ref>. When rendered, this displays as:
Bressart, Scott. Anarchy, Alyson Publications, 2004, pages 251–255. It's OK, we have a title, author name (which I'll come back to), publisher name, year, and page range. But we can do better! From the citation alone, we don't know if we're looking at a book, book review, research paper, or something else. Putting
"Anarchy" Scott Bressartinto Google only returns results for this page, or some derivatives of it (ie sites that scrape Wikipedia). We can gleam the missing information from the text of the article, but when we do so we discover that the citation is incorrect. Anarchy is a book, written by both James Robert Baker and Scott Bressart.
<ref>{{cite book |title=Anarchy |last1=Baker |first1=James Robert |last2=Bressart |first2=Scott |publisher=[[Alyson Books|Alyson Publications]] |isbn=9781555837433 |oclc=49297209 |pages=251-255 |year=2004}}</ref>. This then gets displayed as
Baker, James Robert; Bressart, Scott (2004). Anarchy. Alyson Publications. pp. 251-255. ISBN 9781555837433. OCLC 49297209. Now we're giving the reader of the article a lot more information about the citation. We've corrected the dual author issue, and we've given them the information (ISBN/OCLC identifiers) to easily find this book on WorldCat, their local library catalogue, or in a book shop.
|urlstatus=
parameter from live to dead, and then the reader will automatically be directed to the archived URL instead of the now dead URL. For example I've just checked whether citation 1 is a live or dead URL. It's a dead URL. At the moment, citation 1 renders as "Robertson's official Baker Website". October 18, 2006. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved December 8, 2006. If you click on the first link, you're sent to a blank page. However as soon as I change the urlstatus parameter, and adjust the retrieved date to today (because I've just checked it), it will render as
"Robertson's official Baker website". October 18, 2006. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved May 18, 2022.Now the first link is swapped for the archive version, and when the reader clicks on it they get to see the content that was being used to support the article text.
Citations for discussion
The following is a list of citations that require discussion to address some issues. Citation numbers are per this revision.
See Alsotext, as if it was previously part of a citation bundle. I/we need to do a quick search through the article history to find out if we have a missing source here. Note: dug through the history, discovered it was part of a citation bundle which previously included the review from 3AM Magazine, which is now citation 7.
That covers all the issues I ran into when doing the cleanup, and couldn't resolve at the time. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Rebelling against his parents, he became attracted to the fringe elements of society, including beatniks (anyone living as a bohemian, acting rebelliously, or appearing to advocate a revolution in manners), artists and gaysalongside citation 1. As far as I can tell, it's to support the description/definition of beatniks. Do we actually need a citation supporting the definition, or can we get away with just the wikilink?
By 2006, first editions of Adrenaline, Boy Wonder, Fuel-Injected Dreams and Tim and Pete had become collector's items and commanded high prices at rare book stores.alongside citation 24. While 24 does mention the price the author of the piece paid for Fuel-Injected Dreams, it does not remark upon whether or not that is considered a "high price". I think we may need to remove this sentence?
Though Tim and Pete was his most controversial work, Boy Wonder is generally considered his magnum opus, and remains his most popular book.Unfortunately this seems to be the opinion of a single reviewer and I'm not able to find any reliable sources that support this claim. I've also found at least one review on Amazon that says Fuel-Injected Dreams is Baker's magnum opus. As with citation 23, I'm fairly certain this is original research and as such I think we may need to remove this sentence? Unless you know of a source that ranks books by their popularity?
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous statements and paragraphs that are missing inline citations. Also, the "North American Palladianism" section contains many one-sentence paragraphs. Z1720 ( talk) 18:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Z1720 - We’ve moved from 38 citations (12 June) to 108 (and rising), and increased the number of book sources from 16 to 37. Every paragraph is now cited, I think! Where I couldn’t source a statement, e.g. Palladian adaptations to suit Northern European climates, I’ve removed it. I’ve also tried to standardise the referencing - although I may not of caught absolutely everything as I’ve been working with a referencing style that I’m not really comfortable with, far preferring {{sfn}}; added ISBNs/OCLCs, and split the footnotes from the references. While there’s certainly more that could be done, can you/the coordinators let me know if this is sufficient to take the article off the FAR list. Many thanks. KJP1 ( talk) 08:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC) reply
Resolved issues beginning 28 June moved to
Unresolved from the moved commentary is at
Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2#Carryovers.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
09:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
In
Irish Palladian architecture, this passage:
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'm done; ping me when you are ready for me to revisit, and we can then expedite this up to the other FARsters (Z1720, Buidhe, and Hog Farm). Only new comments are in this section, with some stragglers at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Palladian architecture/archive2. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:04, 11 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I am going to review this as if it was an FAC, although I will fix smaller concerns myself. Please note that I have no speciality in this area, so consider this a non-expert prose review. Anything that I think I can't fix, usually because I am unfamiliar with the topic, are listed below:
These are my comments. Please ping when these have been reviewed. Z1720 ( talk) 18:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I skimmed through the article again and didn't notice other prose concerns. Some of the sources don't have ISBN numbers, though a Google search finds one. Should these be added to the references? Z1720 ( talk) 15:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
KJP1 a new note from me: there are some items left over in the lead that are not contained in the body of the article. The lead must summarize the article, and some of the text that has been removed from the article is still in the lead, and uncited. Please revisit the entire lead: one sample is "This immense mansion outside London was one of the first, and among the most influential, of Campbell's Palladian designs." Not sure about the flowery wording here: "After the Stuart Restoration, the architectural landscape was dominated by the proponents of the more flamboyant English Baroque." So, a doublecheck that the lead is still in line with the body is needed. Another: "but its development was halted by the onset of the English Civil War" is not precisely what the body of the article says. Check flowery language in lead, eg, "to develop a new architectural style for the fledgling American Republic." I don't believe this is in the body, or cited, either: "while its inspirer is regularly cited as among the world’s most influential architects." SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC) reply
HF
I was about to question the CSHIHE source but am convinced by the defense of the source on the FAR talk. I think I'm at close without FARC, as none of these were really dealbreakers for me and its fairly obvious that minor improvements are going to continue even after the FAR closes. Hog Farm Talk 01:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Remaining KJP1, in trying to keep the lead in sync with the body, might we work further on the following?
Palladianism flourished briefly in England in the early 17th century, led by Inigo Jones, but its development was halted by the onset of the English Civil War.
The article says:
Those were all 1610s to 20-ish, correct? Then,
I'm sure you can find a more eloquent way to address this, and we need not hold up the FAR over it, but perhaps this can be fine tuned? The original word was "flowered", implying something that briefly blossomed but quickly died. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I’ve attempted to fine tune both the lead and the TFA blurb, to match the changes made to the article through what I think has been a very productive FAR. Thanks to all who contributed, and particularly to SandyGeorgia for her exceptionally detailed and helpful review. While there’s always something that can be further improved, I hope we’ve collectively done enough both to close out the FAR and allow for the article’s TFA appearance in August. And finally, thanks to User:Giano, who began the article and whose writings on architectural subjects have contributed so much to Wikipedia. KJP1 ( talk) 12:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC) reply
SandyGeorgia - Sandy, I think we’ve got you, User:Z1720, JohnBod, Ceoil, User:Hog Farm and me, if I’m allowed a vote!, favouring Close. Is there anything we can do to wrap it up? I’m conscious it’s due on the main page next month and it would be good to know it’s ready to go. All the best. KJP1 ( talk) 17:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [3].
Notifications
|
---|
|
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been over a decade since it was promoted and the article now has a number of issues. I am not sure it satisifes WP:FACR criteria 1.a,b,c,d, or 2,a,b. I have cleaned up a lot of the articles content, and the scope of the previous separate Chicxulub impactor article has been merged into this one, because there is not enought that can be said about the impactor to justify separation. One of the issues I have is that the energy values given for the impact are based on an unpublished preprint, and ideally should be replaced with a more reliable scholarly source. It's also not clear that the article comprehensively covers the recent literature. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC) reply
A more thorough review of the article:
I've addressed some of the complaints I've made. However, the extinction section remains a complete mess. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 22:37, 4 February 2022 (UTC) reply
@ Mikenorton and David Fuchs: I am taking a look, please review my edits.
Volcanoguy I have entered quite a few comments above, but the going gets rougher towards the bottom of the article. Might you be interested in helping to finish up some of this? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Astronomical origin of impactor
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Borehill drilling
Lead:
Where is this cited in the body of the article? "It is one of the largest confirmed impact structures on Earth, and the only one whose peak ring is intact and directly accessible for scientific research."
SandyGeorgia (
Talk)
05:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
Sourcing issue:
I thought the sourcing was done and checked here, or I would not have spent so much time on prose. Almost none of that sentence is verified by the text: now a more comprehensive check is warranted. I only discovered this because I was trying to check the spelling on Haciende, a word I have never seen in Spanish. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) reply
@ David Fuchs, Buidhe, Hog Farm, Z1720, and Wretchskull: I've done all the damage I can do, with Mikenorton and Hemiauchenia; ready for a fresh look. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I'll give some thoughts below. I have not read the above, nor have I been following this FAR, so I am sorry if my comments repeat what has already been stated. I will fix minor prose things as I read, and post below what I don't think I can resolve:
Overall, this is a well written article that, even though I am not science minded, I was able to follow. Great job everyone. Z1720 ( talk) 00:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
What is this?
It says it is a PBS Video, but it's linking to IMDb? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:39, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [5].
I am nominating this featured article for review because I have found a few "non-perfections" at the article, I talked about it at the talk page but got no replies and its been more than 10 days. Since I am not an astronomer and I am quite unfamiliar with these kind of topics, I can not fix them myself, so I ask the community to review the article (which overall, I found pretty good tbh) Cinadon 36 08:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC) reply
Update? @ Cinadon36 and XOR'easter: where does this stand? I see too many images with a mess of MOS:SANDWICHing, and lots of uncited text still. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 10:52, 28 March 2022 (UTC) reply
XOR'easter it's looking so much better. Back on the images issue, this section is dreadful. It has three images and a table, all conveying the same information (which I note is also covered in images throughout the article) in a way that creates a visual assault and a jamup of images over text. I can't figure out what to remove to improve the layout, but a table stuck below two huge images is ugh. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:19, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
There is a huge duplicate links issue: user:Evad37/duplinks-alt is helpful. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
What makes this guy reliable? http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/ SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Inconsistent author format ... some have first name last name, most have last name, first name. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC) reply
Praemonitus has been doing good work on this. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:12, 13 April 2022 (UTC) reply
I made the new Solar System infobox image and cleanup media layout in general for this FAR. I hope you found it satisfactory. CactiStaccingCrane ( talk) 10:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [8].
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [9].
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [10].
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has two unresolved sourcing issues (permanently dead link and uncited text) and weasel words that make an unsupported claim about the relationship between two living people. I fixed some issues with the article half a year ago, but these are the ones that I couldn't find any citations for. ArcticSeeress ( talk) 10:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC) [11].
This very old Featured article has considerable uncited text. Top editors are either relatively inactive, or blocked; one is blocked for disruptive editing, so edits should be checked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [12].
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Review of sources and citations by Vami
Reviewed version. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠ 11:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC) reply
To begin, I could not find,
These books do exist, but I think their use speaks to the age of this article. Just googling the poem allowed me to find it online.
For the second, "A Song for Simeon", Eliot turned to an event at the end of Nativity narrative in the Gospel of Luke., from pages 118 and 119.
[...] that Eliot was at his most brilliant in his prejudice.), and the article misquotes the book. It reads, "It is also suggested that Eliot is at his most brilliant when he incites prejudice", in the context (so it would seem) of ill-advised satire.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [13].
I am nominating this featured article for review because the "Article does not seem to be well-researched or comprehensive. There's too much reliance on news stories as opposed to scholarly sources or retrospectives such as the Benze biography." Another issue I noticed is POV issues such as "Although the bill was criticized", and where characterization of Just Say No program as ineffective is attributed to "critics" and not mentioned in the lead. However, the (in)effectiveness of the program has been empirically measured. This is a widely viewed article so I hope someone will step up to improve it. ( t · c) buidhe 04:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC) [14].
I am nominating this featured article for review because, to quote from the talk page, it's a long, well-written article with many citations, yes. It's also riddled with POV statements -- many unsourced -- as well as a lot of meandering to cover up the truth that there is just not a lot of fact out there about the subject, and double-checking, I've already found several statements unsupported by the cited sources (and have removed or corrected fifteen citations so far). Much of the article is a coatrack for her husband's political career. While her notability is not in question, I certainly question whether enough is known (as opposed to conjecture, innuendo and gossip) about Lady Rosebery to make this a genuine, viable FA article. Several editors, besides myself, have questioned whether the article meets current FA criteria (it was promoted in 2007), as the article's talk page demonstrates. Ravenswing 02:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
But if you'd like the specific examples of statements unsupported by the listed cites I've found just so far, [15] [16] [17] [18] Ravenswing 02:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Obviously, some t8me over the last few years, refs have been muddled, I’ve no idea why this [19] is listed at as 112 which is odd as it’s fully referenced to McKinstry page 211. If you want to check facts accurately, just look on the glossary at the back of the book, to find refs to Mrs Humphrey Ward. Giano (talk) 10:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC) reply
There is uncited text (I tagged some, but there is more) and an inconsistent citation style; I intended to clean up all citations, but cannot discern what style is intended, as there is a mix. A fascinating article, I hope someone with sources will work towards saving this FA; I will help with citation formatting if the article is cited and a style is established. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
For over thirty years following her death, he wandered in a political wilderness, directionless and exceedingly eccentric...– While the Biblical allusion is charming (if somewhat misplaced), Wikipedia doesn't talk of wilderness-wandering in its own voice -- unless of course someone did, in fact, literally wander in a literal wilderness. If there's an RS using that image in a striking way, quote it; otherwise, no.
Widowhood changed Rosebery, both mentally and physically: he aged overnight– People don't actually age overnight, so (again) it's startling to see an article saying this in its own voice. As before, if e.g. a sympathetic friend said that he seemed to age overnight, then we should attribute that characterization to that friend.
Rosebery seems to have disliked his first son, who he claimed looked "Jewish." On seeing his son for the first time he remarked Le Jew est fait, rien ne vas plus, which must have been disconcerting for the child's Jewish mother.– A severe case of WP:ELEVAR. Given that this is the article on the child's Jewish mother (that is, Hannah -- and I believe by this point the reader has picked up that she was Jewish), why in the world can't it just say
...which must have been disconcerting for Hannah, or (come to think of it) just leave the whole "must have been disconcerting" bit out, since readers would have to be especially dense not to get that on their own.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 8:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [20].
This featured article review is one of six procedural nominations, as considerable issues have been found in other Featured articles by the same nominator. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. The original nominator is blocked. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. In the case of this article, as noted on talk on 2 July 2022, there are source-to-text integrity issues found in this article, similar to other FAs by the same nominator. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:54, 3 July 2022 (UTC) reply
Inspection of sources and citations by Vami Reviewed version.
In 1864 the State of New Jersey named Rutgers College as their sole land grant college.is not substantiated by this citation.
Cook was appointed state geologist in 1864 and later became the college's vice president.is not substantiated (though p. 88 does say he was "For some years [Cook] had been carrying on the work of State Geologist under the sponsorship of the New Jersey Agricultural Society [...]."), nor is
With the college's land grant status and new funding for scientific studies, Cook expanded his research and teaching into geology and agriculture.
(in addition to Schanck Observatory); no mention whatever is made of any observatory on this page.
[...] and his grandfather, Rev. Jacob Janeway served as vice president of the college and had turned down the post of president in 1840.
From here on, I have no further comment. Some very large holes have already been blown in #Rutgers Geology Museum by comparison of the text to its nominal sources. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 08:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 8:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [21].
Discussions on the talk page have noted signficant content issues including datedness; work has occurred but a fair bit still needs to be done and it's been stalled for some time. Its sad to see another one of our preciously few medical FA in this condition. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 8:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [22].
This 2004 FA (last reviewed in 2006) has considerable uncited text (only some of which is tagged), missing as of dates, a listy lead, and some content that may be dated based on old sources used. Per the abundance of the use of the word today, a MOS:CURRENT review is also in order. The word also is often redundant, and often is here; there are other indications that a good copyedit is overdue, such as faulty punctuation throughout. Along with MOS:SANDWICHing, images should not be left-aligned when that offsets a list. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 8:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC) [23].
Right now, there is too much weight placed on Waters' political views and activism, while the high quality RS focus more on his musical output. There's a lot of proseline issues where individual incidents are mentioned without enough connection, and excessive weight to reactions to Waters' stances/actions where it would be better to let the reader decide. The article needs a substantial cleanup/rewrite as was done at the JKR article. Unfortunately, my efforts to clean up some of these issues were reverted. ( t · c) buidhe 03:08, 14 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Move to FARC issues haven't been addressed ( t · c) buidhe 17:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [24].
No improvement or response so here we are ( t · c) buidhe 03:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC) replyThe lead does not meet MOS:LEAD and there are sourcing issues. I'm not convinced that news articles from the 1930s are high-quality reliable sources when there are a ton of scholarly sources out there. Article can't be considered well-researched given that it doesn't incorporate the new 2019 scholarly biography by Shirley Jennifer Lim.
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [25].
I am nominating this featured article for review because, as buidhe noted, there are several paragraphs and sections that are uncited. One source has also been questioned for its inclusion. Z1720 ( talk) 14:51, 7 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [26].
As noted by Indy beetle, this older (2006 promotion) featured article needs a bit of work to get back to up standard. There's a bit of uncited text, and I'm concerned that a few spots may represent original research, such as "The choice of de Castries as the local commander at Điện Biên Phủ was, in retrospect, a bad one." being cited to a contemporary newspaper account. This should be fixable, but it will need some work. Hog Farm Talk 18:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [27].
I am nominating this featured article for review because those issues that Hog Farm brought were still not addressed yet. Notes: "Looking at this as part of the ongoing sweeps of older FAs, and I'm seeing some issues here. The material about going missing is uncited/failed verification and should definitely be cited per WP:BLP as possibly controversial. I'm not even sure if it truly warrants a mention. Wrestling-titles is listed at WP:PW/RS as "unproven", does this source meet the high-quality RS requirement for FA? Wrestlingfigs.com is cited at one point (publisher not in citation, its the "Here is a statement from Bobby Eaton" source. Is this RS? Is Solie's Vintage Wrestling RS? Kayfabe Memories does not look like RS, and is listed as unreliable at PW/RS. There is a self-published book cited (the CreateSpace one, CS is a self-publisher). It appears that Archeus Communications has only published books by Gary Will and I can find basically nothing about it online, which makes me wonder if there's really much editorial oversight going on with that source. A number of the book sources also lack page numbers, which is needed for verification. This needs significant work, and a featured article review may be necessary". There are also several unsourced statements. BloatedBun ( talk) 07:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I replaced the Kayfabe Memories sources. Most of it was replaced with PWInsider, which WP:PW lists as a reliable source. The specific author is Mike Johnson, who Bob Kapur of Slam Wrestling (a reliable source) calls "one of the most credible internet wrestling reporters in the world" ( [29]). GaryColemanFan ( talk) 06:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Haven't reviewed fully but there is a need to add citations, I have used cn templates to indicate where. starship .paint ( exalt) 08:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC) [30].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns about uncited text and original research. SandyGeorgia raised these issues on the article's talk page in March 2021, and the concerns have not been resolved. The original FAC nominator is deceased so I will not leave a notice on their talk page, and xtools says there are not other major contributors yet. Z1720 ( talk) 13:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply
which claimed that women should not be taught to reason since they were formed for men's pleasure-- citation is mid-sentence, which I believe MOS disallows
Definitely needs some work. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 01:09, 11 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:24, 2 July 2022 (UTC) [31].
I am nominating this featured article for review because Hog Farm brought up issues with updating and potential undue weight on Guthrie (I'd prefer an "in culture" prose section, if warranted by RS coverage). Another issue that I noticed is that while the article mentions displacement and compensation to Colville Indians, it doesn't say that these people were never even consulted before the dam was built. ( t · c) buidhe 04:01, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC) [32].
This 2006 promotion has not been maintained to standard, and its only main editor has been deceased for years. The main issues raised on talk are reliability and quality of sources. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC) reply
<ref name="Scott">Bressart, Scott. ''Anarchy'', Alyson Publications, 2004, pages 251–255</ref>. When rendered, this displays as:
Bressart, Scott. Anarchy, Alyson Publications, 2004, pages 251–255. It's OK, we have a title, author name (which I'll come back to), publisher name, year, and page range. But we can do better! From the citation alone, we don't know if we're looking at a book, book review, research paper, or something else. Putting
"Anarchy" Scott Bressartinto Google only returns results for this page, or some derivatives of it (ie sites that scrape Wikipedia). We can gleam the missing information from the text of the article, but when we do so we discover that the citation is incorrect. Anarchy is a book, written by both James Robert Baker and Scott Bressart.
<ref>{{cite book |title=Anarchy |last1=Baker |first1=James Robert |last2=Bressart |first2=Scott |publisher=[[Alyson Books|Alyson Publications]] |isbn=9781555837433 |oclc=49297209 |pages=251-255 |year=2004}}</ref>. This then gets displayed as
Baker, James Robert; Bressart, Scott (2004). Anarchy. Alyson Publications. pp. 251-255. ISBN 9781555837433. OCLC 49297209. Now we're giving the reader of the article a lot more information about the citation. We've corrected the dual author issue, and we've given them the information (ISBN/OCLC identifiers) to easily find this book on WorldCat, their local library catalogue, or in a book shop.
|urlstatus=
parameter from live to dead, and then the reader will automatically be directed to the archived URL instead of the now dead URL. For example I've just checked whether citation 1 is a live or dead URL. It's a dead URL. At the moment, citation 1 renders as "Robertson's official Baker Website". October 18, 2006. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved December 8, 2006. If you click on the first link, you're sent to a blank page. However as soon as I change the urlstatus parameter, and adjust the retrieved date to today (because I've just checked it), it will render as
"Robertson's official Baker website". October 18, 2006. Archived from the original on June 12, 2018. Retrieved May 18, 2022.Now the first link is swapped for the archive version, and when the reader clicks on it they get to see the content that was being used to support the article text.
Citations for discussion
The following is a list of citations that require discussion to address some issues. Citation numbers are per this revision.
See Alsotext, as if it was previously part of a citation bundle. I/we need to do a quick search through the article history to find out if we have a missing source here. Note: dug through the history, discovered it was part of a citation bundle which previously included the review from 3AM Magazine, which is now citation 7.
That covers all the issues I ran into when doing the cleanup, and couldn't resolve at the time. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Rebelling against his parents, he became attracted to the fringe elements of society, including beatniks (anyone living as a bohemian, acting rebelliously, or appearing to advocate a revolution in manners), artists and gaysalongside citation 1. As far as I can tell, it's to support the description/definition of beatniks. Do we actually need a citation supporting the definition, or can we get away with just the wikilink?
By 2006, first editions of Adrenaline, Boy Wonder, Fuel-Injected Dreams and Tim and Pete had become collector's items and commanded high prices at rare book stores.alongside citation 24. While 24 does mention the price the author of the piece paid for Fuel-Injected Dreams, it does not remark upon whether or not that is considered a "high price". I think we may need to remove this sentence?
Though Tim and Pete was his most controversial work, Boy Wonder is generally considered his magnum opus, and remains his most popular book.Unfortunately this seems to be the opinion of a single reviewer and I'm not able to find any reliable sources that support this claim. I've also found at least one review on Amazon that says Fuel-Injected Dreams is Baker's magnum opus. As with citation 23, I'm fairly certain this is original research and as such I think we may need to remove this sentence? Unless you know of a source that ranks books by their popularity?