The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot ( talk) 8:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because, as pointed out by Hog Farm in September, this article has large amounts of uncited text and a history section whose prose is disconnected. I agree with this assessment, and I would add that I think the lede needs to be expanded, its usage needs to be updated (as the last entry is from 2011) and a search for additional sources might be warranted. Z1720 ( talk) 00:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Hopefully this will help expand the article. Z1720 ( talk) 01:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Close without FARC: the initial nomination raised problems of sourcing and comprehensiveness; I can see no remnant of these problems in the article. Perhaps I would recommend one or two more sentences in the lead, but I do not believe that to be any more than a personal preference. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Needs attribution of opinions and citations. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Once these are closed, I think the article is probably decent enough to close the FAR as kept. I don't think this is our best featured article, but I'm not seeing anything that warrants delisting now that the unsourced content and attribution issues have been resolved. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot ( talk) 6:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [2].
Like what Hog Farm said. Just like Planet, this article also contains a lot of unsourced statements and is outdated. Nearly everything needs to be rewritten/expanded on other sections. BloatedBun ( talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
On 1 June 2020, astronomers reported...), and some paragraphs are uncited, but it looks in much better shape than Planet is or Solar System and Mars were. The uncited material looks like standard all-the-books-said-this stuff; it should be fairly easy to source and to update where necessary. Unfortunately, with FARs of Solar System, Mars, 90377 Sedna, and Planet all ongoing already, our astronomy community is going to get spread pretty thin. Can't be helped, I suppose. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
Comments by Praemonitus:
Comments by a455bc9:
I have attempted to help here, but I simply do not have time to try to edit around ridiculously long strings containing up to 100 first and last name parameters in a citation.
As much as I would like to help, the crazy referencing standard here is off-putting. (In medical content, we use vauthors and shorten to three authors et al). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Sample citation
|
---|
| title=The superluminous transient ASASSN-15lh as a tidal disruption event from a Kerr black hole |
When I'm in edit mode, I want to be able to easily see the year of the citation for evaluating text next to the source. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles. Wikipedia requires inline citations based on the content, not on the grammar and composition elements. Some articles (e.g., articles about controversial people) will require inline citations after nearly every sentence. Some sections (e.g., dense technical subjects) may even require more than one inline citation per sentence. Others may not require any inline citations at all.This is a technical article, but one with a fairly broad scope. Some parts will naturally have rapid-fire footnotes because they contain more details, while other parts will be more sweeping because they are more introductory/overview in nature. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
A small number of type Ia supernovae exhibit unusual features, such as non-standard luminosity or broadened light curves, and these are typically classified by referring to the earliest example showing similar features?) Identify them and we can fix them. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [6].
Procedural FAR per merger proposal of this article to Keith Miller. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Delist. Article has now been merged and redirected. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [7].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the detailed and actionable list of comments left on talk by David Fuchs. Concerns include prose, content/comprehensiveness, and organization (for example lack of MOS:LEAD compliance). ( t · c) buidhe 04:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [8].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues raised on the talk page, including lack of updating on post-2007 career. ( t · c) buidhe 04:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [9].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of missing citations and original research concerns. SandyGeorgia noted these concerns in 2021, but they are still present in the article when I checked in March. I also wonder if the Reception section can be updated with additional sources, especially more recent ones. Z1720 ( talk) 02:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [10].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns about the article being outdated. The history section ends at 1941, the economy section ends at 2008, the chart of gaining A-C in the Education section is from 2006, and the Demography section needs to change to reflect the 2021 census. The Geography section also has unsourced statements. Some of these issues were brought up in 2021, but still remain in the article. Z1720 ( talk) 02:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [11].
This 2007 Featured article was noticed on 2021-03-28 for sourcing issues, with no follow up to additional query in February 2022. There are also prose issues, which I will detail if someone intends to work on this. Some TLC is needed to bring this to FA standards. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [12].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns about the quality of the sources. Many references are to museum websites and news articles, while numerous books from high-quality publishers are listed in Further reading, unused as references in the article. Furthermore, a search on various databases produced several academic journals which could also replace the lower-quality sources currently used as references. No one responded to my talk page notice, so here we are. I am hoping that this can be ready for a TFA run on Moore's 150th birthday (July 30). Z1720 ( talk) 15:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [13].
Unfortunately, this very early FA needs some love and care. It looks like content throughout the article will need to be updated. While the article currently states "There are almost 60 species of mammals in the park,", the NPS park facts under wildlife lists today lists 67 species of mammals, and there are similar disagreements, such as 8 vs 9 species of conifers. Many of the animal population figures will also need updating. Extensive editing by editors unfamiliar with the featured article criteria seems to have damaged the article, as uncited text has accumulated and in several places where checked, the sources listed do not support all of the text they are backing up. Note: The #2 editor per Articlestats has not been informed, as their primary contribution is simply a giant bot run for referencing formatting and they do not normally edit in this topic area. Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Mike Cline last edited the article on February 17. Looking at this version:
Move to FARC, it has been months, the issues have not been addressed, and no one is actively working on the article. This is the cumulative diff since Mike Cline's last edit over two months ago. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [14].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the issues noted on the talk page notice, as well as some MOS:TIME issues I noticed myself. There have been no edits since the notice was placed early this year. ( t · c) buidhe 04:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot ( talk) 8:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because, as pointed out by Hog Farm in September, this article has large amounts of uncited text and a history section whose prose is disconnected. I agree with this assessment, and I would add that I think the lede needs to be expanded, its usage needs to be updated (as the last entry is from 2011) and a search for additional sources might be warranted. Z1720 ( talk) 00:40, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Hopefully this will help expand the article. Z1720 ( talk) 01:41, 7 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Close without FARC: the initial nomination raised problems of sourcing and comprehensiveness; I can see no remnant of these problems in the article. Perhaps I would recommend one or two more sentences in the lead, but I do not believe that to be any more than a personal preference. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 15:25, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Needs attribution of opinions and citations. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:29, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Once these are closed, I think the article is probably decent enough to close the FAR as kept. I don't think this is our best featured article, but I'm not seeing anything that warrants delisting now that the unsourced content and attribution issues have been resolved. Hog Farm Talk 02:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot ( talk) 6:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [2].
Like what Hog Farm said. Just like Planet, this article also contains a lot of unsourced statements and is outdated. Nearly everything needs to be rewritten/expanded on other sections. BloatedBun ( talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
On 1 June 2020, astronomers reported...), and some paragraphs are uncited, but it looks in much better shape than Planet is or Solar System and Mars were. The uncited material looks like standard all-the-books-said-this stuff; it should be fairly easy to source and to update where necessary. Unfortunately, with FARs of Solar System, Mars, 90377 Sedna, and Planet all ongoing already, our astronomy community is going to get spread pretty thin. Can't be helped, I suppose. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC) reply
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
17:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
18:48, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk}
20:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
reply
Comments by Praemonitus:
Comments by a455bc9:
I have attempted to help here, but I simply do not have time to try to edit around ridiculously long strings containing up to 100 first and last name parameters in a citation.
As much as I would like to help, the crazy referencing standard here is off-putting. (In medical content, we use vauthors and shorten to three authors et al). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Sample citation
|
---|
| title=The superluminous transient ASASSN-15lh as a tidal disruption event from a Kerr black hole |
When I'm in edit mode, I want to be able to easily see the year of the citation for evaluating text next to the source. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Wikipedia does not have a "one inline citation per sentence" or "one citation per paragraph" rule, even for featured articles. Wikipedia requires inline citations based on the content, not on the grammar and composition elements. Some articles (e.g., articles about controversial people) will require inline citations after nearly every sentence. Some sections (e.g., dense technical subjects) may even require more than one inline citation per sentence. Others may not require any inline citations at all.This is a technical article, but one with a fairly broad scope. Some parts will naturally have rapid-fire footnotes because they contain more details, while other parts will be more sweeping because they are more introductory/overview in nature. XOR'easter ( talk) 17:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
A small number of type Ia supernovae exhibit unusual features, such as non-standard luminosity or broadened light curves, and these are typically classified by referring to the earliest example showing similar features?) Identify them and we can fix them. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [6].
Procedural FAR per merger proposal of this article to Keith Miller. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC) reply
Delist. Article has now been merged and redirected. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:45, 24 June 2023 (UTC) [7].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the detailed and actionable list of comments left on talk by David Fuchs. Concerns include prose, content/comprehensiveness, and organization (for example lack of MOS:LEAD compliance). ( t · c) buidhe 04:03, 27 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [8].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of issues raised on the talk page, including lack of updating on post-2007 career. ( t · c) buidhe 04:11, 20 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:59, 17 June 2023 (UTC) [9].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of missing citations and original research concerns. SandyGeorgia noted these concerns in 2021, but they are still present in the article when I checked in March. I also wonder if the Reception section can be updated with additional sources, especially more recent ones. Z1720 ( talk) 02:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [10].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are concerns about the article being outdated. The history section ends at 1941, the economy section ends at 2008, the chart of gaining A-C in the Education section is from 2006, and the Demography section needs to change to reflect the 2021 census. The Geography section also has unsourced statements. Some of these issues were brought up in 2021, but still remain in the article. Z1720 ( talk) 02:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [11].
This 2007 Featured article was noticed on 2021-03-28 for sourcing issues, with no follow up to additional query in February 2022. There are also prose issues, which I will detail if someone intends to work on this. Some TLC is needed to bring this to FA standards. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:12, 6 May 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [12].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns about the quality of the sources. Many references are to museum websites and news articles, while numerous books from high-quality publishers are listed in Further reading, unused as references in the article. Furthermore, a search on various databases produced several academic journals which could also replace the lower-quality sources currently used as references. No one responded to my talk page notice, so here we are. I am hoping that this can be ready for a TFA run on Moore's 150th birthday (July 30). Z1720 ( talk) 15:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:50, 10 June 2023 (UTC) [13].
Unfortunately, this very early FA needs some love and care. It looks like content throughout the article will need to be updated. While the article currently states "There are almost 60 species of mammals in the park,", the NPS park facts under wildlife lists today lists 67 species of mammals, and there are similar disagreements, such as 8 vs 9 species of conifers. Many of the animal population figures will also need updating. Extensive editing by editors unfamiliar with the featured article criteria seems to have damaged the article, as uncited text has accumulated and in several places where checked, the sources listed do not support all of the text they are backing up. Note: The #2 editor per Articlestats has not been informed, as their primary contribution is simply a giant bot run for referencing formatting and they do not normally edit in this topic area. Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC) reply
Mike Cline last edited the article on February 17. Looking at this version:
Move to FARC, it has been months, the issues have not been addressed, and no one is actively working on the article. This is the cumulative diff since Mike Cline's last edit over two months ago. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 07:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC) [14].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the issues noted on the talk page notice, as well as some MOS:TIME issues I noticed myself. There have been no edits since the notice was placed early this year. ( t · c) buidhe 04:10, 30 April 2023 (UTC) reply