The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of its many problems. I've looked through the majority of "citation needed" tags - there are 40 of them now, and it seems that a LOT of work is needed here. Some sections are good enough, but some (probably added after the FA nomination?) are in a great need of copyedit and sources (f.e. "21st century", "Geophysical definitions", "Mythology and naming", "Formation"). Section "Solar System" has 10 'cn', though it's mostly a list of planets with one-sentence intro of planet types. "Exoplanets" needs a rewrite and good sources. "Physical characteristics" has a "needs expansion" template. I never wrote a FA, but this one clearly fails even milder GA standards. Artem.G ( talk) 11:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply
There appears to be a bunch of quotations in the subsection about the 2006 IAU definition of a planet that make the section look choppy, maybe we could try reducing it? Blue Jay ( talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I haven't even started looking at reliability of sources, article organization, or prose. It is troubling that the Astronomy project has not kept any of its FAs up to snuff, and seems to expect XOR'easter to fix up every one of them. If I Were Queen of the Wiki, I'd MOVE TO FARC, and we'd speedily delist the lot, and save XOR's talents for other work. I suggest the Astronomy project should get kicking; years of decline are insufficient excuse for why so few should have to work so hard to bail all of these out. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I can't decipher why two blockquotes (but not others) are displaying in tiny font from an iPhone (but not iPad): the definition of Planet quote and the quote about "substellar-mass body" in the Geophysical definitions section.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 18:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
I'll take a look through this article over the next couple days, and probably make tweaks as I go along. Ovinus ( talk) 21:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I looked through the article from top to bottom; thanks to many editors, and especially XOR, I think the article satisfies FA standards. As a nominator of this FAR, I think it should be closed, and article should stay FA. Artem.G ( talk) 09:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I added the dwarf planets and moons to the "Planetary attributes" table. Also threw together a short section on planetary symbols, since previously we mentioned them in the context of changing attitudes towards the asteroids but never said what they were. Double sharp ( talk) 09:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
This one's looking a lot better: any chance of getting page numbers to help with verification for some of the longer sources, such as :
Also some citation formatting issues:
Concerns about the reliability of a few sources: " "earth in Greek | English-Greek translation | YourDictionary". www.yourdictionary.one. Retrieved 13 May 2022." is this really high-quality RS?
Sourcing has improved since SandyGeorgia's look-through, but I still have a few concerns. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply
By the way, both Artem.G and Ovinus have declrations above that look like Close without FARC declarations; if that is the intent, such declarations should be stated and bolded for clarity (for the Coords). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply
I added bits to Planet#Mythology and naming to explain how the non-European traditions listed deal with the modern planets. I would've liked to do it for the Indian tradition as well – Hindi at least is listed by Wiktionary as having names for Uranus and Neptune – but I can't find good sources, probably because of a language barrier. (The Persian names of the planets are also quite interesting – from what I understand, there is a native set used in addition to a set borrowed from Arabic, but again, language barrier.) Double sharp ( talk) 08:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply
A few more comments:
This one's come a long way, and I think we're getting pretty close to being able to close this one. Hog Farm Talk 02:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC) [3].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of Hog Farm's concerns, raised some months ago. The issues are still present in the article. ( t · c) buidhe 03:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC) [5].
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has citations needed templates in the history section, expansion or restructuring of the demographics section is needed and there are sources listed that are not used as footnotes in the article. I would also like to evaluate the use of citations in the lede, some potential citation overkill, and the use of quotes in the references, but these are secondary matters. Z1720 ( talk) 02:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [6].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns raised by Hog Farm on the talk page 4 months ago, especially lack of inclusion of more recent and scholarly sources, while lower quality sources were used instead. ( t · c) buidhe 02:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [8].
Talk page concerns have not been met since I posted them in February. Transcluded from talk: This FA is incredibly dated and does not fulfil the FA criteria anymore.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wretchskull ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [9].
This 2008 promotion has a significant amount of uncited text that needs to be cleaned up to meet the featured article criteria. Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [10].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are some passages that need citations, and the "Media" section that is tagged as dubious. I also think the "Media" and "Attendance" sections should be expanded upon. Z1720 ( talk) 20:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [11].
I am nominating this featured article for review because several paragraphs are neither "verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" nor "supported by inline citations". Notifying the main contributors: @ Kwamikagami, Ecphora, Tempshill, Florian Blaschke, and Ejoty: A455bcd9 ( talk) 18:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply
A455bcd9 has notified various WikiProjects, so I have filled that information above, and put the link for the diff. Z1720 ( talk) 20:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Review by a455bcd9
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [12].
I stumbled upon the 2006 FA only because I noticed non-free samples, which I tagged as replaceable and then were shortly deleted. I just overlooked issues raised in December of last year, i.e. 2021, like insufficient footnotes/citations and insufficient coverage of modern/recent/contemporary scholarship or interpretation. Furthermore, most of the article discusses the lyrics, composition, and structure, and the impact–or rather Popularity–coverage seems to be more about how the song was received at the time of publication and less about how it has been received after the 19th century.
So far, since the issue was raised last year, there have been edits, but they (almost) haven't resolved or addressed the issues still present in the article. George Ho ( talk) 16:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The nominator of the original FAC has been retired since 2008. I notified at least Raul654 who promoted the article as FA in 2006 and DrKay who removed a portion of unsourced info last year. George Ho ( talk) 17:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [13].
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has numerous unsourced statements, grammatical errors, image stacking, needs alt text, lacks more recent
academic literature on vegetation recovery and updates to fire management.
Noah
Talk 15:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
reply
The first thing I started looking at was the uncited note 3 in the infobox (which is actually cited by source 2). In trying to fix that I see that:
That's the first thing I looked at, and is a contradiction. I simply do not have time, due to IRL issues, to go systematically through the whole thing to see if updates have been completed and to check for source-to-text integrity; without further intervention from MONGO, MOVE TO FARC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC) [16].
The most immediate problem here is the substantial amount of uncited text. Other concerns include prose issues (a lot of short, choppy sentences, for instance), long page ranges (e.g. "pp. 7–124") that make it very difficult to verify content, and lengthy lists that should be either removed or converted to prose. There hasn't been any engagement with the Jan. 2022 notice, so I'm bringing the article here for discussion. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC) [17].
This older featured article contains significant uncited text, and discussion on talk has raised concerns about the quality of some of the sources (more details there). Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [1].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of its many problems. I've looked through the majority of "citation needed" tags - there are 40 of them now, and it seems that a LOT of work is needed here. Some sections are good enough, but some (probably added after the FA nomination?) are in a great need of copyedit and sources (f.e. "21st century", "Geophysical definitions", "Mythology and naming", "Formation"). Section "Solar System" has 10 'cn', though it's mostly a list of planets with one-sentence intro of planet types. "Exoplanets" needs a rewrite and good sources. "Physical characteristics" has a "needs expansion" template. I never wrote a FA, but this one clearly fails even milder GA standards. Artem.G ( talk) 11:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC) reply
There appears to be a bunch of quotations in the subsection about the 2006 IAU definition of a planet that make the section look choppy, maybe we could try reducing it? Blue Jay ( talk) 09:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC) reply
I haven't even started looking at reliability of sources, article organization, or prose. It is troubling that the Astronomy project has not kept any of its FAs up to snuff, and seems to expect XOR'easter to fix up every one of them. If I Were Queen of the Wiki, I'd MOVE TO FARC, and we'd speedily delist the lot, and save XOR's talents for other work. I suggest the Astronomy project should get kicking; years of decline are insufficient excuse for why so few should have to work so hard to bail all of these out. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I can't decipher why two blockquotes (but not others) are displaying in tiny font from an iPhone (but not iPad): the definition of Planet quote and the quote about "substellar-mass body" in the Geophysical definitions section.
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 18:52, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
reply
I'll take a look through this article over the next couple days, and probably make tweaks as I go along. Ovinus ( talk) 21:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I looked through the article from top to bottom; thanks to many editors, and especially XOR, I think the article satisfies FA standards. As a nominator of this FAR, I think it should be closed, and article should stay FA. Artem.G ( talk) 09:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC) reply
I added the dwarf planets and moons to the "Planetary attributes" table. Also threw together a short section on planetary symbols, since previously we mentioned them in the context of changing attitudes towards the asteroids but never said what they were. Double sharp ( talk) 09:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC) reply
This one's looking a lot better: any chance of getting page numbers to help with verification for some of the longer sources, such as :
Also some citation formatting issues:
Concerns about the reliability of a few sources: " "earth in Greek | English-Greek translation | YourDictionary". www.yourdictionary.one. Retrieved 13 May 2022." is this really high-quality RS?
Sourcing has improved since SandyGeorgia's look-through, but I still have a few concerns. Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply
By the way, both Artem.G and Ovinus have declrations above that look like Close without FARC declarations; if that is the intent, such declarations should be stated and bolded for clarity (for the Coords). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:58, 10 August 2022 (UTC) reply
I added bits to Planet#Mythology and naming to explain how the non-European traditions listed deal with the modern planets. I would've liked to do it for the Indian tradition as well – Hindi at least is listed by Wiktionary as having names for Uranus and Neptune – but I can't find good sources, probably because of a language barrier. (The Persian names of the planets are also quite interesting – from what I understand, there is a native set used in addition to a set borrowed from Arabic, but again, language barrier.) Double sharp ( talk) 08:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC) reply
A few more comments:
This one's come a long way, and I think we're getting pretty close to being able to close this one. Hog Farm Talk 02:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC) [3].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of Hog Farm's concerns, raised some months ago. The issues are still present in the article. ( t · c) buidhe 03:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC) [5].
I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has citations needed templates in the history section, expansion or restructuring of the demographics section is needed and there are sources listed that are not used as footnotes in the article. I would also like to evaluate the use of citations in the lede, some potential citation overkill, and the use of quotes in the references, but these are secondary matters. Z1720 ( talk) 02:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:32, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [6].
I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns raised by Hog Farm on the talk page 4 months ago, especially lack of inclusion of more recent and scholarly sources, while lower quality sources were used instead. ( t · c) buidhe 02:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [8].
Talk page concerns have not been met since I posted them in February. Transcluded from talk: This FA is incredibly dated and does not fulfil the FA criteria anymore.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wretchskull ( talk • contribs) 11:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [9].
This 2008 promotion has a significant amount of uncited text that needs to be cleaned up to meet the featured article criteria. Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 15 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [10].
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are some passages that need citations, and the "Media" section that is tagged as dubious. I also think the "Media" and "Attendance" sections should be expanded upon. Z1720 ( talk) 20:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [11].
I am nominating this featured article for review because several paragraphs are neither "verifiable against high-quality reliable sources" nor "supported by inline citations". Notifying the main contributors: @ Kwamikagami, Ecphora, Tempshill, Florian Blaschke, and Ejoty: A455bcd9 ( talk) 18:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply
A455bcd9 has notified various WikiProjects, so I have filled that information above, and put the link for the diff. Z1720 ( talk) 20:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC) reply
Review by a455bcd9
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [12].
I stumbled upon the 2006 FA only because I noticed non-free samples, which I tagged as replaceable and then were shortly deleted. I just overlooked issues raised in December of last year, i.e. 2021, like insufficient footnotes/citations and insufficient coverage of modern/recent/contemporary scholarship or interpretation. Furthermore, most of the article discusses the lyrics, composition, and structure, and the impact–or rather Popularity–coverage seems to be more about how the song was received at the time of publication and less about how it has been received after the 19th century.
So far, since the issue was raised last year, there have been edits, but they (almost) haven't resolved or addressed the issues still present in the article. George Ho ( talk) 16:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The nominator of the original FAC has been retired since 2008. I notified at least Raul654 who promoted the article as FA in 2006 and DrKay who removed a portion of unsourced info last year. George Ho ( talk) 17:04, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 3:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC) [13].
I am nominating this featured article for review because it has numerous unsourced statements, grammatical errors, image stacking, needs alt text, lacks more recent
academic literature on vegetation recovery and updates to fire management.
Noah
Talk 15:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
reply
The first thing I started looking at was the uncited note 3 in the infobox (which is actually cited by source 2). In trying to fix that I see that:
That's the first thing I looked at, and is a contradiction. I simply do not have time, due to IRL issues, to go systematically through the whole thing to see if updates have been completed and to check for source-to-text integrity; without further intervention from MONGO, MOVE TO FARC. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC) [16].
The most immediate problem here is the substantial amount of uncited text. Other concerns include prose issues (a lot of short, choppy sentences, for instance), long page ranges (e.g. "pp. 7–124") that make it very difficult to verify content, and lengthy lists that should be either removed or converted to prose. There hasn't been any engagement with the Jan. 2022 notice, so I'm bringing the article here for discussion. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 06:29, 10 October 2022 (UTC) reply
The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot ( talk) 4:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC) [17].
This older featured article contains significant uncited text, and discussion on talk has raised concerns about the quality of some of the sources (more details there). Hog Farm Talk 01:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC) reply