Wikipedia:Featured article review

Reviewing featured articles This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute. 1. Raise issues at the article's talk page In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers two to three weeks to respond to concerns before nominating the article for Featured article review. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given, and removed from there once posted here). 2. Featured article review (FAR) In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed. The featured article review coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage. 3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC) An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies. Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed. The featured article review coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly. The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list. To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere. Urgent reviews are listed here. Older reviews are stored in the archive. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured topics Featured article candidates (FAC): Featured article criteria Featured article log Featured article statistics Featured article review (FAR): Archived FARs Former featured articles Unreviewed featured articles/2020 Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue About Today's featured article Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Script to track TFA recent changes Featured article tools: Mentoring for FAC Nominators of featured articles promoted Recent changes to featured articles Random featured article

Nominating an article for FAR The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows: No more than one nomination per week by the same nominator. No more than five nominations by the same nominator on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator. Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article over at least a two-week period. Articles in this step are not listed on this page. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes". From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes". Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes". Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name); note that the template does not automatically create the talkpage section header. Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The Notified:message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified and include a link with the date of the pre-notification given on article talk.

Featured article reviews

Bæddel and bædling

Notified: JnpoJuwan, Queen of Hearts , UndercoverClassicist, Ælfgar, Asarlaí, WikiProject Linguistics, WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies

A number of editors have raised various concerns with this article and suggested that its FA status is inappropriate. This has led to repeated back and forth debates on the talk page over a variety of elements (hinging on whether the article is overrepresenting queer sociological sources, underrepresenting linguistic sources, and if it accurately summarizes the positions of some linguists and the OED), with the page itself in a sort of stalemate due to a lack of consensus either way. As the original creator of the article, I'd rather this get reevaluated for FA status in light of these concerns rather than contribute to a whole lot of wasted editor time on the prolonged debate. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:50, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

• I'm not very comfortable with "voting" to deslist something, but I have to say that I do not at all understand why Bloodofox's additions to the article were removed. I also agree with several editors on the talk page that some of this seems like an attempt by a few writers to reinterpet what was probably just insults (slurs) towards effeminate males ("not real men") into something resembling modern gender identities.★Trekker (talk) 22:48, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, StarTrekker. Historical linguist Anthony Liberman says the terms meant hermaphrodite (which is apparently offensive now and people use "intersex"), which I would say supports the "sex" aspect. The article prominently includes this view (as the first definition in the lead and main body). The hypothesis about the connection to gender are supported by 5 scholars. Would you support escalating the dispute—e.g., an RFC regarding whether the 5 sources stating this are biased activist sources to excise them; or a DRN case? I hope you understand my perspective, which is essentially that there are strong opinions on both sides causing a stalemate, and that escalating could be the best (or only?) way to get consensus. (If the concern is that a cabal of editors is blocking an editor from making improvements, I believe this belongs at ANI, but as this is FAR I want to focus on content here.) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I'd suggest that any escalating should be done by an editor who feels that there is a problem with the current composition of the article, as the first step would be to make the case that this is so. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 08:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC) (In light of edits to the above, this is no longer relevant) UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 09:03, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I understand that. If StarTrekker agrees that the sources are biased, for example, then I wanted to suggest what remedies I believe can move that discussion forward (RFC, DRN). StarTrekker said they don't like voting for de-listing, and (to further that) I don't feel de-listing resolves the dispute. People will still disagree even if there is no star on the article. RFC, DRN, RSN or ANI offer some movement forward (in my view, FAR doesn't—you can't discuss fixing a problem if editors don't agree that there is one). I'm hoping to understand StarTrekker's concerns to inform what venue might be appropriate. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:48, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delist but a vote shouldn't be necessary: the fact that at least one core source was falsified should be enought for a delisting and thorough review. I have demonstrated that nobody did a proper source check before passing this. That alone is reason to delist it: that is simply unacceptable. Consider that both the editor who primarily wrote the article and the FA reviews who passed it along admitted they didn't have access to a crucial source for this article (contemporary OED of all things!) and yet, incredibly, went ahead and invented statements attributed to that source. (As an aside, although I've experienced significant and remarkable hostility associated with this page, I would have happily helped and provided any sources needed and gladly worked with these editors on what should be a pretty straightforward article even to get the article to FA.)

Additionally, as many have highlighted, right now the article intensely emphasizes a remarkable 'third gender' theory, including from at least one explicitly activist source (which promotes and embraces the theories of activist Leslie Feinberg and even berates scholars for not doing the same), over the works and comments of historical linguists, the actual experts on this historical linguistics topic. Look, the article doesn't even even touch on toponymy or any number of other core elements on this discussion — even from that perspective this just ain't an FA article.

In reality, historical linguists typically simply consider these words to be pejorative terms for cultural violations of conceptions of masculinity. In linguistics, the vast majority of discussion around these words has been around its likely etymological relation to the extremely common contemporary English word bad, which the article barely even touches on and when it does so, it does so in a blurry and seemingly confused manner. Most notably, many linguists consider these words to likely evidence an unattested precursor to modern English bad going back to at least West Germanic, as Liberman makes clear, but which you'd have a difficult time deducting from the article as it exists. :bloodofox: (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

• Delist in order to allow the necessary rewrite. Mistakes happen, although the lack of scrutiny in this instance was a serious failure of process. But once the issues were raised and referenced improvements were offered, and especially after several of us weighed in on the talk page bringing the problems to the authors' attention, the article should have been fixed promptly. It shouldn't have required this formal step, pending which readers are still being underinformed as well as misled by the balance issues. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

  @Yngvadottir: FAR is not a discussion on delisting; that is for FARC. This is the stage where issues with the article are addressed so it hopefully can avoid being sent to FARC to be potentially delisted. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:17, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• To me, this discussion seems very premature. I'll do my best to break down the concerns raised as I understand them, though I would like to be clear here that I'm transmitting them rather than endorsing them:
  • The article should include discussion of toponymy For context, during the recent edits, the following paragraph was added on the subject:

In addition to the Old English textual record, the word bæddel may occur in English place names. However, these place name elements may derive from an unattested personal name, *Bæddel, a pet form of the name Badda. The word bad is first attested in English surnames (compare Asketinus Baddecheese, 1203) [citation to the OED]

If that paragraph were proposed at FAC, I would advocate for its removal -- it doesn't seem to have the material to give the topic a real hearing. There are no examples, a vague "may" without attribution, and a "compare" statement in the editorial voice, against WP:EDITORIALISING. It's also cited to a single source, which is a dictionary, so hasn't really shown WP:DUEWEIGHT -- the OED is a tertiary source, and Wikipedia articles are expected to rely on secondary sources. However, as was pointed out in the edit summary that removed it, this would be a perfectly legitimate thing to discuss on the Talk page, or even to open an RFC for. I cannot however see how this paragraph could be considered make-or-break for the article's FA status.

• The article did not receive a full spot-check at FAC: this is not required or usual for articles beyond a nominator's first. It would be perfectly legitimate to say that it should be, but that's a discussion about the FAC process -- which would therefore be appropriate on the FAC talk page. As receiving a thorough spot-check isn't a requirement for promotion to FA, not having received one isn't grounds to delist. The "obvious" solution here would be for one of the editors asking for such a spot-check to do it themselves, and report back -- if concerns then arise, we can act on them.
• The article uses an "explicitly activist source". Bloodofox has used this description on the Talk page for Wade 2024 as cited, in the Routledge Handbook of Trans Literature. On the face of it, I would need a lot of persuading that an academic handbook in one of the Anglophone world's major academic publishers does not pass WP:HQRS. I cannot access the text myself, but if we're going to say that the source is "explicitly" activist rather than academic, what's the basis from within the work itself to say so? (EDIT: the source has been posted below and, assuming that this is the whole text, I at least can see none: it's perfectly normal for academics to endorse perspectives and paradigms from people outside their field, or outside academia, but I don't even see that Wade is doing so here.) Alternatively, are there reviews in sources of similar or higher quality which call it such? Even then, stepping several moves ahead, even if there were consensus that it is a biased source, WP:RS reminds us that reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. We would then be in a discussion as to whether the claims should be presented in Wikivoice or with attribution. We also have a whole noticeboard precisely for this kind of discussion.
• There are concerns about whether the sources cited support the claims to which they are matched. I really don't think moving to FAR based on the fact that there was a concern, that concern was fixed, and so there might be more is a sensible thing. For context, the concern was here, and the sentence The philologist Julius Zupitza theorised that the English word bad is derived from bæddel ... The OED Online and the 1989 second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary continue to support Zupitza's theory, with the latter dismissing alternative etymologies from Celtic words as "out of the question", while also suggesting a possible origin from bædan. The mistake was that these editions no longer mention Zupitza (though the first did, as correctly stated immediately above): the fix was The philologist Julius Zupitza theorised that the English word bad is derived from bæddel ... The OED Online and the 1989 second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary continue to state that bæddel is "perhaps related to" bad, with the latter dismissing alternative etymologies from Celtic words as "out of the question", while also suggesting a possible origin from bædan. The correction is welcome, of course, but I think we need to keep in perspective that this was a pretty small difference.

I may have missed a few, but it seems clear enough that all of these have straightforward, established procedures to address them -- by my count, an RFC, a post on RSN and a spot-check by an editor. I don't see that any evidence has been put forward that the article does not meet the FA standards, or good reason to believe that FARC is the right place to resolve any of these editors' concerns. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:01, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

This is just such a weird take. First, as anyone with even a drop of a background in English etymology knows, the OED is a core WP:RS for English language etymology. This is article is clearly an historical linguistics topic. Attempts at dismissing the OED's etymologie as off topic is a sign of an individual that really needs to become familiar with historical linguistics topics before editing on these topics.

This editor's "concern" was an explicitly falsified claim attributed to a source. There's no sugar coating it. And not just any source but one of the most important sources in the article, the etymologies of the OED. Meanwhile, the activist source—it is quite openly that—is focused on promoting, well, the works of an activist, Leslie Feinberg. Wade's article discusses the topic through a pro-Feinbergian lens while making a major claim that the words may refer to a 'third gender'.

Honestly, it is a real shame that what could be a quality article is being so fiercely blockaded by editors who a.) did not check the sources or work to fully cover the topic and especially b.) attack or dismiss those editors that bother to.

It's just not appropriate to treat an article as a battleground to defend rather than a resource for all that we all benefit from improving. :bloodofox: (talk) 09:05, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

FYI: I have a relevant academic background, although I don't think this matters much and I wouldn't brandish it like a dubious flag. Such things have been abused in the past (see Essjay controversy). I have some follow-up comments, queries, and suggestions for resolving this issue.

• Regarding the omission of toponymy (which UndercoverClassicist covers in their first bullet point above), you previously wrote on the Talk that Anyone with the slightest familiarity with this topic will encounter discussion of this important matter. Can you how demonstrate its importance to the topic with another source, or is the dictionary listing itself the case for inclusion?

• I can see a similar argument by SchroCat that several of your changes breached WP:INDISCRIMINATE, a description you rejected because "secondary sources do it" (Wikipedia is not a 2nd-party source) and suggested SchroCat wasn't appropriately qualified to provide a response to you (in my view, this is not an argument likely to generate consensus). SchroCat's objection is very similar to UndercoverClassicist's here—i.e., the justification for inclusion hasn't really been made.

• I was actually drawn to this topic by your statement that Wade 2024 was an activist source. I posted the full source for Carcharoth, and any others, to review.
• Rich Farmbrough responded that it's interesting that four glosses is seen as a paucity of evidence let alone suppression, considering the ubiquity of hapax legomena. Would you respond to that? Wade hasn't made up medieval translations—these glosses are by individuals from hundreds of years ago, approximating terms from language to language (in this case Old English to Latin). When it comes to scholars interpretations, they are attributed as such (i.e., the first sentence). What do you propose as an alternate first line?
• If you believe the Routledge Handbook entry in question is activist scholarship, would you consider making a neutral posting for WP:RSN about it? The last time you visited RSN for this article, you inquired about whether Liberman was allowed. The consensus was, of course, yes. We could do the same for Wade.
• If the problem is that these sources are framing the "order" of the article (including the first sentence), we could—as AirshipJungleman29 suggests—make an RFC arguing if this source and the other 6 making similar claims are appropriate to structure the article around?
• Wade provides the views of multiple other scholars who concur with him. Do you have any sources contradicting Wade's suggestion? Do you have any that outright reject the terms as relating to gender/sex/sexuality? While I adore the work of Dr Liberman, and have been in contact with him a few times over the past few weeks (for which I am grateful), nothing in Dr Liberman's posts on the origin of "bad" contradicts Wade's writing.

I hate BATTLEGROUNDING behaviour (e.g., I am fed up dealing with people removing basic sales information from Veilguard), but UndercoverClassicist has provided, in my view, a fairly persuasive counter-argument, not an entrenched battleground position. If you believe UC, Generalissima, or any others, are biased activist editors, would you consider going to WP:ANI? You could seek a topic ban from GA/FAC for misconduct. Or, personally speaking, if I shared your position, I wouldn't waste any time trying to convince them: I'd make my case at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, where a third-party can mediate. Or, as another option—as this appears to be a GENSEX contentious topic—you could even post a CTOP warning on their page and take them to WP:AE for editorial misconduct and negligence.

There are so many ways this dispute can be resolved, but I agree with AirshipJungleman29 that your current approach isn't working. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

As a follow-up thought. DRN really could work great here, but you could also make a series of edit requests for others to discuss? (I am not likely to weigh in, personally.) But others have suggested making proposals via the Talk page instead of insisting that you personally get to rewrite the article (when others disagree). It's not an unreasonable compromise. If the inevitable rejections come through, you'll have a stronger case to escalate than "I made 12 Talk threads". — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

First, you've written this response aimed at critiquing me personally. I find the comparison to the Essjay controversy outrageous, insulting, and beyond the pale. Please strike that and refactor your text: Seriously, are you here to improve the article or to attack an individual editor? A reminder: this is a linguistics topic. If editors are uncomfortable or ungrounded in linguistics, they're going to have a hard time.

Second, the paper you've provided an excerpt from explicitly demands that scholars embrace the theories of activist Leslie Feinberg, a non-medievalist, non-linguist, etc. Let's not get it twisted: it is without a doubt activist material. There is no question about that. The question is why it is so intensely emphasized over the works of historical linguists.

Third, your claims of an exchange with Liberman are completely irrelevant and unverifiable. And if you did talk with Liberman, it seems unethical to post claims he has made about other scholars here. Uncool.

Fourth, the "edit requests" (a reminder that nobody needs to request to edit an article, including featured articles) either get ignored or mass reverted by the approvers or primary editor. And I am really not interested anymore in going back and forth with the hostile approvers who decided it was OK to just rubber stamp the article without even checking the sources, yet make it a priority to defend the article from any additions, improvements, or adjustments.

Fifth, you're making the classic 'the approver committee must approve all edits here (so that they can be lawyered out existence)' argument. At this point I say: Let others discuss the matter. In my view, and in the view of several other editors on the talk page, the article clearly downplays linguistics (which should be the focus of the article) while intensely emphasizing a notion of a 'third gender' in the article. That's obvious. The article can and should be improved, not blockaded.

Sixth, seeing editors make excuses for not checking sources before passing something on to FA and then attacking those that come along, dig up, and actually check sources has been an eye-opening experience for me and causes me to question why I bother in the first place. I am sure plenty would feel the same. It's a toxic environment fostered by the primary contributor and approvers and leads to a negative impact on the project. It is not helping the article.

Finally, while you've so far fully embraced ('been persuaded by') UndercoverClassicist's endlessly wordy wall-of-text blockade (another way to keep people from touching the article), I say if you're actually interested in trying to improve the article and not just here to attack me personally for this or that, maybe go for it. Again, we're here to work on articles, not endlessly lawyer on talk pages to keep people from actually contributing to the project. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

With the fifth point, the fundamental thesis here seems to be that consensus against these changes doesn't count, since it consists in part of the editors who nominated it and reviewed it at FAC? Am I misunderstanding your point? Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 22:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The "consensus" you refer to is the FA approver-approved version. The article needs new eyes and ears beyond the FA approvers who revert just about any change to the FA version. It certainly benefits from a thorough review. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The article needs new eyes and ears beyond the FA approvers: as I count it, at least three people in this process have told you that this is a great idea, and pointed you towards the the processes to get those eyes and ears on it (propose edits for discussion before making them/after reversion, open an RFC, start a discussion at RSN, go to DRN). Why not try some of those? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 07:21, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The irony of you calling UC's response an "endlessly wordy wall-of-text blockade" is quite something, considering that both UC and IT are responding to your...how can I say this nicely... endlessly wordy wall-of-text blockades. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:43, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm allowed to respond to them. I haven't "blockaded" anything (all my edits to the article get immediateley reverted by the FA reviewers with a demand for their approval) and would have immediately caught the issues with this article were I part of the FA (like I did when I saw it). :bloodofox: (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

"I'm allowed to respond to them." Yes, and they're allowed to respond to your especially lengthy posts in equal amounts of detail. I'm sure if they didn't respond to one of your important points, you'd be upset that they were ignoring what you have to say. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry you feel my response was critiquing you personally; I bear gratitude and respect for your contributions on Norse mythology content—and strive to focus on the case and not contributors. As I said in my response, my goal was to provide follow-up comments, queries, and suggestions for resolving this dispute. If you feel I have failed, and attacked you, I encourage you to outline this at ANI or AE where I would defend myself—I won't waste precious space doing this at FAR. It is never reasonable for anyone to [go] back and forth with the hostile approvers, so I recommend dispute resolution as a structured venue for resolving issues of that nature. A single, well-written argument can completely shift the prevailing view of editors in those forums.

Regarding the paper, I suggested these be outlined at an RFC—this would move the dispute forward, not blockade. I simply disagree with your analysis. Erik Wade (who wrote the piece, not Leslie Feinberg) is an English Renaissance scholar. The Wade piece does not mention Feinberg: it mentions 6 medieval glosses for the 2 terms and 5 scholars' views. I requested any sources contradicting Wade's suggestion or any that outright reject the terms as relating to gender/sex/sexuality? Demonstrating that in your response to an RFC would be devastating to the case of other editors, change my mind on the article's balance, and make me support changes.

Regarding the article clearly downplays linguistics [...] while intensely emphasizing a notion of a 'third gender' in the article... The bit about "third gender" takes up 1 sentence in the lead (36/257 words). It comprises 15% of the "Analysis" subheading. In my view this does not constitute "intense emphasis"—it is simply a represented viewpoint from a HQRS. As a resolution, might I suggest DRN or an RFC? Likewise, aspects concerning sexual characteristics are supported by the historical linguist Liberman's Chapter 2 blog, which describes both as synonyms for "hermaphrodites"—if that isn't a non-normative sexual or gender category, I'm not sure what is.

Regarding your view that I am making the classic 'the approver committee must approve all edits here, I simply disagree. When others do not share your views (and there is essentially a stalemate), there are processes for escalation and acquiring new consensus. All articles are open for editing and all changes are subject to reversion if others disagree. If the dispute persists, there are many avenues for escalation. If your response doesn't consider whether ANI, DRN, AE, RSN or an RFC might be appropriate, I have little further to add but I thank you for reading — ImaginesTigers (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

If being unbiased isn't a request for reliable sources how does Wikipedia avoid bias then, or does Wikipedia openly admit to being biased itslef?★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:RS (and others) give the guidance here -- where sources present ideas which are clearly matters of judgement, we attribute.

This happens all the time in historical articles -- you might, for example, have a historian saying that the Battle of Stalingrad was the turning point of the Second World War, that life in medieval Europe was nasty, brutish and short, or that George Washington was the greatest American president. All of those may be important historical judgements, but none of them are verifiable or falsifiable in nature. In that case, we would write e.g. "The historian Clare Voyant has described life in medieval Europe as 'nasty, brutish and short'" -- the statement then becomes absolutely verifiable, since it is trivial to verify or falsify that Voyant actually did write that.

As to whether we should include Voyant's perspective, that's a matter of the prominence of Voyant's work in the relevant scholarship. There are plenty of FAs which deal with very controversial topics in this way -- BAE Systems is a good example where the issues are extremely emotive and the stakes relatively high. On another note, though: Wikipedia does admit to being unreliable! UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 14:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

• Abstained. I am not particularly knowledgeable in the subject topic and do not have any strong opinions on the course to take. Juwan (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Dwarf planet

Notified: Kwamikagami, Double sharp, Real4jyy, Serendipodous, WP Astronomy, noticed in August 2021

This 2008 promotion is one of the oldest notices remaining at WP:FARGIVEN. There are substantial amounts of uncited text an unresolved debate from April regarding the accuracy of a statement. This should be saveable, but as the concerns were originally raised nearly four years ago, here we go to FAR. Hog Farm _Talk 02:48, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment Just a note -- this shouldn't influence the outcome of the FAR, but what needs to happen if the article is demoted: Dwarf planet is a featured topic, and WP:NCASTRO explicitly relies on that fact (the guideline for whether or not an object should be considered a dwarf planet on Wikipedia depends on whether it is included in the featured topic). Compare the discussion here and here. Renerpho (talk) 03:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment #2 The notice in August 2021 resulted in a discussion with responses from 2021-2023, Talk:Dwarf planet/Archive 8#Featured article status. Quote from there (CMD, 21 December 2023): Significant work was put into this article following my comment above, much by Kwami. Better to raise/tag any individual issues with a fresh look, rather than going into FAR.

As for the recent unresolved accuracy debate, which was largely the work of Nrco0e and myself, I agree it's an issue, but that's not something we can solve on Wikipedia. What we can do is decide how to handle the unclear situation, and I'd be grateful for additional input on that. Renerpho (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think we can resolve it without violating WP:SYNTH. Serendi^podous 06:53, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

New Super Mario Bros.

Notified: Video Games WikiProject

While the 2009 FA New Super Mario Bros. has structure and sourcing, it does not yet meet 1b. It lacks a dedicated "Legacy" or "Impact" section (crucial given the game’s role in revitalizing the 2D platforming genre). The development section works but is shallow compared to those in other featured articles. The prose in the plot section isn't the most encyclopedic tone, and the critical reception section could benefit from more synthesis and retrospective perspective. FARC? 𝚈𝚘𝚟𝚝 (𝚝𝚊𝚕𝚔𝚟𝚝) 00:05, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Do you know of any sources that claim it revitalized 2D platforming, or of any sources missing on the development history? While more info is nice on either, it may not be possible. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:08, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I would agree that this claim it "revitalized 2D platforming" is fairly unclear. Furthermore this is also a driveby nom that failed to raise issues on the talk page for discussion and possible fixing first as per policy. A user noted "FAR concerns" 5 years ago, but there wasn't an attempt by the nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:10, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Baltimore Steam Packet Company

Notified: JGHowes, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Maryland, WikiProject Ships, WikiProject Transport, WikiProject Companies

As noted in April 2025 by RetiredDuke, this 2008 FA has many issues:

• Significant material is completely unsourced.
• Some paragraphs are sourced by only one citation, which sometimes does not verify the content. For example, very little of the first paragraph of the "1860s–1910s" section is verified by the cited source, Brown (1961), pp. 48–50.
• On the subject of Brown, it is a sixty-plus year-old source that is the primary source for the article. Another source used, the Carolina Work Boats Project is very likely unreliable by FA standards. RetiredDuke points out a number of other sources which could be used to diversify the sourcing and meet FA criterion 1c):
  • Prince, Richard E. - Seaboard Air Line Railway: Steam Boats, Locomotives, and History
  • Prince, Richard E. - Steam Locomotives and Boats: Southern Railway System
  • Keith, Robert C. - Baltimore Harbor: A Pictorial History
  • Dickon, Chris - Chesapeake Bay Steamers
  • Jones, Cary W. - Norfolk as a Business Centre. Its Principal Industries and Trades
  • Blume, Kenneth J. - Historical Dictionary of the U.S. Maritime Industry

Sadly, the original FA nominator has passed away; hopefully, other knowledgeable editors will step forward to improve it in his wake. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Jack Sheppard

Notified: ALoan, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject London, WikiProject United Kingdom 2023-02-02

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, and unaddressed concerns about prose clarity raised on the talk page. Z1720 (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Edward Teller

Notified: Fastfission [1], WikiProject Biography/Science and academia, [2]

I am nominating this 2006 featured article for review due to the issues that I raised over three weeks ago on the talk page, which have remained wholly unanswered. These include:

• A lead that is unbalanced and gives undue weight to certain aspects of his work, like the "Alarm Clock model bomb", and has potential NPOV issues like the messianic complex claim.
• A sometime excessive reliance on quotes, as in the 'Decision to drop the bombs' subsection (i.e. not summary style).
• Sources that simply aren't FA quality, like Collider or DailyTech, and other content remains unsourced.
• The sequence and division subsections seems sporadic, and not as well-organized as fellow physicist Leo Szilard's article for contrast.
• For instance, his "volatile personality" is highlighted in the lead. There could be a 'Personality' section (like on John Ford's article) that might more cohesively integrate material like the Fonda heart attack allegation in the "Three Mile Island" section. Further, all nuclear research could be integrated under a single section? And so on. There are obvious undue weight issues when elevating something to its own section as well.
• The prose is simply lacking in many places.

Teller is an interesting subject, and I would like to polish this subject but simply do not have the time to do him justice. ~ HAL333 22:06, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Meteorological history of Hurricane Jeanne

Notified: Hurricanehink, WikiProject Weather

As noted in December 2021 by Hurricane Noah, this 2008 FA does not use a significant amount of coverage in scholarly literature. This is especially a problem in an article overwhelmingly reliant on articles from one agency. Noah also noted several instances of inconsistent reference formatting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

BioShock

Notified: WP:VG, User:Masem, User:AI83tito

Pre-FAR comments here and here. The article definitely needs a rewrite given the 10+ years since its promotion and the legacy of the game in the landscape. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 22:08, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Not saying I'm going to try to save this article, just gonna poke around, do some cleanup, and maybe I'll give it a serious go. Side note, I could have sworn the video game project advised only including 10 reviews in the review table. Not a rule per say but just advice for editors. As it stands there are 12 reviews in the table (although the TouchArcade review should really go in it's own section regarding the iOS release). Famous Hobo (talk) 05:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Edward Low

Notified: Fish and karate, TheLastBrunnenG, Maralia, WP Bio, WP MILHIST, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Piracy, noticed 2025-04-17

As I noted on the article's talk page, I do not believe that a lot of the sourcing in this early (2007) FA promotion meets the current standards. Hog Farm _Talk 01:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Having made Stede Bonnet a little healthier a while back, I'd like to have a swing here as well, but I do note that the sourcing here appears to be far worse. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Just cleaned up some of the Further Reading entries. As far as the References, many of them are appropriate and reliable, generally historically accurate. But there are plenty that need to be sourced elsewhere, mainly the older websites: Chronofus, PortCities, ThePirateKing, PiratesInfo, etc. Some of the references to Ellms, Pyle, etc. also need to go, as they're just repeating text from Johnson's General History of the Pirates, which is itself historically important but not entirely reliable. TheLastBrunnenG (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

West Wycombe Park

Notified: Giano, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Museums, WikiProject Buckinghamshire, WikiProject Historic sites

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns brought up on the article's talk page in January 2023, which I feel haven't been addressed. These include (copied from the talk page):

• The article extensively uses a source called "Dashwood" who is a relative and not wp:independent of the subject
• The History is split into three different parts, some in the Ethos section, then the Dashwoods section, then post 1943. This is highly confusing.
• The history isn't adequately summarising the article, too much info is lacking about National Trust, the Dashwoods and there is nothing about the slave trade
• There is an unencyclopedic tone in the Dashwoods of Wycombe section
• Dozens of high profile films have been shot at the house, the article doesn't mention any of them, instead it gives a link List of films shot at West Wycombe Park: these need discussing
• There are nine historic garden structures at the house that have been left out of the article and instead put in a list at List of garden structures at West Wycombe Park - these need including.
• Small article size ~ 35kb for a house with a lot of history.

In addition, I am concerned with too much detail in the "Dashwoods of West Wycombe" section, and just a general disorganization of the history of the house, with information scattered in many different sections and not presented chronologically. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

• Move to FARC: No edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Augustus

Notified: PericlesofAthens, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Ancient Near East, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Rome, Vital articles/Level/3

As noted in August 2023 by UndercoverClassicist, this 2007 FA contains significant sourcing issues:

• Heavy overuse of one source (Eck & Takács 2003)
• Use of dated secondary sources, some of which are nearing a century old
• Uncritical use of ancient primary sources as citations.
• Underuse of high-quality modern sources, some of which lie unused in the "Further reading" section
• Not enough detail on legacy and assessment in post-classical politics.

These problems call into question the article's adherence to FA criteria 1b), 1c), and 1d). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Ifly6, who was in that conversation (and will probably have a valuable view on the sourcing), but I'm probably not going to have the time to take them up on their offer a proper collaboration at the moment, if indeed it still stands. Scanning back over the article quickly, I think what I wrote in 2023 is still true. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:45, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging @Carlstak and T8612:, who were in the discussion as well. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 10:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Hello! As the editor who initially wrote and submitted this article as a FAC back in 2007, it behooves me 18 years later to now safeguard my little legacy here at Wikipedia. This review comes as no surprise, of course, considering how the article was never that stellar to begin with and further edits over time have diminished its quality even further (for the record I was not the one to add the smattering of primary sources cited in the article). I wrote this article when I was a 21-year-old in college with nothing better to do. I am now a middle aged man with a demanding full time job and an absurd amount of social commitments this spring. Please allow me a proper amount of time to address all of these concerns (at least a couple months). I have begun an earnest effort to address them by using up my break time at work (when I could be exercising instead, LOL) to cite Roller (2010) as a buttressing source for Eck & Takacs (2003). The latter is admittedly overused, but I don't see a need to remove any citations from that source if we can simply buttress it instead with multiple layers of verification via other cited secondary sources. Roller is certainly useful as an academic source for the bits about Cleopatra and Antony; I plan on adding other sources in the coming weeks. Unfortunately I do not have time tonight or even tomorrow night to continue work on this given my social commitments, but hopefully I can continue working on this by Thursday night and maybe, if I'm very lucky to have any free time and not utterly exhausted, on Sunday afternoon as well. I simply do not have ample time to do all of the work that is truly needed. I'm going to have to call on you and others to please aid me in my efforts to research secondary sources and add citations where they are most needed. Also, @AirshipJungleman29, if you could clarify exactly what you mean by "not enough detail on legacy and assessment in post-classical politics," I could begin to address that, but I'm not sure which details are missing in your estimation. Kind regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:05, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Just noting here that I will be busy all day today, but will make a concerted effort tomorrow (Sunday, April 26th) to read through Bringmann (2007), which I own, and continue citing that source in the article. I will also continue consulting Roller (2010) and adding citations from that source. If anyone has suggestions for easily accessible sources found online (via Google Books, for instance), that would be highly appreciated. I don't have a lot of time to drive down to the nearest university library and spend a day there finding suitable sources, reading them, taking notes, and then citing them here in the article. I'd rather avoid all of that just to salvage my old Featured article, but I will do what is necessary. Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:03, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've made some small but noteworthy improvements already by using Bringmann (2007), but it's a real headache to clean up the sloppiness of other editors, especially in the "Name" section of the article that was created after my successful Featured Article candidacy of 2007. Too many cooks spoil the broth, so to speak! For instance, someone cited Goldsworthy (2014) without bothering to let us know which page number they consulted, and this particular citation was used to buttress a primary source citation for Suetonius. Ugh! There are a lot of weeds to untangle here, but I hope everyone will please be patient as I try to use what little spare time I have in the coming two months to address these problems. I have asked another Wiki editor who I've collaborated with in the past for help on this, but unfortunately this is out of their depth. @UndercoverClassicist Do you happen to have direct access to high quality recently published reliable sources on Augustus? I have a few books about ancient Rome lying around at home (like the aforementioned one by Bringmann), but I cannot use them for verifying everything. Any help would be greatly appreciated! I could use a helping hand right about now, because this whole thing is starting to give me a migraine, I'm sleep deprived as it is, and it's really starting to stress me out. I'm not looking forward to seeing one of my FAs lose its status only because I no longer have the adequate spare time in my busy life to work on articles here. Thanks for any help in advance and any life preservers thrown my way! Also pinging User:Johnbod for help on this, out of sheer desperation (sorry to drag you into this mess, old friend, not sure who else to contact at this point since I rarely frequent Wikipedia anymore). Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 03:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Got to make this one brief, I'm afraid:

• As a first step, I'd look to promote Zanker and the two Galinsky books from the Further Reading.
• The Cambridge Companion gets a couple of cites: have we used that fully?
• Wallace-Hadrill's Augustan Rome isn't that recent, but has a recent-ish 2nd edition (2018).
• This one from 2010 is brief, but I suspect will have good bibliography.
• This one (Hekster) is specifically about image, but I had it presented to me at a recent-ish conference as the "next word" from Galinsky, Zanker et al.

I might be able to track down stuff that isn't available on IA and TWL if it would help. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 06:51, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting these as important sources, but do you have access to these books? I have access like anyone else to resources made available on Google Books, but I'm not buying things on Amazon simply to improve a Wikipedia article (I'll see if Google Books contains snippets of these, but I'll need full access on a database like Internet Archive if I'm not driving down to my local university library). I don't work in academia, so I no longer have access to databases like JSTOR. I was at least able to use Fratantuono (2016) to untangle weeds and clean up the mess made by other editors in the "Names" section, deemphasizing Suetonius given @AirshipJungleman29's concerns about primary sources being used uncritically (though I don't mind retaining them in certain spots simply to buttress secondary sources and as a useful reference for readers). This article is going to take so much work, but unfortunately my workday has already begun, and I barely have a single free evening this entire week to sit down and give this article the attention it deserves. If you do not have the adequate spare time in your own busy life to help with edits to this article, do you by any chance know other editors here who would be willing to lend a helping hand? It's a daunting task simply because I don't have the time for it (not like I did when I was 21-years-old and editing here in between going to college classes, rock/metal concerts, and weekend keg parties, LOL). Would you have any spare time to help with cleaning up citations and shortening them? That alone is time consuming work. Any help on that alone would be hugely appreciated, and I'd give you a shiny reward on your talk page for it! Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

You can get a lot of these via WP:TWL, if you meet the criteria? The Cambridge Companion, for instance, can be read in full via Cambridge Core, which is part of that. I'm happy to send over individual chapters and articles, if you let me know what you're looking for -- otherwise, the good people at WP:RX always amaze me with their skills in tracking down obscure sources. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:59, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Cool! Thanks for suggesting the Wiki Library. Oddly enough I knew nothing about it, probably because it was founded when I was overseas in the Peace Corps, and then shortly after that I moved to yet another country for my graduate degree and was not editing Wikipedia during that time either. How do I access this Cambridge Core, exactly? I don't see a link for it via the library. The resource request page looks promising, though. I will definitely utilize that and make a request or two there. Much appreciated! If the Cambridge Companion has a chapter or two on the early life and family upbringing of Octavian then it would be very helpful if you could share that. That's perhaps the part of the article that relies the most on primary source citations (I've started to reverse that already, but there is still much to be done there). Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:22, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to email me any chapter as such from the Companion, if that's how you intend to share it (that's usually how I've shared things in the past, aside from using personal sandboxes). Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Cambridge Core is under Cambridge University Press -- the TWL link is here; you'll have to be logged into TWL for it to work, or you might need to access it directly from the TWL page. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Cool! Thanks! I have access to the Companion now, virtually every chapter. I don't see anything in particular about the early life of Augustus, though, just various things about his reign after he became emperor. Still very useful for the later part of our article here on Wikipedia, but I'll need additional sources about his childhood and family life. Pericles of Athens^Talk 19:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Have you come across this fairly new biography (2023)? It has a slightly unusual focus (each chapter is based on an astronomical event), but a quick flick through suggests it's probably got as much on his birth and childhood as we're likely to get -- I imagine Goldsworthy and Everitt are probably similarly close to what's possible there? UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 20:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Nice find! Thanks for sharing. Although it contains a bunch of other tangential information, the first chapter of that book by Anne-Marie Lewis actually confirms a lot of material for the "Early life" section of our Wikipedia article. Bravo! When I have a chance tonight I will be adding this source to our bibliography and citing it generously in that section. Pericles of Athens^Talk 21:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm extremely happy to announce that Lewis (2023) has been added to "Sources" and cited in the article to confirm the birthplace as Ox Head on the Palatine Hill. I also relied on Lewis to create an endnote about Octavian's date of birth following the citation by Bringmann (2007). This article is starting to shape up! I have run out of time tonight, but I'll tackle it again later this week. I'm starting to feel much more optimistic about it! Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 01:54, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Hello again! Just letting you know that apparently only the introduction chapter of The Cambridge Companion to the Age of Augustus is available via PDF at www-cambridge-org. For whatever reason, the PDFs of other chapters only contain two pages: the cover page for the chapter followed by a blank page, and then nothing else. A shame! However, there are other sources to consult. The Cambridge Companion also doesn't help much with biographical details on Octavian's life, as we have discussed. Pericles of Athens^Talk 17:28, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you sure you're downloading the right bits? If, for example, you download the PDF for "Part II: Intellectual and Social Developments", you get the two pages, but if you download any of its sub-parts (which are the "real" chapters, like "3 - Mutatas Formas: The Augustan Transformation of Roman Knowledge"), I at least get the full PDF. If that doesn't work for you, shoot me an email via Wikipedia with what you need: I should be able to get it. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 17:37, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The problem was I was not able to see the sub-parts in the URL I was looking at, but I searched the book again in Cambridge Core, and now the sub-parts/chapters are listed. I'm reading Eder's chapter right now, so it appears that all is well. Thanks! As I suspected, though, it provides great information on the reign of Augustus, but not exactly the details of his early life as Gaius Octavius (and then Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus). It will at least be somewhat useful here and there, and I plan on citing Eder (2005) in the "Name" section at least once for backing up Bringmann (2007) on translating Augustus as "the revered". Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes -- honestly, I think you might end up being disappointed if you want to write a biography of the "real" Augustus that cuts through the myth-making and ideology -- I'm not convinced such a thing is possible! We have to be led by the sources: if they don't give a huge amount of detail about what Augustus did between the ages of four and ten, or what they do say is clearly just variations on traditional and implication-heavy stories, there's not a lot we can do. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 15:34, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist I think you'll be pleased to know that I have moved Galinsky (2012) out of the "Further Reading" section and into the "Sources" section, so that I could cite his work in both the "Early life" section and "Legacy" sections of the article. Hurray! Serious progress is being made, especially since the "Legacy" section needs a serious cleanup. That first paragraph will need many more citations, but paragraphs have been rearranged more logically per subject matter, and Galinsky provides excellent input and a nuanced perspective about the Pax Augusta that was sorely missing from the article. Hopefully within a couple months all primary source citations will be diminished or relegated to support status or endnotes, and recently-published reliable sources like Roller, Lewis, Bringmann, and Galinsky will buttress, clarify, and expand on points made by Eck & Takacs. Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

A suggestion rather than an instruction -- it might be a good idea to try to get one (fairly short) section "done" -- that would mean that reviewers here can get a sense of what the final product will look like, and give a steer if needed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 13:35, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist Not a bad suggestion! In that case the "Name" section at the very beginning should be a top of the list priority. It still needs a bit of work, and I'll make sure everything there has a proper secondary source citation. After that I'll continue work on the "Early life" section. I'm happy to have cited Galinsky where he was truly needed, though. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

@UndercoverClassicist It's only one small step, but I'm happy to announce that the "Name" section has at least been cleaned up, reworded a bit, filled with new citations from secondary sources, and all primary source citations have been moved into endnotes for now. Let me know if this looks suitable, or if further changes must be made to elevate the quality of that section (to meet our rigorous FA standards). Cheers! Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

What are the high-quality sources in the Further Reading section for me to try and add into the paragraph? Thelifeofan413 (talk) 18:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Thelifeofan413 Most of those sources seem useful, but which "paragraph" are you referring to here? The first one in the "Legacy" section that I mentioned? That one simply lacks enough citations from reliable sources, with several sentences failing to have inline citations. Most of these statements are obviously factually correct (on the same sort of level as the claim that "George Washington was the first president of the United States"). However, they still require citations per the strict standards of a Featured status article. I'm unfortunately too busy today and perhaps all weekend to delve back into this project, but I will have time next week to provide more citations. If you're able to add even one citation (using the "sfn" shorthand method), that alone would be a serious contribution and a really big help! Thank you. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I will try to do this as when my schedule permits. Thelifeofan413 (talk) 07:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 Thanks for letting me know about the review! It was quite a long time ago when I wrote the article and submitted it for Featured status, back when I was in college! I'll have a look at it over the weekend when I have a chance. Hopefully I will have some time next week to work on improving things here. Pericles of Athens^Talk 11:01, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Nikkimaria Hello! Just letting you know that I'm still working hard to improve the article and made significant edits just today on the "Early life" section, after completing the initial "Name" section. Unfortunately I have a very busy weekend, but I am still fully committed to improving the article and will tackle it more next week when time permits. So far I have made a concerted effort to replace primary source citations with secondary source ones, shifting the former to endnotes where they can still be useful as further references. I plan on finishing the "Early life" section by the end of next week, and will comb through the rest of the article after that. I've been using a variety of sources for that job, and lately I've been relying a lot on Galinsky (2012) for the childhood and upbringing of Octavian. I plan on using a variety of secondary sources, of course, and have beefed up the article here and there with ones that were previously delegated to the "Further reading" section (Galinsky included). Please give me a couple months to make further improvements before final judgments are made. I'm doing all of this in my very limited spare time, so if you know anyone else who could help, please let me know! Regards, Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:53, 24 May 2025 (UTC)

Kylie Minogue

Notified: User talk:Hotwiki, Notified: User talk:TarnishedPath, Notified: User talk:Rhodes00, Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, 1, 2, 3, 4,

This 2005 FA BLP has some glaring prose and quality of writing issues; with several of the very long paragraphs having some fancruft issues and too-close paraphrasing from journalists and music critics. And generally the article, like Ms. Minogue, is in a very different state than it was when it was listed as a FA. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

PHShanghai, did you discuss these issues on the article's talk page before nominating here? Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I've discussed all of these issues on the talk page for the last year or so. This is the most recent discussion, but the talk page discussions have been going since late 2023. PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

this shouldn't be too hard. I'm working on Beyonce at the moment but i'll start this soon. 750h+ 12:55, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

750h+, are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

hmm. i'll see. the article doesn't currently look that bad and i think some paragraph-size reduction and quote/close-paraphrasing-removal could make this better. i'll see what i can do within the next month. 750h+ 06:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Take your time. It's quite a long career and there's still a lot of bloat to unload. I feel that the lead and the prose about her career post-2010 (when it was last reassessed for FA) can be improved the most; there is much lacking in the writing quality there, not very encyclopedic. The lead is very bloated but fails to mention important parts of her career (like her hit single which revitalized her career; Padam Padam.) PHShanghai | they/them (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Anne Frank

Notified: Wikiproject Jewish Women, Wikiproject Jewish history, [3]

@Ali Beary: please also notify major contributors. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

I am nominating this featured article for review because there have been issues with cleanup tags for over a year, and there appears to have been no attempt to resolve these issues. This is an issue with criterions 1c and 2c. The issues are as follows:

In the paragraphs beginning with In May 1940 and In 2015, Flemish journalist Jeroen De Bruyn, there are unreliable source tags in the last sentence.

There is a "who?" cleanup tag after In January 2022, some investigators.

In the middle of the paragraph beginning with Witnesses later testified, there is a tag requesting a better source.

Near the end of the paragraph starting with On 19 August 2022, there is a clarification needed tag.

There's not many, but I believe that an article isn't good enough for FA if there's cleanup tags. Thank you! Ali Beary _(talk!) 18:13, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I've looked into the points you listed:

• In May 1940: source replaced
• In 2015, Flemish journalist Jeroen De Bruyn: can you elaborate on the problem with the source?
• In January 2022, some investigators: clarified
• Witnesses later testified: can you elaborate on the problem with the source?
• On 19 August 2022: clarified

– Editør (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

@Ali Beary, could you explain the issues with the two remaining tagged sources so it is clear what needs to be done to remove the tags? – Editør (talk) 08:01, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the two remaining cleanup templates and explained why in the first and second edit summary. I believe all issues in this review have now been resolved. – Editør (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

@Editør, what do you mean in the first edit summary by "with Wikipedia pages as sources"? Ali Beary _(talk!) 12:03, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The publications are notable and have a Wikipedia page to establish this. – Editør (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Note that notability and reliability are different things; a source can be notable but not reliable, or reliable but not notable. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

The edit summary was also meant to refer the reader to these Wikipedia pages that don't indicate any problems with reliability of the referenced publications.

@Nikkimaria, I think you are just explaining terms that could have been confused here. Or did you also mean to imply that you believe there is an issue with the reliability of these two sources? – Editør (talk) 13:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the specifics of the two sources, just noting that whether a Wikipedia page exists about them doesn't really matter. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

Alright, noted.

@Ali Beary, have all issues now been resolved? – Editør (talk) 17:29, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

I suppose all the issues are solved. The article may stay as a FA. Thank you for your work on fixing this! If something happens and the article is nominated for FAR once more, would you like to be pinged to fix it? Ali Beary _(talk!) 12:31, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

Great! You may ping me, although I am not really a frequent contributor of this article. – Editør (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: could this review be closed? – 17:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to see another review or two before closure. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

The issues raised in this review, that surely was rather limited, seem to have been resolved two months ago and there has not been any activity here since early April. I think this review should be closed instead of kept open until someone raises more issues at some point in the future. – Editør (talk) 18:02, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Flag of Hong Kong

Notified: WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology, WikiProject Hong Kong, WikiProject China, Deryck Chan

I am nominating this featured article for review because there seems to be missing information throughout this article. The "Colour specifications" section says that it is the same colour as China's flag, but then doesn't specify what that is. It also doesn't specify what other colour(s) are used in the flag. The flag has also been used as a symbol in recent events concerning Hong Kong, but this has not been outlined in the article. There are some unreliable and lower-quality sources used as inline citations, which should be replaced by higher-quality sources. Z1720 (talk) 14:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

@Z1720, I added other colors and the protest use of the Black Bauhinia variant. History6042😊 (Contact me) 13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@History6042: There is still a citation needed tag, and missing information about more recent events. Are you interested in addressing these concerns? Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

What more recent events are you referring to. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:51, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Maybe they are referring to the use of the last colonial flag of Hong Kong, particularly during and after the 2014 protests, as a symbol of Hong Kong independence or autonomy. I moved the details to Flag of Hong Kong (1871–1997) to keep this article concise.

I doubt this is the case, but if they are referring to the current flag of Hong Kong being used alongside the PRC flag by pro-Beijing demonstrators, well, that's not really a recent development (or rather a significant change since its introduction). Yue🌙 02:13, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see the previous question. Yes, I am referring to the flag's use in post-1997 protests. While it is not a significant change, its continued used by pro-Beijing protesters is worth mentioning and the intended symbolism. Is the flag also used by protesters for other causes? Z1720 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Do sources distinguish that from the general waving of one's flag as a show of patriotism/nationalism? It seems reasonably run-of-the-mill symbolism. CMD (talk) 15:08, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

I've seen Chinese-language sources, and can probably find English-language sources, that specifically note the use of the HKSAR flag by counter-protesters during the 2014, 2019, and 2020 anti-government protests. That's just a sentence or two missing at most though. Yue🌙 21:45, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

Similar but not exactly what I was talking about: CNN article on the HKSAR flag being targetted by protesters as a symbol of the PRC / HKSAR governments. Yue🌙 21:49, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

That report does not suggest there is anything particularly notable about the flag being a symbol of the PRC/HKSAR governments. The symbolism is already explained in the article: Chinese flag red, Chinese flag stars, one country two-systems. Perhaps something could be added about how the flag has not gained acceptance by those who disagree with this political situation, but that pro-government protesters use a government flag is to be expected. Flag defacement/variation might also be worth some words, but it is also not unusual. CMD (talk) 08:07, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your research. Considering the above, it looks like the flag's use in protests was not as widespread as I thought, so it seems fine as-is and more information can be added later. I'll take another look at the article when the citation needed tags are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 12:48, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

  I removed or adjusted material that was unsourced. I don't think the flag's use by pro-government protesters is particularly notable. The article should be okay now, in my opinion. Yue🌙 19:07, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• @Yue: I think all is to add to the lead information about its use, both as a government symbol and in recent events. Are you willing to add that? Z1720 (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

   Done. Yue🌙 23:43, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

• "A discrepancy in this rule was observed during the opening ceremonies of the 2009 East Asian Games. Normally, the organization's flag and the host's flag are raised to equal prominence and the organization's flag cannot be smaller than any other flag.[18] However, when Hong Kong hosted the 2009 East Asian games, three flags (the Hong Kong flag, the Chinese flag, and the East Asian Games Association flag) were raised, with the Hong Kong flag on the left, the EAGA flag the same size on the right, and the Chinese flag larger and higher than both flags in the centre, thus making the EAGA flag smaller than another opening ceremony flag.[19][20]" - this is sourced to an olympic manual, a youtube video of the occurrence, and then a website of unclear reliability - is any of this due weight?
• This article relies heavily on websites that are part of the Flags of the World umbrella, which is not considered to be reliable - see WP:FOTW. crwflags is part of this, as well as the flagspot reference (""Colonial Hong Kong". Flags of the World. 18 August 2007.")
• The RSP entry for The Economist states "Its pseudonymous commentary columns and other opinion pieces should also be handled according to this guideline." "A.T. (4 July 2012). "Free speech in Hong Kong: Show of strength". Analects. Hong Kong. Archived from the original on 23 July 2012. Retrieved 24 July 2012." is a blog post under the Economist blog grouping which is pseudonymous - is this a high-quality RS?

I don't think this article is ready to be kept yet. Hog Farm _Talk 00:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Yue and History6042: Could you have a look at these comments? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I can look for replacement sources later this week. A bit busy with other projects and real life commitments, but I can get to it. Yue🌙 17:55, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

Navenby

Notified: Myosotis Scorpioides, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject England, WikiProject Lincolnshire

Review section

As noted in March 2025 by RetiredDuke, this 2008 FA is far below current standards. Much of it is out of date, relying on sources from 2009 or earlier: of particular interest is the Demography section, which is entirely sourced to the 2001 census (there have been two more since).

The "Governance" section is disorganised, there is uncited material throughout the article, and some sourcing is very poor. A particular highlight is the sentence "Editors of the website RoadGhosts.com claim this is one of the most haunted roads in Britain."

I hope someone is interested enough to work on this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

• Move to FARC no edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 02:21, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Corydon

Notified: Charles Edward, J JMesserly, Scott Mingus, WP MILHIST, WP USA, noticed in October 2022

Review section

In 2022 I raised concerns on the article's talk page regarding pagination errors and content not supported by the cited sources. I had been intending to work on this, but haven't. I own Conway and Horwitz, two of the heaviest used sources, but I don't know that either of these meets the high-quality standard in the current FA criteria. I have read Conway all the way through, and Horwitz is clearly a labor of love, but Farmcourt's website lists only things Horwitz has been involved in. It appears to be a personal press of Horwitz's, including publishing a book by him on self-publishing. I can find less online about FBH publishers, the publisher for the Conway book, but Open Library lists 7 books published by FBH of which 6 are by Conway and the seventh is a fictional work. If Conway and Horwitz do not meet the higher standard of reliability required by the FA standards, then I don't know that a featured article can really be written on this topic - a state that I have run into with some other Civil War articles I have worked on myself. Hog Farm _Talk 17:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I would love to work on this with you but am so busy in RL. I am not aware of any other significant sources you could use on this subject besides the ones you have mentioned. This battle is generally just a footnote in most other big Civil War books, often getting no more than a paragraph of attention. Horwitz's book was a Pulitzer prize nominee. It appears to me to have all the hallmarks of a reliable source. At any rate, if it is not, then there is no other solid source on which you could rebuild the article that I am aware of. I have fairly exhaustively researched this subject in the past, if there was another source, I would probably have already found it. (Conway and Funk are the two other significant sources I used for the article way back in the day when I first wrote it, but they are of lower quality and reliability than Horwitz.) Cheers! —Charles Edward ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:00, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I saw that nomination for Horwitz, but I believe anyone can nominate a book for the Pulitzer Prize with the payment of the nomination fee (although I can't get the nomination process page on the Pulitzer website to load; my wife used all of the high-speed internet available for the month already somehow) - would it be okay if I posted at WT:FAC to get some more FA-familiar opinions on this source? I should be less busy than I usually am for most of May although that could change suddenly and I can help with the source verification if Horwitz is deemed OK. Hog Farm _Talk 18:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I've left a neutrally-worded message at WT:FAC. I just finished a rewrite of Battle of Wilson's Creek and if Conway & Horwitz are OK'd I'll work on this next instead of Battle of Jackson. Hog Farm _Talk 01:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

To answer this, we should turn to the available reliable sources. :-p Do we have any information from other historians on the quality of Horwitz's work? E.g. any professional book reviews? If they meet WP:SPS because subject-matter experts say that the book is of high quality, I'd think it would also meet the FA criteria.

I found one review that scores out about average for what I've seen of historical works: this JSTOR result is positive overall,and I was amused to see a critique that Horwitz could be too detailed (something that is great for Wikipedia!). On the other hand, they were very critical of Horwitz's treatment of oral histories. ("Professional historians and even adept amateurs may find this a troubling aspect of Horwitz's work since these events are presented as fact without enough close scrutiny and careful assessment.") In addition, footnote 2 in this piece calls the book "outstanding" but provides no other details. More might be out there—this was a quick search.

Hog Farm is right on the Pulitzer nominations. If it had been a finalist, that would be different. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 02:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look at this - Charles Edward - do you remember if "Howtzer" is suppose to be a reference to Horwitz? Hog Farm _Talk 01:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

I do not have any way of accessing a copy of Funk - are there any objections to that getting phased out? It also seems to be a lower-quality work than Horwitz. Mackey's The Uncivil War which I have a copy of has an overview of this raid. I believe the Matthews biography of Basil Duke is available through the Wikipedia library. I own a copy of Horan's 1950s biography of Thomas Hines but I have not read it and cannot vouch for its quality; the text on the dust jacket seems to overstate the strength of the Copperheads which is not a great sign. Hog Farm _Talk 01:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay - so I'm running into issues in the very first paragraph of the body. The sentence beginning "After patrolling the border ..." checks out to the source (Conway p. 42) but "Following the 1862 Newburgh Raid into Indiana, the federal government had put a regiment of regular cavalry troops in south central Indiana for defensive purposes." is mostly not. Conway does directly mention the Newburgh Raid in the immediate vicinity of that page and his index mentions neither Newburgh nor Stovepipe Johnson. Conway says these troops were moved into the area in December 1862 (five months after Newburgh) and that they were ordered there by Governor Morton of Indiana, not the federal government. I'm dropping mention of Newburgh for now and rewriting the rest of that unless someone can turn up a source connecting these two events. Hog Farm _Talk 02:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

" Hines had led a reconnaissance mission into Indiana in search of Confederate sympathizers to support Morgan's coming raid. He did not find the support he was looking for, and had been pursued by elements of the 6th and 8th Regiment of the Indiana Legion who killed three of his men and captured several others before the remainder escaped back into Kentucky. Since then he had been waiting in the Brandenburg area for Morgan to arrive." - this is cited to Conway pp. 23-26. Hines hanging out in Brandenburg is first directly mentioned by name on Conway p. 43 so far as I can tell. The 6th Regiment of the Indiana Legion is mentioned on p. 21; the 8th Regiment is not mentioned at all. Conway p. 26 mentions 10 Confederates killed and 49 captured when Hines got stuck on an island trying to cross the river. Horwitz p. 44 mentions three killed; Horwitz p. 43 mentions that Hines had about 80 men while pp. 44-45 indicates that only Hines and 12 others escaped; the sum total of this suggests that "several others" understands the Confederate loss in prisoners. Those pages of Horwitz do not mention the 8th Regiment of the Indiana Legion. Going through this is very difficult as the content appears to be cited to the wrong pages and at times the wrong books. Hog Farm _Talk 02:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

And Horwitz is directly copying from Horan - Horan p. 27 But before the tug had pulled away, Union infantrymen on the decks had killed three of Hines' troopers. One, directly in front of him, sank without a sound. [paragraph break] When they reached the Kentucky shore they turned and waved to their comrades, then vanished in the woods. The Confederates on the island raised a cheer, broke their rifles and marched down to the beach under a white flag to surrender. Versus Horwitz p. 44 But before the tug had pulled away, Union infantryment on the decks had killed three of Hines' troopers. One, directly in front of him, rank without a sound. When they reached the Kentucky shore, they turned and waved to their comrades, then vanished in the woods. The Confederates on the island raised a cheer, broke their rifles and marched down to the beach under a white flag to surrender. While Horwitz is citing Conway, this is the sort of thing Stephen Ambrose got in trouble for. This is part of the most blatant patch - the rest of that page which is citing Horan includes some passages where Horwitz paraphrased things down into shorter passages in his own words, but with copied sentences interspersed throughout. While I'm sure this was well-meaning by Horwitz, I am uncomfortable with this going forward. Hog Farm _Talk 02:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Horwitz seems like a great guy and this book is clearly a huge labor of love (the printing, binding and paper quality in my copy is excellent and better than that for a lot of recent academic works) with an interesting premise in the time-line approach to the raid so bringing up the above really pains me. But I know my college professors (20 years after that book was published so maybe different writing norms) would have failed me for copying in that manner. I just don't have the heart for this. Hog Farm _Talk 04:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Move to FARC - source text integrity needs work. Hog Farm _Talk 16:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and source-text integrity. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Redshift

Notified: ජපස, Praemonitus, Marisauna, Iantresman, Art LaPella, Vsmith, AP Astronomy, WP Physics, WP Color, WP Measurement, original notice in January 2023

Review section

Since the original notice in 2023, there have been periodic comments on the article's talk page regarding sourcing and other issues, including one from January raising possible OR concerns. There are 9 CN tags in the article. This is one of the last 48 remaining pre-2007s to be at the WP:URFA/2020 listing. Hog Farm _talk 04:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I worked over the History section using secondary sources and removed my OR concern. Johnjbarton (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I have provided citations for all the remaining CN tags. jps (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Fixed and removed "broken anchors" template. PianoDan (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I just added a note to the talk page, encouraging a review of Tong's textbook "Cosmology" which points out that even Hubble and Silpher, credited with discovering that redshift correlated with distance, did not understand that this implied an expanding universe. Apparently, they called it the "de Sitter effect" for a while; it took a while to figure out that galaxies are receding because the universe is expanding (and they were not the ones to figure this out). Science is non-linear. The obvious, canonically-accepted answer today is usually confused and muddled when first stated. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I suggest that this interesting aside is probably best left explained at the expansion of the universe article. Redshift is an empirical phenomenon, and the interpretation that it is due to metric expansion deserves some economy on a page dedicated to the observable shifts of light rather than the history of how such shifts were interpreted. jps (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Johnjbarton - Do you have any further thoughts on this? Hog Farm _talk 21:36, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I replied on Talk:Redshift#Redshift_as_the_"de_Sitter_Effect" as in my opinion this suggestion is for a minor addition to Redshift which is not well connected to the topic based on the sources we have. It's more about Hubble's Law and in any case not a showstopper for FAR. Johnjbarton (talk) 00:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

FARC section

Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

• " although the word does not appear unhyphenated until about 1934, when Willem de Sitter used it." - I'm concerned that this bit, which is only sourced to the '34 de Sitter paper, is original research
• "There are several websites for calculating various times and distances from redshift, as the precise calculations require numerical integrals for most values of the parameters" - of the four examples provided: are the UCLA ones the same webpage or am I missing something? And is the Kempner personal website a major player in this, or is this some sort of spammy link?
• "As a diagnostic tool, redshift measurements are one of the most important spectroscopic measurements made in astronomy." - claim of something as "most important" should have a source
• There is a page needed tag that should be addressed
• "at a redshift of z = 8.6, corresponding to 600 million years after the Big Bang." - are these detailed numbers supported by the immediately preceding source?
• "The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), is ongoing as of 2013 and aims to measure the redshifts of around 3 million objects" - is this still ongoing? I checked the cited source and it refers to 2014 in the future tense

This is in better shape than it was. Hog Farm _Talk 20:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)