Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2022
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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC) [2].
- Notified: Serendipodous; WT:WPBIO; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment; WT:BRISTOL; WT:CHL; Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women writers; WT:WOMEN; WT:NOVELS; WT:FANTASY; WT:WPHP; talk page notification 2021-11-26; additional talk page notification
Review section
editI am nominating this featured article for review because... it no longer meets WP:FACR due to instability, length/unnecessary detail, and lack of summary style. ––FormalDude 
talk 10:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- FormalDude, please notify appropriate editors/projects and provide diffs per the instructions at WP:FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Notifications still not done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- I've taken care of this. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Notifications still not done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- What strikes me most upon skimming this article is the lack of literary analysis. Rowling is primarily known as an author; there's any amount of scholarly literature on the Harry Potter series; I would expect this to be represented. Conversely, at least a little of the blow-by-blow detail of her recent life ought to be pruned. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:57, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- I was coming here to write this very comment myself. To Formal's point, however, I'm not sure if there will be enough editor willingness to let such changes through (well the recent life stuff at least). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. Especially knowing from teacher friends of mine and from some light academic reading I've done, there is both wide literary analysis of the HP books and use in some educational settings to great value. I understand most of that text would go in the relevant articles, but seeing how the current HP section reads like an award list more than analysis of the works I feel that is to great detriment to this article regarding its comprehensive description of the influence of Rowling. On a similar note, for such an influential author it seems UNDUE how extensive the sections on philanthropy and views are compared to how bare-bones the sections on her work's impact. There is barely any mention of critical analysis or reviews of her books. Maya_Angelou#Reception_and_legacy and William_Gibson#Influence_and_recognition are both examples of sections in other FA articles that explore the author's influence to great success. Knowing just how ubiquitous it is in popular culture I'd expect more exploration of that in the article about her author aside from financial figures. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have to concur with Vanamonde93 and A. C. Santacruz. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:59, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Likewise. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Note: I have made a proposal to split off the award list to its own article. I don't see the point in listing all the awards an immensely successfuly writer has received in the BLP and the major ones could be easily summarized (see Laurence_Olivier#Honours for an example, and the relevant discussion in the talk page here). It's just one of the many issues this article has with summary style, as identified in the general case above by FormalDude, in my opinion. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
- Some stats: there have been 8 reverts out of 34 total edits in December, and last month there were 18 reverts out of 48 total edits (diffs). ––FormalDude
talk 08:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC) - Move to FARC doesn't seem likely that the issues discussed above will be fixed in the course of a FAR (t · c) buidhe 21:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Support nomination for FAR. The BLP is currently unstable and a battlefield for POV warriors. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2021 (UTC).
- Move to FARC per above. – zmbro (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- Demote/move to FARC per the reasoning above. When somebody edits a featured article with an edit summary beginning with "Someone will no doubt revert this edit" and when there's a large a controversial RfC due to recent events, it is clear the article does not meet the stability criteria, and when there are indeed other content issues, it is clear it might not meet the rest of the FAC either. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- The edit made remains unchanged, experience made me fear it would not be. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC per Vanamonde's concerns, this really needs literary criticism in here to meet WP:FACR. Hog Farm Talk 16:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC. Fixing the concerns I expressed above is not a trivial undertaking, and I see no effort being made to address them either. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- Move to FARC due to concerns about lack of literary criticism of her writing and general bloating, as outlined above. Z1720 (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
FARC section
edit- Issues raised in the review include scope, comprehensiveness, length and stability. DrKay (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delist due to the issues raised above. NoahTalk 03:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
- Delist because of instability due to edit warring. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC).
Delist as argued for above. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Let's wait for the improvement effort first. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)- Comment: Just noticed this. Would appreciate a few more days to look at the problems and see how to deal with them. Instability is a result of differing opinions and can be addressed. It is one of the most important woman's biographies. It is highly accessed with almost 60,000 pages views on 1 January. Take it easy!--Ipigott (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
- It just had one of the largest RfC in Wikipedia history with nearly 100 individual !votes.... you're not gonna fix that instability. ––FormalDude talk 01:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- The topic may be unstable but to note, 100 ivotes is not a history-making RFC. Off the top of my head, here’s one with almost 250 ivotes, just for example. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with User:Ipigott that this an important and prominent BLP. Unfortunately, it has become a battleground for POV wars between feminists and trans-activists. Its FA standing implies that Wikipedia endorses these wars, which I do not believe is the case. The conciliatory approach advocated by Ipigott is worthy in principle, but such editing will be bludgeoned off the page by the zealots. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC).
- It should be clearly pointed out that most feminist do not agree with Rowling on this issue and not all people who support civil rights for minorities are trans activists. ~ BOD ~ TALK 21:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: thanks for taking a look at this article. I am ammenable to putting this FAR on hold to give time for improvements, but I'm don't want this to be on hold for months, like what happened to British Empire's FAR. I suggest that editors interested in keeping the FA star spend a week making some improvements to the article (like preparing a literary analysis section, as suggested by the first few FAR reviewers) and conduct other fixes outside of the transgendered-comments topic area. After a week, please post here if you think this article could be fixed up in a month or two (in which I will recommend a hold) or if the problems will take many months to fix (in which I would recommend delisting and renominating the article as a WP:FAC when it is ready). Z1720 (talk) 13:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Z1720 How does this solve the more pressing concern about criteria 1E? It's clear from the RFC on the article talk page that stability issues are likely to remain a recurring problem. To my mind, we need to delist until the article demonstrates stability. The only way to demonstrate stability is for the article to actually be stable for a sustained period of time (ie 6 months to a year with no edit warring). In other words, while improvements towards FA in other areas could be made I don't think it will ultimately prevent the article from being delisted. Editors are still welcome to work towards content improvements, but with the caveat that it's not likely going to lead towards the successful preservation on an FA listing due to chronic edit warring within the article.4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- 4meter4 I think that through a lengthy and somewhat heavy-handed series of talk page discussions it could attain the necessary stability in the transgender sections. I don't think the other areas are unstable, just missing large amounts of content one would expect from an author's FA-level BLP. I personally am of the view that her political opinions deserve their own article, and a short summary in the main article should be more easily stabilized. Of course, I don't really want to spend much time in the Rowling page so if no one else really wants to conduct the series of RfCs then I don't expect that to happen. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- @A._C._Santacruz I agree that the current edit warring issues could be solved through a series of RFCs, but I am not confident that even that process will lead to longterm stability. Rowling tends to enjoy weighing in with controversial opinions on her Twitter account; which inevitably will lead to more media attention and subsequent edit warring on wikipedia. Rinse, Recycle, Repeat. Further, the timeline for solving these issues is unclear. That process could take months or even a year to work through. For FA purposes, it's best to delist now and let editors work towards solving instability issues outside of FA review. Once the article has become stable for a period of 6 months, then the article could be nominated for FA once again. Otherwise we have an FA review with an unreasonable open ended timeline.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- @4meter4: I cannot see the future, so I do not know if the edit warring will continue in a month or two. It is easier for an article to be fixed up at FAR than it is to go through an FAC, which is why I prefer the former. I also do not want the precedence that an editor who wants to delist a FA can start an edit war and get the article delisted per 1E. When someone states that they are willing to fix up the article, I want to give them the benefit of making these improvements. There's no rush to delist now, and this discussion will probably not be closed until
Dec. 14(EDIT: Jan. 14) at the earliest, as most FARCs last two weeks. If editors cannot make sufficient improvements in the next two weeks, I will propose that the article be delisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Z1720 (talk • contribs)- @@Z1720:The fear that somehow this is an isolated instability issue resulting from one editor trying to attack the FA status is not grounded in the facts. In this case we have over a year of edit warring in the article's history with many editors involved, and a contentious RFC with roughly 100 active community editors involved. This is a prolonged instability problem, and all indications from wide community input indicate that it going to remain so. At some point, we actually need to enforce criteria 1E as written. We are at that point. Further, in order to demonstrate stability we need time that extends beyond what is reasonable for an open FAR.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- I share Z1720's concerns about how application of 1e has been (mis)used in this FAR, and point out that a well-attended RFC is quite the opposite of an indication of instability. Enforcement of 1e as written is not what is happening in this FAR, and the issues raised about literary analysis are what should be examined here. (PS, I believe Z1720 meant Jan 14 in the post above.) Also, since I raised the issue of how to correctly position a FAR nomination back in November, I don't consider that this FAR has actually looked at the question of whether this article meets WP:WIAFA at all, and is in fact a nomination that pointedly ignores the issues I raised in November, becoming an inappropriate attempt to make FAR part of dispute resolution or to extend a battleground. For that reason, I believe the FAR should remain open until someone actually lists the deficiencies by supplying reliable sources to, for example, missing literary analysis, and then explains why that literary analysis belongs in the author's bio rather than in the sub-articles about the works. FAR should not be allowed to become part of dispute resolution, as is happening here, and this FAR should refocus on application of the criteria before it is closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia I disagree and find your comment overly cynical. I'll point out that I have not participated in any other discussions surrounding the Rowling article and am basing my opinion entirely on article history and talk page history. If an FA rated article has had chronic edit warring for over a year and a well attended RFC was unable to find a resolution, how can you possibly argue that criteria 1E isn't relevant or hint that editors indicating that it is are somehow misusing FAR process? To my mind, this is an argument with a clear attempt to ignore and subvert FA policy.4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not going to respond to your insinuations. If there are deficiencies with the article, start listing them please so that other reviewers (like Z1720) can discuss whether they actually are deficiencies and whether they can be resolved in the course of a FAR. The purpose of FAR is to identify deficiencies so they can (hopefully) be addressed, and this has not been done here. The purpose of FAR is not to enable editors who engage in editwarring to get an article delisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- @ SandyGeorgia Instability is a deficiency per criteria 1E. There are certainly other issues such as length and lack of literary analysis section as mentioned by others. However, I don't see that working towards those at this time will be useful at this FAR as the longterm instability problems (see article history) and failed attempts at dispute resolution (see RFC) indicate the need to delist immediately. I understand that you will disagree with this, and lets agree to just stop our back and forth for civility sake and our own well being. Have a good day.4meter4 (talk) 16:34, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not going to respond to your insinuations. If there are deficiencies with the article, start listing them please so that other reviewers (like Z1720) can discuss whether they actually are deficiencies and whether they can be resolved in the course of a FAR. The purpose of FAR is to identify deficiencies so they can (hopefully) be addressed, and this has not been done here. The purpose of FAR is not to enable editors who engage in editwarring to get an article delisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia I disagree and find your comment overly cynical. I'll point out that I have not participated in any other discussions surrounding the Rowling article and am basing my opinion entirely on article history and talk page history. If an FA rated article has had chronic edit warring for over a year and a well attended RFC was unable to find a resolution, how can you possibly argue that criteria 1E isn't relevant or hint that editors indicating that it is are somehow misusing FAR process? To my mind, this is an argument with a clear attempt to ignore and subvert FA policy.4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- I share Z1720's concerns about how application of 1e has been (mis)used in this FAR, and point out that a well-attended RFC is quite the opposite of an indication of instability. Enforcement of 1e as written is not what is happening in this FAR, and the issues raised about literary analysis are what should be examined here. (PS, I believe Z1720 meant Jan 14 in the post above.) Also, since I raised the issue of how to correctly position a FAR nomination back in November, I don't consider that this FAR has actually looked at the question of whether this article meets WP:WIAFA at all, and is in fact a nomination that pointedly ignores the issues I raised in November, becoming an inappropriate attempt to make FAR part of dispute resolution or to extend a battleground. For that reason, I believe the FAR should remain open until someone actually lists the deficiencies by supplying reliable sources to, for example, missing literary analysis, and then explains why that literary analysis belongs in the author's bio rather than in the sub-articles about the works. FAR should not be allowed to become part of dispute resolution, as is happening here, and this FAR should refocus on application of the criteria before it is closed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- @@Z1720:The fear that somehow this is an isolated instability issue resulting from one editor trying to attack the FA status is not grounded in the facts. In this case we have over a year of edit warring in the article's history with many editors involved, and a contentious RFC with roughly 100 active community editors involved. This is a prolonged instability problem, and all indications from wide community input indicate that it going to remain so. At some point, we actually need to enforce criteria 1E as written. We are at that point. Further, in order to demonstrate stability we need time that extends beyond what is reasonable for an open FAR.4meter4 (talk) 15:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- 4meter4 I think that through a lengthy and somewhat heavy-handed series of talk page discussions it could attain the necessary stability in the transgender sections. I don't think the other areas are unstable, just missing large amounts of content one would expect from an author's FA-level BLP. I personally am of the view that her political opinions deserve their own article, and a short summary in the main article should be more easily stabilized. Of course, I don't really want to spend much time in the Rowling page so if no one else really wants to conduct the series of RfCs then I don't expect that to happen. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am still inclined to delist now, but I think Z1720's reply above is probably the best thing to be done. Outside of stability issues the article can certainly be fixed and while I don't necessarily think it would be easy to get it back to FA level in a month, it certainly can get to GA. The main reason why I don't think it meets even GA criteria is the lack of analysis of her as an author as described in my previous comment above in the FAR section. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 15:00, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Typically "fixing" (as you say) an article (via focusing on sourcing) resolves the rest of the issues; that has not been done here, as no one yet has actually talked about sourcing and other matters of WP:WIAFA. One way to "fix" this FA might be to refocus the discussion where it might have been all along-- on WP:SS and what content belongs in sub-articles versus the main article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Z1720 How does this solve the more pressing concern about criteria 1E? It's clear from the RFC on the article talk page that stability issues are likely to remain a recurring problem. To my mind, we need to delist until the article demonstrates stability. The only way to demonstrate stability is for the article to actually be stable for a sustained period of time (ie 6 months to a year with no edit warring). In other words, while improvements towards FA in other areas could be made I don't think it will ultimately prevent the article from being delisted. Editors are still welcome to work towards content improvements, but with the caveat that it's not likely going to lead towards the successful preservation on an FA listing due to chronic edit warring within the article.4meter4 (talk) 14:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- It just had one of the largest RfC in Wikipedia history with nearly 100 individual !votes.... you're not gonna fix that instability. ––FormalDude
Delist as argued above. I think it unlikely that instability issues will be be resolved through dialogue, or that temporary abatements through talk page resolutions will result in long term stability. Rowling has chosen to engage in controversy repeatedly, and is likely to continue to do so. As such, similar issues are likely to recur and instability is likely to be an ongoing and constantly evolving longterm problem.4meter4 (talk) 00:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)- Delist for instability and length. ––FormalDude talk 01:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Hold in FARC until someone lays out some reasoning to delist that relates to actionable problems with WP:WIAFA, per my statement above at 16:02. (The idea that a well-attended RFC is an indication of instability is not a notion that should be allowed to go on record at FAR, nor should FAR be allowed to become part of a battleground or evasion of dispute resolution.) Neither were those reasons laid out on article talk via an actual notification of deficiencies, as I requested back in November, nor has that been done here on this FAR. Many have said it can be done, but no one yet has done it, and this FAR should remain open until someone complies with the FAR instructions to notice actionable deficiencies and provide concrete examples and reasoning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia I think you are overstating your case. FA status has no impact on dispute resolution, nor is FAR intended to involve itself in influencing or evading a dispute resolution process. On the contrary, delisting the article and allowing dispute resolution to continue through the normal channels is the best path forward in my opinion and the most congruent with FA and wikipedia wide policy. Our FA articles must be stable (ie free of edit warring). When they aren't, they get delisted until such time as they show evidence of stability and can re-apply for an FA rating.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have heard your case, which I find unconvincing, and I have no problem letting the FAR Coords decide whether I am "overstating my case", along with Ipigott and Z1720. (Since I am following this FAR, you may feel free to stop pinging me.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia I think you are overstating your case. FA status has no impact on dispute resolution, nor is FAR intended to involve itself in influencing or evading a dispute resolution process. On the contrary, delisting the article and allowing dispute resolution to continue through the normal channels is the best path forward in my opinion and the most congruent with FA and wikipedia wide policy. Our FA articles must be stable (ie free of edit warring). When they aren't, they get delisted until such time as they show evidence of stability and can re-apply for an FA rating.4meter4 (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Comment: I have been pinged in a couple of different places, with the possible implication that I have granted extra time to this FAR. (here and here by Ipigott). To avoid confusion, @FAR coordinators: can one of you clarify possible timelines for this article, and specify if time has been granted? This looks like it might be a complicated FAR, so this might also need a dedicated FAR coord to be the only point-person for decision making, similar to how Cas Liber stepped up in British Empire and laid out timelines for closing that FARC. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry Z1720 if I misunderstood you but on the basis of your previous comments I was fully prepared to see what I could do to sort things out in connection with the missing section on literary analysis. If this is no longer possible, please let me know as I have other important matters to attend to.--Ipigott (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: I am not an FAR co-ordinator, so I cannot grant extra time and don't want there to be the impression that I can. Hopefully the FAR co-ords can describe a possible timeline for this FAR. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- It's been mentioned that there is drafting underway to address the concern raised wrt literary criticism; certainly we can give some time to see how that proceeds. I also want to be clear that the simple existence of an RfC, even a contentious one, will not result in delisting on its own, and that FAR is not intended to be a dispute resolution venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Ipigott: I am not an FAR co-ordinator, so I cannot grant extra time and don't want there to be the impression that I can. Hopefully the FAR co-ords can describe a possible timeline for this FAR. Z1720 (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry Z1720 if I misunderstood you but on the basis of your previous comments I was fully prepared to see what I could do to sort things out in connection with the missing section on literary analysis. If this is no longer possible, please let me know as I have other important matters to attend to.--Ipigott (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment. The claim that nobody has raised actionable concerns grounded in the featured article criteria is nonsensical. The points raised by myself, Barkeep49, and A. C. Santacruz, which several other editors (including Buidhe and Hog Farm) have agreed with, have nothing to do with instability, and everything to do with comprehensiveness and representation of sources (criteria 1b and 1c). There is no independent literary analysis of Rowling's writing in this article. There are hundreds of sources available; their existence is not in dispute; neither is the fact that they are not covered in this article. If Ipigott wants time to work on these sources, that's fine with me, but the claim that there's no actionable feedback is meaningless, and if we were going to hold this up over procedural reasons of notification, we should have done it a long while ago. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- If I had more time I'd have been doing the work to add the literary analysis as I have access to the sources and subject expertise to do that work and agree that this is a highly visible page so having it be of the highest quality is a benefit to the encyclopedia. However, I don't have the time. If someone else does I would love for them to do it. But in absence of that content I agree with Vanamonde that it cannot be said to meet the standards expected of an FA. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) My concern here is primarily that the article lacks any sort of literary criticism, which is problematic given the extremely influential nature of Rowling as a writer. I do disagree with the idea that this fails the stability criteria; a single content dispute that is being worked out doesn't warrant delisting. Hog Farm Talk 17:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- To all three; yes, there appears on the surface to be an absence of literary criticism, but a) we have no examination of what exists in sub-articles; b) we have no indication if high-quality reliable sources are excluded, and what those are; and c) we have had no discussion about how much of what would be included where in a properly summarized main bio, as for example at the literary great James Joyce, which was repaired in the course of a FAR. A roadmap for repairing this FA via summary style would advance either this FAR, or post-FAR efforts, but !votes to delist per 1e are ill-informed. I have little doubt that, if experienced FA writers were to engage here and employ summary style, the problems in this article could be resolved. Regardless of whether that happens, at minimum this FAR should document where the issues are and what actionable measures can be used to resolve them. Simply stating that literary criticism is absent is insufficient; note at the literary great James Joyce one could make the same claim because much of the literary critique is in subarticles and is summarized back to the main article. The same can be done with the rest of the controversial content here, but we shouldn't be making decisions based on ill-formed RFCs (I've launched a few of those myself). If the article is to be delisted, let's at least do it for the right reason, after we have assured that the problems can't be fixed by moving some content to here and some content out of here from the various sub-articles. Even if we fail, we at least leave a roadmap for future repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
"we have no examination of what exists in sub-articles"
That is asking the reviewers here to prove a negative. Has anyone examined more specific articles and determined that there is enough material to cover all her themes? I have examined a few, and what's there isn't encouraging. It's heavily based on interviews with Rowling (which have their place, but aren't a substitute for independent analysis); and on media sources. Scholarly sources are few and far between."we have no indication if high-quality reliable sources are excluded"
yes we do; there's no substantive use of any high-quality literary criticism. I could easily provide a couple dozen sources; I'm not doing so because I'm not concerned about the exclusion of specific sources, but the exclusion of the entire body of literary/scholarly source material."we have had no discussion about how much of what would be included where in a properly summarized main bio"
; because, at the moment, we have no substance to discuss at all. We aren't at the stage where such a discussion is meaningful. Very few of us are giving any weight to any RfCs; I haven't bothered to read the one referred to above, as it has no bearing on my argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 4 January 2022 (UTC)- Examples might better illustrate my concern-- if not for the immediate outcome, but in terms of leaving a direction for future work at least, so that FAR is doing what it's supposed to do, and we're not leaving a precedent of a delisting based on faulty reasoning.We have seen examples at FAR of a google scholar search being provided to justify "not comprehensive", but when examining each source returned by google, it was found that nothing was actually left out.We have seen examples of "X is not included", but if there are no sources covering X, that cannot be a WIAFA 1b issue.We have had FAs "saved" even after multiple "delists" were entered, when someone steps in to actually do the work--but it's unlikely that work that hasn't been identified will be undertaken. My concern is whether a stricter application of WP:SS might address a lot of what ails this article. Even if the star is lost, it's nice to see an article leave FAR in better shape than when it appeared, or at least with editors having some knowledge of what needs fixing. Barack Obama (which was suffering from the same unproductive POV-back-and-forth rants on talk, but little focus on sources) offers an example. It is insufficient to make the general statement that "X point of view is not included" in the absence of specifics and sample sources. At that FAR, I pointed out a recent and specific scholarly source from Princeton historian Julian E. Zelizer that included critical analysis of Obama's presidency but was scarcely represented in the article, along with Leadership and Legacy: The Presidency of Barack Obama, Lansford, 2021, that was not used at all. More than a month later, with not a single edit towards addressing those actionable issues, the article was defeatured. At least editors coming along in the future can read a FAR to see what they can do to restore the article. FAR is failing to do its job if this article is delisted on 1e absent an actual analysis of deficiencies with specific examples. Providing those might also encourage someone to start addressing the real issues, and focusing on sources almost always ends the battleground. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Respectfully, I don't think you're hearing me. Examples are helpful when there is a dispute over whether sources are fairly represented. With this article, there is no dispute; literary criticism is absent, period. Even those who wish to preserve FA status, whose efforts I will do my best to support, recognize the obvious deficiency, and are working to amend it. If the people doing this work are able to see the validity and usefulness of my concerns above, I don't see why you are critiquing the reviewers here. If I have any more time for this article, I would rather spend it on the userspace draft that is being developed, and so I'm going to step away from this argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- Examples might better illustrate my concern-- if not for the immediate outcome, but in terms of leaving a direction for future work at least, so that FAR is doing what it's supposed to do, and we're not leaving a precedent of a delisting based on faulty reasoning.We have seen examples at FAR of a google scholar search being provided to justify "not comprehensive", but when examining each source returned by google, it was found that nothing was actually left out.We have seen examples of "X is not included", but if there are no sources covering X, that cannot be a WIAFA 1b issue.We have had FAs "saved" even after multiple "delists" were entered, when someone steps in to actually do the work--but it's unlikely that work that hasn't been identified will be undertaken. My concern is whether a stricter application of WP:SS might address a lot of what ails this article. Even if the star is lost, it's nice to see an article leave FAR in better shape than when it appeared, or at least with editors having some knowledge of what needs fixing. Barack Obama (which was suffering from the same unproductive POV-back-and-forth rants on talk, but little focus on sources) offers an example. It is insufficient to make the general statement that "X point of view is not included" in the absence of specifics and sample sources. At that FAR, I pointed out a recent and specific scholarly source from Princeton historian Julian E. Zelizer that included critical analysis of Obama's presidency but was scarcely represented in the article, along with Leadership and Legacy: The Presidency of Barack Obama, Lansford, 2021, that was not used at all. More than a month later, with not a single edit towards addressing those actionable issues, the article was defeatured. At least editors coming along in the future can read a FAR to see what they can do to restore the article. FAR is failing to do its job if this article is delisted on 1e absent an actual analysis of deficiencies with specific examples. Providing those might also encourage someone to start addressing the real issues, and focusing on sources almost always ends the battleground. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- To all three; yes, there appears on the surface to be an absence of literary criticism, but a) we have no examination of what exists in sub-articles; b) we have no indication if high-quality reliable sources are excluded, and what those are; and c) we have had no discussion about how much of what would be included where in a properly summarized main bio, as for example at the literary great James Joyce, which was repaired in the course of a FAR. A roadmap for repairing this FA via summary style would advance either this FAR, or post-FAR efforts, but !votes to delist per 1e are ill-informed. I have little doubt that, if experienced FA writers were to engage here and employ summary style, the problems in this article could be resolved. Regardless of whether that happens, at minimum this FAR should document where the issues are and what actionable measures can be used to resolve them. Simply stating that literary criticism is absent is insufficient; note at the literary great James Joyce one could make the same claim because much of the literary critique is in subarticles and is summarized back to the main article. The same can be done with the rest of the controversial content here, but we shouldn't be making decisions based on ill-formed RFCs (I've launched a few of those myself). If the article is to be delisted, let's at least do it for the right reason, after we have assured that the problems can't be fixed by moving some content to here and some content out of here from the various sub-articles. Even if we fail, we at least leave a roadmap for future repair. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have added a large section on her literary output per the comments above and Special:PermaLink/1063766433#J._K._Rowling_delisting_as_FA. Hopefully this goes some way towards addressing Vanamonde93's, and others', concerns regarding the lack of such a section in this review. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- AleatoryPonderings I think that's a good start, but I'd expect a bit more on the legacy of her works (e.g.
Due to its commercial success, fantasy became a dominant genre in the children's market, a sea change from its declining status in the 1980s.
seems like a promising start for a really interesting paragraph). I think another interesting source of academic analysis on her legacy is on The Death of the Author and how fans are starting to disassociate the Harry Potter IP with the author. I don't have any sources on hand atm, but thought it would be of help to mention this here. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)- This link had a really interesting quote that doesn't merit being included but goes along the lines of what I was suggesting above:
In becoming so, it seems to me, her intentions and responsibilities as author diminish and fade into irrelevance. She ceases to be the author of the phenomenon and simply becomes part of the phenomenon as author
. Note this phenomenon of separating Rowling from HP is not necessarily based only on the trans controversy, but also on the merits of her being able to tweet that Dumbledore is gay and how that affects the canon, see this journal article. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC) - @A. C. Santacruz For Legacy, you might be interested in this article on the book that paragraph is based on. It could be expanded in either direction (why the 80s were in decline, or what happened to the HP imitators - see the Synopsis), but perhaps that may better fit in a history of fantasy article than here. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 13:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, Olivaw-Daneel, much appreciated! I personally think it should be included (if briefly), but it was more of a suggestion for a (genre? Type?) of analysis we should include rather than a particular source I'd like included. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- This link had a really interesting quote that doesn't merit being included but goes along the lines of what I was suggesting above:
- AleatoryPonderings I think that's a good start, but I'd expect a bit more on the legacy of her works (e.g.
- AleatoryPonderings Thanks for that; that's a substantive piece of work. I will try to review it in detail in a day or two. Three suggestions at the outset. 1) At the top-level article, we would generally want to treat her writing as a whole, rather than separated by series, because series-specific stuff is what you'd expect to see in articles about them. Obviously, with Rowling, >90% of the criticism is about HP; but I still think we could work on integrating commentary about anything else into the same section. 2) The Characters subsection, at the moment, reads like material about heroism as a theme combined with a throwaway piece about Snape. I'd suggest omitting the latter and reworking the former into the themes. 3) Similarly, ordinary vs extraordinary is also something I'd see as part of themes. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, per VM93. It is encouraging that this addition was made so quickly, reinforcing my view that (at least some of) the needed work is doable, and the FAR should remain open for work to progress. It is unconscionable that we have a highly viewed BLP in such embarrassing shape, so that even if we don't end up saving the rusty star, we can at least help restore some balance. It might be worthwhile to begin laying out other work needed, and to determine whether a team of FA-experienced writers would take this on (Johnbod, I saw you somewhere in some discussion of this article, have you any interest?), but it is probably best to first allow some time for Vanamonde93's feedback to be worked on, and to see how that goes. If that piece is successful, and more editors are interested, we might move on to identifying other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, no - I've done some little edits on talk and I think the article, but won't be doing major editing. Johnbod (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, thank you, per VM93. It is encouraging that this addition was made so quickly, reinforcing my view that (at least some of) the needed work is doable, and the FAR should remain open for work to progress. It is unconscionable that we have a highly viewed BLP in such embarrassing shape, so that even if we don't end up saving the rusty star, we can at least help restore some balance. It might be worthwhile to begin laying out other work needed, and to determine whether a team of FA-experienced writers would take this on (Johnbod, I saw you somewhere in some discussion of this article, have you any interest?), but it is probably best to first allow some time for Vanamonde93's feedback to be worked on, and to see how that goes. If that piece is successful, and more editors are interested, we might move on to identifying other issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Further comment, based on having read or skimmed a couple dozen sources to this point; the themes commented upon most often are death and heroism; religion is discussed both as a theme and in terms of critical reception; and politics and gender, at least, are also discussed in the latter category. When writing this material I would typically break it into "themes" and "reception" (always), and "style and structure", "influences", and "legacy" (depending on what the source material focuses on). This article does not need to follow my preferences, of course, but a couple of these broad categories feel mixed together at the moment, not to mention the duplicated "influences" section. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looking quickly through the article now (for the first time) it seems in fair shape to me. I don't personally feel we need an enormous amount of lit crit analysis here. Let me know when it comes to a vote. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Johnbod and Vanamonde93, there's a bit that could be done before approaching a !vote, but history shows that when an experienced FA writer takes the lead, a save can happen during a FAR (a WP:MILLION in this case). Without an experienced lit FA writer on board, and taking the lead, not sure ... It seems that Barkeep49 is too busy, and I'm not sure what message VM93 is sending :) VM, would you take a lead role in a rewrite? Wtfiv is still busy at Joan of Arc, and there's Victoriaearle, who I hesitate to ask at this point, as this would be a big undertaking, and she has health issues. Who else is hiding in the woodwork? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to send mixed messages, but I don't want to commit to something I don't have the time for. I will chip in with writing when I can: I cannot promise to take a lead role, unfortunately. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- That much is encouraging at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- PS, a little infelicity that might be corrected sooner rather than later is why we mention her friendship with Sarah Brown twice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not trying to send mixed messages, but I don't want to commit to something I don't have the time for. I will chip in with writing when I can: I cannot promise to take a lead role, unfortunately. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Johnbod and Vanamonde93, there's a bit that could be done before approaching a !vote, but history shows that when an experienced FA writer takes the lead, a save can happen during a FAR (a WP:MILLION in this case). Without an experienced lit FA writer on board, and taking the lead, not sure ... It seems that Barkeep49 is too busy, and I'm not sure what message VM93 is sending :) VM, would you take a lead role in a rewrite? Wtfiv is still busy at Joan of Arc, and there's Victoriaearle, who I hesitate to ask at this point, as this would be a big undertaking, and she has health issues. Who else is hiding in the woodwork? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Looking quickly through the article now (for the first time) it seems in fair shape to me. I don't personally feel we need an enormous amount of lit crit analysis here. Let me know when it comes to a vote. Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- after AleatoryPonderings addition of literary analysis, the percentage of the article devoted to career, analysis, critique and reception here is about on par with those articles;
- the space given to Rowling's non-writing activity (views, politics, charity, etc) is about double the average percentage of Joyce/Jolie, and
- the space given to Rowling's early, personal life health and death is about half of Joyce/Jolie (well, she hasn't died or had the health issues that Jolie had).
- Look who’s on the job :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- What is the point you are making? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC).
- Time will tell, but the star may be salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- The purpose of a talk page is to improve an article, not to comment gratuitously and ambiguously on other editors. I suggest you strike your comment. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC).
- I've had it on my watch for years. I didn't thinking the timing for the FAR was great and meant to get over here to comment earlier but forgot to watch the FAR, and now it's very long. I don't mind picking at the "themes" section but can't get access to all the pdfs I'd like. This one looks promising if anyone here has access to T&F and could send it on to me that would be helpful. Themes and style don't need a huge section here, really only summaries, whereas the individual book articles should have longer lit crit. sections. Will report back in a few days after taking a look at what else I can access. I've never thought the article itself is really bad; I've seen much worse. Victoria (tk) 00:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- If the Coords agree the FAR can stay open for work to proceed, a lot of the length (above) was about making the case not to delist, and can be moved to talk to make way for the real work here, if others agree. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Nikkimaria might you get the source mentioned above and email to Victoriaearle? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't have access to that one - suggest WP:RX if no one else here does. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- No prob. I submitted a renewal at the TWL portal, and for Project Muse - which will probably be more helpful. Looks like things are moving. Victoria (tk) 03:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle: I believe I have access to that, but not in directly shareable form. I can give you a few individual pages, and can work on adding stuff from it myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer Vanamonde93. Last night I was only dipping in and hadn't noticed yet that it's being used quite heavily, so I don't think there's any need to add more from that source. It looks like I can get what I need from Jstor. 21:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Victoriaearle: I believe I have access to that, but not in directly shareable form. I can give you a few individual pages, and can work on adding stuff from it myself. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- No prob. I submitted a renewal at the TWL portal, and for Project Muse - which will probably be more helpful. Looks like things are moving. Victoria (tk) 03:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Unfortunately I don't have access to that one - suggest WP:RX if no one else here does. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- Time will tell, but the star may be salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- What is the point you are making? Xxanthippe (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC).
NOTE, for anyone not familiar with FAR, work here is not typically done in days, rather weeks, and sometimes takes more than a month. The LEAD is usually best addressed last. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
- @SandyGeorgia: May I add minor points to your todo list? I'd rather not start a separate one for things that I haven't the time to fix, but are relatively easily fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:29, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93 Please do! I tend to raise larger issues in a separate talk page section, and link that from both here and article talk (in case the broader audience at article talk isn’t following major developments here), but the ToDo list is intended as a summary that we’ll all add to/strike from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- Vanamonde93 Please do! I tend to raise larger issues in a separate talk page section, and link that from both here and article talk (in case the broader audience at article talk isn’t following major developments here), but the ToDo list is intended as a summary that we’ll all add to/strike from. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:01, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
To Do List
Update 8 Jan
Update 14 January
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4 § Update 14 JanuaryUpdate 1 February 2022
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4 § Update 1 February 2022Update 15 February All items above have been addressed, work on the Transgender section is still deferred, editing has slowed, and we are working on a draft of the lead (with the exception of the Transgender portions). There has been no article instability since the brief edit war of 5 January. Aza24, Buidhe and Z1720 have looked at the article so far; this might be a good time for Barkeep49 and Johnbod to have a more thorough look, recognizing that we haven't yet worked on the TG people section, and lead work is in progress. Hog Farm might you look in now as well ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I'll see. A bit busy for the next few days, so don't wait too long for me. As a heads up, I have no familiarity with Rowling and never read the books as a kid because my family considered them objectional. Hog Farm Talk 19:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hog Farm, no hurry, and no prior knowledge makes for a good reviewer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Similar to Hog my time is limited at the moment but I'm adding a note to do a read through and anticipate getting to it later this week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- No hurry; I am pinging people for feedback in bits and pieces, so we aren't overwhelmed by too many comments at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- I will be starting some comments on the talk page. Hog Farm Talk 01:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
- No hurry; I am pinging people for feedback in bits and pieces, so we aren't overwhelmed by too many comments at once. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Similar to Hog my time is limited at the moment but I'm adding a note to do a read through and anticipate getting to it later this week. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- Hog Farm, no hurry, and no prior knowledge makes for a good reviewer! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Nothing new to add; article remains stable, content improvement has slowed (basically finished except for TG people section), all commentary raised here has been addressed, and I'm aware of no MOS, prose, comprehensive or any other deficiencies, outside of the TG people section. Work on an interim lead has begun, with the idea to progress to the Transgender people section after some interim improvement to the lead is settled on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The new lead was installed on 2 March with no kerfuffle; the article remains stable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Update 17 March
The interim lead that was installed on 2 March has held up with no kerfuffle, and the article remains stable. Rowling made some news during the last month because of long-standing involvement with orphanage advocacy reform in Ukraine, and a personal appeal for donations towards Ukraine relief, along with a tweet she made in March related to interpretations of UK laws on gender issues. A very minor amount of disruptive editing was seen at J. K. Rowling, as well as at sub-articles Politics of J. K. Rowling and Featured List of awards and nominations received by J. K. Rowling; all have been handled by normal editing and discretionary sanctions. Disruptive editing, misinterpreted sources, or otherwise fixed-through-normal-processes edits were:- IP blanking of text at the Awards sub-article
- Misrepresentation of a source; content rewritten and moved to Politics of J. K. Rowling. [3][4]
- Content added twice that misrepresents a source on information already in the article; addressed without kerfuffle.
- Disruptive editwarring to the lead by a now-blocked editor with a history of similar; that is, normal editing processes worked here.
The article is stable, the interim lead has held, and we should be ready to move on to cleaning up the issues remaining in the section on Transgender people. The issues to be addressed in that secion include:
- WP:CITATION OVERKILL
- inadequate use of summary style, trimming needed
- All sections in the article except this one have been trimmed considerably to reflect summary style, while overall article size was maintained even as the missing literary analysis, about a fifth of the article now, was added
- failure to use the highest quality most recent sources, eg, Pugh, 2020 which gives a good overview
- unnecessary reliance on primary sources like tweets which are covered by secondary sources
- excess detail on who agreed or disagreed with Rowling's statements regarding transgender issues; detail covered at the sub-article.
These adjustments should not be difficult, but when I asked on talk who was ready to begin, I got little response, so will ping people this week if there is no further feedback re addressing the remaining section. If other editors see other issues that need to be addressed, I hope they will list them and we can get moving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree that the current state of that subsection isn't ideal, but unlike with the literary analysis section, I do not think it is fatal to FA status; relative to the excess verbosity that has crept into other FAs, this is almost trivial, and while source improvements would be useful, what the best sources say isn't terribly different from what the article says at the moment. I would welcome further improvement, but have no time to make any myself, and in the absence of any rewrites would !vote to keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- We are in violent agreement :) I believe that the work needed in this section should be minor compared to the literary work already done, but would like to hear from others before we get going! I also agree that the article is now essentially at FA standard, although the issues in the Transgender people do open the article to charges of WP:UNDUE, as the length is not proportional. And the citation overkill just looks sloppy, particularly when we can use Pugh 2020 to say most of what is there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Basically agreed as well: the only issue I see as really serious on skimming the section is the obvious overcitation issues. I'd also like to get rid of detailed lists of who supports her and who doesn't: other than the actors of the main characters in the movies, I think most of these people aren't important to name. I'd also like to get rid of the lengthy quotes from Rowling: besides the general WP policy against lengthy quotes, Rowling's detractors usually don't accuse her of saying outright hateful things in plain text but of using dog-whistles. So, if we include the quotes, we would also need to include an explanation of why the quotes are objectionable, and that's way too much. Just say she's said things people objected to and don't dwell on the details. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Continued on talk page, where the work will happen. (This page is more of a summary of where we stand on the FAR.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Basically agreed as well: the only issue I see as really serious on skimming the section is the obvious overcitation issues. I'd also like to get rid of detailed lists of who supports her and who doesn't: other than the actors of the main characters in the movies, I think most of these people aren't important to name. I'd also like to get rid of the lengthy quotes from Rowling: besides the general WP policy against lengthy quotes, Rowling's detractors usually don't accuse her of saying outright hateful things in plain text but of using dog-whistles. So, if we include the quotes, we would also need to include an explanation of why the quotes are objectionable, and that's way too much. Just say she's said things people objected to and don't dwell on the details. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- We are in violent agreement :) I believe that the work needed in this section should be minor compared to the literary work already done, but would like to hear from others before we get going! I also agree that the article is now essentially at FA standard, although the issues in the Transgender people do open the article to charges of WP:UNDUE, as the length is not proportional. And the citation overkill just looks sloppy, particularly when we can use Pugh 2020 to say most of what is there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your work on this article. I don't have much to add that I haven't said a while back about that section, but feel free to ping me when more specifics are proposed. I do suggest coming up with a better name for the section itself; what her comments were on had more to do with policy or how to conceptualize gender itself rather than on "people" per se, and that framing could be argued to be biased in favor of the critics who rhetorically tend to equate comments on those matters with being against a group of people. Perhaps "transgender topics" (like the article Feminist views on transgender topics), "transgender identity" or "gender identity". Crossroads -talk- 23:40, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
- Crossroads I have been concerned about that distinction as well. Perhaps that should be our first order of business, if we can convene enough editors for a discussion. I wanted to allow some time for everything done so far to settle, to make sure it was stable. I'll wait a few more days to see who engages, and then start a section on FAR talk to address first the section name. Do you have anything else to add to my list of issues above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd like to keep it "transgender people" (or perhaps "transgender rights") for two reasons. Number one is that's pretty clearly the most common name for this, and number two is that I disagree that Rowling is talking about topics as airy as "how to conceptualize gender itself". None of her comments are academic, they're all situated quite firmly in a political context, and that political context is the acceptance of transgender people in the UK. She supported Maya Forstater who insulted and misgendered specific trans people. She opposes trans women in women's bathrooms and is for more gatekeeping against legal changing of gender. It's not just "sex is real" that she's arguing for; "sex is real" is rhetoric for a policy agenda that she outlines in the essay and which has much more concrete consequences than some academic argument about what exactly gender is. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Crossroads I have been concerned about that distinction as well. Perhaps that should be our first order of business, if we can convene enough editors for a discussion. I wanted to allow some time for everything done so far to settle, to make sure it was stable. I'll wait a few more days to see who engages, and then start a section on FAR talk to address first the section name. Do you have anything else to add to my list of issues above? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- My general sense is that if we trim the quotes and get rid of the "these people liked what she said and these people didn't" litany, it will be of acceptable quality. I am still unable to take the lead on this due to IRL commitments and general wiki-fatigue, but I will weigh in on specific proposals if pinged. Perhaps the easiest approach would simply be to trim specific sentences and cites that do not add anything useful, rather than trying to rewrite the prose wholesale? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:30, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this approach. As everyone else seems busy, I will work up a suggestion/start along these lines--perhaps by today, but first order of business is to sort the current dilemma wrt collaborative editing. [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- I basically agree with this approach too. However, there's one set of reactions I think we ought to leave in, and that's the reactions of people involved with the movies (e.g. Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson, etc). I think that those reactions are an important part of Rowling's notability by themselves. It's not really notable that Julie Bindel supports her or that GLAAD doesn't, but I do think it's notable that a long list of people involved with her work don't support her. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- LokiTheLiar, would you mind recording this with the discussions on the talk page instead of here? We use this page to summarize back where we stand on the work, and if long discussions take hold here, they can stall the overall FAR page. This is a point around which consensus will need to develop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable to me. I'm in the "I basically agree with this approach too" camp, but I'm pretty sure that Loki's idea will be controversial, because it will result in a bunch of negative coverage without balance. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:16, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- LokiTheLiar, would you mind recording this with the discussions on the talk page instead of here? We use this page to summarize back where we stand on the work, and if long discussions take hold here, they can stall the overall FAR page. This is a point around which consensus will need to develop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I basically agree with this approach too. However, there's one set of reactions I think we ought to leave in, and that's the reactions of people involved with the movies (e.g. Daniel Radcliff, Emma Watson, etc). I think that those reactions are an important part of Rowling's notability by themselves. It's not really notable that Julie Bindel supports her or that GLAAD doesn't, but I do think it's notable that a long list of people involved with her work don't support her. Loki (talk) 19:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with this approach. As everyone else seems busy, I will work up a suggestion/start along these lines--perhaps by today, but first order of business is to sort the current dilemma wrt collaborative editing. [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for the detailed summary, SG. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 12:14, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Workshopping the transgender section is underway on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:21, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion has remained largely collegial and productive, advancing steadily to the third draft of the transgender section. Progress has been slower than anticipated as it turns out the RFC conducted on the lead in December revolved around some text that was not even sourced in the article, so there has been more re-writing than anticipated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
JKR FARC break
edit- I anticipate entering a Keep declaration once others have reviewed, with the stipulation that it is anticipated that NEWsy sourcing will be replaced as scholarly sources become available. Should rewriting require new RFCs, it is hoped that the formatting will be vetted to avoid premature launch that can lead to faulty conclusions. This FAR has demonstrated that "slow and steady wins the race", and collaborative editing works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep now that Hog Farm, Aza24, Z1720 and 4meter4 have been through. For the @FAR coordinators: noting that Aza24, Buidhe, Hog Farm and Z1720 did lengthier reviews in February, before the lead rewrite, now stored at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 4. There are two unstruck delists from January based on instability; the article has not been unstable in the four months it has been at FAR; all changes have been in response to the FAR process or new developments (war in Ukraine) or disruptive editors subsequently blocked or topic banned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- I intend to take a look at this soon - I informally reviewed earlier in the FAR and thought it was looking in good shape sans a few areas that have been worked on since. Hog Farm Talk 15:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- I have contributed heavily to the rewrite so am not sure whether I should cast a formal !vote, but—with the exception of a few infelicitous sentences scattered throughout that I've been copyediting sporadically—I have no further concerns about the quality of this article. Reviewers should be aware that the article has indeed been totally rewritten since it was nominated: every section has changed substantially, vastly for the better in my opinion. Reviewers should keep this in mind. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:26, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, you can !vote, as long as your participation is declared (which I should have done as well; noting that the stats tool overstates my contributions relative to AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel and Vanamonde93 because I was the one to install many consensus versions and sources after FAR discussion. That is, a good deal of the text attributed to me was written collaboratively on talk, and only installed by me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Given SG's note and Z's comments below re INVOLVED editors !voting, I will also register a keep (bearing in mind that this is the only FA-related project I've been involved in in ages and ages). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, you can !vote, as long as your participation is declared (which I should have done as well; noting that the stats tool overstates my contributions relative to AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel and Vanamonde93 because I was the one to install many consensus versions and sources after FAR discussion. That is, a good deal of the text attributed to me was written collaboratively on talk, and only installed by me). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep—if this isn't at FA standard, then the standard we have set is too high. Fully sourced, good prose, formatted well and comprehensive. I will note that the dates in the bibliography don't conform to the established DMY dating throughout the rest of the article, but this isn't enough to prevent a keep from me (and I don't know that this is even an issue anyways). Aza24 (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- MOS says somewhere it's OK to use ISO dates in tables, and they are helpful, as they are sortable. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Kudos to SandyGeorgia who has spearheaded a successful FAR in my opinion. Issues related to stability have been satisfactorily addressed, and ultimately the revisions to the content on Rowling's views on gender have greatly improved the reliability and neutrality of the article. Sourcing is excellent, formatting and compliance with WP:MOS are well done, and coverage of Rowling is as thorough as it should be for an FA article. Happy to see the expansion of critical commentary of her work. Nice work by all who assisted with improving the article.4meter4 (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, 4meter4, but the real kudos go to AleatoryPonderings, Olivaw-Daneel and Vanamonde93. Could you please remember to strike your previous delist above, to help out the FAR Coords on the bookkeeping end? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - Excellent save. One of the greatest achievements of FAR. Hog Farm Talk 00:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm involved in this article and not usually involved in FAR, but the complaints of the OP have been addressed, a great deal of work has been put into the article, and to me it looks excellent now. I therefore say to keep it. Crossroads -talk- 04:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm doing a readthrough now, and it seems to be in excellent condition. A couple of quibbles before I make a decision:
- Can a date (even if it is a month and year) be given for the UK publication of Christmas Pig?
- Same date, done [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Note f needs a citation at the end of the note.
- In the Influences section, Lewis and Goudge are first mentioned by their last name, then wikilinked in the subsequent paragraph. Any particular reason for this?
- Fixed those, and Nesbit, too, [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I've read up to "Style and themes" and will continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 20:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Cumulative adjustments: [9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I finished reading through the article, made some minor changes, and can declare that I think this is a Keep. Z1720 (talk) 03:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not sure if I ought to enter a declaration, given how involved I was; but I do think the article meets our standards now, and it distinctly did not do so beforehand. The most serious concern was the absence of literary critique, which has been addressed; and the proliferation of trivia has also been addressed. Indeed I think more work was put into this FAR than into many successful FACs. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:04, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Just my opinion, but I think a declaration indicates to the FAR co-ords that the major contributors in fixing the article feel that the FAR is ready to be closed (and the editors don't plan on making further major changes). Z1720 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Keep, then, in that spirit. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Just my opinion, but I think a declaration indicates to the FAR co-ords that the major contributors in fixing the article feel that the FAR is ready to be closed (and the editors don't plan on making further major changes). Z1720 (talk) 03:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Caveat that I've contributed to the rewrite, but adding a !vote per Z1720. I believe the article meets the criteria and think this is a keep. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- 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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC) [15].
- Notified: Czalex, Cukrakalnis, Zscout370, Nieszczarda2, Pofka, Valentinian, Mzajac, Cordyceps-Zombie, WP Belarus, WP Heraldry andvexillology, noticed over a year ago
Review section
editThis 2006 promotion needs a bit of touching-up to reach current standards. There are patches of uncited text throughout, and some spots appear to lack needed detail, such as an explanation of why the 2020 change occurred. Some of the image licensing needs checked as well: the image of the building in Minsk needs checked because there is no freedom of panorama in Belarus, and the book dust jacket image may well be copyrighted. Some of the sourcing needs upgraded as well, such as citing a statement about Pahonia Publishers (which may not even be all that relevant) to the publishing information of a novel. Hog Farm Talk 17:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of W:NPOV issues here:
- The article instead of explaining the history and the meaning of the Pahonia for Belarusians is trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem
- The whole sentence "According to the formerly popular historian Arnold J. Toynbee, the pagan Lithuanians performed sweeping conquests of the Orthodox Ruthenians and this medieval greatness of Lithuania was conveyed in its heraldic emblem – a galloping horseman." is problematic (why Toynbee is the source here when there are thousands more reliable and recent sources to qoute? Toynbee wasn't an expert on Belarusian or Lithuanian heraldry)
- ancestors of Belarusians are called "Russians", their culture is called "Russian". That's very close to hoax
- Lithuanian mythologists presented as a reliable source of information (why they are even quoted here?)
The entire section should be rewritten based on reliable sources, written by professional academic heraldists. Marcelus (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Comment: According to Encyclopedia Britannica (possibly the most reliable information source in the entire world), no distinctive Belarusian national symbols were developed until the 20th century (see: Britannica's article). Also, Belarus had no statehood traditions until the 20th century and only in 1918 they created their first sovereignty (see: Britannica's article). Encyclopedia Britannica is the cornerstone of this article. That being said, I see no significant issues regarding Belarus' national symbols, but the "20th century" and "As a state symbol in the Republic of Belarus" sections certainly requires expansion with more details. I have strong doubts about this article's status as FP in 2022 because it certainly is not one of the finest articles in Wikipedia, thus I support its denomination from a FP status. -- Pofka (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think Britannica online is a very good source. I've seen uneven quality and accuracy in articles on other topics, and it's frequently out of date when compared to recent scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree. The Belarus-related articles in Britannica have not had major updates since being transferred online. So much has happened in scholarship since then. They are of a substandart quality nowadays. In addition, the articles on Belarus and the flag of Belarus do not deal with Pahonia directly anyway. Nieszczarda2 (talk) 06:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think Britannica online is a very good source. I've seen uneven quality and accuracy in articles on other topics, and it's frequently out of date when compared to recent scholarship. (t · c) buidhe 22:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Britannica is factually correct and ensures WP:NPOV. It may lack further details, but its facts are simply unchallengeable. -- Pofka (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- There's a definite difference between the old print volumes (which will be out of date for some topics, but of reasonable quality), but the Britannica Online stuff is simply less good than Britannica's reputation would say. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would reject britannica sourcing at the FA level, and probably other levels as well. Have a look at this trainwreck, which I encountered while peer reviewing nonmetal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Britannica is undoubtedly written in NPOV and it is trustworthy. These are the most important things. Britannica's article about Belarus was last updated on March 2, 2022, so it is certainly not outdated. -- Pofka (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would reject britannica sourcing at the FA level, and probably other levels as well. Have a look at this trainwreck, which I encountered while peer reviewing nonmetal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- There's a definite difference between the old print volumes (which will be out of date for some topics, but of reasonable quality), but the Britannica Online stuff is simply less good than Britannica's reputation would say. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Britannica is factually correct and ensures WP:NPOV. It may lack further details, but its facts are simply unchallengeable. -- Pofka (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support and suggest the POV template placed. The Pahonia part of the article does not meet several WP:FA criteria.
It is not well-researched: instead of relying on the major scholarly publications on Pahonia in Belarusian history by Tsitou and Shalanda, it leans on a substandard article in the Britannica and a number of irrelevant publications not dealing with the Belarusian use of Pahonia directly. The article is not neutral, it has signs of disruptive editing reflected in its incosistent style and structure. It contains mistakes or requiries further clarifications ("The Pahonia derives from the coat of arms of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania" - Pahonia was the coat of arms of GDL, unless the sentence is supposed to mean that the first state emblem of the Republic of Belarus derived from the coat of arms of GDL.) --Nieszczarda2 (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- There should have been a demotion of the article National emblem of Belarus from Featured-class to something lower already a long time ago, owing to the article's shortcomings.
- Regarding what Marcelus wrote. When Marcelus claims
The article instead of explaining the history and the meaning of the Pahonia for Belarusians is trying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem
, he is misconstruing the article. What he claims goes against WP:RS like Encyclopedia Britannica, various academic books and journals, even the expert vexillologist Whitney Smith among others. Some of Marcelus' criticisms are simply untrue, as there are explanatory phrases likeBelarusian nationalists viewed the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a historical form of Belarusian statehood along with medieval principalities of Polotsk, Turov and others
and there is also an explanation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania vis-à-vis its Slavic populations which are connected to the Belarusians. This is necessary for context. Toynbee's phrase also adds to that context, so it is unreasonable to remove it. Blaming statements that rely on Western sources fortrying so hard to prove that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem
is inaccurate and also a suspicious statement that reminds me of WP:POV. At its essence, the phrase blames WP:RS for being WP:POV. I must point out that the statements aboutancestors of Belarusians are called "Russians", their culture is called "Russian"
come from WP:RS. This does not mean that they are undoubtedly true, but still, just erasing it would be improper and against Wiki guidelines. As for "Lithuanian mythologists", those are included because of the sentenceSome Belarusian historians make a connection between the Pahonia and the cultural context, religious and mythological beliefs of Belarus's earliest inhabitants
. Belarus' earliest inhabitants include Balts/Lithuanians. Ergo, they must be written about. Finally, the proposed solution that there should be morereliable sources, written by professional academic heraldists
, is totally OK. However, care should be taken, as even some professional historians are NOT WP:NPOV (not according to me, but to academic sources), e.g. Jan Zaprudnik (named as nationalist in John Stanley's Book review of Jan Zaprudnik's "Belarus: At a Crossroads in History" (from 1994): Zaprudnik's views are those of a moderate nationalist).--Cukrakalnis (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Sources can be neutral, but their selection can create a non-neutral narrative. As in this case. It is obvious that the article is not written in a neutral way. And if the statement that Russian culture prevailed in Belarus comes from sources, it proves the worst about these sources and is a confirmation that they are not reliable. Marcelus (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV sources means that narrative is WP:NPOV, that's the reason that the guideline exists. Statements like Belarus only beginning in 1918 are WP:NPOV. If the Coat of arms existing for centuries before 1918 suddenly means
that Belarusian have no historical right to the Pahonia emblem
according to you, then it can't be helped. Also,it proves the worst about these sources
- you are talking about Encyclopedia Britannica. Calling it unreliable is very strong language.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- WP:NPOV sources means that narrative is WP:NPOV, that's the reason that the guideline exists. Statements like Belarus only beginning in 1918 are WP:NPOV. If the Coat of arms existing for centuries before 1918 suddenly means
- Move to FARC, it seems that everyone is in agreement that this needs work. Hog Farm Talk 14:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC. Cukrakalnis (Who says the article should be demoted) made one edit; there has been no other improvement, and the article still contains large amounts of uncited text, along with what now appears to be an NPOV dispute. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
- Move to FARC I haven't read the above, except for HF's original statement. However, I see that minimal edits have been made to the article in the past few months, and uncited statements, paragraphs, and sections remain in the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
FARC section
edit- Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delist. Unsourced sections, paragraphs and statements. DrKay (talk) 12:41, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delist. It is clearly not one of the finest articles in Wikipedia. -- Pofka (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delist per above (t · c) buidhe 23:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delist per above, work is needed. Hog Farm Talk 13:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Delist no progress to fix concerns since it's move to FARC. Z1720 (talk) 20:01, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
