Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles 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.

Raise issues at article Talk:

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

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 removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—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.

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 removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts 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.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. For articles on the Unreviewed Featured Articles list, no more than three nominations per week and twelve per month.
  2. For all other articles, one nomination at a time per nominator, 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.

  1. 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. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. 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".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. 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".
  5. 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".
  6. 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). 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 message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews[edit]

Connie Talbot[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject West Midlands

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it falls well below current standards. It was one of my first featured articles, and was promoted when expectations were quite different, and it hasn't really been kept up-to-date. While some of my older FAs have aged fairly well (I was pleased to get a positive comment about Dungeons & Dragons (album) when it ran on the MP a few weeks ago, despite being promoted back in 2007), some really haven't. I sadly do not have the time to work on the article at the moment, though there is some urgency: It was recently included as a forthcoming TFA: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 20, 2018. I don't think that the article is good enough to go on the main page, and so Ealdgyth suggested that I send it here. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@WP:TFA coordinators: I wonder if anything can be done about this? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)


Original nominator hasn't edited since 2012. Notified: WikiProject Dinosaur

This article was promoted more than a decade ago in 2006. Now it has become really messy.

  1. Several parts could be considered as a hodgepodge of super technical data without any coherent flow. A notable example is the section on Locomotion. It's extremely long, but there is no flow there at all. Random information that are hard to understand are put here and there without any consideration of legibility. This section needs to be summarized based on the current scientific consensus, and then further debates could be put in a separate article.
  2. Bad sources. I have found and deleted blog sources that were cited. The article still cites a lecture; even if it's delivered by a professor, it's not a proper scholarly publication. The article also cited "science for kids" website, and all the popular science sources need to be replaced by peer-reviewed scholarly publications. In addition, many sources are missing the pages, and the Internet sources are not cited properly.

There has been no substantial progress ever since I raised these issues on September 17, 2018 (other than the minor edits that I made). The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag, not to mention all the "page needed" problems. Mimihitam (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I will work on summarizing the sections this week. I think FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK and/or Lusotitan would be better suited for the rest. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that it is not policy, even for featured articles, to cite just the peer-reviewed literature!--MWAK (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, ok, I thought it would be better to fix this internally in the dino project at our own pace rather than make it an "official" FAR; now we have unfortunately set a time limit for ourselves, and therefore risk demotion. There has been substantial discussion on the talk page, and a to do list is being worked on, so this FAR is premature, since according to the instructions, it is supposed to be the last resort. As for the comment "The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag", well, you make it sound like a surprise, but you put it there yourself... FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Summarising the Locomotion section will not be easy. There simply is no "current scientific consensus". It has been a contentious subject for thirty years and this has attracted a lot of research effort resulting in a constant flow of new papers. And that's all the flow the section should contain. We are not allowed to omit older work as irrelevant, or put the papers into some teleological framework as if we knew what the end result shall be. We don't and even when we did, we would not be allowed to let it influence the text as it would be OR and POV. Summarising will make the text much less understandable unless it consists of a lot of editorialising.--MWAK (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of the locomotion section, it begins with two unsourced sentences that don't articulate well, have no citations, give no new information, and treat the hunter/scavenger thing as a relevant debate. Should this be removed? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
They are a good example of the kind of text that would remain after summarising. An authoritative meta-analysis is not available from the secondary sources, so we would be forced to provide one, guiding the reader through the subject. Such higher-order analysis can often not be sourced. As the hunter/scacvenger debate is historically relevant, it's defensible to treat the subject using it as a conceptual scheme.--MWAK (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to touch up the paleoecology section. Surely one of the most studied dinosaurs ever has more to say about its environment and predator-prey relationships. I think most of the feeding-strategies section could be moved there - suggestions it preyed on this or that, or that it was a scavenger or hunter, that feels more ecological, though bite force and pack behaviour fit more with our use of the paleobiology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
You could argue it is arbitrary to place info on feeding behaviour under paleobiology rather than paleoecology, but it is probably best to be consistent with most other articles, where such info is under paleobiology. One thing MWAK argued for, though, is to make the two part of a single section, as was done in Achelousaurus. Or, rather than paleoecology, such sections could instead be called paleoenvironment, as suggested by Christophe Hendrickx. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
MWAK did something different from others with Ahcelousaurus because he thought it made more sense, and I'd be doing the same here. Predator-prey relationships are very clearly under the window of ecology and if we're going to have such a section (and I think we should), then I see no reason not to put such information there. Palaeobiology as a section is overstuffed anyways. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
My own general philosophy on this is that whoever does the work should also get the final decision. But consistency across articles is always good for a variety of reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and my opinion is that all of our articles should have ecology in the ecology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is going to affect other articles, I think the best solution is simply to rename such sections "palaeoenvironemnt", both because that's pretty much what they're about (and we have been advised to rename as such by a palaeontologist), and it will avoid us making drastic, and in my opinion unneeded, changes to already promoted articles for consistency. In any case, we would need a project discussion before doing it as a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I would still disagree, the palaeobiology section is ginormous since everything that doesn't fit in the other sections is thrown in it, so moving out feeding information into the more logical palaeoecology section kills two birds with one stone. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Feeding fits better in paleobiology. Paleobiology deals with how the animal functioned in life based on its anatomy while paleoecology is about the environment it lived in and thus is more about strata. With prehistoric animals we can't observe then behaving in the wild, we can only infer it from the remains and thus the articles are anatomy based. LittleJerry (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Like most issues in Wikipedia, perhaps this debate should be settled by the sources. For example, the book Dinosaur Paleobiology lists feeding and "paleoecology and dwelling" as two separate chapters. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • General comment - I don't think I'll have time to review this article, but I would like to point out that if you want to be sure that it is comprehensive and neutral, you should make heavy use of good secondary sources. I notice, for example, that the Tyrannosaur Chronicles was only cited once; and in that book, the Further reading section has some general sources that are also cited little or not at all. Let's not forget PSTS, which is part of the policy on original research: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. " RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
There is probably a lot of relevant published science which hasn't been covered by secondary sources (using primary sources is allowed in any case), but if anyone has Dave Hone's recent book "The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs"[1], that could probably be a good way to fill in possible gaps of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

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

Mumia Abu-Jamal[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Philadelphia, Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Civil Rights Movement

I nominated this article for featured article status (only archive4 and after, not the previous times), but I've come to the realization that the nomination was a mistake. As detailed at Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal/Archive 4#Far from a featured article and Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal/Archive 3#Primary sources almost the entirety of the promoted version was sourced from primary sources, because secondary sources are almost always grossly partisan. The prose of the article has since suffered and it now consists of short stubby paragraphs and sections. I no longer believe that this article meets criteria 1a, 1c, or 2b. There are also problems with 1d (the article is now skewed to a more pro-Mumia viewpoint) and 3 (see Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mumia2.jpg). As previously indicated, the article is not maintained[2]. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

See above. Moved to FARC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Choppy paras - prose, comprehensiveness and POV issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Delist. Problems remain. No substantial changes since the review opened. DrKay (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Werner Mölders[edit]

Notified: K.e.coffman, MisterBee1966, Nigel Ish, LargelyRecyclable, Ian Rose, Cinderella157, Kierzek, Anotherclown, Bishonen, Assayer, Doug Weller, AustralianRupert, Creuzbourg, Sturmvogel 66, Iazyges, Parsecboy, Lineagegeek, TomStar81, Peacemaker67, Jayen466, Jake Wartenberg, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject European history, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Biography

This article was promoted in 2009 and has not been under formal review since then. In 2017, a major content dispute (1c, stability) arose regarding the level of detail (4, length) and quality of sourcing (1c, well-researched, and possibly 1d, neutral). Some editors, particularly K.e.coffman, were concerned that the article relied too much on questionable far-right and fringe militaria sources. A dispute also arose as to whether the word "Luftwaffe" should be italicized (potentially 1a). Recently, the article was restored to the pre-2017 status quo by MisterBee1966, adding more than 20,000 bytes to the article (to give an idea of the magnitude of the content dispute). There is an ongoing ArbCom case including several of the editors involved in the content dispute, with Arbcom members expressing support for overall bans or topic bans for some of the editors.

This case was brought to my attention by Nigel Ish, who described the content dispute as "severe and irreconsilable" (sic), and supported the article's delisting. For these reasons, I think that the article should be scrutinized to see if it meets 2018 FA criteria, and if not, if it can be brought up to meet that criteria. Catrìona (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I note that my name has been mentioned above, in that I originally raised concerns about the stability of the article owing to the ongoing removal and replacement of material. I will make no comments on the case owing to the ongoing Arbcom proceedings and the resultant litigious atmosphere where Arbcom have clearly interfered in a content dispute, which has resulted in a situation where further comment or editing on some topics is not safe.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

Comments I have some suggestions for where sources could be re-checked, or the article further improved:

  • " He the first fighter pilot to amass 100 aerial victories in World War II" - given the over-claiming which was common (and unavoidable) in World War II, this isn't credible as it presents all of his claims as proven. He was the first to have claimed this, but it's almost certain that he wouldn't have actually destroyed all 100 aircraft he claimed. What do post-war assessments say?
  • There were fairly strict rules for confirming claims, requiring witnesses etc, and he had another ten unconfirmed claims. A quick Google Books search indicates that Spick (2011) [3] and Kaplan (2007) [4] also credit him with being the first to 100. I don't think this is particularly exceptional. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that helps. The wording here (and elsewhere in the article) could be improved though: it says that he "claimed" kills, which is different to them being "confirmed". From memory, discussions at WT:MILHIST and similar have generally concluded that we should focus on confirmed numbers, and present them as such (e.g., to minimise use of the term and concept "claimed"). Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think one of the issues is that pilots would make a claim after returning, but confirmation in a pilot's logbook might not happen until later, perhaps from ground troops or a shot down wingman. I think it is ok to list them as claims in the narrative then clarify the total number of confirmed victories in the dedicated table. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Why did Mölders continue to focus on flying combat sorties after being appointed to what looks to have been a key command role in 1941? (at a time when the German invasion of the USSR was failing). How do historians interpret this?: it would seem that he effectively ignored his duties. From memory, some historians note that the Luftwaffe's poor performance in the second half of the war was partly due to the lackadaisical attitude of some of the combat commanders who were appointed to command and coordination roles: many preferred to fly combat sorties when they should have been doing staff work.
  • "He was a devoutly religious individual who demanded that all Allied aviators captured by those under his command be treated civilly, and often would invite captured pilots to dine with him" - did his units actually capture many airmen? (it seems hard to see how they would have). Also, did this courtesy extend to Soviet pilots?
  • "the British intelligence agency dropped flyers over Germany " - the British had several intelligence agencies by this time, so this should be made more specific
  • This is the same faked letter mentioned in the next two paragraphs, and I have combined them. Could you please read over it to see if it flows properly? Kges1901 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "As of 24 June 2005, it is the central attraction at the Navy Museum in Wilhelmshaven" - this should be updated
  • The para starting with "Evidence also demonstrates Mölders' propensity to value friendships over political expediency." needs to be re-worked. It goes into detail about Mölders assisting a Jewish family, but then concludes by stating that the MGFA regards the story as unlikely: this undercuts both the claim made in the first sentence, and the account which is the para's focus.
  • Regarding the Jewish/Mischlinge story, I personally think that it should be reduced to much shorter statement such as, "Mölders' brother claimed that he had helped a friend from school, who had some Jewish ancestry, but the MGFA ruled this assertion "highly speculative," and did not investigate further." Intermarried Jews were protected from deportation, as were German Mishlinge, some of whom even served in the Wehrmacht.[5] "Families with an Aryan husband and baptized children were part of the category classified as “privileged mixed marriages”: they received better rations and the Jewish wife did not have to wear the yellow Star of David."[6]—Mölders had nothing to do with that. Only towards the end of the war were they targeted for deportation, but then only to the less hellish camps such as Theresienstadt or to labor battalions, and the chances of survival were much better.[7] Catrìona (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that Catrìona: I agree. The mechanisms of the Holocaust for German Jews could be surprisingly bureaucratic, with Jews in certain circumstances having a degree of protection due to various regulations. The intermarriage regulations were among the most important. War veterans also had a degree of protection: both factors acted to save Victor Klemperer's life, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Commemoration and reversal of honours" section would benefit from placing the removal of honours in the context of the much broader re-evaluation of Germany's wartime history which has taken place since the 1980s. Most modern Germans are not keen to honour heroes of the Nazi war effort, and the modern German military has also been at pains to distance itself from them. As such, Mölders and the people associated with the Condor Legion have not been singled out: this has formed part of a broad effort (from what I've seen in visits to Germany, only military personnel who have unequivocal links with the resistance and weren't involved in war crimes are officially honoured).
  • More broadly, the discussion of Mölders' attitudes towards the Nazi Government is difficult to follow, and uses weasel words at times. It seems that he wasn't enthusiastic about the Nazis and passively resisted the worst of the Government's actions, but didn't outright resist them (a very common approach among Germans, not least due to the brutal methods the regime used against those who explicitly opposed it). The article at times seems to be trying to inflate the extent of his resistance, despite noting that the MGFA takes a fairly dim view of the topic. It would be better to call a spade a spade.
  • The article needlessly includes the German language names for things such as medals which translate directly into English: this doesn't seem helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    • G'day Nick, I've trimmed some of that. Feel free to trim some more as necessary. I think the ranks and unit names need to stay in German, as that is generally how they appear in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • By the way, in regards to concerns about intricate detail or similar, I'd suggest comparing this article to FAs on Allied fighter aces. These also go into detail on the men and their personality. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Which fighter ace bios? For WWII Allied FAs, I've only found Caesar Hull, Peter Jeffrey, and Dick Cresswell. There are also some WWI fighter ace FAs (Richard Williams, Thomas Baker, George Jones) and a WWII bomber pilot (William Brill). All of these, with the possible exception of Hull, have very little about their personal lives and focus on their careers and notability. The fighter pilot politicians (John McCain, Ian Smith) don't make a good comparison because their personality/personal life is more relevant to their politics than their military careers. Pat Pattle is a GA and says almost nothing about his personality, despite some details being sourcible to QS material relating to him. Johnnie Johnson, also a GA, has considerable information on his background but I would argue that's not comparable because it influenced his military career by not allowing him to join the RAF earlier.
I think it's important to distinguish between personal details of Allied fighter pilots, and those offered for Mölders. What the sources are trying to argue, and the article ends up insinuating, is that Mölders was ideologically opposed to the same regime that he was fighting for—a pattern in German WWII bios as many people want to be able to admire these people without connecting them to National Socialism or the crimes of the Nazi regime. Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary proof and extra scrutiny. Catrìona (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As an extra comment, I just read through the 'In propaganda' section, and it's a bit confusing: the narrative of how the leaflet was developed is unclear. It also carries the implication that Nazis couldn't be Catholics (or vice-versa?), which was far from the case. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Given this has been raised as an issue, I thought I'd start a section to discuss the sourcing.

There are several issues that have been raised on the talk page and they form the justification for the article tagging. These seem to me to be of three types. The first issue is the claim that some of the sources are weak and/or dated, in particular Obermaier & Held (1996), but also Obermaier (1989, but apparently it is actually older). The second is an issue of a possibly questionable source, Prien (1997) with issues raised about the publisher. The third issue is the lack of use of the biography (what is the title?) by Kurt Bratz (2008) and a few articles on the reversal of honours, in other words a failure to use more recent scholarship, albeit most of it is in German and may not be accessible to many editors on en WP. Anything else? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks (I was searching on the wrong spelling of the surname), according to Worldcat, there are no copies of this book in Australian libraries, so I won't be able to help with this one. Perhaps the next step is to look at reviews of the book to see what is highlighted as being unique to this book? That might help to narrow down a request for a chapter or two on WP:RX. There are some reviews listed on the talk page, so I'll request them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Weak and/or dated sources[edit]

I think this depends on what is being sourced from them. If we are talking about exceptional claims about something like Mölders' alleged anti-Nazism, then these are probably not suitable, particularly if they are contradicted by recent scholarship. However, if they are being used for mundane matters of what type of aircraft Mölders shot down on a particular day, that is another matter, and I don't see a problem. The latter type of material is not likely to be updated by recent scholarship. On the other hand, if recent scholarship has uncovered information about Mölders that had not previously come to light, then recent scholarship should be preferred over older works on those matters. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Questionable source[edit]

This revolves around the fact that Prien is published by Schiffer, and a claim that Schiffer is questionable because they "have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest". It isn't clear to me that a case has been made that Schiffer meets this criteria. Sure, they publish "popular history", but what evidence is there that they have published factually incorrect material or have no meaningful editorial oversight, for example? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Schiffer has always struck me as a mixed bag. Some of the works they publish are very good (including some re-prints of excellent works initially published elsewhere), while others are very bad. My impression is that the firm doesn't exercise strong editorial oversight, though it's not at the bottom of the heap: there appear to be at least some editors and other publishing professionals involved, though I suspect that fact-checking is not rigorous (for instance, its books are professionally typeset, illustrated and printed which is uncommon for essentially self-published works). Where books have been initially published by a more rigorous publisher and/or the author has a good track record as a historian this doesn't matter. A useful check for works which don't meet these criteria is to see if reputable historians have referenced them. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I was actually thinking of Stackpole! I'm less familiar with Schiffer. Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I have a Schiffer book about one of the Muslim SS divisions. It is thoroughly footnoted, has a good bibliography, is professionally typeset and illustrated and has no typos or grammatical problems I can recall. It won an award from Rutger's University, and also covers not only the military aspects, but also the political and social basis of the division, as well as war crimes. But specifically regarding Prien, here are reviews of two of his volumes published in Air Power History [8]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I should have added that Schiffer's website says they have a dedicated group of military history editors, and Prien is published by other publishing houses, Struve-Druck and Rogge Verlag. On the basis of that, the two reviews, and the lack of any evidence that Schiffer has "a poor reputation for checking the facts, lacks meaningful editorial oversight, or has an apparent conflict of interest", I consider that Prien isn't questionable and is a reliable source for the material it is being used for. This material only relates to the naming of JG 53, an accident he had, his receipt of the Iron Cross Second Class, and the formation of III./JG 53, none of which requires an exceptional source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Recent scholarship[edit]

Articles should always be updated to include the most recent scholarship, and this article should be no exception. An issue for this review may be the accessibility of such sources, if they are in German. My German isn't great and is focussed on land warfare technical terminology rather than aviation stuff, but I can try. Assistance is likely to be needed from Assayer and others with German language skills, and access to the sources may be difficult as well for those whose library access is mainly English-speaking. I certainly can try to get access to the articles via WP:RX and can ask for help if I find I'm out of my depth with the German. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

For a start, I've requested the article by Klaus Schmider, "German Military Tradition and the Expert Opinion on Werner Mölders: Opening a Dialogue among Scholars", which appears from the abstract to be quite critical of the work of the MGFA in providing the rationale for the de-naming of Jagdgeschwader (Fighter Wing) 74 Mölders. Here is the abstract.[9] Once I've secured a copy I'll start adding material from it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Just an update: I've also requested Bernd Lemke, "Moral Micrology vs. Subsumption: A methodical perspective on the "Mölders Case"," in: Global War Studies, Vol. 7 (2010), Nr. 1, pp. 123-134 for balance. Once I've received these two I will seek to add to/modify the "Commemoration and reversal of honours" section, which appears to be the most critical section needing updated scholarship. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for my belated reply, but I have been busy elsewhere, mostly RL. The aforementioned articles are a good place to start, because the case of Mölders has indeed received some attention and drawn some controversy by historians. I think I have provided the links earlier at Talk:Werner Mölders#Update on the literature: There was a discussion between Schmider and Heiner Möllers published on Portal Militärgeschichte, quite a good resource for recent scholarship in military history, btw. The links are (in random order) doi:10.15500/akm.26.06.2017, doi:10.15500/akm.28.11.2016, [10], doi:10.15500/akm.05.09.2016. Unfortunately I will not be able to get hold of a copy of the bio by Kurt Braatz. It is not held by many German libraries. There is a review by Heiner Moellers on H-Soz-Kult.[11] I have noticed that recent edit by MisterBee1966Diff, who now seems to make good use of that work. I think that this edit invariably demonstrates that the bio by Obermaier/Held is unreliable. I am a little surprised, though, that MisterBee let the fiction by Obermaier/Held stand as if it was real. --Assayer (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I understand MisterBee1966 now has a copy of Braatz, and I look forward to the article being improved with that source. What fiction though, Assayer? Can you clarify? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I imagine he is referring to the first part of the paragraph qualified by this edit [12] Catrìona (talk) 02:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
That Molders intervened on behalf of the Frenchman that attacked him, or who shot him down? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:35, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I am letting it stand for now until I have fully read, and understood, the Braatz book and have an idea on how to best address the subject. According to Braatz, Mölders, in parts, approved the story that he was shot down by a French pilot as he did not want to give the German propaganda the opportunity to portray him and the Luftwaffe as a superior force where only he could be beaten by a German pilot. The entire relationship of Mölders, the German propaganda, Fritz von Forell (author of his wartime biography), and Göring has yet to be addressed as well. According to Braatz, Mölders was very much aware of what the propaganda tried to make of him and he wanted to retain some level of control over the information. In addition, Braatz states that after his death, there was quite a dispute over his inheritance, which was sizable. Noteworthy, Braatz states that Mölders widow was to receive a relatively large house, a gift from Hitler personally. She was given the option to choose among a few in Munich. She found out that these houses belonged to Jewish families and were to be seized from them. Apparently she had a good understanding of the situation and carefully rejected the gift. MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:19, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I did indeed, as Catriona hinted, refer to the first part of that paragraph sourced to Obermaier/Held. To my mind it does not make much sense to have a paragraph which first states: While in French captivity, Mölders asked to shake hands with the pilot who had shot him down, and learned that Pomier-Layrargues had been killed in action 30 minutes after their encounter, and then directly contradicts that a couple of sentences later by stating: Braatz investigation revealed, Mölders was not shot down by Pomier-Layrargues. You cannot have it both ways, so I would have expected that those anecdotes would have been put into perspective. If the story of the requested pardon is "very likely ficticious", why is it still narrated as fact? Braatz's investigation seems much more reliable to me. I would also imagine that he explictly dealt with the earlier literature like Obermaier/Held and their reliability.--Assayer (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I think someone has picked up the wrong end of the stick here. In one of the articles you yourself linked on the talk page [13], Schmider repeats that Mölders was shot down by Pomier-Layrargues and cites p.218 of Braatz for the fact (although he says that Braatz states an accidental shooting down by a German aircraft is possible), and he also goes on to explore recent scholarship on the requested pardon and concludes that Mölders did intervene with Goering on behalf of the Frenchman. This section needs a rewrite to reflect current scholarship, but questions about the reliability of Obermaier/Held on this issue are not as cut-and-dried as you claim. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Yes, Schmider believes that Mölders was shot done by Pomier-Layrargues, although he does not name any sources for that. But as you yourself once put it, it is our job to compare and contrast what the sources say, even if they are contradictory. I do not believe, however, that it is our job to produce paragraphs which are contradictory in themselves. You cannot narrate as factual that Mölders was shot down near Compiègne at about 18:40 by Sous lieutenant René Pomier Layrargues and continue, investigation revealed, Mölders was not shot down by Pomier-Layrargues. If you got new information, the least you should do is attribute the different stories to their respective sources. What apparently neither Schmider, Braatz, Hagena, and even Mölders' Nazi biographer Fritz von Forell claim, however, is the story of the stolen Knight's Cross, the mistreatment by soldiers (seems to have been a punch by a civilian) and that a French soldier was concemnded to death but pardoned at the behest of Mölders (see Schmider for details regarding the French civilian sentenced to twelve, later reduced to six, years imprisonment). For me that demonstrates that Obermaier/Held are not reliable, but still their bio is being used for much information without contribution. My understanding of a thread on recent scholarship is that it also demonstrates where older sources are unreliable.--Assayer (talk) 11:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I reworded the section. According to Braatz (see pages 36 and 179), Fritz von Forell was a relative of Mölders, married to his cousin since 1928. Braatz claims, Forell was never a member of the Wehrmacht propaganda nor any other German propaganda machine, he was an officer (Major) in the Heer. Braatz source for this statement is "Militärgeschichtliches Forschungsamt: Jagdgeschwader 74 'Mölders', Mölders Kaserne, Potsdam 2004, p. 5.". Subsequently I question if classifying him as "Nazi biographer" is a fair representation. As said before, I am still reading. Cheers MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

To serve the Nazi propaganda effort, you do not need to be an official member of the "propaganda machine". de:Wolfgang Schmidt (Historiker) describes Forell, a party member since 1933, as an author who conformed with Nazism and cites Forell's memoir Wir vom verlorenen Haufen (1936) about his captivity in Russia as evidence. According to Schmidt, Forell's Mölders und seine Männer gloryfied war as intended and defined by the Nazis. In fact, in a new edition published in 1951 Forell himself claimed that due to the then prevailing conditions his 1941 book was "only fragmentary". Schmidt questions the authenticity of the newly incorporated quotes by Mölders, however, arguing that it was Forell's intention to construct a distance between Mölders and the NS regime that otherwise could not be shown from other sources. Forell also published about Mölders in the Deutsches Soldatenjahrbuch (1963) and a new edition of his bio in the Druffel-Verlag, all of them well known for their extremist rightwing political outlook. (Wolfgang Schmidt, "Organisiertes Erinnerung und Vergessen in der Bundeswehr. Traditionspflege am Beispiel der „Causa Mölders“." In: Nina Leonhard u.a. (ed.), Organisation und Gedächtnis. Soziales Gedächtnis, Erinnern und Vergessen – Memory Studies, Wiesbaden 2016, pp. 183-223.) Anyway, I would strongly question the neutrality of an article which puts undue weight on sources like Obermaier/Held. by treating them at equal length as recent scholarship. Is there a specific reason why their (fan) fiction should be kept?--Assayer (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
According to Braatz, Mölders attempted to use Forell as an editorial means to counter the official Nazi propaganda machine, in particular Mölders seemed to have rejected how some of the other pilots (Wick, Trautloft) have explored popularity. Additionally, Braatz explains that the war, following the Battle of France, was almost exclusively fought by the Luftwaffe as well as by the Kriegsmarine (U-boats). In Braatz view, this posed a new challenge for the German propaganda. Apparently, it was easier to communicate the advance troops made on the battlefield. Subsequently the German propaganda started focusing on soldiers which excelled, in particular U-boat commanders and fighter pilots. Braatz indicates that Mölders was aware of this. On the one hand he did not want this media attention, on the other hand, he understood that he could not escape it. Caught in this dilemma, Mölders had (exclusively) authorized Forell to write a book about him (and his men), Braatz stated that including his men was a means to defocus from Mölders alone and also give credit for his success to others). Do you think this should be included, and if yes, how so? MisterBee1966 (talk) 18:02, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Interesting and far reaching thesis by Braatz. I notice that particulalrly this thesis was appreciated by, the website maintained by former Bundeswehr general Michael Vollstedt. Is this Braatz's own interpretation/conclusion or does he back that up with further sources? But I doubt that the German propaganda faced a new challenge in 1940, because the aviator-hero was already an important image before the war. In terms of ideology, as Manfred Funke put it, the army was Prussian, the navy Imperial and the airforce Nazi. More propaganda movies dealt with the airforce than with the army or the navy, many of them by Karl Ritter like Legion Condor of 1939. Does Braatz discuss works on the cultural image of the aviation hero in Nazi Germany like those by Peter Fritzsche? Stefanie Schüler-Springorum's study Krieg und Fliegen (2010) about the Legion Condor might also be worth a look. As Wolfgang Schmidt sees it, by enlisting Forell Mölders himself had a major share in his own heroization. Schmidt knows the bio by Braatz, but merely cites the revenue that the very well selling book by Forell generated. And didn't Mölders commission the book as early as 1939? I'll leave it up for other opinions whether that information is covered by Wikipedia's criteria of "comprehensiveness". I would be interested in a discussion of Mölders' image and how it was created. As usual interpretations should be attributed to its respective sources and all notable views by reliable sources should be covered.--Assayer (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay, you pose many questions I am not yet prepared to answer, and I must reread parts of the book to address them. What I recall, unlike Hannes Trautloft (one of a few examples given) who wrote Fliegeranekdoten in 1939 following his return from Spain, Mölders refused to write, publish himself, or have someone else write about him. Braatz states, at the time, the German propaganda had enough heroes who willingly participated in this game without having to focus on Mölders. I am not exactly sure when Mölders first handed over material to Forell, but I recall that at the time did not authorize any publications. According to Braatz, Mölders continued to fall through the net of the German propaganda until he was awarded the Oak Leaves in late September 1940. Shortly after, in October the Luftwaffe propaganda magazine Der Adler published an article on Mölders. According to Braatz, this event triggered Mölders to change his attitude (pressured into is pobably less euphemistic) and subsequently had Forell proceed with the publication. Mölders did this to control the information presented. Braatz states that Der Adler distorted facts to the dislike of Mölders, one of which was the distortion of his former membership in the Bund Neudeutschland which in Der Adler sounded like a membership in the Hitler Youth (or some other scouting organization). You wrote "As Wolfgang Schmidt sees it, by enlisting Forell Mölders himself had a major share in his own heroization." Yes, I would agree to that statement. However, as said before, Braatz claims that Mölders intend was to control information and, contrary to other contemporary German publications, was free from ideological superiority theories. Braatz stresses the fact that Mölders had lost his father in a war with France and Britain, a fact which impacted him in his willingness to fulfill his military oath given before God. Braatz claims, due to Mölders upbringing, education and belief, Mölders was bound to his oath. Mölders was unable to see and understand that Hitler, to whom Mölders had pledged loyalty, abused him (and others), and that the regimes intentions were criminal in nature. MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────I should update that I have been unable to secure copies of the two Global War Studies articles I requested at WP:RX, but perhaps we could proceed with the Schmider article at Portal Militärgeschichte, which appears to be a summary of the state of play in 2016? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Just adding this link again for MisterBee1966, this is the recent article by Schmider that nicely sums up the scholarly state of play on a number of controversial issues regarding Mölders. As it is in German, I thought it would be better if you gleaned material from it rather than me with my poor German. I consider it should be used as the basis for a rewrite of a couple of paragraphs that currently are contradictory or confusing, as noted by Assayer above. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:09, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • If I may, the photo under the "Eastern front" subsection is a portrait of Mölders with the caption "Oberst Werner Mölders - 101 official victories in World War II". This seems hagiographic and, as it stands, out of place. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

From reading this, it does not sound like there is consensus about content and sourcing. Furthermore the article is still tagged. Hence I have moved to the FARC section and invite people to state their opinion over the current status of the article and remaining issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment Some of the sourcing criticisms aren't convincing, as reliability of sources depends very much on what they are being used to cite, per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Uncontroversial information doesn't require academic sources, just reliable ones focussed on the subject. However, the article really should rely heavily on Braatz (the most recent bio), not earlier biographies like Obermaier and Held, and the inadequate handling of the controversial aspects of Mölders' story let the article down in terms of recent scholarship and comprehensiveness respectively. It needs a concentrated effort to bring it up to Featured standard in those areas, and I'm not seeing the required level of effort being committed to it at the moment. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist Not all of my comments above have been addressed, and the article still fails to place Mölders in perspective and includes weasel words and over-emphasis of dubious claims (for instance, the para starting with "According to Viktor Mölders, his brother had saved Georg Küch, one of Werner Mölders' closest friends, who had been classified as a half-Jew by the Nuremberg Laws" is details a story which experts doubt is true. Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Cannae[edit]

Original nominator hasn't edited since 2013. Notified: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Rome

This article is one of the oldest Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles. The lead is too short, many statements are uncited, and many references lack page numbers. Much of the sourcing is from old texts or primary sources, rather than up-to-date secondary ones. The original nominator hasn't edited since 2013. DrKay (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

llywrch comments

It will be difficult to bring this article up to FA status. I've spent most of the last 6 hours since I saw DrKay's notice sizing up what it would take to do this, & maybe if one had two full-time weeks to read the necessary books & extract the needed information this could be done. But there are several clear issues. Here are some of my thoughts:

  • I don't see why the lead is considered "too short". It covers the topic adequately, & comparing it to the leads of other Wikipedias this lead does not omit any information. (I could add some details about why, although it was a crushing defeat for the Romans, it did not win the war for Hannibal. But one would be guessing.)
  • Citing primary sources is not in itself a bad thing. Having reviewed three of the major primary sources, I have to say I'm pleasantly surprised that they agree so well in the events of the battle. Where they differ is which incidental details they include or exclude. For example, only Plutarch includes the story where Hannibal jokes about there being not one Gisgo in the Roman army. However, I have to complain that the original sources are not provided in a format both consistent & useful. I don't know what the MoS says on the matter, but my personal preference is to provide the book/chapter/section divisions of the original text, with an additional note pointing to a translation. Primary sources (i.e. Polybius, Livy, Plutarch) are sometimes cited by page of translation -- which is of no help to someone who doesn't happen to have access to that specific printing of the translation, or wants to read the source in the original language.
  • I've found at least two of the secondary sources cited are, in effect, non-expert essays. Acceptable sources for 2006, but not at all acceptable now.
  • Looking hard at the remaining citations, I notice a very heavy dependence on Gregory Daly, Cannae: The Experience of Battle in the Second Punic War. Which may be an entirely fine book. But there are other books by experts -- for example, I added to the "Further reading" section Robert L. O'Connor, The ghosts of Cannae: Hannibal and the darkest hour of the Roman republic (2010), written by an instructor at a military institution, which I have read & found to have a lot of insights this article would benefit from. Lastly, the Oxford Classical Dictionary, 4th ed. article on this battle lists two books not at all mentioned in this article: J.F. Lazenby, Hannibal's War (1978), & J. Seibert, Hannibal (1993). I have not seen either book, but their mention by the OCD is a recommendation worth considering.

What is frustrating is that, IMHO, the bones of this article are fine. There are no errors of fact in this article that I can detect. But the fact this article is basically a paraphrase of Gregory Daly interpreting the primary sources does prevent this from serious consideration as a FA. -- llywrch (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've fixed some of the issues I noted above, & corrected some faulty citations. I also made two of the most memorable incidents after the battle -- the pile of gold rings on the Carthaginian Senate floor, & Scipio Africanus' fiery threat to wavering Roman officers -- more prominent. -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Second update: Looking over a fraction of the many works on this famous battle, I believe this article needs two additional sections. The first about the location of the battle; there are three locations in the neighborhood of the hill where the ruins of Cannae lie experts have proposed the battlefield is. The second I'll simple refer to under a possible section header, "Carnage". To quote Robert L. O'connell, The Ghosts of Cannae (pp. 157f):

...exploring the details of the massacre [of the encircled Romans] might seem to serve little purpose beyond pandering to some bloodlust with a kind of pornography of violence. Yet war is truly terrible, and to turn our eyes away from its results is in itself an act of cowardice. Hannibal's great victory, his tactical masterpiece celebrated through the ages, produced, in the end, little more than corpses. ... As one source put it, "What remains unclear is how encircled troops, with nowhere to run, could be slaughtered in such a one-sided fashion."

I believe WP:NPOV requires us to document the horrible alongside the beautiful. -- llywrch (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
Third update: I've revised the lead to address DrKay's appropriate concerns. It now not only covers the battle, but notes its context in the Second Punic War & in the history of military theory. -- llywrch (talk) 07:58, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Last update: Due to Real Life (tm) demands I've had to suspend my efforts to save this article. If no one steps up to take up the task of saving this article, it will need to be delisted. -- llywrch (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Monstrelet comments

Overall, this seems to be a solid article. Main issue for me are

  • Relationship between "References", "Bibliography" and "Further reading" need to be sorted out. References uses a mixture of models, referring in some cases to bibliography on a refname system, but also fully citing in the list for others. Several books are fully cited multiple times, which is bad practice. The German original of Delbruck is referenced in the references, but the English translation is in the bibliography. Lazenby is in the bibliography but should be in the further reading as it isn't cited.
  • the section on "Historical sources" needs to be much higher in the article if it is essential to understanding or removed if it isn't.
  • the section on "Historical significance" needs attention. The impact on the Roman army isn't really historical - it describes what happened within years of the battle and fits better at the end of "Aftermath". The other two sections could be brought together. As a minor point, I surprised not to see Norman Schwartkopf's comment on the influence of Cannae on Desert Storm to show continued military relevance post WWII.Monstrelet (talk) 12:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Placing Dudley Miles comments at top of FARC section - has outlined remaining issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)

  • There is repetition in the 'Strategic background' and 'Roman command' sections. It is stated three times that it was rare to deploy all four legions at once.
  • Overall this article is below FA standard. There are several 'citation neededs', the referencing is inconsistent and the range of sources is far too limited. I would delist. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. Thank you for the improvements to the article. This article is solid, however, it is tagged for citation and there are concerns over comprehensiveness and whether the article represents the range of reliable sources available on the topic (as discussed above). DrKay (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Mount Tambora[edit]

Notified: ONUnicorn, Meursault2004, JarrahTree, Materialscientist, GeoWriter, Anthony Appleyard, WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Volcanoes

Review section[edit]

First time I am doing this. I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't seem to meet 1a and 1c of the FA criteria anymore; there is a large amount of unsourced material and choppy paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, let me take a look at your comments and improve the article. We will discuss this on the talk page of the article further. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section focused on sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
this one should be ok with some light copy editing and a few cites. Will report back before year end. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Any update on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Delayed but not forgotten. Will give update in 1 week. Thanks for patience. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Ping? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Delist if changes are not made. 2nd para of the lead is overwrought given the article length. Plus, there are 1a issues right off the bat:

"The 1815 eruption was the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history"
"After a large magma chamber inside the mountain filled over the course of several decades"
Food crops "failing" is awkward
"Heavy volcanic ash falls were observed as far away as" > "Heavy volcanic ash fell as far away as" - this suggested change might be subjective as I'm not a geologist, but it seems to retain its meaning.
"1816 became known as..." kinda flabby. How about "1816 is called...." or thereabouts.
Lots of mentions of "the 1815 eruption" - you can probably axe the date from most. It's assumed by the reader.

Hopefully the article is given a facelift per above. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delist. Verifiability: unsourced statements tagged since September 2017. Prose, structure and comprehensiveness: stubby paragraphs and a single sentence section. DrKay (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I personally wonder if we should roll the article back to the 2006 version as a first step; it is more comprehensive and has no stubby paragraphs. Of course some uncited statements, broken citations and disambiguations would need fixing, but that can be done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Rollback to featured version - seems that this is mainly a case of someone compromising the featured status of the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Rolled back to featured version and fixed the most obvious problems. Next step is to fix the uncited material, after that updating, and then someone with better FA criteria 1x skills needs to check over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    Fixed part of the uncited material. I note that the article paraphrases and rather closely at times; anyone willing to rewrite these parts? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    Got almost all issues with sourcing fixed, save for A volcanic eruption as large as the Tambora 1815 eruption would cause a catastrophic devastation with more fatalities. Therefore volcanic activity in Indonesia is continuously monitored, including that of Mount Tambora which I can't find a source for. Help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ceoil, Deckiller, DrKay, and Kirbanzo: Can you give an update given the rollback? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Postscriptum: I've looked for updates but it doesn't seem like there was a lot of new research and information between now and 2006 on the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The rollback was the right thing to do. I am keep now on this. Great work from Jo-Jo Eumerus. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Delist unless and until the many prose issues are sorted out, needs a lot more than "light copyediting". Eric Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Two nearest cities are Dompu and Bima" Does that mean that Dompu and Bima are two of several nearest cities, or is there a missing "The" at the beginning of the sentence?
Added "The" Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"The end of this route is the southern part of the caldera ...reachable by means of a hiking track." This sentence purports to be describing the first of two routes, so where does the hiking track fit in?
Based on the source, after the paved road ends, one has to continue on a hiking track to reach the caldera. I don't know how to word that. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"The existence of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57 ka BP." That's very unidiomatic. Better would be something like "Tambora is estimated to have been created in about 57 ka BP", or even "... to have come into existence ..." at a push.
"... Using radiocarbon dating technique ..."
Fixed to "Radiocarbon dating has established..." Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"... at depths between 1.5–4.5 km ..." Should be something like "at depths between 1.5 and 4.5 km" or "at depths of 1.5–4.5 km".
Fixed Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Have you looked at the rest of the article as well? Eric Corbett 15:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The staccato style of short sentences does not flow very well, hardly "engaging". Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eric is raising general problems with the article, and using specif, non exhaustive, examples to illustrate. He tends to be right about these things. To summaries, and as a list to work through, these are,
  • Lack of clarity in some areas leading to ambiguity
  • Staccato writing style - short sentences and over puncation
  • General MOS issues (which I see are largely fixed since he posted) Ceoil (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Would like to see this cited - "Since 1972, a commercial logging company operated in the area, posing a threat to the rain forest." Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Checked against source used as reference, it seems to hold up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks; will duplicate the ref after the statement.
    1816 was the second-coldest year in the northern hemisphere since 1400, after 1601 (following the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption in Peru).[4] - Cant parse this. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    It says that 1816 was the year with the second-coldest northern hemisphere temperatures after 1400. With the coldest year being 1601, the year after the Huaynaputina eruption. I don't know how to reword this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    I dont either, so have cut mention of 1601 altogether, and this was rather garbled and confusing. I don't think the current version lacks impact. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Aand I just noticed that the article does not mention the 1257 Samalas eruption. Argh. Added it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Txs, reworded this a bit. Is it ok in the monitoring sect to make the statement "There has been no significant increase in seismic activity since the 1880 eruption" read that the recient findings indicate that...can be directly attributed to the Directorate of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation. Atm, its unclear and part of of a series of run on sentences that may be seen as non sequiturs. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think it is since there have been episodes of increased earthquake and steaming activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this article is mis-titled; its hardly a geographic survey of Mount Tambora per say, I notice deficiencies in coverage of e.g. its bird (weakly covered) and animal (not at all) population not to mind human habitation, or its general history, political governance, and so forth. And there is very little on theories of its early tectonic formation. Would "Volcanic activity of Mount Tambora" be better. Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Otherwise have c/e'd, mostly trying to remove ambiguity and improving flow. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
See, to me it looks like there is enough coverage of that material (a paragraph mainly dedicated to birds, for example). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist per Sisyphus, who knows mountains. Outriggr (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Comment. A lot of work has been done in the last month by a number of us. I think the article is close to a Keep, but like Ceoil I wonder about its comprehensiveness (though not to the extent that he does--e.g. "political governance"...). To that end I have left a question at Wikiproject Geology. The sentence with "caused by exsolution a high pressure magma fluid" is missing a preposition, presumably, but Id' prefer someone with more geo knowledge fix that. Outriggr (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    Im fine now on prose, I think we have collectively worked through each of the issues raised by Eric in a clam and sedated manner, though I recognise no good deed goes unturned, and our heads could be kicked in at any moment by gremlins from north or south. However I dont so much share your concerns about breath of sources, hard ass as I am; Jo-Jo is grandfathering this re sources, has been impressive when taken to task, and I am inclined to take with good faith. I know this is double voting and said this before, but am keep also, per Ouriggr. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • delist For such a major topic the content is very small. I would expect at least double the amount of content. A lot of work to look that information up and write about it is needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    The reason why the "content is very small" is because most of it is supposed to be on 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora. The volcano itself is not well known outside of the 1815 eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This has stalled after Graeme's comment, but Jo-Jo Eumerus gives sound reasoning, and would like to reiterate my Keep vote. Ceoil (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)


  • There are still a number of statements which are unreferenced.
  • The lead refers twice to the 1815 eruption as if it has already been mentioned before describing it.
  • "archaeologists discovered the remains of a civilization destroyed and buried by the 1815 eruption. Known as the "Pompeii of the East"" This is grotesque exaggeration in the lead. The main text describes the excavation of one ordinary local house which seems to have been compared with Pompeii by the lead excavator purely because is was deeply buried and then described as a lost civilisation by the press.
  • The lead is an awkward mix of referenced and unreferenced statements.
  • "Tambora is located 340 kilometres (210 mi) north of the Java Trench system and as the neighbouring volcanoes Mount Rinjani on Lombok and Sangeang Api on Sumbawa, situated 150 to 190 kilometres (93 to 118 mi) above the active north-dipping Benioff zone." This is ungrammatical. "as" what?
  • "The convergence rate is 7.8 centimetres (3.1 in) per year." What is the convergence rate? (Presumably the speed at which the Australia plate is moving towards the Asia plate but this should be explained.)
  • "The formation of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57,000 years before present (BP),[4] while a 2012 study reports an argon age of 43 ka for the first pre-caldera lava flows.[14] The formation of Tambora drained a large magma chamber pre-existing under the mountain." I do not understand this. I do not have access to the source, but it appears to say that 57,000 years ago an upwelling of magma increased the height of the mountain. So how is this the formation of Tambora rather than one episode in its history? Also BP and ka are mixed in one sentence.
  • I have not continued reviewing beyond here as it seems clear to me that the article is well below FA standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright - I closed this but neglected to see that (finally) some work is going into it. I'll leave it open for a bit. @Tisquesusa: can you please alert reviewers when you're ready for folks to take a look? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Outriggr: I have to clarify the scale - what I meant was (in reply to this) is that for many many FARs...nothing much happens. I have been very happy that stuff has happened here overall. Apologies if it didn't come over that way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. I think Dudley's comments are fair, and they've not been addressed. DrKay (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC) Confirming delist after second re-visit, third visit. Each time I've visited the article the same problem is evident: reliability/unsourced statements. There are still unsoured statements in the article and those that are there are not verifiable. I examined three of the first four lines in the "Comparison of major volcanic eruptions" table: (1) the article says Taupo erupted at a VEI of more than 6 in 181 AD: Smithsonian source says it may have been 6 ("6?") around 230 AD and Oppenheimer says it erupted around 181 (not in 181) and doesn't give a VEI; (2) the article says Paektu erupted in 969 at VEI more than 6 but links to an article that says 946 at VEI 7: Smithsonian says it erupted around 1000 AD with a possible VEI of 7 and Oppenheimer says around 969 without giving a VEI. I don't see Kuwae (row 4) mentioned at the Smithsonian and Oppenheimer doesn't give a VEI and again says it erupted around 1452 not in 1452. DrKay (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have tried my best to:
Add several new references
Add information from the references (existing and new) to shift the focus of the article towards the actual volcano and less on the 1815 eruption
Update all the accessdates
Remove dead links or replaced them with live ones
Rewrite the prose where indeed it was staccato or not professional
Add relevant images
Address the remaining issues by @Dudley Miles:@DrKay:@Casliber:
Tisquesusa (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for the time it has taken for me to come back to this. Tisquesusa has greatly improved the article and I have struck my 'delist', but there are still some issues.
The lead considerably exaggerates the effects of the 1815 eruption. It says "The eruption caused global climate anomalies in the following years, while 1816 became known as the "year without a summer" due to the impact on North American and European weather. In the Northern Hemisphere, crops failed and livestock died, resulting in the worst famine of the century.". Oppenheimer says that the effects in North America were confined to the north-east US and the Canadian maritime provinces. Also the main text says that it was only the worst famine of the century in some European cities.
I have deleted one unreferenced statement but there are still ones in the first paragraph of 'Aftermath' and Global effects'.
The comments about a lost culture in the lead and the first two paragraphs of 'Culture' are based on one dodgy press release and press reports based on it. I would delete and expand the third paragraph in the section, which appears to be based on a reliable source. I would also delete the poem at the end of the section, which appears to be reflect prejudice of a neighbouring people against the villages which were destroyed. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2018 (UTC)