Contents

Wikipedia:Featured article review

Bernard Quatermass[edit]

Notified: Angmering, WikiProject Television, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Fictional characters, WikiProject Horror, 2024-05-09

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the Poor formatted references, unsourced statements, unsourced voice actors, appearances section are all unsourced, the use unreliable sources, and lacking of reception section. Anyway, most of the sections more likely needed to be rewritten. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 13:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Slave Community[edit]

Notified: Dmoon1, WikiProject Books, WikiProject History, WikiProject United States History, WikiProject African diaspora, 2023-04-14

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the overreliance on the book as a source, creating WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY concerns. There are six sources listed in "Further reading" that are not used in the article, while the "Methodology and sources" section is almost entirely sourced to the book. There is also a long "Criticism" section, which should be reworked into a "Reception" section to avoid WP:POV concerns. Z1720 (talk) 23:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I have no experience regarding FA/FAR processes, however about the "primary" aspect, per WP:PLOTCITE and MOS:PLOT, isn't that what you're supposed to do with the contents of books? E.g. "The plot summary for a work, on a page about that work, does not need to be sourced with in-line citations, as it is generally assumed that the work itself is the primary source for the plot summary." Are the rules for this different for FAs, and the contents of the book itself need to be cited to secondary sources - because if so then the MOS directly says otherwise. The other concerns are valid but seem more fixable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't think fixing the Criticism section is hard, because that section already incorporates both positive and critical responses. Simply rename the section (or add more positive reception if it exists: it might not). PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sun[edit]

Notified: CactiStaccingCrane, Nergaal, Headbomb, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Astronomy, [diff for talk page notification]

2006 listing, last reviewed in 2009. As taken note of in the talk page notice from the tenth of May, there are fifteen (and possibly more) unsourced paragraphs and sentences. @ArkHyena: noted that "Given that the last FAR for this article appears to have been done all the way back in... 2009?! I'd certainly agree on one being needed. It necessarily is not only unsourced text which may be an issue too; piecemeal revisions over ~15 years could potentially impact clarity, and I'm pretty sure FA criteria back in 2009 may have been different than they are now.", while @Sgubaldo: said that a lot of references were missing different fields. 750h+ 01:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a first reading, the uncited statements generally seem to be the sort of thing that is written in many books (Sirius being the second-brightest star in the sky, etc.), so fixing that up shouldn't be too difficult. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More of a nitpick, but in the 'Observational History' section, it seems to be that there's a tad too many images. I'm thinking the hydrogen-alpha and ultraviolet light ones could be removed or moved elsewhere? Sgubaldo (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Praemonitus:

• A potential concern I had is that the "Celestial neighborhood" section is an except from the Solar System article. However, the latter is an FA article itself, so perhaps this isn't an issue. Praemonitus (talk) 14:31, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I question the need for much of the current "Faint young Sun" section, as that is more about the Earth than the Sun. What would make it more relevant is a discussion of higher activity levels (stronger solar wind) in the early Sun, but that is currently lacking. Praemonitus (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no discussion of solar spin-down. The early Sun would have been spinning much faster than it is today. Praemonitus (talk) 14:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a related note, there is a statement about, "Recent analysis of SOHO mission data favors a faster rotation rate in the core than in the radiative zone above." However, this is dated from 2007. Subsequent results from SOHO show a significantly faster rate of core rotation: about once a week compared to once a month at the surface. The implications of this can be discussed.[1] Praemonitus (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've addressed these. Praemonitus (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The term "life" is used rather loosely in this article, presumably referring to the Sun's life span as a "fusor" star. This leads to suspect statements such as, the "Sun today is roughly halfway through the most stable part of its life". I think the most stable part of its life overall would be as a white dwarf. Praemonitus (talk) 15:02, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• "5,620 K (5,350 °C; 9,660 °F)" What is the need for a Celsius value here? To me it just adds unnecessary bloat. Praemonitus (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed from all of them. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Praemonitus (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is a value in the lead being presented in light-seconds? It is an informal unit that it not widely used. Praemonitus (talk) 15:09, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed the usage in the infobox and lead. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'Observational history' section should mention that helium was first detected as an unknown absorption line in the solar spectrum. Praemonitus (talk) 15:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that was added to the "Photosphere" section for some reason. I'm going to relocate it. Praemonitus (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• While the article does discuss the solar constant, there's no discussion of the present-day net luminosity of the Sun, other than to say it is equal to a solar luminosity. Granted the photonic energy output is mentioned in the infobox, but that should be stated in the article. I think it would be useful to compare it to the net annual energy generated by humankind. Praemonitus (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• In the "Solar activity" section, there is no mention of the change in solar luminosity due to chromospheric activity. Praemonitus (talk) 15:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The "Solar space missions" section has a bulleted list of missions, most of which are not of particular interest. I think most of that would belong on the List of heliophysics missions page, or perhaps Solar observatory. That entire section seems longer than it perhaps needs to be. Perhaps it needs to be spun off into a separate Solar observatories in space, then presented WP:SS?Praemonitus (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be fine with moving that list (and potentially more of the section) to some place like Solar observatory. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The paragraph on SOHO reads like WP:Puffery. "One of the most important solar missions..." Praemonitus (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I made a first stab at toning this down. XOR'easter (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• In most cases the image credits can be stripped from the caption, to keep it succinct per WP:CAPTION
• I'm not sure what to make of these references:
  • Ross and Aller 1976, Withbroe 1976, Hauge and Engvold 1977, cited in Biemont 1978.
  • Corliss and Bozman (1962 cited in Biemont 1978) and Warner (1967 cited in Biemont 1978)
  • Smith (1976 cited in Biemont 1978)
  • Signer and Suess 1963; Manuel 1967; Marti 1969; Kuroda and Manuel 1970; Srinivasan and Manuel 1971, all cited in Manuel and Hwaung 1983

I went through the remainder of the citations and tried to make them consistent and more complete. Beyond that, the article has built up a fair amount of fluffy padding and redundancy that can be tightened up so the writing is more crisp. Praemonitus (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Northrop YF-23[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because over the past few months, I've added a considerably amount of additional information about the aircraft's design history gathered from multiple sources. The prose has doubled in length, so I would like other editors to review my work to ensure that it still meets FA standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 22:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HiSteve7c8, did you discuss this on the article's talk page at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negative. However, given the amount of content added since it was last listed as FA over a decade ago such that it has more than doubled in size, with much of the new prose written by myself, I believe that this warrants a FA review especially from a neutral party to ensure that it meets the quality standards. Steve7c8 (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please notify other editors and relevant WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Villa F.C.[edit]

Notified: Example user, WikiProject Football, [2]

Unknown Temptation, could you notify the major editors and record that above please? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues I raised on WikiTalk Football have not been touched at all in the last two weeks. The middle years of the club's 150-year history are very much undersourced: I count eight full paragraphs with no sources. In many others, there are sentences that follow citations and are probably also unsourced. There is also an argument that this history section is too long as subsidiary articles exist: historic clubs like Liverpool F.C. have a history section with no sub-sections. I haven't evaluated the quality of other sections but the issues of the history section are glaring and quite clearly this is not at Featured Article status as it stands. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - the Birmingham City F.C. article looks more likely to be a featured article than Aston Villa when comparing these two articles. I admit, I never knew about this while adding on the Talk:Aston Villa F.C. page, which may be of use but undersourcing is definitely the reason for this FA review. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iagree with all that has been said on the history section. I'd also like to note that the honours section has a new format which is outlined in the WP:FOOTY template, it is seen on the Liverpool and Manchester United articles. If there's a willing editor, this article has the capacity to remain an FA with some work. Idiosincrático (talk) 11:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC while various editors are adding information to the site, it seems like these are updates of the roster and do not address the concerns listed above. Z1720 (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1880 Republican National Convention[edit]

Notified: Nishkid64, Coemgenus, Billmckern, Tilden76, Devonian Wombat, -A-M-B-1996-, WP Politics, WP Chicago, WP Illinois, WP USA, WP Elections and Referendums, noticed in December 2023 with prior issues raised in 2015

As originally promoted, this 2007 FA included a number of references to varied sources. However, in 2015, it was discovered on the talk page that essentially the editor just read the Ackerman book and threw in citations from Ackerman's notes, even though those sources did not entirely support the cited content. I ran into a similar problem from this same editor when I rewrote Thomas C. Hindman, another old FA promotion, several years ago. Coemgenus resolved many of the issues in 2015 but the article is still very heavily reliant on Ackerman alone. I also, in December 2023, found that there are still a number of smaller source-text integrity issues and that the citation placement is messed up.

Awhile back, this article was suggested to potentially rerun as TFA with the upcoming Republican National Convention later this year, but I don't think that is a good idea given the sourcing history here. Given my experiences with Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. R. Richard/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lee Smith (baseball)/archive1, Talk:Thomas C. Hindman#Uncited paras/sentences etc, and Talk:Stede Bonnet#Featured article review needed I have grave concerns about the sourcing from any FA nominations by this nominator. Hog Farm _Talk 17:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC no major edits to address sourcing concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I did not write this one, though I have edited and have access to the sources. Is the concern here that some particular sources are inaccurate, or just that there might be problems? I'd be glad to run a spotcheck on the citations and see if it's good. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coemgenus - I compared passages to parts of Ackerman several months ago and have found that the big ideas are all supported, but a number of the smaller details are not. I'm also generally uneasy with the content here after my experience with re-writing Thomas C. Hindman, another FA by the same nominator, where the article was based only on one book to the neglect of information in other sources, omitted major information (Hindman being suspended from command for awhile), and contained factual errors (incorrectly claiming that Hindman was present for the Chattanooga actions after Chickamauga), in addition to the sources failing spot-checks. A spotcheck here would be greatly appreciated. Hog Farm _Talk 14:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Cattle Dog[edit]

Notified: Dippiljemmy, WikiProject Dogs, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of self-published content being used as well as some WP:NOTGUIDEBOOK style content on grooming and training that isn't breed specific, more detail about the latter on the talk page. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Traumnovelle that this article is suitable for a featured article and I thank Traumnovelle for nominating it. It is a well-rounded article on a popular topic. Thanks. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

The article is already featured, I'm nominating it due to the self-published and citation needed tag. I think the article just has a few issues that need sorting to retain the status. I notified you due to you having the most contributions whilst still being active on Wikipedia. Unfortunately the editor who did the work to get this article up to featured quality has quit. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:13, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, yeah I can have a look and fix up those tags over the next week I think for you. (Dippiljemmy (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I think I've sorted out the issues that have been tagged. Hopefully this helps! (Dippiljemmy (talk) 06:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]

• Tail docking claim is still unsourced (I've tagged it).
• The claim about all Australian states and territories banning it since 2004 is not supported by the source: I've changed it to remove the 'has been illegal since 2004' in favour of 'is illegal'.
• 'While an Australian Cattle Dog generally works silently, it will bark in alarm or to attract attention.' is still unsourced as the study is about the later general claim about barking and not dogs specifically.
• The deafness claim was still made to a self-published source: I've rectified it by citing the original study
• The non-breed specific and guidebook content is still in: If no one objects I will remove this

So overall just the claim about tail docking in the US and how the dogs use their bark whilst working need citing and the guidebook/non-breed specific content should be removed.

But thanks for your help so far, I do think this article can retain featured status with just the above three issues resolved. Traumnovelle (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the grooming and training paragraphs, only issue that would disqualify this from being a featured article are the two citation needed tags. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Traumnovelle: There are some other sections that need citations; I have indicated these with citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 16:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was only able to add a citation for one, I don't have access to any library sources (both offline and online) currently, although I doubt I'd be able to cite everyone even if I were back home. Traumnovelle (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Popping in briefly -- the best I've been able to find for tail docking is the UKC standard, which states "The tail is customarily not docked, however, a docked tail should not be penalized.", the American Stock Dog Registry, which says that tail docking is "optional", and the book The Perfect Puppy which states that tail docking is "often" practiced in the US. This is searching online sources only, I'm at work and don't have easy access to my books. Doesn't quite support the statement as written, but perhaps something like "In the United States, the tail may be docked, while it is illegal, except in special circumstances, in Australia ...", though this leaves the open question of the tail status elsewhere. Rusalkii (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exosome complex[edit]

Notified: Nagromtpc, WikiProject Biology WikiProject Molecular Biology, [diff for talk page notification]

This article was Featured in 2007, and since then, new research has been done about exosome.These things that I mention below need to be covered in this article:

• Cancer Diagnostics and Therapeutics [1] [2] [3]
• Neurodegenerative Diseases [1] [2] [3]
• Regenerative Medicine [1] [2]
• Drug Delivery Systems [1] [2]
• Infectious Diseases [1] [2] [3] Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   15:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Pereoptic: Thanks for posting this here. Has this been discussed on the article's talk page, per step 1 above? If not, I recommend to the FAR co-ords that we hold this article in FAR for at least 4 weeks to give editors time to review the article and make changes. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Z1720: No, I didn't discussed it on the talk page because major changes need to be made on the article and the nominator is no longer active. Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   17:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Step 1 is not optional. Putting this FAR on hold for a month would be best. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Just making sure @WP:FAR coordinators: is aware of the need to place this one on hold. Hog Farm _Talk 14:01, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pereoptic, I do not see that you have posted to the talk page - are you still intending to move forward with the review process? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Sorry, I just realized that I should have brought this up on the talk page as well (no one pinged me).  Done Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   18:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Hello again, it has been more than a month since I raised the problems of the article on the talk page. Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   07:24, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Reopened. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Move to FARC no significant edits to address sourcing concerns. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

0.999...[edit]

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

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

I was the only one to identify SYNTH during the previous discussion, and I removed it back in February. There is no whole section without citation; "Elementary proof" has only a single citation for a longish stretch of text, so that can be improved, but overall the situation is not bad at all. XOR'easter (talk) 16:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did some work on the "Elementary proof" section, and I think now it's in better shape. XOR'easter (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. Thanks. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RIgorous proof has no citations. There are also statements that I think need citations, such as:

• The series definition above is a simple way to define the real number named by a decimal expansion. A complementary approach is tailored to the opposite process: for a given real number, define the decimal expansion(s) to name it. Particularly since it's being described as "simple" (by whom? should that be in wikivoice?).
• The first paragraph of "Proofs from the construction of the real numbers" has no citations.
• In 1802, H. Goodwin published an observation ... There's no citation to Goodwin here.

There's also still the issue of deprecated citations being used in "Algebraic arguments"; {{sfn}}s were added, but they still need page numbers. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would try to fix these issues, but I have no math background and wouldn't feel comfortable in case I miscite something. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a Goodwyn cite. Feel free to cross that one off! Tito Omburo (talk) 14:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only {{sfn}}s in "Algebraic arguments" that I'm seeing without page numbers are to journal articles, which don't need them. (I mean, journal articles are short enough that giving a specific page number within them provides basically no value beyond giving the page in the journal where they begin. Standard practice around here is to omit the excess detail, as far as I know.)

I've added citations to the opening paragraph of "Proofs from the construction of the real numbers". XOR'easter (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been perennially disappointed that this article fails to make contact with modern mathematics. Points that could be made, but don't seem to be:

• If one works in base-10, then any fraction whose denominator is power of 2 and 5 will have exactly two distinct expansions: for example, 1/8 has 0.125000... and 0.1249999...
• Similar phenomena happen for base-N for any integer N. (there are always 2 choices)
• For base-N with N not an integer, there may be 1,2, a countable number or uncountable number of such expansions. When there's only one, it is called univoke. For base-phi, with phi the golden mean, there are a countable number of equivalent expansions: basically, you can repeat a finite number of times, and then switch over, or not, at that point. This continues to be a topic of modern research; I read a paper published in 2010 or 2015 that explored this.
• Whenever there are such "gaps" (two distinct reps) those two endpoints can be joined, ... or not. Joining them gives the de Rham curves, which are fractal curves.
• Most or almost all or all fractal watsizz are due exactly to there being two or more non-unique expansions. Whether it's "all" or just "almost all" remains a topic of academic debate. There are "classification theorems" that try to sort out all of the cases; they're called "non-classification theorems" where there's an uncountable number of alternative expansions.
• Something like this applies to chaotic dynamical systems. But there's argument about that.
• Some philosophers have used this in arguments about free will: basically: "a hah, I can choose 0.999 ... or I can choose 1.000... and nature (or neurons, or physics or whatever) will automatically amplify this difference to finite size in finite time and this is how/why one has free will" Not that I beleive this argument, but it is out there, in the wild.

I do not have references fro most of the above, only for some (below). Failing to mention any of the above just misses an excellent teaching opportunity, to bridge some old ideas to modern, cutting-edge math. This is not some idea that sits in a heremetically-sealed vacuum; it continues to excite mathematicians and philosophers (and students) and should be presented as such.

Here's some references:

• Nikita Sidorov, “Almost every number has a continuum of β-expansions.”, The American Mathematical Monthly, 110, 2003, pp. 838–842, URL http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/nikita/amm.pdf.
• Martijn de Vries and Vilmos Komornik, “Unique Expansions of Real Numbers”, ArXiv, arXiv:math/0609708, 2006, URL https://www.esi.ac.at/static/esiprpr/esi1810.pdf.
• Karma Dajani, et al., “The natural extension of the beta-transformation”, Acta Math Hungary, 73, 1996, pp. 97–109, URL https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2257842.
• Vaughn Climenhaga and Daniel J. Thompson, “Intrinsic ergodicity beyond specification: beta-shifts, S-gap shifts, and their factors”, Israel Journal of Mathematics, 2010, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.2780.
• P. Erdős and V. Komornik, “Developments in non-integer bases”, Acta Math Hungar, 79, 1998, pp. 57–83.
• Nikita Sidorov, “Universal β-expansions”, Arxiv, 2002, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/math/0209247v1.
• Daniel J. Thompson, “Irregular sets and conditional variational principles in dynamical systems”, , 2010, URL https://people.math.osu.edu/thompson.2455/thesis_thompson.pdf.

Hmm. Actually, it seems I have 20 more of these. Above is a random sampling. Some touch more directly, some touch less directly on the subject matter. I have no references for the philosophy claims. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ahh, huh, Perhaps I have to partly retract. Closer review indicates the article does touch on some of this. I suppose I have ADHD and didn't notice on first reading. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"A different definition involves what Terry Tao refers to as ultralimit." Why is Terry Tao mentioned at all here? Would one say that Terry Tao is what Martin Hairer refers to as a professor? Gumshoe2 (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Melchoir, thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress being made here? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The spate of editing last month addressed the specific concerns that had been raised. XOR'easter (talk) 18:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's still a lack of citations in the proofs sections. While WP:CALC says routine calculations are okay, I think those sections ought to have citations to show that they are common proofs in reliable sources. The "Algebraic arguments" section still has deprecated citations. There are also several sentences and paragraphs throughout that still lack citations. For example:

• The argument here does not need to assume completeness to be valid, because it shows that this particular sequence of rational numbers has a least upper bound and that this least upper bound is equal to one.
• The first two paragraphs of analytic proofs.
• Such heuristics are often incorrectly interpreted by students as implying that 0.999... itself is less than 1.
• These ideas are mistaken in the context of the standard real numbers, although some may be valid in other number systems, either invented for their general mathematical utility or as instructive counterexamples to better understand 0.999...

"Skepticism in education" also has a bulleted list that would be better presented as prose. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:12, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is deprecated about the citations in "Algebraic arguments"? As far as I can tell, it doesn't do what WP:PAREN actually says is deprecated. It uses authors' names and publication years inline to include specific publications in a way that flows with the grammar of the sentence. (Compare this with, e.g., Affine symmetric group, a recently-promoted FA that does the same thing.) And the little blue clicky linky numbers are right there, too. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough RE PAREN. I'm still concerned about the lack of citations throughout. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When we worked on this last month, my impression was that we'd ended up with it in a state where everything was, at worst, an expansion of something stated in one or more of the sources, i.e., saying something leisurely instead of curtly but without introducing anything new. Someone other than me should check that, however. XOR'easter (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because... Pharaoh496 (talk) 10:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC) It was full of cruft, fake infobox, etc. Have merged it into parent article.[reply]

No opinion • Merge discussion. • Article just before merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pharaoh496 does not appear to have followed WP:MERGE in any meaningful way, so the merge should be reverted and a proper discussion should take place. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a merge discussion ongoing that seems to be headed for a merge result; will leave this open for the moment in anticipation of a likely procedural delist. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the discussion as consensus to merge. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion has ended with consensus to merge Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment in my limited understanding of the FAR process, I believe this needs a featured article review coordinators to close this discussion. I have requested one at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. If this is the wrong process, then please do the correct process instead :) . Joseph2302 (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Should the merge takes place while this is an FA? Or after? Pharaoh496 (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The FAR will be closed after the merger is complete. Hog Farm _Talk 14:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Hog Farm: So when will the merge be done? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Whenever someone gets around to doing so. That will not be me; I've busy IRL and have essentially no interest in this topic area. Hog Farm _Talk 17:03, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward I of England[edit]

Notified: Unlimitedlead, Dudley Miles, Ealdgyth, Usernamesarebunk, Lampman, Hchc2009, GoldRingChip, Gog the Mild, Surtsicna, Nev1, Mike Christie England, WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Scotland, Ireland, Jewish history, Middle Ages, Military history WikiProject English Royalty diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because, during the FA process the article went through, three large areas of historical research were omitted. Thus currently it does not meet the criteria that the article needs to be:

• 1.b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context and
• 1.c well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature

I have since addressed one of those, but had no feedback. I intend to address the other two but would like to ensure my work is reviewed as I do so.

The areas that were not addressed during the FAC process were

1. Anglo-Jewish historical research: Edward's actions are a large subject of discussion in this literature, which contends that he has particular significance for the history of antisemitism and for English identity, which incorporated an antisemitic element as a result of the expulsion. (These topics were notably missed in Prestwich.) These issues have now been addressed to a minimum level by myself but need a check for FA standards.
2. Welsh history: Edward I is of particular significance to Welsh history. Edward is typically seen by Welsh medievalists as a coloniser, someone who did immense damage to Welsh society, culture and self-confidence, which produced a lasting anger. These items need expanding in the "Legacy" section at least. The literature on Edward I from a Welsh perspective was unfortunately contended not to exist during FA review.
3. Irish history: The literature on Ireland was not consulted; Ireland is not covered in the article at all, except to mention Edward governed it and it provided him income. Themes include the early takeover by Edward and some squabbling with his father; Edward treating Ireland as a revenue source and little else; corruption and incompetence in the administrators Edward appointed and repeatedly sacked; over-taxation to meet his war demands; speculation over food exports during the Welsh and Gascon wars; problems emerging from the Edwardian weak administration including a revival of the fortunes of the Gaelic areas' leadership, leading to regular wars in the period and following centuries. Thus although an absentee landlord, current Irish historical research sees him as signficant for the difficulties of Ireland that continued in the centuries following.

Additionally, a check should be made regarding Scottish sources and perspectives.

These areas should also be looked at:

• Religious views: the article may not fully capture the nature of Edward's devotion. It covers his piety as actions, rather than as a belief system. There is commentary about his and Eleanor's piety giving them a sense that they were doing God's work, which makes sense as Crusaders, and explains better his sense of certainty while doing morally reprehensible things.
• Relations with Eleanor: particularly, the support of and the psychological impact of the loss of Eleanor and some of Edward's key advisors around 1290 is often held to have impacted the latter part of his reign. This doesn't seem to be discussed. Also, Edward encouraged Eleanor to accumulate land wealth to reduce the call on his own funds, which was an important change for future queens but impacted a lot on domestic relations with the landed classes who were being dispossessed; it limited what he could do with taxation and was a driver in his policies towards the Jews. This is now touched on this but it could do with discussion earlier.

The reasons for several of these areas being missed appear to include an over-reliance on Michael Prestwich's biography. It received significant academic criticism for missing several of these areas, and being overly concerned with war administration and finance; which I have noted on his Wikipedia page.

Key texts that need consulting include:

• For Wales, "The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063-1415" by RR Davies from 2001, and A History of Wales by John Davies.
• For Ireland, "A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534", which contains a dedicated chapter on Edward's Lordship, "The years of Crisis, 1254-1315" and a further chapter on the wars that were provoked in the period "A Land of War", both by James Lydon. There is by Robin Frame, "Ireland and Britain 1170 to 1450", and other works

As mentioned, I would not like to see this article demoted and I am willing to do the work on Wales and Ireland particularly, and anything further on Anglo-Jewish matters. There is a question on structure for that section also. A point may emerge around article length and there may need to be cuts to meet FA criteria. This I would certainly need help with.

If it is better that I simply work on these areas, complete that and bring the article back to FAR afterwards I can do that. But I haven't got much feedback on the page and feel reluctant to do more work without a little guidance.

Jim Killock (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by KJP1[edit]

My view is that a FAR, a year after the article's promotion, is not needed. If I can try and summarise, you think there are three areas where something/more needs to be said;

• Edward and the Jews;
• Edward and Wales;
• Edward and Ireland;

and two areas that may need a bit more coverage:

• Edward's religiosity;
• Edward and Eleanor.

My suggestion would be that you write brief, sourced, paragraphs on each of these, covering the additional points you think need to be made, and place them on the article Talkpage. Then, see what other involved/interested editors think. I stress brief for two reasons - firstly, your comments to date are rather long and this may discourage editors from engaging with them; secondly, there are always challenges around what to include, and not include, in an FA. Edward reigned for 35 years and packed a lot in, as well as being quite busy before his accession. Therefore, you're never going to be able to cover everything. Indeed, we already have spin-offs, e.g. Conquest of Wales by Edward I, Edict of Expulsion etc. and it may well be that further spin-offs, Edward and the Jews / Edward in Ireland etc. could be an answer. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that but I'd note the main reason for non-engagement AFAICT is probably that the main editor is in semi-retirement and no longer working on the page. There will be existing pages for all these topics, but for an FA standard, the page has to reasonably represent all the relevant literatures, AIUI, ie, other parts might need trimming, if it came to a question of overall length. As now the article arguably violates NPOV, through omission of some of the more uncomfortable aspects of his reign.Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect that the OP has found sufficient deficiencies in the article to justify a trip to FAR. Per policy, if they attempted any major changes they could be reverted, while the talk page is quiet enough to suggest it would be an unprofitable exercise.
  In the meantime they have built a solid case. They have identified fundamental omissions which don't only breach WP:FA? but Wikipedia policy and pillar also.
  More broadly, it highlights the problem with a lack of expertise at FAC. There may not be always much we can do about that, but we must accept the consequences of it all the same. While the review of this article received an at first glance thorough examination, with the exception of a couple, most of the reviews were for prose and spelling and the source review lightweight. The latter, at least, could have e highlighted gaps in the scholarship.
  Still, it's not too late. I'm sure we're all grateful to JimKillock for highlighting these issues and for expressing willingness to step up to the mark and address them. Cheers! ——Serial 12:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, FAR or Talkpage, it would be immensely helpful if JimK could provide suggested paragraphs for inclusion, which would look to address the said omissions. I think that would greatly assist other editors in assessing the issues, and how they might be addressed in the article, having regard to weight, length etc. KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will crack on with this for sure. It may take me a few days to find time to start; altogether I would think probably 3-4 weeks are needed for me to find spare time to look at all the things I've mentioned. The Wales paras are the easiest for me. Jim Killock (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No hurry and no problem! Edward I is not my period, but I do have some experience of compressing prose into tight, FA, pargraphs. If I can help at all in terms of reviewing the prose, I'd be delighted. Serial is your man for reviewing the content. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both of you for the kind words and offers of (potential!) help. Jim Killock (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1@Serial Number 54129Ping in case you are able to help: I've linked to the work I have already done for checking re Anglo-Jewish policies, and drafted the changes regarding Wales from Welsh sources below. Jim Killock (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JimKillock - Not forgotten this, just busy irl this week. Will take a look at the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward's Jewish policies: text check[edit]

Could I suggest that @Serial or others take a look at the content I added about Edward's Jewish policies as a first step? These are to be found at:

• Edward I of England#Diplomacy and war on the Continent: short sentences about his fall and the expulsion in Gascony. (On Easter Sunday 1287, Edward was standing in a tower when the floor collapsed. He fell 80 feet, broke his collarbone, and was confined to bed for several months. Several others died. Soon after he regained his health, he ordered the local Jews expelled from Gascony,seemingly as a "thank-offering" for his recovery.)
• Edward I of England#Finances, the expulsion of Jews, and Parliament: the two enlarged paragraphs on his Jewish policies. The prior version can be read here. As well as underplaying the issues, there were some factual / inferential errors I noted on the talk page.
• Edward I of England#Legacy: here I added a paragraph setting out views of Edward from an Anglo-Jewish studies perspective.

There are also some efn's I added where the material didn't belong in the main text, eg regarding Jews being banned from the new towns in Wales. I'm happy to help with any source checking needed. A lot of it should be easy to access and is frequently available online, eg with Stacey's articles.

Some quick notes on the emphasis: I think the section on Edward's Jewish policies would sit better under its own heading. It is strange to read about these events in between currency reform and how good Edward was at setting up Parliaments.

The Edict of Expulsion seems to run as the destination of about a significant group of the readers of the Edward I page (the figures track that way at least) and is the most popular Edward I related page after the main page - it is a topic that people seem to want to find out about from this page and regard as important.

The Henry III of England page has much more content on his Jewish policies, and its own section, for comparison.

I am starting work on the other additions here. I've identified some other missing information regarding Edward's character that needs to be looked at later. Jim Killock (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure page views a good guide to what is WP:DUE—we would usually look at coverage of Edward I eg. in reliable sources, especially those focused on him personally. One might also consider that the number of Jews expelled was a few thousand, compared to the population under Edward's rule—as many as five million (according to England in the Middle Ages). (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, except:

  • The Jewish policies dominated Parliamentary politics to 1290 so were clearly a major concern of the time
  • There is a similar level of concern and activity in the Church (see John Peckham, Thomas de Cantilupe, Richard Swinefield) much directed of it at Edward.
  • The impact of these policies was to make England a nation with a consciously antisemitic identity for several centuries (the unique nation that is unique because it is free of Jews)
  • Edward's impact on anti-Jewish sentiment included giving decisive credibiitytoblood libel and setting a precedent for the later Spanish expulsions
  • There is a large historiography which points out that the older mainstream sources on Edward has consistently underestimated the importance of these matters (see review summary at Michael Prestwich#Biography of Edward I).
  • Newer sources are rebalancing the emphasis

  This is outlined at Edward I of England#Legacy. Assuming that Prestwich or biogs in general get the balance right is perilous, the minimum that needs to be done is to check other relevance literatures to see if they agree. Prestwich got a lot of criticism for the things he left out, and concentrating too much on admin and warfare. Morris' more recent work is closer to the mark, but according to the FAC checks said little from the perspective of Wales, and none of the biographies seem have looked at the Irish literature at all.

  From a WP:DUE policy perspective it is quite simple: "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Biographies of English Kings are not the only potential reliable sources for English Kings. Anglo-Jewish, Irish, Welsh and Scottish sources are also important and may reflect a different emphasis on what is relevant.

  On the other hand, taking English biographers views as a definitive guide to what is important to emphasise about an English King, could understandably lead to a rather English and NNPOV - which arguably is what we currently have in this article. Jim Killock (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wales I: Edward I of England#Conquest of Wales[edit]

Hi there, here's my first suggestions for amendments, regarding the section "Conquest of Wales". I've included notes from the sources to help show why I've selected what I have and to help with any source checking anyone wants to do. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The changes below are now applied. Jim Killock (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph Three[edit]

• current text: "For the Welsh, this war was over national identity, enjoying wide support, provoked particularly by attempts to impose English law on Welsh subjects.^[1]"

Notes from sources: See endnote.^[a]

Suggest: "For the Welsh, this war was over national identity and the right to traditional Welsh law, enjoying wide support, provoked by attempts to abuse the English legal system to dispossess prominent Welsh landowners, many of whom were Edward's former opponents.^[2]"

--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• current text: "For Edward, it became a war of conquest rather than simply a punitive expedition, like the former campaign.^[3]"

Notes from sources: See endnote.^[b]

Suggest:"For Edward, it became a war of conquest aimed to "put an end finally to … the malice of the Welsh"."^[4]

--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph Three and Four[edit]

• current text: Further rebellions occurred in 1287–88 and, more seriously, in 1294, under the leadership of Madog ap Llywelyn, a distant relative of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd.^[5] This last conflict demanded the King's own attention, but in both cases the rebellions were put down.^[6][7]

Notes from sources: See endnote.^[c]

suggest: Move this sentence to after the legal reforms and admin paragraph four. Add to that paragraph: The Welsh aristocracy were nearly wholly dispossessed of their lands.^[8] Edward was the greatest beneficiary of this process.^[9] and then place afterwards: Further rebellions occurred in 1287–88 and, more seriously, in 1294, under the leadership of Madog ap Llywelyn, a distant relative of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd.^[10] The causes included deep resentment at the occupation, poor, colonial-style governance, and very heavy taxation.^[11] This last conflict demanded the King's own attention, but in both cases the rebellions were put down.^[12]

--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph Five: on castles[edit]

• current text: These included the Beaumaris, Caernarfon, Conwy and Harlech castles, intended to act both as fortresses and royal palaces for the King.^[13]

Notes from sources: See end note.^[d]

Suggest: These included the Beaumaris, Caernarfon, Conwy and Harlech castles, intended to act as fortresses, royal palaces and as the new centres of civilian and judicial administration.^[14]

--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath: missing content[edit]

• current text: Nothing substantial after the revolt, except in the final paragraph regarding making Edward II Prince of Wales; The King seems to have hoped that this would help in the pacification of the region. (This is clarified as heading a system of patronage rather than symbolic act in the Welsh history sources, as below.)

Notes from sources: See end note.^[e]

Suggest: After the section on the revolts: The revolt was followed by immediate punitive measures including taking 200 hostages.^[15] Measures to stop the Welsh from bearing arms or residing in the new boroughs probably date from this time, and the Welsh administration continued to be nearly wholly imported.^[16]

Suggest: At the end of the Conquest section, after the detail about Edward II as PoWales: Edward began a more concilatory policy to rebuild systems of patronage and service, particularly through his son as Prince of Wales, but Wales remained politically volatile, and a deep divide and distrust remained between the English settlers and the Welsh.^[17]

Suggest: In the para here about Edward II as PoWales: cut "The King seems to have hoped that this would help in the pacification of the region, and that it would give his son more financial independence"; replace with hoping to give his son more financial independence attached to prior sentence.

NB I moved David Powel, a 16th-century clergyman, suggested that the baby was offered to the Welsh as a prince "that was borne in Wales and could speake never a word of English", but there is no evidence to support this widely reported account.[122] to an endnote.

--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wales II: Edward I of England#Legacy[edit]

This short section on Wales needs replacing. No other part of this section refers to contemporary views, so that should go. Morris is a general medieval not a Welsh historian, although presumably he has family connections; his views are not relevant to Welsh historiography. Whether the conquest was "justified" isn't a discussion point in the Welsh literature; it is rather why and how it was done, and the consequences of it that are discussed.

• Current text: Modern commentators have conflicting opinions on whether Edward's conquest of Wales was warranted. Contemporary English historians were firmly in favour of the King's campaigns there. Morris takes the position that the poor condition of Wales would have allowed England to dominate it at some point or another, whether by direct conquest or through natural deterioration.

Notes from sources: Taking queues from the commentary in endnotes especially^[a][c][e]

• Suggested text: Welsh historians see Edward's reign and conquest as a disaster for Welsh national confidence and culture. R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the "gratuitous belittling of his opponents", being "one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King", and views his methods in Wales as essentially colonialist,^[18] creating deep resentment and an "apartheid-like" social structure.^[19] John Davies noted the "anti-Welsh fanaticism" of the English colonists introduced by Edward's conquest.^[20] They acknowledge Edward's eventual attempts to rebuild some kind of co-operation with native Welsh society, but state that this was insufficient to heal the trauma of conquest.^[21]

--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland[edit]

Next steps[edit]

I will try to write up the section on Ireland next, once I have Davies 1998 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDavies1998 (help) British Isles book. I have access to the two volumes on Ireland, Frame 1998 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFrame1998 (help) and Lydon 2008a harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLydon2008a (help) mentioned. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KJP1[edit]

With apologies for the delay in getting to this, a few comments. A caveat to start, Edwardian history is definitely not my period, and thus what I'm not able to judge is the weight that would be appropriate to give to the differing views on the Jewish and Welsh (and subsequently Irish) issues. That said:

• In general, the suggested additions to the Jewish/Welsh issues seem quite reasonable.
• In relation to the Jewish issue, we now have two, well-sourced, paragraphs, featuring a range of views. These seem reasonable. I'm not myself quite clear on the connection that is being drawn between the tomb of Little St Hugh and the Eleanor Crosses. The text says "is likely to have been an attempt by Edward"; it seems to be suggesting more than just a stylistic similarity, but some form of connected political aim. Is it possible to make it clearer?
  • The background is that they were built in the same style by the same craftsmen working for the Royal household. This has led historians to pick up on a linked political purpose, as both are political objects. Since Eleanor had an "unsavoury" reputation regarding Jewish loans and land seizures, it is most likely that she was being associated with the cult of St Hugh, in order to "clean up" her reputation, as someone who venerated a Christian child supposedly ritually murdered by Jews. However, although the evidence is quite clear, it is also historians making educated calculations, not a matter of simple fact. At the same time, Edward's promotion of the cult is absolutely established and his purpose entirely clear. I'll take another look as the point re Eleanor is a difficult point to convey. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking, I had placed this information into an end note, regarding the link between the Eleanor crosses and the tomb design. I could edit the main body, to say something like "creating a visual association" or "probably to associate Eleanor's memory with the cult". --Jim Killock (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What I can't judge is whether the emphasis given to this issue by historians would warrant it being a separate section. It would, of necessity, still be quite brief. That said, a 4.4. would not seem too problematic?
• Wales - moving the coverage of the 1287/1294 rebellions further down seems reasonable, and creates a better chronology. The other changes don't seem controversial to me.
• Legacy - losing the sentence on contemporary English views of the Welsh campaigns again doesn't seem controversial, it's not directly sourced. Where I would diverge from JimK is in ditching Morris and having only the views of Welsh historians, Davies/Davies. Include them, certainly, but not exclusively.
  • Just quickly on this: the current "Legacy" structure is "views on Edward, from an older English; modern English; Scottish; Welsh; Ango-Jewish perspective", rather than dealing with aspects of his reign.
  • I think more fruitful that pro contra on each aspect may be to bring the question of Edward and the English Crown as either an English or British phenomenon, and the associated power dynamics into focus, as this has been an area of active discussion (there's 3-4 histories written like this, not yet consulted, noted below). The question raised by Morris (was it justified) isn't really discussed in the literature (much?) AFAICT, it was just used as a proxy answer to "Do we have information about Welsh historians' view of Edward?" as a reviewer noted this was missing. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• And I would tweak the clause "R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', being 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King'" to read something like "R. R. Davies considered Edward's repeated and 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', to have been 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as king'".

• Character - following on from the above, it would seem reasonable to reflect something of this in the "Character" section. It doesn't currently have anything on how he was/is seem from a Scottish/Welsh/Irish perspective, and that would be useful to have. But it would again need to be quite brief.

I hope that editors with much greater knowledge of Edward will be able to chip in, particularly on the issue of DUE which buidhe notes above. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this @KJP1. I'll wait some further feedback before making edits. Jim Killock (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Nikkimaria; I have been busy with other things but want to do the Ireland section next. This won't be so much work as looking at Scotland, and the British context, both of which need me to do significant reading. I think I may as well transpose the edits re Wales at this point. Jim Killock (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish section drafted Jim Killock (talk) 18:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft sections on Ireland and EWSI perspectives[edit]

Current status, Ireland: Mentioned in passing as a source of revenue.

Draft section on Ireland, to add to Law and administration: Edward’s primary interest in Ireland was as a source of resources, soldiers and funds for his wars, in Gascony, Wales, Scotland and Flanders. Royal interventions aimed at maximising economic extraction, with little regard to the consequences.^[22] Henry III's grant of the Lordship to his son included a claim of permanent dominion over Ireland for the first time.^[23] Edward’s early rule as Lord of Ireland split responsibilities and rights with his father, leading to conflicts over taxation and appointments, reducing the efficacy of Irish government. Between 1254 and 1272, eleven different Justiciars were appointed to head the Irish government, which further encouraged conflict and instability.^[24] Corruption among his officials grew to a concerningly high level, and despite Edward’s efforts after 1272 to reform the Irish administration, record keeping was poor.^[25]

Disturbances in Ireland increased during the period. A civil war ensued in 1265 as the result of the Baron’s War in England. The weakness and lack of direction given to the Lordship’s rule allowed factional fighting to grow, reinforced by the introduction of indentured military service by Irish magnates from around 1290.^[26] The funnelling of revenue to Edward’s wars left Irish castles, bridges and roads in a state of disrepair, and alongside the withdrawal of troops to be used against Wales and Scotland and elsewhere, helped induce lawless behaviour. Resistance to 'purveyances', or forced purchase of supplies such as grain, added to lawlessness, as did pardons granted to lawbreakers for service for the King in England.^[27] Purveyances also caused speculation and inflation in the price of basic goods.^[28] Revenues and removal of troops for Edward’s wars left the country unable to address its basic needs, while the administration was wholly focused on providing for Edward’s war demands.^[29] Troops looted and fought with townspeople when moved.^[30] Meanwhile, Gaelic Ireland enjoyed a revival, exploiting the absence of English magnates and the weakness of the Lordship, assimilating some of the settlers.^[31] Edward's government was particularly hostile to the use of Gaelic law, which it condemned in 1277 as "displeasing to God and to reason".^[32] Conflict was firmly entrenched by the time of the 1297 Irish Parliament, which attempted to create measures to counter disorder and the spread of Gaelic customs and law, while the results of the distress included many abandoned lands and villages.^[33]

Legacy section on Scotland, Ireland and EWSI perspective[edit]

Current, Scotland: G. W. S. Barrow, in his biography of Robert the Bruce, accused Edward of ruthlessly exploiting the leaderless state of Scotland to obtain a feudal superiority over the kingdom followed by his determination to reduce it to nothing more than an English possession.^[34]

Suggested replacement text: G. W. S. Barrow saw Edward as ruthlessly exploiting the leaderless state of Scotland to obtain feudal superiority over the kingdom and reduce it to an English possession.^[35] In his view, Edward's misapprehension of Scottish capacity for resistance and insistence on war created a "bitter antagonism … which endured for centuries".^[36]

Current, Ireland: nothing mentioned

Suggested additional text: (after Wales and Scotland, same paragraph) Irish historian James Lydon regarded the thirteenth century and Edward's reign as a turning point, as the Lordship extracted resources for his wars, failed to maintain peace, and allowed a resurgence in the fortunes of Gaelic Ireland, leading to prolongued conflict.^[37]

Current, EWSI perspective: nothing mentioned

Suggested additional text: A number of historians, including Simon Schama, Norman Davies, and historians from Scotland, Wales and Ireland, have tried to assess Edward's reign in the context of the development of Britain and Ireland.^[38] They emphasise the growing power of the law, centralised state and crown across Europe, and see Edward as asserting his rights within England and regarding the other nations of Britain and Ireland.^[39] Centralisation tended to imply uniformity and increasing discrimination against peripheral identities and hostility to Irish and Welsh law.^[40] While this group of historians do not see Edward as having conducted a planned policy of expansionism,^[41] they often see the tactics and results of his policies as often having caused unnecessary division and conflict, and some contrast the initial respect given to Scotland's system of government with Edward's approaches to Wales and Ireland which appear more straightforwardly colonialist in nature.^[42]

Character section on EWSI perspective[edit]

Current: Nothing mentioned

Suggested additional text: Edward is often noted as exhibiting vindictiveness towards his defeated enemies, and triumphalism in his actions.^[43] Examples include the seizure of fragments of the Holy Cross from Wales after its defeat in 1283, and subsequently the Stone of Scoon and royal regalia from Scotland after defeats in 1296.^[44] Some historians question Edward's good faith and trustworthiness in relation to his dealing with Wales and Scotland, believing him to have been capable of going back on his word or behaving duplicitously.^[45]

Character section on religion[edit]

Current: missing role of propaganda, crusader angle, personal certitude

Suggested additional text: Edward's use of the church also extended to war mobilisation including disseminating official justifications for war, usually through the issue of writs to England's archbishops, who distributed his requests for services and prayers.^[46] Edward's architectural programme also had an element of propaganda, sometimes combining this with religious messages of piety, as with the Eleanor Crosses and the rebuilding of the tomb of Little St Hugh.^[47] [more to follow]

Questions arising[edit]

• Some of the positive assessments in the "Legacy" section belong to a group of authors (Spencer and Burt) whose work focuses narrowly on Edward from an English law and administration perspective, their conclusions are notably in tension with the authors from the "four nations / British Isles" perspective. This could do with sourcing and commentary.
• Edward's reign in Gascony has also come in for signficant criticism regarding subsequent chaos in its aftermath, notes @LlywelynII on the talk page.
• Request on talk page for better explanation of his reinternment
• (dealt with on page as minor item) Request on talk page for better acknowledgement of the massacre at Berwick
• (dealt with / in progress) Edward's innovations in propaganda have been noted in relation to the use the church and also in architecture, could do with a line or two.
• (dealt with / in progress) There is a strand of literature looking at the history of the "British Isles" in this period (as with others, cf the revaluation of the English Civil Wars as the "Wars of the Three Kingdoms". With Edward I this would draw the threads together of the commonalities between the England to Ireland, Scotland and Wales relationships. Needs a check starting with Barrow 1983 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBarrow1983 (help), Davies 1998 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFDavies1998 (help) and Frame 1990 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFrame1990 (help).
• (dealt with / in progress) The "character as King" section will need rewriting to take account of the more negative perspectives, regarding abuse of law, going back on his word, acts of petty vengeance, contempt for the Welsh, for example

Endnotes[edit]

Sources for convenience[edit]

• Bachrach, DS (2004). "The Ecclesia Anglicana goes to War: Prayers, Propaganda, and Conquest during the Reign of Edward I of England, 1272–1307". Albion. 36 (3): 393–406. doi:10.2307/4054365.
• Barrow, G. W. S. (1983) [1956]. Feudal Britain (Paperback ed.). Hodder & Stoughton. ISBN 978-0713156256.
• Prestwich, Michael (1997) [1988]. Edward I. English Monarchs (Revised Second ed.). Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3000-7209-9. OL 704063M.
• Davies, John (2007) [1990]. A History of Wales (Revised ed.). Penguin Books. ISBN 9780140284751. OL 7352278M.
• Davies, Norman (1999). The Isles: A History. Oxford: Macmillan. ISBN 978-0333692837. OL 39554M.
• Davies, R. R. (2000) [1987]. The Age of Conquest: Wales, 1063–1415. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-1982-0878-2.
• Davies, R. R. (1990). Dominion and conquest: the experience of Ireland, Scotland and Wales 1100-1300. Wiles Lectures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-38069-3.
• Davies, R. R. (1998). The First English Empire: Power and Identities in the British Isles 1093-1343. Ford Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University press. ISBN 978-0198208495..
• Frame, Robin (1990). The Political Development of the British Isles 1100–1400. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198206040.001.0001. ISBN 9780198206040.
• Frame, Robin (1998). Ireland and Britain 1170 to 1450. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 9781852851491. OL 697345M.
• Lydon, James (2008a). "The years of Crisis, 1254-1315". In Cosgrove, Art (ed.). A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 179–204. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199539703.003.0008. ISBN 9780199539703. OL 9793047M.
• Lydon, James (2008b). "A Land of War". In Cosgrove, Art (ed.). A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 240–274. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199539703.003.0010. ISBN 9780199539703. OL 9793047M.
• Morris, Marc (2009). A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain. London: Windmill Books. ISBN 978-0-0994-8175-1.
• Schama, Simon (2000). "Aliens and natives". A history of Britain. London: BBC Worldwide. pp. 155–221. ISBN 0563384972.
• Stocker, David (1986). "The Shrine of Little St Hugh". Medieval Art and Architecture at Lincoln Cathedral. British Archaeological Association. pp. 109–117. ISBN 9780907307143.

Not yet consulted

• Allen Brown, R.; Colvin, H. M.; Taylor, A. J. (1963). The Middle Ages. The History of the King's Works. Vol. I. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.

not consulted in this round

• Davies, R.R. (1984). R. A. Griffiths; I. G. Jones; K. O. Morgan (eds.). Welsh Society and Nationhood. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. ISBN 0-7083-0890-2.
• Brears, Peter (2010). "Food Supply and Preparation at the Edwardian Castles". In Williams, Diane; Kenyon, John (eds.). The Impact of Edwardian Castles in Wales. Oxford: Oxbow Books. pp. 85–98. ISBN 978-1-8421-7380-0.
• Hamilton, J.S. (2010). The Plantagenets: History of a Dynasty. Continuum. ISBN 978-1-4411-5712-6. OL 28013041M.

Citations

Emmy Noether[edit]

Notified: Scartol, WillowW, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Women scientists, WikiProject Physics, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Socialism, WikiProject Women in Green, 2023-08-20

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous citation concerns, including an orange banner at the top of the "Contributions to mathematics and physics" section and an uncited "List of doctoral students" section. There's also a lot of great prose describing math concepts, but much of this does not describe how Noether contributed to these concepts and I don't think much of it is necessary for the reader to understand how Noether contributed to the ideas. I think this would need a math specialist to help improve the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added a source for the entire doctoral students section. Also, far be it from me to ignite another "anti-intellectualism" GAR/FAR firestorm, but the line "I don't think much of it is necessary for the reader to understand" rubs me the wrong way. Yes, to understand Noether's accomplishments it is necessary to understand the mathematics and physics concepts she worked with. That said, I agree that the contributions section could be better sourced; we used to allow unsourced background material that we would expect any student of the subject to have some familiarity with, but those days are gone. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To expand upon my comment about what the reader needs to understand: after reading the article when making the nomination, I found that some sections did a great job explaining the math, but struggled to connect it to Noether. For example, in the "Background on abstract algebra" section, Noether is not mentioned until paragraph 4. I would expect Noether's contributions to be more prominent and mentioned first, then the mathematical principles explained by connecting it to Noether's contributions. I think the "First epoch (1908–1919): Physics", all the second epoch, and all the third epoch sections do this well; I think the other sections need to feature Noether more prominently, which might involve removing some information, and will probably involve moving around some information. Z1720 (talk) 22:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We get an issue with accessibility or focus whichever way you slice it: either there's maths explanations with nothing to do with Noether, or the descriptions are only accessible to those familiar with elementary algebra. If you don't understand what a group is, it's impossible to understand Noether's contributions to maths. I don't think you can reverse the order of it.

The subject matter is necessarily extremely technical. What might not be obvious to layreaders is that (e.g.) the group representations paragraph is child's play compared to the statement of Noether's problem. This is the dumbing down as far as possible without distorting the facts. I can wax lyrical about group representations but Galois theory makes my head hurt. By focusing on big picture ("it's all about symmetries", "like prime numbers") and toy examples (the discriminant, polynomial splitting fields), but also giving the full statements of what Noether studied, I think the article does quite well. I feel it's best left as is unless someone is jumping to make it a big project of theirs.

My comments at Talk:Emmy Noether#WP:URFA/2020 were to indicate that I do not think there are major citation issues—it's more a style issue, as convention has changed since 2008. I do feel this article would benefit from a mathematician giving it a full copyedit, with an algebra textbook to hand for some inline citations. — Bilorv (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv said more or less what I was going to. The ordering in the "Background on abstract algebra" passage makes sense because, well, it's background. It has to cover concepts that were introduced a half-century before Noether was even born. That's just how math works: it's a cumulative subject, and we can't always take a thin slice out of it and hope for a meaningful result.

Much of the uncited material can probably be found in any textbook on the area (e.g., the definition of a ring or a group representation is standard stuff). I did what I could with the books that I had near my desk, but I am too tired to do more and need a very very long break. XOR'easter (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the "List of doctoral students" section is necessary in the first place. "All" (i.e. those with wikilinks) the notable students are in the infobox and a table list of their dissertations and defenses seem somewhat superfluous. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the section. Feel free to revert or add it back if you disagree. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also realised there were two separate "Recognition" sections, which I merged together. Sgubaldo (talk) 02:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this removal. Everything in the infobox should be a summary of main-article text. The infobox should not supplant the article. See MOS:INFOBOX: When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article. If you include the list of doctoral students only in the infobox, then readers looking for a non-superficial summary will not find that information. Or, to put it another way, if it is so important to the article that it needs to be summarized in the infobox, so that even low-attention-span readers skimming the infobox find it, then it is also so important to the article that it should be covered properly in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know the infobox shouldn't supplant the article. My reasoning was that the infobox could have the names of all her notable doctoral students while the article went into more detail (which it does, in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section; I recognise it's in need of some more sentences about her doctoral students specifically). I still don't believe a list of their dissertations and defense dates is of benefit to the average reader, but I'll leave it. Sgubaldo (talk) 20:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not wedded to the specific table format. A more prose-like format such as a bulleted list might be better. The titles of the dissertations are less important than their overall topics and what happened afterward to each student. And the placement of the list of students in the article would make more sense in the section you mention than as an appendix at the end. But if one is looking for a complete list of her students (or, what the infobox lists, her bluelinked students) one won't find anything resembling that in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section in its current state. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. After the citation issues are resolved, perhaps the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section can be expanded to include more information about her doctoral students, but I don't think it should make or break the article's Featured status. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David Eppstein that the doctoral students should be mentioned in the body. An exhaustive list makes sense to me, with dissertation topic (e.g. p-adic numbers) and anything the student was later known for. It would also make sense to incorporate them into the chronological account of her life, but the issue might be that she had so many notable students that it could overwhelm the rest of the section's focus. — Bilorv (talk) 21:32, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with ensuring they are mentioned in the body. My reasoning was that dissertation titles and defense dates are not that important. Sgubaldo (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the dates are worth keeping. The titles, if we have topics instead, can go. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For now, I've added an initial mention of the two Erlangen students in the "Graduate students and influential lectures" section. They don't seem too notable though and could probably be moved up to the "Teaching period" one instead. Unfortunately, I don't think I'd be of much help with the citation issues. Sgubaldo (talk) 01:27, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Work seems to have slowed down, but several sourcing problems remain. Are editors still working on this? Z1720 (talk) 14:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I won't have the time to properly sit down and crack on with this until towards the end of March. After that, I'm happy to continue working on the doctoral students part. As I said above, the citation issues in the "Contributions to mathematics and physics" section may require someone with more expertise than me in the area. Besides, beyond those two issues, I think the article is worthy of FA status, and I made some structural changes that made the article (in my view) neater. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements have definately been made (thanks everyone!) but I still have citation concerns, as there are some paragraphs which do not have any inline citations. Would it be helpful if I tagged the areas that I felt needed citations for others to address? Z1720 (talk) 16:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would be helpful. Sgubaldo (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note a seems to use inline references, which should be converted to inline citations (footnotes). Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Working my way through as many of those as I can. Will update when I stall out. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, now we're forbidden even footnotes from having parenthetical citations within them? So we need a separate footnote inside the footnote to be the reference? No. Just no. This blind fanaticism serves no encyclopedic purpose. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I misindented my comment. I've been working through the cn tags. Haven't looked into the note. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My reply was aimed more at Z1720 than you. Going through cn tags and finding citations for them is a very useful thing to be doing. Putting nested footnotes into footnotes because of an aversion to mixing footnote text with footnote citations, less useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]