Wikipedia:Featured article review

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

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

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

Featured article reviews

Cameroon

Notified: Amcaja, WikiProject Countries, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Cameroon

As noted by Chipmunkdavis in May, this 2007 FA is showing its age:

• The weighting and balance of events in #History is now not appropriate, twenty years on
• Many statistics and pieces of information in #Politics, #Economy and infrastructure, and #Demographics are now a decade or two decades old
• The prose throughout the article is no longer of the professional standard required by the featured article criteria, getting quite proseline-like at times

I think that with a good bit of work the bronze star could be kept here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Hey AirshipJungleman29, FYI going forward, typically FAR allows no more than one nomination per week by the same nominator - see the instructions at WP:FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Oh, damn, don't know how I didn't remember that. Should I nominate the others for CSD Nikkimaria? Sorry for the trouble. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

I think it's fine to proceed since these are already up - just keep in mind for future. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Plymouth Colony

Notified: Jayron32, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Former countries, WikiProject United States History, WikiProject Massachusetts

This 2007 FA does not meet a few FA criteria:

• Most importantly, the article is very unsourced, with large passages many sentences missing inline citations.
• Of the inline citations currently present, many are to low-quality websites or blogs, or to works many decades old, which are less-reliable than the huge quantity of academic sourcing available today.

Significant work is needed to retain the bronze star. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Musa Qala

Notified: Marskell, WikiProject Afghanistan, WikiProject Military history

As noted by Hog Farm in May, this 2008 FA is sourced entirely to contemporary news reports. Indeed, all but two of the cited sources are from the month of the battle or previously, and the latest of the remaining two is from March 2008.

Two decades later, with dozens if not hundreds of books published on the war in Afghanistan, this article falls shy of the FA criteria's requirement for high-quality reliable sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Chelsea F.C.

Notified: Bucs, WikiProject Football, WikiProject England, WikiProject London

As noted on 4 August by Z1720, this 2007 FA does not meet several FA criteria:

• Several areas are unsourced, especially in the history section.
• There is a general reliance on lower-quality websites and news articles, when full-length works are available and listed under "Further reading".
• The balance of the article is hugely weighted towards recent events, with around double the amount of detail on the past twenty-five years than the first century.

This will likely need significant work to retain FA status. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Pennsylvania State Capitol

Notified: Niagara, WikiProject Pennsylvania, WikiProject Arts, WikiProject Historic sites, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, WikiProject Engineering, diff for talk page notification (2026-08-26)

This article's citation formatting has been inconsistent so far. Since I raised the issue about a month ago, edits have been made, yet the issue may have persisted. I originally brought up potential sourcing or comprehension issues, but that turned out to not be the case as such recent sources that would've improved the article have not yet been found. That leaves me with the citation formatting issue that may be resolvable after all... and other issues that I may be unaware of. George Ho (talk) 03:20, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

If the only issue is inconsistent cite formatting, I don't see why this has to be brought to FAR. A simple way to solve this is to move all multi-page refs to the Sources section and to cite the single-page (or single-page range sources) inline, which I've done. There might be some inconsistent parameters, but that is not enough of a violation of WP:FACR 2c that an FAR is necessary. – Epicgenius (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

As I hate to admit, I've not edited on the article that much. Nonetheless, I brought this article to FAR not just for the formatting inconsistency but perhaps some more quality check from especially others out there. George Ho (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

That's fair. I do see some unsourced paragraphs (which hasn't been noted on the talk page as far as I can tell, but that is much more of a reason to bring an article to FAR). Some of these are minor (e.g. "The bust of Huston hides the doors' keyhole."), but the first paragraph of Grounds is almost entirely unsourced. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:21, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

I think a list of the weak points would be beneficial. Certainly there are few areas that could use some improvement, but the rationale for the FAR I find somewhat vague. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 00:36, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Apologies for being less clear in my rationale. I just wanna bring this FA up for especially anybody else outside the area of interest to re-evaluate the article's quality and compliance with FA criteria, especially issues that Epicgenius brought up. I can anticipate more edits and cleanup in the next few weeks or so. Oh, and a list of the weak points may help, but then I have to find whatever issues are there besides inconsistent reference formatting. George Ho (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I just realized that this article is going to be on TFA on October 4, which is this Sunday. My understanding is that FARs shouldn't be up for TFA, and vice versa, but pinging @TFA coordinatorsUser:Wehwalt User:Gog the Mild User:Z1720 for input. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:04, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

• @George Ho, Epicgenius, and Niagara: I added three citation needed tags to the article. Otherwise, the article seems fine to me. I don't think it needs to be pulled (these uncited statements seem minor) but I can reconsider if another concern is expressed. If possible and appropriate, I think the FAR can be closed before its TFA run. Z1720 (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Or, put this FAR on hold for a while until some time passes. Would that do? George Ho (talk) 16:02, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho: going to ping @FAR coordinators: as putting an article on hold is their role: is that an option? If an article is so far from the FA criteria, I don't think it should run as TFA. If editors determine that the concerns are minor (or resolved) then we should figure out if this FAR should be closed or perhaps on hold until after the TFA. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720: References have been added to resolve the "citations needed" tags. Niagara ​​^{Don't give up the ship} 20:20, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

Does this resolve everyone's concerns regarding the article, or are there more significant outstanding issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

As said before, I'd still like to put this Review "on hold" until some time has passed, despite potentially some inconsistent parameters, said Epicgenius. Well, that might not detract the Article's overall now-improved quality, but I'm uncertain whether they'd convincing enough for me to pass this article. George Ho (talk) 05:54, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, citation formatting is your only remaining concern? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

It was the main issue when I initiated the discussion weeks ago. Right now, the issue may be perceived as minor, so I won't challenge another editor's perception. If it's still minor, then I'd like to see whether future edits can address the issue, minor or not. George Ho (talk) 04:25, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

To be rather honest, consistent ref formatting is often seen as a low-priority item for an FAR if there are no other problems. That's the only issue I can potentially see at the moment (some of the refs are formatted as plaintext, while others are in citation templates or sfns); I didn't see any other issues with coverage or—now that Niagara has resolved these issues—referencing. I think these citation changes can take place outside the FAR process, as the templated citations are themselves internally consistent with each other, as are the sfn citations. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Byzantine navy

Notified: Cplakidas, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Middle Ages, WikiProject Crusades, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome Noticed: 2026-08-10

I am nominating this featured article for review because when this article was promoted to FA status in 2009, it was at over 12,000 words, which is larger than the current recommended size at WP:TOOBIG. Today, the article is over 16,000 words and is English Wikipedia's largest featured article. I think there are lots of opportunities to WP:SPINOUT information so that this article can be closer to a summary, and interested editors can get more information in the spun out articles. Z1720 (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Close without further action I have trimmed around 4,000 words from the article, which is now a much more focused outline of the Byzantine navy and stands at just over 12,000 words. Because of the scope of the article (a millennium of history, with significant changes and evolution therein) I do not feel that further summarisation is warranted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Surfer Rosa

Notified: CloudNine, WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Albums, WikiProject Women in Music. Noticed: 2026-07-28

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited paragraphs, including the first paragraph in "Background" and the first two paragraphs in "Music". Z1720 (talk) 00:26, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Zmbro and LastJabberwocky: Both of you made improvements to the article since this was posted to FAR. Are you interested in addressing the remaining uncited statements (mostly in the "Music" section). Z1720 (talk) 21:00, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  In its current form 'music' section doesn't look great to me, just listing quirks of every song on the album. I will try to rewrite it with new references. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 12:26, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720: Finished the main task (adding refs). Also tried to add depth to the lyrics analysis and verified genres. Removed alt rock because almost all of the sources described it as simply rock, except AllMusic that call it college rock and recent louder article that call it alternative rock album. There are many sources mentioning pixies as an alternative rock band and saying that Surfer Rose greatly influenced alt rock scene, but music on Surfer Rose isn't described as alt rock. —LastJabberwocky (Rrarr) 10:38, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

Typhoon Pongsona

Notified: WikiProject Weather, WikiProject Tropical cyclones, diff for talk page notification 2021-12-07

This hurricanetyphoon-related article may still have issues, especially with sourcing and info confirmation/verification. Listed on WP:FARGIVEN for almost five years, but almost no edits yet have addressed the remaining issues. George Ho (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC); edited, 19:42, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, what part is unsourced? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:55, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Unsure, actually. I just saw whatever issues were raised in the talk page. Not to mention the sources from the 2000s. Unsure whether there are newer sources. Oh, and I had to recover dead sources a couple months ago before initiating this review. George Ho (talk) 21:24, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

George Ho, could you clarify what specific concerns you have about the present state of the article, and what specific improvements you'd like to see? Are there actually newer sources not used, or content lacking sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The "Aftermath" section details some time just soon after the typhoon. The retirement of the name was made three years later, but I'm seeking further post-typhoon events, i.e. within almost two dozen years after the typhoon. US territory Guam and other islands were affected, so I'd like to see recovery efforts made. Oh wait... As I see, more typhoons may have occurred in those islands after Pongsona, right?

Furthermore, the sources I see are mostly weather-focused and government-owned perhaps. What about academic sources or books covering this event?

Otherwise, aside from above concerns, seems that the article is well written and well formatted, like the references are. George Ho (talk) 05:36, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

@George Ho: I added a few more sources, including some stuff that happened after the fact. I included how mitigation measures from Pongsona led to improved repair times when Typhoon Mawar hit in 2023, to help bridge the gap from 2002 to now. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Please take your time. ;) Meanwhile, I'm reviewing sources you're citing to verify recently added info. George Ho (talk) 18:20, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

I added a bit more about the economic conditions. I didn't see anything more on Project Muse or Google Scholar. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:44, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

It's been two weeks since my last comment and the last edit. Any updates I'm unaware of? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 15:21, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Nonetheless, some additional contents have been made by then, especially on the Aftermath section. Nice effort. George Ho (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I believe I added everything useful regarding aftermath (which is the main part that would have anything new). ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:50, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, regardless of editing slowdown, I'll treat the issues as potentially resolved. In other words, the article now passes this Review by being more comprehensive to the topic than it had been before this Review, so it won't go forward to the FARC. If anyone else points out any article issue I'm unaware of, I could stand corrected. George Ho (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Moon

Notified: Nick Mks, WikiProject Astronomy. Noticed: 2026-07-28

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. At over 14,000 words, I think editors should discuss spinning out or text that can be summarised more effectively. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment There appears to be two unrelated FAs linked at the top of this page, a template glitch perhaps? Moonraker and Moonrise novels.

I've just joined the astronomy project and would prefer that regular Moon article editors work on fixing it, if that doesn't happen I will give it a shot. A good place to start would be viewing the diff between the current state of the article and how it was after the previous FAR. I have used Template:Diff: Moon article diff between May 2010 and August 2026. Cheers Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 15:34, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm not a regular editor of this article, but I have done some minor reorganization of content in edits a few months ago. In general there is a lot of text that could be saved but fits in with their surrounding context rather poorly. For example, a bunch of the text in "impact craters" section could (possibly) be moved to "lunar geologic timescale". And also the observation section contains material that is not referenced, but also just does not fit well with neighbouring text with jarring/lack-of transitions, and could be cut. There are sentences scattered throughout that are just proseline, but could probably only be easily fixed if there were secondary sources that we could build off to summarize it (which may not exist). I will probably try to address some more of it later, although there are some changes that I am not as sure about and may seek consensus feedback on later. Sbznpoe (talk) 03:34, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

What is the opinion on the "illumination and phases" subsection? There is some content there that is focused on the daylight conditions on the Moon (day-night cycle/seasons), which I think could be moved somewhere else, to the "surface conditions" subsection or maybe start a new subsection. The section should be more focused on observation-related content and should be renamed to just "phases". Also, there is no actual text explaining what the phases of the moon are, the explanation is left entirely to the picture. Sbznpoe (talk) 03:01, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Sbznpoe: I don't mind moving things around in the article, or spinning out information to other articles. I don't think explanations should only be in the images, as images sometimes do not load properly. Z1720 (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Lemur

Notified: Maky, WikiProject Primates, WikiProject Africa. Noticed: 2026-07-09

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is quite long, with a script saying it is over 13,000 words. This is larger than what is recommended in WP:AS and WP:TOOBIG. There are lots of opportunities to spin out and reduce prose so this article can be more focused and serve as an introduction to the species. Sections where this can be considered include "Taxonomic classification and phylogeny" into Taxonomy of lemurs, spinning out "Anatomy and physiology", "Behaviour", "Research" and "Conservation". A copyedit of the article might also reduce prose by summarising information more succinctly. There are also a couple of uncited statements and some outdated statements that might need to be updated. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the article's length. There is a lot to say about the subject and the article is not so long that it would be better to spin things out just to hit an arbitrary recommended length. Rlendog (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. No significant edits to the article to address concerns. If there is a lot to say about the subject, the consensus with WP:SS is to try to spin out the information first. Other significant species, such as Tiger and Elephant, have stayed under 9,000 words, so I think spinning out should be attempted for this article to keep its status. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 Lemurs are not a species, so species articles like Tiger are not useful comparisons. There is more to be said about a superfamily than there is to be said about a species, especially for one as diverse and well-studied as Lemuroidea. Although the scope of the Elephant article is a family, not a species, they exhibit much less diversity in form, behavior, and ecological function than lemurs do. If it takes almost 9,000 words to cover 3 elephant species, 13,000 is easily justifiable to provide readers with concise yet comprehensive coverage of lemurs. Propithèque (talk) 19:04, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

• If accepting an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, bacteria, fungus and virus are kingdoms that have managed to keep the word count at under 10,000 even though these three kindgoms have more genetic and characteristic diversity than a superfamily. Primate, an order with over 376 species (including lemurs) is 8124 words. Antbird with over 230 species has 4,000 words. Lemur is the second-largest biology FA on English Wikipedia, and I think its appropriate to say that sections of the article are too long.

Setting other articles aside, a long article makes it hard for a reader to find the most important information about the topic. WP:SS recommends spinning out the information when articles get this long: sections that are very longs like "Behaviour", "Anatomy and physiology", and "Conservation" should have new articles with most of the information moved there, and then the most important information highlighted in the main article. This will allow readers interested in learning more to get a whole article on the topic, while those who just want the highlights can read that and still remain interested in reading the rest of the article. This is why I am keeping my FARC declaration. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion

@Z1720 If you would like to create more lemur articles, feel free to take the initiative on it. There's only a handful of lemur editors that are still active, so we could really use the help from someone as interested in the topic as yourself. Propithèque (talk) 16:33, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Propitheque: I'm not too interested in the topic: one of my wiki-initiatives is to determine which articles are still FA quality and can be selected for WP:TFA. Unfortunately, I do not have the wiki-time to spin out the information in this article to ensure it meets the FA criteria (as this would take me several hours, minimum, to complete). Z1720 (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

  (Personal attack removed) Maky (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• @FAR coordinators: I'm happy to respond, but it might be more appropriate for an FAR co-ordinator to respond to the above instead. Z1720 (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

• Coordinator note: Please limit comments here to how this article does or does not meet the FA criteria, and in particular refrain from attacking other editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:52, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Ok this article is indeed long. i'll have a look and see what I think needs addressing (or fixing). Interestingly, at the time of its promotion it was not much shorter - at 82 kB (12969 words) "readable prose size" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:24, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

At first glance, nothing jumps out as needing to be pushed into daughter article. Strikes me as well balanced. Some prose could be tightened little but not seeing any deal-breaker examples of fluffiness. Is late here and I will take another look when I have had some sleep. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:58, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Agree with Casliber. The article length is fine given the subject. If Z1720 has any specific issues they would like me to address, e.g., specific information that they believe needs an additional citation or that they believe is outdated, they can let us know specifically what they are and I (and I suspect others) would be happy to try to address them. But not seeing a need for FARC. Rlendog (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2026 (UTC)

• In general, I don't put a lot of stock in numeric rules like WP:TOOBIG. I get their value as broad guidelines, but I tend to put more emphasis on the "rules of thumb" and "intended to be approximate" part than on the table of "What to do" for various specific values. That being said, we've got 600 words on "Evolutionary history", which already has its own FA-quality main article. So I certainly see the opportunity to shave a bunch from there without a lot of pain. Likewise for "Taxonomic classification and phylogeny". Do we really need, for example, the whole Competing taxonomic nomenclature for lemurs and their kin table which is also in the (FA) Taxonomy of lemurs? There's also a lot here about the history of how the taxa have been reorganized over time. Perhaps for this top-level article all we need is an overview of the currently accepted taxonomy and let the reader dive into the {{main article}} for the history and controversies? I've only read through the whole article quickly, but I'm not seeing any other obvious places to reduce the size of the article without seriously impacting its value. Given the scope of this article (covering 100 species), I'm not too worried about the overall size. RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
• To me, the "Taxonomic classification and phylogeny" section seems a bit long, but that's not an issue worth delisting an FA over. Suggest closing this with no further action. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:49, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

Notified: WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Neuroscience, WikiProject Psychology, WikiProject Disability, diff for talk page notification 2022-08-18

Article issues were first raised in 2019 (link) since its last review in 2011. Since then, there have been edits, but the issues may have still remained. Indeed, the article had been listed WP:FARGIVEN from 2022 to now, and the remaining issues were re-raised early this year (link). Whatever issues were originally raised others can explain better than I can perhaps. George Ho (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

There's a bunch of page needed templates for books that aren't readily accessible. Do we have anybody willing to hunt those books down and find those pages?

I'll look tonight to see if I can use my library card to get some of those digitally, but I don't have the time to go to an in-person library at the moment

⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 15:30, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

As it turns out, most of the edits this year were done by a few sockpuppets. Cannot figure out the right editors to individually notify at this time. —George Ho (talk) 06:57, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

Pinging @Casliber WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

Yeah. I knew this was coming....(sigh) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

• Nom's comment: There have been edits lately, but I'm hesitant to consider issues fully resolved based on solely possibly easy edits. Dunno how long I can prolong delaying the review. Nonetheless, awaiting more edits to see. —George Ho (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

  I'll take a look at some of the clarification needed templates throughout today. I'll see if I can spot any of the raised issues still remaining throughout the week.

  Much love, rock on!

  ⚠︎ ArkadenBoden ⚠︎ (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia

Notified: Sephia karta, Kaiser matias, Abkhazia WikiProject, Georgia (country) WikiProject, Socialism WikiProject, Soviet Union WikiProject, diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has many issues. One of them is reliance on sources which can not be considered as reliable. In particular, the issue is a significant usage of sources such as Hewwit and Lakoba. Stanislav Lakoba was an academic and politician from Abkhazia, from 2005 to 2009 and again from 2011 to 2013 he served as Secretary of the Security Council in Abkhazia. He was the author of the 1989 Lykhny declaration (demanding separation from Georgia). During the 1992–1993 war with Georgia Lakoba was a member of the Abkhazian Supreme Soviet. There is a serious concern about neutrality of his works given his association with the secessionist authorities in Abkhazia. His 1990 work Очерки Политической Истории Абхазии (Essays on the Political History of Abkhazia) is published by a local publisher in Sukhumi, which is of unknown credibility (the information about it online is scarce). This source is not an independent source, given the role of Lakoba played in the Abkhazian secessionist movement and his promotion of this very movement. It is particularily problematic that Lakoba's work is used in wikivoice on questionable claims, such as that Abkhazia was supposedly "annexed" by Georgia in 1918 and that Georgia never fully established its control there in 1918-1921 (despite the numerous evidence contrary to this, such as found on Abkhazian Autonomy page). Similar thing can be said about Lakoba's other cited works in this article, such as "Абхазия после двух империй. XIX–XXI вв. (Abkhazia after two empires: XIX–XXI centuries)", published in Moscow in 2004, which is also used for controversial claims. Another problematic source is that of Brian George Hewitt, who is "Honorary Consul of the self-proclaimed Republic of Abkhazia in Great Britain, despite the fact that the Great Britain does not actually recognizes Abkhazia and that the British Foreign Office requested him not to use this title". There is clearly a conflict of interest and his works lack independence, he is a vivid supporter of Abkhazian secessionism from Georgia, however, no consideration is given to this fact in this article and he is also cited in wikivoice. The problematic sources currently make up app. 25% of references in the article.

In addition to problems with sources, another major issue of article is lack of comprehensive coverage of the topic. For example, in the background section, there is notable lack of relation of Abkhazia to Transcaucasian authorities, such as Transcaucasian Commissariat and Transcaucasian Democratic Federative Republic. There is lack of coverage of Abkhazia's relationship with Georgia from 1918 to 1921, which is described extremely superficially contrary to the information avaliable at the Abkhazian Autonomy page. Notably, the article lacks any mention of the fact that in the 1924 Constitution of the Soviet Union, Abkhazia was defined as autonomous republic, further contributing to the ambiguity of its status. Ommission of such an important fact betrays a possible bias in writing this article. The article also ommits controversies of ethnic policy conducted by the Abkhaz SSR authorities led by Nestor Lakoba, for example, as noted by Azatian commission sent by Transcaucasian authorities in 1925 to examine the situation in Abkhazia. In general, the article lacks comprehensive, neutral coverage of the topic in question. Another possible issue seems to be the structure of the article. In particular, it can be noted that the lead of the article is too large compared to its body.

In overall, I think the article does not meets WP:FACR criteria. Dopcol (talk) 15:47, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Keep, someone's opinions do not disqualify them from being reliable. You've yet to show any actual reasons that their sources should be considered unreliable. HerrHeulsuse (talk) 13:58, 8 August 2026 (UTC)

This is not a stage at which users vote to keep or delist the article (In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist".). You apparently need to familiarize yourself with the process. Moreover, I don't see your edit as productive, your edit does not shows in what way exactly you disagree with my arguments, it is vague and does not address any issue I have raised at all. You apparently chose to respond only to my point about many sources not being reliable, yet you did not actually address any of my arguments and did not show why my arguments about the reliability of sources are not "actual reasons". If you are actually willing to discuss the issues in productive and constructive way, I am willing to listen to your arguments. Dopcol (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

Undoing nom's attempted redirect that broke the transclusion or something like that. Should consider this withdrawn by nom. —George Ho (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

@FAR coordinators: Please see the above comment and the page history. Should this be closed? Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 15:22, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

Dopcol, was your intention to withdraw your arguments? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Bath, Somerset

Notified: Rodw, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Somerset, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject England, WikiProject Historic sites, WikiProject World Heritage Sites. Noticed: 2026-05-20

I am nominating this featured article for review for a couple of reasons. There are uncited statements, including entire paragraphs, which is especially evident in the "Government" section. The article has an "update needed" banner from 2024 at the top of the "City" section: I think this refers to information from the 2021 census, in which some demographic information is missing like as the age or gender/sex statistics. When added, the 2011 information can then be removed. The article is getting a little too long at over 9,800 words; A copyedit will help trim excessive or redundant information. In particular, the "Architecture" section is quite large (maybe level 3 headings should be added?) Some sections need updates with more recent sources such as "Tourism" and "Industry". Z1720 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

I will work on this article as I did for Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyne. I will almost certainly do Trafford first though so it may be a while before this article is worked on. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:36, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Note: strangely this article had an FAR(C) in 2006 where it was almost unanimously voted to be delisted and it just ... never happened? I guess we will just ignore that and treat this FAR as usual. JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 10:38, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• @JacobTheRox: It was demoted in 2006 then repromoted in 2008. The 2000s was a weird time for documentation on Wikipedia, and I had to dig around the various links to find the timeline. Z1720 (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

  So the first nomination page is /archive1 and the 2nd nomination page is without any subpage? Who did that! JacobTheRox^{(talk | contributions)} 14:02, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? JacobTheRox, are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sorry, I am extremely busy irl and spending most my Wikipedia time on the GAN RfC. I should have a couple of weeks at the end of this month and the start of September, and working on this article and Trafford will be my priority. I will update on this page once I start. (in solidarity), JacobTheRox^{(talk|contributions)} 07:03, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

Notified: Boneless Pizza!, Hawkeye7, AirshipJungleman29, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military history, Wikiproject Australia, WikiProject Homeschooling, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Korea, WikiProject Southeast Asia, Wikiproject Tambayan Philippines, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Cold War, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Higher education, 2025-03-05, 2025-12-22

@Artem.G, EEng, and Jon698:

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the article length. There is lots of information that should be spun out, summarised more effectively, or removed from the article. Examples include MacArthur's personal thoughts on battles he has participated in, several block quotes, information about battles he participated in, and the Legacy" section. It is currently over 19,000 words, which doesn't include the block quotes. The article has been tagged with a yellow "too long" banner since July 2023. A talk page discussion did not yield a consensus, so I am bringing this here to get a wider range of opinions. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

• Sorry, Hawkeye, but I agree with the length concerns. The article is an incredible piece of work; it's comprehensive and impeccably sourced, and I take my hat off to the amount of reading that must have been involved in producing it. But an encyclopaedia article should be a summary. The extra detail can go into sub-articles for readers who are interested in particular aspects of his life and career but the main article should just be an overview. 20,000 words is way more than an overview! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
• I concur. I believe the article should meet the first three featured article criteria, but there is a complete failure on all aspects of criterion 4. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)
• The Protecting the Emperor subsection has WP:NPOV problems. It relies almost solely on one source and endorses its conclusions in Wikipedia's voice. Mispoulet (talk) 11:45, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

FAC criterion 1a requires that the article neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. To cater for the readers who only read a few hundred words, we provide the lead, a summary of the article. Many only read this, hence the low average time per article. Others home in on the section that contains specific information that they are looking for. They expect the article to be richly detailed. A minority read the whole article from top to bottom. Article size seems to have little or no impact on the readers.

Unfortunately, search engines often direct the reader to the main article on a subject even when a subarticle on the specific topic is available. This came to the fore in a discussion on the article on John von Neumann. While most articles are stewarded by a single project, this one was of major importance to several projects, and while the logical split of the article would have been to create subarticles for the different projects, most wanted the information sought by their readers to be in the main article.

The guidelines were not based on academic research, which was not available when they were written, but the image of what an encyclopaedia should look like, based upon the paper encyclopaedias of the early 20th century. In paper encyclopaedias, pages cost money, so there was an incentive to keep the number of articles and their word counts down. But Wikipedia is not paper, so those constraints do not apply, and our objective is to produce a comprehensive encyclopaedia, hence we allow unlimited numbers of articles. Most importantly, it is now apparent, as it was not in 2004, that the readers do not access the articles in the same way that they accessed the old paper encyclopaedias. This is the reason that AI-generated encyclopaedias have much longer articles.

That said, Mispoulet brings up a different issue, which I will look into. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:54, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

I think the idea these days is less about physical space and more that a reader should be able to get an overview of any given subject. There's a reasonable counter-argument that most readers skip straight to the section they're interested in, but there aren't many places someone can go for an overview. There's a market for people who want a 20,000 word biography, but the sub-article approach caters for all three—people who want the detail on one part of his career can read the relevant sub-article, people who want every detail can read all the sub-articles as a series, but this article can give an overview and direct people to other articles where they can read more. This is an outstanding piece of research and writing that you should be proud of but, at the moment, it does not "[stay] focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and [use] summary style where appropriate". HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:24, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

We already have multiple subarticles. I wrote Douglas MacArthur's escape from the Philippines and Relief of Douglas MacArthur, and other editors have contributed Service summary of Douglas MacArthur and List of places named for Douglas MacArthur. An editor who wrote a short 12,000 word article on the 1948 United States presidential election contributed a two-paragraph summary to this article.

During the GAR for John von Neumann, editors expressed doubts about WP:SUMMARYSTYLE because in many cases the search engines redirected the readers to the main article even when an appropriate subarticle was available. (The subject was on top interest to multiple projects.) There was also research indicating that readers seldom click on the {{main}} links. Looking at the stats for the Relief of Douglas MacArthur, the subarticle holds up well, getting around 144,000 page views per annum compared to 1.4 million for the main article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:51, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: The issue has also been brought up on the GA talk page and that discussion did not result in any changes in GA criteria wording or a consensus to reinterpret GA's implementation of WP:TOOBIG. However, I do not think either the WT:GA nor the Neumann discussions are relevant here: changes to a guideline happen on the guideline's talk page or the village pump, and consensus to change them cannot happen elsewhere afaik. Right now, WP:SS says "Summary style is based on the premise that information about a topic need not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs" and "Some readers need a lot of details on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate subarticles)." WP:AS, another Wikipedia guideline, says that articles that are over 15,000 words, "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed"; this article is over 19,000 words. After reviewing the article, I see lots of text that should be spun out or summarised more effectively, so I don't think an exception applies to this article. Z1720 (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion for a section that could be spun out. Last time I did that was for Hanford Site -> Hanford Engineer Works. In that case there was a clear candidate, but it was still a lot of work. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

It is less about spinning out one or two individual sections. Rather, each section should be evaluated to decide what information to keep because it is among the most important aspects of his biography, and what can be spun out, summarised more effectively, or deleted as too much detail or trivial. If I was copyediting the article, I would summarise the block quotes and removed them, as I do not think they add to my understanding of MacArthur and most of that information can be explained more succinctly. In general, when a section is spun out I recommend aiming for two-four paragraphs in the main article as a summary of the spun out information: essentially, the same length as the lead of the spun out article. Yes, removing information from the article is a lot of work and time to achieve, but I think it is necessary for the article to keep its FA status. Please ping me if you would like an example of what I would do with a section and I will edit the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Some of the quotes are very important but others less so. I had trouble with two in the past:

• I originally added the "Our father" quote, but when I tried to remove it, another editor reverted me as he wanted it retained;
• I tried to remove the Medal of Honor citation as it was in an image, but another editor reverted me on the grounds that other MoH winners have the citation in their articles.

I will remove some of the non-controversial ones on the weekend. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:51, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

If anything is removed and then reverted, I would direct the editor to this FAR and we can discuss its inclusion. Z1720 (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. The article is much better than I realised. The work on World War I has been superb. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:38, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: At over 18,000 words, I think this article is still WP:TOOBIG. Based on that guideline, I would expect about half of the text currently in the article to be spun out or summarised more strictly. I also see that the article has not been edited since January 31. Are you or anyone reading this interested in continuing this task? Z1720 (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Nobody else has stepped forward with any suggestions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I recommend considering to spin out any section with a level 2 heading into a new article, then cutting that section down to roughly four paragraphs in this article (the size of the lead of the spun-out article. Such sections where this could be possible include "Korean War" (Douglas MacArthur and the Korean War), "Occupation of Japan" (Douglas MacArthur in Japan post-WWII), "Legacy" (Legacy of Douglas MacArthur). This is not a complete list. I also think "Dates of rank" can be removed as redundant and WP:TRIVIA: any significant promotions for MacArthur would already be described previously in the article body. I also recommend removing block quotes from the article, and instead summarise the information. If the block quote is significant, it can go to Wikiquote. I also recommend merging and reducing the prose from "Junior officer" and "Veracruz expedition", as these are too much detail for this level of broadness for the article. Alternatively, this information and "Early life and education" could be spun out into a Early life of Douglas MacArthur article. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I've had a good at trimming the article, and at my request, Nikkimaria has also had a go. A result, the article has been trimmed by 15%. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:33, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

• Thanks Nikkimaria for undertaking that task. I welcome any thoughts you want to share about the article length. My thoughts above about spinning out sections remain unchanged after looking at recent edits and trims. Z1720 (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

  As noted on my talk, I think the Korean War and Occupation spinoffs are both feasible. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think it needs to be strongly considered whether increasingly whittling down the article will actually make it better. As has been noted, biographical articles are harder to spin out sections from than regular articles. Normally, when you split articles, you can provide fuller context of the situations that led up to and fallout from whatever the article's subject is about. For example, Relief of Douglas MacArthur provides context around Truman's concern's with MacArthur, as well as explaining the fallout of the dismissal politically for the President, as well as in Japan. None of this stuff would be appropriate for MacArthur's biography in substantial detail, because it isn't really about the man himself. It is important to cover, so it goes in a subarticle; the ability to add this extra context is what makes the subarticle useful.

  Compared to this, what good would having an article titled Douglas MacArthur in the Korean War actually do? Everything that would go in that article would be directly relevant to the main article, where it is placed better in context of the totality of the man's career. There are two actual impacts, as far as I can tell, for having such a subarticle.

  First, a reader that wants to read a thorough account of MacArthur's service in Korea has to be shunted to a subarticle, where they will then read an abbreviated summary of the general's career before getting to the actual Korea part because we have to include the context somehow. It will just be a severely truncated, essentially worse version of the main article.

  Second, the Korea section of MacArthur's biographical article will be less thorough, and thus the article will be a poorer encapsulation of the man.

  It has already been acknowledged that the article is exceptionally well-written; to be very frank, it's hard to see how anyone reading the article could disagree with that. WP:SIZE is a guideline, not a policy, and guidelines are "best treated with common sense". Shunting portions out of the article just to make it shorter, without regard to whether it improves or worsens the coverage of the subject, is not sensible. Furthermore, what the guideline actually says is that articles with more than 15,000 words should almost certainly be trimmed, operative word here being "almost". Most articles should be shorter than 15,000 words, but this is not most articles. This is about one of the most important military commanders of the 20th century, a major figure in three separate international wars, and on top of that he was effectively the leader of Japan during the occupation, and thus a central figure in that country's modern history. It's not necessarily a problem that it takes a lot of words to explain the man. If it can be shortened without reducing the quality of the article, great, but care should be taken. If not, that's fine. It's okay to have one out of 6,873 featured articles significantly over 15,000 words. Ladtrack (talk) 06:31, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Work to trim the article has stopped. The FAR has determined that the major discussion topic for this article is its size. I think it is time to move this article to FARC so that editors can formally state whether the article topic can justify its word count. Z1720 (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Striking Move to FARC: work is ongoing to reduce the prose size. Z1720 (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I've had a read-through this evening and I don't agree with the length concerns. I spend a lot of time reading military history or listening to military history podcasts and I'd say the depth of coverage here is squarely what is expected from an audience who is interested in this subject. Of course the aspects of criterion 4 at question here are subjective and I think it's incumbent on objectors to identify unnecessary detail for discussion and resolution. Laser brain (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

• It is unfortunate that WP:SIZERULE is so wishy-washy. I agree with User:HJ Mitchell when they say that encyclopedia articles, by their very nature, should be summaries. If I was dictator of Wikipedia, I'd change the rule to be "Maximum article size is 9,000 words; a waiver up to 11,000 may be granted only in compelling circumstances".

But the Wikipedia community has not been able to strenghten WP:SIZERULE, and a recent proposal to change it (perhaps to make it stricter) failed to come to consensus.

Since the wider WP community will not change WP:SIZERULE, the FA community should update WP:FACR criterion #4 to specify clear, FA-specific size limits ... perhaps via an RfC on the FA Talk page? Without such an update, the FA community is doomed to debate the size issue again. And again. And again. Noleander (talk) 00:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

i also think WP:SIZERULE applies here. feel free to ignore my suggestions, but just skimming through the article i had a few thoughts about possible moves/cutting down on text. (1) maybe move some of the information about his medal of honor citation to the service summary or escape from the philippines article(s). (2) some of the information under 'defense of the philippines' isn't so much macarthur-focused as it is campaign-focused. (3) since there's already a relief of douglas macarthur sub-article you could cut blockquotes and move most of the information on his dismissal into that article. (4) given the state of the supreme commander for the allied powers article it would be nice to see some more fa-quality prose there instead. (5) i'm sympathetic to the proposal to create new sub-articles but struggle to see how they would be placed; if i were to pick one i might create one on his inter-war career since there's currently 3,000 words of text devoted to it and probably more that could be added. do you reckon this could be summarised in the main article within 650 words (about the same length as the lead)? i can create mockups/give examples if it helps?--Plifal (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with the size concerns mentioned here by Plifal and also above - it feels like a lot of leeway has been given to this article that I haven't really seen in other military articles, though I admit I am hardly a wikiexpert in that area. The overabundance of quotes and blockquotes strikes me as the biggest problem, and I would be curious how many of them are strictly necessary; "Later life" in particular has quite a few blockquotes from MacArthur's speeches. There's also some paragraphs that could arguably be removed entirely; the one starting with MacArthur has been portrayed as a reactionary, although he was in many respects ahead of his time. in Legacy for example, is entirely attributed to one source and reads more of a summary of the previous sections rather than actually commenting on MacArthur's legacy in any way that's not already been covered (and while I'm calling for the word count to be reduced, I'm surprised there's not more of an assessment from more recently on the man himself rather than just his removal).

While MacArthur is undoubtedly important to America's military history, if I were reviewing this as a fresh FAC I would oppose based on length (FAC criteria 4). RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 21:13, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

So what part of the article are you claiming is not about MacArthur at all and therefore meets FAC criteria 4? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:03, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

• @Hawkeye7: WIAFA #4 says, "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style where appropriate." In my interpretation of that sentence, I think there can be information in an article that is about the main topic but still be unnecessary detail, and thus not fulfil criterion 4. I think that applies in this article, where there is lots of information that is too specific to MacArthur's biography to include in the main article. A suggestion is to summarise and remove quotes and block quotes and move them to wikiquote. Other information can also be WP:SPUNOUT so that the article focuses on the most important aspects of MacArthur's biography. Some of this work has already happened by you and others, and I think trimming the article needs to continue for me to feel comfortable with the article keeping its status. Z1720 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with Z I'm afraid. Macarthur is a big subject, there's lots to say, but the purpose of an encyclopaedia article on a big subject is to give the reader broad brush strokes and then point them to other resources if they want more (through sub-articles, sister projects, references, etc). That's not to knock the incredible research that has gone into this article, just to say that it's not really a summary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

  Well, we've trimmed the article down below 15,000 words, so WP:SIZE: Probably should be divided or trimmed, though the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

• I am satisfied with the work that has gone into condensing this article by more than 5,000 words, and in the interests of compromise I am happy for this to be closed without further action. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:54, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

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

Pat O'Keeffe

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was found to contain AI-generated text while on the main page, following which I reverted the article to the last version before the nominator edited it.--Launchballer 10:23, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Demote I was the original person who tagged it with AI generated and suspected it was originally ai generated in the first place. The article, as it stands right now does not meet FA standards as AI is prohibited within articles and getting it back to FA standard would require a complete rewrite of the whole page. Monathephantom (talk) 12:11, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Just realized, but apparently Metalicat reverted the entire page back to its AI generated form. I don't know if i should revert it back, but its something to take note of. Eitherway, both pre AI generated and post ai generated forms of the article, I don't see either deserving of its featured status. Monathephantom (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

They undid my reversal at Bombadier Billy Wells as well. I asked at the talk page if I should revert O'Keeffe and another editor agreed, so I'd say three editors in favour versus one says revert?--Launchballer 12:21, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

@Launchballer Personally in favor of reverting. I heavily disagree with their reasoning of "unilaterally discard a huge amount of research that no AI could have done" considering the article is just AI. I don't think this slop should have a place on Wikipedia, but thats just me. Monathephantom (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

The research may very well have been useful if it hadn't have been distorted by AI.--Launchballer 12:40, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: To be clear, I am new to the process of FAR. But doesn't starting the FAR by reverting all the edits that led to the article passing FAC in the first place presuppose the outcome of the FAR? The article as it stands—which is to say, with Metalicat's edits reverted—is miles away from FA level. (Strikingly, even the FA star has already been removed from the article.) WP:FAR states that In [the FAR] 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. Furthermore, 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. Given that the very first word in response to this review (by Monathephantom) was Demote, it would seem that the normal protocols are not being observed. --Usernameunique (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  Drive by comment: To add to this, the FA star should not be removed until a decision is made here, revert or not. The page is still officially a Featured Article at the moment.

  While it looks like on the talk page there's been consensus to revert to an earlier state, I wonder if it might be worth inviting a few people who frequent FAR to the conversation? As it is I'm inclined to agree with Usernameunique that through reverting, the page's fate has already been decided before the FAR has started, which is backwards. There is zero chance this page can be kept as a FA in this state or reach a FA level in apt time.

  This is a fairly unusual case, or at least I'm certainly not aware of anything like this before. The FAC passed a source review and spot check, so even if the prose was LLM-written (which did ultimately pass review from several reviewers) there could well be something salvageable there. That does depend on someone being willing to actually go through all the sources and potentially rewrite a lot of this mind.

  For what it's worth adding here, I was involved in the original review to check the BNA locked sources since @Jo-Jo Eumerus: couldn't access those. The statements attached to the BNA sources were all accurate, iirc the only statement that needed correcting was one of O'Keeffe's victory was described as a 'narrow' loss when the original source didn't say that. That info should at least be included in some form imo. That said, I wasn't involved with prose reviewing at all so i can't really comment on that.

  RandomEditsForWhenIRemember (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with your comments about the star, and have restored it for now. Chess enjoyer (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Coordinator comments. A couple of notes. First, as noted the star should remain in place unless and until this review is closed with a delist decision. Second, declarations of keep/delist are not made in this first stage - please hold off on that. Third, FAR is not a venue for dispute resolution - discussion here should focus on how the article does or does not meet the FA criteria, and concerns about user behaviour should be addressed elsewhere.
• Also: typically a FAR nom so soon after the article's promotion would be out of process per the instructions. I do agree that this is a fairly unusual case so am keeping this open for additional comments, but ask participants to keep my previous point in mind. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  Nikkimaria how have we dealt with cases where extensive copyvio or plagiarism was discovered soon after promotion? I think that might be the closest analogue to this situation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  The relevant precedent is the Grace Sherwood FAR, which was launched after copyvio concerns were raised during a TFA; the applicable waiting periods were waived in that case also. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:58, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Some notes:
  O'Keeffe took up boxing as an amateur with the Canning Town Athletic Club in 1901. A contemporary profile described him as 5 ft 10 in (1.78 m) and 10 st 6 lb (66 kg; 146 lb) at the time. - The profile was not "contemporary" but was written in 1905.
  Canning Town and the surrounding districts of West Ham had a strong connection to professional boxing; the area produced a succession of fighters who progressed from neighbourhood clubs to the national stage. - Source just mentions one famous boxer from Canning Town, no mention of a "strong connection" or "succession of fighters", West Ham is not mentioned at all.
  Contemporary reporting described his opening bout against Ted Percy as hard-fought... - WP:AIATTR, only one newspaper article is cited yet wording implies more.
  His next fight, against Willie Lewis, was originally scheduled for 19 December 1907, but police obtained an injunction against the venue in New York. - Source does not mention a rescheduling from the 19th, in fact it says that the injunction happened on the 27th and that it did not stop the match, it merely did not allow some people in.
  This took me about 15 minutes, I'm sure there are similar verification errors present in other parts of the article. InfernoHues (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

  This is based off of Metalicat's revision of the article, it's since been rolled back to before they edited it. InfernoHues (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

• Move to FARC this is one of those times that the bureaucratic nature of FAR gets in the way; this should have been moved and delisted five weeks ago instead of worrying about where delist !votes are placed. Metalicat has indicated they are incrementally revising the article without the use of AI, but this article is in no fit state to remain an FA currently and will need a new candidacy if/when the rewrite is finished. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:00, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

FARC section

Concerns around AI usage and resulting issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

• Delist - The article has been reverted to a state before the FA nominator began editing due to LLM usage. The nominator has since slowly started rewriting the article from scratch. It does not currently meet FA standards. InfernoHues (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

Fanny Bullock Workman

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Women's History, WikiProject Climbing, WikiProject Women, WikiProject Women's sport, Adam Cuerden, Figureskatingfan

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements and short, one sentence paragraphs throughout the article. Chicko-roller added a "neutrality disputed" tag to the top of the article in January 2026 that has not been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720 and all, I've been working on "saving" this bio from being delisted, but I've come to the conclusion that I cannot, at least not at this time. For one thing, it isn't comprehensive enough. I looked at one of the few web-based sources (ref15) and although it's reliable and trustworthy (Harvard Magazine), it isn't completely and effectively been mined (see WP:Mine). This bio uses almost 15 sources that I don't have access to, so I'm not able to make sure that they've been mined, either, and I don't have the time or the inclination to either purchase or borrow them from a library.

I also agree that its tone isn't encyclopdic, which is easily fixed, but the above problem is too much for me to bear. If someone else wants to do it, I say go for it, but it's not gonna be me. Remember that this bio was listed as FA in 2014 and the FA criteria wasn't as strict as it is now. Plus, it was expanded by a deceased Wikipedian; I'm sure that if she was still around, she would've maintained it.

So it is with a heavy heart that I recommend that it should probably be delisted, since it no longer fuflills the FA criteria. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:07, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delist per Figureskatingfan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delist. Tagged for neutrality. DrKay (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

History of Solidarity

Notified: Piotrus, Z1720 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organized Labour, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Socialism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Poland, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History Notification diffs: Piotrus, Z1720

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because the major concerns raised on the talk page regarding sourcing have remained unaddressed for five+ years and the main editor responsible for bringing the article to FA status previously has indicated they are not able to work on the page. Adding notifications. Goldsztajn (talk) 04:39, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Notifications completed. Goldsztajn (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• I am the primary author of this - over a dozen years ago. It was a good work for back then, but today it needs a major revamp - in particular, the sources have aged badly, back then I relied on resources available online, mostly at the level of "random webpages". This is certainly not up to 2026-era FA standards, and I don't think I have the time and will to update it myself, so... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delist per Piotrus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Ten Commandments in Catholic theology

Notified: WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Bible, diff for talk page notification (2026-07-05)

Review section

Almost two months ago, I raised my concerns about the state of this article, e.g. format consistency of references, independence of sources used, and insufficient info about non-Catholic response to Catholic interpretations. Since then, not much effort has been made. Neither have been replies. How fixable these issues are remains to be seen. George Ho (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

For a start, the boxes which list "The fourth (etc.) commandment according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church" are confusing, as though the Catechism were the source for the commandments. And the intro section on the Fifth Commandment is bizarre, goes off on an inappropriate tangent about Nazi doctors. Talk about skewed chronological / ideological perspectives! -- Melchior2006 (talk) 05:26, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

• Move to FARC - sourcing issues are unaddressed; large chunks of the article are largely derived from Scripture and the Catechism and there's an overuse of quotes. Ideally an FA on this topic would delve more into historical and doctrinal analysis than the article currently does as written. Hog Farm _Talk 04:04, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delist issues unaddressed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Maraba coffee

Notified: WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Food and drink, diff for talk page notification (2026-06-15)

Review section

This article has had sourcing and information issues, not to mention consistency of citation style per WP:FACR#2c and compliance with WP:NOTPRICE policy. Since I raised the issue almost two months ago, edits have been made, but they still haven't addressed potential major issues. Rather they were just wiki-link and wording changes aside from one statistical or numerical change. George Ho (talk) 22:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)

• Move to FARC – No edits have been made to fix major issues I've raised lately. —George Ho (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
• Move to FARC. This article has multiple unsourced sections which would be a quickfail under GA criteria, much less FA. No attempts have been made to address this. Lynch44 11:14, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

• Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements. Substantial use of primary sources. DrKay (talk) 11:38, 3 October 2026 (UTC)
• Delist – Issues still unresolved. No further edits made since I voted for the FARC process. --George Ho (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2026 (UTC)

The Simpsons

Notified: Scorpion0422, WikiProject The Simpsons, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Animation, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject 20th Century Studios, WikiProject Disney. Noticed: 2026-07-04

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several issues that I posted to the article talk page that were unresolved. These include: an orange "expansion needed" banner from September 2025 at the top of the "Renewals" section, article size concerns since the article is over 11,500 words, uncited statement for things not covered by MOS:PLOT, and lots of sources listed in "Further reading" that should either be used as inline citations or removed. Z1720 (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

• No comment on the other issues, but "further reading" entries are very much not always things that should be used as inline citations. For example, I imagine that The Simpsons and Their Mathematical Secrets wouldn't help the article much but is absolutely something "that would help interested readers learn more about the article subject." Do you have specific entries that you'd want to see used as inline citations? Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:10, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

• @The ed17: Agreed that not all entries in further reading can be used as inline citations, but for this article there are sources that could be analyzed for thier potential inclusion. "The Psychology of The Simpsons" can be used for the "Themes" section, "Fashion and Merchandising Fads" for Merchandise, "The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D'oh! of Homer." for Influence and legacy, "The Gospel According to Bart: Examining the Religious Elements of The Simpsons", "The Gospel According to The Simpsons: The Spiritual Life of the World's Most Animated Family" and "The Gospel According to the Simpsons: Leaders Guide for Group Study" for Themes. Are you interested in analysing these sources for their use as inline citations in the article? Z1720 (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• I am not. This is very far outside my topic areas, but it popped up on my watchlist and I thought I'd offer a limited 2 cents for anyone who wants a crack at it. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 22:07, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Concerns remain. Z1720 (talk) 00:50, 9 August 2026 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Delist. There has been some progress. However, length and sourcing concerns still remain. Unless someone is willing to take the lead in fixing up the article, I think it is time to delist. Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

  Hold. I'd be happy to take it on. I've been working through Simpsons character articles recently, including Maggie Simpson, Krusty the Clown, and Sideshow Bob. I'm finishing up Sideshow Bob for an FAC nomination now, and once I've nominated it I'd move on to The Simpsons and work through the issues raised here.

  If the coordinators are willing to give this a little more time, I'll to take this on. ;D Fengrímur (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

• Striking delist, per the above. Feel free to ping me when this is ready. Z1720 (talk) 01:28, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 What are your thoughts on the article in its current form? I believe I’ve adequately addressed your concerns and made some minor unrelated improvements. Fengrímur (talk) 12:34, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

• Just wanted to post a quick note that I received this ping, but have been busy in real life so I haven't been able to review this. I apoligise, and it will be a high priority when I can return to more active (and sustained) editing. Please don't wait for me if you want to reivew this article yourself. Z1720 (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

WestJet Encore

Notified: Vanguard10, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Canada, Not posted on the talk page personally, but there's been a notice.

Review section

The history section looks ok, but the rest is in pretty bad shape. Extreme over-reliance on primary sources, very crufty at times (especially the details of the rewards program), quite a few uncited statements or facts that the source doesn't seem to support (CN tagged). A recurring issue is also that a source doesn't say something in its own voice, but it's in Wikivoice in the article. The prose isn't amazing either, with quite a few short paragraphs. The sentence about the toilets also seems to be there basically only to provide a DYK fact. Additionally, the destinations map is also 8 years out of date. JustARandomSquid (talk) 13:05, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I was one of the main editors who originally brought the article to FA. I then left Wikipedia for about 7 years due to needing to finish school and to manage problems resulting from my parents dying. I have recently come back to find the article has the potential to update. Please be considerate and friendly by removing this review rather than having the pressure to revise the article in the next 7 days. Everyone should know that it is much more difficult to restore FA status rather than to just give the article a chance to get better in a few weeks. A pressurized deadline of 7 days is not good, particularly if there is a stated commitment to fix it, like I am making. Thank you. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

• @Vanguard10: I am not an FAR co-ordinator, but FARs will typically stay open while work is ongoing. If you are interested in fixing up the article, I suggest that you give periodic updates below (once every few weeks) on your progress. Z1720 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

  I am willing and eager to work on this if there is a consensus to close this FAR based on a commitment to work on the article. I will not work with a gun to my head in the form of a 7 day deadline. One may legally keep this FAR open or remove the FA designation but that would not be the best for Wikipedia given my pledge and record of bringing articles to GA and some FA. (I am even willing to make a pledge to re-introduce a FAR if I do not make improvements to the article.) Thank you for your kind consideration of this. Vanguard10 (talk) 20:46, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

• @FAR coordinators: Pinging co-ords who can address this better than me. Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

There is no 7-day deadline or any requirement to complete work on the article in 7 days. FARs typically remain open for as long as the review needs. DrKay (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. The original filer mentioned two weeks and then this report was a week ago so I thought that it left only 7 more days before the article gets the axe. In view of your comments, I will start to work on the article but not at a frantic pace as I work for a living. Vanguard10 (talk) 04:58, 1 February 2026 (UTC)

Interim report: work is in progress. Progress has been made. Plan is for continued work this week. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Interim report: work continues to progress. Plan is for continued work this week. I believe that there is now no need to progress to FARC (process to remove FA) but that this FAR should remain for now. Vanguard10 (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Interim report: work continues to progress. Vanguard10 (talk) 15:58, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Interim report: work continues to progress. Recommend ending the FAR and keep the article. Vanguard10 (talk) 00:48, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

May we conclude this FAR, keep the FA, remove the review. I will continue to improve the article over time. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:27, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Progress report. Improvement continues but request ending the Featured Article Review. Vanguard10 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

• In my opinion, if there's still work to be done then the FAR should remain open until improvements are complete. Feel free to ping me when this is ready for a re-review, but there is no rush if progress is continuing. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720: I request the review end. This does not mean the article will rot. On the contrary, it will be a friendly incentive to continue. Vanguard10 (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

The "largest operator" peacock claim and explanation in the lead is not backed up by any sources in the body of the article. Yes it says it was the fourth largest at one point but nothing references the now-largest claim, not the fates of the other three. 10mmsocket (talk) 18:51, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

This fact is true but it has been removed per your request. Vanguard10 (talk) 19:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I added a "duplicate sources" yellow tag to the article. @JustARandomSquid: Have your concerns been resolved with the article? Z1720 (talk) 03:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

• Also, thepointsguy.com should be removed as a source, as it is considered AI slop and there are other sources verifying the information. I'd also recommend replacing ref 27 as it is a press release. Z1720 (talk) 03:09, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  reference 27 was a press release but also had a secondary source, so two references. I believe that 2 references are better, particularly since journalists are sometimes sloppy and get details wrong. However, I have removed reference 27. Vanguard10 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  thepointsguy.com reference has been removed even though the Wikipedia article on that source does not refer to AI nor has the source been placed on the banned list. However, I have removed that citation. Vanguard10 (talk) 18:48, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

  The Points Guy was recently deprecated in an RSN discussion (1). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:16, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Not really.

Some issues

Still a few paragraphs that are just one or two sentences, and a lot of links that are dead that need archive links, including at least one permanently dead one. I see a bare URL, plus the duplicate references issue mentioned above. A ton of citation needed tags, though it's possible some of them are confirmed in the article body. There's a reference in the lead, which I believe is frowned upon these days, and I'm not sure all the lead facts are supported in the body (the deadheading thing, say). Bear in mind I haven't thoroughly checked any of the references, so it's also possible not all sources are reliable (I mean, awardwallet.com doesn't exactly inspire confidence). One thing I also noticed is that the source for "Financial statistics are not released separately for WestJet Encore but reported for WestJet Airlines, Ltd., which comprises several units and the larger WestJet Airlines." is a decade old. I'd also reconsider whether all facts that are cited exclusively to primary sources are actually necessary in the article, eg. "WestJet Encore flights are numbered as flight 3100 to 3899"

It seems @Vanguard10 would very much like it to not be delisted (), but I'm not really familiar with the FAR process at all - I just saw an FA with problems and sent it here. I absolutely do not want them to feel like "having a boss stand over your head and demand work", though! I really only checked in on this at most once a week, and I wouldn't have said anything if I had seen no progress was made. That being said (and you're probably going to hate this, Vanguard), may I present the possibility of just letting the article go? You let it get delisted, and then you can work on it for as long as you like, with even less pressure than now, you'll get another featured article candidacy's comments, feedback and suggestions, and you get the sense of accomplishment from completing another FAC. Feel free to ignore me, I'm just putting that out there. JustARandomSquid (talk) 18:27, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I'd prefer that it not be delisted. I would rather it be subject to continued review instead of immediate delisting. I will work on it more. Vanguard10 (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

In that case, go ahead. Take your time if you need it, WP:There is no deadline. JustARandomSquid (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 20 June 2026 (UTC)

Vanguard10 has retired from Wikipedia; hence, any improvements are unlikely. Delist. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Tōru Takemitsu

Notified: Matt.kaner, Gerda Arendt, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Composers, WikiProject Japan. Noticed: 2026-02-18

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are uncited statements, especially in the "Awards" and "Legacy" sections. The "Personal life" section is sourced to an unreliable source (iuniverse) and there are several sources listed in "Further reading" that are not used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy to try and help out in the absence of Matt.kaner. Looking over this, I don't think the issues are actually that bad. It's obviously a bit neglected in terms of sourcing and even prose in some areas, but the unreliable source appears to just be the shop page for a reliable memoir, and some of the uncited passages are quotes that should be fine to search for. Z1720, I'm unsure what your objection is to the sources in the further reading: is it that they should be incorporated in the main text instead, because otherwise I don't really see the issue? Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 14:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• @UpTheOctave!: Short answer: yes, I think they should be used as inline citations or removed. Long answer: The FA criteria 1c states that FAs should be "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". When there are further reading sections of high-quality sources, I do not feel confident that the article is a thorough representation of sources, as available information is not used as inline citations. I also wonder if there are any major facts or details in those sources that should be in the article prose to fulfil criteria 1b. My biggest concern though are the uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 14:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  That's entirely reasonable, I was just wanting to know the scale of the task before I start. Thanks, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 14:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• @UpTheOctave!: Are you still interested in working on this? Z1720 (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

  The next couple of months are going to be very busy for me. I am interested in working on this, but might not be able to be as present as I'd hoped. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 21:36, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. This doesn't stop editors like UpTheOctave! from ongoing work, but it might be better for this to be improved outside of the time pressures of FAR. Z1720 (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

• Per below, improvements are happening. Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

• Ironically, I edit conflicted with Z1720 above. Sorry for the wait. I'll treat this in three parts, first dealing with the uncited statements, then adding information from the further reading, and finishing by polishing. To start, I've diagnosed where this uncited content came from and dealt with some of the easy ones:
  • Takemitsu also studied in the early 1950s with the composer Fumio Hayasaka, perhaps best known for the scores he wrote for films by Kenji Mizoguchi and Akira Kurosawa, the latter of whom Takemitsu would collaborate with decades later – added 8/8/2010 (after FAC) by IP editor; was uncited at point of addition; should be able to find a source. Update: replaced with slight rewording according to Burt.
  • Thus in these works, it is possible to see a continuity of approach and emerging stylistic shift that was to characterise the work of his later period. – added 24/6/2007 (before FAC) by nominator; was uncited at point of addition; could possibly be OR. Update: removed and consolidated paragraphs.
  • Throughout these works, the S-E-A motive features prominently, and points to an increased emphasis on the melodic element in Takemitsu's music that began during this later period. – added 7/7/2007 (before FAC) by FAC nominator; was uncited at point of addition, but edit contained a reference to Grove; initial attempts to find a missing source failed despite this. Removed for now as possibly OR.
  • He died of pneumonia on 20 February 1996, while undergoing treatment for bladder cancer. – added 6/5/2003 (before FAC) by page creator; expanded in a variety of edits by several users; was uncited at point of addition; easy fix using new SFGate source.
  • The pitches of the opening melody combine to form the constituent notes of the ascending form of the Japanese in scale. – added 28/5/2007 (before FAC) by FAC nominator; was uncited at point of addition, but edit contained a reference to Burt; found correct page in Burt and added reference.
  • In 1977, Takemitsu reworked Quatrain for quartet alone, without orchestra, and titled the new work Quatrain II. – added 23/5/2012 (after FAC) by IP; was uncited at point of addition, but edit summary mentions Burt; found a suitable source (Burt's original PhD thesis).
  • The composition Rain Tree Sketch II, which was to be Takemitsu's final piano piece, was also written that year and subtitled "In Memoriam Olivier Messiaen". – added 31/1/2008 (after FAC) by a drive-by editor; was uncited at point of addition; easily cited to Burt's book.
  • Several recurring musical motives can be heard in Takemitsu's works. In particular the pitch motive E♭–E–A can be heard in many of his later works, whose titles refer to water in some form (Toward the Sea, 1981; Rain Tree Sketch, 1982; I Hear the Water Dreaming, 1987). – added 29/5/2007 (before FAC) by FAC nominator; seems to be cited at point of addition; I've readded that citation as I'm happy the material is covered in Burt.
  • recalled concerts with Takemitsu in Australia, the Decca Studios and Roundhouse, London and at the 1976 ' Music Today' Festival, with Kinshi Tsuruta and Katsuya Yokoyama; Takemitu's dedication of "For Away", "Corona" (London Version) and "Undisturbed Rest" and of the inspirational leadership he provided Woodward's generation: " From all composers with whom I ever worked it was Toru Takemitsu who understood the inner workings of music and sound on a level unmatched by anyone else. His profound humility concealed an immense knowledge of Occidental and Oriental cultures which greatly extended historical contributions of Debussy and Messiaen." – added 3/3/2022 (after FAC) in a series of edits by an uninvolved editor; uncited at point of addition, but the edit contains a reference to Woodward's book; I am unable to access this source to determine the quote's veracity, but I would start there. Removed for now until someone can get access.
  • His complete piano works have been recorded, among others by the Indonesian pianist and composer Ananda Sukarlan who had worked with him during Takemitsu's last visits to Europe in his last years. – added 28/4/2024 (after FAC) by an IP; uncited at point of addition; it would certainly be easy to verify the recording claim through ABOUTSELF, but not the rest; wondering if a modernised recordings section would be better here. Removed for now; I struggled to find reviews or any other coverage of the album to suggest its inclusion is due weight.
  • In Japan, he received the Film Awards of the Japanese Academy for outstanding achievement in music, for soundtracks to the following films... – added 5/2/2007 (before FAC) by a drive-by editor; uncited at point of addition; I'm drawing blanks here, perhaps an editor who knows Japanese could help with more local sources?
  • He was also invited to attend numerous international festivals throughout his career, and presented lectures and talks at academic institutions across the world. He was made an honorary member of the Akademie der Künste of the DDR in 1979, and the American Institute of Arts and Letters in 1985. He was admitted to the French Ordre des Arts et des Lettres in 1985, and the Académie des Beaux-Arts in 1986. He was the recipient of the 22nd Suntory Music Award (1990). Posthumously, Takemitsu received an Honorary Doctorate from Columbia University Archived 8 July 2020 at the Wayback Machine early in 1996 and was awarded the fourth Glenn Gould Prize in fall 1996. – added over several edits (before and after the FAC) by various users; first part is now cited to Grove, second to Suntory, third already had a citation but with bad formatting, and fourth has a new cite.

I'll update this list as I go through the sources more thoroughly. I'm also wondering if the iuniverse memoir may be considered reliable for some of this information since it was his wife who wrote it. Anyways, more later (tomorrow, hopfully). UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)

I tentatively removed several of these that seemed like OR, and also removed the personal life section for now until better sourcing can be found. Just the film awards left. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:58, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@UpTheOctave!: Are you still planning to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I've hit a roadblock working on the last of these. At this point, I think Zed's previous suggestion of FARC may be the way forward. I know Aza was planning on working on this, but I might have to throw in the towel here for now. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I can maybe get to this later in the summer, but not until then really. No opinion on moving to FARC Aza24 (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

• @UpTheOctave! and Aza24: The last edit to the article was in late May. In the FAR you indicated that you may want to continue working on this. Are you still interested in making edits? Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 4 July 2026 (UTC)

  Hi Z. I think I've done all that I can, really – within this time-frame at least. Aza had previously expressed a worry about the lack of Japanese sources and dearth of content on Takemitsu's writings or flute music. When taking a step back and factoring in both the abundance of unused sources and my inability to find better references for either his personal life or his awards, I doubt we would be able to get it up to FA standards in a reasonable time period. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 23:34, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

  I would like to hold this until mid-August. I may have time then after working on Bach. But no promises! If I don't get to it then I will be fine letting the FA status be removed. Aza24 (talk) 01:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

• I'm not a FAR co-ordinator, but I'm fine with keeping this open per the above. Z1720 (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Aza24, Nikkimaria, and Z1720, I may have been being a bit melodramatic earlier. I've got access to Siddons (2001) now, which should be hugely helpful. I've already used it to remove the last remaining uncited info, so I think that's resolved now. I'm going to spend some time drafting up a source list to review to identify any spotty coverage, and will set about finding ways to access them: I'll post my findings here when I'm done. UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 01:14, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

July 19 Update: I've written a new legacy section, now at words ~580 words and 30+ citations (was originally under 200 words and 3 citations). I believe this is a fairly thorough treatment of the topic and introduces many new sources previously unused in the article. I'll plan to take a bit of a break from this now until later in the summer, as originally indicated by my comments above. – Aza24 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

  Sourcing issues should all be sorted by me as above. Aza24 and I were hoping to get more done on the comprehensiveness: I haven't really had a chance to look recently, though I hope to do more soon. Aza might be able to give an update on his recent progress? UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 22:31, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

  Working on diversifying sources and expanding content at User:Aza24/Sandbox9. Still expecting to be on this for a few weeks, possibly a few months Aza24 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor

Notified: Military history , Italy , Germany , Holy Roman Empire , Austria , Crusades , Middle Ages , Royalty and Nobility

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was recently heavily trimmed to meet our size policy. It originally contained nearly 12,000 words and has since been reduced to fewer than 9,000. I believe the new version is more accessible and easier to read, which has improved the article's overall quality. Still, I would appreciate any suggestions on the prose or on whether anything important is missing. Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Comments by A.Cython

It seems a well written article deserving its FA status. I cannot speak about the content, but I briefly summarize my first (superficial) impressions.

1. The lead is quite long (619 words) and several aspects can be trimmed, per MOS:LEADLENGTH: Few well-written leads will be shorter than about 100 words. The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. bringing it closer to 400ish would make more inviting to the causal reader.
2. Is it my imagination that the article overwhelmingly relies one source? 163 out of 289 citations seems excessive and potentially causing issues in WP:POV, i.e., reflecting the views of one scholar over others.
3. Family tree, please have it in collapsed state as the default because it is distracting.
4. Commas, not enough of them, especially in complex sentences making it a difficult reading.
5. The figure in section "Coup of Kaiserswerth and Anno's rule" is not well placed as it disturbs the text in the following section
6. Simplify wherever possible
   • but two of them—Adelaide and Henry—died in infancy → but Adelaide and Henry died in infancy
   • MOS:SPARETHEDASH (I found too many for my liking, others love it)

A.Cython(talk) 05:25, 8 March 2026 (UTC) Thank you for your suggestions, please find my first comments below:

• A little trimming is always worthwhile, so I have brought the lead down to under 400 words.
• Yes, roughly 55 per cent of the text is primarily based on a single monograph. I do not believe this raises any concerns about neutrality, since much of the material consists of biographical details (that is, factual information) unlikely to be disputed. The interpretative elements are supported by multiple sources, including works specifically devoted to the Salian period. Borsoka (talk) 09:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

  The leads reads much better now. About the sources, yeah, I agree with you. I was told that to have a smooth FA review one needs not over-rely on one source no matter how reliable this source is, hence my comment. But since the current article has already passed the FA review, we can assume that there are no POV issues. Additionally, most of these citations are accompanied by citations of other sources, which helps with verification. A.Cython(talk) 20:40, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

• I am currently working on the family tree; however, it is proving to be quite challenging.
• The image has been deleted.
• Could you please provide some examples of where commas might improve the flow of the text?
• I believe the text you quoted from the article cannot be simplified, as it forms part of a sentence referring to five children.
• There were seven dashes previously; there are now only six. I believe their use is fully in line with the cited policy. Borsoka (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

  @Borsoka has addressed my comments. A.Cython(talk) 01:34, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get additional input on whether the article currently meets WIAFA. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2026 (UTC)

• Keep. I only have two comments, both on the images rather than the text. One is the map of the Empire at the beginning of the 'Reign' section: the part of the caption about Sardinia being disputed should probably be cited. The other is the picture of Henry and Bertha in the 'Family' section, which is only described sketchily on the file page. It would be good to be more precise on its location if possible. DrKay (talk) 07:54, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for your review. I deleted both the unverified text from the caption and the image claiming depicting Henry and Bertha, because I did not find a source verifying it. Borsoka (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• Keep per above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:15, 1 October 2026 (UTC)

Characters of Final Fantasy VIII

Notified: Deckiller, Axem Titanium, Kung Fu Man, WikiProject Square Enix, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Video games/Video game characters

Notified: @Tintor2, Cukie Gherkin, Haleth, Judgesurreal777, and Jack153901:

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article contains multiple unsourced statements, expansion is needed at reception, and too many primary sources are being used. This article is definitely out of shape. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:15, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Comment Not super involved with this, but noting this should probably be converted into a list per past consensus that these "Characters of" articles should be reverted into Lists, which would change the venue this would need to go through if re-promoted (FA to FL). No other comments as of right now, and I don't have enough FF experience to be able to patch this up. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 02:18, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Disregard; unaware of past consensus regarding these particular articles. I have no further comments to make beyond this, but best of luck to those working on addressing the nom's issues! Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:59, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delist This should be a list, it doesn't even qualify as a featured article. If it gets repromoted, it would have to be as a featured list. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:22, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Hold your horses; there's a proper order to these things. The primary goal of re-assessment processes (FAR, GAR) is improvement and retention, not punitive delisting: The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status. I would also push back on the latest in a series of perennial attempts to get perfectly reasonable articles that have passed assessment as articles to be reclassified as lists. Their status as articles was reaffirmed once again in this move discussion just a few months ago, as it has been repeatedly over the years. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

    I'd argue that was a BADNAC, should have been no consensus at most. The main argument against moving them to list format is... it would be a lot of work? Essentially outcomes-based reasoning. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:55, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

    I'm not interested in relitigating this here once again because it is not at all pertinent to the work of improving this article for FAR. I will just note to the FAR coordinators that this is not an accurate representation of the argument against moving in the linked discussion and leave it at that. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

    I concur with Axem on this, and will add that there's been stated consensus to not forcibly downgrade old list articles that went through FAC.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

    I also agree with Axem and Kung FU Man. Also, this discussion on the FF character articles has been hashed out before, multiple times, and there IS consensus beyond "lots of work" from my memory. So...yeah. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProtoDrake (talk • contribs)

• Comment:
  • Could you please point out the statements you feel are unsourced? It's a long article and I see no obvious gaps in its sources.
  • With respect to primary sources, the article was written in an earlier era of Wikipedia where articles about fictional works were scrutinized heavily for original research and editors responded by citing the script itself to protect against this criticism. In the years since, many editors have adopted the standard that the plot doesn't need to be referenced at all, with a reference to the work itself as implicitly assumed. I'm happy to go through and pare back the number of primary sources to just the most contestable statements if you'd prefer, but the extra references aren't really hurting anyone and could even help readers identify exactly where in the (very long) game script that a claim can be verified.
  • I'll work to expand the Reception section. I've got some sources in mind that I've been looking to incorporate for a while. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:51, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  I already tagged them. Modern FA (or FL since this is a list) can have primary source but using it a lot I think is against FA's criteria. Since FF is quite popular series, there has to be reliable sources out there for others. No rush. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:16, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'll see what I can do to replace some of the citation neededs.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment

  I've gone through and filled in several of the citation neededs. However, I feel an argument can be made that, per MOS:PLOT, primary sources can be used to quote and cite sections here as this article correlates to the plot of one singular title. A secondary source would be preferable but holding it against the article to this extent feels iffy.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

  That would be fine for me since most of the content are plot. I'll leave that to other users.🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 14:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Support: This is a poor example of an FA unfortunately. My main issue is the sheer amount of WP:PLOTSUM, which I feel elevates the article into WP:FANCRUFT territory. If we compare this article to List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens, the difference becomes night and day. The Doctor Who article has a very respectable balance between in-universe information, BTS and reception. I am also concerned with the large number of unsourced statements. Many of the sources are just quotes from the game, and are as such, WP:PRIMARY. This is a pretty clear case for delisting for me. 11WB (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
  • Please stop voting on this FAR. It has literally only been open for two days and has not proceeded to the FARC stage. I invite you to strike your delist position until and unless there is consensus to list this as an FARC. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

    Sure. I support this nomination in that case. 11WB (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: There are multiple issues here, from bloat to unsourced elements to some sources that need double-checking for reliability or archiving if the OG site has gone down. I've done some recent FF article rescue work, but this article I feel needs a top-down rewrite/reworking. I can do some source hunting if needed, or do some trimming of story sections. --ProtoDrake (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

• • Please stop voting on this FAR. It has literally only been open for two days and has not proceeded to the FARC stage. I invite you to strike your delist position until and unless there is consensus to list this as an FARC. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Axem Titanium I've made a start. The creation and design section has had a top-down rewrite and rework. Now it's got acceptable references for its information and contents, and it's a lot more like an actual piece of cited information rather than a promo piece. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! Last week was super busy at work but this week should be a little more manageable and I'll find some time to work on it. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:46, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

@Axem Titanium, have there been any further developments to this article? 11WB (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

Work picked up and I've barely had a free evening but I haven't forgot about this. Other folks have made substantial improvements already and I'll do my pass through soon. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:15, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

• Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

  Seems to have stalled. I believe this was headed for FARC? Courtesy pinging @Axem Titanium. 11WB (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

  I've managed to find some more time to work on the article this week. As I said before, ProtoDrake and KFM have made their own improvements as well, so I think the article is in a lot better shape compared to when this FAR started. I've got a few more sources that I'd like to incorporate over the weekend. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:23, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Update

• After giving a check, the list now uses around 40 quotes. I don't know how many are overthetop but at least less than 50 percent of the references are quotesTintor2 (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• Delist. Edits have stopped since May 14. I understand that Axem already worked on this, but it still contain many issues, such as those pointed out by 11WB and ProtoDrake regarding the heavy use of primary sources and other concerns. I can struck it if the article has been massively improved already. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:53, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  Hi BP, I believe there's been a misunderstanding regarding the use of primary sources. There's no policy that says that primary sources shouldn't be used, even in great number. The problem arises when an article is sourced exclusively through primary sources. Per the instructions at {{Primary sources}}, The presence of primary sources in an article doesn't mean the article must be tagged. Primary sources may be used on Wikipedia, but they need to be handled with care. There are dozens of non-primary sources on the page which are used to provide commentary and support interpretations of the primary source (the game). There's nothing I can find in WP:FAC that specifies an upper limit to the number of primary sources. And as I said above, this article was written in an era of skepticism about video game article quality, which led to thorough primary text sourcing to head off those criticisms. I could go through the article and remove them (since plot is assumed to be sourced to the work itself) but that would only serve to make it harder for the reader to identify where in the very long game script that a statement is verified.

  It's the busiest time of year for me at work so there has been a bit of gap in my editing, but I still have a bit of elbow grease I can put into it before I'm personally satisfied. Have you had a chance to read the article again? I believe it has "massively improved already". Axem Titanium (talk) 15:19, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  Im sorry to hear that. For now, Ive strucked it since you're still working on it. Take your time as there is no deadline for FAR if I recall. Let us know once you're satisfied already then we recheck. Thank you! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 18:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC

• Delist: I gave this some time to see if there would be any improvements. Unfortunately, after seven weeks of the FARC being opened, I see little difference. There are still far too many primary sources that drown out any actual SIGCOV. This is fine as a list, but it absolutely is not up to the standard expected of an FL or even GA at this time. My comment from 3 months ago remains accurate. 11WB (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
• Delist. I see lots of out-of-universe information that is uncited or cited to primary sources, which is not covered under MOS:PLOT and would need citations. I took a skim through the article and might be concerned with how much in-universe information is present, but this can be resolved after the citation concerns for out-of-universe information is dealt with. For now, progress seems to have stalled and this article doesn't meet the FA criteria as-is. Z1720 (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2026 (UTC)
• Comment. Apologies for the lack of progress on this article. There's a brief lull in my work for the next few weeks and I plan to rededicate myself to working on this page. I've been able to gather a number of sources for development information over the course of weeks, which are reflected in the dozens of tabs I have open, but have not manifested in edits to the article (yet!). Axem Titanium (talk) 18:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

  @Axem Titanium, it may actually be faster to improve the article so that it can regain GA/FL in the future, rather than attempting to keep it at FL whilst requiring many improvements in different areas. 11WB (talk) 03:01, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  Very much disagree. Featured content is one of the most time/skill intensive and backlogged processes on this entire site. Virtually everyone agrees that improving old featured content to standard is much more efficient than letting it lapse and renominating. This is far from the oldest FAR in process and multiple people have made good faith efforts at improving the article. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

  In practice I don't think length of time would support that. There is an argument to be made that defending FA/FL is simpler than going back through GAN > peer review > FAC, but to what end. This review has been open for 2 months and still does not meet the standard expected of a featured article. Going back through GAN would give a 1-to-1 opportunity to allow the reviewing editor to give suggestions on bringing the article in question up to GA standard. This would be assured and it would be known the article at that point meets WP:GACR6. After that, a peer review allows for more improvements, sending the article on an upward trend toward FAC. Doing things the FARC way, to me at least, isn't logical. 11WB (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  You are describing exactly the problem with going that route. It requires far more (highly skilled) reviewer time at each stage, not to mention the weeks to months of waiting for reviewers to weigh in each time. The primary purpose of FAR/GAR is to preserve FAs/GAs, not delist them. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2026 (UTC)

  I think the "primary source" thing got abused here. Attaching it to in-game quotes seems excessive, and attaching it to an interview that I double-checked and doesn't seem to count as "primary". I've found the original Famitsu source and incorporated it alongside the translated version, but unless we're stripping all the quotes from the article, I don't see how we can replace with non-primary. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:41, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for bringing that up. I agree that the [non-primary source needed] tagging is excessive. As I've discussed before, there is a generational divide in the use of citing the game itself as a primary source in featured articles (i.e. older FAs use them a lot but recent ones assume plot details are sourced to the game itself and omit them). But the solution is not to forcibly remove them or to tag every one to make a WP:POINT. I brought this up at WP:VG and the consensus seems to be that there's no particular benefit to actively removing them and they can serve as additional verification for readers who want it. Axem Titanium (talk) 10:53, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

  Guys. I went bold and replaced some sources using third party sources from the other articles. Reviews, features and other type of articles possessed similar content from quotes. It's impossible to replace everything since sometimes critics avoid spoiling endings but I believe the cast can have most sources replaced like I did with the recent GAs like Caim whose role in both Drakengard games was also told by third party sources Tintor2 (talk) 17:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

  is routinely added to sources that are primary. It clearly marks them so other editors can make the necessary changes. I think it's unfair to label my use of them as "abusive", @Tintor2. I won't ask you to retract that comment, but it does fall short of assuming good faith. 11WB 💬 22:12, 2 August 2026 (UTC)

  Has someone called it "abusive" somewhere? I don't see it on any of the relevant talk pages or edit summaries. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  "I think the "primary source" thing got abused here. Attaching it to in-game quotes seems excessive". 11WB 💬 14:32, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Ok but abusive and abused are different words with different meanings. "Abusive" describes a personality trait (possible NPA), whereas "abused" describes an action. No one has called you abusive. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I'll concede that I misspoke. "Abused" still implies that I misused something. Regardless, this is off-topic, so I'll leave that there. 11WB 💬 13:01, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: It seems there may be some confusion over what is meant by PRIMARY sources in this article. We're talking about references such as this one that are quotes taken directly from Final Fantasy VIII. These make up the majority of the article's references. The count I just did put the number at 39/94 (approximately). That's 42% rounded up. This is what I meant by "drowning in primary sources" and is why this definitely doesn't meet the threshold of an FA/FL, and probably not a GA either at this time. Primary sources are allowed, there isn't a hard limit on the amount that can be cited. What it does do however is drown out actual SIGCOV and introduces MOS:IN-U problems. Until those issues are addressed (which hasn't happened in four and a half months of this being open), I cannot support keeping this listed. I hope that clarifies the problem here. 11WB 💬 14:46, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

• From a quick skim, it seems like many of the primary sources used as inline citations could be removed per MOS:PLOT such as quotes directly from the video game. Other information covered by these primary sources should be cited to secondary sources instead or removed as too much information (if secondary sources would not consider the information important, then I do not think Wikipedia editors should determine that the information is important to include in the article, with some exceptions). Any interested editor can undergo that task. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2026 (UTC)

  Per this discussion, there is no urgent need to actively remove existing primary sources which currently function to provide additional verification for readers. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

  I agree with that assessment in whole, @Z1720. That discussion does not act as a unilateral block on removing such sources, @Axem Titanium. I believe @SC is right, they can be removed so long as it doesn't become an active effort in the vein of WP:RGW. The quotes can be removed per MOS:PLOTCITE, which does not mandate their use in plot summaries. 11WB 💬 12:57, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

• Comment Apologies for the radio silence. I've got a gap in my work busyness so I'll be able to work on this article more in the coming weeks. If anyone is interested, I just bought an ebook copy of The Legend of Final Fantasy VIII and will be incorporating it into the article as I go through it. If you'd like to help, I'm happy to share. Axem Titanium (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

1896 Summer Olympics

Notified: Yannismarou, Jonel, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Olympics. Noticed: 2026-01-18

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. It also has an extensive "Further reading" section with sources that should be included in the article or removed. Z1720 (talk) 04:20, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Concerns remain, and only a few minor edits have been published since this FAR has been opened. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2026 (UTC)
• Move to FARC and this one will require a major rewrite. I don't agree that a large Further Reading section is necessarily a problem (style choice) and even the occasional uncited sentence is something that could be trivial enough to just fix. The real problem is just the sources that are used are far too thin. A large FR section is harmless if the main sources are beefed up, but they're not here. Young, David C. (1996). The Modern Olympics: A Struggle for Revival. seems the best source used, but there are 18 references to it with no page range, and Young cannot possibly be the only good contemporary source on this Olympics. Saving this article would require likely adding page ranges for Young cites at minimum, and also consulting more good sources. SnowFire (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

• Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements since May 2025. It had been tagged since July 2024, and when I tried to address that issue, I was reverted with a false edit summary and had to edit-war to add a source to the unsourced material. Regular editors of the article are not interested in meeting the featured article criteria or in maintaining its rating. DrKay (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delist. No major edits to address concerns. Z1720 (talk) 18:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)
• Delist - issues unaddressed, including 18 CN tags. Hog Farm _Talk 18:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

• Striking delist for now with work ongoing; please ping me when this is ready for re-review. Hog Farm _Talk 15:39, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment: I've just seen this today. I can't promise anything yet but if you give me a couple weeks I'll see what I can do. Ladtrack (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

• Striking delist per comments above. Z1720 (talk) 16:48, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720 and @Hog Farm: I think I've pretty much finished up for now. Ladtrack (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

A quick word on what I've done: all the statements that had citation needed tags have now been cited. Because of SnowFire's concerns above about references, I went through that too. The article used a rather odd (maybe old?) citation style, which left page numbers inside the article prose, so I've converted that to a different style that should be more intuitive. The sourcing issues also looked substantially worse than they actually were because the books that were cited in the article were shoved into the further reading section along with actual further reading sources; I've split out the ones that were cited in the article into a new bibliography section. Ladtrack (talk) 00:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - I've been watching the progress here and I'd like to undertake some copyediting before any decisions are made. --Laser brain (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for the ping! Laser brain (talk) 01:18, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I've had a few passes through it and I'm satisfied with the writing. --Laser brain (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

In that case, a re-review is needed. I believe all of the issues mentioned previously have been addressed. Ladtrack (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

@Ladtrack: I added a "citation needed" template for the chart for events: I couldn't find information later in the article that described how many athletes were in each event, so that section might need citations. However, I might have missed that information further down in each of the sections. I'll take a better look at the article's content when I have more time. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

That's taken care of. Ladtrack (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, pinging @Z1720 Ladtrack (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm doing a copy-edit of the article, and have some questions below:

• The second paragraph of the "Venues" section concerns venues that were reused for the 2004 Olympics. I think this might be off-topic for this article and would be better in 2004 Summer Olympics. Thoughts?
• There are a bunch of websites used as sources throughout the article. Are these high-quality sources? Shouldn't academic sources be used instead?
• There are sources listed in the "Further reading" section: should these be cited in the article and used as sources?

Those are my questions. Feel free to ping me in a response. @Ladtrack: who has been working on this. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

@Z1720 Point by point:

• I think the venues could go either way. The 2004 Olympics was very much harkening back to this one on purpose, as it was seen as a return to the birthplace of the modern Olympics. So there's an argument that the 2004 Olympics reflect the legacy of this one, but it's also not super necessary. Whatever you feel is best is fine with me.
• Depends. Olympedia is compiled by Olympics historians and run by Bill Mallon who is probably the world's leading scholar on the Olympic Games, so I'd say it essentially is an academic source, just an online one. Olympics.com might have been a problem if this were a more recent Olympic Games but since this was 130 years ago the data is also from Olympics historians. That makes up the vast majority of the website cites, and the rest are largely for uncontroversial information from reliable sources. I don't think the article relies on these too much, and there's just going to be some things books don't include, that's just the nature of the thing. Let me know if there's anything specific you have concerns with.
• I don't think that's necessary. The books that we already have allows the article to provide sufficiently thorough coverage of the subject, I'd say, and none of the ones in the further reading look to display significantly different perspectives that we might be concerned with representativeness. This isn't really a controversial topic where new information might come out or a creative subject where scholars might create new interpretations, it's just an event that happened a long time ago. There are a few things that gain more attention over time like Stamata Revithi's participation, but we already cover that in the article. Sure, it would be nice to have more sources, but I think the article already meets FA criteria as is.

Ladtrack (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Ladtrack: Maybe information about the venues should be moved to a "Legacy" section at the end of the article? If this was at FAC, the sources I would question that are currently used in the article are: "topendsports.com" (ref 30), oaa.gr (ref 31), stadia.gr (ref 33), heartheboatsing.com (ref 80) Olympic Games Museum (ref 118) and users.skynet.be (ref 126). WP:LIBRARY might be a great place to find additional sources, as 1c of the FA criteria requires high-quality sources: since this is a historical article on a pretty significant event, the news sources and Olympics website should only be used when other sources cannot be found. For the Further reading section: if this article was at FAC and there were sources listed there, I would question why they were not used in the article: per the use of high-quality sources, these might be considered to replace some of the lower-quality sources or removed if not used as inline citations. Z1720 (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 Honestly, if we're keeping the venues stuff, I kind of like it where it is, since it's only a paragraph and without it the venues would be a single paragraph plus the chart. I don't disagree with any of the specific references you've questioned here, so I'll work on replacing them. Just a quick question: when it says "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", what do you interpret the phrase representative survey as meaning? Ladtrack (talk) 00:26, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

• @Ladtrack: WP:FARS is an essay linked in WT:FA on how a reviewer can conduct a source review. In reviews of my FAC article (and other FACs I've seen) a source review is often checked by the reviewer searching for sources in Google Scholar, Archive.org and WP:LIBRARY (among others). If they find a high-quality source, they will list it and ask why it wasn't used as an inline citation in the article. The reviewer would also check the sources used in the article (as I have briefly done above) and question sources they might not see as high quality. Since this article is a historical event with lots of non-academic sources, I think a reviewer would want to feel confident that those lower quality sources were only used when necessary and that there wasn't information in the higher quality sources that was left out of the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:43, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 I've finished going through the sources here. I've removed all the sources you've highlighted as problematic and replaced them with better ones. I also replaced nearly all the Olympics.com sources, only leaving them if the sentence cited is specifically about the IOC's position on something or if there's something I just couldn't find a good source for. Almost all of the news sources have been replaced as well, except again if there's something I couldn't quite nail down otherwise. Ladtrack (talk) 04:41, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Ladtrack: Thanks for doing this. A featured article doesn't have to use every source, and its OK if an English Wikipedia doesn't use sources from other languages (English Wikipedian editors should not be expected to read other languages). However, if I was doing a source review I would probably ask why "This Great Symbol: Pierre de Coubertin and the Origins of the Modern Olympic Games" was not used as a source: it published by a university press so it would be a very high-quality source. Unfortunately, it is not available in the Internet Archive, but maybe it can be accessed in your local library system or database? I've also added some other sources to the "Further reading" section that might be used in the article, and WP:LIBRARY also found some additional sources from academic journals that might be used. This review can stay open while these sources are consulted, as this might take some time to read through. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

  @Z1720 I think we're just gonna have to disagree on this one. WP:FACR specifically says that the article has to be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". A representative survey is, of course, the use of a subset of something to reflect a larger population. It doesn't mean the sample has to literally encompass the entire field. Some topics have hundreds or thousands of books written about them, and in my view the criteria means that you don't miss any major perspectives provided by books that aren't cited and ensure that you cover the field of scholarship thoroughly. I don't see the point in using more sources just to use them when they overlap almost entirely in scope and largely will vary only in specific details, especially when this article already does summary-style coverage of events, results, and countries involved which means that much of that additional detail wouldn't even be usable here. Is there anything about these Olympics that you feel the sources we currently cite don't sufficiently cover? If you feel the article is weak in specific areas that additional sources cover more thoroughly, that is something I can work on. Ladtrack (talk) 21:09, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

• For other reviewers, my tldr interpretation of the above discussion is: does the article fulfil the FA criteria 1c, which is "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate"? Additional comments on that question would be helpful. Pinging @Ladtrack: to see if they want to add, clarify or makes corrections to this description. Z1720 (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, this is pretty much right. See the paragraph directly above this for my opinion on the matter. Ladtrack (talk) 16:30, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

• Delist no substantive edits in months, issues are still present. (t · c) buIdhe 20:57, 25 September 2026 (UTC)

  The article as it currently stands is significantly different than the one that was brought to FAR. Almost all of the issues brought up by the nominator have been fixed (at least in my view, although perhaps a re-review would be prudent), including the most important issues, which were uncited statements and poor citation formatting. The only thing pending is that the article has a Further Reading section which has sources that haven't been used in the article. We are currently at a stalemate on the necessity of using every possible source for an article like this. Is this the basis of your delist vote? Ladtrack (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Buidhe Apologies, forgot to ping. Ladtrack (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  I see a lot of lower quality sources in the references, while higher quality sources are not used. So I don't think it meets the well researched criterion. (t · c) buIdhe 19:37, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

  @Buidhe Please elaborate on this statement. @Z1720 and I have done quite a bit of back-and-forth on this above, and I've gone through and removed the clearly bad sources that he identified and replaced almost all non-scholarly sources with scholarly ones. There are a few places where I just couldn't find a scholarly source where I've left a non-scholarly source, but I could count those instances on my fingers; they are used very minimally considering the breadth of the article and those sources are still reliable sources (news or the Olympics website), just not best sources. If you're talking about Olympedia, it is a scholarly source, as it's run by Bill Mallon who is a leading Olympic historian. It happens to be a database instead of a book, but that doesn't make it any less scholarly. If you have specific issues or are concerned with specific sources that are still in the article I'd be happy to take a look at them but a blanket "a lot of lower-quality sources" is frankly difficult to take seriously at this point. As an aside, if you could please do me the favor of pinging me when you respond to me, that would be greatly appreciated, as I don't receive alerts if someone comments here. Ladtrack (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2026 (UTC)