Wikipedia:Featured article review/Lessons for Children/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC) [1].

Lessons for Children

Notified: ~~Wadewitz~~ (deceased), WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Women writers, WikiProject Women in Green, 12-27-2022

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several uncited statements, an original research tag from 2021, and lots of block quotes that I think can be reduced or summarised. Z1720 (talk) 16:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Figureskatingfan: interested? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia, yes but I have a deadline this week, so I will tackle it then if that's all right. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia and @Z1720: I have completed going over this article, which suffered from years of neglect and was a product of the lower standards of FAs of the time it was first produced. Despite this, it's both artistic and scholarly, a work of art and an example of top-notch academic/encyclopedic writing. I want to be Adrianne Wadewiz when I grow up. It's been such an honor to do the little I've had to do to improve it, updating the referencing format and correcting several instances of OR. (Adrianne couldn't help herself.) Remember, this was first written before Visual Editor, and it's an outstanding piece of work nonetheless. Looking forward to your feedback and suggestions to make it even better. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Very quick look, still see a citation needed tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yah, I kept it because what comes before it is important, but I didn't want to sort through all the sources to find something that supports it. I'd like to keep the tag, but I will delete the sentence if you wish. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Christine, I'm not following what you are suggesting/asking. Awadewit pushed her own views in to many articles, so we should not leave any unverified content in the article. Perhaps I am misunderstanding? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I'm asking if I should remove the tag and the sentence instead of waiting to verify it. I'm also saying that I'm not able to go through the research it might take to verify it. I'll go ahead and remove them, though. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:24, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, does not seem critical anyway. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But still have: Barbauld had published a successful book of poetry in 1773 which Johnson greatly admired; he viewed her switch to children's literature as a descent.[citation needed] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done as requesed. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is overquoting; to the extent possible, we should use our own words, but there are lengthy quotes of which a few look like we could rephrase.

More significantly, there are no sources beyond the late 1990s used in this article, when Google Scholar coughs up a plethora. I don't believe the article is comprehensive, and when we factor in that Wikipedia was specifically criticized in a journal article for past issues found in similar Awadewit content, it is hard to be confident this article is still at standard or reflects up to date scholarship. I'm afraid that patching up what was there by removing OR and uncited is insufficient. The article would probably meet GA "broad coverage" requirement, but not FA "comprehensive", and a survey of the dozens (hundreds?) of scholarly articles written since 2000 is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're saying what I suspected would be true about this article; due to its age and the higher standards of the FA criteria currently, it wouldn't fulfill that criteria today, not without extensive research, additions, and rewrites. I also suspect that this would be a fun project, but it's not something I'm willing and/or able to take on right now. I've got too many other projects going on right now, in Wikipedia and other areas. I agree that although what I've done goes far in this article's general improvement, it doesn't go far enough. Unfortunately, then, I think that we need to de-list it, in the hopes that another editor with the time and inclination to take it on. It, like Anna Laetitia Barbauld, needs a team, with someone to lead it, and that's not me, although I'd be willing to help. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thx, Christine; at least you brought it to GA standard anyway ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:43, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC: per the above, it looks like there are a lot of recent sources that need to be evaluated and added to the article before it can be considered comprehensive. I do not think anyone is willing to take on this task in the short time it is at FAR. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, lacks comprehensiveness, multitude of newer sources unused, too much to do at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC per SG and Figureskatingfan. Hog Farm _Talk 15:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - has come a long way, but per above needs work yet. Hog Farm _Talk 18:55, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, serious comprehensiveness concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Sandy did a lot of edits in Feb, but she has expressed comprehensive concerns, so I am inclined to agree with that. Z1720 (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.