Wikipedia:Featured article review/Oklahoma/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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) 0:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC) [1].

Oklahoma[edit]

Notified: Okiefromokla, WikiProject Oklahoma, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Geography

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the multiple issues discussed at Talk:Oklahoma#Lack of citations/data in need of update, since last year, without much in the way of improvement. Verifiability/lack of citations is a pressing issue. (t · c) buidhe 06:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RD

I did a review last year on Talk, but I suppose I can expand on it a bit:

  • lack of citations throughout, full paragraphs at times;
  • quality of sources is extremely poor in the geology/ecology/topography areas
    • TravelOK should not be supporting a full paragraph about ecological diversity;
    • I doubt Netstate or Geology.com are the best sources around that mention the state's borders or its mountains or general topography;
    • The full section on fauna and flora of Oklahoma is almost solely sourced to TravelOK; although apparently a state-owned website, this is the sort of information that is easily found in scholar literature, and failure to integrate any of that literature is a serious breach of 1.c) - well-researched;
  • Gigantic white space created because editors just come in the article and add whatever pictures they like;
  • More substandard sourcing with this gem written in 1998 by someone on the Internet; then the same website is used to make claims about Indian territory, a subject that seems to be well covered on Google scholar;
  • Substandard prose: "All Five Civilized Tribes supported and signed treaties with the Confederate military during the American Civil War. The Cherokee Nation had an internal civil war. Slavery in Indian Territory was not abolished until 1866."
  • Several substancial claims about first-nation peoples and (then later on) other race relations that are poorly sourced or even completely unsourced at times;
  • Several random, one-sentence paragraphs just added in the middle of the text, such as "On May 31, 2016, several cities experienced record setting flooding." or "The center of population of Oklahoma is in Lincoln County near the town of Sparks.", that are not properly integrated in the text of their respective sections;
  • There is data on OK languages available from 2018 so it makes no sense that we have a whole section based on 2000 data;
  • The wind generation sub-section just has a table, with no context provided on the data;
  • The Sports section provides a nice overview about all the different teams/franchises in the state, but then we have a series of tables that do not add anything to the discussion? Just visual clutter, apparently.
  • "On June 26, 2018, Oklahoma made marijuana legal for medical purposes. This was a milestone for a state in the Bible Belt." - I don't doubt it, but citation needed and NPOV;
  • These are just examples, I powered through many issues just to keep this review under a decent size. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that while not being in a very good shape (so much so that it's also being reviewed at FAR above), Minnesota currently gives 10-0 to Oklahoma in terms of including scholarly works in the geology, fauna and flora, and history sections. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hog Farm
  • I'll focus on sourcing
  • What makes State Symbols USA a high-quality RS? I've seen worse, but there's likely better sources available (It's used quite a bit)
  • What makes StateFossils a high-quality RS?
  • NetState.com looks a bit dubious
  • Studylib.net looks pretty dubious
  • From what I've seen, rootsweb is generally seen to be non-RS
  • What makes Geneaology Trails History Group an RS?
  • What makes ustravelweather.com a high-quality RS?
  • Consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 294#Is History.com (formerly History Channel) generally reliable? is that the History Channel publishes enough wacko content its generally not an RS
  • A lot of the refs are missing various parameters
  • Capitalization in ref titles is all over the place
  • Notable people is almost entirely unsourced
  • What makes City-Data.com a high-quality RS?
  • What makes shaleexperts.com a high-quality RS?
  • What makes Ask Men an RS?
  • "Sports Illustrated magazine rates Oklahoma and Oklahoma State among the top colleges for athletics in the nation" - Is cited to two articles from 2002.
  • I'm gonna say WebMD is probably a bit iffy of a source for FA, despite it being the go-do medical diagnoser at the university I attend
  • What is BurellesLuce.com?
  • What makes Legends of America an RS?
  • Large swaths of the article are sourced to websites from 2007, suggesting that there may be much outdated information in here.

Other comments I'd make on sourcing, but stopping here. It's not looking good. Hog Farm Bacon 15:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, nothing happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Extensive issues, no progress made. Besides the iffy sourcing mentioned above, there are also a good deal of outdated material. The statistics in the religion section all appear to be over 10 years old, the first bit of economy and the industry section are both very dated. Most of the material in the language section is based on the 2000 census. The images have some location issues, as they're stuck everywhere with no real connection with the section they are within. The history section contains two events after the OKC bombing. The military section is two further information links with no text. There are bits of uncited material. The layout is god-awful. This needs substantial work to reach the standard, and it doesn't look like anyone is stepping up to do so. Hog Farm Bacon 18:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. (t · c) buidhe 23:39, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for citations needed. DrKay (talk) 10:45, 31 October 2020 (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) 00:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Oklahoma/archive1&oldid=987746436"