Wikipedia:Featured article review/East End of London/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) 2:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC).

East End of London

 * Notified: WikiProject London, WikiProject England, WikiProject UK geography

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it no longer meets Featured article criteria. There are unsourced paragraphs, unsourced statements, unattributed quotes, weasel words without attribution, a section consisting largely of quotes, inconsistent citation styles and short, stubby paragraphs that do not meet the prose criterion. DrKay (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I've got some more sourcing concerns as well. At least one blog is cited, the books cited frequently lack specific page numbers, etc.  This idea of the East End as lying beyond the pale of respectability was also emphasised by Jack London when he visited London in 1902, is possible WP:OR, as it's just cited to the specific book by London itself, so the editor is probably interpreting that into the article.  One footnote is really just an unsourced inflation value of currency, and most of the books cited lack publishers.  In addition to the many instance of uncited prose, this needs very substantial sourcing work. Hog Farm Bacon 05:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

These statement issues have been identified through an AI that can automatically identify statements having minor POV issues and missing citations. It is meant to ease the review burden for Featured Articles. If such predictions are relevant, we appreciate more feedback here to help evaluate our AI and make it robust to aid in article reviews. More details can be found on the research page. Sumit (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the statements below may have violated the NPOV guidelines:
 * Bizarre events occurred when the River Lea burned with an eerie blue flame, caused by a hit on a gin factory at Three Mills, and the Thames itself burnt fiercely when Tate & Lyle's Silvertown sugar refinery was hit. ("fiercely" seems redundant)
 * They advocated focusing on the causes of poverty and the radical notion of poverty being involuntary, rather than the result of innate indolence. ("radical" seems redundant)
 * Great numbers, of East Londoners, perhaps 100,000, turned out to oppose them and there were three-way clashes between the Fascists, their East End opponents and the Police. (can be reworded to avoid "Great numbers" and just state the numbers)
 * How is "radical" redundant? Radicalism was a specific political movement; "the radical notion of poverty being involuntary" contrasts with the conservative belief that the poor were to blame for their own poverty. Ditto with "great numbers"; just stating the number doesn't make it clear that in relation to the population at the time this was a significant proportion (nowadays, 100,000 people at a London event wouldn't be particular significant). It seems to me like you're looking for what you consider weasel words, without bothering to check if they're appropriate in context. &#8209; Iridescent 06:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * How is "radical" redundant? Radicalism was a specific political movement; "the radical notion of poverty being involuntary" contrasts with the conservative belief that the poor were to blame for their own poverty. Ditto with "great numbers"; just stating the number doesn't make it clear that in relation to the population at the time this was a significant proportion (nowadays, 100,000 people at a London event wouldn't be particular significant). It seems to me like you're looking for what you consider weasel words, without bothering to check if they're appropriate in context. &#8209; Iridescent 06:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Iridescent. These are good notes.  I'm working with Sumit.iitp on this AI.  Would you be interested in helping us test and refine this AI?  Any suggestions for articles/categories you would be interested in seeing us test against?
 * This AI is trained using editor behavior from Wikipedia. In this case, the AI is telling us that editors tend to change sentences that look like this and include "POV" or "NPOV" in their edit summaries.  --EpochFail  (talk &bull; contribs) 18:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi EpochFail, this sounds like a cool project, but I'm not sure at this point that it is easing review burden here. I'm going to pull Sumit's post back from archive at WT:FAR for some more discussion. In the meantime, can I suggest you update the research page to reflect that the study is no longer solely observational? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria. ✅ and thanks for pulling back the thread.  I'm interested in learning more about the review burden here and what might help.  A lot of the machine learning work I've done in the past is focused on reducing review burden (see ORES and the editquality models for counter-vandalism and draftquality models for new page review).  I think that, with the methods | and I are working on, we stand a chance of helping with FAR burden but I'm not familiar with the bottlenecks in the process we can target. --EpochFail  (talk &bull; contribs) 12:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with the suggestions. "Fiercely" is redundant. It would be better to state the population of London rather than use the vague phrase "great numbers". If Radical refers to a specific political movement, it should be capitalized, otherwise removed as confusing. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:Iridescent, Nikkimaria and User:Buidhe for the valuable feedback here. I have posted my responses on the main discussion thread. Sumit (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Move to FARC, no engagement. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  07:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist. None of the problems identified in the review section have been addressed. DrKay (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist, unaddressed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delist - The more significant issues (ei sourcing) haven't really been touched. Hog Farm Bacon 05:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.