Wikipedia:Featured article review/Providence, Rhode Island/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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC).

Providence, Rhode Island

 * Notified: various (see User:Buidhe/test), Dec 18, 2021

Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because of unresolved issues with referencing (and lack thereof) and datedness, see the talk page for details. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:17, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Citation 133 is a bit ridiculous. An absurd number of different sources are synthesised to reach the given number. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 05:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Check now. I went in and found some more sources to include.  If you have any other higher quality sources, I can incorporate those as well. Louiedog (talk) 17:56, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your edit. The first order of business is fixing all of the 21 citation needed tags either by finding a source or removing the information, if it does not belong in the article. The second priority is updating outdated information; most of the citations dated 2007 will need updating.
 * While going through the article, I also found some coverage gaps:
 * No info on pre-colonial history
 * Insufficient information on local politics and government system, apart from some UNDUE content on particular officeholders that I removed. The article should contain info on what political party dominates local elections, and possibly info on which issues are prominent in local politics.
 * (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I went a removed a few, since many were dubious cite needed's. In many cases the information was already supported by the source provided, or there was a cite needed for a subtitle for a graphic, when the graphic itself included its own source.  In case of Hasbro, requiring a source that they are headquartered in Pawtucket seemed ridiculous, given that it's a non-controversial claim sourced in that article's lede. Louiedog (talk) 19:32, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I'm noticing a lot of these "citation needed" are issues that can be fixed very easily by going into the relevant articles and using those sources. That's going to be a lot more productive than just putting up "cite needed" tags.  And again, a number of these tags were added needlessly, as the information was included in sources already cited.  We're just not doing in-line citations every sentence.  It would save a lot of trouble just to look more carefully at the sourcing info before throwing the tags up. Louiedog (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume that you've checked every source that you've added to the article? You cannot assume that the source actually verifies the fact unless you check it yourself.
 * Since this is a FA, the minimum citation requirement is at least one citation at the end of every paragraph that verifies all the content since the last inline citation, except the lead. Being sourced in another article, or covered in a source cited elsewhere in the article, does not count. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * >I assume that you've checked every source that you've added to the article?
 * Yes, I am responsibly sourcing the information in keeping with wikipedia policies. I do appreciate your flagging some of the content people added that seemed like people just adding their favorite rugby team, which had no sources and no evidence of notability.
 * >the minimum citation requirement is at least one citation at the end of every paragraph that verifies all the content since the last inline citation
 * Yes and it has that. I was actually able to remove all the  tags on the basis of either (a) fact was sourced earlier in the paragraph, (b) fact was Common knowledge, a simple non-controversial observation from a public property, (c) fact did not merit inclusion and shouldn't have been there in the first place.  For everything in category (a), I have gone in to confirm that the fact was indeed supported by the source.  In general, doing that investigation before adding a  tag will just save us all a lot of trouble.  You can check the article's past -  before the article achieved FA status in the first place, there was a comprehensive review of the article's sources.  The only pieces worth worrying about is the new content added before then, but the article's history section, for example, was mature years ago. Louiedog (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Relying on "common knowledge" or sources cited elsewhere to verify the article content is not acceptable for FAs.
 * All of the places I added citation needed tags are places that actually require an inline citation if the article is to maintain its FA listing. Since the purpose of this review is to facilitate improvements to cause the article to meet the FA criteria, it is unhelpful to remove the tags without providing an inline citation to a high-quality reliable source. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Common knowledge is clearly defined above. E.g. The fact that an "amphitheater and riverwalks line the river's banks" doesn't require a citation. "Interstate 95 serves as a physical barrier between the city's commercial core and neighborhoods such as Federal Hill and the West End." likewise.
 * Many of the tags seemed sloppily thrown up, just for the purposes of having the tags up there.  Everything is already in-line cited per standards:
 * 1. E.g. there was a tag apparently on Providence being one of the "earliest towns" in Colonial America at the end of the sentence, despite there being a direct citation for that claim 3 words prior.
 * 2. The source for "Providence hosted some of the largest manufacturing plants in the country, including Brown & Sharpe, Nicholson File, and Gorham Manufacturing Company." was the same source that had been cited at the top of that very paragraph, 2 sentences prior.
 * 3. "The city offices moved into Providence City Hall in 1878." was also drawing on the same source, isn't a controversial claim, and could easily been additionally sourced (which I did) by doing into the City Hall article, which was already linked.
 * 4. "Another 6% of the city has multiracial ancestry. American Indians and Pacific Islanders make up the remaining 0.9%" again the source was the same source that had been used 1 sentence prior.
 * 5. The claim that "It is the capital of Rhode Island, so the city's economy additionally consists of government services.[citation needed]" seems like one of the easiest things in the world to verify and is unlikely to be false. State capitals are common knowledge if ever there were and the idea that a state capital has jobs in government service?  Still, I went in and found a source.
 * 6. Hasbro needing a citation for its headquarters being in Pawtucket. Again, I'm not sure who would challenge this.
 * 7. "The U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island is located downtown across from Providence City Hall adjacent to Kennedy Plaza". See: Common knowledge
 * The purpose of citation needed tags is to flag something for attention and give the contributor a chance to find a source, especially for dubious or controversial facts likely to be challenged. Otherwise, to have a "fact" removed. Throwing the tags on material that's already adequately sourced to wikipedia standards does not improve the article.  I'm open to any other places you believe lack sourcing, but all the tags I saw were superfluous and inaccurate. Louiedog (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you wouldn't then just move the location of the reference link then, rather than typing all this. If there is content, I don't expect it to be from a previous reference, without some type of indication.
 * Regardless, I have moved some of the refs to match with their appropriate content and added some additional refs to s you had previously removed. I hope this satiates everyone involved.  Skipple  ☎  21:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate your work on this. Hopefully, we're all happy now. Louiedog (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Budhe, how about discussing here or on the article's talk page before going in and revert warring on that article being contested? That's a great way to draw this out longer. Louiedog (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What revert warring? (t &#183; c)  buidhe  15:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You made this edit. Louiedog (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I added citation needed tags to statements, after noting repeatedly on here that they required citations. I guess you had previously removed them, however, I doubt that anyone else would consider this a case of edit warring. Anyway, it does not seem like you or any other editor is interested in bringing the article up to meet the FA criteria, so I guess we'll have to Move to FARC (t &#183; c)  buidhe  04:33, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? I sourced every you raised. Louiedog (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

First cursory glance only: I stopped there. Place articles require careful tending over time, and constant updating; this article doesn't appear to have received that, and I concur with Buidhe that a Move to FARC is in order. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:SANDWICH, holy terror of a long infobox, MOS:ACCIM placement of images.
 * Considerable overlinking: you can install this script to review: User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.
 * Listy text that can be rewritten to organized prose/paragraphs, see for example Neighborhoods.
 * Hidden text in the climate section.
 * Sourcing and datedness review needed, sample.
 * Why does the table in the Crime section say 2019 when it's based on 2013 data ?
 * The Economy section appears dated, self-sources, and lacking context or recent info. It contains a graph based on 2022 data that is not covered at all in the article.
 * This looks OR-ish: Much of Providence culture is synonymous with the culture of Rhode Island as a whole.
 * This is cited to 2004: Providence also shares Rhode Island's affinity for coffee, with the most coffee and doughnut shops per capita of any city in the country.[94]
 * This is really dubious, wonder about the source, and dated. And "reputed"? Providence is also reputed to have the highest number of restaurants per capita of major U.S. cities,[95]
 * Another dubious 2007 source: many of which are founded or staffed by Johnson & Wales University graduates.[96]
 * Move to FARC per Sandy's findings. Hog Farm Talk 04:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include style, sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist core issues identified were never fixed (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:43, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

DrKay (talk) 17:09, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist Nikkimaria did some needed cleanup at the beginning of the month, but more work is still needed to update information and replace lower-quality references. Hog Farm Talk 13:45, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist issues remain, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:53, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist issues remain. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.