Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Well of Loneliness/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) 4:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC).

The Well of Loneliness

 * Notified: buidhe, DrKay, Celithemis, WikiProject Feminism, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Novels, WikiProject Women's History, diff for talk page notification 2021-01-19

Review section
Issues concerning the article were raised one year ago, like possible original research, unverifiable info, inadequate coverage, writing quality, and sourcing. Since then, some improvements were made, but they happened within one month after the discussion last year. Subsequent edits were just cleanups or tiny content changes or something else.

Please note: I've not notified editors who've been inactive for more than one year, who made edits for a very short time, or who made minor edits. You may do so if willing to. George Ho (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Please at least notify the now-inactives, as even if they are not able/interested in returning they may have talk-page watchers who could help. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Talk page watchers"? Seriously? Besides Celithemis, which inactive editors please? George Ho (talk) 04:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I notified Celithemis, but did not find anyone else active enough to notify. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , when you do the notifications, please use the subst’d message listed in the FAR instructions; otherwise, newcomers to FAR show up without an understanding of the two-phase process, and start entering declarations. Thanks, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * update/status? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:32, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * has been working on the article since the FAR was brought up. There have been some improvements, but I'm unsure whether the issues are addressed. --George Ho (talk) 18:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Making another comment hours later: If you want my opinion, here it is: 's edits, despite being layout and tone improvements, did vey little to address the issues. I compared the pre-FAR revision to the current one, and the article's almost the same, despite the layout changes. I hope my vote is implied, right? --George Ho (talk) 06:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Although there have been improvements, I still see non-cited content, inconsistent refs, and other issues. I quickly removed some instances of original research and unrelated content that I found but the article probably needs a more thorough search for such issues (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As I see, you removed non-free images. I applaud the effort. However, the US copyright of File:The Sink of Solitude.gif and of File:Radclyffe Hall - Sunday Express.gif will expire on January 1, 2024, at least ninety-five years after their own first publications, i.e. two years from now, so I would like to reinsert them both by that time. Nonetheless, the UK copyright of the Solitude drawing is still intact until 1 January 2055, seventy years Beresford Egan's death. That neither is nor will be Commons-eligible for now and by then. On the contrary, the UK copyright of James Douglas's article must have expired already for more than a decade. (Saving and ...) The File:Children of Loneliness.jpg I would request un-delete in 2034, twelve years from now, as the film was supposed released in 1937 (or 1935?). (Saving ...) No comment on other edits for now, nonetheless. George Ho (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh, my. you have partially converted the citations to sfns, but not completed the job. See WP:CITEVAR re changing citation style, which I’m not sure you should have done, but if doing it, it should be completed. We now have mixed citation style and harvref errors everywhere. could you identify what text is uncited? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  04:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have finished where left off and reformatted the rest of inline refs, hopefully, for more consistency. I hope I've not made one mistake, but I'm unsure whether I did. George Ho (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Whoops! I guess I did. Thanks,, for correcting my errors. George Ho (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article is still littered with HarvRef errors; you can install User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js to view them. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  10:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fixed (most of?) remaining errors without using the user script. I just added ref id and parameters and reformatted a few other references. George Ho (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Move to FARC, this article has been edited, but not clearly in a productive direction. The citation style was changed, with HarvRef errors introduced, and yet there is still a long list of newer scholarship parked in Further reading.  It does not appear that any substantial improvement has been undertaken, which would include a sourcing overhaul.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to FARC - per Sandy, there are significant underlying issues yet to be addressed. Hog Farm Talk 22:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

FARC section

 * Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, and verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 04:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist. Tagged as lacking reliable references. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist, largely per Sandy's "Move to FARC" statement from February 1; the issues there have not been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 14:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delist, per HF. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.