Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Green (Dartmouth College)/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) 4:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC) [1].

The Green (Dartmouth College)

Notified: User talk:Kane5187, User talk:PoliticsIsExciting (no other users with > 2% edits) WT:SPEAK, WT:UNI, WT:USA, WT:NH, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dartmouth_College, Sept 2021 notification

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because a large part of the sourcing is to the university itself, or a blog called "Dartmo", so it lacks high-quality reliable and independent sources Bumbubookworm (talk) 12:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(on mobile) @Bumbubookworm: As the nominator is mostly retired, to be fair to them you should at least copy their defense of Dartmo's reliability from the FAC. Regarding non-independent sources, it's typical for higher education articles to have a lot of those, as they're typically the best available, so I'm not sure that'd be enough alone to get me to !vote to delist. What would get me to delist is if the non-independent sources are used to support information that does not fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF criteria. Did you find any such information? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:00, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From an outside look, it seems like a lot of the non-independent sourcing is just used to establish basic characteristics of the green or noncontroversial history, although "Given the Green's role as "the physical and emotional center of campus life,"" should almost certainly have a secondary source. On an unrelated note, "Dartmouth is well known for its variety of long-standing student traditions" is something that should ideally be sourced to something more recent than 1999. Hog Farm _Talk 14:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the tag-bombing of this article should be reverted; Dartmo was covered in the FAC, and it appears to meet WP:SPS, and is not used to cite anything controversial or self-serving. Once that is done, I’ll do minor MOS cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the unreliable sources tag and the inline taggings of Dartmo as self-published. Hog Farm _Talk 15:44, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the History section seems to end at 1906. Are there any events of note for this space in the past 100 years? Perhaps renovations, major damage from a weather event, or changes to the space? Z1720 (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC While the "Rallies and protests" section lists some events, there is no information on the history of this location post-1906 (renovations, proposals to protect the site, damage to the site from weather events, etc.) I raised these concerns in the above comment but they have not been addressed. Z1720 (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Courtesy pinging the Dartmouth alums on WP: User:Akwdb, User:ArunavJain, User:AustinZ, User:BA Schuetze, User:Bigroryg, User:Buburuza, User:Claymoney, User:Comte de Chagny, User:Cthomas3, User:Dartmothian, User:DMCer, User:DuncmanG, User:Eden5, User:Elitesunlight, User:Feeeshboy, User:Havenoterty, User:Heema, User:Hluboka1, User:Hotstreets, User:JesseBeach, User:Johnleemk, User:Justjared, User:Kane5187, User:Keesiewonder, User:Kenticus, User:Kharker, User:Kier07, User:Letoofdune, User:LexisNexisWest, User:LilHelpa, User:MementoVivere, User:Merchako, User:MrZu, User:NJDFan82, User:Nnn9245, User:Rhsatrhs, User:RideABicycle, User:Sabriel~enwiki, User:Schi, User:Searine, User:Smith120bh, User:Stilken, User:Texasmusician, User:Thechoipolloi, User:Theoddball, User:Tombadog, User:Trak65, User:WonderBoy1998, User:Youngtim74. If any of you would like an easy featured article star, this hopefully shouldn't be a very hard article to save. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 04:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist no edits this year, still has cleanup banner. (t · c) buidhe 23:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist. Tagged as lacking reliable references. DrKay (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• While I think the primary sources thing is a bit overblown, as this is the sort of article where having a higher rate of primary sourcing for noncontroversial history would be expected, I am seeing some issues:
  • "the locations of which varied until about 1931, when the configuration was last altered" - but the source (Dartmo) says "The paths probably fell into their current pattern after 1931, though changes have been occurring on the southeast corner in the last 30 years" - so the source couches as probably, but the article doesn't, and the source doesn't really seem to agree with the "when the configuration was last altered"
  • Information found in Dartmo that should be in the article probably - there use to be a lot of elm trees on the green, but they have been taken out by storms and disease
  • "Even though the land had been cleared, many tree stumps remained until 1831;" - source doesn't support the exact date. It says that clearing continued in 1771 and the trees were burned and removed in 1772, and that it extended for sixty years. There is no indication that the 60 years isn't a round number, so we can't really support an exact date of 1831
  • "and old division football was played by the 1820s" - source doesn't specify the 1820s
  • Most of the weblinks to Dartmouth's website are broken
  • It looks like they had a presidential debate there in 2011. 2007 debate rallies on the Green are mentioned in the article; did they occur for 2011 as well?

So delist because just from a quick link we've got some source-text problems. Hog Farm _Talk 17:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per HF. As above, I don't find the primary sources issue concerning, but the things HF pointed to indicate a need for maintenance/changes, and it's clear none are forthcoming. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delist, per Sdkb and Hog Farm (concerned that we not take an indiscriminating stance on usage of primary sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed the cleanup banner, as it's been challenged by multiple people here and there doesn't seem to have been a compelling argument as to why those primary sources are problematic to the extent of slapping an orange cleanup banner on there. Hog Farm _Talk 16:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per above. HF pointed out comprehensive issues that need to be addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2022 (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) 04:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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