1981 Irish hunger strike (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/1981 Irish hunger strike

• Featured article review/1981 Irish hunger strike/archive1

Notified: FDW777, WikiProject Irish republicanism, 7 July 2024; the original FAC nominator ( One Night In Hackney) has been inactive since 2013.

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not, in my opinion, at the level that should be expected from an FA. There are several books sources missing, and several that are present are underused. There are almost no academic papers cited, and some events are not covered (including negotiations between the British government and the IRA. I think the only way to raise this up to current FA standards is a complete rewrite, rather than tinkering round the edges. - SchroCat ( talk) 18:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Move to FARC: No edits or discussion to address the above concerns. Z1720 ( talk) 19:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• @ FAR coordinators: Apologies, this fell off my radar, but I wanted to have a look at it. I'm not sure that the issues raised, while significant, are completely irresolvable—to the extent of needing "Featured TNT", anyway :) Can I have a couple of days to look it over? ——Serial Number 54129 20:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sure. Nikkimaria ( talk) 22:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Well; I can see what TheCat™ was getting at. There's a fair amount missing. This is one of those more unusual articles structurally, in that the focus isn't so much on the strike itself (which would, realistically, make for a very short article) but rather on surrounding people and events. And per SC, negotiations were fundamental. Violence—particularly at funerals—is unmentioned; cultural impact; prisoners comms; the Rawe thesis, while not universally accepted is no longer as fringe as once was and definitely needs coverage. And as noted, some of the sourcing is below par (AP/RN shouldn't be used for anything except for providing material internal to the RM). There's a plethora of images, but there's a fair few whose licencing I wouldn't trust to pass Nikkimaria's beady eye  :) It would be cool to get a VOA recording of the news bulletin announcing the strike if one exists. I'll see what can be done, and how much, if any, of this can be dealt addressed without TNT. ——Serial Number 54129 12:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ FAR coordinators: I've added several academic and other HQ sources, removed most of the newspapers—those that remain are of record—and missing aspects covered (mostly what I touch on above, incl. elections, families, violence, negotiations, funerals etc). I've tweaked the table, removed some dodgy licenced images, all the colours pass WCAG AAA. Also, per the concerns raised on the article talk page, everything thing sourceable has been sourced, O'Rawe's position in the scholarship explained (again, see above), and subsequent reactions to him included. If 'someone else can check out the VOA archives, that would be great. ——Serial Number 54129 20:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sourcing. Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• SchroCat, have SN's edits addressed your concerns? Nikkimaria ( talk) 00:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

  Possibly/probably. I'm not an expert on the subject at all, so wouldn't be able to say whether all the relevant sources have been covered, but it's certainly in an immeasurably better state than it was when I tagged it. I'll assume good faith that the coverage of the sources is sufficient, so good work on getting this up to a much higher standard, SN. Some of the obvious gaps that I noticed before have certainly been filled. SN, the only thing you might want to tweak (apart from the couple of tags I've dropped in there), is the alpha order on the sources, particularly around the M's, where it goes a little awry. Cheers - SchroCat ( talk) 07:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thanks Schro. I had 'boycott' on the tip of my tongue for the last few days but couldn't quite find it  :) and done nuts, etc. Sorted the bibliography which certainly was, awry. Thanks all.

  Possibly not my best piece, but probably the most important. Now I'm shredded; maybe a good point on which to retire. ——Serial Number 54129 15:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

• Keep: Based on the number of sources in this article, it seems like this topic has received a large amount of coverage, and thus it would be difficult to cite every source. Without having much knowledge on this topic and its sources, I think this article has sufficient coverage. If an editor comes along and suggests specific high-quality sources that should be added to the article, then a talk page discussion can start. For now, I think it's ready to keep, and the next step for interested editors is to go through the sources and try to replace news articles with academic sources. Z1720 ( talk) 17:47, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, the old version had 74 references, over 20 of them citing news outlets. The current version has 310 references, citing, err, four news outlets. May I suggest we can skip the next step :) SerialNumber 54129 18:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply

• @ Serial Number 54129: Removing the news sources is not required for me to declare keep. Instead, I think that might be the next step for someone interested in making this article even better. Z1720 ( talk) 20:41, 1 August 2024 (UTC) reply