Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Raise issues at article Talk:

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators, Dana boomer and Nikkimaria, determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they may post only one nomination at a time, should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days), and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Save page".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews[edit]

Planetary nebula[edit]

Notified: Ruslik0, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are many problems with referencing, and the current evidence and knowledge and planetary nebulae or the related stellar evolution of this object are not well reflected in the Article text. This article has been a featured article since 2008 and was featured on the main page. However, 5 years later I do not feel as if this article now meets the current criteria. A review seems more appropriate and useful to improve it. Arianewiki1 (talk) 14:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

  • To give a specific example, the origins section is almost entirely based on one source from 20 years ago. There have been a number of publications since then discussing PNe origins, and though I don't have time to look through them personally, I would assume they contain information which should be in the article. i.e. [1] [2] Sam Walton (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist; I'm seeing a multitude of unsourced statements in the article that aren't of the WP:BLUE variety. That along with the multitude of other problems brought up by Ariane and Sam makes me !vote to delist, unfortunately. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Central Coast Mariners FC[edit]

Notifying: User talk:Daniel, WikiProject Football/Australia task force, WikiProject Football, WikiProject New South Wales, Australian Wikipedians' notice board

I am nominating this featured article for review because this is a 2007 FA that is not up to current standards. I posted a list of concerns on the talk page nearly a year ago, after the article was put forward for TFA consideration, but some of the problems remain unaddressed. Issues that I can see (there may be others):

  • Lead - "The club's training grounds are located at the Mariners Centre of Excellence in Tuggerah, a facility which when completed will also become the permanent headquarters for the club." This is only in the lead, not in the main body, and is sourced to a 2011 source - has nothing happened since?
    • I don't see this in the lead right now, so it must have been removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Lawrie McKinna era - the last five paragraphs of this sub-section have one reference between them, and peacock/POV phrases such as "the many fine Youth Academy players", "following a remarkable final round", "match ended in controversy", "this was controversially referred to as a strike", "The 2008–09 season was disappointing compared to the standards set in the previous season". I've just removed the unsourced BLP problem "This is the first time [redacted] had played professional football since 2003, due to drug problems" from this section as well.
    • Good call on the BLP issue, and a couple of the items above have been fixed. There's still more to do, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
      • I've added a bunch of print references to this section. Further copy-editing is still needed, but this is looking better than when the FAR started. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Graham Arnold era - further unsourced material, and use of "however" (which is a word setting off alarm bells about the quality of the prose)
    • The alarming word is still there until I go through the article more carefully, but the citation level here is much better after I added some more print sources. I also added some more content to update the article to reflect the most recent season, which ended in April. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
      • The word should now be gone, and the article as a whole should be a bit cleaner than it was before. The linking in particular needed a large amount of work. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Colours and badge - we have material such as "Mariners enjoyed considerable success in the 2005–06 away strip" sourced to a no-longer-existing page on the club's own website - even if the club thinks the success was considerable, better sourcing is required for POV claims like that.
    • The offending material is now gone. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Rivalries - sourced only to - what makes this a reliable, let alone a high-quality, source, when it says that "This website has been produced by and for football fans all over the world"?
    • This has now been re-written with print sources. It was hard for me since I'm unfamiliar with how to write about soccer (football to you) rivalries, but it's at least reliably sourced and better than what was there before. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Affiliated clubs: unsourced
    • The ones without a source are now gone. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Current squad: unsourced
    • Fully sourced and up to date now. Link to sources will be stable. Daniel (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Captains: unsourced
    • Removed, should be covered in history section. Daniel (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Club officials - the managers section is unsourced, and the source given for the management does not mention the patron, given as the first on the list, making me worried that other material in the article may not be backed up by the sources.
    • It looks like sources have been added to this section. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Records - "the club's most prestigious award" is POV. The top scorers chart is 18 months out of date and unsourced.
  • All time matches win/loss - uncited.
    • Yes check.svg Done Split to records article, was too detailed for main article. Daniel (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

A lot of work is needed to bring this up to modern FA standards. BencherliteTalk 19:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to help get this article back to Featured article standards.--2nyte (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks 2nyte. It's definitely fallen by the wayside since I nominated it five years ago. Needs a huge refresh and an update. Daniel (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment – I've looked at the article and agree with Bencherlite and the others that it doesn't meet the FA criteria at this time. The good news is that some work has been done on it already, and I have contributed a few references and some rewriting myself. Unfortunately, I am an American and have only spotty access to Australian sources. Daniel and 2nyte, if you are willing to help with building up the sourcing, I can give the writing a polish. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Note: Thanks to Giants2008 and everyone else for pitching in and helping out. Nikkimaria was kind enough to allow us an extension beyond the two weeks noted in the FAR instructions, so hopefully we can keep chipping away at it over the next couple of weeks. Thanks again, Daniel (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Just a note in response to say that I'm glad to see that people are working on this (although I've not checked what's actually been done yet). Let me know when you want me to take a fresh look. I'm not an expert on football articles, but perhaps people who are (like Dweller and The Rambling Man, for instance) might also be worth asking in due course for their input. (Hi guys!) BencherliteTalk 19:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
      • You can offer more comments any time you'd like, and I'll certainly listen to them. We're getting to the point where further input would be helpful. Daniel said he was going to format the references, so the few bare links and the like that are left should be fixed soon. Other than that, and some necessary dead link repairs, I think keeping the article at FA is certainly possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
        • The last of the formatting of the references I have just finished. I feel as if all the concerns have been addressed. I'd like the FAR co-ordinators to have a look and make their determination (hopefully in the affirmative, obviously). Daniel (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Midtown Madness[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Video games

I am nominating this featured article for review because I noted these issues a week or so ago on the talk page and they haven't been fixed. The major contributor, Giggy, has only made three edits on Wikipedia since 2009, the last of these being in June 2013; I think it's safe to say he's not around.

  • Some informal and awkward writing, e.g. "cops" (which is actually linked to police officer), "damaged out".
  • Also some vague writing, e.g. "somewhat realistic", "The game is distinctly different from other racing games" (What other racing games? Roughly what percentage of them, or what subgenre of them?).
  • The first two paragraphs of Gameplay are slightly wanting of detail. I don't feel like I really understand the individual modes.
  • Not a big deal, but there's one dead link.
  • Gameplay needs some extra citations.
  • The Vehicles section is unnecessary and should be merged into Gameplay as a table or list in the prose. Also needs sources, particularly for the parenthetical information about the Red Rocket and Monster Truck.
  • Reception is poorly organized: the second paragraph lapses near the end into information unrelated to sound, and the first one could probably be split into two as it covers a great deal. Also, the use of "fun" is vague and probably unnecessary. Overall, Reception could stand to be reorganized from scratch.
  • The screenshot needs a much more comprehensive FUR and should probably go in Gameplay.
  • In addition, czar states that completeness alone would keep this from passing an FAC today.

Tezero (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't intend to be a major contributor on this, but just a note: if you run this article through the Checklinks tool, there are at least seven dead links (five 404s and two 101s. Also, I didn't check them by hand, but there are 11 uncategorized redirects that could potentially be broken).--chrisFjordson (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and updated this article's citations (although I wasn't able to update the dead link Tezero mentioned). Notes:
  • Ref 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 25 - Updated link to current URL. Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
  • Ref 3 - It has been concluded that Moby Games is an unreliable source. I'm moving it here. The claim already has a source, but it's so general that it should be rewritten entirely. I'm removing the second use of this source (MB parameter in the video game reviews box) since it no longer displays on the page anyway.
  • Ref 6, 7, 23 - Broken link updated with Wayback. Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
  • Ref 9 (now 9&10) - I split this into two refs since it cites two URLs. The ref numbers here reflect this change. Added Wayback URL. Added cite web template. Updated citation data. Note: the claim this citation supports is almost certainly outdated.
  • Ref 11 - Updated with cite journal template. Added volume and issue numbers.
  • Ref 13, 14, 18- Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
  • Ref 16 - Added Wayback URL. Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
  • Ref 17 (!)- I'm not surprised this is the only one that actually had a dead link tag. There is no archive on Wayback or WebCite, and the only snapshot is a 404 page. As far as I can tell, the page is no longer hosted on the original website under any URL. The claim this one supports is very specific. I'm not sure how replaceable it will be.
  • Ref 21 - Standardized dates.
  • Ref 24 - Broken link updated with Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
  • Ref 26 - Added cite journal template. Updated citation data, added issue number. Note: in the ref parameters (before my edit), this bit was commented out. I've removed it since it doesn't seem to do anything.
  • Ref 27 - Added cite book template. Added ISBN. Updated citation data.
All links (except Ref 17) and citation data should be good. I did not check the content of these URL to see if they support the claims in the article.--chrisFjordson (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I removed vehicles section and unsourced paragraph from gameplay, they were not part of the article during the original FAC and they've been unsourced for years. --Mika1h (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that was the thing to do, but the article is even more incomplete now. Tezero (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I have this FAR on my watchlist. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I split the first paragraph in "Reception" into two. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
See this: }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 06:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Made a GoCE request to copyedit this article. See diffs here: }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 04:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to thank @Jaytwist: for copyediting Midtown Madness. I'm happy! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I took down my Midtown Madness GoCE request. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

Flea (musician)[edit]

Notified: NSR77, Alternative music WikiProject

Review commentary[edit]

I feel this article no longer meets the FA criteria mainly due to its lack of sourcing in various cases. I raised these issues on the talk page almost a month ago, and the article has seen hardly any progress since. The issues raised were:

  • First off, YouTube is not a reliable source in this instance...eman17 is not a company or anything seriously relating to Flea.
  • I have had to place several [citation needed] templates due to lack of sourcing.
  • Many sections lack prose quality, specifically "Chili Peppers hiatus, return to school, I'm with You and Helen Burns (2008–2012)" and "Effects" should be integrated to include more prose, rather than pretty much just a list.
  • Lead does not conform to WP:LEAD

Each issue continues to remain unresolved, and I feel as though articles like this give FAs—and Wikipedia for that matter—a bad name. I'm sure the article has more problems, but honestly it just bothered me to see an FA in such poor condition when I know that this would be far from FAC passing material today. Thank you for any comments, --CrowzRSA 16:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Delist – The article has many citation needed templates, a few unreliable sources, inconsistent reference's formatting, and is poorly organized. This call is a no-brainer.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Вик Ретлхед, generally keep/delist votes should wait until the article is moved to the FARC section below. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: I personally think this is salvageable, though it is one of the many articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers built up to FA status before abandoning the project. CrowzRSA, are you interested in working with me a bit to get this back into shape? I know the list you posted on the talk page probably isn't meant to be exhaustive, but if I work on fixing the basic issues are you willing to go back through it and re-review? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Since I can't vote now, I'll add that the section "Chili Peppers hiatus ..." consists mostly of one- or two-sentence paragraphs that go like "On such-and-such a British date 2011, such-and-such happened." No further organization. The "Musical style" section is also poorly organized; the paragraph before the first subsection is giant and ranges in content from physical technique, musical styles, other instruments, and legacy. The lists could also use some formatting or splitting-off. Tezero (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, I won't be working on it since the nominator hasn't even respond to my questions. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section mainly concerned sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

S. A. Andrée's Arctic Balloon Expedition of 1897[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Bishonen, WikiProject Norway, WikiProject Arctic, WikiProject Sweden

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the article having large sections of it being unreferenced. Paragraphs throughout it lack citations to back up what is written in it. Examples of the problem being in the "The 1896 fiasco" and "The 1897 disaster" sections. GamerPro64 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know there is no Featured Article criterion that requires a paragraph (or any particular size block of text) to be referenced. FACR 1c states: "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". In The 1896 fiasco there are six references; The 1896 fiasco contains four. Is the substance of your reason for this review that you do not believe that the thirteen principal references in the article do not appropriately support all of the claims in the text? If so, may I ask if you've read all (or any) of the references and have been able to identify which claims have not been appropriately referenced? --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty much in RexxS camp on this particular matter. The guidelines do not demand we have inline references unless a particular issue is controversial and needs a direct reference. The only time I get really strict about direct references is in the case I just mentioned, in scientific articles or in biographies of living or recently deceased persons. I'm going to read over the article and see if I find any specific points that really do need a direct reference.--MONGO 13:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
@User:GamerPro64...the original primary author of the article, User:Bishonen, has apparently added a bunch more refs to the article and standardized all the formats to make them uniform. Was there other issues that needed to be addressed?--MONGO 16:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
GamerPro, could you specify a bit more precisely what you feel needs reference bolstering?
Peter Isotalo 15:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • First off, apologizes for not responding to all of this sooner. Anywho, looking at the article again, there is an increase in referencing. However, I'm now concerned about how I perceive this article and calling out flaws in it. When I originally read the article, I was questioning the lack of sourcing in parts of the article. My thought process was on whether or not the references support the claims in the text, RexxS. I will admit to not reading any of the references so I may have jumped to conclusions. I would like to get a second opinion on this article because of my now lack of confidence towards this review. GamerPro64 03:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
    No reason to beat yourself up here. The article did become featured quite some time ago and periodic questioning is important to ensure an article has been maintained or to identify possible inadequacies.--MONGO 11:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section mainly focus on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Opera (web browser)[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Remember the dot

I am nominating this featured article for review because an update template has been tagged in the article since August 2013. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 11:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello Huang, it doesn't look like this has been previously discussed on talk, as required by the instructions. Therefore, I am placing this review on hold and opening a discussion on talk, where you should feel free to participate. If in two weeks your concerns have not been addressed, feel free to re-open the FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Article issues has not been addressed, so I am listing it for review. HYH.124 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist; organization is spurious, with frequent one-sentence paragraphs, and the article is wanting of current information on the browser's updates and features. Also, "Opera Developer and Opera Next" should be merged somewhere else as it's really awkward in its current position, and regarding "Opera responded to these accusations the next day" - how did they respond? Tezero (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • @Tezero: You don't vote for delisting just yet. This is the time when people point out the flaws in the article and/or fix them up. Then when the nomination's sat around a while, then it gets moved to the section where you get to vote on delisting or not. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made that mistake before. Just treat my delist vote as a comment and, when this reaches FARC, a delist vote if the problems haven't been resolved. Same with Microsoft. Tezero (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I want to note that this article covers several web browsers, with one of them – Opera Mini – being only slightly related to the subject (from the technical point of view at least). What is IMO worse, it does so implying that all of those browsers are actually the same software, while developer regards them as distanct products, and I have never seen a source that would mix them as well. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 15:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist; organization is spurious, with frequent one-sentence paragraphs, and the article is wanting of current information on the browser's updates and features. Also, "Opera Developer and Opera Next" should be merged somewhere else as it's really awkward in its current position, and regarding "Opera responded to these accusations the next day" - how did they respond? Tezero (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Paul Kane[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Lupo, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Toronto, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario, Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland

I am nominating this featured article for review because there's a lot sections have no source, or least didn't have enough footnotes, for example: "Travels in the Northwest" (there's three sub-sections below), I feel this is a major problem need to be fixed, doesn't meet the criteria anymore.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Already more than 10 days passed, why there's no reaction? Did I done something wrong or is there anything else I should do? I'm new here, please don't be mad me. I could just withdraw this nomination if necessary.--Jarodalien (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jarodalien: These things take time. Everything looks to have been done properly. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 04:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I've cleaned up the dead links quite a while ago. Mayb e you did not notice but I don't know anything about the subject to add much more. I'll take another look at it. ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
@TenPoundHammer:, @Ww2censor:. Thank you, and what shall I do next? Or the procedure will keep going, I don't have to do anything? I'm asking this only because is already over a month passed, and I don't have any idea about how long this progress need.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jarodalien: Just let it run its course mostly. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 17:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section mainly focus on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist: reference is a major problem, over 50 days passed, basically no improvement.--Jarodalien (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per referencing. Tezero (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Manila Metro Rail Transit System[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Sky Harbor, WikiProject Trains

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not currently meet criteria, especially regarding referencing. This article has been a featured article since 2006 and was featured on the main page. However, 7 years later I do not feel as if this article meets the current criteria. It has several unreferenced sections (ex. Station facilities, amenities, and services) and/or poorly referenced sections (ex. Fares and Ticketing) and I'd like to hear what the community thinks. I am pinging the original nominator, Sky Harbor to get his/her opinion too. Sportsguy17 (TC) 21:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-D I agree that this article no longer meets the FA criteria, and would need quite a lot of work to regain this status. My comments are:

  • The first sentence is really confusing: is this article about one line of a system, or the entire system? (which is what the title of the article indicates it should cover). This confusion carries across into the body of the article, and it's not really clear what's going on.
  • Referencing is clearly sub-standard and well below B-class standard, much less that which is expected in an FA
  • The history section is much too short
  • The tables of first and last services violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE
  • The value of the table of "Incidents and accidents" seems questionable given that many of the incidents described are pretty minor and the kind of thing which routinely effect major public transport systems (eg, outages due to random accidents and suicide attempts) Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
    I will be away the next 3 days without great internet, so I may not be able to participate for a few days. Anyway, I agree with Nick-D and it's sad to see such long-term FA's be left behind with the ever increasing standards. It may be a longshot, byt someone ought to make a featured article retention team, a group of editors whose goal is to make sure that older FA's aren't left unmaintained. Thanks for the comments thus far. Sportsguy17 (TC) 04:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not FA quality - Disorganised, poorly laid out, full of irrelevant information (e.g. train schedules), contradictory (e.g. said to be a safe system, but immediately lists a whole load of incidents!). At best a "B" on the quality scale, as it would fail GA review. Bhtpbank (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

  • Agreed. There are entire sections without references. For example "Station facilities, amenities, and services", with two subsections, hasn't even a single reference. Not even GA-class. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, everybody, and happy holidays. I was informed of this nomination, and allow me to clarify a few things before we work to address this article.

  • First, the MRT system is composed of only one line, so it would be natural that the line and the system are construed to be one and the same thing.
  • How is the history section too "short"? The system is only fifteen years old, and any history before then is already covered in the Manila Light Rail Transit System article (an unfortunate symptom of the urban planning situation in the Philippines), so I don't think there's any more that can be added short of an intensive search for offline materials regarding the project.

This will be a good starting point to bring this article back to FA quality, and I will be glad to answer your questions as best as I can. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

You can try, SkyHarbor. But it needs a ton of work for it to be back to FA status. What about sections that are completely unreferenced? It fails #1c on WP:WIAFA, the biggest, most important criteria of all. Sorry, but its not FA status, let alone GA status. It is likely B or C class. You can make improvements, but it will likely get delisted as a FA, since there is so much work to be done. It will take a lot for it to be a FA once more. Sportsguy17 (TC) 18:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, let's see. The impossible can be done, can't it? ;)
In the meantime, I'm beginning to compile a list of sources which can be used for the article, and let's see where we can go from there. However, I would also like to see some effort coming from those who participated in this review to help the article out, since you're also concerned about article quality, rather than just talking about the demerits of the article in question. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: I started work on the history section, and work will continue as more sources as found. I also hope to begin sourcing the station amenities section in the next day or so: my progress right now is dependent on how much school work I have to do (as I am doing this while keeping my graduation, which is in two months, in mind). --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Sky Harbor, how is the work going? Any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi, Nikkimaria. I've been swamped with finals (which are next week), so I've been unable to do significant work on the article. However, I have around 30 tabs open on one of my browser windows, largely covering history and fare increases (I'm trying to figure out when exactly the MRT decided to lower fares from P40 to P15, to no avail). I intend to continue work on the article after my exams through March, as I will have nothing else to do save waiting for graduation at the end of next month. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
      • UPDATE: I've begun working on the article again, first with fixing references and doing some work in the plans section. Depending on the reliability of the sources (and whether or not I will have to rely on offline copies of newspaper articles to complete them), I hope to finish work on fixing all the references by the week should things go well. --Sky Harbor (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing, comprehensiveness and MOS compliance. While some work was completed during the review phase, progress appears to have stalled over the last few weeks. Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sportsguy17, User:Nick-D, User:Bhtpbank, User:Epicgenius, User:Sky_Harbor - Does anyone have any updated comments on the article? It looks like there has been quite a bit of work during the FAR process, but it would be nice to get some thoughts on what still needs to be done, or if the article is ready to be kept. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I still see several unreferenced sections. The stations and rolling stock sections are very poorly sourced or have no sources whatever, so it fails criterion #1c and #1a isn't fully met either. That must be addressed in order for this to remain a FA. Sportsguy17 (TC) 13:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
The "Operating Schedule" section is unreferenced as well, and I am wondering whether it falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I decided to remove that section, and whatever salvageable data from it can be merged into the network section. That section was quite problematic, if you ask me, especially given the MRT's 'experiments' with longer operating hours. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Sportsguy17, User:Nick-D, User:Bhtpbank, User:Epicgenius, User:Sky_Harbor, further thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No concerns, as far as I can see. Of course, one may need to look over it yet again, as there may be some more errors that still stand. Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The "stations, facilities, and amenities" section still has no sources, so as far as I'm concerned, this still is yet to meet FA status. I haven't gotten to look over all of the sections, but that section alone gives me reason to have lingering concerns. Sportsguy17 (TC) 19:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)