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]

John Mayer[edit]

Notified: Esprit15d, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Guitarists, WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject Rock music

I am nominating this featured article for review because after looking it through, I find that it fails multiple FA criteria and would require extensive work to even meet GA standards. Here is what I've found when comparing this against FA criteria:

  • 1.a. "Well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard"
  • Not the worst, but could definitely be better. For example, these statements could be more encyclopedic: "Mayer's reputation began to build", "Aware inked a deal", "Mayer has also done endorsements, such as a Volkswagen commercial for the Beetle's guitar outlet and for the BlackBerry Curve", "It was around this time that Mayer began hinting a change in his musical interests".
  • 1.b. "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context"
  • Absolutely not. This is a major weak point in the article, especially when compared to FA's like Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson. While it discusses his career as well as controversies he faced regarding his dating life and such, it doesn't really go into his artistry (musical styles, themes, and influences). As Czar stated this past April, it doesn't include what critics have said of his works or anything like that. It is mostly this unaddressed issue that prompted me to list this for FAR. In fact, I've noticed this was missing when the article was promoted to GA back in February 2007 as well as when it was promoted to FA in July 2007. For this, I definitely would've failed its GAN and opposed its FAC if I was reviewing back then. It also doesn't give a list for his tours or mention them much in article body.
  • 1.c. "well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate"
  • Another major concern. I see references such as Tumblr, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter being used. These are generally discouraged—especially for FA's—when high-quality third-party sources could be used in place. Additionally, many dead links, thus making much of the article's content difficult to verify. The statements "The song was the third most downloaded song of the week on the iTunes Store following its release on July 11, 2006, and debuted at No. 25 on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart", "He recorded a session for the British program Live from Abbey Road at Abbey Road Studios on October 22, 2006", "He accompanied Alicia Keys on guitar on her song "No One" at the ceremony", "A follow up cruise titled "Mayercraft Carrier 2" set sail from Los Angeles from March 27–31, 2009 on the Carnival Splendor", "In August 2006, Fender started manufacturing SERIES II John Mayer Stratocasters", "This performance was led to Urban and Mayer teaming up again for future performances, including at the 2010 CMT Music Awards", and "In 2004, after being asked for numerous past years, he performed for over 1000 students at the Pennsbury High School Senior Prom. Wonderland: A Year in the Life of an American High School (Grove Press, ISBN 978-0802141972), a book written by Michael Bamberger, describes the world- famous prom and John Mayer's performance" are missing citations.
  • 1.d. "neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias"
  • Seems OK
  • 1.e. "stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process"
  • Probably the article's strongest point, as it hasn't been edited much in recent months.
  • 2.a. "lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections"
  • It appears to have fair detail, but is not very well organized. It would be better to have the first paragraph focus on his career beginnings, the second on his continued career, and the third on his awards and other endeavors.
  • 2.b. "appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents"
  • Not really a concern
  • 2.c. "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)"
  • The citations are a mess. I see many malformatted references; "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "", "LA Times", "", "", "E-Online", "", "Details magazine", "The Belfast Telegraph online", "", "US Magazine". Some of them are even missing work parameters.
  • 3. "Media. It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly."
  • No copyright issues with images, but this article seems a bit cluttered with them.
  • 4. "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style."
  • I'm not too sure if the details on his parents' divorce is needed since it took place when he was an adult, and perhaps "Touring" could be trimmed down somewhat.

With all of the above issues, I feel the article should be delisted, and is currently no higher than a C-class. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I agree, particularly on criteria 1a and 1b. Having no section on musical style in a biography of a musician is obviously a problem. EddieHugh (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Jack Sparrow[edit]

Notified: Alientraveller, RadioKirk, PNW Raven, Obi-WanKenobi-2005, Bignole, Tbhotch, Technobabble1, WikiProject Disney

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

  • For criterion 1a, it has multiple run-on sentences and other prose issues. It may be solved by GOCE copyediting.
  • For 1b, some of the sections, like Tie-ins, are too short and do not cover its topic comprehensively. I personally cannot propose any solutions.
  • For 1c, there is a rather major lacking in references. As above, I cannot solve the problem myself.
  • For 4, the section on appearances is very large, while other sections, such as Tie-ins, are very short. The appearance section could be cut, but then the article will become quite short for an FA.

I hope that the article can be improved to current FA standard. Thank you.Forbidden User (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The information in Tie-ins shouldn't be difficult to source. As for Characterization, it's quite a long section (my background is in video games, and I'd be laughed out of FAC if I nominated an article with this level of cruft), so the unsourced information could easily just be snipped. Tezero (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

It was apparently forced to FA, refering to the FAC.Forbidden User (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
How do you figure? Looks like it just had lots of supports; criteria were looser back then. Tezero (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The only serious voice (which picks a lot of prose issue, and brings up the verifiability problem) was overwhelmed by people who sounded like WP:ILIKEIT...Forbidden User (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess I will fix this myself. Feel free to close.Forbidden User (talk) 17:45, 16 August 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.

Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Paaerduag, Wuzh, WikiProject Video Games, WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

I am nominating this featured article for review after auditing the article and raising several issues at the talk page. The major glaring problem is with the prose, which is full of awkward, dense and redundant syntax. The Gameplay section is poorly organised and difficult for non-players to follow, because many game mechanics aren't explained clearly and the section wanders off into irrelevant development facts that are in the wrong section. The plot is unsourced and disproportionately long. The reception section is too brief and and poorly organised. There are dead links and inconsistent date formatting. The lead is broken up into five choppy paragraphs when it should be ~3. CR4ZE (tc) 14:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I can't formally tack down a Delist vote yet, but I agree that this page doesn't come close to FA-compliant. Tezero (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: This page is currently being edited by the GOCE. Let's see how that goes and then reassess the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I'd prefer copyediting to be done last, but okay. Tezero (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: It's in very bad shape, but it doesn't seem irredeemable. Sourcing has a ton of bad links that need archiving, as well as a few dodgy outlets that could be replaced, but none of that would require a major rewrite. Given the massive GOCE copyedit going on right now, I think this article might have a chance. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment: The GOCE c/e is done and that has improved the article in some areas, but I think the issues that I raised still stand. CR4ZE (tc) 06:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section deal primarily with the prose, organization/coverage, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist article is underreferenced (my main concern is "Setting and characters" subsection), and plot is bloated. I also agree there could be more detail on reception. This article would automatically fail a GAN in its current state for its "unreferenced section" tag. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist, as per nomination. The article in its current state would barely pass a GAN, let alone a FAC Satellizer (´ ・ ω ・ `) 09:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Saswann, Kevehs, Robert McClenon, NinjaRobotPirate, Serialjoepsycho, The Four Deuces, Eduen, Levelledout, Gigacannon, Natkeeran, BDD, Allixpeeke, WikiWikiWildWildPedia, Zellfaze, Buntje, Finx, Byelf2007, Lwsimon, Dude6935, Walkthejosh, Sharangir, JLMadrigal, MisterDub, Knight of BAAWA, N-HH, Capitalismojo, Srich32977, Ditto51, Goethean, Netoholic, Tom Morris, Redrose64, Chrisluft, Fixuture.member, Truther2012, Lihaas, SPECIFICO, ConcordeMandalorian, Michaelwuzthere, WikiProject Libertarianism, WikiProject Philosophy, and WikiProject Politics.

In the eight years since the last Featured Article Review in 2006, the article has been greatly changed. The 2014 version has the following problems based on Wikipedia:Featured article criteria:

  • Comprehensive. The article fails to tell the reader about significant viewpoints.
  • Neutral. The article fails to represent the balance found in published literature.
  • Lead. The lead section fails to adequately summarize important points found in the article body.

Therefore I am starting a new review to more closely identify problems, and to rectify them. The first part of the process is to compare the present version of the article to past versions, to see what might current text might be changed or deleted, and to see what past text might be restored in some form. The second part of the process is to look at modern writings on the topic and see how the article can be changed to better reflect the literature. Binksternet (talk) 17:42, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

The review section attracted extensive commentary, but was inconclusive. I am opening the FARC section to get more focused discussion of whether this article should or should not be an FA. Please keep comments constructive and focused on the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist. I can't support an article that is listed in seven clean-up categories:
Category:Articles to be expanded from March 2014
Category:Articles with inconsistent citation formats
Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases from September 2014
Category:Articles with unsourced statements from January 2014
Category:Articles with unsourced statements from March 2014
Category:Articles with unsourced statements from September 2014
Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from February 2014. DrKiernan (talk) 08:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Please specify any remaining unsourced statements and inconsistent citation formats, so that they can be revised accordingly in order to avoid delisting, DrKiernan. JLMadrigal ... 04:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the changes. DrKiernan (talk) 10:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Planetary nebula[edit]

Review commentary[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)

  • Comment – 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. [3] [4] Sam Walton (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section mostly focused on referencing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 2 August 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)
  • Keep – I don't see any major problem with the sourcing. The references appear to be reliable, as far as Wikipedia standards go. They might be outdated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the article contains false information. If the content needs to be updated, it can be done without losing the FA status.--Retrohead (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Midtown Madness[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Video games

Review commentary[edit]

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)

FARC commentary[edit]

Some improvements were made in the review section but the review seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per my yet-unaddressed concerns. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist Tezero's concerns are valid, and since the main contributor hasn't been active in a while, I'll have to concur with him.--Retrohead (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep Thank you for the update JimmyBlackwing, I withdrawn my vote.--Retrohead (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think Gameplay still needs some more detail. Reception is looking much better, though. Tezero (talk) 00:13, 29 August 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)
  • Neutral - I started this nomination in April yet don't feel for having it demoted. It probably does need to be looked at again, but I'm not voting for or against it. GamerPro64 17:25, 17 September 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)
That section now has one source, thanks, and I'm adding sources in as I find them. In that case, I had to dig through the LRT's citations. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist mainly because the article lacks references and has that disturbing "needs additional citations for verification" template, which shouldn't be present at featured articles.--Retrohead (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per Retrohead. Also, there are some short paragraphs, the lead doesn't adequately summarize the article (very little about History and Plans), and two citations are unformatted. This could theoretically be fixed before this FARC goes through, in which case please ping me, but as it stands I'm not comfortable with this remaining an FA, as much hard work went into it years ago. Tezero (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Greetings from 30,000 feet! I'm currently taking advantage of a long flight to work on this, so allow me to give some updates, which may be of particular interest to Tezero, but others I think would like to keep track of progress as well. I started rewriting the safety and security section, merging some paragraphs and updating information. I also began sourcing statements that need sources, particularly in the station layout section. Contingent on how my computer keeps up (and/or my phone), I may be able to work on the lead as well tonight. (And as always, again, I would really appreciate you guys getting your hands dirty as well. Thanks.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Lead paragraph has been rewritten to summarize the article more accurately. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentNikkimaria and Sky Harbor, I think that nine months were more than enough for the issues to be addressed. It is really bewildering how an article with this obvious lack of sources can still be an FA. Two editors opined that the article doesn't fulfill the criteria in the review commentary, and two more have declared the article to be demoted in the FARC. The page has serious flaws: linking words like "mass media" and "public holiday", bad organization, inconsistent cite formatting, and occasional prose issues. I'd like the topic to be featured, but the progress is advancing too slowly, and mostly ineffective.--Retrohead (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Retrohead. I understand your frustration at the length of time this review has been open. Generally our goal is to retain FAs if possible, and to that end we often allow extra time when there is someone who is or who has indicated he/she will be working to address concerns raised. If you would like the topic to be featured, as you indicate, you are of course welcome to jump in and help to increase the pace of progress.
  • That being said, Sky Harbor, if the problems remain serious it may be more productive to delist the article now and allow you as much time as you need to improve it and return to FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • It depends on what you mean by "serious". Most of the action points have already been addressed, and the only significant things left standing are fixing some remaining references (holdovers from 2006, when the article was first written) and a copy-edit. These are things that I hope to do in the next few days. However, to reiterate my point and to address Retrohead's "concerns", please enlighten me and prove to me that FAR is not a talk shop for Wikipedians who have nothing better to do but to criticize other people's work by actually doing some work to get this moving forward. What on Earth happened to WP:BOLD? Have we really regressed that far from ten years ago? --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Sky Harbor, referencing and clear wording are perhaps two of the three most important qualities for an FA, the third being completeness. The article still does have a ways to go. And while I agree that, within reason, fixing problems is more important than pointing them out, people who are most familiar with the topic - not us - will be best able to represent the sources available and find appropriate new ones. Tezero (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • While I understand that you would like people who are knowledgeable about the topic to take the lead with editing articles, there is only so much that i can do. :\ You said it yourself, Tezero: clear wording is an important part of being an FA, and I'm under the impression that the people participating in this discussion certainly have the arms (and the time) to contribute to improving the prose. So far, I see none of that. What kind of confidence can I expect to get from this process if you expect people to do the work all by themselves, without any reasonable expectation that those who like the point out those very problems will actually contribute to making them better in the first place? --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist very underreferenced article, fails 1c Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I've updated the last set of references to the new referencing format, and I'm replacing dead links. What other statements needs references, so I can address them accordingly? --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Try to plant a citation at the end of each paragraph. That being said, some statements are more important than others. Like this: "During the construction of the first line of the Manila Light Rail Transit System in the early 1980s, Electrowatt Engineering Services of Zürich designed a comprehensive plan for metro service in Metro Manila. The plan—still used as the basis for planning new metro lines—consisted of a 150-kilometer (93 mi) network of rapid transit lines spanning all major corridors within 20 years, including a line on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, the region's busiest road corridor." Says who? This is all very specific information that, if you'll pardon my French, could've been pulled out of someone's ass. For things like what stations are near each other, as seen in the first section, citations are perhaps less necessary because the reader can easily verify that with a map, but I would still prefer including them. Tezero (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)