Wikipedia:Featured article review

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

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—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKiernan, and Maralia—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.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

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

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. For articles on the Unreviewed Featured Articles list, no more than three nominations per week and twelve per month.
  2. For all other articles, one nomination at a time per nominator, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they 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]

Saffron[edit]

Notified: Saravask, WP Plants, WP Food and Drink, WP Herbs and Spices, WP Agriculture, WP Iran

This is a 2006 promotion with numerous issues noted on talk over a long period of time. These include biomedical claims that need MEDRS-compliant sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

PMID 25072266 could be addressed for comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

PMID 23538079 needs to be examined for MEDRS. Adverse effects per PMID 23472485 should be discussed. PMID 22432635 and PMID 23971874 are not used.

There are numerous harv ref errors, so it's unclear which sources are being used without checking one by one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Dixie (song)[edit]

Notified: Main editors retired, WP American music, WP MT, WP Songs
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has taken on some uncited text, unaddressed since talk notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

1928 Okeechobee hurricane[edit]

Notified: Jdorje, WP Puerto Rico, WP Caribbean, WP Tropical cyclones
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion with some deficiencies noted on talk last month; they should be easy to deal with, but haven't been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't taken much time to review the article (it almost certainly does need to be brought back up to speed), but from the aforementioned talk page thread:

I'm confused by the very first sentence of the lead which states it "was the second deadliest tropical cyclone in the history of the United States, behind only the 1900 Galveston hurricane" because, later in the article, the (unsourced and possibly outdated) table titled 'Deadliest Atlantic hurricanes' lists Mitch as having surpassed both.

The US isn't the only nation bordering the Atlantic Ocean. Not sure how those two stats could be contradictory in any way. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:35, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Peterborough[edit]

Notified: Chrisieboy, David Underdown, Nortonius, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject East Anglia, WikiProject England

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been regularly updated in the past few years, which means it no longer meets the FA criteria that it did back in 2007, when it was promoted. As noted on the article talk page, demographic statistics in the article were vandalised and not reverted until I spotted this more than a year later, which indicated to me that editors haven't been keeping a close enough watch on the article to ensure the FA standard is maintained (and there may well be other vandalism that has crept in). There are now quite a lot of unsourced or dated claims in the article, and as a result it no longer qualifies as comprehensive or well-researched. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Please see the instructions at FAR ... eight days between talk page notice and FAR listing is cutting it close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, SandyGeorgia, I didn't see that there was a guideline of two to three weeks for each stage. I'm happy for this to be put on hold, although I also note that not a single editor has posted a response in those eight days (which has reinforced my sense that no one has been actively editing or monitoring the article of late). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Whether to put it on hold is a decision the @WP:FAR coordinators: will make, regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Look, this first part of FAR is preliminary to the FARC proper below, so I don't think we need to stick strictly to pre-preliminary discussion on the talk page. I will ping some other near-locals (Hey @Dweller: and @The Rambling Man:!) as this is their neck of the woods (geographically). A brief perusal show uncited sentences and some prose that could be tightened, so let's leave it here and get more eyes now. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Directed here from WT:UKGEO, I was ready to make some points about the article, but the above comments aren't encouraging. Should editors post here, at the article talk page, or in "FARC proper below" (which doesn't seem to exist yet)? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 06:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, PaleCloudedWhite, and thanks for coming here to participate. The three steps (talk page, featured article review (FAR) and featured article removal candidate (FARC)) are explained at WP:FAR. At this stage, we're supposed to identify problems with the article and discuss how to improve it. In a few weeks, we'll move on to the FARC stage where people will vote to either keep or remove the FA status. So you don't need to wait until the FARC stage to comment - the only issue as far as I know is that I started the FAR a bit early. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
PaleCloudedWhite just put comments here, where we can see, judge and improve.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
OK. Well, the most immediate impression is that the article structure doesn't follow the guideline at WP:UKTOWNS. I don't know if that has any bearing on FA status, though even if it doesn't, it still seems odd that the geography section is at the bottom of the page, and makes no mention of geology but does cover linguistics. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 16:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Chrisieboy has now started to address some of the problems with the article and I will try to help out. Given this, and that I was a bit trigger-happy with moving this to FAR, I hope we can agree to give it a fair bit of time for improvements to be made before moving to the FARC stage. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp[edit]

Notified: Halibutt, WP Correction and Detention Facilities, WP MilHist, WP Austria, WP Germany, WP Poland
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to FA standards; see talk page notice March 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for pinging me, I would respond at the talk page if someone notified me of it. Sure, the article did not see any substantial changes in recent years (ever since I wrote most of it), but I believe most of the issues you raise above are easily fixable, there's nothing wrong with the article itself I believe.
As to specific issues, I took the liberty to reply at the article's talk page. In short, out of roughly 10 issues you raised, most are either non-issues (at least I can't see link farms in the see also section, can't see hidden text, can't see any problems with the sections and so on) or were already fixed (en dashes, some 8 in-line citations still using <ref> instead of {{sfn}} and so on). And in the case of the rest you would have to raise specific concerns for me to be able to fix the article - or the matter is up to debate (as in the case of lists you say should be prosified, whereas they were converted from prose to lists specifically per WP:EMBED).
All in all - I'd be happy to fix the article, but would need some help from you in pointing me to what there is to be fixed. Please be specific. //Halibutt 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Responding and addressing issues on talk is good -- thanks!! -- no need to clutter the FAR with back and forth on ongoing improvements. I am off for the day, but will get back to you this pm on article talk with more specifics (I disagree that there is not significant work to be done, but am confident it can be done, and will give you more detail on article talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Preliminary feedback on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Comment not relevant to WP:WIAFA moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: because the original nominator seems concerned that I may be expressing personal preference, additional commentary from someone other than MOI on issues or deficiencies in this article might be helpful. There is a lengthy section on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look sometime in the next 48 hours. Just popped on for a tic - this will need some reading and digesting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
In January 1945, the camps, directed from the central office in Mauthausen, contained roughly 85,000 inmates. - what does "directed from the central office" mean in this sentence?
since Germany started the war against Poland in September 1939 - since = "after" or since = "because of"?
Prisoners were also "rented out" as slave labour, - don't need quotes here I think
last para of Liberation and post-war heritage needs inline references
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talkcontribs) 01:48, April 21, 2015‎

Move to FARC, at the two-week mark, there has been some improvement, but in spite of walls of text on the talk page outlining the problems with MOS, prose, citations, and comprehensiveness, the substantive issues have not been addressed, and some unwillingness to address those issues is apparent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Geology of the Capitol Reef area[edit]

Notified: Mav, WP Earthquakes, WP Utah, WP Geology
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to FA standards; see talk page notice from March 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The FAR for History of the Grand Canyon area came at a bad time. But I should have some free time for this one after this weekend. BTW - I don't check my watch list anymore so the most effective way to get my attention is to leave a message on my talk page. --mav (reviews needed) 22:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
ah, ha ... so we can credit URFA for dragging you back in here !! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Something like that. :) --mav (reviews needed) 02:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
A lot of the current citations have this wording added to them already: "For the whole paragraph, except where noted". So it should not be a problem adding more cites as needed once I get all the books in front of me to confirm. --mav (reviews needed) 02:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
mav, please keep the page posted on your timing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

No edits yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm going through my relevant books now. --mav (reviews needed) 23:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
First pass done. Refs distributed and many overlinks nixed. --mav (reviews needed) 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Australia[edit]

Notified: WP Heraldry and vexillology, WP Australian noticeboard, original nominator and most active editors long gone
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from Feb 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, some edits, but little improvements in issues of uncited text and MOS breaches. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 24 April 2015 (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.

South Australian state election, 2006[edit]

Notified: Timeshift9, WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Elections and Referendums, WikiProject Australian politics, WikiProject South Australia

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because: 1. There's a lot uncited sentences; 2. The lead is too short, doesn't covered even half of the article. Promoted December 14, 2006, talk page notice March 2. Nominator still very active, notefied.Jarodalien (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I think this is definitely evidence of how standards have changed over time. I think it basically meets GA status (or if not, at least could with a small amount of work), but falls well short of modern FA standards. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section concerned referencing and lead issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Chromatophore[edit]

Notified: Rockpocket, WP Cephalopods, WP Animal anatomy, WP Molecular and Cellular Biology
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from March 2015. There are problems beyond the lack of citations, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I wrote the original content back in 2006. I don't think it is too far away from FA, but sadly agree that it does not meet current standards and its narrative flow has suffered from piecemeal development over the years. I unfortunately do not have the time to maintain this myself these days, but would be very willing to assist as much as I could if anyone wishes to take it on. Rockpocket 20:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section largely concerned referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Kid A[edit]

Notified: WikiProjects Albums and Alternative music

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is currently in nine clean up categories: Articles needing additional references (January 2015), Pages with citations having bare URLs, Pages with citations lacking titles, Articles lacking reliable references (January 2015), Articles with unsourced statements (January 2015), Articles that may contain original research (October 2014), Wikipedia articles needing factual verification (October 2014, January 2015), Articles with failed verification (January 2015). DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Comments Having worked on the article for a couple of days now, I've realised that its problems run very deep.

  • Even apart from the stuff that's been tagged (as mentioned above), a lot of stuff is sourced to blogs, fansites, university term-papers, and obscure, niche publications. Given that this album has received Sgt Pepper-level adulation from all manner of mainstream sources, this is unacceptable.
  • The article is also incomplete; the Legacy section needs to be expanded to incorporate said adulation.
  • The Recording and Music sections suffer from a lot of overlap and repetition.
  • The Reception section doesn't really represent the breadth of opinions that accompanied the album's release.
  • The prose is often choppy; a clear narrative doesn't shine through, making reading tiresome.

Keeping this at FA standard will require more of a rewrite-from-the-ground-up effort than merely finding some missing sources. OK Computer Featured article should be a good model.—indopug (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Update: Popcornduff did an excellent job rewriting the Release section and seems to have more work lined up. I myself want to concentrate on The Communist Manifesto till 14 April (when the WP:Core Contest ends), but will try to chip in with copyedits etc after that.—indopug (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm still working on this. It would be super useful if someone (not me as I find it super tedious) could update the professional ratings box with some better sources. We can have a maximum of 10 (there's only 8 at the moment) and maybe get some more interesting publications in there. Perhaps some negative reviews would be good too, for demonstrating how divisive it was on release? Then we have a separate reviews box for the collector's edition rerelease, like the OK Computer and Hail to the Thief articles do, showing a wall of 5/5s. Popcornduff (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Please try to address the unreliable sources that are still tagged in the article. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, duh. Popcornduff (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, stalled ... besides tags and sourcing issues, pls address spaced WP:EMDASHes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
For everyone's information, it's still my plan to dramatically rewrite this article (you can see my work in progress on my sandbox), but it's not going to happen soon. So yep, do what you gotta do. IMO this article hasn't been worthy of FA for years or maybe ever. Popcornduff (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC and hope for future progress. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing, comprehensiveness, prose, and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Though improved, problems remain; as shown by the remaining tags: lacking reliable references from January 2015, needing additional references from January 2015, bare URLs, citations lacking titles, and needing factual verification from January 2015. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, insufficient progress on deficiencies noted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Rabindranath Tagore[edit]

Notified: Saravask, WP Religion, WP West Bengal, WP Brahmoism, WP Philosophy, WP Poetry, WP Bangladesh
URFA nom

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been kept at standard; see the talk page note from Jan 2015. There is uncited text (some without attribution and amounting to hagiography) and a MOS tune-up is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, two weeks, a couple of edits, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced statements; weasel-words; harv errors. DrKiernan (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

O-Bahn Busway[edit]

Notified: Michael (original nominator, retired), Jj98, WP Buses, Australia noticeboard
URFA nom
Talk page notice Jan 2015

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has been tagged for a year as outdated. There are other issues, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

The review section concerned the article's datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Needs updating and copy-editing. Unaddressed concerns with sourcing and comprehensiveness on the talk page: Talk:O-Bahn Busway#FA Concerns. DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist - This needs a fair amount of work. In addition to other text previously tagged as outdated, the fares are out of date. The claim "The O-bahn design is unique among public transport systems..." seems to have been invalidated by the 2011 debut of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Some attention is needed to representations of money: Australian dollar is not linked until the sixth section of the article; some figures are given as A$ while others are simply $; and no conversions are given at all. The See also and External links sections need pruning. The citations need work: there's a bare url, a dead link, missing accessdates, and an undefined source (UBD Adelaide?). Maralia (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment A couple of us have put some work in to returning it to standard, but none of us are FA experts, so are really only responding to specific concerns, not the general principles. Any additional advice and assistance would be welcome, although it may be too late now. --Scott Davis Talk 09:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I will be out all day, but will look in this weekend. Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Review
  • Too much happening in this image caption, it took me a long time to figure out what it was trying to say: "Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied Mercedes-Benz O305 on the O-Bahn guide-way".
  • Is this hyphen an Austrlian or English thing? "city's rapidly expanding north-eastern suburbs".
  • Per WP:V, how would one go about verifying sources like these ?
    • Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson
    • Busway Information, Paper Three: Operational Strategy, South Australian Department of Transport (1983)
      • Are these published documents or some sort of in-house thing?
  • Where is this information from the lead cited in the article?
    • The Adelaide O-bahn was the first bus rapid transit system in Australia and among the first to operate in the world.
  • Is there any problem with the simpler language of:
    • The population of Adelaide more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
  • instead of:
    • Adelaide has had significant population growth since the industrial expansion following World War II, with the population having more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
  • In addition to the growing population, there was an explosion in the number of new motor vehicle registrations, a 43-fold increase in the period from 1944–65. This was fuelled by nation-wide full employment, annual economic growth close to 10%, and the discontinuation of government fuel rationing after World War II.
    • More unnecessary verbiage which sounds like a political promotion.
  • There have been a number of proposals to extend ...
    • is sourced to 1983, suggesting the article still needs updating (what happened with that)?
  • On a quick skim, I didn't find current usage/ridership/whatever data.
  • Sentences should not start with numbers.
  • Convoluted bodied bodied bodies ... I don't know what it's saying:
    • Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied 41 rigid and 51 articulated bodied buses, their cost included in the original $98 million budget.
  • These along with a single Mercedes-Benz O405NH make up today's fleet.
    • No as of date, no idea what "today" refers to, and an incomplete citation, with no date as a clue.
  • Biodiesel fuel was trialled between July 2005 and May 2006.
    • And ???

In summary, there are prose issues, but more significantly, I am still concerned about needed updates, and quite a few of the citations are incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: are you still following? More than a week has passed ... I am still at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
That ping will not work as you did not sign again when you changed the name. Rcsprinter123 (parlez) @ 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
thanks, sorry, I thought I had! @ScottDavis: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry @SandyGeorgia: - I had seen your more detailed notes but not had time to look at them and the article properly since you posted them. Thank you, I'll try to address some in the next few days. I hope that @BarossaV: might drop back in to help too, but he/she might be away as they haven't edited for over a week. --Scott Davis Talk 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


Review response

Thank you for the detailed review. I have attempted to address most of your points, and perhaps a few others I saw for myself.

  • I think I have trimmed and simplified the captions
  • Yes. north-east is spelled with a hyphen in Australian English (ref: Macquarie Dictionary online)
  • I have not found those documents online, not sure if that shows I didn't look hard enough, or if they are only available in hard copy somewhere due to their age. a comment on the Railpage forum confirms that one of them exists and can be found from that reference.
  • I deleted the sentence about first BRT - I think it is probably true, but I have never heard it called that, so unlikely to find a reference that it was first, other than a complete list with start dates, if such exists.
  • Thank you for the suggested simpler language. I think I went further in a few other places too.
  • No extensions have eventuated, so references are simply to a selection of proposals. Something might come of the current proposal to add a tunnel or lanes closer to the city, but the consultation is not complete yet, so it probably won't look exactly like the concept drawings. If anything, I'd like to shorten that section to avoid undue weight, but I think it needs to remain in some form.

Thank you for the help on this article. I don't know if I've done enough to save its FA status, but I'm certain it has improved through the review process from where it was when it was nominated for review. --Scott Davis Talk 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks for continuing, ScottDavis, and for the improvements; I can give it another pass to see where we stand, if you indicate that you are committed to restoring it to standard. If not, I'm unsure if I should invest the time, so please let me know of your availability to continue work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes @SandyGeorgia:, I am prepared to continue working on it. Thank you for helping. I don't have easy access to resources that are not online though, so I can't verify or expand the citations for things that are cited to documents without URLs from the 1980s. --Scott Davis Talk 05:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Update
  1. The WP:LEAD is short and doesn't adequately summarize the article, but the work of finishing the lead is usually best left to last, after content in the body is nailed down.
  2. In the "See also" section, I suspect that Bus rapid transit could be linked somewhere in the article and removed from See also, but I'm unsure where to link it.
  3. Citation consistency, some have author first, some have author at end, some have author last name first, some have author first name first ... pick on :)
    • (author is last here). Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson ... and this is missing publisher ... where does one locate this document?
    • First name last name. Susan Marsden. "Hindmarsh – a short history". Professional Historians Association (SA). p. 23. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
    • Last name, first name. Donovan, Peter (1991). Highways: A History of the South Australian Highways Department. Griffin Press Limited. ISBN 0-7308-1930-2. (Books need page numbers)
    • tom name ? Pengelley, Jill; Zed, tom (16 October 2009). "South Road Superway to connect Regency Rd, Port River Expressway". The Advertiser. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
  4. More citation consistency, some of the citations are rendered by manual (rather than template), and there is no consistent punctuation ... for example,
    Hunt for O-Bahn fleet Adelaide Advertiser 29 September 2007
    has no punctuation whatsoever, while other citations have periods after title and publisher. All of the citations should use the same format ... preferably with punctuation :)
  5. Missing accessdates ... these things change ... Route 500 timetable Adelaide Metro ... and again, no punctuation ... you all might discuss whether you would rather use citation templates for consistency.
  6. It is not clear that all of the External links are necessary ...
Prose (this is not a comprehensive list ... skipping around for samples)
  1. "developed with American assistance" ... US ? Venezuelan? Argentine? All are America ... unclear what is meant here, government, private enterprise ? Vague.
  2. The same as problem as before ... excess wordiness ... why not instead of:
    • A transport blueprint, developed with American assistance, was presented to the government in 1968: the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS).
    • A transport blueprint, the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS), was developed with assistance from (??) in 1968.
  3. Isn't "abandonment" kind of a one-time thing? How do successive governments abandon something? The plan was abandoned by successive governments, ...
  4. alluvial soil could probably be wikilinked ...
  5. comma ? On some sections 115 km/h (71 mph) was achieved in tests.

This article is definitely improving, and you're on the right track, but I suggest that @Tony1: might help on the prose matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey, User talk:Sportskido8

Review commentary[edit]

The article was promoted in November 2006 and has not been kept up to featured article standards. I'll outline below some specific issues, but overall there are a lot of citation issues, dead links, and prose problems.

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • A copyedit would help here. The writing style seems just slightly outdated and has not been kept up with since the FAC was passed, specifically all of the information about the team that has been plugged in since 2006. Examples include:
  • "Martin Brodeur, their longtime goalie signed to the team for two additional years, and ended speculation that his career was over. He will enter his 21st season, after turning 40 on May 6, 2012, during the Stanley Cup Playoffs second round, game 4 against the Philadelphia Flyers." -- this has passed by now?
  • "Goalie Johan Hedberg and rookie goalie Keith Kinkaid were used when Brodeur was injured however neither of them performed well enough to help the Devils put anything together."
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Article doesn't neglect any major facts, as I'll explain a few points down.. it instead has too much information in many spots.
  • 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
  • For some of the older history, it's okay. Anything from 2001 through present time, have to say no.
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • Some spots need attention.. for example "The team would now be playing right in the middle of the New York–New Jersey–Connecticut tri-state area, home to the three-time defending Stanley Cup champion New York Islanders, as well as the very popular New York Rangers." --- "the very popular New York Rangers"?
  • 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
  • No problems here.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • Doesn't look too bad, however per WP:LEDE it shouldn't have any citations in it. All of the info is covered and sourced in the article.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • I believe this is still pretty OK, compared with all of the other NHL team articles. I do wonder, though if any of the "Team identity" or "Players and personnel" subsections can be combined?
  • 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)
  • No, for the most part. A good chunk of sources are not consistently formatted, many aren't even slightly formatted.
  • Many spots in the article are currently not sourced at all, mainly in the "2001–2007: A third Cup and the lockout" and "2007–2013: Move to Newark and Return to the Finals" sections. The first three paragraphs in the 2007-2013 section don't have a single source, as well as two paragraphs in the middle, and the final two paragraphs at the end of the section.
  • There are sections that are completely unsourced, such as "Home arenas", "Affiliate teams", and "Television and radio" and a very good amount of "Players and personnel"
  • Many dead and problematic links
  • 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.
  • Looks OK, but could use a review from someone more experienced with images.
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • No, in some places. Excessive details on each season aren't necessary when we're dealing with an article that should cover the team's history. For example, the biggest paragraph in the entire article is currently a very detailed play-by-play of how the team did in the 2012 playoffs. All of that belongs on the article for the team in that season.

I don't believe this article would even pass a good article nomination in its' current state. A lot of work needs to be done here. Gloss 00:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

See instructions at WP:FAR; you only raised the concerns on article talk two days ago.[1] Is there an earlier FAR notice? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Looks like some of the other listings at FAR/FARC didn't even get a talk page notice, so I wasn't sure how strictly that part is being followed. Forgive me if I jumped the gun. Gloss 02:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any other FAR that did not have a talk page notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The one you nominated (Gas metal arc welding), doesn't look like it had any concerns raised on the talk page since 2011 before you nominated it for FAR. So I was going to jump right to the FAR since this article did have concerns raised about it being an FA with this thread also in 2011: Talk:New Jersey Devils#Recentism, but I added another notice a few days ago since I didn't know how recent the notice had to be. Gloss 00:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Gloss, older notifications are okay - the idea of the talk-page step is to see whether there are people willing to step in and help get the article up to standards without a full review. But the section you point to is not so much concerns about it being FA so much as a suggestion that a new article could be created from this one and brought to FA status. I think we'll put this on hold for a few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Sure, not a problem at all. Again, my apologies. Gloss 01:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Gloss did let us know at WP:HOCKEY, so there is that. I won't make any promises about fixing it up, but I will try to give the article a read over today or tomorrow to see how much work is required and whether I want to bring it back to FA level at this time. Resolute 15:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Ok. I've just copyedited the lead and the Kansas City/Denver sections, and no, I don't believe the FA status can be saved without a tremendous amount of work. I could copyedit the entire thing, but massive amounts of the article are completely unsourced and I really don't have the inclination to do the kind of research necessary on this article. I would happily support someone else if they were to take that work on, however. This article truly is a relic of another era in Wikipedia's history. Resolute 23:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
  • From a glance, I'm quite concerned about the amount of unsourced content. In fact, when an article contains multiple completely unsourced sections/subsections, that alone is an automatic fail for GA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Um, but you all are commenting on a FAR page that is not at FAR, because it's on hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It won't be on hold forever and I find it unlikely much changes between now and then. If it does change, my only comment has been to note the amount of work required. SNUGGUMS' comment is similar. Resolute 15:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't disagree with the basis of the FAR and thought the article was in a shoddy state when I first learned there was going to be an FAR. I've begun to work on improving it and have finished a couple of the history sections. My schedule here and elsewhere is full, but I'm going to try devoting more time to polishing up the rest of the article in the hopes of being able to pull off an improbable save. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Confident in your ability to restore-- please ping when we should have a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Image review. I have nominated File:KovalchuckMapleLeafs.png for deletion. The others seem OK. DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Just to give everyone an update, I've just about finished citing the history sections and am going to start working on the other sections. Progress has been slower than I had wanted, but it's getting there. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Giants2008, we are approaching two months now ... how is it going? Should we move this to FARC just to keep the process on track? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • If you all think it needs to be moved to the next stage, don't let me stop you. There are still a few areas that I want to add cites to anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Primary concerns raised during the review include verifiability, comprehensiveness, and length (wrt summary style). Maralia (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The citation situation is looking much better. Giants2008, could you give us an overall update? Thank you for all the work you're putting in here. Maralia (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I've been too busy recently to do much to the article, but I think it's almost there. There's still one paragraph that I know of that ends without a cite, so that still needs to be fixed. Things should clear up for me within the next week to 10 days, and I'll try to wrap up my work on the article then. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. I'm not seeing any obvious problems, and judging from the lack of delists, neither is anyone else. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski[edit]

Notified: WP BIO, WP Cryptography, WP Poland, Nihil novi
WP:URFA nom

A 2006 promotion lacking in citations and needing review; FAC nominator gone since 2011. Talk page notifed Dec 20; no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

Comment: It would be a shame to lose this, because at a casual glance it doesn't look like it's missing a lot of citations. @Nihil novi: I noted that you have been editing the article and that you asked about citations on the article talk page. Generally, for an article to be FA-quality, all text needs to be cited. There are some uncited statements and paragraphs in this article. How much work do you think it would be, and do you have the requisite knowledge to add citations as needed? --Laser brain (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that most if not all the unsourced text has been added since the article achieved FA status. Much of it appears to be drawn from Polish-language publications of recent years and to be of negligible importance, e.g., that Rejewski's father was a tobacco merchant. One solution would be to just delete such unsourced trivia. Perhaps someone else would like to try his hand? Nihil novi (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
@Nihil novi: I'm willing to give it a try. If there are any disagreements about removing the information, I'll start a discussion. --Laser brain (talk) 12:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to FARC, only to keep process on track, and because although some work has been done, there is still quite a bit of uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to FARC. Apart from the uncited text, I would also argue that the prose is formatted too much like a list. Many of the paragraphs are very short -- one or two sentences only. DrKiernan (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised above include missing citations (please tag these) and choppy prose/short paragraphs. Maralia (talk) 15:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I just took a look through the end sections and noted the following:

References: I see two bare urls, other incomplete citations, and an extremely long piecemeal quotation that needs better handling. Ref formatting needs some work: I see two different page number styles (234–235 vs 205–6) and punctuation inconsistency (some end with full stops).
Bibliography: There are at least eight listed works (Budiansky, Christensen, Gannon, Hinsley, Kahn 1991, Kubiatowski, Miller, Wrixon) that are not actually cited. "Lawrence, 2005" is cited once, but two 2005 Lawrence works are listed; the cite may be intended to refer to both, but it's unclear. There is a lengthy exposition on the Jakóbczyk book for no apparent reason.
External links: This needs cleanup. The St. Andrews biography doesn't really offer anything additional, and all three of the linked photographs are dead links.

It is also rather difficult to associate the citations with the Bibliography because the citations are in "lastname, year" format but the Bibliography is "firstname lastname title location publisher year". Maralia (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm working on it, albeit slowly. Reference formatting and the Bib will probably be the last things I hit. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you to Glrx and Laser brain for cleaning up the references, bibliography, and external links—the article is looking much better. I still see a few wonky cites ( {{harvnb|Lawrence|2005}} and {{harvnb|Kozaczuk|Straszak|2004|p=74}}) that need work, and a couple of quotes (Piskor, Woytak) and other exposition (sequence of rotors; French radio intelligence) that would be better off in the Notes section rather than citations. Maralia (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

There are several footnotes that need to be resolved and/or cleaned up; the wonky cites are there for that reason. I haven't seen an actual copy of A Conversation with M R recently (the university library's copy is missing), but I think its author is Woytak rather M. R. & Woytak; however, some outside-of-WP citations use both as authors; I'm tempted to just make it Woytak1984b; that applies to a half-dozen citations.
There are still five references that have not been templated because I'm not sure how I should reference a comment/commenter to a journal article: it's a subcontribution by a different author that is part of the same journal article/digital object.
I revamped the hard-numbered Notes to use an automated mechanism, so moving a footnote to a note is just changing <ref></ref> to a {{refn}} with group=Note.
Glrx (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Which "A Conversation with Marian Rejewski" are you referring to? The same extracts from Richard Woytak's conversation with Rejewski, plus citations from letters by Rejewski to Woytak, together under that joint title, appear first in Cryptologia, vol. 6, no. 1 (January 1982), pp. 50–60, then (as Appendix B) in Władysław Kozaczuk, Enigma: How the German Machine Cipher Was Broken, and How It Was Read by the Allies in World War Two, edited and translated by Christopher Kasparek, Frederick, Maryland, University Publications of America, 1984, pp. 229–39. The two versions are identical and, except for 8 brief questions posed by Woytak, consist entirely of Rejewski's words. Nihil novi (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice progress, but lots to be done still. There are red harv ref errors all over the place, and in this version, the first two citations ... are not citations or reliable sources. I didn't check further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I've provided references to Rejewski's awards cited in the infobox. Regretably, the U.K. Ministry of Defence page "cannot be found" any longer; maybe someone can locate an active reference for Rejewski's War Medal 1939–1945. Nihil novi (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

At FARC for three weeks now, and no one has finished restoring the article. There are numerous sources in the References that are no longer used: how do we know the article is comprehensive, and represents a thorough survey of the literature? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Delist. Sorry, but despite the extensive bibliography there are still uncited parts. I'm also concerned that one third of his life is summed up in two sentences, indicating a lack of comprehensiveness. There's been alot of work around formatting, but the fundamental issues remain unaddressed. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. There are layers upon layers of issues here. Cleaning up the references was a step in the right direction, but it served only to reveal other problems. I don't have the subject matter knowledge to think about addressing the comprehensiveness and source problems. --Laser brain (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Temporarily striking my declaration until I can review the latest progress. Seems like there are enough interested parties for a potential save. --Laser brain (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Thanks so much for the effort, Laser brain-- at least the article was left in better shape! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain. A lot of work has been done, and only three paragraphs are unreferenced. I am still somewhat concerned on whether end-of-para citations are always covering all the info in a given para. I found the dead link in the IA, will fix it now. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
fact claims can be resolved with
Glrx (talk) 05:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I see they've been fixed. I am changing my vote to Keep; references seem to be satisfactory now. Also, I've checked his bio entry in Polish online encyclopedias ([2], [3]), first one has a similar focus on his later life, and while the second one is more balanced, we do mention all of the facts from it as well. I don't have his PSB bio (if it exists), but I think the entry is reasonably comprehensive; most sources about his life focus on his Enigma-solving period, not what happened before or after. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Still not there. Notes are still all over the map, with a mix of inline citation, cite ref citation, and no citation. I'm not convinced all of the External links belong, and they are poorly described (Bauer??). Are the unused sources listed in Further reading useful, if so, why are they not used, if not, why are we retaining them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Regarding "Further reading": It seems to me that that why-retain-it argument could be made in respect to any article's "Further reading" section. And yet these sections do exist—for the same reasons as here. Nihil novi (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
My question was, are they useful (in terms of comprehensiveness), and if not, why are they there (that is, what are they adding)? Also, they are now used with the template citation, which is causing a big red ref error, since they aren't sources.

And, we still have a mixed citation style. The Notes are using inline citations, while everything else uses cite ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Re the "External links": Jan Bury's (is that your "Bauer"?) "The Enigma Code Breach" provides photos of French, Polish and Spanish personnel, drawn from various publications, which regrettably appear nowhere on Wikipedia. Tony Sale's "The Breaking of Enigma by the Polish Mathematicians" shows a diagram of the Polish cryptological bomb that was needlessly purged from Wikipedia a few years ago by an over-zealous copyright cop. "How Mathematicians Helped Win WWII", by the National Security Agency", includes a photo of "Adolf Hitler receiving the salute of German troops in Warsaw following their conquest of Poland", which actually shows him riding in his 6-wheel Mercedes before the Polish General Staff Building where the German Enigma had first been broken nearly 7 years earlier (!!); this poignant photo (taken from Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984), too, was purged—from the Wikipedia "Biuro Szyfrów" (Polish Cipher Bureau) article. "Enigma documents" provides reproductions of many source documents, including ones by Marian Rejewski. "Marian Rejewski and the First Break into Enigma", published this year (2015) by the American Mathematical Society, gives another view of Rejewski's mathematics, for those willing to challenge themselves. Nihil novi (talk) 06:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Bauer was already fixed in External links, and my other question was about "Further reading", not "External links" (you answered a different question-- please re-read the discussion above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I quote you from the discussion above: "I'm not convinced all of the External links belong..." What am I misunderstanding? Nihil novi (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
After that :) I asked: "Are the unused sources listed in Further reading useful, if so, why are they not used, if not, why are we retaining them?" Please see your post from 04:50 4 March and my response to that from 14:56 4 March. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As indicated in Laserbrain's Delist above, there are layers of problems with both prose and comprehensiveness everyone one looks in this article, and there are other concerns intimated by Piotr. The three Delists stand, and it doesn't appear that, after almost a month at FAR, this will be salvageable. The prose is rough, and one is left with questions in numerous places (indicated in two examples below with unaddressed inline comments). These are samples only:

  • Convoluted prose sample. On 21 November 1946, Rejewski, having been on 15 November discharged from the Polish Army in Britain, returned to Poland to be reunited with his wife, Irena Maria Rejewska (née Lewandowska, whom Rejewski had married on 20 June 1934) and their son Andrzej (Andrew, born 1936) and daughter Janina (Jeanne, born 1939, who would later follow in her father's footsteps to become a mathematician).
  • That is followed by an overlong quote, and ...
  • Prose and comprehensive issue combined ... in 1950 they demanded that he be fired from his employment !--why? please expand-- as an inline comment ... fired from his employment?
  • Repetitive and unclear prose. What little was published attracted little attention.
  • Would follow after 1974? Still, this was closer to the truth than many British and American accounts that would follow after 1974.
  • Another unaddressed inline comment: On 9 January 1942, Różycki, the youngest of the three mathematicians, died in the sinking of a French passenger ship as he was returning from a stint in Algeria to Cadix in southern France.< --why did the ship sink? how did it affect Rejewski? >

There are short choppy paragraphs throughout. The three Delists stand; the article has been improved, but it is not close to FA quality and it seems unlikely to make it there without a significant rewrite. I remain at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

About Różycki's death (from Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984, p. 128):
"For security and personal safety, the Poles seldom participated in courier missions or the like. An exception was departures [from Cadix] for two- to three-month stints at the Château Couba [on the outskirts of Algiers]. One such expedition across the Mediterranean ended tragically. In circumstances that remain unclear to this day, the French ship Lamoricière, on which four Poles were returning from Algiers, suffered catastrophe on 9 January 1942, near the Balearic Islands. It is not clear whether, amid a raging storm, the ship struck a reef or one of the thousands of mines that the belligerents were laying. Killed in the Lamoricière catastrophe were Capt. Jan Graliński, Jerzy Różycki, and Piotr Smoleński.[...] Also lost was a French officer accompanying the Poles, Capt. François Lane."
How did Rejewski feel about the loss of Różycki? Nearly 38 years later, on 25 November 1979, he wrote Richard Woytak in a letter quoted in Cryptologia, vol. 6, no. 1 (January 1982), p. 59, and in Kozaczuk, Enigma, 1984, pp. 238–39:
"As a person, he was a very good friend, cheerful, sociable. He died on 9.I.1942 [9 January 1942] when, while returning from Algiers to France, the ship on which he was sailing, the Lamoricière, sank after hitting submerged reefs or perhaps [a] mine. He had married shortly before the war in Poland, and when he left Poland [in September 1939] he left behind his wife and a child of several months. His son is presently living in England...."
Nihil novi (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments on the "Marian Rejewski" "Back in Poland" section. I've re-edited it. Does anything there remain unclear?
Are there any other specific passages in the article that still require editing or sourcing?
Nihil novi (talk) 20:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added the information about Różycki (above) in a note, I've done further editing, and I have added some information. Others have also contributed. Any further suggestions to improve the article would be appreciated. Nihil novi (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

My Delist stands; unfortunately, I don't think this article can be salvaged in the lifespan of a Featured article review, and an independent copyedit by an editor fluent in the topic would be needed to make the text comprehensible.

Your dedication to the topic is commendable, and your work has improved the article, but everywhere one's eyes falls, there are glaring prose and MOS issues. On the trivials, there are WP:PUNC, WP:ENDASH, and WP:EMDASH issues. There are wikilinking issues everywhere.

More significant is the need for a thorough rewrite and copyedit. The section "Enigma machine" is a convoluted and at times ungrammatical description of the machine even for those who understand what it is. Here is a sample sentence, found by simply scanning to the end of the article and reading the first sentence in a random paragraph:

  • Rejewski took satisfaction from his accomplishments in breaking the German Enigma cipher for nearly seven years (beginning in December 1932) prior to the outbreak of World War II and then into the war, in personal and teleprinter collaboration with Bletchley Park, at least until the 1940 fall of France.

    Here's another:

  • As it became clear that war was imminent and that Polish resources were insufficient to keep pace with the evolution of Enigma encryption (e.g., due to the prohibitive expense of an additional 54 bombs and due to the Poles' difficulty in producing in time the required 60 series of 26 "Zygalski sheets" each), the Polish General Staff and government decided to let their Western allies in on the secret.

    Another issue:

  • ... that one mathematics professor describes as "the theorem that won World War II."

    The reader should be told who that prof is ... and why does his/her opinion matter, anyway?

    These are only samples, not intended to be a comprehensive list. I do not believe this article can be salvaged without an independent copyedit by someone who is also a knowledgeable in the content area.

    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The identity of the mathematics professor, Cipher A. Deavours (one of the editors of the quarterly Cryptologia, on this occasion writing in the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing), was already in the attached note; but I've put the information into the text itself, for those disinclined to read notes. Nihil novi (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I've added information about the Poles' Enigma-breaking techniques, especially to the section on "Rejewski's bomba and Zygalski's sheets", which should make the procedures and financial challenges clearer. Thanks for pointing out areas that can benefit from more attention. Nihil novi (talk) 04:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You have been very helpful in inspiring efforts to make the text clearer and more communicative.
If you could now point out a few instances of "ungrammatical" writing, I (or others) could try to improve the grammar—or demonstrate why the text in question is not ungrammatical.
Thanks again.
Nihil novi (talk) 08:14, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Could the @WP:FAR coordinators: please give some indication of what they are waiting for or expecting from this FAR, which has multiple Delist declarations more than a month old? As a random sample, can someone explain what "Naval code" refers to here, and examine the prose ... why is "by later report" there? An independent copyedit by a topic expert is still needed. Delist stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"In late October or early November 1932, while work on the Naval code was still underway, Rejewski was set to work, alone and in secret, on the output of the new standard German cipher machine, the Enigma I, which was coming into widespread use. While the Cipher Bureau had, by later report, succeeded in solving an earlier, plugboard-less Enigma, it had had no success with the Enigma I."
The "Naval code" was, of course, the German naval code referred to in the previous paragraph. In case this was unclear to any other reader, I have added the word "German" to the term "naval code".
The phrase "by later report" referred to A.P. Mahon's secret report, written a dozen years later in 1945 and cited in note 4, on The History of Hut Eight: 1939–1945. The expression "by later report" is obviously not indispensable, so I have deleted it.
Thank you. Are there any other passages which strike you as unclear or perhaps inelegant?
Nihil novi (talk) 06:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Can you locate a copyeditor knowledgeable in the content area to go through the entire article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that there is anything substantial that is incorrect in the text.
I suggest that you continue raising your concerns, which can then be clarified as above.
Another possible approach: Put a notice on cryptology-related pages, inviting reviews.
Nihil novi (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

This article's prose is quite dense, fairly technical, relies heavily on extremely long footnotes, and definitely tends toward the verbose, so I understand why Sandy asked for a full copyedit. She's certainly not the only person who has pointed out prose issues during this FAR, so I think it's rather uncharitable to frame them as her concerns. There is a breaking point somewhere between "these 5 things need to be fixed" and "there are so many things that need to be fixed that a copyedit is needed", and on earlier read-throughs of the article I have to say I too felt the latter was necessary. However, given the many prose issues already pointed out and addressed, I've just re-read the article (for the umpteenth time) and I now feel that it is nearly there. Here are the issues I see at this point:

  • Tortured prose - This sentence is incomprehensibly long: "Rejewski used a mathematical theorem—that two permutations are conjugate if and only if they have the same cycle structure—that mathematics professor Cipher A. Deavours, co-editor of the quarterly Cryptologia—in a commentary to Rejewski's posthumously published 1981 paper, "How the Polish Mathematicians Deciphered the Enigma", in the Annals of the history of Computing—describes as "the theorem that won World War II."" I understand that the Deavours/Cryptologia details were added in response to a request above, but the sentence still needs some refining; we only need enough info about Deavours to understand why his comment is notable.
  • Italics and scare quotes - Usage needs to follow WP:MOS. Foreign language terms (bomba) should be in italics throughout. Code names (Ultra, Cadix, PC Bruno, Bolek, Pierre Ranaud) can be given in plain text, or italics, or scare quotes—but pick only one. Proper names, even foreign names, should be given in plain text, not in italics as has been done with Andrzej and Janina.
  • Endashes - "French-Polish-Spanish radio-intelligence unit" and "Polish-French-Spanish Cadix center"should use endashes between the nationalities per WP:ENDASH.
  • Emdashes - There are both unspaced emdashes and spaced emdashes; per WP:EMDASH one convention should be used consistently throughout.
  • Copyediting - Need to fix typos such as "cryptologiic" and [[Marian Rejewski#Recognistion)|posthumously]] (this is also a bit of an easter egg); repeated words such as "should have told him told him better"; repetition such as "Cipher Bureau (Biuro Szyfrów)" and "Biuro Szyfrów (Cipher Bureau)" inside the same section as well as the Grand Cross mentioned in the Back in Poland section and again in Recognition; confusing lack of chronological order such as in Back in Poland where we have 1946 1934 1946 1947–1958 1967 1969 1939 1944 1942 etc, and also "a few years before his death" and "a year and a half before his death" and "posthumously" before his death itself is even mentioned.
  • Citations - A couple of citations are missing accessdates; another is missing both author and publisher information.
  • Quotation - I have a couple of issues with the Woytak quotation in the Notes section. First, I honestly cannot parse it through the italics, single and double quotes, ellipses, brackets, etc. Second, the quote is something like 350 words long, which (per WP:COPYQUOTE) puts it within the realm of a possible copyright infringement. Summarizing it in our own words would avoid that issue and hopefully make it easier to understand.

I really appreciate when editors pitch in to save an article at FAR. It's clear that this article is vastly improved, but there is a bit more to be done. Maralia (talk) 06:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Maralia, for pitching in ; perhaps you have the energy to continue, but my feeling was that the article was desperately in need of new eyes to fix the numerous issues. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Maralia, thanks for your insightful fresh look at the text.
I've revised several of the bigger items cited.
Perhaps someone could address punctuation errors and typos that I may not spot.
Are there any other passages that would benefit from further attention?
Thanks for the very constructive critique!
Nihil novi (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the chronology of the Rejewski family vicissitudes, recounted in the "Back in Poland" section, is a little chaotic, but partly that reflects the chaos of wartime events in their lives.
I'm not sure how to re-chronologize the respective events without disrupting the flow of narrative in the article's other sections. Nihil novi (talk) 11:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll give this another pass after Laser has been through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)