Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FARC)
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]

Marine shrimp farming[edit]

Notified: Lupo, Epipelagic, Stemonitis, WP Agriculture, WP Fisheries and Fishing
URFA nom
Talk page notification 2012

This is a 2005 FA that has not been maintained. There is considerable uncited text, the article (data) is outdated, and there are numerous MOS issues to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree. This doesn't even meet modern Good Article standards. HalfGig talk 03:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)


Notified: Looie496, Fnielsen, Iztwoz, Wimpus, WikiProject Anatomy, WikiProject Neuroscience, WikiProject Medicine [Nominator A314268 and major contributor Nrets are inactive]
URFA nom

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted over 9 years ago and has not been reviewed since. In that time it has grown by almost 200%. The article is tagged as needing page number citations and (as noted before) some parts are lacking citations. I shall be going through the article in detail over the next couple of weeks. DrKiernan (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

  1. Quickly scanning the article I immediately noted the "Happiness" section. Supported by a single original study. There needs to be done something with this. Removed? Personally I would also like to see a critical eye "Functional imaging studies have shown cerebellar activation in relation to language, attention, and mental imagery". Given the methodological problems with fMRI I am personally sceptic, although I am not really into the subject. Interestingly the idea of non-motor function of cerebellum goes further back the human neuroimaging [1] and G. G. Berntsonfnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I had the exact same thought about the happiness section, in fact I almost removed it straight off, but when I checked for references there seems to be other work in the area of emotional function. I'd like to investigate how the topic is treated in reviews. If it is notable, then it ought to be better integrated into the article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I have removed the "Happiness" section, which somehow slipped in while I wasn't watching. Regarding functional imaging, the statements in the article are massively supported by literature. I too am skeptical about their significance, but the fact is that this stuff has received enormous attention, to such a degree that leaving it out would misrepresent the literature. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Isn't the article too human-centric? Cetacean sh/could be mentioned. [2]. — fnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think the article is too human-centric. I suppose it would be possible to split off some material into a human cerebellum article, but that doesn't strike me as a good thing overall. Lots of our readers are specifically interested in humans. Regarding cetaceans, I don't know anything about their cerebellum, but if there are facts that are important enough to belong in the article, I encourage you to add them. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    One thing that we have done in a number of other anatomical articles is split content into the main article, focusing on the human cerebellum, and then include an 'other animals' section as is done here (this is also part of the manual of style entry). This structure is particularly useful when the majority of sources and studies used are focused on the human structure, when users expect to read about the human structure in the main article, or when it is confusing to be constantly comparing the structures of different species throughout the article. That said, it might not be as relevant for a well fleshed-out article like this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. What about Cerebellar hypoplasia and Cerebellar hypoplasia (non-human)? — fnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    That's a rare condition in humans at least, but it could be worked into the "Cerebellar agenesis" section, which is another low-quality thing that crept in without me noticing it. I'll see what I can do with that. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Another suggestion may be a 'congenital abnormalities' subsection covering agenesis and hypoplasia and any other abnormalities. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Background: Let me fill in some history here. This article was promoted in 2005, but when I came to it a few years later, it was obvious to me that it was nowhere near FA quality. The cerebellum is not the brain area I work on, but I have long been fascinated by it and know the literature pretty well, so I decided to rewrite it. I did so in late 2009, to such a degree that the current article bears little resemblance to the version that was promoted. Early in 2010 SandyGeorgia did an extensive style review, making numerous changes. Since then the article has been pretty stable. I've tried to keep an eye on it, but my attention hasn't been constant, and no doubt I've missed a few things. In particular I didn't see the "Happiness" section show up -- I'm about to remove it as undue. In any case, and FA review is welcome -- with the caveat that I have no intention of wasting my time on minor style issues. Looie496 (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks for your attention Looie496 and for raising this, DrKiernan. I work a fair bit on anatomy articles with WP:ANATOMY and stated earlier that I think this article is lacking sources and sometimes a little nonstandard (like heaps of images of cerebellar cross-sections which are quite large by wiki-standards). I've been hesitant to make edits because the article does have FA status, but I'll also have a look. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you think then that we should cut File:Sobo 1909 657.png? It seems to show much the same features as File:Sobo 1909 658.png, but 658 shows all four nuclei. DrKiernan (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

If you all can get the substantial matters cleaned up (prose, sourcing, flow, etc), I'll be glad to go in and "waste my time on the minor style issues", but it's not worth doing that kind of cleanup until/unless the bigger stuff happens. Ping me if all else is settled, and minor style stuff is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Military career of Hugo Chávez[edit]

Notified: Saravask, WP Venezuela, WP MilHist
URFA nomination
Talk page notification four years ago.

This article was a 2006 promotion, and it has remain relatively unchanged in the eight years since then. It was written before Chavez rose to "prominence", and although well written and well cited, is now out of date. Many new sources have been written since 2006. See, for example,

See also the unsigned commentary at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page#2006. The article needs an update to comply with 1b and 1c, and potentially 1d.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Euclidean algorithm[edit]

Notified: WillowW, WikiProject Mathematics

One section of the article has been tagged for verifiability for over four and a half years, and many other paragraphs and sentences are without cites. The original nominator said this algorithm is taught to 10-year-old children, in which case the article ought to be easier to understand but much of it is impenetrable. DrKiernan (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. There was one {{citation needed}} tag, that I supplied an easy reference for. WP:SCICITE does not require that every sentence or paragraph have a citation. From that guideline "[I]n sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify statements for which no other in-line citation is provided." The original nominator stated that the Euclidean algorithm in its simplest form is understandable by children, not that the general algorithm is. The algorithm has been generalized and studied in many different situations. A comprehensive encyclopedia article should include this kind of information, regardless of whether it is understandable by 10-year old children. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@DrKiernan, which parts are impenetrable? Let me suggest that the lead section can be aimed, not so much at 10 year olds per se, but, instead, non-experts who might actually be curious. Consider the most likely reader, then, perhaps the lead section could benefit from the attention of editors. My thoughts, Grandma (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I won't be contributing further either here or elsewhere. I don't appreciate being called anti-intellectual or idiotic and am not willing to invite further abuse. DrKiernan (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Understandable. We need to try to keep the rhetoric conducive to teamwork. @DrKiernan, if possible, please recognize that your initiative is appreciated by Grandma (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, let's do try to keep the rhetoric down to get through this as effortlessly as possible; the kind of commentary directed at DrKiernan needs to stop. The article is most definitely deficient, and pretending it is not will not get the article where it needs to go.

Here is the version of the article that passed FAC three years ago. I was FAC delegate then, and I didn't promote the article FA, but I didn't have problems with it then, or I would have recused and Opposed (since I was a math undergrad and have a graduate degree in a very mathematical field of engineering; I shouldn't even have to say this, but seeing the reaction to DrKiernan indicates it may be necessary.) At least the lead is written in English in the version that passed FAC.

Here is the version of the current article I am reviewing. Lest people who are not comfortable with math feel that they might not be reading English-- they're right. The second paragraph of the lead (which must be digestible to a general audience) is not written in grammatical English. Let me be clear: this is not a math problem-- this is an English problem.

The Euclidean algorithm is a basic tools for proving many fundamental properties of the integers, such as Euclid's lemma, Bézout identity, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. It is also used, directly or through its consequences for many advanced results, such as the classification of finite Abelian group. It allows to compute modular multiplicative inverses, and is therefore used for the classification of finite fields and for the computation in these fields. As a large part of modern number theory uses finite fields, the Euclidean algorithm is indirectly used in many deep results, such as the Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
So, considering that the article has been quite substantially rewritten since it passed FAC, and the version that passed FAC was decipherable at least in English, I suggest that the first step towards preserving Featured Status here is a revert to that version. Making math digestible is not rocket science: textbooks and other websites do it all the time-- we can, too.

There is potentially another problem: the second para listed above looks like it could only have come from a very bad Google translate from another language. And if that is the case, that could be a copyvio. Revert the article; it has not been shepharded by people versed in making the English in the article accessible, and it may contain Google translate copyvio. Stop claiming that the math is over the head of people reviewing (in this case, it is not and should not be); that has been a frequent argument seen in every math FAC or FAR, and persisting in that line of thinking will only prolong this FAR. Few editors are likely to be willing to weigh in if attitudes that this topic cannot be made decipherable (or at least sections of it) prevail.

The article should be reverted. If it's not, move to FARC for declarations of Keep or Delist, and I'll be declaring Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that proposal. The original FA version of the article was much better than what is there now. Perhaps a revert to this version, followed by discussion of what to restore. However, I hasten also to point out that the issues you are now mentioning have actually been committed to the article in response to this FAR. None of the above problematic text appears in the version that DrKiernan initially complained about, which was substantially similar to the original FAR revision (apart from the lead, which I think should be rolled back to the original FAC lead). But if going back to the pre-FAR version is all it takes to have it re-listed, what was the point of subjecting it to an FAR (for silly reasons, too) in the first place? Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the editor who introduced the problematic text has the second highest edit count on the article (since the FA nominator left), so that could account for part of the problem.[3] If Google translate is being used, we could have copyvio issues. Yes, going back to the original FA version, and editing to update from there would be the fastest route to assuring this article can retain its Featured status. I suggest dropping the persistence that the FAR was "silly"; FARs have to be noticed on article talk first, and only if nothing improves does the article come here. And historically, on every Math FAC or FAR I've participated in or observed, the math editors have made claims like those aimed at DrK, so let's drop the rhetoric, and get busy. Reverting the article, and cleaning up from there, is the best way forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer my question, but ok. We can go back to the pre-FAR revision, and someone can review it, hopefully with comments that are actually helpful. But in light of this discussion, I won't hold my breath. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Which question is unanswered ? (My apologies for whatever I missed: I have the flu.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with above comments that put the quality of English writing above the quality of the content, with above obviously wrong threats of copyvio, and with Sławomir Biały's revert on the aticle page. I have opened a Request for comments on the article talk page. D.Lazard (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out—and I hope you're not offended—that while your English is very good, it does not sound like the English of a native speaker.
@SandyGeorgia: This user is an expert in the subject; some of his publications would in fact be reliable sources for this article. But, as his user page says, his mother tongue is French, not English. There is no Google translate involved. Ozob (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Thankx, Ozob-- good to know. And opening a separate RFC is process wonkery, because basically a FAR is an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Please, be WP:CIVIL and do not use slang (wonkery), which I do not understand clearly, and I consider as name-calling. Maybe "basically a FAR is an RFC", but I guess that only few of the 188 watchers of this article are aware of this discussion. Reciprocally, it seems that few of the editors participating to this discussion have read the discussions on the talk page that have been posted since the opening of this review. Moreover, the discussion on the article is split in three different pages, this one, article's talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Therefore the discussion on the best version for starting improvements must be centralized where all interested people could find it easily, and it is not here. D.Lazard (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Watchers of the article will have seen the FAR posting on the talk page, and this is the central place for discussing whether the article will retain featured status. That doesn't preclude discussions of improvements happening elsewhere, but the decision on FA status is made on this page.

While discussion at the Math Project page is interesting,that page is not where FA status is determined.

I'm sorry you have a problem with English slang, but "process wonkery" is not uncivil.

I don't believe the revert was to the Featured version: the featured version is this. The revert was to a version pre-FAR, which is not what I suggested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I've just looked at some sample sections, and have found (niggling) prose and MOS cleanup needed (See my sample edits). More significantly, citation cleanup and consistency is needed. Examples:

  • Reynaud A.-A.-L. (1811). Traité d'arithmétique à l'usage des élèves qui se destinent à l'École Polytechnique. Courcier. Incomplete
  • Some short citations have punctuation, others don't.
  • See also Werke, 2:67–148. incomplete.
  • There are sources listed in Bibliography that aren't used in Citations.
  • Some section heading stuff (see my sample edits).
  • Wikilinking check needed (see my sample edits).
  • Some of the short citations link to the Bibliography, others don't.
  • Why are there five items in "See also"? That is, when an article is FA-quality and comprehensive, typically all items worthy of mention in See also will have been worked into the article. If they haven't been worked into the text, is the article comprehensive? Or should they be removed from See also?
  • Some inconsistency on final punctuation on equations that do or don't end a sentence.
  • Can't read this character: A set of elements under two binary operations, + and ·,<
  • Please review throughout for the difference between WP:EMDASH, WP:ENDASH, hyphen and minus sign (see my sample edits).
  • Punctuation on captions needs to be checked (full sentences should have final stop, fragments don't).
  • "Visualization" section, please review colors for WP:ACCESS#Color.
  • Please review the "Generalizations" section for citations.

Move to FARC, to keep the process moving forward, and to allow more time for improvements, followed by evaluation of prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've handled some of the wikilinking issues (changed wikilinks that unnecessarily went through a redirect) and some of the see-also issues (removed three see-alsos that were already in the main text). I also removed the whole "Generalizations" section (and the lead section sentence summarizing it), as Lazard had done earlier, as being too far off-topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, struck some. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


Notified: Secret, WikiProject Mexico, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Musicians WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, WikiProject Latin music

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails multiple FA criteria, and there are unaddressed {{context}}, {{leadtooshort}}, and {{Missing information}} tags from October 2014. The edition that passed for FA wasn't perfect either, but I will grant that the criteria was less demanding back when it was promoted back in July 2006. Right now, here is how it compares against the FA criteria:

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • Could use a copyedit. Here are examples of phrasing that could be more professional:
  • "Selena's stardom got a big boost"
  • "Selena and her band received yet more accolades in 1994"
  • "The song got to number one"
  • "These demonstrations of community involvement won her loyalty from her fan base"
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Not at all. As indicated by the {{Missing information}} and {{context}} tags, and my comment here, this article is lacking a significant amount of detail. Specifically, there is nothing on her artistry—musical style, themes, influences, critical commentary (not counting the listing among "100 Coolest Americans in History" or Howard Stern's commentary on her when she died), etc.—and does not give much of her life outside her career
  • 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
  • Not quite. I'm not convinced "NewsTaco" is a reliable source. Additionally, some of its content is harder to verify as there are 3 HARVref errors, several dead links, and the following statements are missing citations:
  • "Over the next three years, not under a recording contract, she released six more albums"
  • "Selena scheduled her English album for release in the summer of 1995."
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • No. It primary focus is her impact and commercial success, doesn't focus enough on other aspects. This is something I might expect from a fansite, not an encyclopedia.
  • 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
  • Yes. The article has had no substantial revisions lately.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • No. As indicated by the {{leadtooshort}} tag, this doesn't have enough information to fully summarize the article.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • Doesn't seem too bad.
  • 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. It is inconsistent with the inclusion/exclusion of publishers, some are missing accessdates. I also see instances of malformatted references: "E! Online", "", "", "ABC Good Morning America", "BMG" "New York Times" "Billboard magazine", "", and incorrect use/absence of italics on "E! Online", "Televisa", and Corpus Christi Caller-Times.
  • 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.
  • Yes. Both images used are relevant, have suitable captions, and are appropriately licensed.
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • In addition to the amount of detail this goes into about her successes, I'm skeptical about including things like "Her father bought all of the original copies" or "Selena visited local schools to talk to students about the importance of education".

With the above being said, this would take considerable work to even meet GA criteria in its current condition. I doubt it can be salvaged. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Even though I'm no longer active on Wikipedia, I wouldn't mind working on this article with someone who is willing to work together. I also added a thread seeking editors several weeks ago. Best, .jonatalk 19:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Your efforts and willingness are appreciated, but I'm not sure where to start on what to do. Probably best to delist and revamp as this is no higher than a C-class article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Snuggums on this. There have been tags at the top of the article's page since October and very little has changed since then. Some have said that they are prepared to help others, but others have not come forward. Time to move on. EddieHugh (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed the article talk page, I don't think we can get there from here. Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Sandy, move to FARC. This is miles away right now with no clear path forward. --Laser brain (talk) 13:18, 19 December 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.

2nd Canadian Infantry Division[edit]

Notified: User:Cam, WikiProject Military history, Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
Thank you, DrKiernan, for doing the notifications! I was just coming to do that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Review section[edit]

Featured Article 2nd Canadian Infantry Division was merged (apparently after little discussion) with 2nd Canadian Division on 30 May 2013, and as a result fails on 2c at the very least. Discussion initiated on article talk page last year to either undo the merge or validate it and improve the current article has produced no consensus and the result remains well below FA standard. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian, you may have a typo above (30 May 2013 ??)

I was having a hard time keeping up with the discussion of this article over at WT:FAC, and am just now seeing the links and discussion. I find this May 27, 2013 version, with indication of a merge on May 30, 2013. The version of May 27 does not look to me like an automatic demotion, I am not seeing a clear 2c deficiency, meaning the revert may have been incorrect and should be reverted (merging away a Featured Article should not happen outside of FAR).

More troubling is that I have yet to find any discussion of the original merge (where is it?). I don't see one on the original article talk page, and the merge discussion on the target page is from a different article (Talk:2nd_Canadian_Division#Merger proposal), and the discussion of the merge on that same page of this article is inconclusive. Unless someone can come up with something else, it looks like either a) the merge should be reverted, or b) we should get MilHist folks to evaluate whether May 27, 2013 version, just before the merge, is demotable.

If it's clearly and seriously deficient, I can understand dispensing with the bookkeeping of a FAR (considering a year and a half has elapsed) and demoting, but unless I'm missing something, that seems to be a bad precedent (demoting an article because of a faulty merge).

Whatever more knowledgeable MilHist folks think is fine, but if the FAR is to proceed, the listing needs to be reinstated at WP:FA and re-added to the tally; if the article is to be speedily demoted, that would be a first ... no problem, but as of now, this article is not listed at FA, so just to keep the books in sync before month-end, we have to go with either/or. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

You see my dilemma, Sandy. This was why I initiated discussion with MilHist on whether the merge was reasonable or not. There was no consensus on that so I think we'd be better off demoting this. BTW, thought I just copied and pasted the merge date, corrected now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Where you got the merge date, I think, is because an IP added that date well after the fact to the talk page.[4] Where is the original merge discussion? Seriously, someone just merged away an FA and no one noticed. Kinda troubling, the whole thing, but it does look like the original article may not have been comprehensive (look at the World War I section on the new article, was it WWI or not??), so perhaps demotion is best. The main question here is, do we run a regular FAR, or speedy demote? You all know best, but take care with setting precedent. Nikkimaria, if you decide to run the FAR, then this article has to relisted at WP:FA and re-added to the tally. If you decide to speedy demote, it has already been removed from FA, but not sure if it has been list at WP:FFA ... just to keep the books straight before month-end tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
In my view, the next step would depend on whether this is going to stay merged. If it is, I would go for a procedural, immediate demotion. If it's going to be unmerged, we should conduct a full FAR. Alternatively, we could unmerge and then conduct a new merge discussion, either through the normal processes or as an FAR itself (compare Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Meteorological_history_of_Tropical_Storm_Allison/archive1). In the interim, I've reinstated the FA listing, just until we've figured this out. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Nikkimaria. Does the tally at FA need to be incremented, then? Still catching the plot, but I think we had the numbers in sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
you're right, fixed now. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think that this needs a FAR as I can see inadequate sourcing (the Order of Battle, forex) and rather cursory coverage of the division's role in various battles. At 22K, the pre-merge article isn't overly large and, to my mind, the decisive vote for any merge is how the Canadian Army itself treats the history of the(se) division(s). If it treats them as two iterations of the same unit then we merge, if not then they're separate articles. As the Canadians haven't raised a division-sized unit since WW2 we'd probably need to see how they treat the history of the various infantry brigades that have been in service.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

(another ec) This needs to be sorted by knowledgeable MilHist folks ... here is what the FAC nominator said on the FAC.

It is of no relation to the 2nd Canadian Division. In WWI, they didn't specify division type, whereas in WWII the 1st Canadian Army fielded both infantry and armour divisions. As for the divisional artillery and such, there was no specified organization for each division in the early days of the war; they simply relied on an overarching corps artillery and engineers that were not attached to the actual division. Hope that answers your question. Cam (Chat) 06:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Noting Sandy's comments above, this article is clearly not of featured status. In the event that the World War I and World War II units of this name are considered separate by historians, military lineage experts, etc, the article is fundamentally mistaken. If the units are the same, the coverage of the division's World War I service is woefully inadequate. The "Present day" section is also obviously not even close to the standard required for FAs. Overall, I agree with Nikkimaria's view that the article should be delisted immediately if it remains in its current form. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Nick-D, are you looking at the current article (which was a merge without discussion) or the old article (which is FA)? This is the FA that was merged with no discussion, to the new mess. Based on the comment from Cam, the original nominator, and this comment from an IP on talk, it looks like it may have been sound as a stand-alone article and the merge was incorrect (as well as undiscussed).

Considering that, I suggest we post-haste Revert merge and redirect, then proceed with FAR to evaluate soundness of the original article. I am concerned that people are looking at the new article, rather than the FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

G'day, perhaps the solution is to take the article back to its pre-merged state and rename it something like "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II" or something similar. That would mean that regardless of whether the claimed lineage is correct of not (there seems to be a lack of authoritive sourcing on this), the article would still be comprehensive and therefore most likely FA-worthy. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, but I defer to those more knowledgeable on MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Sandy, I was commenting on the article as it currently stands. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
That is as I feared :) The merge to that article was based on zero discussion that I found, so could you have a look at the FA (that is the diff above of the FA before it was merged out of existence [5])? Both the original nominator and the IP give reasoning for a stand-alone article, although AustralianRupert's suggestion might also work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Stale discussion, and some comments based on a misunderstanding of which article we are reviewing. So, unless someone disagrees, I shall revert the undiscussed merge, so that this discussion and the WP:FA page are not pointing at a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Reverted merge and redirect: [6] Could we please now get MilHist opinions on the FA before us? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I've taken a look through the article and had a few concerns about referencing and formatting. I've rectified what I could with these edits: [7]. I added a couple of refs to all I could find, but unfortunately they didn't always provide the full details (maybe someone has a book that covers these?). Where this is the case, I have noted in my edit summaries (mainly the table and the comment about the 12th Panzer Div). I am also slightly concerned about wording similarities between the article and this source: [8]. The Earwig tool is also concerned: [9] Although it could be a false positive (I'm not sure): the proper nouns of units/people etc. might be setting it off. Finally, I still believe that it would be optimal to rename this article to "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during the Second World War" or "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II" (which ever variation is considered most common to Canadians). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
      • G'day, I did a bit more digging and I'm not sure whether this is a case of backwards copy or not. From what I can tell this was the Wikipedia article when it achieved Good Article status in August 2008: [10]. Web Archive appears to indicate that the page came into existence in 2011 [11] (at least that is when it first "captured" the website). Is there any way of telling definitively which came first? Sorry, I think I've muddied the waters a bit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
        • From my digging in, pretty sure they copied us. AustralianRupert is this source helpful in replacing SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
          • G'day, Sandy, thanks for that. I've downloaded a couple of the sources there and managed to add a couple of refs, but there are still a few areas that need references (after I removed the canadiansoldiers web citation). I found that some of the information is partially covered by the Stacey refs, but not totally, so I didn't add the reference in these places. I'm sorry, but I've spent about two hours on this today and I can't devote any more time to it now (in the middle of moving house and then going on Christmas holidays). Equally I don't have the subject matter knowledge. I'm sorry, but this may need to be demoted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
            • Thanks for the work, AustralianRupert. Even if it is demoted, the article is left in better shape. Happy holidays! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. It's been two weeks. On the issue of similarities, compare for example:

In 1941, the Toronto Scottish Regiment was transferred from the 1st Division to become the machine-gun battalion of the 2nd Division. Around the same time, the 8th Reconnaissance Regiment (14th Canadian Hussars) was raised from 2nd Division personnel supplemented by reinforcements from Canada...
When the division was not engaged in coastal-defence duties or unit training, formation-level training took the form of increasingly larger exercises. Exercise Waterloo, conducted from 14–16 June 1941, was the largest in the United Kingdom to date, with I Canadian Corps counter-attacking an imagined German sea and air landing. Exercise Bumper, held from 29 September to 3 October, was larger still, involving 250,000 men. These exercises tended to concentrate on traffic control, communications, and logistical concerns, and were of little practical value to the infantry.
On 30 December 1941, the Calgary Highlanders introduced "battle drill" to the division. This new type of training emphasized small unit tactics as well as "hardening" training through use of live ammunition, slaughterhouse visits, and obstacle courses, and was adopted throughout Commonwealth forces stationed in Britain.


In 1941, the Toronto Scottish Regiment were moved from the 1st Canadian Division to become the Machine Gun battalion of the Second Division. As well, the 8th Reconnaissance Regiment (14th Canadian Hussars) was created from 2nd Division personnel and reinforcements from Canada...
When the division was not engaged in coastal defence duties or unit training, formation level training took the form of increasingly larger exercises. Exercise WATERLOO conducted 14-16 June 1941 would be the largest in the United Kingdom to date, with I Canadian Corps counter-attacking an imagined German sea and air landing. Exercise BUMPER from 29 September 1941 to 3 October 1941 was larger than WATERLOO, involving 250,000 men. These exercises tended to concentrate on traffic control, communications and logistical concerns and were of little practical value to the infantry.
On 30 December 1941, the Calgary Highlanders introduced "Battle Drill" to the Division. This new type of training emphasized small unit tactics as well as "hardening" training through use of live ammunition, slaughterhouse visits, and obstacle courses, and was adopted throughout the Army.

—Source given in the article:

DrKiernan (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

DrKiernanON the issue (raised by Australian Rupert), as far as I can tell, that's a backwards copy (we need to remove that source, which was inadvertently introduced by Rupert before he realized it was a Wikipedia mirror). was archived at well before 2011, but that particular page does not show up til 2011, so likely they copied us. If you poke around in for the general page of, you find no indication of that specific page being there before 2011-- so, they copied us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I already looked at before I posted above. But is very sniffy about wikipedia: [12], so they do not seem likely to copy us; and they expressly claim copyright: [13]. DrKiernan (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

More than two weeks-- Move to FARC. Regardless what is determined about (what makes that a reliable source?), this article needs to be !voted in or out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Once the issue of the merge was resolved, concerns raised in the review section mostly centred on coverage and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unfortunately, in the absence of the main author it is not possible to resolve the sources for the passage mentioned above, the material tagged in the article, and the other examples that can be seen through the Earwig link and by direct comparison between the article and DrKiernan (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist: Unfortunately, this doesn't meet the FA criteria at the moment. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist: if MilHist editors aren't able to resolve the concerns, we have little choice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes Minister[edit]

Notified: The JPS, Ixia, Chris 42, Bob Castle, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

Review section[edit]

This article has sourcing issues; one of sections is tagged as "original research". I tried talk page and notified people before FAR, but issues are yet to be resolved. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comments - not a huge amount of work required but definitely needs some to maintain Featured status:
the Situation section really needs some sources. It is unusual in that it combines synopsis with interpretation in the one section.
There is nothing about casting or series development.
The see also section should be incorporated into text.

anyway, good luck to whoever decides to work on it. Will take another look once done. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

The concerns raised in the review section mostly centred on sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced paragraphs and sentences, which do not appear to be self-evident. DrKiernan (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist. It's had an original research tag for 2 years! Some unsourced parts look like opinion. e.g., "This is particularly evident in the episode "The Ministerial Broadcast", in which Hacker is advised on the effects of his clothes and surroundings"; "Despite this, the overall thrust was towards government reduction rather than expansion." EddieHugh (talk) 19:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist. No one working on the issues identified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist an excellent series but inadequately referenced, far below modern FA standards. BencherliteTalk 15:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Jack Sparrow[edit]

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

Review section[edit]

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)

Delegate comment: Forbidden User , how is this going? It looks like there's still a referencing tag on one section. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section mainly deal with coverage and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The rescue attempt goes awry and Barbossa maroons Jack and Elizabeth on the same island was left on before. - pronoun left out - think it's a "he" but not sure as I forgot the plot....
One section needing sources - otherwise looks in ok shape and can be kept I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I've cleared the remaining tags. I believe this article meets criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2c and 4.
  • On 1b and 1c: in brief, the article appears to include all the pertinent available information about the character from reliable, third-party sources (since there are not very many). There are two points of concern: (1) aspects of the character from the non-film primary sources, i.e. the back-story in books and comics and games, etc., are not described. This does not seem to be a case where these tie-ins are considered "non-canon" by fans, and therefore excluded. However, since all of the back-story is from primary sources, there is a valid argument that it is all irrelevant and non-notable. (2) There might be some extra mileage from sources such as Queer Buccaneers: (de)constructing Boundaries in the Pirates of the Caribbean Film Series by Heike Steinhoff and The Handbook of Gender, Sex and Media by Karen Ross (Chapter 18: Why doesn't your compass work?), but the suspicions of movie executives that the character was too gay and the fetishistic aspects of the pirate-ship dynamic are touched on in the article, if only briefly. These brief mentions could just as easily be argued to be sufficient.
  • On 2b, yes, the tie-ins section is the difficult one. The article doesn't seem comprehensive without it and yet it is the weakest in terms of sourcing and notability. It doesn't fit seemlessly into the whole. On balance, I don't think we can do without it and I don't think it will fit better anywhere else. So, I guess it will have to remain.
  • On 3, I have some vague disquiet about using 2 fair-use images when there are images at commons, but again there are valid counter-arguments: the image of the main character should be the canonical, official image of the original character not a derivative; and the image of the character before its full development is informative of the production process. It is not entirely clear whether a sand sculpture, as a work of art, can be copyrighted. If it can be, and it was, then freedom of panorama does not apply and the photograph would be a photograph of a copyrighted work and hence not free. However, the sand sculpture is already a derivative of Disney's copyright and is clearly a transitory and impermanent creation. On balance, I think any claim of copyright is likely to be considered absurd and essentially unenforceable. So, there are insufficient grounds for removing or changing any of the images. They appear to meet criterion 3.
  • Essentially, I don't much like this article but all of the above concerns are arguable niggles. There is nothing I can point at clearly and say it does not meet the criteria on that point. I fear my concerns might be desperate excuses that are really based on prejudice against a pop culture article rather than based on the featured article criteria. Consequently, if forced to make a declaration, I will have to stomach a keep. DrKiernan (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't know if I have the stomach for the keep yet; the prose is just tortured and bounces all over the place. A good independent ce is needed; maybe Curly Turkey or Miniapolis would take on an independent copyedit. On the MOS trivials, a WP:PUNC review is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Have Tezero and Forbidden User revisited? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, ha, Curly Turkey to the rescue! Perhaps Zziccardi could also lend a hand and bring this one over the hump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't get your hopes up yet! I've gotten down to the "Characters" section and am having a bit of trouble figuring out what the text is trying to say. I've "seen" all the movies over my kids' shoulders, but I've never actually sat through one, so it's not always clear to me how I can reword things without potentially distorting the meaning. I have no idea what "This acts as part of Will Turner's arc" is supposed to mean, for instance. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Ha. Well, I couldn't make heads or tails of what most of the article was trying to say, and thought there was a secret key ... as in, maybe I shoulda seen the movie :) But your edits are improvements! You may come to wish I hadn't discovered the Power of the Pingie Thingie! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I loved to be loved. Another one I can't figure out is "he wore contacts that acted as sunglasses". The source is a video I son't have access to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
I wonder if someone can clarify "Sparrow has several gold teeth, two of which belong to Depp, although they were applied during filming." Is this supposed to mean that the two Depp actually owns are also removable? I don't know anything about gold teeth—I assumed they were shoved into the sockets of the replaced teeth...? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have now, heh. Okay, I will vote...
but would prefer the first paragraph of Tie-ins be bolstered with citations if at all possible. There are also some passages I'd rather see written differently, e.g. "This acts as part of Will Turner's arc, in which Sparrow tells him a pirate can be a good man, like his father" (whose?), "At World's End was meant to return it tonally to a character piece" (return what?), but IMO nothing worth removing FA status over. Tezero (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)