Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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—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]

Alpha Phi Alpha[edit]

Notified: :Notified: Ccson, WP African diaspora, WP Fraternities and Sororities, WP Cornell
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notification from March 10. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rabindranath Tagore[edit]

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

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)

1996 United States campaign finance controversy[edit]

Notified: Main contributor retired since 2008, WP USA, WP Politics
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion which no longer meets standards, as explained on talk in December 2014. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Flag of Mexico[edit]

Notified: Zscout370 (retired), WP Heraldry and vexillology, WP Mexico
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that no longer meets standards: see talk page notification from Feb 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Roman Vishniac[edit]

Notified: WP:History of photography, nominator long gone and no one else to notify
URFA nom

This is a 2006 promotion that no longer meets standards: see talk page notice from Feb 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)‎

Kid A[edit]

Notified: WikiProjects Albums and Alternative music

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)

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.

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)

Plano Senior High School[edit]

Notified: Scm83x, WP Dallas Fort Worth, ‎ WP Schools‎
URFA nom
Talk page notified Dec 2014

Review commentary[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has taken on some united text, but more importantly, has not been updated. Many of the statements date to five years or more, and some of the statements have no "as of" date. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In a cursory look, I found the following:

  • Historical dollar figures are explicitly converted to 2005 dollars, which is not very useful in 2015.
  • "Plano offers 31 Advanced Placement courses, which is all of the 34 courses possible" - A quick search shows this is no longer true: there are 37 possible, and Plano offers 29.
  • "Plano administers more Advanced Placement tests each year than any other school west of the Mississippi River and all but one school in the United States." - Our article Edinburg North High School makes the same claim (verbatim!), and cites the same source. I cannot verify either. On further review, it seems that the Edinburg article was created via copy/paste from Plano, and still (6 years later!) is full of garbage 'facts'—I guess I know what I'm doing next.
  • 2007 SAT score averages are somewhat useless given the changes in the scoring rubric. 2014 scores are available.
  • There are bare urls and otherwise incomplete citations, as well as 6 deadlinks.

Significant work is needed to bring this up to date and up to current standards. Maralia (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include referencing and datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I e-mailed the original article creator. Will that be like a Bat Signal for him? I hope he springs to the rescue like Superman! WhisperToMe (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Aldol reaction[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Chemistry

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, I think this article doesn't fit the criteria anymore. There's a lot paragraphs or sentence need additional footnotes, I list some problems at talk page 2 weeks before, but still didn't saw anything happen. Consider this article are already been featured for more than 8 years, I think is time to have a good review here. FAC nominator was not active since early June 2007.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: Obviously written by a knowledgeable editor, but woefully lacking citations and reads very much like it was written closely from a textbook. Needs a lot of attention from a subject matter expert. --Laser brain (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: On a quick skim, I don't see anything in here up to the modern methods section that couldn't be cited to a good textbook on the subject. All the specific numbers, selectivities, etc. in the images might be a challenge. The tone of the prose is a little overly didactic but I think that wasn't uncommon in technical articles at the time this was promoted; I wrote most of (since-defeatured) sequence alignment around then and it took a similar approach. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review mostly concerned referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Planetary habitability[edit]

User:Marskell inactive. Notified: WikiProjects Spaceflight and Astronomy
WP:URFA nomination

Review section[edit]

As noted on the talk page, there is uncited text throughout the article. Promoted in 2005, it is one of the oldest unreviewed featured articles. DrKiernan (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this would take a lot of work to bring up to current standards especially wrt verifiability. The templated table in the lead—{{Wpspace}}—is a true relic: we don't link to WikiProject space from articlespace (and it's a defunct WikiProject, at that). Maralia (talk) 02:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Despite the odd name, that's not a Wikiproject link. It's the name of that space colonization navbox template. That said, there's a lot of work to do here. There's substantial tracts of uncited text, and while some material has been updated as the science in this field advances, it's clear that it has been an uneven process, and a lot of relatively recent scholarship hasn't made its way here. The minimal coverage given to subsurface ocean environments (Enceladus, Europa) really highlights how much this landscape has changed in the last 10 years. I think it's possible to salvage this, but it'll need some dedicated work by editors both familiar with the required source material and with easy access to it (I'm likely neither for this one). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually it did link to a WikiProject—someone just fixed that before you got there. In any case, your point about Enceladus is a good one; there is substantial work needed to bring this up to date. Maralia (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include referencing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 21 March 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)

History of the Grand Canyon area[edit]

Notified: Mav, Vsmith, WikiProject United States
WP:URFA nomination

Review commentary[edit]

As noted on the talk page, this article is currently the oldest FA promotion listed at Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles and there are statements, using potential weasel words or quoting statistics, that should be cited. These are:

  1. "The Havasupai and Hualapai are descended from the Cerbat and still live in the immediate area. The village of Supai in the western part of the current park has been occupied for centuries."
  2. "The group was led by Hopi guides and, assuming they took the most likely route, must have reached the canyon at the South Rim, probably between today's Desert View and Moran Point."
  3. "His report of an impassable barrier forestalled further visitation to the area for two hundred years."
  4. "although there is little supporting documentation."
  5. "that group successfully ran most of the canyon"
  6. "Both the Powell and Dutton expeditions helped to increase interest in the canyon and surrounding region"
  7. "Competition with the automobile forced the Santa Fe Railroad to cease operation of the Grand Canyon Railway in 1968 (only three passengers were on the last run). The railway was restored and service reintroduced in 1989, and it has since carried hundreds of passengers a day. Trains remained the preferred way to travel to the canyon until they were surpassed by the auto in the 1930s. By the early 1990s more than a million automobiles per year visited the park."
  8. "only to sell it nine years later in order to start a long career as a Grand Canyon guide"
  9. "The tourist flights over the canyon have also created a noise problem, so the number of flights over the park has been restricted."

There has been some attempt to add citations[2], but on conducting a spot check of one of these, I was unable to verify the article content[3]. DrKiernan (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

The review section mostly concerned sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unresolved issues detailed in the review section. DrKiernan (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, unfortunately ... is Mav gone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Mav edits only in spurts for several years now. I would hate to see one of the earliest Wikipedians leave but things change for us all. His work was my inspiration and if I had time I might make a great effort of this article and maybe someday I or others will but at this time maybe best to delist.--MONGO 04:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Local Government Commission for England (1992)[edit]

Notified: Morwen, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because, while it is well-written and fairly comprehensive, it was awarded FA status back in November 2006, when standards here at Wikipedia were very different for GA and FA entries. In its current state, this page has various chunks of text, some of them fairly major, which are simply un-referenced, and that is not acceptable for an FA. I have raised this issue over at the article's talk page with the editor who first pulled this article up to FA, and on the basis of that discussion I felt that the next step was FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Main concern: Verifiability. DrKiernan (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Midnightblueowl, where you planning to follow and keep the page updated here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:46, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi @SandyGeorgia: I was thinking that this article should probably be delisted, but was waiting to see if anyone else agreed or disagreed. Apologies if I've made a mistake somewhere in dealing with this; it is the first time that I have initiated a FAR. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Rush (band)[edit]

Notified: Wisdom89, BorgHunter, Fnlayson, WP Rock music, WP Canadian music
URFA nom
Talk page notified Jan 2015

Review section[edit]

This is a 2006 FA that has taken on uncited text and some MOS issues, and a prose tuneup might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, unfortunately. hard to believe there's not a soul out there interested in fixing it up. --Laser brain (talk) 15:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Main concern: verifiability. Some MoS and prose tuning needed. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, no progress or interest. --Laser brain (talk) 17:56, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm working on some other articles currently, but just noticed this was in FARC and think it's a shame considering this is, well, the greatest rock band of all time. It looks like there are some citation needed and broken link issues in addition to the issues identified above, but hopefully I can find some time to improve it. I'm not sure if I'll prevent a delist, but hopefully it can at least work its way back up shortly. Tonystewart14 (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Please keep this page posted on your progress; if you are able to attempt a save, I will list other issues as your time permits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Will do. I made a few minor edits for Canadian English, and will work on broken links next. Tonystewart14 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
A week, two edits from Tonystewart14, no other progress-- delist stands. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. I don't have quite enough time to make it 100% of the way back to FA in such a short time, but I will likely fix it up and bring it to peer review in a few months before another FAC. Tonystewart14 (talk) 14:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Marian Rejewski[edit]

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

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 ([4], [5]), 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)