Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Reviewing featured articles
Shortcuts:

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

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

Raise issues at article Talk:

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

Featured article review (FAR)

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

Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

John Mayer[edit]

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

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

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

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

Jack Sparrow[edit]

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

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

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

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

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

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

I guess I will fix this myself. Feel free to close.Forbidden User (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism[edit]

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

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

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

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

The article in no way fails to tell the reader about significant viewpoints (as evidenced by sections 3 and 7 of the body), nor does it fail to represent a balance (again as evidenced by sections 3 and 7 of the body), nor does the lede fail to summarize important points found in the body. The article on evolution mentions ID and the "controversy", but that is not mentioned in the article's lede. Should you wish to be consistent: go edit the article on evolution and include the "controversy" in the lede. See how far you get. I'll be waiting. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Not related to any of these problems, but paragraph length is very inconsistent. Tezero (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see these problems:
    • Unreferenced statements. There are certainly more unreferenced statements than I would expect to find in a Featured article, and entire paragraphs go without any citations. They should be sourced or removed.
    • In popular culture. The "in popular culture" section is severely lacking in citations, engages in original research, and should be rewritten in prose format. This part looks like a start-class article.
    • Austrian school. I'm not 100% on the Murray Rothbard/Austrian school section. It seems like a transplant of an unrelated article into this one. What does Murray Rothbard's personal journey have to do with anarcho-capitalism? I should be able to instantly discern his importance and relevance to the topic from reading this article.
    • Neutrality. The lack of neutrality/scope does bother me, but I'm willing to cut the article a bit of slack. There's an entire article dedicated to opposition, but this article must be summarized here. The lack of a summary is not appropriate for a Featured article.
    • Edit warring. The content does not seem stable, and there is enough edit warring to have previously warranted page protection. This is inappropriate for a Featured article. If editors can't come to a consensus on the talk page, then there are significant problems with the article, the editors, or both. I'm inclined to assume good faith and say it's the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - This feels like an attempt to WP:FORUMSHOP. Binks and many of the notified editors are engaged in a long-standing and voracious content dispute. Those that feel non-AnCap views are under-represented in the article are seeking to correct what they see as an injustice (even though there are entire articles devoted to that). The long page protections periods, RFCs, and other methods haven't given them what they're after, and I have no confidence this review will either. -- Netoholic @ 22:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - The high level of controversy over the recent existence of something called "anarcho-capitalism" within an ideology like anarchism, which has been always an anti-capitalist position, clearly makes this particular position a Wikipedia:Fringe theory. The amount of controvery over this particular idea and concept is long and huge as anyone can see in the main "anarchism" article but in fact there are many outside reliable general sources on anarchism which simply deny that "anarchocapitalism" can be considered a form of anarchism[1][2][3][4][5][6]. An article with these characteristics does not deserve a feature status within wikipedia.--Eduen (talk) 04:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
References
  1. ^ "The philosophy of “anarcho-capitalism” dreamed up by the “libertarian” New Right, has nothing to do with Anarchism as known by the Anarchist movement proper."Meltzer, Albert. Anarchism: Arguments For and Against AK Press, (2000) p. 50
  2. ^ "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practising voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists." Peter Marshall. Demanding the impossible: A history of anarchism. Harper Perennial. London. 2008. p. 565
  3. ^ "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)."Saul Newman, The Politics of Postanarchism, Edinburgh University Press, 2010, p. 43 ISBN 0748634959
  4. ^ Section F – Is "anarcho"-capitalism a type of anarchism? at An Anarchist FAQ published in physical book form by An Anarchist FAQ as "Volume I"; by AK Press, Oakland/Edinburgh 2008; 558 pages, ISBN 9781902593906
  5. ^ "‘Libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’ are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for ‘anarchist’ and ‘anarchism’, largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of ‘anarchy’ and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, ‘minimal statism’ and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words ‘libertarian’ and ‘libertarianism’. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition." Anarchist seeds beneath the snow: left libertarian thought and british writers from William Morris to Colin Ward by David Goodway. Liverpool University Press. Liverpool. 2006. p. 4
  6. ^ "Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard’s claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist venders...so what remains is shrill anti-statism conjoined to a vacuous freedom in hackneyed defense of capitalism. In sum, the “anarchy” of Libertarianism reduces to a liberal fraud."Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy" by Peter Sabatini in issue #41 (Fall/Winter 1994–95) of Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed
I'm not sure fringe is relevant here. Anarcho-capitalism is a minority sport but it's definitely a notable political theory, under that name, and certainly worth an article. The FA issue relates to the quality of any such article, not its existence. N-HH talk/edits 10:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
@Netoholic: Thanks for the link. Note the passage

There is a very fine line between what is opinion and what is academic fringe. The difference is whether academic scholarship or science on the subject supports a theory or idea via the scientific method.

If I'm not mistaken, some of the proponents of this "theory" reject application of the scientific method in their study of "economics". Even if FRINGE doesn't apply directly, there are questions.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Why would there be questions? Do we use "the scientific method" to determine that 1 + 1 = 2? No, of course we don't. Science isn't solely the domain of physics, chemistry, and biology; science also encompasses the a priori, which includes mathematics, logic, and praxeology. Of course, you're free to dispute that and show that we must test repeatedly that 1 + 1 = 2, and that we're never quite sure about it. But that would be perverse and fly in the face of the nature of math. Similarly, economics is an a priori science; we do not use the methods of physics, chemistry, and biology for it. To do so would be as with doing such to math: committing a category error. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that the principles of anarcho-capitalism are axiomatic in the way that 1 + 1 = 2 is? — goethean 14:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that we test 1 + 1 = 2 each time? Just checking with you about that as well so we can see how strongly either of you hold to positivism. Now as to your question: the arguments for not having a state (which is really all anarchism is, despite the protestations of those who argue in the same way as those who argue that atheists must be communists) are all simply long chains of verbal/written reasoning which do not require testing. That is: they are true independent of experience. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking you a question. Are you saying that the principles of anarcho-capitalism are axiomatic in the way that 1 + 1 = 2 is? — goethean 22:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
I answered you already; please see the above. If you do not understand my answer, then you most likely should not be in this discussion. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
I both understand your answer evasion and understand why you refuse to answer my question—because you are afraid of making a fool of yourself. — goethean 01:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Please stop your incivility or you shall be reported. And while I do understand that you lack the education to understand my answer, that is your problem and you need to deal with it rather than lashing out with incivility. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Please do go right ahead and report me to whomever you like, as you are the one being uncivil. — goethean 15:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
No, actually anyone can see that I answered your question (you just didn't like the answer) and wasn't uncivil. But you have been put on notice that further acts of incivility from you will be reported. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
What does "shadow economy" have to do with the subject of the article?
I did't contest that the subject of the article is notable in agreeing with Eduen, just that the subject did not lend itself to the level of quality a featured article should have. I have trouble seeing that there is a coherent theory at all, but that does not mean that the subject is not a notable political theory, as N-HH states. It could be said that the state of disarray in the article reflects the status of its subject in academia, and therefore I would think it not presentable as a featured article.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The fact that there has been page protection, an RfC and ongoing edit-warring (over the brief anarchism-classification point) is evidence enough that the page should not retain FA status, as it manifestly lacks stability. Beyond that, without getting too forensic about it, it lacks structure and balance, and has more than its share of obscure sources (from all sides of the debate). We certainly need a page on this topic, but it needs to be a much better one. On a side point, the accusation of forum-shopping above is rather odd. This is a separate, broader, point from the recent dispute over a couple of sentences (about which, pace Netoholic, there is no need to forum shop as the RfC came out in favour of including them). N-HH talk/edits 08:02, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The only problem that I see is that some people who want there to be a government (I can't use the actual term because, for some reason, it's an insult. I have no idea how that word is an insult, but somehow it is. Unless, of course, someone who wants there to be a government is actually ashamed of it--then it could be. Otherwise, I can't see how it is.) are trying to marginalize anarchocapitalism wherever possible. Currently they are doing their best to violate WP:LEAD (specifically the section about undue weight) in order to do so, as well as ignoring precedent and even going so far, as in Eduen's case, to invoke the fallacy of Argument from Antiquity (for instance, he would have to believe that only Roman Catholocism is Christianity in order to be consistent, since it was the only Christianity for nigh on 1,000 years). So, as above, this is simply forumshopping on the part of those who want there to be a government so they can further attempt to marginalize anarchocapitalism. You had your chance, o ye who want there to be a government; you didn't get it done. Stop forumshopping. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment I hesitate to comment because I am currently engaged in a dispute on the article. I will say that starting the article with a non sequitur doesn't bode well. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 13:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
What non sequitur is that? Please explain. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 03:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Certainly... it's the first sentence ("Anarcho-capitalism... is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets."). The three values stated at the end do not follow from the rejection of the state, otherwise minarchists wouldn't exist. It should read instead, "... in favor of a voluntary society in which law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through compulsory taxation." — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
So where's the non sequitur? What you posted isn't a non sequitur; it logically follows. Minarchists are part of those who want there to be a government, so they reject individual sovereignty, private property, and open markets. Where's the non sequitur? - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Individual sovereignty opposes collectivism (including majoritarianism) in which the individual is subject to the collective.
  • Private property opposes collective property in which accountability is proportionately reduced as property decisions are collectivized - leading to contamination of property (see free-market environmentalism).
  • Open markets oppose dictated markets (licensing, &c) and restricted markets (licensing, taxation, &c).
It does logically follow.
Collectivism in general is the cancer that allows the state and its offspring (war, corruption, political polarization, &c). It is the mortal enemy of the sovereign individual. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment As I understand it, the issue about whether one likes or dislikes a topic is not relevant to this discussion -- that is, if one personally considers a topic to be "fringe" does not prevent an article on a fringe topic from being a featured article. We can discuss the accuracy of its presentation of a topic, but the primary criteria are the clarity of the article, style of the article, completeness of discussion of the stated topic of the article, and use of NPOV claims and wording within the article, but not just "the topic is wrong" or the like. In fact, AFAIK, we have "featured articles" on individual video games which most people would aver are individually of quite ephemeral value. Collect (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
The point that was made above is that the very title of the article is seen by many to be something of an oxymoron, so Wikipedia giving it "featured" status would indirectly lend credibility to the so-called theory. The so-called theory could be covered under another topic along the lines that some have suggested above (e.g., Roth. It's not about whether or not one likes "anarcho-capitalism" or anarchism, for that matter.
The fact that the so-called theory is also, according to the lead,

(referred to as free-market anarchism, market anarchism, private-property anarchism, libertarian anarchism)

says something about its historical/contextual specificity (or lack thereof). There is also another list that tries to encapsulate the "theory"

anti-state capitalism, anti-state marketism, capitalist anarchism, market anarchism, free market anarchism, individualist anarchism, natural order, ordered anarchy, polycentric law, the private-law society, private-property anarchy, pure capitalism, radical capitalism, stateless capitalism, stateless liberalism, voluntaryism

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
And that point is not relevant to the criteria stated for a "featured article" here, as far as I can tell, else we would disallow articles on any controversial topic from ever being "featured articles." If we were to change the stated criteria to include "must be about the truth" then I fear we might have no "featured articles" at all. Cheers -- the goal is to meet the actual stated criteria for featured articles, not to add a new one. Collect (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment - I recently closed an RFC concerning this article. (Does that make me WP:INVOLVED?) There has since been a complaint at WP:ANI that another editor is editing against the weak consensus resulting from the RFC. There is therefore, as I understand, a Neutral dispute about the article. The usual method of resolving neutrality of an article is an RFC, but that can't be achieved if there is editing against consensus. I will look at the current state of the article in more detail in the morning, but I don't think that an article should be on a track to FA if there is a neutrality issue (even if it is a crabbed neutrality issue). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Kudos to those editors who have contributed to an outstanding article over the years which has, I believe, improved considerably since it was awarded Featured Article status. It is even more worthy of the title today than it was at the time it was received, and exceeds the standards necessary to maintain featured article status. It would appear, however, that some editors would like to not only remove its featured article status, but have no intention of maintaining said status - in the hope of marginalizing and demonizing the movement in general. I am convinced that said editors would not even be satisfied if the article were reverted in its entirety to the version on the date of the award.
  • Comprehensive. The article covers the full gamut of the anarcho-capitalist movement, noting major proponents of the movement, and exploring the anarcho-capitalist philosophy in detail. While another paragraph or two could mention the role of Walter Block, and the recent coming-out of Lew Rockwell, such additions to the article are a simple matter, and have little bearing on featured article status.
  • Neutral. Dissenting viewpoints are discussed in the article satisfactorily where, and to the extent, appropriate to avoid slanting the article in one direction or another away from a clear understanding of the topic of anarcho-capitalism.
  • Lede. The first three paragraphs define anarcho-capitalism concisely and in a manner that does not jeopardize neutrality or "settle the argument" prematurely.
  • Accurate. No information in the article is currently incorrect or misleading, and everything is documented to the greatest extent possible.
  • Clear and understandable. Anarcho-capitalism is a very readable article, and does not muddy the facts concerning this antipolitical movement. An additional graphic of the Nolan Chart would help to visually clarify the anCap position.
  • Consistent. The article does not suffer from any contradictions or inconsistencies.
  • Stable. Other than the two-month old dispute regarding insertion of a POV in the lede, this article has been incredibly stable over the years for a highly debated topic.
JLMadrigal (talk) 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comprehensive? Adding Walter Block and Lew Rockwell is a step in the right direction, but you missed prominent ancaps Doug Casey and J. Orlin Grabbe among others. I'd like to see ancap Laissez Faire City mentioned, since it redirects to List of anarchist communities and vanishes, never listed or discussed. Wolf DeVoon (talk) 21:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Doug Casey? I agree that Mr. Casey should be mentioned, since he has devised an anarcho-capitalist plan for the selling-off of Haiti to its citizens.
  • J. Orlin Grabbe? I'm not familiar with his work. Where does he fit into anarcho-capitalism? JLMadrigal (talk) 11:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Neutral? I finally figured out why there's no consensus, edit warring, no real likelihood of reconciliation. Anarcho-capitalism doesn't belong under parent Anarchism. It's a species of Libertarianism. We should listen to and agree with the anarchist editors, who protest that they don't recognize ancap as part of their bailiwick; they've gone out of their way to disavow it, deem it a WP:FRINGE theory, whack it from FA. Okay, give them what they want. Move Anarcho-capitalism to its natural parent, Libertarianism. Why tolerate continual punishment of an innocent child by abusive, resentful enemies? Wolf DeVoon (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not that simple, Wolf. Anarchism and Libertarianism are intertwined. Modern American libertarianism has largely disavowed leftism, and anarcho-capitalism has disavowed the European brand of anarchism - but not anarchism per se. JLMadrigal (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
If Anarchism owns Libertarianism, I think I'll just go quietly, officer. Wolf DeVoon (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • The section called "Historical precedents similar to anarcho-capitalism" is a rabbit hole of imagination gone wild. Authors who are friendly to the benefits of libertarianism and capitalist freedom write about four places where modern an-cap adherents have said there was an-cap-like practices. The problem is that normal, non-an-cap books about these four places do not reinforce these ideas—in fact they don't mention them at all. For instance, a book about legal and extralegal activities in the American West, Law and Order in Buffalo Bill's Country: Legal Culture and Community on the Great Plains, 1867-1910, written by Historian Mark R. Ellis of the University of Nebraska, agrees with an-cap descriptions that the Wild West was not so lawless as it is depicted in popular media. But Ellis says that the better-than-expected behavior of the pioneers was because they were setting up the same government that they had previously known, that this was boot-strapping construction of a state which would match everything they were familiar with. There is no mention of anarcho-capitalism in the Ellis book; none at all. The other three subsections have the same problem, such that normal histories of Ancient Europe, Medieval Iceland and Early Pennsylvania have little to say about proto-an-cap practices. The whole section is navel-gazing at its finest. I think the section should be deleted in its entirety. Binksternet (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I think you inadvertently forgot to add Thomas Hobbes to that list.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
The original version of the article upon receipt of featured article status included the section under the title "Anarcho-capitalism in the real world". So it would be remiss to omit it from the article. JLMadrigal (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
The section you indicate talked about Somalia and Iceland. The current section ditches Somalia (why is that?) and it talks instead about Ancient Europe, Iceland, the American "Wild" West, and something vague about Pennsylvania. Despite the existence of the section in previous versions, it is still too far removed from mainstream scholarship to be included in a Featured Article. It is self-serving. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
If I recall, Somalia was omitted in order to fit in better with the newer section title (since the examples of anarcho-capitalism in Somalia are not "historical" but current. The title change was an improvement because the examples listed were not a pure form of anCap. They could be added back in (and I believe that discussion of anCap phenomena in Somalia is notable enough to be reintroduced) if a different title is used for the section (or another section is added). Its current omission, however, does not make the article any less deserving of Featured Article status, since it is only one example cited by anCaps. JLMadrigal (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "something vague about Pennsylvania", Rothbard's excellent four-volume work, "Conceived in Liberty" demonstrates in detail the struggle for independence from both Great Britain and power-hungry politicians at the local and state levels in pre-confederation America, bolstering his position regarding the political-economic fundamentals of anarcho-capitalism. Pennsylvania, in particular, details relevant aspects of this struggle against the state. JLMadrigal (talk) 11:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree. The section on Rome bears some resemblance to a particular feature of an-cap (private armies/defense forces), but the notion that this was an actual real-world expression of an-cap is misguided synthesis (especially because this was an explicitly state-sanctioned practice). And to the extent that the practice was successful in part because some citizens apparently paid higher-than-required liturgies in part to buy better judicial outcomes for themselves, that doesn't exactly sound like a pragmatic recommendation for an-cap. Regardless of whether it militates in favor of an-cap, though, the section's inclusion in the article suggests that the article is not sufficiently well-researched to remain a featured article. Dyrnych (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Deny FA and GA status - The article is currently fully page-protected to prevent edit-warring in the lede over the sentence that anarcho-capitalism is not normally considered a form of anarchism. The inclusion of that sentence was approved by a weak consensus on an RFC, but at least one editor did not consider the weak consensus to be a sufficient consensus. An article that has to be locked due to edit-warring (or which has active edit-warring, which this one would, if not locked) is not, in my opinion, a Good Article, let alone of Featured Article quality. The edit-warriors who are bent to slant the lede to their concepts are, in my opinion, preventing any effort to retain the status of the article. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
It bears repeating here that the RFC was closed with a weak consensus to include early mention regarding the distinction between traditional anarchists and anCaps. As a result, a new paragraph was included in the lede which clarified the distinction. Furthermore, the new compromise paragraph is neutral on the question of which version of anarchism is "correct" or "valid".
Further discussion occurs in the body of the article, regarding the differences of opinion among self-identifying anarchists (which does not need to be expanded further according to the results of the RFC). JLMadrigal (talk) 02:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
As I understand it, the issue is that there is dispute among anarchists as to whether anarcho-capitalism is actually anarchism. That seems like a very different matter than clarifying a distinction between other types of anarchism and an-cap, since that's still functionally defining an-cap as anarchism without noting that its categorization as anarchism is in dispute. Isn't it somewhat problematic that the debate over a basic topical categorization is noted in the body of the article but impliedly contradicted by the lead? Dyrnych (talk) 20:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no contradiction, Dyrnych. The lede, as written, briefly defines anCap and shows how it differs from other similar schools. A further explanation of the other schools - including their respective POVs and how they differ from anCap - is explored in the body of the article. JLMadrigal (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
As you say, the lead "briefly defines anCap and shows how it differs from other similar schools." But the implication in the lead is that, as a type of anarchism, it is distinct from minarchism (in that minarchists advocate for a state) and from other types of anarchism. This still places an-cap firmly in the realm of anarchism when it appears that there's substantial debate as to whether it is in fact anarchism. The problem is that this seems to present the issue from the an-cap POV rather than a neutral POV, which would acknowledge that the debate exists without weighing in on the merits. And that raises some concerns about the article's status as a feature article. Dyrnych (talk) 16:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Dyrnych, that is exactly the subject of the current dispute, for which I am still awaiting resolution at the NPOV Noticeboards—"[The lead] should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." (WP:LEAD, emphasis added) — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Which still makes one wonder the reason that "the controversy" is not once mentioned in the lede for the article on evolution. After all: it's been prominent enough for court cases, right? One would think that the lede should mention it, given the aforementioned "including any prominent controversies". So I still wait for MisterDub, et al. to visit that article and rectify that. Strangely enough: they have not yet done so. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure that there's been ample discussion of what weight to give controversies over evolution. The fact that it's not controversial as science (except on the fringe) and is only controversial in society probably has a great deal to do with the lack of mention in the lead. If there were controversy in the scientific community as to the validity of the theory, there would be a very strong argument for including that controversy in the lead (see, e.g., String theory, the Unified neutral theory of biodiversity, or theories about Race and intelligence). I'm not going to delve into the history of the evolution article to see precisely why the lead doesn't mention controversies, but I will note that there's a substantial difference between a section in the lead noting a controversy over the merits of a theory and a section in the lead noting a controversy over the classification of a philosophy. Dyrnych (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Undue weight is certainly part of it--you're right. Which is the reason there should be no mention of the "controversy" (which really only exists in the minds of a few who are trying to marginalize anarchocapitalism) in the anarchocapitalism lede as well. Further, there's no difference between noting the controversy over the merits of a theory and that in philosophy with respect to the lede--at least if you go by what some of the others here are saying. I'm just trying to hold them to a consistent position and see where it leads. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
While the issue of which form of "anarchism" is truly "anarchist" will not be resolved in this discussion (since there are a wide variety of views on that matter), that is not the purpose of this discussion nor the subject of the article. The quality of the article is not any lower because it does not cater or submit to the left-anarchist viewpoint. That would be the topic of left-anarchism. JLMadrigal (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately, those who wish this article never existed do not agree. They will do anything to silence those with whom they disagree. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Knight of BAAWA, Dyrnych is correct that the reason Evolution does not mention a controversy is because there isn't one amongst scientists. To include such information would be giving undue weight to a fringe theory. By contrast, Creationism, Creation science, and Intelligent design all demonstrate that they are minor positions within the relevant community. I have to say, you chose an incredibly apt analogy for the current dispute. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
And mentioning what you and the others like you want is also undue weight as per WP:LEAD. As for the analogy--yes it is apt because only the fringe in anarchism even thinks about it. So clearly: mentioning it in the lede would be giving undue weight to a fringe position. Oh--you didn't think I could turn that around, did you? But I did. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Feel free to mosey on over to the Anarchism article or read the reliable, secondary sources on anarchism to discover which position is actually fringe. — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh I have, but those who seek to marginalize anarchocapitalism are still fringe. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 00:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Just something to note--and in no way is this meant to be an argument--is that both Goethean [[1]] and Ubikwit [[2]] were topic-banned from anything to do with the Tea Party for essentially pulling the same sort of stuff being tried on the anarchocapitalism article. Again: this is not meant to be an argument; this is merely a statement of fact. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it's definitely not an argument, while being reduced to mud-slinging would tend to indicate that you feel you've lost "the argument".
What exactly are you referring to by "the same sort of stuff being tried on the anarchocapitalism article"?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 00:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Pointing out a relevant fact is now mud-slinging? Ooooo-kay. Guess I missed that note where pointing out relevant facts is mud-slinging. Or is it only mud-slinging when it involves you? And by "the same sort of stuff", I mean "the same sort of stuff". You know what you did; you were topic-banned for it, remember? I cited the decision. And it is certainly relevant here to take into consideration when seeing if both you and Goethean are making your claims in good faith or not. People do check past behavior, you know. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the inarticulate reply, it's about what I expected based on the original post.
If you can't explain what is supposed to be relevant about the material in your post, other than repeating the question and saying, "Ooooo-kay", then maybe you should think twice before putting your foot in your mouth.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your incivility--and for your concession that pointing out relevant facts is not mudslinging. Further incidents of incivility from you will be reported to the administrators. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism is not presented as a "form of anarchism" in the lede. It would be premature to commence (much less settle) that argument before it is presented. JLMadrigal (talk) 10:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

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

Planetary nebula[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Ruslik0, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics

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

  • Comment – To give a specific example, the origins section is almost entirely based on one source from 20 years ago. There have been a number of publications since then discussing PNe origins, and though I don't have time to look through them personally, I would assume they contain information which should be in the article. i.e. [3] [4] Sam Walton (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section mostly focused on referencing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist – I'm seeing a multitude of unsourced statements in the article that aren't of the WP:BLUE variety. That along with the multitude of other problems brought up by Ariane and Sam makes me !vote to delist, unfortunately. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep – I don't see any major problem with the sourcing. The references appear to be reliable, as far as Wikipedia standards go. They might be outdated, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the article contains false information. If the content needs to be updated, it can be done without losing the FA status.--Retrohead (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Midtown Madness[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Video games

Review commentary[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

I split the first paragraph in "Reception" into two. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midtown_Madness&diff=607592381&oldid=607232307 }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 06:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Made a GoCE request to copyedit this article. See diffs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors%2FRequests&diff=607728388&oldid=607726942 }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 04:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I would like to thank @Jaytwist: for copyediting Midtown Madness. I'm happy! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
I took down my Midtown Madness GoCE request. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Some improvements were made in the review section but the review seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per my yet-unaddressed concerns. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist Tezero's concerns are valid, and since the main contributor hasn't been active in a while, I'll have to concur with him.--Retrohead (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep Thank you for the update JimmyBlackwing, I withdrawn my vote.--Retrohead (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I think Gameplay still needs some more detail. Reception is looking much better, though. Tezero (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Review commentary[edit]

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

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

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

FARC commentary[edit]

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

Manila Metro Rail Transit System[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Sky Harbor, WikiProject Trains

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FARC commentary[edit]

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

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

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

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

No concerns, as far as I can see. Of course, one may need to look over it yet again, as there may be some more errors that still stand. Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The "stations, facilities, and amenities" section still has no sources, so as far as I'm concerned, this still is yet to meet FA status. I haven't gotten to look over all of the sections, but that section alone gives me reason to have lingering concerns. Sportsguy17 (TC) 19:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
That section now has one source, thanks, and I'm adding sources in as I find them. In that case, I had to dig through the LRT's citations. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist mainly because the article lacks references and has that disturbing "needs additional citations for verification" template, which shouldn't be present at featured articles.--Retrohead (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Delist per Retrohead. Also, there are some short paragraphs, the lead doesn't adequately summarize the article (very little about History and Plans), and two citations are unformatted. This could theoretically be fixed before this FARC goes through, in which case please ping me, but as it stands I'm not comfortable with this remaining an FA, as much hard work went into it years ago. Tezero (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Greetings from 30,000 feet! I'm currently taking advantage of a long flight to work on this, so allow me to give some updates, which may be of particular interest to Tezero, but others I think would like to keep track of progress as well. I started rewriting the safety and security section, merging some paragraphs and updating information. I also began sourcing statements that need sources, particularly in the station layout section. Contingent on how my computer keeps up (and/or my phone), I may be able to work on the lead as well tonight. (And as always, again, I would really appreciate you guys getting your hands dirty as well. Thanks.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
      • Lead paragraph has been rewritten to summarize the article more accurately. --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • CommentNikkimaria and Sky Harbor, I think that nine months were more than enough for the issues to be addressed. It is really bewildering how an article with this obvious lack of sources can still be an FA. Two editors opined that the article doesn't fulfill the criteria in the review commentary, and two more have declared the article to be demoted in the FARC. The page has serious flaws: linking words like "mass media" and "public holiday", bad organization, inconsistent cite formatting, and occasional prose issues. I'd like the topic to be featured, but the progress is advancing too slowly, and mostly ineffective.--Retrohead (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Hi Retrohead. I understand your frustration at the length of time this review has been open. Generally our goal is to retain FAs if possible, and to that end we often allow extra time when there is someone who is or who has indicated he/she will be working to address concerns raised. If you would like the topic to be featured, as you indicate, you are of course welcome to jump in and help to increase the pace of progress.
  • That being said, Sky Harbor, if the problems remain serious it may be more productive to delist the article now and allow you as much time as you need to improve it and return to FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)