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

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]

Paulins Kill[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Rivers, WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject Geology

Before I started editing Paulins Kill, there were multiple unsourced paragraphs and sentences. Digging deeper in just half the article, I've tagged multiple cited paragraphs as original research or verification needed. Since this subject matter is outside my scope, please check my work.

This article's major contributions was the result of User:ExplorerCDT, then later one or more of his sockpuppets. Paulins Kill is listed on User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup as a possible WP:CCI. I've added numerous URLs to "Books and printed materials" to aid in this review. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note: This FAR was previously put on hold to give editors some time to try addressing issues raised above and on the article's talk page. (While it was on hold, I performed a copyedit and rewrote/re-sourced the Watershed section, so I am recused on this one.) Outstanding concerns at the moment include potential copyright issues mentioned above (although none have been identified thus far), and the verifiability of the Early settlement section, where page numbers were not provided in many book citations. Maralia (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

On talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

New Jersey Devils[edit]

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

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)

Pedro I of Brazil[edit]

Notified: Lecen, DrKiernan, Astynax (original nominators)

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

A featured article cannot actively mislead its audience, in any way.

If we're going to use historic artworks to show him, we need to use as accurate as possible copies of those artworks, as they, in themselves, become part of the story of the person. File:Unidentfied artist - Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg is by the Google Art Project, who are noted for taking great care in getting colour balances accurate. File:Anônimo - D. Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG is a random, low-quality image off a random internet site. lies about its source, and post-hoc mangles the colours.

However, the group who originally nominated it are literally edit warring to keep the bad-quality, inaccurate depiction of the painting in the article, and claiming that the historic painting is a racist depiction that has to be digitally modified to be a better representation of him. " There have been attempts in populist revisionism to adjust portrayals of fair-featured popular leaders to make them look more like the general populations of today." [2]; "He was white, you ignorant racist" [3] - the image is from c. 1835, so roughly contemporaneous with Pedro I, who died in 1834; hard to say if it's posthumous or not.

Wikipedia should not be in the position of actively misrepresenting its subjects. This includes major, important historic documents about them - and a painting is a document. It might be inaccurate. In fact, it's a painting; I'm sure it's inaccurate in many ways. But one can't make up conspiracy theories ("populist revisionism"; etc.) or claim that the reliable source (the Google Art Project) is wrong purely because of said conspiracy theories.

To quote our article on the Google Art Project:

As I said, highly reliable source.

We can't have misrepresentation in a featured article, and that includes changing historical documents. I don't think we need to delist it, but we cannot let the situation stand: Either the image needs to go completely, either the image needs changed to the reliably sourced version, or proof needs to be provided that it's not a reliable source, despite it's very good reputation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't understand anything you just said. Really. You opened a FAR because you didn't like a painting in an article? This painting? --Lecen (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Conspiracy theories aside, the purpose of using images in an article is, according to policy "to increase the reader's understanding of the subject." This article is not about a painting, but about a historical figure who reliable sources report was fair-skinned with brown hair (as the other images in the article show). The oversaturated, contrasty image which was introduced made him look like he had black hair with tan skin and garishly colored decorations. Though condition and variations of these official portraits may be at fault, the image proposed makes his dark blue tunic look black and the background a foreboding brownish tone. Official portraits were made by the dozen from the same archetype, and Google's Art Project itself hosts at least 2 knockoffs of this model. When the size is reduced for display in the article, the distortions in hair and saturation are worsened. Some images on Wikipedia are heavily color corrected, some are entirely the original artwork of editors, but the goal is the same: to illustrate the article. As I attempted to explain on the article talk, the proposed image is even more different than how Pedro I is described in the article's text. • Astynax talk 08:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Close without FARC. This dispute is over which of two images should be used as the main image. The two images are in fact identical apart from the resolution (which is high in both cases but slightly higher in the "darker" version) and color balance. The color balance in the "lighter" version was, originally, identical to that in the "darker" version (see previous versions of the file for confirmation) but the yellow tones have since been reduced. It is this reduction in the yellow tones that Adam objects to on the grounds that the subsequent tone, particularly of Pedro's skin, is unverifiable.

In my personal experience, old artworks tend to yellow with age, and so the tones in old artworks are often now not those that were originally painted. I also note the contemporary description of Pedro quoted in the article: 'After "years under a tropical sun, his complexion was still light, his cheeks rosy".' I also note that the reduction of yellow tones has been applied consistently over the entire artwork, and by doing so the tones of the braiding and ribbon look, to my eyes, more natural. They do not look too blue or unnatural to me. Also, it is unlikely that the skin tone of someone descended exclusively from European royalty 200 years ago is any different from the skin tone of someone descended exclusively from European royalty today, and so it is not rational to suppose that Pedro's skin tone would be darker than that of royalty today, or indeed other royalty of the time.

Consequently, on the balance of the written evidence that Pedro had light rather than olive skin, the propensity of older artworks to darken and yellow with age, and the comparison between the skin tone of the manipulated image and that of other comparable people, I do not feel that the digital manipulation of the image (reducing yellow tone) has damaged the artwork or rendered it misleading or significantly altered the image from what was originally intended by the artist. DrKiernan (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't just change paintings on a whim! That's basically the opposite of good practice. That's terrible, and, frankly, given the results, whoever modified the image clearly has no idea what they're doing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
You say google art project "are noted for taking great care". Now the google file purports to be the copy of this picture that hangs in the Pinacoteca in São Paulo. Look at this painting actually hanging on the wall in the gallery: [4][5][6][7]. Still think the google color balance is more accurate than the other file? I don't. It's no more or less reliable than any other internet source. You claim that the current lead image is a "random, low-quality image off a random internet site" but it is the exact same file as the google file. Look at the google file and the original unmodified other file side by side at the same resolution. They're identical. DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
'Your argument is that because uncolourbalanced snapshots look different, and very different from each other, they should be considered more accurate. That's mind-boggingly stupid, and basically shows you have no clue what you are talking about. Seriously, cheap personal cameras don't have any colour fidelity. Take a photograph of a picture you own without flash and compare it to the original image. Though that you think that the other three photographs are the same means that you probably aren't going to see a difference... Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
No, my argument is not that. Read my argument again. And don't call editors, or their arguments, stupid. DrKiernan (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Expanded. And the argument is completely ignorant, there's no point engaging with and argument that only works from incompetence. I'm sure you have many fields that you're competent in, but you're so far from even beginning to get to competence to judge images if you're making the argument you're making... Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Your continued insults and misrepresentation of my opinion just makes your own arguments look weaker. DrKiernan (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, my apologies: I presumed that the editor had actually used the source he said he did, which is the one given in the description, instead of replacing it with a Google Art Project image then mangling that. I was presuming that the source was [8] - the first upload - which would have meant the editor had some competence Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Even if the painting is a issue I don't see why this is necessary. At worst we would need to remove the painting (Not calling for that) and doing that would not negatively effect the article to a point where it should no longer be featured.-- (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note: If the nomination continues, it needs to be listed at WP:FAR (see step 5 of instructions).

Notifying @WP:FAR coordinators: , as I am not sure, that all of them are aware of this nomination yet, as the main page shows no update. GermanJoe (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Coord comment: as far as I can tell the issue wrt FA status was raised only 2 days ago (please correct me if I've missed an earlier discussion), so if this FAR is to go forward it would be on hold for at least a few more days as the talk-page step continues. However, if the review concerns solely which image should be used and no other WIAFA problems, I wonder if an RFC might not be a more productive approach than an FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree that an RfC on the image is the appropriate course. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but given the claims of racism being thrown out willy-nilly by one of the article's FA nominators, it would need to be a very carefully monitored RFC. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Also note: The nominator for this FAR is running a concurrent request for deletion at Wikimedia for the image being used in the article. Considering that the image is being discussed in at least 2 more appropriate places, further discussion here of an issue that has nothing to do with FA criteria is unwarranted. • Astynax talk 19:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't see that this is necessarily relevant to meeting the FA criteria. I get the concern about not altering works of art. However, Google Art also has this image of Queluz National Palace's copy of the painting, which is similar in coloration to the lighter of the two being argued over. You can see a comparison of the two Google Art images here. Either the Queluz copy of the painting is poorly done/very deteriorated, or Google Art has done a terrible job of capturing it—and I think either conclusion is relevant here, as it means either (1) at least one copy of the painting truly is quite light, or (2) Google Art image quality is not beyond reproach. Maralia (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

FAR is not dispute resolution, and the issues raised here are not sufficient for removal of FA status. Close review, and raise issues in appropriate forums, or run an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Vivien Leigh[edit]

Notified: WP BIO, WP Women's History, WP England, WP Theatre

Deficiencies (mainly uncited text) noted on talk several weeks ago; no progress. Main contributor hasn't edited for three years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Sandy, I am awaiting delivery of one of her biographies (through WP:McFarland), and I have a certain amount of info on Leigh from a recent Laurence Olivier re-write with Tim riley (currently at PR, prior to an FAC visit). If you can hold off pulling the trigger on this one, I should be in a position to fill in any citation gaps and give the article a quick spruce up, bringing her up to 2015 standards. Is that possible? (I have no idea on how long the McFarland process will take: it's a new process, so we're feeling our way into it, so I understand if the delisting comes before the book delivery. – SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Bzuk has also been working on it, and it is looking like a save. FAR is a deliberative process for that reason, and if progress is being made or expected, we can wait ... please keep the page posted on your timing, but it's looking good! See my talk page queries on reliable sources ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Close without FARC: I am satisfied with the progress here, and although there has been a talk kerfuffle about the infobox, I believe that can be resolved through normal discussion and DR. The article is good enough now to avoid demotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 30 January 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)

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)


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

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

  1. Quickly scanning the article I immediately noted the "Happiness" section. Supported by a single original study. There needs to be done something with this. Removed? Personally I would also like to see a critical eye "Functional imaging studies have shown cerebellar activation in relation to language, attention, and mental imagery". Given the methodological problems with fMRI I am personally sceptic, although I am not really into the subject. Interestingly the idea of non-motor function of cerebellum goes further back the human neuroimaging [9] and G. G. Berntsonfnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I had the exact same thought about the happiness section, in fact I almost removed it straight off, but when I checked for references there seems to be other work in the area of emotional function. I'd like to investigate how the topic is treated in reviews. If it is notable, then it ought to be better integrated into the article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I have removed the "Happiness" section, which somehow slipped in while I wasn't watching. Regarding functional imaging, the statements in the article are massively supported by literature. I too am skeptical about their significance, but the fact is that this stuff has received enormous attention, to such a degree that leaving it out would misrepresent the literature. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  2. Isn't the article too human-centric? Cetacean sh/could be mentioned. [10]. — fnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I don't think the article is too human-centric. I suppose it would be possible to split off some material into a human cerebellum article, but that doesn't strike me as a good thing overall. Lots of our readers are specifically interested in humans. Regarding cetaceans, I don't know anything about their cerebellum, but if there are facts that are important enough to belong in the article, I encourage you to add them. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    One thing that we have done in a number of other anatomical articles is split content into the main article, focusing on the human cerebellum, and then include an 'other animals' section as is done here (this is also part of the manual of style entry). This structure is particularly useful when the majority of sources and studies used are focused on the human structure, when users expect to read about the human structure in the main article, or when it is confusing to be constantly comparing the structures of different species throughout the article. That said, it might not be as relevant for a well fleshed-out article like this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  3. What about Cerebellar hypoplasia and Cerebellar hypoplasia (non-human)? — fnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    That's a rare condition in humans at least, but it could be worked into the "Cerebellar agenesis" section, which is another low-quality thing that crept in without me noticing it. I'll see what I can do with that. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Another suggestion may be a 'congenital abnormalities' subsection covering agenesis and hypoplasia and any other abnormalities. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Background: Let me fill in some history here. This article was promoted in 2005, but when I came to it a few years later, it was obvious to me that it was nowhere near FA quality. The cerebellum is not the brain area I work on, but I have long been fascinated by it and know the literature pretty well, so I decided to rewrite it. I did so in late 2009, to such a degree that the current article bears little resemblance to the version that was promoted. Early in 2010 SandyGeorgia did an extensive style review, making numerous changes. Since then the article has been pretty stable. I've tried to keep an eye on it, but my attention hasn't been constant, and no doubt I've missed a few things. In particular I didn't see the "Happiness" section show up -- I'm about to remove it as undue. In any case, and FA review is welcome -- with the caveat that I have no intention of wasting my time on minor style issues. Looie496 (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks for your attention Looie496 and for raising this, DrKiernan. I work a fair bit on anatomy articles with WP:ANATOMY and stated earlier that I think this article is lacking sources and sometimes a little nonstandard (like heaps of images of cerebellar cross-sections which are quite large by wiki-standards). I've been hesitant to make edits because the article does have FA status, but I'll also have a look. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Do you think then that we should cut File:Sobo 1909 657.png? It seems to show much the same features as File:Sobo 1909 658.png, but 658 shows all four nuclei. DrKiernan (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

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


  1. In the "Subdivisions" section, the sentence "There is another small region, known as the biventer lobule." appears like an afterthought. Is there a better way to integrate it into the paragraph? DrKiernan (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    Ugh, what the hell is that? I've never even heard of it. I'll try to figure out what is going on. (We have an article on the biventer lobule, but it lists no sources except Gray's Anatomy.) I suspect that there is really no need to mention something so obscure. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
    I've moved it out to Anatomy of the cerebellum. DrKiernan (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  2. In the paragraph on "Divergence and convergence", have I read correctly that 200 million inputs is considered "modest"?
    Well, the number of parallel fibers is over 100 times larger. But perhaps "modest" is not quite the right word. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I only have two unresolved comments, one above in "Queries" about use of the word "modest" and one on the talk page (in Talk:Cerebellum#Animated gif in title box). I consider both of these minor, and they do not threaten the featured status of the article. I'm happy for this review to be closed without a FARC stage. Many thanks to the editors who helped, contributed and commented. DrKiernan (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I anticipate we'll be able to keep this without a FARC, but I just quickly glanced at a few sections and see copyedit needs;[11] I will work on it over the next few days. Also, a few questions that Looie496 might be able to resolve:

  • Why do we have three (old and incomplete) items by the same author listed in Further reading? If the three of those are worthy of keeping, they need to be completed, but it "smells" like someone pushing one author's work added all of them.
  • See also is typically not needed when an article is comprehensive. Why are those items there, and can those be worked into the article?
  • I am seeing many incomplete citations.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed the Further reading section. There are a few other things -- major books -- that might be more appropriate there, but I think we can live without it. I also removed two of the See Also items. The "cerebellar theory of dyslexia" is actually notable enough to be worth mentioning in the article, but not so important as to be essential, so it means to me reasonable to leave it there. Regarding incomplete citations, is that just about page numbers, or something more? Looie496 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Many times, page numbers from the History section, but also some incomplete things, eg, what is happening here?
    • Eccles JC, Ito M, Szentágothai J (1967). The Cerebellum as a Neuronal Machine. Springer-Verlag.
    • The Cerebellum as a Neuronal Machine, p. 311
  • Also, there are many instances of text sandwiched between right and left images. Are all of those images necessary, and can any of them be moved down? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Also, flow needs to be checked. Marr and Albus are explained in detail in the Learning section, but are mentioned first in passing before that, in the Climbing fibers section. I will get through the article, but it would help, Looie496, if you would re-read for things like this, since you know the topic much better than I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

[12]i noticed the article does not directly touch upon the topic of Autism and the Cerebellum, perhaps you might contemplate this reference and a mention--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

PMID 25072321 is a primary source, so would not meet WP:MEDRS (and its inclusion would probably be undue). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
I could find an appropriate secondary source/review article [13](however you state its undue)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
PMID 24825948 is a recent secondary review, but specific to autism. So the question for someone who has the sources is, do broad overviews of the cerebellum mention autism? And if so, do they include an all encompassing list of every condition that affects the cerebellum? If so, something could be worked in around this part of the article:
  • The list of medical problems that can produce cerebellar damage is long: including stroke, hemorrhage, tumors, alcoholism, physical trauma such as gunshot wounds, and chronic degenerative conditions such as olivopontocerebellar atrophy.[3] Some forms of migraine headache may also produce temporary dysfunction of the cerebellum, of variable severity.[39]
It is troubling that our "list of medical problems" is from a 1985 source; we should update that. What do more recent sources say about the number of conditions and medical problems involving the cerebellum, and do they include autism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
you are correct, in so far, as Autism (beside the secondary source and the "primary" which could go a long way) there is not a lot more. However, to your more general question, as to more recent (non-1985) [14] this might do the trick, if not I will search again, this is very interesting, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
[15] here is another, just found--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The conclusions of PMID 24523305 are somewhat unconvincing, but someone from WP:MED is going to need to review this article for comprehensiveness; the 1985 source is not optimal, and we need to know what role the cerebellum has across the board in medical conditions. Additionally problematic-- the 1985 source is cited 12 times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
will this help"across the board " I found a few you might want to look at (keeping in mind im pulling for Autism), there is this [16] on Schizophrenia, looks interesting, there is also dyskinesia[17] , we have dystonia [18] and finally, [19] which might merit though congenital . I would be very happy to help in any way , --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
[20] [21] these additional ones deal with Parkinson's and TARPs--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
If you would please provide PMID links, it would be easier to check those. You only need enter PMID followed by the identifier (4-digit) number; from the PMID link, one can easily see what kind of paper it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Regarding autism, and to a lesser extent some of the other conditions mentioned here, the basic issue is that it often appears in people who have severe developmental disorders. Those disorders often produce widespread alterations in brain structure. Thus there is a statistical correlation between autism and development-related cerebellar dysfunction. But does the cerebellar pathology play a causal role in the social-interaction problems that lies at the heart of autism? There is very little evidence to support that idea, in my reading of the literature. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
That is also my impression, but I am still concerned that we need to update the 1985 source throughout, and find one source that says what conditions/diseases are involved with the cerebellum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I remember doing some MOS work on this...just looked up when, and it was *2008*, yeesh. The references look good, with the exception of the incomplete cites of The Cerebellum as a Neuronal Machine. I think that the Clinical significance section could do with some reorganization and possibly doesn't need the four subsection headers. I will take a stab at rewriting that section in a sandbox tomorrow, and link it here. Maralia (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Maralia and other editors for participating. I agree the clinical significance section needs reorganizing and copyediting, the structure at the moment is strange and certainly the hatnote should not point to 'main' as 'ataxia'. I'll see if I can help out with this section on your draft. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say that I've almost got something comprehensible drafted—sorry for the delay, and hope to have something to show for it shortly. Maralia (talk) 17:43, 16 January 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.

2012 tour of She Has a Name[edit]

Notified: Cirt, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Theatre; article creator and nominator Neelix has retired
There has been no talk page discussion per se, but I believe the AFD stands in lieu of that step of a conventional FAR nomination.

Review section[edit]

This ... is likely to be contentious, I fear. As regards the FA criteria, I have concerns based on 1b, 1c, 4. And more broadly, WP:CFORK. First, some background. This article was created as a result of the first FA candidacy for the parent article She Has a Name. There, amid suggestions that the article was overlong in some aspects, Cirt suggested, and the article's primary editor, Neelix implemented, a split of some material into two daughter articles: the one currently under discussion here, and Critical response to She Has a Name. All of these articles have had a long history with the curated content processes, and several trips apiece to FAC, but only the 2012 tour article has the bronze star. Both daughter articles were recently subject to AFD discussions, largely on undue weight grounds; the AFD for this article was closed no consensus by Drmies, who essentially suggested that FAR was the proper first venue. His closure of the Critical response AFD redirected it to the parent article. Both AFDs were complicated by participation by unclean hands accounts evidently involved in harassing Neelix, coordinated offsite; perhaps as a consequence of those actions, Neelix has retired from the project. I consider that detestable, and I hope he is able to return to editing at some point ... but I nevertheless do have concerns about this articles fitness with respect to the FA criteria.

  • 1b: Part of the "comprehensiveness" criterion is that the article "places the subject in context". But that's not true here. Simply put, there was nothing special about the 2012 performances of this play. The overwhelming bulk of the references for this article are the same as the references for the parent article. And the two, by and large, say about the same things. That's because there's not a separate topic to be had here. That's the principle (at least in part) behind WP:NOTINHERITED. This is part of the undue weight issue at hand: by taking the 2012 performances out of context, it provides the impression that this tour is somehow distinctly notable, rather than just a natural aspect of the play itself. I do think it's possible for a theatrical tour, or even an individual performance, to be notable—but those should clearly be the exception rather than the rule, and this just isn't it. While I'm aware of the inherent weakness of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, sometimes it's important to analyze the reason for that non-existence. Context is a big part of it.
  • 1c: Criterion 1d is the sourcing criterion. Now, obviously, this article is exhaustively sourced. But the FA criteria demand "high-quality" sources (emphasis mine). I objected on these grounds in the parent article's second AFD, and those objections are still true here. Why are free community paper London Community News or family-published Christian paper Country Sunrise News high-quality sources? Or the Mennonite Brethren Herald (which doesn't even seem to have an About Us or editorial policy page available) which added an About Us page since 2013? One of the few references that directly discusses differences between the 2012 tour performances and the 2011 showings of the play is the Maranatha News; I'm not certain that constitutes a reliable source, much less a high-quality one.
  • 4: The length criterion requires that coverage not be overly deep nor overly shallow. This is simply too much detail, and the net effect is to make the play in general—and the 2012 tour in particular—appear more important and more renowned that the sources warrant.

Ultimately, this is an acceptably well-written and exhaustively researched content fork, but that doesn't mean its not a content fork. We don't (and probably shouldn't) have unique articles for every production of Cats, nor for every time a film is re-released to the theaters, nor do we source theatrical articles to every small-town micropress to comment on them. Or at least, if we do, we shouldn't expect the result to be awarded the bronze star. I continue to believe that the correct course of action is to rebuild the parent article with a selective subset of the sources, giving the 2012 performances no more—and no less—weight than they deserve. But what I don't believe is that there is any way that this article can be altered to meet the FA standards. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep, only recently promoted to FA in 2013 at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2012 tour of She Has a Name/archive3. It's unfortunate that the FAR nominator seems quite upset that the recent AFD did not result in getting this high-quality-article-page disappeared from Wikipedia. However, that's not grounds to degrade its quality -- as the version is principally not that different from the one promoted to WP:FA by Ian Rose after comments there from myself, Jimfbleak, and Nikkimaria. Have a great day and please take care to enjoy some fresh air and spend time with friends and family, — Cirt (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We certainly hold different opinions about this article with regard to the FA criteria. However, I am not "quite upset"; please don't make insinuations about my motivations here. If nothing else, the number of editors with substantial contribution records who advocated deletion at the AFD would warrant a status review here, even absent the AFD closer's suggestion that doing so might be prudent. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Please review FAR instructions: Keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying and hopefully resolving issues. Keep or delist are declared in the FARC phase, should the article progress to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to She Has a Name. In all fairness to the article creator, this is a WP:CONTENTFORK I believe, as are the other side articles about this play. All of the side articles are overly detailed, overly prolix, and probably repetitive of each other. It seems the article creator does not yet know how to be concise, how to summarize, how to recognize relevant detail versus unnecessary detail, and how to avoid redundancy and repetition. I think the article creator is an excellent writer and researcher, and simply needs guidance and mentorship in those areas I mentioned. (That is, if they return to Wikipedia; I have heard that the editor has been hounded off of WP by a group of trolling types.) Softlavender (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Notwithstanding the fact that the AFD closer suggested bringing it here, this honestly feels like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based fishing expedition. Seems some people didn't get the result they wanted at AFD, so now we're switching forums. That said, onto the concerns. I don't buy CFORK if a WP:SPLIT was suggested due to length reasons. Comprehensiveness: The opinion that "there was nothing special about the 2012 performances of this play." is irrelevant to the featured article process. The remainder of the 1b argument is a rehash of the failed AFD. The 1c argument is effectively only casting aspersions against various publications. The argument regarding point 4 of the FA criteria is again an irrelevant argument about the subjective "importance" of the article subject. I might agree that this is a very well written article about a very trivial thing, but the argument presented here largely fails to present actionable deficiencies. Resolute 00:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Just because a split on length was proposed, does not mean it was warranted, and I believe that unnecessary forking is absolutely an actionable deficiency as FAC/FAR understands it (if the delegates feel otherwise, I'd be happy to stand corrected on that point). WP:SPLIT is not intended to be the Banach–Tarski paradox for articles, capable of making two where one would suffice. As for the sourcing, given their own self-descriptions, if you're going to convince me that Country Sunrise News and Maranatha News especially are reliable sources, it will take more than suggesting that I'm forum shopping and "casting aspersions". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • If you can't get a consensus that this article should not exist, then I am not willing to pull the featured status on the basis of disagreeing with the article's existence. The only question with any validity here is the media cites, and I don't see them as self-evident fails. Certainly not if they went through the FAC process, of which regular reviewers are often highly focused on those same sources. Resolute 02:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree with Drmies and Squeamish Ossifrage that FAR was and is in order for this article. The fact is, the AfD was in obvious bad faith, and the proper proposal would have been a Merge proposal, not an AfD. Reso, if you say "I might agree that this is a very well written article about a very trivial thing," "but the argument presented here largely fails to present actionable deficiencies", the deficiencies are that it is a (vastly in my opinion) overly detailed and unnecessary content fork. The actionability is to Merge or to open a Merge proposal. That's how I see it. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, if you cannot get a consensus that this article should not exist, then I am not willing to pull the featured status on the basis that it should not exist. Merge requests do not require FAR. Resolute 16:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree that whoever requested the FAR should probably eventually propose a Merge Request. However, I don't personally believe this FAR was submitted in bad faith. Nearly everyone here so far agrees that this is an (overly) large article about a very trivial thing; which in itself should cause some head-scratching, drastic gutting of extraneous bloat, and eventually questioning of the FA status as to whether it actually warrants FA or not. I think the FAR was and is a possibly necessary step before a Merge Request, given that the FA status can have too much of a halo effect in those discussions (just like it did for me personally in the AfD). Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The article, as currently written, contains a lot of problematic wording. I'll just document what I found in the first two paragraphs of the lede:
  1. "Despite the fact that She Has a Name is set in Southeast Asia, the producers deliberately cast mostly actors who were not of Asian descent to avoid the impression that human trafficking happens only in Asia." -- this wording implies through the passive voice that the producer's choice is somehow noble when the action is prima facie racist. At the very least, it should be acknowledged that race in the theater is something that has been seriously interrogated (e.g. [22]). If there is no independent notice of the racism of this tour, then such discussion deserves removal.
  2. "Panel discussions were held after the Saturday matinées during the tour to raise awareness about human trafficking that takes place in Canada and elsewhere." -- This is not an encyclopedic phrasing for the lede of an article. The assumption here is that "raising awareness" took place as a sui generis attribute of a panel discussion. This evaluative claim is probably what the tour producers wanted, but it is hardly a dispassionate coverage of the fact.
  3. "while She Has a Name toured across Canada to raise awareness about human trafficking, ABW raised money to help women and children who had been trafficked in Thailand as part of the country's prostitution industry." Compound coatracked claims here. The proper way to write about this tour is that it was intended to raise awareness. There is an implication that this actually occurred while there is no evidence of this. The claim as well is that the money raised "helped women and children". Again an arguable claim. If the money went directly into their pockets, that may have helped them, but it didn't according to the article. It is essentially a political claim that the charitable money raised "helped women and children". It's also not clear that the money actually helped any "trafficked women and children" since there isn't any sources in the article that I can see which document how the money was spent precisely. Finally, there is a compound claim that the Thailand's regulated "prostitution industry" has, as a part of it, "human trafficking". This is like saying that Pakistan's regulated poppy cultivation industry has a part of "drug trafficking". A case can be made, but it is not neutral to simply posit that this is necessarily the case when there are legal strictures in place in Thailand that specifically prohibit human trafficking as part of the regulated prostitution in the country.
So it seems there is a lot to do to clean up this article to bring it into line with what an encyclopedic article should look like. As it stands, this is not a very good reflection of the quality control features of Wikipedia.
jps (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Merge to She Has a Name. I agree with the comments from DGG (and others similar) at the separate but related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name, and believe those comments apply equally here. There is too much duplication of content, and the separation of articles almost appears more for the purpose of generating a featured topic than for any useful reason. The article passed FAC with minimal support, with one reviewer (Nick-D) expressing reservations.

A (successful) merge request on the article would likely result in a delisting of this Featured Article, which is the course of action I support here and the reason a merge request for a Featured article happens at FAR. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison/archive1 for a similar merge FAR resulting in the demotion of an unnecessary content fork, which I believe to be the same case here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Merge per the others.—indopug (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge to simply WP:PILEON. I'm curious as to whether problematically spun-off articles like this are populating the FA articles. jps (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Move to FARC for further commentary; nine days in, concerns persist. @WP:FAR coordinators: , Nikkimaria supported the FAC, so is a likely recusal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns over prose, sourcing and unnecessary level of detail. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist (and Redirect or very selectively Merge to She Has a Name). Irredeemable, and irredeemably boated, WP:CONTENTFORK about a minor fringe Canadian tour of a minor play, sourced only to local papers where the play performed. Beyond the repetition of what is already (overly) covered in the She Has a Name article, there is far too much bloat and an absurd level of trivia in the article. The Reviews section is particularly non-substantive. In short, not to put too fine a point on it, this is a mind-numbingly long mountain made out of a molehill that could be sufficiently summarized in 1/5 of the verbiage used here. Softlavender (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Celine Dion[edit]

Notified: Journalist, WP Canada, WP Pop music, WP BIO

Review section[edit]

Talk page noticed of deficiencies, mainly citation, a month ago: no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, a few edits, but ten days in, still lots of uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment the unsourced text is concerning, but it might be salvageable. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment - Unless a select group of dedicated editors really prune and perfect the article in the very near future, I'd say demoting for now seems to be the most appropriate course of action.--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 02:39, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Main concern is verifiability. DrKiernan (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist, almost three weeks in, and there is still uncited text. The (large) effort that would be needed to bring this article back to standard has not happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist I concur with Sandy that this will take considerable work to be up to par. In addition to uncited content, there are malformatted references, dead links, and subpar sources like Daily Mail and Perez Hilton. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Euclidean algorithm[edit]

Notified: WillowW, WikiProject Mathematics

Review section[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, I agree with that proposal. The original FA version of the article was much better than what is there now. Perhaps a revert to this version, followed by discussion of what to restore. However, I hasten also to point out that the issues you are now mentioning have actually been committed to the article in response to this FAR. None of the above problematic text appears in the version that DrKiernan initially complained about, which was substantially similar to the original FAR revision (apart from the lead, which I think should be rolled back to the original FAC lead). But if going back to the pre-FAR version is all it takes to have it re-listed, what was the point of subjecting it to an FAR (for silly reasons, too) in the first place? Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
From what I can tell, the editor who introduced the problematic text has the second highest edit count on the article (since the FA nominator left), so that could account for part of the problem.[23] If Google translate is being used, we could have copyvio issues. Yes, going back to the original FA version, and editing to update from there would be the fastest route to assuring this article can retain its Featured status. I suggest dropping the persistence that the FAR was "silly"; FARs have to be noticed on article talk first, and only if nothing improves does the article come here. And historically, on every Math FAC or FAR I've participated in or observed, the math editors have made claims like those aimed at DrK, so let's drop the rhetoric, and get busy. Reverting the article, and cleaning up from there, is the best way forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
That doesn't really answer my question, but ok. We can go back to the pre-FAR revision, and someone can review it, hopefully with comments that are actually helpful. But in light of this discussion, I won't hold my breath. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Which question is unanswered ? (My apologies for whatever I missed: I have the flu.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've handled some of the wikilinking issues (changed wikilinks that unnecessarily went through a redirect) and some of the see-also issues (removed three see-alsos that were already in the main text). I also removed the whole "Generalizations" section (and the lead section sentence summarizing it), as Lazard had done earlier, as being too far off-topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, struck some. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Also handled: consistency of punctuation at ends of short references (currently: no periods on any of them) and of author name formatting, linking of short references to the bibliography, checking that those links all work, and removing bibliography items not used in footnotes. I'm not sure what problem you see with Reynaud (we have title, year, and publisher for this book; what else do you want) or Gauss ("Werke" is just German for "works", I.e. Gauss's collected works). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Courcier, then, is presumably a publisher? Location? And page number?

Generalizations is still there (you indicated earlier it was removed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what I removed in this edit was "Generalizations to other mathematical structures". The other "Generalizations" section is still there, so your request to review it for citations is still valid. As for Reynaud, I found more detail about that reference in Shallit 1994; I haven't found the original text of that edition of Reynaud to check against, so I included an "As cited by Shallit" note at the end of the Reynaud reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay; I lost internet contact for a few days over Christmas and this dropped off my watchlist. I've checked the caption punctuation and the different kinds of dashes. (We don't have any ems, but there are hyphens, en-dashes, and minus signs, all of which appear to be correctly distinguished from each other.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Captions and dashes are in good shape. Reference formatting looks good except there is a bare reference to The Generalizations section seems to be lacking citations still, though. Maralia (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I fixed the bare url. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section mostly dealt with prose, sourcing, and formatting/consistency. Please remember to keep commentary focused on the Featured article criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

My outstanding concerns from the FAR section are:

  • "Visualization" section, please review colors for WP:ACCESS#Color.
  • Please review the "Generalizations" section for citations.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Re color accessibility: all images are still clear and understandable when my monitor is switched to grayscale. However, the caption for the illustration in the "Algorithmic efficiency" section no longer makes sense in this view. The same is also true for the "worked example" animation with the squares of different colors Any suggestions for making these captions more accessible? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Graham87 is the accessibility guru; perhaps he has advice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
But I'm totally blind, so I can't help you guys here. Graham87 08:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for checking, Graham! David, does WP:ACCESS give you any guidance? There's a lot going on in this article with color, so I'm concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I updated the two problematic captions, in one case to avoid color terms altogether and in the other to augment them with light/dark descriptions that I think should work regardless of color. As far as I can see the only other significant use of color is in the first illustration in the article, but in that case it is not mentioned in the caption, and is only used to distinguish different stages of the algorithm, so readers only need to be able to distinguish the different colors from each other, not to tell which one has which name. As I said earlier, I checked this in a monochrome view and it was still distinguishable, so I think it should be ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Re references: I just added 11 more, mostly to the Generalizations section. The "Euclidean domains" and "Noncommutative rings" subsections still need work in this regard, but I think the rest of the section is better now. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok, those last two sections are now better sourced as well. Are there any remaining issues to address? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the work! I will look it over in the next few days; pinging DrKiernan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone still here? Should this be moved back to the main FAR page or closed? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, David Eppstein; the ball has been in my court for two weeks, but I got extremely busy IRL all of a sudden. I should be able to review the article this weekend (unless someone else gets there first). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)