Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.

See the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive for nominations under the previous FARC process.

[edit] Archives

Contents

[edit] Kept status

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 23:08, 5 February 2012 [1].

[edit] Solar eclipse

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Moon, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eclipses, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System. Nominator and main editor vanished.

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has declined in quality, and does not appear to be watched or cared for. Specific criteria of concern are:

  • 1a (prose): Take for example the repetition in the very first sentence: "As seen from the Earth, a solar eclipse occurs when the Moon ... blocks the Sun as viewed from a location on Earth."
  • 1b (comprehensiveness): The history section leaps from 1095 to 1879 completely ignoring the entire Renaissance and Enlightenment periods.
  • 1c (verifiability): An example claim requiring attribution (and possibly balance) is "The last total solar eclipse on Earth will occur in slightly less than 600 million years."
  • 2b (structure): The final section is a collection of links.

DrKiernan (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the specific examples you give in 1a and 1c, as far as 1b I'm not sure there is much history to mention, but I'm not sure. Does 2b refer to the External Links section? This is bad? I have not looked at the FA criteria in a while. For now I seem to be the article's only Shepard. --TimL (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm reassured by your response. On 2b, it's the section Solar eclipse#Recent and forthcoming solar eclipses that concerns me. I'd like to examine other ways of formatting this section that do not involve listing bare links to templates, but I'm having trouble coming up with an alternative idea. DrKiernan (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
I removed the bare links, but I still don't like it, visually, however I think it is better than before. --TimL (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
It's now a table. Don't know if this is a great solution, but better than before. Fixed a couple image formatting bugs. The section on Geometry needs better image positioning, but I can't quite wrap my head around how to do it the best way yet. --TimL (talk) 21:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - Dr. Kiernan (and anyone else who's interested!) will you please give us an update on your thoughts about this article? Is the work done enough to keep it as an FA, or should the article be moved to the FARC section? Dana boomer (talk) 18:00, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm still working on the article, and would like it to remain in the review section for the moment, as I was hoping for some other independent comment. The history section is the weak point for me, as I'm not convinced it's focused on the most important eclipses in the history of observational astronomy, as one would expect. DrKiernan (talk) 19:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
  • OK, I've re-written the section. I'm not planning any further work on the article, and have no more comments. DrKiernan (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments
  • 1a I don't see any reason why the article needs bullet points; they should be in prose.
  • 1c I have concerns over the quality of references. What makes mreclipse a high quality and reliable source? There is a book by Mobberley listed but no citations from that book are used. A few paragraphs are missing citations.
  • 2c Missing page numbers, publisher information, retrieved on dates.
  • 3 and 4 No problems found.
  • A move to FARC would be appropriate. Brad (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
On 1c, MrEclipse is operated by Fred Espenak. I've moved Mobberley into a "Further reading" section. DrKiernan (talk) 08:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Brad, when there is someone obviously willing to work on the article, try working with them in the FAR section before advocating a move to FARC, please. (Dr. Kiernan, thank you for your work.) Dana boomer (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Dana, DrKiernan said: "I'm not planning any further work on the article, and have no more comments" Therefore it appeared he was finished. That will teach me not to believe anything anyone writes. Brad (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant that I was done with my own comments and plans, not that I would refuse to consider or respond to other editors' comments. DrKiernan (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The only concerns I have left are 1c and 2c. Brad (talk) 09:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Changes made [2]. DrKiernan (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
  • No FARC My concerns were fixed; thanks. Brad (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
1a: I'll take a look at the bullet points. What is the problem with the bullet points? They seem highly appropriate to me.
1c: "MrEclipse" is the maintainer of eclipse predictions for NASA. I think that alone makes hime a very high quality and reliable source.
2c: I may not have access to the publications to fix this.

A move to FARC would be premature. --TimL (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Overall I think this article is not too far off being kept but some more work is needed. The section that needs improving is the viewing section, concerning danger to the retina from the sun. One would hope for some medical literature on the matter to tighten up the section. I'll post at WP:MED and take a look myself a bit later. The history section reads well now but some of the top segment is a bit choppy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I see DrK is still at work; have you pinged in Serendipodous (talk · contribs)? This is curious in the lead:

    The last total solar eclipse was on July 11, 2010; the next will be on November 13, 2012. The solar eclipses of 2011 were all partial eclipses; the last one occurred on November 25, 2011. The next solar eclipse will be an annular eclipse on May 20, 2012.

    It reads newsy, but more, it is written in a way that will require constant updating (last, next, etc). The lead seems to focus on lesser important aspects of the article. Four types of solar eclipses uses incorrect WP:ITALICS rather than WP:MOSBOLD, which should be used for lists. Image clutter in the Geometry section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed the info about recent and upcoming eclipses, definitely does not belong in the lead. Image clutterI agree is a problem. --TimL (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC to keep the FAR process on track as intended (two weeks in each phase). DrK has done most of the work, but issues remain. Serendipodous is editing, but hasn't responded to four-day-old ping. Move this along for feedback as to Keep or Delist in the FARC phase-- if someone shows up to help DrK, all the better! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Heading towards "keep" territory, I'll scout around for anything else to add on the medical/eye damage bit. That's the last piece of the puzzle for me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
The lead has now been fixed, Serendipodous didn't weigh in, but I don't see anything egregious enough now to warrant a move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Close Consensus against move to FARC; Casliber can work on the article, if he wishes, outwith this process. DrKiernan (talk) 10:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

[edit] Removed status

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 18:16, 11 February 2012 [4].

[edit] Superman

[edit] Review commentary

Notified: Alientraveller, Ace ETP, Hiding, Maestro25, (all users with over 100 edits to article who have been active in past year) WP Media franchises, WP Film, WP Fictional characters, WP Cleveland, WP Comics, WP Comics - Superman work group

I am nominating this featured article for review because I began cleaning up the numerous dead links that were present in this article, and in the process discovered there were a number of issues that I couldn't fix that together made the article of sub-FA quality. Examples:

  • Three dead links
  • Update banner in Copyright issues section
  • Video games section needs referencing
  • Critical reception and popularity section is trivia heavy and could easily be presented as prose rather than in bullet points
  • Reference formatting, particularly for books, is not consistent
  • Prose could use a go-over. For example, what does "By 1943, Jerry Siegel was drafted into the army in a special celebration," mean? The staff had a special celebration when he was drafted? The Army had a special celebration to draft him?
  • Image issues:
  • It should also be noted that this article has grown from 41 to 55 kb of prose since the last FAR in 2007. It would be interesting to know what all had been added and if this significant growth was really necessary, or if there is fat to trim. At the moment the article is over 9,000 words, which is headed toward the high end of the length guidelines at WP:SIZE.

At this point, due to the number of the issues and the lack of response to two postings over several months on the talk page, I feel that this article needs to go through the FAR process. Dana boomer (talk) 20:37, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the image issues...

  • Harold Lloyd in A Sailor-made Man.jpg is in the public domain as per the file hosted at Commons. An explicit source line would be nice, but based on the notes on Commons it looks like it was lifted from A Sailor-Made Man. If scanned or captured from the film or a related still, finding out who the photographer/cameraman was is highly unlikely.
  • Superman.jpg used in this article is hosted on the English Wikipedia and is compliant with non-free content guidelines. The commons file of that name - [5] - is not up for deletion nor is it relevent/useful for this article. What is up for deletion is essentially any of the files related to the Fleischer animated shorts that contain an image of Superman - see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Superman-fleischer.jpg. The upshot being that the films maybe in PD but the copyright on the character that was licensed for them is still valid and putting them under non-free content.

- J Greb (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

And looking at the other issues...
  • Size: Yes, the article currently is in the "upper end" based on size. That means we take a look at the difference between the last FAR reviw - [6] - and today - [7]. The comparison nets this - [8] - which is at least somewhere to start.
- J Greb (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the Lloyd image myself. Yes, I apologize, the image is up for deletion on the English WP, not Commons. It's still up for deletion, though, with some editors arguing that it doesn't meet non-free guidelines. As for the size, it looks like the major additions were sections on Merchandising, In other media, and Musical references, parodies and homages. I would be interesting in hearing the opinion of the major editors to the article on why they feel that relatively large sections are needed for information some might consider trivia, especially when the article is already so large. I'm not arguing that they be cut altogether, simply wondering if it might be better to make better use of summary style and move some of the immense amounts of information and popular culture references to Superman in popular culture, History of Superman, List of Superman comics, Alternative versions of Superman, Superman in other media or one of the dozens of other articles on various facets of Superman that are floating around WP. Dana boomer (talk) 21:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Comments
  • I agree the article seems to be filled with trivial type entries and tries too hard to include as much as possible. Further along I see many uncited passages that appear to have been tacked on after the fact. Two examples:
  • The "S" shield by itself is often used in media to symbolize the Superman character. It has been incorporated into the opening and/or closing credits of several films and TV series.
  • Furthermore, the surname Kent, in early 20th century real life, was a common Americanization of "Cohen," and Clark Kent's wimpy, bumbling persona strongly resembled the classic Yiddish schlemiel. But there are so many others I can't list them all.
  • At this point it doesn't look like much is going on toward article repair. Brad (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] FARC commentary

Issues raised in the review section include referencing, coverage and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist - Basically nothing has been done to improve this article since the FAR was initiated. Still major problems with focus, sourcing, cleanup banners, etc. (details above). Dana boomer (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment; it's not clear to me why a revert to the version that passed FAR in 2007 wasn't discussed or contemplated. At the least, it would then mean less repair work to bring the article to standard, and even if the article is defeatured, it would theoretically be left in better shape than when it came here. At minimum, that option should be discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
  • A revert to the 2007 version would fix the sprawl problems, but would introduce comprehensiveness issues, and I don't think it would fix much else. A glance at the 2007 version (here), shows issues with sourcing (places needing references, unreliable references, etc) and images at the very least. It also shows that the Copyright issues section (currently hosting an update banner) would be put even farther out of date. What would probably work is a reversion to 2007, followed by the integration of necessary material that has been added over the intervening 4+ years, followed by additional referencing, image and general cleanup work. However, I think we need someone with a solid background in the subject matter (or at least access to all of the pertinent sources) to know what "necessary material" is... So, basically, I'm not sure that a revert to the 2007 version would help anymore than, say, wholesale chopping the sections on Merchandising, In other media, and Musical references, parodies and homages that have been added. Dana boomer (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist. Thanks for looking Dana. OK, so I'm a Delist on that basis, but even if the star can't be salvaged, we can still hope that someone may show up to do the basics you suggest above, as that will at least leave the article in better shape than it is now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. JJ98 (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive&oldid=476311953"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
Interaction
Toolbox
Print/export