Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
GimmeBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
75,273 edits
m Bot updating FAR archive links
Marskell (talk | contribs)
22,422 edits
Line 39: Line 39:
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9/archive1}}
==Removed status==
==Removed status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sesame Street}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ammolite/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ammolite/archive1}}

Revision as of 10:57, 5 September 2008

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.

Archives

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 User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [1].

Comet Shoemaker-Levy 9

Review commentary

Contains numerous vague, unattributed and unreferenced claims. Some sections are not supported by sources at all. Fails criterion 1c - verifiability. Passed FA candidacy in 2005, but today it wouldn't. --Eleassar my talk 14:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notified Nominator, User:Urhixidur, User:Noren, Wikipedia:WikiProject Solar System. --Eleassar my talk 15:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eleassar, please see the instrutions at the top of WP:FAR and sample notifications at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Trigonometric functions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notified Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomical objects. (and note that Worldtraveller no longer edits here) -- Rick Block (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: At least to a cursory scan, it seems to me that most the information is verifiable in the existing citations. In many cases it is not presented with the more recently popular inline citation method, however. The acceptable style of citation standard evolved during 2006- for examples, see several discussions about inline citations in the good article criteria talk page [[2]]. In 2005 it was more common (particularly in physical science articles) to reference the end of a section or of the entire article rather than inline. This was adequate for an interested reader to explore the details and thereby verify, but was more difficult for those who wanted to quickly judge verifiability without reading through all the references. It appears to me that the problem is with the format of referencing rather than a failure of criterion 1c. I added modern style inline references to the section to which Eleassar had recently added in a reference request template. Are there other sections in which there are verifiability concerns? --Noren (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing so. If I understand you correctly, some of the reliable sources that the article rests on are listed in the 'external links' section. I suggest they are referenced inline. As you said, current format makes single claims difficult to verify. --Eleassar my talk 18:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be savable, but the prose needs pulling apart. Here are random examples from one small portion of text.
    • In the lead, I saw "SL9 was in pieces ranging in size up to 2 kilometres in diameter, and is believed to have been pulled apart by Jupiter's tidal forces during a close encounter in July 1992." Why not "in pieces up to two kilometres in diameter"? "Is believed" is possible if there's no other wording: who believes? Based on the level of uncertainty, pick something like "is likely to have been" or "may have been". There's a spectrum of certainty-wordings.
    • Not actionable, but why "approximately" when a short, plain word is available: "about"?
    • Suddenly at the end of the lead we have imperial conversions, after several unconverted ones. If no one objects, it's quite OK in a science article not to clutter with conversions. All American school-kids are taught metrics nowadays, and adults who don't know probably don't want to visualise 37 miles per second.
    • Avoid repetition: "The prominent scars from the impacts could be seen on Jupiter for many months after the impact".

So, there's work to be done on the prose throughout. TONY (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just got back from vacation (we left on the day of the notification!). What exactly does this article need done? Urhixidur (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, footnotes. Second, improvement of the style of writing. --Eleassar my talk 15:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 15:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be more specific as to what statements are in need of better citation? If it's the "Predictions for the collision" section, if that's what you mean by discussion of hypotheses and conjectures, the document currently cited appears to me to be a reliable source that contains all of the information in that paragraph. It's true there's just the one source, but a year wasn't enough time to generate many secondary sources on the topic of pre-impact speculation. --Noren (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certain sections are undercited; see the "Frequency of Impacts" and "Discovery" sections, where assertions like these lack sourcing:"Studies have estimated that comets probably crash into Jupiter once or twice per century, but the impact of comets the size of SL9 is much less common - probably no more often than once per millennium." ""The comet was thus a serendipitous discovery, but one that quickly overshadowed the results from their main observing program." I also see url links in citations not properly formatted with the use of the appropriate templates. ISBNs in parentheses (which is not what would be generated if Template:cite book) was used, and other similar problems. Nevertheless, all these issues could be fixed, and therefore I'll not vote yet for the article's removal.--Yannismarou (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that some work was done, I am going to hold this a little while longer. Tomorrow I will look to see if I can improve it myself. Marskell (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This actually has a decent amount of scholarly sources. Unfortunately, they need to be formatted. I'm slow with this stuff but I'll pick away. Marskell (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I started working a bit on formatting notes, but it is a damn boring job, and most of these sources seem specialized. I thus faced two problems: 1) Not sure I format the data correctly, 2) I am not sure I can find the full data of certain sources, such us some proceedings with no url. Somebody specialized on the issue should have a look.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm ... And indeed somebody should find something better for note 20. Yahoo groups?!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still willing to leave this up a while. I added a couple of refs, Yanni took care of some really boring formatting, and an anon took care of Yahoo groups. (I think the happy ghost of WorldTraveller is still with us.) Marskell (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think citations are properly formatted now. The article is definitely up to GA status; I am not sure about FA. Any content remarks about editors with specialized knowledge on the issue?--Yannismarou (talk) 13:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He he. I like your edit summaries. I did a few ref formattings and wanted to keel over in exhaustion.
There's still some uncited hard data, particularly at the end of 'A Jupiter-orbiting comet.' If we can get to that I think we'll be OK here. Marskell (talk) 08:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while leaning towards support. More sources were added by Noren and anonymous. Though not a specialist, I also tried to help on the article's citing. I also did some MoS stuff. I think the article is close to current FA criteria, and I really like its prose. Nevertheless, I think that the following citing flaws should be taken care of:
  • "Studies have estimated that comets probably crash into Jupiter once or twice per century, but the impact of comets the size of SL9 is much less common—probably no more often than once per millennium." What studies?
  • "Studies have shown that the planet, by far the most massive in the solar system, can capture comets from solar orbit into Jovian orbit rather frequently" Same question.
  • "Before the impact, models of Jupiter's atmosphere had indicated that the break-up of the largest fragments would occur at atmospheric pressures of anywhere from 300 kilopascals to a few megapascals (from three to a few tens bar), and most astronomers expected that the impacts would penetrate a hypothesised water-rich layer underneath the clouds." Which models?
  • "While substantial water was detected spectroscopically, it was not as much as predicted beforehand, meaning that either the water layer thought to exist below the clouds was thinner than predicted, or that the cometary fragments did not penetrate deeply enough." Source?
  • "Impacts" is obviously undercited.
If these limited citing problems are taken care of, then IMO the article deserves its star.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworked 'Frequency of impacts' and added a ref, which I think takes care of your first two bullets. I added fact requests for your third and fourth bullets—hopefully Noren or the anon can get to them. Yes, 'Impacts' could use more. There's some NASA timelines on-line that can be used. In any case, this has come a long way. Marskell (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added two NASA refs to 'Impacts.' Also there's now four citation needed requests for unsourced paragraphs. If these are done, I think 1c is met. Marskell (talk) 09:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excuse me but sources are added all the time, and what Blnguyen and Sandy believed to be "significant referencing issues" (and they indeed were at the time—one month ago!) are now "limited referencing issues", and this should be taken into consideration in forming our judgment.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be very clear, this is still being held. Cirt, even in the FARC period the question remains "are people working on the article?" Blnguyen's and Sandy's comments are essentially defunct given how much progress the page has made. Marskell (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then at this point I am Neutral about this whole thing for now - but I would very much hope that all the unsourced portions and citation needed tags will certainly be addressed before the end of this review. Cirt (talk) 15:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

Sesame Street

previous FAR (10:57, 5 September 2008)

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 User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [3].

Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs

Review commentary

Notifications to Rad Racer and WP Drug Policy

A 2005 promotion, this article badly needs a tuneup. Inline URL citations need to be formatted, it is lacking citations, it has a long list under references that may have grown to an external link farm, listy prose, external jumps in the text, and MoS cleanup is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second all of the above. I was about to nominate this for FAR as well when I came across this article. --Allstar86 (talk) 08:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image problems

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are formatting and MoS (2), referencing (1c), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [4].

Ammolite

Review commentary

Notified WP Alberta, Gemology and Jewelry, Hadal and Rmhermen‎.

I am not a gem person but I do know an article that contains few referenced citations when I see one (fails 1c). There are turely no notes or citations with the exception of noting it as the official rock of Lethbridge, Alberta.

Promoted in 2005, does not look like it had been reviewed since. Could likely stay FA if citation work was done but it does not appear that there are any active editors on the article (only a couple edits conducted in the last year) Labattblueboy (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images Image:Ammolite mining.jpg, Image:Ammolite mining2.jpg and Image:Ammolite jewellery.jpg should have OTRS tickets, or more definite evidence that Korite International has released them under GFDL. (Though, they probably did because it's a free advert for them.) DrKiernan (talk) 13:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
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 User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [5].

W. Mark Felt

Review commentary

Have Notified:

factually accurate Article needs a lot of work to keep up with current historical thinking. Specifically, Ed Gray and John Dean have both argued that Mark Felt could not possibly have been the only person to be Deep Throat, Gray even names another person that must have contributed to the Deep Throat we see in All The President's Men. For a summary of what I'm talking about, you can see the "composite character theory" section on the Deep Throat page. For details, you can look here[6] and here[7].

In this light, we see that much of this article depends on the idea the Felt = Deep Throat. At the very least, the sections on how Felt and Woodward stayed in contact need to be re-worked to recognize at least the possibility that when Woodward writes in All the Preseident's Men about how he contacted Deep Throat, he is not necessarily talking about Felt. And I think a new section should be added to talk about how Felt may not necessarily be the only Deep Throat out there. (Morethan3words (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Alright, so the main issues here are factual accuracy (FA criterion 1c) and comprehensiveness (FA criterion 1b), correct? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 12:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, yes, thanks, that's correct. (Morethan3words (talk) 08:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
This might also need overhauled per 2C. I think we should avoid using ibid in case paragraphs get moved. Not all the references appear to have actually been used (though they would be useful for future researchers). I don't know what the citation guidelines actually say and am basing this on my instincts... Does someone knowledgeable about this know what all actually ought to be fixed? --JayHenry (talk) 01:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was reviewing a different PedanticallySpeaking FAR, and stumbled across this on his talk page. This is an issue I know something about. Gray and Dean's arguments should be noted, but it's important to bear in mind that Dean was Nixon's lawyer and Gray his FBI director and as such they are possibly the earth's least-unbiased people on this issue, after only Nixon. Further, they had published their own theories that were contradicted by Felt and Woodward. Their points should nonetheless be noted, but Gray and Dean do not by themselves reflect the "historical thinking".
  • The article does need some updating, but it does not need overhauled. Neither doubts that Felt was an off-the-record source for Woodward and very little of the article depends on whether it was Felt or Donald Santarelli that gave a specific piece of information. (It's already acknowledged by all parties that other anonymous sources were used in the reporting.) Needs updating on a few other points as well. --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note in response. Of course it's worth noting who the writers are on this particular issue, but in that light it's worth noting not just who they were, but who they currently are. In Gray's case, it wasn't actually Pat Gray who discussed the Mark Felt/Deep Throat issue in his autobiography, but his son Ed who had done the research (and subsequently wrote the last chapter on the issue). And as for Dean, he has made becoming an expert on the Watergate era as a way of kind of atoning for the whole affair, and as such has been praised for his fairness, impartiaility and knowledge in his writing on the time period. Although, I think the most important thing to note on this is that, in both cases, the writers use Woodward's own records to draw their conclusions, and in Gray's case referencing Woodward's notes against the FBI investigation files. Furthermore, these conclusions are really more of an attack on Woodward, and not so much on Felt, so any perceived bias against Felt is almost beside the point.
Of course the conclusions by these two writers do not yet constitute a consensus on historical thinking regarding Felt/Deep Throat. But then, it's also worth noting that there is still more to be revealed in this regard. Woodward's publicized notes only cover 3 of the 17 conversations with Deep Throat indicated in All The President's Men, once the remaining notes are publicized, more writers will scrutinize Woodward further, and it is likely more criticisms and/or questions will come up.
What I am suggesting is not that the article be orverhauled, per se, but that the sections that refer to the conversations and information about Deep Throat provided in All The President's Men, simply be amended to refer to Woodward meeting with/talking to Deep Throat, as opposed to Felt. Furthermore some statements, perhaps in a new section, that discuss the composite character theory and its persistence beyond 2005. (Morethan3words (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Yeah, that sounds completely reasonable. I think we're on the same page--I just wanted to make sure of that before diving in :) I'll start chipping away at this in a couple days. Does anyone have any thoughts about what to do with that reference section? --JayHenry (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One other thought that should go under FA criterion 1b, I'm also concurrently trying to get a related biography to GA status, and one of the criticisms I've gotten recently for that article is that there is not enough on the individual's family. So I took a look at this article to see what types of things should be included, and saw that the "family" section in this article is barely a sentence long. If this is an issue that is preventing an article from reaching GA status, then I certainly think it is an issue that should be addressed here given what we have currently. (Morethan3words (talk) 04:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Image The author is missing from Image:MarkFelt.jpg. How can we be sure that it is a work of the federal government? DrKiernan (talk) 13:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are factual accuracy (1c) and comprehensiveness (1b). Marskell (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive&oldid=236424511"