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 36: Line 36:
__ToC__
__ToC__
==Kept status==
==Kept status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Katamari Damacy}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Calgary Flames/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Calgary Flames/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Helicobacter pylori/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Helicobacter pylori/archive1}}
{{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/Bank of China (Hong Kong)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bank of China (Hong Kong)/archive1}}

Revision as of 13:51, 10 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

Geology of the Zion and Kolob canyons area

previous FAR (13:51, 10 September 2008)

Katamari Damacy

previous FAR (13:51, 10 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 kept by User:Gimmetrow 11:07, 9 September 2008 [1].

Calgary Flames

Notified Talk:Calgary Flames, Resolute, GoodDay and Djsasso

This article has an excess of non-free images, Image:Calgary_Flames_logo_1980-1994.png and Image:Calgary Flames logo.svg are in violation of minimal usage, we dont need a non-free image to describe a black outline. Multiple instances of copyrighted team uniforms, when one is only needed, or even the free Image:JaromeIginla.jpg could be used. Fasach Nua (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid drive-by noms, we generally don't allow reviews for articles that have recently been on the main page. In this case, I don't see that a full review is warranted. However, we can leave this up a few days to get feedback on the images. Fasach, I suggest you be bold and make some of the image changes yourself. Marskell (talk) 13:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it sure was nice for you to finally explain your complaints rather than just throw up a boilerplate message and bail. "Drive-by" is the perfect way to describe this. Personally, I think this review should be speedy closed, and the nominator given a polite suggestion that discussion of his issues on the article's talk page would be an ideal first step. As one can easily see, Fasach Nua has made absolutely no attempt at discussing any of his concerns beforehand. Resolute 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, for the record, I do have plans to replace at least two of the jersey images with free equivalents once the hockey season starts, in a couple weeks. This is something that I would have happily explained had Fasach simply asked. Resolute 14:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually surprised this user would not even attempt to bring up the reasoning on Talk:Calgary Flames. He was asked by a couple editors to discuss his issues on the talk page before just throwing up a boilerplate message. I would agree that this is a drive-by nomination. Especially since too many non-free images is a very subjective issue. -Djsasso (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite. May I ask, since the subject has come up, for a link to the policy discussing how many images are or are not permitted in an article? (I am sure, of course, that the editor is aware that there is a right at law for the use of sports teams logos for illustrative, non-commercial use.)  RGTraynor  15:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no set limit, use is defined by policy and aims of the foundation. Fasach Nua (talk) 17:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no set limit, how can you say there are too many? It's common sense that for a history of the logo of a company that there will need to be multiple non-free images at each stage of its evolution, and as such I don't see where there is a violation of trying to keep to a minimum number of them. Because the minimum number in this case would be 1 for every version of the logo. -Djsasso (talk) 17:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The usage of these images falls outside policy, and several images would have to be removed to meet WP:NFCC, thus reducing the number. It is not necessary to have a picture of every single logo a team has ever had to understand the concept of the team Fasach Nua (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except that that section is not specifically about the team, its a history of its logo. And for that you would need one of each logo. In that respect its fully compliant with WP:NFCC. -Djsasso (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In which case you admit that your take is entirely subjective? I would like to hear the specific elements of NFCC you claim these images violate, because as it stands, this comes off as WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than any concrete complaint.  RGTraynor  19:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am closing this. What's at issue can perfectly easily be resolved on article talk. FAR is not dispute resolution. Marskell (talk) 10:23, 9 September 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 kept by User:Marskell 14:19, 8 September 2008 [2].

Helicobacter pylori

Review commentary

User:AxelBoldt, Wikipedia:WikiProject Microbiology, User:TimVickers, User:GrahamColm, User:Jfdwolff notified

I am nominating this Featured Article for further review. The Pathology section is one sentence and is tagged for improvement. The writing is no longer FA quality. It is very poorly referenced. For an article on this particular bacteria, I'd expect to see twice as many references as are there. Moreover, many of the statements just aren't referenced. The external links are way overboard (I know that's a judgement call, but it reads like a link farm). Therefore, I would say this article is no longer well-written, properly sourced, or consistently structured. It needs a rewrite before it is FA quality. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree - the prose contains some odd constructions and word usages in places. Luckily this is fairly straightforward and I have started tweaking it but there is a way to go yet. It would be good to save such an article. The references need proper formatting and more definitely need adding. Also, I suspect a little more could be added on the bacterium itself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 23:07, 1 August 2008
  • Mostly a great article, a pleasure to read. But I do have some comments, and think it merits another look.
    • Short lead.
    • I find this sentence to be confusing: H. pylori's helix shape (from which the genus name is derived) is thought to have evolved to penetrate and favor its motility in the mucus gel layer. Penetrate what?
    • from mucosal specimens from human stomachs Could this be put into plainer language?
    • The paragraph beginning Before the appreciation of the bacterium's role is unreferened.
    • is that is produced by other intestinal bacteria correct (i.e., is H. pylori considered intestinal)?
    • Some of the info under Structure is not about structure (e.g. the oxygen material).
    • The apparent contradiction brought up on the talk page about the reduced stomach acidity should be explained or addressed.

I have to go for now but I'll be back with more. delldot talk 14:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The unreferenced section had been added after the FAC, it was a repeat of info covered more in the previous section, Colonization, so I integrated it into that section.

  • More comments:
    • Under Colonization: An example of this is the Lewis b antigen. An example of what? Possibly An example of such an adhesin?

More later. delldot talk 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the experimental treatments in the Rx section; I think that section should discuss only established treatments. Those could be included in a Research directions section, but not by themselves. I removed the {{unbalanced}} tag, as I thought that fixed the problem. Re-tag if not. More comments:

    • Heavy reliance on primary sources. Reviews should be found to replace these where possible.
    • While some favorable evidence has been accumulated, the theory is not universally accepted -- not really clear what this refers to. Also, this paragraph flows poorly from the last one. Why am I suddenly reading about cancer? How does it relate to the rest of the section?
    • Even biopsy is dependent on the location of the biopsy. -- Choppy, awkward sentence.
    • The info on rates of infection in the West and Third World should go in an Epidemiology section, not diagnosis.
    • Define unfamiliar terms like atrophic.
    • Refs should be consistent: periods after authors' initials, capital letters in article titles, full page range (4888–4891) or abbreviated (4888–91), periods after abbreviated journal titles (Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther.) or none (Dig Dis Sci).
    • All instances of the genus & species name should be italicized.

More to follow. delldot talk 20:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More:

    • It has been proposed that H. pylori induces inflammation and locally high levels of TNF-alpha and/or interleukin 6 -- perhaps explain the difficult terms, e.g. locally high levels of the inflammatory proteins TNF-alpha and/or interleukin 6. Also, and/or is discouraged by MOS.
    • Acid reflux and esophageal cancer is a tiny subsection all by itself. I'd get rid of it, but it's referenced above with an "explained below".
    • The last paragraph under Genome studies lost me. Any chance of making it less technical or explaining difficult terms?
    • Bacterial strains that have the cagA gene are associated with an ability to cause severe ulcers doesn't make sense.
    • I would suggest a restructuring of the article, with two main parts: the first half should be about the bacterium itself (e.g. structure, genome studies) and the second part about infection. If we change Colonization to Colonization and infection, we could convert Causes of infection, Diagnosis of infection, Treatment of infection to lvl 3 headers: Causes, Diagnosis, and Treatment (the cancer section would also be a level 3 under Infection). On the other hand, this would be a massive section.
    • I'm not sure about the comprehensiveness. So 2/3 of the world is infected? In that case, what are the usual characteristics of infection?

That's it from me. delldot talk 20:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my issues:

  • Lead is too short and does not summarize the whole article.
  • Citations are done improperly, although I've fixed many of them.
  • References are lacking from a number of statements.
  • Prose is difficult to read. There are too many areas where repetition has occurred.
  • The treatment section gives too much weight to natural treatments that are far from proven to do anything positive.
  • Editors have cleaned up the see also and external links section. Those were a mess.

Hopefully more editors will get involved so more people will watch the articles. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an MOS for microbiology articles? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images: I took a quick look at them, added info tags etc. I think everything is ok, but I'd prefer someone more experienced with images take a look at

Comments It's not a bad article but it is below the current FA standard. As mentioned above, there should be more, (up-to-date) citations. There are problems with the structure; the section headed Microbiology, is in fact a discussion on pathogenesis and there is little microbiology in the article. There is a bad error of fact in the all too short lead: H. pylori does not infect more people than any other bacterium, and the reference given does not support this claim. The article needs to make clear the important differences of bacterial colonisation, asymptomatic infection, (carriage), and symptomatic infection. Many more people are infected with Staphylococcus aureus than H. pylori. There is some poor prose too, in the History section for example: The community began to come round.... And, that image of the urease structure is purely decorative. The article can be rescued, but someone needs to spend a lot of time on it. Graham Colm Talk 14:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), referencing (1c), and structure (2). Marskell (talk) 10:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per nom. Very many problems with structure and references. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 04:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Several editors (some I've not seen about these parts) have cleaned up the article. It should stay. I'm going to remove the reference tags, as soon as I complete a review of each citation. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - agree with TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). There are still some style issues as well as referencing issues throughout that have not been addressed. Cirt (talk) 21:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still lacking a lot of citation, and no Signs and symptoms section (per WP:MEDMOS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how to respond to that. We keep running into articles like this one, and how to fit it into MEDMOS. H. pylori is a bacterium, so the article describes the bug, not the disease that results from the bug. So maybe the article on ulcers refers to H. pylori, and it would be styled according to MEDMOS. Or do we describe the disease too? I ran into this situation with Chickenpox (the disease), and Herpes/Varicella zoster the virus. Do we combine the articles? Do we separate them? Does one follow MEDMOS as the disease and the other basically an anatomical/genetic/physiological description of the disease vector. And let's not even go to something like malaria!!! So, I guess I need to ask, do we do a signs and symptoms of the disease that results from H. pylori (speculated to be ulcers), or do we have a microbiology article about the bacterium, with a section discussing how it might cause ulcers? I'm getting a headache. BTW, my idea has always been to combine the articles on the vectors for the disease and the disease. So Herpes zoster and shingles would be combined. Varicella zoster and chickenpox would be combined. In these cases the virus causes one disease, and the disease has one cause. H. pylori may cause ulcers, but I don't believe all ulcers are caused by H. pylori. Wow, this is giving me a serious migraine. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 08:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was actually going to write something similar to above this morning - it is tricky as the bug gives rise to several disease entities. OM has been busy with AD so has a good reason to have been preoccupied. Shall we give it another week? I have an idea. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has been significant clean-up of the article. I'd say in a week or so, maybe we could discuss whether the article meets FA standards or not. I think it's "coming round"...I need to find that bit of prose and beat it to death. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have made a few edits, [3]. The prose doesn't flow very well in parts but this is difficult to achieve when describing loosely related characteristics of the species, but the article has been much improved over the past few weeks. Graham Colm Talk 16:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've given this a copyedit and done some MOS cleanup. Maralia (talk) 16:05, 4 September 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 kept by User:Marskell 10:38, 1 September 2008 [4].

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 [[5]]. 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

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 14:19, 8 September 2008 [6].

Bank of China (Hong Kong)

Review commentary

Notified WP Companies, WP Business, ‎ WP China, WP Hong Kong and Juntung.

Lacking inline citations, outdated (most as of dates are dated), and MoS cleanup needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. This article needs major work. There was another major restructuring of the bank in 2005 or possibly 2006 that is not mentioned at all. --Patrick (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At current condition, it won't even meet the criteria for GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 02:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs more work, i agree with OhanaUnited --Itemirus (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with OhanaUnited (talk · contribs), this article certainly does not meet WP:GA standards at this point in time, let alone WP:FA. Cirt (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and MoS (2). Marskell (talk) 08:59, 25 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 10:57, 5 September 2008 [7].

Sesame Street

Review commentary

This was raised per concerns on IRC. Looking over the article, I notice very many problems which definitely make it far below FA class, especially given how much stricter FA has gotten since this was passed in '06:

  • Plenty of red links
  • "Funding" and "Characters" sections are almost entirely unsourced
  • {{Fact}} template in "Live characters" and "rumors and urban legends"
  • "Regional variations" also unsourced

Overall, I think these make it clear that this is no longer FA-class. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree, this is no longer an FA class article. The vast majority of it is unsourced, with only a spattering of references in each section. The lead doesn't summarize the article well. The article doesn't follow the Television MoS well (sections out of order and all over the place), nor the Wikipedia MoS, with basic errors in heading names, organization, the infobox, etc. The characters and cast sections are very disorganized and messy looking. The list in regional variations seems unnecessary when it already has an entirely separate list, much less two. The "Rumors and urban legends" seems entirely unnecessary. Relevant content should be merged to other sections. The criticsm section shows a lack of neutrality as it is not part of an overall reception section, and the only other reception info given is a much briefer ratings section. Its awards are relegated to a see also without so much as a lead, and no corresponding positive reviews are given at all. The reference section includes unsourced commentary. For the actual references, I saw at least to references to the Muppet wiki and one to a personal Tripod website! Quite a few others are missing basic information and refer to log in only articles on EBSCOhost. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree to delist Delist - many unsourced facts and prose is kind of below FA standards. miranda 01:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several issues in the article:
First paragraph in "Overview" needs to be better worded for prose flow.
Paragraph one and paragraph two are unsourced.
History of the show - one cite for the section. One external link.
"Rumors and Urban Legends" - OR?
"Featured Films" - unreferenced
If delisted, this article needs a B rating. miranda 20:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images Are there too many fair-use images, especially considering that there are a couple of free ones in the article? DrKiernan (talk) 09:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Marskell (talk) 08:55, 22 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 [8].

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 [9].

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 [10].

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[11] and here[12].

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=237497173"