Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive

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

• /to June 8 2006 (previous FAR process)
• /June 2006 (5 kept, 4 removed, combined old and new process)
• /July 2006 (7 kept, 16 removed)
• /August 2006 (11 kept, 21 removed)
• /September 2006 (10 kept, 24 removed)
• /October 2006 (9 kept, 21 removed)
• /November 2006 (5 kept, 30 removed)
• /December 2006 (6 kept, 17 removed)
• /January 2007 (13 kept, 24 removed)
• /February 2007 (11 kept, 18 removed)
• /March 2007 (12 kept, 17 removed)
• /April 2007 (10 kept, 17 removed)
• /May 2007 (11 kept, 23 removed)
• /June 2007 (6 kept, 9 removed)
• /July 2007 (11 kept, 17 removed)
• /August 2007 (10 kept, 14 removed)
• /September 2007 (9 kept, 15 removed)
• /October 2007 (7 kept, 13 removed)
• /November 2007 (7 kept, 12 removed)
• /December 2007 (8 kept, 13 removed)
• /January 2008 (14 kept, 9 removed)
• /February 2008 (11 kept, 10 removed)
• /March 2008 (8 kept, 16 removed)
• /April 2008 (12 kept, 10 removed)
• /May 2008 (4 kept, 16 removed)
• /June 2008 (12 kept, 14 removed)
• /July 2008 (10 kept, 8 removed)
• /August 2008 (9 kept, 12 removed)
• /September 2008 (17 kept, 18 removed)
• /October 2008 (12 kept, 14 removed)
• /November 2008 (4 kept, 8 removed)

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 17:30, 2 December 2008 [1].

---

Barack Obama

Notified: WP Biography, WP USPREZ, WP US Congress, WP Politics, User:Meelar, HailFire and User:Tvoz.

previous FAR (12:56, 19 September 2008)

It pains me to say this, but this article does not meet the featured article criteria for the following reasons:

• 1a - well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • The article fails this criterion because it has a maintainance tag at the top of the '2008 presidential Campaign' section complaining about proseline
  • In addition, the massive amount of information added/changed after he won an election makes the article inconsistent, slightly repetitive, and some parts are badly-written and out-of-sequence.
• 1C - factually accurate: claims are verifiable against reliable sources, accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge, and are supported with specific evidence and external citations; this requires a "References" section in which sources are listed, complemented by inline citations where appropriate
  • The article is lacking citations for many claims.
    • With an article that is policed like this one, stick a tag anywhere you feel a citation is needed and it will very likely appear.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The reflist it has causes visual problems for some users. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• To a lesser extent 1e - 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
  • The article has been placed on article probation - does that reflect stability?
• 4 - Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)
  • This article (even though summary style is used) is too long, both for easy reading and for fragile connections.

As I say, it pains me to do this, but after 2 hours and 30 minutes, the most visited article on Wikipedia's problems were not solved, and FAs should be of a higher quality than this. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 19:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The way I understood it, the article was placed on probation not because there are a lot of edit wars going on, but to enable administrators to get rid of SPA's and POV-pushers who are behaving in such a way that in normal circumstances, it would be nearly impossible to find a "legitimate" (so to speak) reason to ban them from the article. (e.g. they go to 2RR; don't revert the same thing, but always pecking away at the consensus version, etc.) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
  • True as that may be, a few too many vandals and trolls have been blocked for my liking, and the article content changes rapidly (since he recently won an election). It's also a bit long for my liking - my laptop can barely handle it! Dendodge Talk^Contribs 20:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Only a few are listed there, but vandalism and disruption isn't a stability issue. Previous FARs have shown that there is no actionable stability issue, and it's logic that following the election of Obama, the article is substantially modified. The prose issues in the election section can be addressed on the talk page. It's still featured quality, but needs some time to assimilate the recent events. Cenarium ^Talk 00:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
• The prose for that particular section can be cut-and-slashed down to between three and five paragraphs, with a retrospective view - the rest should go into the sub-article. - New content will surely come once his term begins. - Mailer Diablo 21:40, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Aww, I suppose it was inevitable. FAR is simply not going to be able to handle Obama. I dunno what to do. Marskell (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment about article the lead paragraph needs more citations, i'ved tagged a couple places with the citation needed tag. - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 21:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:LEAD says that content mentioned in the lead section, which is then cited throughout the article, doesn't require as much emphasis on citations. So I wouldn't be too sure about that. — Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 21:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would agree that FAR might not be able to handle an article like this. I believe the whole system of featured articles is just not built to consider articles such as this one. This will be the recipient of constant editing for the foreseeable future. Maybe in oh, ten years, it may settle down to a stable state, when new information, both cited and uncited, is no longer being added. Further, my understanding is that a featured article need not maintain stability at all times, but that it shows that stability and agreement is possible during FAC and FAR.--Patrick «» 22:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, LukeTheSpook, for pointing out the citation issue - I, too, notice it is a problem now you mention it and have addded it to my list of concerns at the top. Patrick, I agree that the FA criteria were designed to prove that stability was possible - unfortunately, it isn't on this article, and probably won't be for a while. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 22:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment The issue of how Obama's racial background should be described, what issues are involved with his self-identification as an Afro-American, the status of the latter group in U.S. society, the attitudes of various ethnic groups in the U.S. towards the idea of "mixed race" --- all these issues have broader implications aside from how they impinge on Obama's story. Although I too have contributed a bit to the discussion, I now feel that in the main article this issue should only be briefly touched upon, but with a clear reference (blue intratextual hyperlink?) to another article in Wikipedia which goes into more detail on these inter-related subjects. What I don't appreciate is some high-handed Wiki-whiz hiding my Talk-Page contribution(s) inside some "archive", in effect deciding without general consultation which material should or should not be left in open view for those who come to read the Talk-page. The disposition of comments and suggestions from individual Wiki-editors should rely on informed consent in order to maintain a civil and harmonious atmosphere. Efforts should be spent on acceptable, orderly placement of contributions, not on hiding them inside "archives".Jakob37 (talk) 14:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Procedural Close Pending Cleanup I agree that there are some minor tweaks that can return this article to FA standards. It was set to probation, just like the other 3 major nominees, due to a mix of vandalization and "overlove" during wone of the most unique elections in many of our lifetimes. That does not mean that, like the last FA challenge, it has the grounds to be removed from FA, it merely means that the repair todo list must be swiftly documented, and immediately enacted upon consensus. Duuude007 (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You can't close this before we've had time to gather consensus. Nobody has expressed a strong opinion yet. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 17:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Typically I would do this myself, but since there is so much activity surrounding this article, I'll just comment and let the regular editors decide. The multiple-column reference list at the bottom malfunctions on many articles. The bottom of the article is cut off and the FA star disappears at the top. I would urge editors to stick with {{reflist}} by itself, and not use any multiple columns. I would direct editors to read this to become familiar with the problem. -- Veggy (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I've added it to my list of concerns - I can't do it myself as my connection's not too good right now. Dendodge Talk^Contribs 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
• Comments on the various points raised:
  • This article, like almost all FAs, has a two column reflist, there is occasionally a problem with reflist with three of four columns, but it's not the case here.
  • The prose had recently to be modified due to external events indeed, some concerns have been raised and resolved and if you have any, please be specific.
  • I don't see any citation problem, the citations in the lead have been properly removed in accordance with WP:LEADCITE.
  • There is no actionable stability issue as I said and previous FARs concluded, vandalism and disruption is not a stability matter and articles must obviously be modified when external events with importance on the subject arise.
  • Length has been discussed many times and consensus is roughly that indeed it's quite long compared to other articles, but it can't be helped, and some similar articles have about the same length (Bush, McCain). Cenarium ^Talk 00:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Cenarium's comments seconded. Duuude007 (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to get around to a copy edit within the next 24 hours. —Ceran^{(dream / discover)} 01:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• It alarms me when I look at the top of the page and see that so few of the projects on the article's talk page have been notified of this discussion. Surely, you understand that this might be the most important WP biography to WP:CHICAGO and WP:ILLINOIS as well as WP:USPE and a few others. The article continues to be vigilantly watched for current news and vandalism. I would probably prefer a two-column reflist to the current three-column one. I think the article is excised properly for forked topics. I think the article adheres to WP:WIAFA, and it continues to be an example of the best of WP, IMO.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I see, the reflist is {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}, so on most configurations, it's a two-column, but it may be a three-column on certain configurations. It can be changed to {{reflist|2}}. Cenarium ^Talk 15:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I really don't think many editors are even taking this FAR seriously. It seems this article has an FAR every month, and as mentioned above many editors don't even know anything about it. To me this is one of the finest FA biographies we have on wikipedia, and it is used as an example for so many wikiprojects. So after a few more minor fixes, I would doubt that this review would have to continue. -Marcusmax(speak) 03:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Agree, I don't see any FAC issue with this article, there is almost no activity, so I suggest a close. Also on the reflist, it should be noted that the {{reflist|n}} (n>2) caused problems in certain configurations, however the {{reflist|colwidth=30em}} did not. The comments above did not assert that there were a problem in this article, so there is no issue. Cenarium ^Talk 23:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

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 17:30, 2 December 2008 [2].

---

Damon Hill

Notified WikiProject Motorsport, WikiProject Formula One, 4u1e, and Skully Collins

previous FAR

My primary concern with this June 2006 promotion is that I believe it fails 1c. Much of the career summary is low on citations, leaving many facts unreferenced. An example of this comes from the 1993-1996 section: "as he had repeatedly complained of cramp in the tight confines around the pedals." The 1998-1999 section describes him appearing to lose motivation, a statement that really needs a reference. I also see some phrases like "who took an emotional win" that creep in, though these can easily be fixed. I left a message on the article's talk page a while back, and the page has improved quite a bit, but I think it needs further work to meet current FA standards. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Very quick first response - I'd say "some" facts unreferenced rather than "many", but it's irrelevant either way really, they still need to be ref'd. Would you mind putting in cn tags where necessary, Giants? I've deliberately left "emotional win" in for the moment because of the very specific and extreme circumstances: Hill's teammate Ayrton Senna was killed a few weeks previously in another race, leading to a massive worldwide media reaction. At the time one possible cause of the fatal accident was believed to be a breakage on Senna's car, built to the same design as Hill's. A direct quote to this effect from someone would be better though. All other comments welcome. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are more cites needed than I thought. Fair cop. I've marked up the ones that I can see. 4u1e (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I added a couple more. One thing I want to point out is that the list of helmet sponsors strikes me as unnecessary. Maybe that could be reduced or eliminated altogether. Giants2008 (17-14) 18:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a mind reader. It's already gone. :) 4u1e (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. All cite needed tags are now gone. So has 'emotional win', in the absence of a suitable quote, and a couple of other bits of emphatic language. I believe that covers all extant comments. The article has in fact been re-written quite extensively since Giants' first comments. Are there any more comments from here? 4u1e (talk) 18:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the article is fixed. Since the original comments it's been significantly re-written (see diff), including restructuring of sections; a large percentage of the references have been replaced with more reliable alternatives; all of the refs have been moved to cite template format; a large number of refs have been added (71 now vs 46 before); and all wikilinks have all been checked and duplicates and low value links removed. Unless there are further comments, I suggest that the review should be closed before FARC. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 22:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

My biggest concern as far as the references went was the lack of citations for race results in the body. 4u1e added a reference to the result table at the bottom; I'll leave it to others to decide if that's sufficient. Other than that, it is looking a world better than it was when I first saw it a while back, though someone might want to check the space after reference 22. It will be difficult, because there isn't one. :-) Giants2008 (17-14) 00:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Picky, picky ;-). I'll fix the space. Regarding references for race results, Giants and I have discussed this before, and my view is that it would be actively harmful to the article to put in a cite for every simple factual statement such as "Hill finished fourth" - these things are completely uncontroversial and have a vanishingly low chance of being challenged. Remember that WP:Verifiability says "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." There is a full table of Hill's F1 results at the foot of the article, and this is referenced to the official F1 website. Pre-F1 results are inline cited, as there is no such comprehensive 'official' source for them. Where more detail on a race result is included (i.e. "Villeneuve took pole position, but Hill led away from the start"), there are (or should be!) inline cites. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 10:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

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