Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions
m Bot updating FAR archive links |
m →Removed status: +speed of light |
||
Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
==Removed status== |
==Removed status== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Speed of light}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sarajevo/archive2}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sarajevo/archive2}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Government of Maryland/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Government of Maryland/archive1}} |
Revision as of 23:46, 7 December 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
- /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)[reply]
- The reflist it has causes visual problems for some users. Dendodge TalkContribs 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is lacking citations for many claims.
- 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 TalkContribs 19:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.delanoygabsadds 20:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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 TalkContribs 20:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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 TalkContribs 20:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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 TalkContribs 22:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- You can't close this before we've had time to gather consensus. Nobody has expressed a strong opinion yet. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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 TalkContribs 16:03, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Cenarium's comments seconded. Duuude007 (talk) 15:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to get around to a copy edit within the next 24 hours. —Ceran(dream / discover) 01:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[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 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- I'm a mind reader. It's already gone. :) 4u1e (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- 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)[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:Joelr31 14:40, 5 December 2008 [3].
Xenu
Review commentary
- Notified: WP Scientology, WP Paranormal, David Gerard, ChrisO
- 1c:
- Inline Citations needed for quotes, statistics: a basic GA criterion is not fulfilled. Inline refs needed for all of them, giving whether primary or secondary references are used. If primary references, publisher, page numbers, date of source needed.
- Wherever Hubbard's views are stated, they need an inline reference to support the fact that they are Hubbard's views. S
- tatistics like dates (years) need references.
- Possible WP:OR "shows pictures of uniformed men in white helmets carrying boxes in and out of a spaceship, which may refer to the transportation of Xenu's victims."
- Then there claims of things being "the most popular critical Web site", "popular with critics". **Inline references like "Hubbard, Scientology: A History of Man" lack publisher info, year, page numbers. Others include refs 2,3,4, 42.
- ref 5: seems to be a blog, not so sure [4], see home. Anyone who can read Dutch can verify (I used Google translate).
- The neutrality of [5] can be disputed. It seems to be an anti-Church of Scientology site, I doubt the reliability of the writer too. It's disclaimer reads "DISCLAIMER: I, Andreas Heldal-Lund, am alone responsible for Operation Clambake. I speak only my own personal opinions."
- Reliability of [6] and [7], [8] is doubted by me. Prove it to be a RS.
- Violations of WP:MOS: "Section names should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article"
- 3: Images: Image:Xenu-LRH-handwriting.png, Image:Xenu BBC Panorama.jpg needs fair use rationale.
- [citation needed] were added to the page, see [9], which were reverted.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Many of the above points are indeed valid ones. I will try to work on this. Hopefully there will be others that can pitch in and help as well. Cirt (talk) 05:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The subsection title that includes the word "Xenu" I have changed to "Variant spellings". You dispute the Peter Forde article is reproduced in its entirety on xenu.net. The disclaimer by Andreas Heldal Lund refers to his own personal opinions, not those of Peter Forde whose work he is hosting on his site. Karin Spaink's web site (the Dutch one) is not a blog. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I find the figure of 75 million years intriguing. Is this related to what is considered to be the K-T boundary (Cretaceous-Tertiary; don't ask me how the C became the K) ? Katzmik (talk) 10:19, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- K-T was 65 million years ago (the K is German for Kreide, Cretaceous, and is used as the standard abbreviation). Hubbard may have believed that the dinosaurs were killed off by Xenu, but he evidently got the date wrong by 10 million years. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Several editors are working on improving the article currently - just a heads up that we may need a bit more time. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), MoS (2), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 14:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We've done some tweaking and copyediting, and gone through and removed some unsourced material, and addressed the self-referential subsection headers. I will try to work on sourcing and cite work soon, would appreciate a tad more time. Cirt (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MartinPoulter (talk · contribs) has been quite helpful in improving the article lately, and there are still ongoing improvements actively being done. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The MoS concerns have long been addressed. The two images cited have fair use rationales spelled out- are these not sufficient? Apologies but I'm new to the FARC process, so what's the issue there? OR and some dubious refs have been deleted. I welcome guidance on what remains to be done.MartinPoulter (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well after I see you have done some cite work I also plan to go over it and help out more, and perhaps hopefully others will as well. Cirt (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The MoS concerns have long been addressed. The two images cited have fair use rationales spelled out- are these not sufficient? Apologies but I'm new to the FARC process, so what's the issue there? OR and some dubious refs have been deleted. I welcome guidance on what remains to be done.MartinPoulter (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have asked Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) to add back some {{fact}} tags that were previously placed in the article, so we can see where to focus on as far as referencing efforts. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job. The article has certainly improved, though i have tagged it at places. References like 2,3, 39 (a few mentioned, check all) lack page numbers. Please add them, haven't tagged them. Needs some more work to remain FA. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the tagging, I will get on this soon, within a couple days at latest. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Redtigerxyz - much appreciated. I think the way is clear to resolve remaining problems with references, though I've only had time to skim this week. Expect further progress in the next couple of days.MartinPoulter (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good job. The article has certainly improved, though i have tagged it at places. References like 2,3, 39 (a few mentioned, check all) lack page numbers. Please add them, haven't tagged them. Needs some more work to remain FA. --Redtigerxyz Talk 12:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- One thing i forgot to say was my doubts about neutrality and reliability of references has been not answered. Though there is improvement, my vote for now is
Remove, which i will definitely change once all issues are addressed, and I see no more of doubtable (web) references. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I am sorry I have had some IRL issues come up and I have not gotten to this sooner. MartinPoulter (talk · contribs) has been doing some great work, and I will get to addressing the above points myself soon. Cirt (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I have done a bit of work on this, but many thanks go to MartinPoulter (talk · contribs) for all of his help and hard work as well. Cirt (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. In the last few days Cirt has done a great deal of work improving the sourcing and removing dubious material. It seems to me that this addresses all the concerns raised. Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs) brought up some legitimate problems but the quality of the article has been raised to meet them. Thanks for bearing with us.MartinPoulter (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work but a little more is needed. Missing page numbers for references in ref 3,4, 15, 17, 18, 21 etc. still an issue. The article should have any ref info left out, like page numbers.
Nearing Keep, not reached yet--Redtigerxyz Talk 13:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]- I will address these remaining points and give an update soon. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Additional points addressed, and I left a note for Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. I missed Cirt's comment as another user had written a comment on my talk, so new messages did not show Cirt's comment. Anyway now it's a Keep. Great job. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Additional points addressed, and I left a note for Redtigerxyz (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 06:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will address these remaining points and give an update soon. Cirt (talk) 13:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Great work but a little more is needed. Missing page numbers for references in ref 3,4, 15, 17, 18, 21 etc. still an issue. The article should have any ref info left out, like page numbers.
- Keep. Cirt has done an excellent job of overhauling the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:58, 5 December 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
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Speed of light
- 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:Joelr31 14:40, 5 December 2008 [10].
Sarajevo
Review commentary
I nominated this article because it appears to need a little work. Citations are missing from various areas (including a few fact tags), references are often not properly formatted, and the prose is in need of a copy editor's touch. Best, epicAdam(talk) 20:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Fails 1c, 2c and, in some parts, 1a. Although there are only a few {{fact}} tags lying around, I can see the opportunities for many more. Entire sections are left with none or one reference, and IMO, 44 references (almost all referenced only once) are definitely too few for an article of this size. The prose is good, but it can be better. I read the lead only, but I have already spotted some errors, e.g. should the metro population be mentioned in the first sentence? Also, there seem to be some non-obvious pipes (e.g. "assassination" to Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, or "recovering" to Constructions and reconstructions in Sarajevo after war). Admiral Norton (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image concerns:
- Image:Vucko.jpg: no fair use rationale.
- Image:SarajevoRose.jpg: no proper license --Redtigerxyz (talk) 10:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Geography and climate. First, according to WP:CITYLIKE this is not the proper name for this section. Second, coordinates should not normally appear in prose (at least I believe so). Also, the whole section does not have a single reference! There are some stray images and a lot of work needs to be done.
- History. More inline citations are necessary (there are some paragraphs without them) and prose could use some WP:MOS fixes (improper italicizing of settlement names). There are also redundancies: "It is estimated that of the more than 12,000 people who were killed and the 50,000 who were wounded during the siege, 85% of the casualties were civilians." and a misplaced gallery.
- Government. Again, referencing. There is only one reference in four paragraphs.
- Economy. GDP? Average salary? Some major points are missing. Referencing?
- That's it for now. I might continue this review later if someone cares to address this issues (esp. referencing). Admiral Norton (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are references and their formatting (1c and 2c), prose (1a), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Many of these issues highlighted by Marskell (talk · contribs) remain unaddressed. Cirt (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove.agree--JackyCheung (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Nobody even tried to take care of my suggestions and there are definitely too many omissions to fix the article in a reasonable amount of time. Admiral Norton (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. No apparent work done on the article to fix noted problems. -epicAdam(talk) 20:06, 25 November 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:Joelr31 14:40, 5 December 2008 [11].
Government of Maryland
Review commentary
- Notified: Tom, Jacob1207, WikiProject Maryland. WikiProject United States, WikiProject United States Government, WikiProject United States regions, WikiProject U.S. states. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily 1 (c), 2(a), 3. This fair use image, Image:Great Seal of Maryland reverse.png, is being used with a claim of fair use on no less than seventeen articles, with fair use rationales given for two of them. Was promoted to FA back in 2004. Cirt (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Prose is also sketchy - asking readers to "note" something isn't the best form for an encyclopedia. Significant overlinking is also present, particularly at the beginning. 204.193.204.17 (talk) 22:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Problems (mostly because I have an intimate understanding of Maryland's government for various reasons) - Lead is far too short. Organization is wrong. No history or background section first. The Executive Branch is more than the Gov and Lieutenant. We are missing the Comptroller and the Attorney General (et al) in this section (yes, they are part of the Executive Branch, so it should be so) for starters. Lets not forget about the Cabinet. Too much put on Judiciary vs Legislative. There is a lot more to add about the Legislature. There is a lot missing. Nothing about the cities listed. County sections are too short. Nothing is said about Annapolis being the capital and explaining how the capital use to be St. Mary' City. Etc etc etc. This is far from comprehensive. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lack of inline references is a big issue. Does not meet current FA standards. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image Image:Map of maryland counties.jpg has no source or author. DrKiernan (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), LEAD (2a), and images (3). Marskell (talk) 14:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Above issues have not been addressed. Cirt (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove There was some work done on the day of nomination which helped the article, but nothing since. DrKiernan (talk) 17:20, 20 November 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:Joelr31 14:40, 5 December 2008 [12].
Cornell University
Review commentary
- Notifications at Mercuryboard, Xtreambar, WP Cornell, WP Universities
I noticed the talk page of this article over two weeks ago that it needed extensive cleanup: per the number of cleanup and citations needed tags, it appears to be Wiki's most problematic FA at the moment. I'll detail additional issues if anyone begins to work on the article; the notice on the talk page over two weeks ago generated no response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The entire Greek life section has no citations. The Historic sites section is a bulleted list. The Alumni section is a vast rambling wikilink farm with almost no citations. From a MOS standpoint, there are several places where text is sandwiched between images. Confusingly, there is one section titled 'Press' and another titled 'Press and media'. The number of images should probably be reduced, and the image captions could definitely use improvement; many do not make the connection between the article subject and what is depicted. Definitely in need of some work. Maralia (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a slight visual issue with the infobox regarding its usage of three logos. If I remember correctly, the infobox should only contain the university seal and either a doing-business-as logo or an athletic mascot logo. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 08:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs to address several major issues:
- The history section is woefully inadequate and misses the boat entirely on important historical issues common to almost all universities like WW2 impact, post-war growth, Vietnam protests & social unrest, retooling mission after cuts in gov't funding in 80s, impact of growth in 90s & 2000. What little content is in the history section is either platitudinal or unverifiable (Along with its population growth, Cornell increased its breadth of course offerings; Cornell expanded significantly in the 20th century; Today, the university has wide-ranging program; etc.) I would venture that this is case of summary style gone awry by boosters who would rather keep the grittier parts of history off of the glossy, admissions-friendly main article.
- Instances of unencyclopedic style are rampant: "The Ithaca Campus is among the rolling valleys of the Finger Lakes region and, atop the Hill, commands a panoramic view of the surrounding area.", "Cornell has partnered with Queen's University in Canada to offer a joint Executive MBA. The innovative program includes both on-campus and videoconferencing-based, interactive virtual classroom sessions.", "because engineers knew more than literature professors did about running steam-powered printing presses."
- Academic profile and faculty sections are out of date. Instances of facts overwriting other facts without corresponding citations being updates (class of 2012 stats reference a citation dated 2007), non-authoritative sources used, the previous president resigned 3 years ago.
- Campus section attempts to detail the location and mission of every program not in Ithica. Cut down and summarize.
- External links in the ranking section.
- Citation style is spotty with regard to including publisher, title, etc.
- The article is missing basic descriptive information about its academic profile that could be readily gleaned from the Carnegie Classifications for Higher Education.
- Financial aid does not deserve a top-level heading. Merge with admissions or student body information.
- Red links in Housing section.
- Embedded lists for Press and radio and historic sites need to be "prose-ified" and integrated into appropriate sections. Far too much emphasis on Greek life or controversies therein.
- The research section should be made more adjacent to or integrated with the faculty or academics sections rather than floating near the bottom of the article between student life and alumni
- Alumni sections are always tricky with regard to balancing verifiability with overlinking, but it appears there has been no attempt to cite these passages. Nor has there been any attempt to summarize this information (as was done to excess for the history section).
- Self-referential links indicative of deleted articles redirected back here but never updated: Undergraduate Business Program at Cornell University
There's a serious amount of work to be done here. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the images should have more solid information. As there are a number of images, questionable ones should be removed or replaced.
- Image:Cornell Arts Quad 1919.jpg: no source; no evidence published before 1923
- Image:CornellAgQuad.jpg: permission is weak
- Image:Cornell War Memorial.jpg, Image:Boldt Hall.jpg & Image:HouseofAndrewDickinsonWhite.jpg: ideally, an OTRS ticket should confirm that Sergeev has released these pictures (e.g. http://www.asergeev.com/pictures/archives/compress/2005/475/11.htm). Other pictures of his are released under CC rather than PD licences.
- Image:PictureofMyronTaylorHall.jpg & Image:Sagehallfromchristian.jpg: "my friend sent it me" is too weak
- Image:Cornell Balch Halls Exterior.jpg: source unclear
- Image:Schoellkopf Field2.jpg the OTRS ticket is the same number as Sergeev's other images which have difference licences attached. Why would Sergeev release some as public domain, some as GFDL and some as CC? I find that suspicious.
- Image:Cornell'sawesomehockeyteam.jpg: The history of this file is confused. It probably should not be labelled GFDL-self as the creator ("Mercuryboard's friend" later identified as Dan Furie) did not upload it.
- Image:Dragon Day 1901.JPG: no evidence of publication prior to 1923
- Image:Decentrhodeshall.jpg: source is a dead link; I couldn't find the copyright release on the page given
- Image:Cornellclubnyc.jpg: source? author? DrKiernan (talk) 15:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I have not had time to respond to any of these issues; I've been working my tail off for the Obama campaign for the past month and a half, so Wikipedia has not been a high priority as of late. That being said, I absolutely agree that the Cornell University article has become somewhat bloated and filled with fluff. Thus, I would not be offended if its FA status were revoked pending a much needed cleaned up. --Xtreambar (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are MoS and formatting (2) and images (3). Marskell (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: concerns with references and their formatting (1c and 2c) were also expressed above. Maralia (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Per above issues raised by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), Maralia (talk · contribs), Madcoverboy (talk · contribs), and DrKiernan (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 18:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove I think we're all agreed that the article needs a clean-up. Unfortunately, with the main author otherwise busy, work on the article is not going to proceed within the FAR process. The comments above can be worked on by any interested editors that come along after demotion. DrKiernan (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove A month having passed since my first comment above, with no significant changes to the article, it appears unlikely that this is going to be brought to standards in the near future. Of course, there is no deadline, and if a commitment is made to working on the article, I would be happy to revisit. Maralia (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove I note that exactly 12 relatively trivial edits have been made since I made my comments three weeks ago. I see neither progress nor commitment towards resolving these issues. I would be happy to revisit the article in the future, but this is not Wikipedia's best work anymore. Madcoverboy (talk) 09:29, 1 December 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:Joelr31 14:40, 5 December 2008 [13].
Pashtun people
Review commentary
- WikiProjects notified
Article lacks sources in many places, and these are badly formatted or mostly from adhoc websites that are not reliable. MOS violations. MAny single sentence paragraphs. Has also been the subject of edit wars from anons which has caused a bit of irregularness in the presentation of the article. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 05:19, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Issues with images:
- Image:AhmadShahDurrani.jpg lacks permission, source.
- Image:Nv-army-gray BG.jpg, source, date not given to support PD in India claim.
- Image:Sharbat Gula.png: no fair use rationale.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are reliable sources (1c), MoS (2), and stability (1e). Marskell (talk) 14:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove. Per YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Remove Citation needed markers should be replaced with reliable sources verifying the claims made. The rationale for Image:Sharbat Gula.png is too weak: it's just a picture of a girl, so fair use doesn't apply. In addition the citation at the end of the sentence, "The difficult lives of Afghan female refugees gained considerable notoriety with the iconic image of the so-called "Afghan Girl" (Sharbat Gula) depicted on the June 1985 cover of National Geographic magazine." does not support the claims made in the sentence. It is a link to the article but it does not confirm that the image is iconic. That would require a third-party source referring to the image and the article. The Image:Mamoud Tarzi-203.jpg has no author information, so the fact that one of the sitters died over 70 years ago is irrelevant. The important factors are when the photograph was first published and when the portraitist died. Image:Ahmed Shah Durrani.png is not acceptable. The uploader is a sockpuppet of an impersonator, and on flikr it says very explicitly "all rights reserved". I have tagged this image as a copyright violation. DrKiernan (talk) 17:38, 20 November 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.