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
+2
Line 41: Line 41:


==Kept status==
==Kept status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chrono Trigger}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Photon/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Photon/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/M62 motorway/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/M62 motorway/archive1}}
Line 46: Line 47:


==Removed status==
==Removed status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Isan/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Isan/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/First Crusade/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/First Crusade/archive1}}

Revision as of 03:00, 23 January 2009

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

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Chrono Trigger

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 01:59, 8 January 2009 [1].

Photon

Review commentary

Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts automatically notified by bot

This article no longer appears to meet FA specifications.

  • The lead section does not comply with WP:LEAD. There are seven paragraphs, whereas WP:LEAD recommends a maximum of 4. It needs to be re-edited.
  • More importantly, there are multiple paragraphs and sections that are not properly cited.
  • There is overlinking. For example, momentum is wikilinked 5 times; wavelength 4 times; electromagnetic radiation 8(!) times, frequency 4 times, polarization 4 times, quantum mechanics 5 times, Albert Einstein 5 times, &c. Some obvious terms shouldn't need links, such as lens, matter, mass, energy, eye, physics, vision (twice),annihilated and chemistry. "Compton scattering" is not linked at first occurance.
  • "More daringly" and "perhaps more remarkably" don't seem neutral and the opinions are not explained.
  • Some of the citations are inconsistently formatted.
  • "position eigenstate" is not explained, per WP:Jargon.
  • There are minor format issues, such as spaced em-dashes, plus hyphens where an en- or em-dash would be appropriate.

&c. Overall it is still in somewhat decent shape, so some cleanup and references should be sufficient.—RJH (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many of these changes are relatively small. Don't you think it would be more productive to make at least some of the changes yourself, and/or to make some suggestions on the talk page, rather than starting the good 'ol de-featuring timer? -- SCZenz (talk) 13:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, normally I would often take care the minor issues myself. But, in this case, the problems with the lead and significant lack of references seemed sufficient in themselves to trigger an FAR, so I decided to do a review instead. The neutrality issues also seem like subjects that need to be addressed by an SME.—RJH (talk) 17:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is honestly utterly terrible, now that I look in detail. It appears that it has suffered bloating due to POV-pushing and arguments, with the attendant over-precision. It has inaccuracies, as have been discussed recently on Talk:Photon. I think it needs a complete rewrite, and I will work on this, along with the references. The rest of your points are minor as I said above -- and I still wish this had been handled through means other than featured article review, like an ordinary message to WP:WikiProject Physics. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Young Diffraction.png source is a little weak. Can we have a reference to the original? DrKiernan (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's apparently from a presentation given to the Royal Society around 1803. See for example [2]. -- SCZenz (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to add at least some more of them over the next few days. Markus Poessel (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've done some work on the refs, so that should make Sandy a bit happier about them, but it's not complete. There's a lot of plain hand-formatted text that'll need to be turned into template text, but the big job is done (multiline, uniformize some outputs, preliminary citation bot run, etc, split into notes and refs, ...). A suggestion for the body would be to textify the simple math, and to use \scriptstyle for what cannot be converted. I'll keep working on the refs for some time, so if someone could take care of the math, that would be nice.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 05:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and lead. Joelito (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The re-written lead looks good to me. And as far as I can see, all but two of the sections needing additional citations have received them. I'll see if I can rustle up sources for the remaining uncited paragraphs, but it looks to me like restoration of the article has progressed pretty well, which is why I was caught a bit off-guard by the move from FAR to FARC. Markus Poessel (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was still one citations-needed template left which I just removed (there is a cite for the last paragraph and the other paragraphs are basic and not controversial). With all the improvements, this article should be a keep. --RelHistBuff (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes still needed: not happy generally, but the main work remaining is that the article mixes citation styles, using the citation template and the cite xxx family of templates (see Wikipedia:CITE#Citation templates and tools re not mixing styles) ad there are many incomplete citations (ex: Sheldon Glashow Nobel lecture, delivered 8 December 1979. ) and an inconsistent citation style with respect to author name, date fields, and the citation vs. cite xxx templates. I fixed a lot of other little things myself, think the prose could be clearer, but won't object. The citations should be cleaned up, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several weeks, fixes still needed, still missing publishers and needs citation cleanup (Samples: Sheldon Glashow Nobel lecture, delivered 8 December 1979. Abdus Salam Nobel lecture, delivered 8 December 1979.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 1 January 2009 (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 21:49, 4 January 2009 [3].

M62 motorway

Hi. I am nominating this article, of which I am a significant contributor, for featured article review to ensure it still meets the standards for FAC. The reason I am nominating this article is that it was promoted around a year ago, and standards can change in that long a period. I'm hopig to gain opinions on how to update it to today's standard. Thanks! Sceptre (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image check OK. DrKiernan (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note No concerns have been brought up in this FAR. If no concerns are brought this FAR will be closed. Joelito (talk) 16:47, 21 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 kept by User:Joelr31 13:49, 5 January 2009 [4].

Bryce Canyon National Park

Review commentary

This article was promoted four years ago, and needs many inline citations to meet current standards, since it only has one currently. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still have the same books used as the listed references and will add inline cites. --mav (talk) 01:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Off the top of my head (can't do much as I am enmired elsewhere but a couple of things stick out) - if the article were bigger, the gallery section could be integrated nicely in the article. As it is only 24k, there should be scope to do this. Things I'd like to see embellished are flora, and the two bulleted segment faunal regions could be expanded and made into paragraphs. National Parks are about preserving environments, so focussing on some of the biological is a fantastic was of introducing readers to the delights of biology. With most articles I do, especially plants, I slot in (or help the main contributor) scientific names - the Everglades is a good example. Be good to add a bit on the soil types as well. Can expand on the threats to the park, and are there any endangered plants or animals which depend on it? I will ping Moni3 too as she did all the Everglades ones... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many inline cites added. Please add fact tags as needed and I'll track down any remaining items that need inline cites. As for images: I would rather remove the gallery and reduce the size of the large photo than to expand the article solely to accommodate them. The amount of info in this article is already proportionate to its size and the amount that can be written about it. This is a small park that protects pretty much just the erosional features and small areas beyond them and therefore has the same flora and fauna as the corresponding life zones in the High Plateaus. --mav (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I know next to nothing about US natural history, so am ignorant. Even small parks here in Oz often have something unique in them. Many restricted species do occur across an area of similar space to a park but the park is the only place that is protected by legislation. Agree that the sole reason for expanding the article should not be to accommodate images. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just gave this a quick copyedit/MOS flyover. I left a couple inline comments for you, mav. Maralia (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great edits thanks! I'll take a look at those comments. --mav (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I found all of your comments and addressed them. If so, I think we are done with this FAR. --mav (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I tweaked a few more things, and have only one lingering question. You modified this sentence to suit me: "A nearby example of amphitheaters with hoodoos in the same formation but at a higher elevation, is in Cedar Breaks National Monument, which is 25 miles (40 km) to the west on the Markagunt Plateau." The sentence itself parses now, but it is dangling at the end of a paragraph about the weather at Bryce, and I can't figure out why. Grasping at straws - are you trying to make the point that hoodoos form even at higher elevations? Or does the sentence belong somewhere else? Maralia (talk) 02:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations. Joelito (talk) 16:39, 21 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/French law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols in schools

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 22:24, 13 January 2009 [5].

Isan

Review commentary

Notifications: Henry Fowler, Thimoss, WP Southeast Asia, WP Thailand

1c -- poorly referenced (or, more precisely, unreferenced). Colchicum (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woh, when you said "poorly referenced", you weren't kidding. Many, many more inline citations required in this article before it can pass 1c of the FA Criteria. Terrakyte (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been over two weeks since the FAR started, and I can see no evidence that the 1c issue has been worked on since that time. Therefore, I suggest move to FARC commentary. Terrakyte (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 16:41, 21 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 23:51, 8 January 2009 [6].

First Crusade

Review commentary

Notified - Adam Bishop, Stbalbach, Shanes, Ghostexorcist, WP MILHIST, WP ISLAM, WP EGYPT, WP CATHOLICISM, WP Middle Ages, WP TURKEY, WP PALESTINE, WP RELIGION, and WP Christianity.

1c of the Featured Article Criteria states that, for an article to be FA-class, its "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". I do not believe this article meets that criteria, and that is why I have nominated it for an FA review. I have highlighted which sentences in the article I believe require citations with 'citation needed' tags (and to note, the article has 37 citations in total at the time of writing). Thank you in advance to anyone who gets involved in this review, and thank you for reading. OpenSeven (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwinva asked me to help fix this but I still haven't had a chance to do it. It should be pretty easy; it's just a big article and would take more time than I have had lately. I'll try to work on it before the FAR closes. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I'm throwing some citations at the sections I can get with my sources. (Hey, I wanted a break from bishops anyway!). There is just some stuff I don't have access to, my library tends towards English rather than Middle Eastern medieval stuff, so after I mine these books out, it'll be up to someone else. Also, OpenSeven, you'll note that this article was promoted over four years ago, in 2004, standards on citation have changed, and this article is actually in pretty decent shape for being promoted that long ago. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Ealdgyth for the work you have done thus far on the article, it certainly is in a better shape from when I nominated it for a FAR. I'm afraid I do not see how a consideration of when the article was promoted is applicable to this discussion, as around the top of the Wikipedia:Featured article review article, it says "FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted". I hope you will be able to improve the First Crusade article even further, so that it can get closer to satisfying 1c of the FAC.OpenSeven (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You added tags to every sentence? That's insane. You even tagged at least one section that actually is cited. No wonder FAR is such a pain in the ass. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add a tag to every sentence, although the density of citation tags is high especially regarding the analysis sections, which offer the most controversial, unsourced points. If I have added citation tags to a paragraph which was already sourced, my apologies for that, and I would be entirely happy if my wrong citation tags regarding that paragraph are removed (I would do it myself but I cannot find the paragraph in question). Thank you in advance. OpenSeven (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep plugging away Adam, in the next few days, hopefully I can whittle the number you need to mess with down. It'll be a few days, this is tedious work, I can only do it for so long. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ealdgyth. If I can claim the majority of the work on the original version of the FA, then I assure you all I did not make anything up, which is why it should be easy to cite; but on the other hand, my knowledge of history and historiography was much poorer four years ago, so there are probably parts that need updates rather than just citations. (Of course, it's possible to have a whole paragraph or even a section cited by the same footnote; sorry if I was snappy earlier, but it's annoying when FAC busybodies stick tags everywhere when they have no knowledge of the subject.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've thrown a few cites needed tags up, mainly when part of a paragraph is cited to a source I'm citing but earlier parts aren't necessarily cited there. I'm hampered by having misplaced my copy of Runciman's First Crusade, so I can't help much with that. I'll get to it again a bit later this afternoon. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay, we shouldn't use Runciman anyway. He's badly out of date even for the most basic information. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I've sourced everything I can. I just don't have the sources for anything but the narrative, sorry Adam. Hopefully this helped some at least. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that good or bad?
By the way, the article still seems to be missing...something. I've been working on a section about some historiographical issues, which I suppose could go into the main Crusades article, but I think would also fit in this one; stuff like the Erdmann Thesis, common myths like the younger-sons-looking-for-glory idea, different opinions about the role of Islamic expansion, the cannibalism, the massacre in Jerusalem, etc. I guess I will have to intersperse it into the existing paragraphs. Would that be too much? Too boring? Best placed somewhere else? Adam Bishop (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(It is currently in my sandbox, by the way. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]
OK, I've reworked the background section. More to come later. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reading Erdmann the other day (as you can see here and here). Perhaps a whole article on his thesis would be possible? I wish I had more time to work on this article, but I am busy these days. I think the article needs to be restructured. Looking at the table of contents, it's not a very inviting article. I like the idea of refuting common misconceptions (which is just about every common conception), but I don't like the sharp division that currently exists between "chronology" and "analysis". And the choice of headings does not help the reader greatly in selecting which section he (or she) wishes to read. But in short: I think I'd prefer "interspersing" to the current situation, but the information will just get lost that way unless the whole article is restructured. Srnec (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article on the Erdmann thesis would be appropriate; I was also thinking that the origins section of the Crusades article could be expanded, but that article is in much worse shape than this one. At the moment I'm trying to sort out the background and the "east in the 11th century" section, and I haven't even begun to look at the rest of the sections yet. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been two weeks but the review hasn't closed, so can we request an extension? I think it will meet the FA standards with a little more time. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAR doesn't move at FAC or GAN speed. We've got time, as long as things are being worked on. Usually it's a couple of months, all told. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, excellent. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does the beginning look now? I've kind of been hacking and slashing, since there was a lot of repeated information, and (I thought) too much detail that is better off in other articles. I'm trying to coherently organize the background section but I am still not totally happy with it. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are lead, comprehensiveness, and sources. Joelito (talk) 04:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove First of all, well done to Adam Bishop and Ealdgyth for the work they have done thus far on the article. It is because of that progress that I think this article can still recover to FA quality before this FAR concludes. However, for the moment, I do not believe the article is yet of FA quality. Inline citations lacking to the extent needed for FA, especially in the Analysis sections. Terrakyte (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up the mess that the citation-bomber left. The requests for cites are in paragraphs that already have cites, so unless there is a challenge to be made for a specific statement, then those Fact tags are not needed. In addition to the lead section to be expanded, I suggest some short paragraphs (one-two sentences) merged, and some cites in the Aftermath section. I really don't think the "In arts and literature" section is needed, but that's up to the editors. In any case, I lean toward a Keep. --RelHistBuff (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold steady improvement is happening. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I'll do some MoS cleanup over the next few days, but the WP:LEAD needs to be expanded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MSH issues:
    1 Background
    1.1 Background
  • Inadequate WP:LEAD
  • Citation needs (see first para of Background as example) and citation tags
  • I asked User:Brighterorange to run his script to correct the faulty endashes in the ciations.
Work is still needed before this article can be kept. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess everyone is busy at the moment. We'll get to it eventually... Adam Bishop (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is pretty much beyond my sources at this point. Very few English took part in this Crusade, so my sources don't concentrate much on it. Besides, I've got Wilfrid on my plate. Adam, if you need me for something, drop me a note, please. Otherwise, I think I'm done here. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do we feel about this one? Has all work been completed? Joelito (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope! Honestly at the rate I find time to work on this, it could take months. If it is necessary to de-list it and go through the process again when I'm done, that's okay. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2009 (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 01:59, 8 January 2009 [7].

Warren County Canal

Review commentary

Notified relevant parties: User:PedanticallySpeaking (was the only main editor, was also nominator) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Ohio (only project listed on talk page)

1(c) - currently lacks inline citations. It has 3 inline citations. [Background: was nominated over 3 years ago and has not been reviewed since. Only one main contributor, whose account has not been used in over 1 year.] Tom B (talk) 12:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 16:44, 21 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 01:59, 8 January 2009 [8].

Growth of the Old Swiss Confederacy

Review commentary

Notified Sj, WP Switzerland, Lupo

Almost total lack of inline citations & use of foreign langauage references(english ones are preferred on the english language wikipedia). ʄ!•¿talk? 08:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Told User:Sj, Wikipedia:WikiProject Switzerland. --Redtigerxyz Talk 13:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Told User:Lupo. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the instructions at WP:FAR, please complete the notifications and post them back to here as in the sample at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asthma/archive1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c), including issues regarding WP:WEASEL and WP:NONENG. Concerns also regard consistent citations(2b), with almost all missing page numbers contrary to WP:CITE. ʄ!•¿talk? 14:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 16:43, 21 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive&oldid=265844338"