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
m →‎Kept status: +Radiohead
Line 50: Line 50:


==Removed status==
==Removed status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paracetamol}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nellie Kim/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Nellie Kim/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Zambezi/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Zambezi/archive1}}

Revision as of 00:40, 25 February 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/Radiohead

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 Joelr31 17:08, 21 February 2009 [1].

Scouting

Review commentary

former FAR
Relevant parties notified of this FAR: WP:WikiProject Scouting (diff), User:Rlevse - "Lead Coordinator" of WP Scouting (diff)

My rationale for this FAR is the following:

I hope these issues can be addressed to get this back up to FA standards, but I feel that some of these issues will take time to resolve and that the best course of action might be to demote the article. Best regards --Eustress (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of this is very subjective and the last one is counter to WIAFA guidelines, which calls for "succinct" captions, not elaborate ones. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CAP says that a good caption "establishes the picture's relevance to the article." A caption should be succinct, but "succinctness is not the same as brevity," and my concern was that the current captions do not establish relevancy. I see you've started to make some changes on the article to this effect. --Eustress (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by doncram Nice article. But I notice that the article does not develop the division/distinctions between Girl Guides vs. Girl Scouts which are discussed in some detail in Marti Gerdes, Robert W. Blythe, and Patty Henry (March 21, 2005), National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: Juliette Gordon Low Historic District. See p. 20 especially. Link to the full PDF at Juliette Gordon Low Historic District. It is a reliable source providing great detail on Juliette Gordon Low who should be discussed in this Scouting article. Also it describes that Campfire Girls was pre-existing and did not choose to join the U.S. Girl Guide movement. There is, basically, a lot there which I think should be woven into this Scouting article. I am peer reviewing a related article on scouting in South Africa, by the way. doncram (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind this article is international in scope, it is not US specific. It should not delve too far into country/organization specifics. Low was almost exclusively an American Girl Scout leader. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but the source is eloquent on interesting stuff, like how Baden-Powell and others did not envision girls as "Scouts", consistent with wider views that women should be men's "helpmeets" instead, hence Guides not Scouts, while Low and others came to view that girls deserved more and/or there was interesting U.S. vs. British tension. Also the Campfire Girls organization is/was very large and i think it is not mentioned in the article. Anyhow, just read the source i suggest and i think you'll find it interestingly complementary to what's in the article, too. doncram (talk) 07:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just brought this up here because this was open; I have no opinion about whether the article needs to be under review. Will copy this to talk page instead, given others' comments below. I am done here. doncram (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the "nominator's" points are the type of arbitrary fault-finding that can be done with any article, including any featured one. The case is not particularly convincing. The nominator fails to mention that he or she added the "citation needed" and "original research" templates him/herself. I reviewed some of the statements so-tagged, and most of the tags seem arbitrary, unnecessary, and lacking in rigor. Sure, the article can be improved, but we don't need big guns. As long as the templates stay in place, of course—whether there is any justification for them or not—we get the cheap appearance of an FA that belongs at FAR. That's not thoughtful analysis of an article, it's a game played on wikipedia. –Outriggr § 03:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the nominator's points are unclear or without connection to the context of the article, nearly all of his excessive set {{fact}}-tags are unnecessary or referenced in neighbouring sentences. Including an {{or}}-tag on the usage of long trousers as a potential part of the Scout uniform ([2], line 99) is very close to disruptive behaviour.
    However, I added some of the demanded references, which were - with one exception - all used earlier in paragraphs close to the demanded reference. --jergen (talk) 10:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The outdates refs and legit cite tags are all fixed. Many of the cite tags were mere Wikipedia:Tag_bombing. As Outriggr alludes to, most of the rest of this is rather WP:POINTy. It should also be noted that moments prior to this FAR being filed these threads occurred with the nom and myself directly related to this article: Talk:Scouting#Pics and captions, User_talk:Rlevse#FAR, Talk:Boy_Scouts_of_America#MIA Scouts. — Rlevse • Talk • 13:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→It's nice to see progress on this article. The hope is that FAs can be rescued through FAR if possible. I've put a strike through the citation concerns, which have all been addressed. --Eustress (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preferably, these issues should be taken up on the talk page first. Anyway, since we are here, I will take advantage and see if there are any prose/MOS tweaks to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Outriggr, Rlevse, and Dabomb87. The legit issues here are already fixed and given the links Rlevse has provided, this FAR certainly looks retaliatory but I hope it's not. The proper place for the very minor issues that remain is, as Dabomb87 says, the talk page. This FAR should be dismissed and the remain discussion picked up on Talk:ScoutingSumoeagle179 (talk) 20:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to pile on, but I completely agree with Dabomb and Rlevse. Most of the concerns raised are minor issues, and should have been addressed via talk page discussion. However, the article has made quite a bit of progress, so I think this FAR can be closed. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, MoS, and prose. Joelito (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The only real issue here was refs and the nominator has already said that's fixed. As other commentators have pointed out, the rest of this is minor differences in style and preference and could be brought up of any FA, and that does not warrant losing FA status. Any remaining issues should be brought up at Talk:Scouting. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:21, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Outriggr. --evrik (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Withdraw FAR I appreciate everyone's comments and now realize that most of these issues are minor, as I have been able to easily resolve some of them. Please withdraw this FAR. I will instigate such inquiries on talk pages in the future. Thank you! --Eustress (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The remaining issues are not really issues. Rationale #1 about sentences starting with numbers like 367 seems just silly to me. Small numbers should be spelled out but larger numbers should be numeric. Rationale #4 on the "Controversy and conflict" and "In film and the arts" sections seems to have little weight as the main material is in the links at the top of each section. Perhaps they could be improved and I am sure they will be, but they are not a FA issue. All the other issues have been dealt with. This review has improved the article, but it should now be closed as "keep FA status". --Bduke (Discussion) 00:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not only should this not have been filed, the nom has withdrawn. Trivial issues are left. No reason to delist this. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 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 Joelr31 15:33, 17 February 2009 [3].

Lazare Ponticelli

Review commentary

Notified: WP BIO, WP World's Oldest People, WP MILHIST, Bart Versieck, Editorofthewiki, Canadian Paul.

I'm unsure why this was promoted earlier in the year. IMO, it fails Criteria 1a (poor prose throughout) and 2 (MoS breaches, such as the range-hyphens in the infobox and the linked date at the opening, still not satisfactorily justified on the talk page), with a question mark over Criterion 1b (it's hard to believe that it's comprehensive—a person's whole life and, specifically, his role in the war and symbolic meaning as the last survivor). The repetition and density of the inline citations unnecessarily affects the appearance and readability of the text (cf. the requirement for a professional standard of formatting). Tony (talk) 11:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The repetition and density of the inline citations unnecessarily affects the appearance and readability of the text." Give me a break. I have cited everthing challengeable, as per WP:V. "Poor prose throughout" - You only provided one example of supposed poor prose on the talk page, which I didn't see was a problem but was fixed nonetheless. Please provide more examples to back this up. I have no clue about hyphens, so I'd like someone else to fix that. The linked date at the opening clearly passes WP:MOSNUM as there is a clear reason do do so, as explained on the talk page, and bringing this here because you don't like that may be a bit pointy. I will search for new sources, though last time I checked we covered about everything. I'm having technical difficulty on my computer over the last couple of days so I don't know if I can add much until it's fixed. Oh, and Ponticelli was not the last French veteran, just the last poilu. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Certainly not "brilliant, engaging prose throughout", which would make it a 1a failure. Sorry. Some examples include:

  • "was the last official French veteran of the First World War and poilu, or foot soldier, of its trenches" I have difficulty making sense of this in its current form. Perhaps simply "was the last official French veteran of the First World War" and explain poilu later on in the article? It's difficult to try and work it into a compact sentence in the lead and, I would guess, it is not key to the topic.
  • "At the time of his death, Ponticelli was both the oldest living man born in Italy and the oldest man living in France" Bit tricky - there's got to be a neater way of putting it that doesn't involve the obvious contradiction of Ponticelli being the oldest living person at his death. Possibly, "Before his death in March 2008, Ponticelli was the oldest living man born in Italy and the oldest man living in France." (Specifying "both" is redundant.)
  • "He described the event in an undated interview as "blood running through [his] eyes", but he "continued firing despite [his] wound."" This really doesn't make any sense. The quote is also inaccurately transcribed from its source. Looking at the reference, I suggest: "In an undated interview, he described being shot by Austrian troops: "Blood was running into my eyes ... I continued firing despite my wound."
  • These are examples only. In general I would say that the text is rather clunky, with the linkages between ideas not clearly drawn out. I suggest getting a really good copyeditor to go over it.

Having read a couple of the sources, I am now also concerned about criterion 1c (factual accuracy). For example:

  • The article links the quote given above about being shot to Ponticelli's injury during an attack on an Austrian position. However, there is nothing in the two sources used to link these two events. In fact, they suggest they are separate events, since in the first case the Austrians surrendered, and in the second the attack was "futile". Article needs to be checked throughout for similar examples of WP:SYNTHESIS, and for accuracy of facts and quotes.
    • I don't see where you're coming from when you say the source doesn't link the events. Quote THe Times: "There he was serving as a machinegunner when he was seriously wounded by a shell burst during one of the many futile Italian assaults on welldefended Austrian mountain positions." ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's because the wording has been changed since I made the point. The version I reviewed explicitly linked the wounding and the quote: "Ponticelli was seriously wounded by a shell during an assault on an Austrian mountain position.[1] He described the event in an undated interview...[2]" The undated interview describes a different event. The current wording in this case is OK now, but you need to check for similar unwarranted synthesis throughout the article - this is just one example that leapt out at me after a glance at two of the refs. 4u1e (talk) 08:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a little worried about potential plagiarism, compare:

  • "With the entry of Italy into the First World War in 1915, Ponticelli was told he had to join the Italian Army and was discharged. At first refusing to leave, Ponticelli was escorted by two gendarmes to Torino, where he joined 3 Alpini Regiment for service against the Austrians" from the article with
  • "But in 1915, with the entry of Italy into the war on the Allied side he was told he must join the Italian Army and was discharged. Refusing at first to be parted from his French uniform, he was firmly escorted by two gendarmes to Turin, where he joined a regiment of Alpinieri for service on the Austrian front." from ref 2, the Times article.

That's a very close paraphrase - could other editors comment on whether this is a problem? I haven't checked for other examples. Cheers. 4u1e (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • That doesn't seem terribly close to me, so it shouldn't be a problem. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this is a problem, though I can rework it a bit if you wish. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, I changed it to "With the entry of Italy into the First World War in 1915, Ponticelli was forced to join the Italian Army and was summararily discharged. At first refusing to leave, Ponticelli was led by two gendarmes to Torino to enlist in the 3 Alpini Regiment, where he served against the Austrian Army." ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's probably enough of a change to get away with it. You're still directly paraphrasing the original though: you introduce the same ideas in the same order with the same sentence structure. You need to check throughout the article for similar cases. Can I suggest that if in doing so you find other examples, you try and throw away the original text and write from scratch? I strongly suspect that in this case at least the original text was cut and pasted from the newspaper article (not necessarily by you, I hasten to add!) and then modified. When this is done, it's inevitable that the article ends up with the appearance of plagiarism. 4u1e (talk) 08:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's a common practise of mione: I copy text directly from the source and then reword it. Apparently in this case I didn't reword it enough, tough I never thought that the entire practice was inherantly wrong. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Like all things, it depends. In my opinion (which you are free to ignore!) it's a very bad habit, because it leads to the situation we have here in which the text has been only very lightly modified - which is plagiarism, or theft, if you're feeling righteous about it. A much better approach (imho) is to read all the relevant sources, write up the article, or chunks thereof, from memory or notes of key facts and then check what you have written against the sources. 4u1e (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I restored the word "escorted", because that is really the best word, if not the only word that conveys what happened. I also changed "Torino" to "Turin" as this is the English Wikipedia, and besides, the redirect is to Turin.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've got no problem with either of those points, but it takes the wording closer to the original again. Can the information be more fundamentally restructured? 4u1e (talk) 08:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I played with it considerably. See what you think.

Another direct lift from one of the sources: Compare "His Italian Alpine regiment had once stopped firing for three weeks on the Austrians, whose language many of them spoke; they had swapped loaves of bread for tobacco and taken pictures of each other." (from The Economist) with "His regiment once stopped firing for three weeks on the Austrians, whose language many of them spoke, swapping loaves of bread for tobacco, with the opposing soldiers taking pictures of each other" in the article. Looks like a systematic problem. This needs rooting out throughout the article. 4u1e (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to wonder about the comprehensiveness of this article. Did the man marry? We don't know, though he left a daughter, so odds are. Were there other children? I realize these things may not be in the newspaper articles, but I see in the biblio a French language book by Lazare, which probably has some details of his life (published in 2005). It may not be easy to obtain, and the translation may be an issue, isn't a Featured Article intended to comprehensively cover the subject matter? And if we can't say for sure the man married, or how many times if so, then is the article comprehensive? I'm just not sure, so having exhausted my own wisdom (matter of microseconds), I'm wondering what others think on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't have to give every detail to be comprehensive - if those details are not available. However, I skimmed through the French language news sources last night and was left with the impression that the article doesn't even cover everything from those. For example, according to l'Express.fr, Ponticelli re-discovered his brother Celeste by chance when he joined the Foreign Legion, and the recruiting sergeant noticed that there was another Ponticelli on the register ("«Ponticelli? Il y en a déjà un inscrit sur le registre», s'interroge le sergent recruteur. C'est ainsi que Lazare retrouve son frère aîné, Céleste..") Much more interesting than the bald statement that they were both in the same unit. The book may have more on Ponticelli, probably focussed more on the company, which might make an interesting addition. Does anyone on fr.wiki have access to it, I wonder? 4u1e (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Don't see it on Google books, is there a French equivalent of same? But by running a google books search, I see four French language books that mention him. A couple look fairly interesting, if I spoke French, which I don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See here. Not sure it's much help though. 4u1e (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I speak a wee bit of French, though I need a translator for the book. I guess I'll go through the French sources, though there is really nothing more I can find in english. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can read French pretty well still (just don't ask me to speak it!). If you have anything in the French sources you want to confirm your understanding of, or you want translated, let me know. 4u1e (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Probably your best shot is to find someone French who has access to the books (at fr.wiki?) - if you do that, there's a fair chance that they'll speak good enough English to work with you on this article. 4u1e (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be pretty hard to find anyone with the books except perhaps members of the Ponticelli family, and anyway, where would I look. The same problem arose at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1964 Gabon coup d'état - it seems impossible to find anyone who can help. Nonetheless, I'll try to obtain the books so perhaps you can help with problematic phrases. FYI I'm currently going through the Google News Archive for Ponticelli - I'm not really finding much new, just a bunch of repeated information. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 15:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, email the company and explain the situation and see if they can get you a copy?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm not willing to pay money for a book I can barely read. I'll try to pick it up on interlibrary loan, though, so please don't start the FARC until then. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 15:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent)Well, I meant for free. After all, you are giving them and Their Founder good publicity, least they can do is help out with a copy from the boxes that are probably choking the dusty back room anyway! And if they say non, at least you tried.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mean to chime in here at the tail-end of the conversation. But, EoTW: the company may actually be willing to provide you with a copy of the book. Wehwalt makes a good point. Something to think about; plus, there is no cost outside of the postage necessary for the letter (or you could try emailing!) Lazulilasher (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need: I'm having it sent in from out of state, may take 10-12 days. Besides, I'm kind of uncomfortable with giving my address out to strangers, if you know what I mean... ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coming in March or April. It is clearly a book a scholar would have trouble finding, considering there are 0 copies in the U.S. of A. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose and comprehensiveness. Joelito (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, could we not start the FARC until I get the books? I admit it's taking time, although that's the fault of my stupid library. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(tl;dr on the above discussion, so sorry if this was already discussed) Is it possible to access the books through Google Books? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 23:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that too much time without no activity had elapsed waiting for the books. I will allow extra time in FARC if necessary. Joelito (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Juliancolton: No, it is not possible to view on Google Books. I'm not even sure if it is on Google Books. In fact, I'm not even sure where I discovered its existance in the first place. But it exists, and I'm having it cone to my library via interlibrary loan. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The book is being shipped from Germany. It's going to take two months. I don't know how to proceed. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 19:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either hold or dismiss with permission for restarting in March. It's not clear to me whether there are any current prose issues anyway, so a restart would be helpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked Tony to revisit to review the prose again. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-check: first sentence I landed on was:
    • "Although he could not speak French, he found work as a chimney sweep in Nogent-sur-Marne and later as a paper boy in Paris." Um ... are these jobs that would require the incumbent to speak? Query the logic of "Although".

Then:

Look, I haven't the energy to object further at the moment. It's certainly improved, given this process. But it's quirky to say the least, and not an FA we'd want to hold up as "our best work". I don't mind if it stays, I suppose. Tony (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The jobs are not unparallelled by any means, but it is noteworthy to be able to hold a job without a common language with the boss; there is no suggestion that the chimney-sweepers of Nogent are the Italian colony in France. Certainly there is an opposition here, which is all although requires. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Regarding the question of sources, I guess we should put this review on hold in some way until the potentially higher quality source is available. Can anyone advise on a process for doing so? Other than that, the writing is better by far than it was at the start of the this exercise. I wouldn't say it was brilliant prose, but it's serviceable. I've got a query at the reference desk on one of the translations and will pick that up when I get an answer. I'm still a little concerned about potentially rather casual use of sources - in my recent trawl through I found one case where the words in the article were not supported by the source. 4u1e (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the discussion above. The article is still phrased idiosyncratically, which makes it difficult to read in places. For example, "At the time of his death, Ponticelli was both the oldest man living born in Italy and the oldest man living in France." Well, no one is living at the time of their death. Of greater concern though, is that this sentence is not supported by the reference given [4]. The reference says he is the last surviving poilu, but does not say he is the oldest living man in France, or the oldest living man born in Italy. DrKiernan (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the first problem. I'll fix the second when my damn computer will stop being broken all the time. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 22:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is the status on the book? Dabomb87 (talk) 04:54, 11 February 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 Joelr31 21:49, 7 February 2009 [5].

Zion National Park

Review commentary

Notified: Mav, Tylas, Ratagonia, Vsmith, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Utah, WikiProject Earthquakes. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primarily 1 (c) issues throughout. Most of the images are probably okay, but the article could use a comprehensive image review to make sure all the requisite info is on the image pages, and some images could also be moved to Commons. Was promoted to FA back in 2004. Cirt (talk) 03:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First ref pass done. More later. --mav (talk) 03:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work so far. Cirt (talk) 03:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Second ref pass done. Getting closer. --mav (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third and final ref pass complete. Final copyedit and MOS pass still needed. --mav (talk) 01:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mav, will take care of the copyedit yourself? This article might not require FARC. Joelito (talk) 02:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I plan to work more on this article this weekend. --mav (talk) 04:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Copyedit, image and MOS fixes now complete (I hope). I think we are done now. --mav (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does everyone feel about this one? Is FARC needed? Joelito (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think FARC is necessary at this point, although I would prefer if some of the bullet point lists within the article were incorporated into the prose. Aside from that, the article is very close to, if not at, the current FA standards. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The article looks much, much better. However, there are still a few uncited sentences in spots - I added {{fact}} tags to these to denote where some work still needs to be done. Cirt (talk) 09:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm out of town right now but will fix the last issues when I get back on Sunday. --mav (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    All of the fact tags either removed b/c a cite was added, its sentence was deleted or b/c it was not needed. A few examples on where fact tags are not needed are listed below:
    Stream gradient sentence b/c previous cited sentence mentions uplift. One follows from the other.
    Services along Route 9 & in Mt. Carmel Junction b/c anybody using an online mapping service can confirm that. No need to provide cites to a sampling of commercial websites of these services.
    Hanging valley ; any detailed map of the area can confirm that and the example cited is not controversial or likely to be challenged.
    Anything else? --mav (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, that sounds great. Excellent work. Cirt (talk) 11:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gave this a copyedit. A few remaining issues:
  • I left a couple hidden comments/questions.
  • I dislike the presentation of the 'Notable geographical features' section. The first item doesn't really belong in the bulleted list because it's not a named feature but rather a map (and an external link, at that); perhaps it would be better presented in an explanatory lead-in sentence. For the other list items, where a wiki article exists, wouldn't it be sufficient to link that article, rather than that article plus multiple images?
  • Do all the subsections of 'Historic period' actually belong there, or should some be moved up one level to 'Human history'?
Looking good otherwise. I really like the images in this one. Maralia (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the copyedit! 'Notable geographical features' subsection turned into a paragraph and no more than one (image) link is behind each named feature now. Subsections under historic period promoted to level 2 headings. I think I addressed all of your hidden comments - please take a look. --mav (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and prose. Joelito (talk) 14:43, 24 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 Joelr31 17:46, 7 February 2009 [8].

Hubble Deep Field

Review commentary

Notifying Mike Peel, Marskell, Ashill, and WilyD.

I really hate nominating interesting articles for review here, but this one is just so far from the standard. Problems with 1a, 1c, although its five references are somewhat accurate so far, and mainly, 2c. —Ceran [ speak ] 14:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I've been notified, as I've never actually edited the article... I suggest that the appropriate wikiprojects are notified (e.g. WP:ASTRO).
However, I would agree with you that the article needs significant reworking if it is to stay as a featured article, especially with respect to references. I would volunteer to do some of that, but I really don't have the time at the moment. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notified several people I knew were experienced with these types of articles from WP:ASTRO, and from personal experience. Sorry to bother you, if you feel like I've intruded. That goes with the rest of you, too. —Ceran [ speak ] 19:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it: it's always better to over-notify than under-notify, and as it's turned out I've had some time to do a bit of work on the article. Mike Peel (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can sort out 1c and 2c, though it's (again) going to be a slow process as I have trouble with my internet connection at the moment. As far as the referencing goes, much of the information comes from Williams et al. (1996). I can also check whether Scientific results-section needs update. I cannot do much with 1a, though. Random astronomer (talk) 15:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will help after 10 January, when I will have access to journals again (now I am out of work). Ruslik (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and prose. 18:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe that prose issues are sorted (if not, please point out areas which need improvement), and there are now only three parts which need citations (marked with [citation needed]) which should be fixable. Hence the article should be kept featured. Mike Peel (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added citations. Ruslik (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else wishes to comment before I close this one? Joelito (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All issues have been addressed as I can judge. Ruslik (talk) 13:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found one instance of awkward phrasing: "Positioned above the atmosphere, Hubble avoids atmospheric airglow allowing it to take more sensitive visible and ultraviolet light images than can be obtained with seeing-limited ground-based telescopes (when good adaptive optics correction at visible wavelengths becomes possible, 10 m ground-based telescopes may become competitive)." I had to read it a couple of times to understand. I think the particular difficulties are "seeing-limited", which was a few too many verbs for me to parse, and the parenthetical statement. Can the bit in brackets be removed, moved to a footnote, rephrased or taken out of brackets?

As I'm not an astronomer, I was not able to decide whether the statement: "It is believed that giant elliptical galaxies form when spirals and irregular galaxies collide." requires a citation or not. Obviously, I don't know how obvious a statement it is.

Great article; nice pictures too. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 6 February 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 Joelr31 17:44, 7 February 2009 [9].

Music of Athens, Georgia

Notified: WP Rock music, WP Georgia, TUF-KAT.
previous FAR (14:46, 15 March 2008)

I'm concerned that this article no longer meets criteria 1a, b, d. The first problem I notice is that there are a ton of red links. Do acts even need to be mentioned in this page if they're not worthy of having articles? By padding the article with so many facts about (purportedly) non-notable acts and venues, it seems to make the article seem thrown together. Furthermore, the "origins of the modern scene" has a fully unsourced paragraph, and part of the "Rock" and "Other styles" sections have unsourced claums. I'm finding unsourced OR puffery like "Athens also has a small, but loyal hardcore/metal music scene. Venues such as Tasty World, DT's and LunchPaper held regular shows featuring bands including The Knife Trade, Another Broken Vehicle, and Aegis of Athena." creeping in, which also has me concerned about 1e (stability). Other problematic pieces of prose (how's that for alliteration?) include vague numbers ("housed a number of black professional businesses as well as many performance spaces"), yet more original research ("The B-52's and R.E.M. became by far the most famous…" and "that made R.E.M. the top underground band in the country") passages not backed up by sources. Furthermore, there seems to be more weight given to the B-52s and R.E.M. than other groups. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RED; redlinks are not a valid objection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article was on the main page two days ago. Have you raised these concerns in the article's talk page? I am sure that the talk page would be a better forum than FAR at this moment. Joelito (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Red links alone are not a valid objection, but the high number of them gives me the feeling that the article is being used to promote subjects which would otherwise not be mentioned on Wikipedia. Yes, I'm aware that this was just on the main page a couple days ago, but I did the same thing with Just My Imagination (Running Away with Me) and no one objected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the article was on the main page four days ago, so it doesn't violate FAR instructions, but I agree that these concerns could have been brought up on the talk page first, especially as there are not many technical issues (uncited, MOS, instability). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to boldly revert this article to a version from last March. Looking through the diff, I don't see any real improvements since then (somebody please correct me if I'm missing something). I think that resolves at least some of TenPoundHammer's concerns. There are still some red links, but I think they all deserve an article. Everything is cited (or at least, should be - I got this through FAC and I believe I've reverted any uncited info, but it's possible some has crept in. This page sees a lot of editing for a rather obscure topic.). REM and The B-52s are covered in great depth because they are by far the most well-documented, popular and historically important part of the topic (which is covered for the references in the version I just reverted back to). Tuf-Kat (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to just revert your reversion because that was a pretty big move, but at the same time I trust you. The current revision is still peppered with red links, and it seems a little skimpy for a FA. I'll go ahead and withdraw this though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:06, 6 February 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.

Removed status

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Paracetamol Wikipedia:Featured article review/Warsaw Uprising

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 Joelr31 02:44, 18 February 2009 [10].

Nellie Kim

Review commentary

Notified Cmapm and WikiProject Gymnastics

While reading the peer review page recently, this PR caught my interest. In it, a reviewer references this article as a good model for female athlete bios. My most-edited article is on a female athlete, and I had never seen this article before, so I decided to take a look at it. What I found was a May 2006 promotion that is sorely deficient by today's standards:

1a: This is my primary complaint. The prose is simply not of featured quality. For example, Kim's entire name, and those of her competitors, are used throughout. There are a load of one-and two-sentence paragraphs, which make the article appear stubby. There are many more examples of questionable prose throughout; serious copy-editing is needed

1b: "Her judging license was suspended by the FIG for a while only once". Excuse me? Do gymnastics judges get suspended frequently, or did something happen that involved her? If so, phrasing it this way is more than a little POV, in addition to not being comprehensive.

1c: A few problems here. First, the links haven't been kept up to date; the link checker shows several dead links. Citation use seems a bit thin—the suspension bit is unsourced, and there is an unsourced quote in Olympics and World Championships, among other things. There are quite a few paragraphs that are uncited or have only one cite that doesn't appear to cover the whole paragraph. Don't know how reliable a couple of the gymnastics websites are, but I'll leave that to the reference experts.

2a: Lead seems short for a page of this length. A two-paragraph lead could probably be squeezed out.

Also, there is a stubby Miscellaneous section that is disguised trivia. Not sure what criterion that falls under, but it needs fixing. Overall, this is not an FA-level article at this time, and should either be improved substantially or delisted. Giants2008 (17-14) 16:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, prose, and lead. Joelito (talk) 15:53, 31 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 Joelr31 02:44, 18 February 2009 [11].

Zambezi

Review commentary

Notification of all relevant parties complete: Main contributor and nominator - User talk:Worldtraveller; Wikiprojects - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Africa, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Angola, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Malawi, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mozambique, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zambia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Zimbabwe, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Botswana, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Namibia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers

1(c) - currently lacks inline citations. It reads alright and i've tidied a little, though whole sections and stats are not cited. Background: it was nominated 3 years ago and has not been reviewed since. Only one main contributor, whose account has not been used in almost 2 years. Tom B (talk) 16:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have the resources or knowledge to update this. Agree it does not meet current FA criteria. There are multiple WP:MOS issues that need to be fixed in addition to the inline reference problem. The lead does not really summarize the article per WP:LEAD, the section headers do not all meet WP:HEAD, metric units are given without English equivalents, "&" is used where "and" is needed, the article has several bullet point lists that could be put into a table or perhaps converted to prose. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, MOS and lead. Joelito (talk) 15:52, 31 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 Joelr31 02:44, 18 February 2009 [12].

Automatic number plate recognition

Review commentary

Notified Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science and User talk:Violetriga

The article fails the featured article criterion in several ways. It is largely uncited except for a few instances of up to 10 cites grouped together (1c), the are several short sections (2b) and it uses inconsistent citation style (2c).--Peter Andersen (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer science#Artificial Intelligence issues branching between WikiProjects. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs 05:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 15:51, 31 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 Joelr31 03:06, 12 February 2009 [13].

Kalimpong

Review commentary

Nichalp and Projects notified.

Fails 1c. Also concerned that some parts of the article plug various schools and businesses. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second concern regarding schools and businesses removed. --GPPande talk! 07:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add comments below under individual sections so that follow-up becomes easy. I am doing sections as I am getting the references via google and so please pardon me for not following them in order.

  • Civic administration: Politics section merged with Civic administration. Refs added. Check here.
Goodness gracious sakes alive, Pande, would you mind lowering the amount of excess markup, per WP:TALK. This is very hard to read; gonna need sunglasses. Also, please avoid the excess use of graphics, as they slow down the load time. We don't need minute-by-minute on your progress; FAR is a deliberative process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. Removed the excesses. --GPPande talk! 07:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't File:Deolo.jpg be either PD or CC but not both? DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I had uploaded the images to WP at a time when I was unaware of the intricacies of licences. I have made the changes. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following sections have been completely referenced:- Summary, Origin of name, history, economy. --GPPande 16:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the 1c issue is cleared. Any other points? =Nichalp «Talk»= 10:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err yes, lots of the article isn't referenced. Also in some places there is a ref at the end of the paragraph but it only covers 1 sentence. Aslo some of the references aren't formatted. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the culture section onwards. Will look at it once I return from my New Year's break. =Nichalp «Talk»= 13:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that a lot of work has been done in the past week. How do we feel about this one? Any outstanding concerns? Joelito (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not vandalism, sockmaster. The refs don't show "most popular" it just shows that there was a boxing tournament there, etc. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OMG! Looks like FAR pages are exempted from WP:NPA policy. You never proved it either. FAR cannot be discussed in edit summaries. Simply deleting refs from article is no way a discussion can happen. Minor problems with few words should be discussed here instead of deleting the refs altogether. Undoing the hard work of finding the refs is horrible! --GPPande 09:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note YellowMonkey please refrain from name-calling. I am aware of the previous history between this user and yourself and will not tolerate personal attacks during any FAR. Joelito (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He has been shown to be socking via a checkuser. I haven't vandalised either. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You did not vandalize but his comment that you did does not give you a reason for calling him a sockmaster in this FAR. You are a good editor YellowMonkey and I am sure you know Wiki's policy on personal attacks so please stick to discussing edits and content not contributors. Joelito (talk) 23:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article also needa copyedit. Examples: "District administration of Darjeeling, which is still responsible for election, panchayat, law and order, revenue etc., also acts as an interface between the Council and the State Government" and "The NH 31, which connects Sevok and Siliguri,[21] along with the NH 31A connects Kalimpong to the rail stations at Siliguri.[22]" clumsy repetition. "Kalimpong assembly constituency, which elects one member of Vidhan Sabha of West Bengal, is part of Darjeeling parliamentary constituency" Definitely article. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 08:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have provided the remaining refs except two for which this link seems to be the 'actual' ref (from where it was taken). Can this source be considered RS for this type of info (media and education)? Thanks.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Provided refs for all sentences where citation tags were placed. --GDibyendu (talk) 11:59, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Joelito (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. I appreciate that some hard work has been put into the article, but I'm afraid it still doesn't meet FA standards. The prose still needs work, and I'm concerned about the article's verifiability. Just using the lead as an example, note that there does not seem to be a defined structure: the sentences about the military are mixed with details of the location, and in the next paragraph, education and two unconnected sentences on history are conflated together. It should read smoother than this, with each sentence logically flowing to the next. Of the four references used in the lead, three are of concern. The official tourism office site is fine for standard data such as the elevation and economy, but it can not really be used to justify statements such as "popular", as obviously the tourism office is not an unbiased, neutral source for such epithets. The source given for the statement "Kalimpong is known for its educational institutions many of which were established during the British colonial period" does not really support that contention. Firstly, secondary sources outside of Kalimpong are necessary to support "known for" and secondly, the source given indicates that most of the educational institutions (of note) owe their existence to monastic origins rather than colonization. The fourth source, rediff.com, is not reliable in my opinion. DrKiernan (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are stacks of paragraphs where the citations don't fit properly with the text presented either... YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Example?--GDibyendu (talk) 08:48, 9 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive&oldid=273085028"