Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 03:36, 10 March 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.

Kept status

Barack Obama

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 02:57, 9 March 2009 [1].

Seattle

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington, Wikipedia:WikiProject Seattle, User:Bobblehead, User:Lukobe, User:Jmabel

previous FAR

I have nominated Seattle for review because I think in the year since the previous review, the article could use some work. Some issues that need to be addressed are:

The lack of citations in some areas (e.g. Economic history, Topography, Media, Outdoor activities, Infrastructure)
Dead reference links [2]
Use of list in history section instead of prose
Lack of proper WP:SUMMARY style - the article is huge (117k) but the main, most important, pieces of information seem to be lost in a sea of seemingly trivial facts

I hope that by bringing the article forward at FAR, that these items can be quickly addressed. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 05:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it standard operating procedure to bring up concerns about a Featured Article on the article's talk page prior to sending the article through FAR? But to cover the points:

I'm not sure what the nominator is expecting as far as references. The sections seem to be rather well covered and in line with applicable guidelines. There are a few claims here and there that are not referenced, but aside from a claim in the Media section about "a large number of publications about the environment and sustainability" that could be removed without harming the article, I don't see anything that requires citations that is already covered in a citation.
Unless I'm missing something, having dead reference links is not a Bad Thing^TM. They can be marked as dead, but it is generally acceptable for dead links to exist as they indicate that the reference was there at one time...
The listification of the History section is a bad thing, I'm going to see if I can figure out when that happened and why.
The article has 44kb of readable prose, so WP:SIZE concerns are not a concern here. The remaining 74k is references and wikimarkup that are generally not considered part of the size restrictions. The sea of trivial details may be valid, but welcome to Wikipedia. I doubt you'll find any article, particularly those of cities, that don't have a large amount of trivial details. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bobblehead. I decided to go forward at FAR just so the greater Wikipedia community can have input into the process, as opposed to just those who happen to have the article watch-listed. There are only a few items, like those I have listed. I plan on providing a more detailed review, but wanted to get the ball rolling and see if any other editors wished to provide additional comments. So yes, I didn't mean opening the FAR because I thought the article should be demoted or anything of the sort. Best, epicAdam^(talk) 19:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated File:Alaska Yukon Pacific Exposition - Rainier Vista.jpg for deletion. Editors may wish to comment there. No other image problems that I could see. DrKiernan (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That image's licensing concerns appear sorted out on commons now. rootology (C)(T) 19:01, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried rewriting the history section to get it back to prose rather than lists. Take a look. There may be more work to be done, but I think this gives a much better basis to move forward on that section. - Jmabel | Talk 05:31, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we on this FAR? The only real problem identified by the nominator (The listification of the History section) seems to be resolved (good job, Jmabel). Jmabel has also found a postcard with the image that was nominated for deltion that seems to indicate the image was published prior to 1923, so the image seems to be in the public domain despite what UW says about the copyright status. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image issue is resolved. DrKiernan (talk) 13:17, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links

I just ran the tool Sandy added and I see only one completely dead link looking quickly. rootology (C)(T) 18:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dead link isn't one that can be replaced, unfortunately. It's dead and it's going to stay dead. there is a link to a copy of it on WikiSource, but I doubt we can use that as a replacement for the dead link. Do we need to replace the link, or is it okay if it stays as a dead link with the understanding being that it was alive at one point? --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Work needed. Has the original nominator been pinged to see if he is satisfied now?

There is an inconsistency throughout the article in usage of percent vs. %, sample:

The racial composition of the city was 67.1 percent White, 16.6 percent Asian, 9.7 percent African American, 2.38 percent from other races, 1.00 percent Native American, 0.50 percent Pacific Islander, and 4.46 percent from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 6.3 percent of the population.[161] 11.3% were of German, 9.1% Irish, 8.1% English and 5.0% Norwegian ancestry according to Census 2000. 80.1% spoke English, 4.2% Spanish, 2.3% Chinese or Mandarin, 2.0% Tagalog and 1.9% Vietnamese as their first language.

Replaced all % with percent. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are several dab links needing repair, identified in the toolbox.

Fixed all the dabs. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links can also be checked via the toolbox.

See question above to Rootology. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, locally known as Sea–Tac ... Sea–Tac has en endash, but Seattle-Tacomo has a hyphen, which is it? Perhaps check with Tony1 (talk · contribs) on which is correct.

I believe it is just a hyphen. I've never seen an en dash used in association with Sea-Tac before, so I went ahead and replaced all instances with a hyphen. Good eyes, BTW. I never would have seen it. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date formatting in the citations is all over the map (I think I saw four different formats).

Part of the problem with the different date formats in the citations is the evil auto-formatting they are using in {{cite news}} and {{cite journal}} which, for some unexplainable reason, is converting dates in ISO format to DMY. Until they fix the templates to match the rest of the cite templates, there's nothing we can do about the format of the accessdate. Most of the rest were due to hold over from the linking of dates so I'm guessing they picked up on how you have your autoformatting set? the remainder I believe I fixed most except those that were published in date ranges (May 1-May 8, 2007), only list a month (November 2006) or a season (Spring 2006). Everything else should be in ISO now. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ELLIPSES (no spaces) and WP:PUNC (logical punctuation) need attention.
There are poorly sourced and hard to believe statements, sample:

Seattle is probably second only to New York for number of equity theaters^[1] (28 Seattle theater companies have some sort of Actors' Equity contract).^[2]

is sourced to Lonely Planet, not a particularly strong source for such a surprising claim.

On Seattle being second only to New York for number of equity theaters: not sure where else one would go to source the comparison to other U.S. cities, and I'd be very interested in suggestions, but as a New York native who has been 30 years in Seattle, I'm pretty confident that Seattle is at least a strong contender for second place. Seattle is a strong union town and a strong theater town. 28 equity theaters is a lot (and that number is cited from a more solid source). What other city are you thinking might have more? - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are statements throughout that could benefit from WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, sample:

The Seattle Youth Symphony Orchestras (SYSO) is the largest symphonic youth organization in the United States.^[3]

could be:

In <year>, the Seattle Youth Symphony Orchestras (SYSO) wass the largest symphonic youth organization in the United States.^[4]

I'm not sure what can be done with a date on this specific example, the references I've been able to find, [3] and [4] are undated info pages that refer to SYSO as currently being the largest youth symphony in the US, so based on those sources applying an "As of <date>" would seem to be innacurate. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 01:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty confident that statement would have been true at all times in the last decade. Again: it's hard to find solid sources for comparisons among cities in the size and scope of arts organizations, do you have any suggestions of what you would consider appropriate sourcing? - Jmabel | Talk 05:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are surprising claims that are unsourced, sample:

The city also has a large number of movie houses showing both Hollywood productions and works by independent filmmakers. Among these, the Seattle Cinerama stands out as one of only three movie theaters in the world still capable of showing three-panel Cinerama films.

This one specifically is now sourced. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is unattributed opinion, sample:

Spoken word and poetry are staples of Seattle arts, paralleling the explosion of the independent music scene during the late 1980s and early 1990s. Seattle's performance poetry blossomed with the importation of the poetry slam from Chicago (its origin) by Paul Granert. This and the proliferation of weekly readings, open mics, and poetry-friendly club venues like the Weathered Wall, the OK Hotel, and the Ditto Tavern (all now defunct), allowed spoken-word/performance poetry to take off.

Those are just quick issues from looking only at the Culture section; I didn't examine the prose or sourcing elsewhere, but this number of issues from one section does suggest a bit more tune-up work is in order here before closing this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up what seemed like the egregious unsourced content and OR and dumped it to talk here for clean up and rescue. It's all factually true, but could due for a source or two. Touch of minor extra clean up and one missed reference fixed. The few remaining unsourced statement without a clear ref tag are the completely obvious things only (geographical, names of TV/radio/media, etc.) rootology (C)(T) 17:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and length (summary style use). Joelito (talk) 14:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind keeping this version. Though, I would agree that there is a tendency toward inclusion of material which would be better placed in the daughter articles. DrKiernan (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note We need more reviews to close this out. Joelito (talk) 00:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still citation needed tags. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was just added here not two days ago, but this text is thrice-sourced. I pulled it for now to review on the article talk. rootology (C)(T) 02:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the citation needed tags are valid. The Duwamish tribe seems to agree with the spelling used in the article.[5] Problem being, I'm not sure I would count the source as a WP:RS as it is a WP:SPS. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 02:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of something like this, wouldn't the Duwamish be the ultimate authority on their own language? That's sorta like saying the US Government's United States Constituation isn't the ultimate authority on the specific wording of what the US constitution says...? For something like this, it would be circular logic to exclude the Duwamish themselves as a source, especially since something as unfortunately niche as tribal language won't be widely reported. rootology (C)(T) 02:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Media section is a bit sketchy. I don't know whether indiscriminately listing blogs is helpful (also unsourced).
"Seattle has artist-run galleries,[143] including 10-year veteran Soil Art Gallery,[144] and the newer Crawl Space Gallery.[145]" This is a one-line paragraph from "Tourism" that should be moved up a bit. The list of museums is unsourced.
"Even though Seattle is old enough that railways and streetcars once dominated its transportation system, automobiles are now the main mode of transportation. Seattle is also serviced by an extensive network of bus routes and two commuter rail routes connecting it to many of its suburbs." These topic sentences at the start of the "Transportation" section are redundant and unnecessary; these type of sentences belong in the lead.
Paragraphs about Sea-Tac and utilities need sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to pushback on most of the requests for additional sources, per verifiability: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed." It is highly unlikely that anyone is going to challenge the list of museums as being located in Seattle, particularly since all of the museums are linked to articles and these articles provide ample sourcing to support a Seattle location. The same goes for the utilities and Sea-Tac airport. This is my #1 complaint about FARs and FACs. It seems that most reviewers are more concerned about there not being a set of square brackets with a number in between them than actually following the freaking policy. If you can identify why we should be sourcing things that are clearly uncontroversial and without question, then I'd be more than willing to provide a link for each and every museum's homepage showing their address. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 03:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Bobble said. All that info is totally non-controversial, and not a reason to demote anything. The sentence would just be made terribly unwieldy, with individual sourcing. There may be "a" source that has them all listed, or most, but is it likely to be challenged for something like the Seattle Metropolitan Police Museum? rootology (C)(T) 05:31, 26 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 17:22, 7 March 2009 [6].

Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works

Notified: Slambo, Jimp, WP Trains

Seems to be lacking citations; probably shouldn't be considered a FA.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 23:31, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll dig out the references from my personal library again and take a look to improve the referencing. I'm planning to set time aside to work on it this weekend. Slambo (Speak) 11:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Working on it now... Slambo (Speak) 02:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the article body now has inline citations. There's still more that I need to do on this article, but I need to get to bed now. I plan to work further on this in the next couple days. Slambo (Speak) 03:59, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My weekend was a little busier than I expected and I expect to be busy for this coming weekend, but with a little time coming up in the evenings I wanted to check in here to see if there's anything else that is further needed besides the referencing (and the formatting that I already found and fixed) Slambo (Speak) 11:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seeing no further comments, I'll assume that the work that I've done so far is in line with what needs to be done and that there are no further objections to keeping featured status on this article. Slambo (Speak) 11:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, keep--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 12:19, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to see a cite for ...the first locomotive to cross the Allegheny Mountains (albeit by canal boat and not by rail), and the first locomotive to operate in Ohio.

Could you please specify the sources for: According to well-established sources, Colburn was, around 1854, 'superintendent and/or consultant' at the works where he introduced a number of improvements in locomotive design.? DrKiernan (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll see what I can do on this today. Slambo (Speak) 16:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done - added refs for both statements. Slambo (Speak) 18:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! This article should be retained as an FA. DrKiernan (talk) 09:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note Can this be closed without FARC? Joelito (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three of us above think so. DrKiernan (talk) 08:28, 4 March 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

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 02:45, 9 March 2009 [7].

Dundee

Review commentary

Ydam, Adambisset, Friedfish, Citizensmith, WP:Cities, WP:Scotland, WP:UK Geography notified.

The article, as it stands, does not meet many of the criteria of Good Article status, let alone Featured Article status, and could do with improvement.

A major problem is in referencing. A number of claims throughout the article are unsourced. Some claims in the article have dubious neutrality. In addition, the lead is insufficiently concise. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notifications have not been completed; please add {{subst:FARMessage/Dundee}} to each page listed above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'm trying to improve the article as I go, but there's a lot to do. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had another look at the article this morning, with a view to improve it more. It will take a long time (months) to bring it up to GA status, and there doesn't appear to be any appetite amongst previous contributors to improve it. I suggest it's removed as a featured article until it can again be put through FA nomination. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually hold that thought... I may be able to knock it into shape quicker than that. --Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, lead, and NPOV.Joelito (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist 1c - also has accretions of advertising from driveybys who have added all manner of NN and undue info on random schools and radio stations, among others. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove per our resident expert, User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish! DrKiernan (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC) ~~Some improvement, but not for the last ten days. Still tagged for citation or clarification in multiple places. DrKiernan (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~I'll hold off for the moment, as Catfish may be working on it. DrKiernan (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Remove A lot of uncited and contested statements (including statements not verified by the source cited). Xasodfuih (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - Referencing issues and unsourced material abounds. Cirt (talk) 16:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hold for the moment I should be able to knock it into shape. Give me a week or so. --Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Too many problems to deal with in the short term. I will continue to upgrade it and re-nominate it once it's up to scratch. --Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:30, 5 March 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 02:45, 9 March 2009 [8].

Władysław Sikorski

Review commentary

Piotrus (talk · contribs), Logologist (talk · contribs), WP:POLAND and WP:MILHIST notified.

Several paragraphs appear to be primarily based upon one reference, while others have citation needed tags and/or no references whatsoever. D.M.N. (talk) 16:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination seems like some kind of misunderstanding. I spotted one citation–needed tag. Are we at the right place? --Poeticbent talk 23:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My nom isn't a misunderstanding, several paragraphs seem to be backed up by a single source, I spotted 3/4 citation-needed tags and a few paragraphs are unsourced. D.M.N. (talk) 09:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some messy referencing thing moved to the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some sentences and assertions in the section Władysław_Sikorski#Prime_Minister_in_exile are rather close to those in a David Irving book. Compare "Sikorski insisted that there could be no question of Poland emerging from the war with territorial losses" to the book's "Sikorski insisted that there could be no question of Poland alone emerging from the war with territorial losses." [9] p. 13. This book also contains some of the quotes for which citations were requested.The unyielding stance on borders is not supported by this book cite [10] ("refused to make a firm statement in support of Poland's eastern borders") or here "unique among the exiled Polish politicians for his determination to negotiate with the Soviet Union" [11]. Novickas (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing examples on Talk:Władysław Sikorski. Novickas (talk) 12:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised this is an FA in which case.... I would have to suggest that the sentences in question are completely reworked to avoid "close paraphrasing". D.M.N. (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article needs a rewrite, and more referencing. Which, in all honestly, I currently do not have the time to do, particularly as I am helping save the Warsaw Uprising article, also on FARC. Once that one is closed, I will see if I can help with this one.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concerned about the first footnote and the first book in the list. The first was written for Sikorski's anniversary by a government agency whose name makes me wonder whether it is a propaganda outlet. Aside from that the book is just referenced generally without pages for the paragraphs cited. The second one, is the museum intended to "promote his legacy" etc? If so, I would also be dubious if it had a pre-ordained intention...YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations and copy-vio. Joelito (talk) 15:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per above. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, strongly agree with above assessment by D.M.N. (talk · contribs), and comments by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Referencing issues throughout the article, not befitting current standards at FAC for FAs. Cirt (talk) 16:52, 27 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 removed by Joelr31 02:26, 4 March 2009 [12].

Plug-in hybrid

Review commentary

Notified: Mac, Fbagatelleblack, Jack Rosebro, WP AUTOS.

Needs cleanup; it has citation needed tags and an expansion tag. I also think that there are problems with regards to criterion 4, in particular the History section; it isn't excessively long, but it doesn't seem to provide completely relevant information to the reader, it seems to be an indiscriminate list of events that are somewhat relevant of the topic without much connection to each other (proseline). Many of the inline citations are not formatted, and most troubling, many of those sources are of questionable reliability. Also, the Organization section lacks references and should probably be converted to prose. Some of the subsections are a bit stubby to me. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is in WP:SUMMARY style and chronological order (as prose, not a list or "proseline" -- which I believe to be a poorly-defined term the case of summary-style chronological history sections) with less-important details relegated to History of plug-in hybrids. This issue has been raised before, but there have been no ideas forthcoming about how to address it with improvements. ~~Do you have any specific ideas about how you would fix the History section?~~

The Organization section has been converted to prose, as requested. The expansion tag is, I believe, not a defect and is encouraged even in featured content to help point editors to where the article can most reasonably expanded, but I deleted it anyway. All of the citation needed, citation formatting, and source issues occurred after the FA promotion, of course, and the source issues which are specifically called out here have been addressed. All of the citation needed tags have been properly fixed, a dead link has been patched from a WP:CONVENIENCE archive, and all of the bare URL references have been reformatted.

Which subsections do you find the most stubby? 69.228.201.125 (talk) 14:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the proseline, perhaps it would look better if some of the one- and two-sentence paragraphs were combined. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried that, and I agree. It allowed for the deletion of several redundant years in dates. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, much better. I will try to find a copy-editor, and post more comments here later today. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:14, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FA should be revoked. It fails to meet FA standards.
(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; FAIL
(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; OK
(c) 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; FAIL uses at least one non RS as a ref
(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias NOT TOO BAD
(e) 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. POSSIBLE PASS Greglocock (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have specific problems with the prose; if so, can you please suggest how you would improve it? The reference reliability issues which Dabomb87 lists below have been addressed. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Greglocock: Please see the FAR instructions; in the FAR stage, "possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "remove". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies." As 69.228 has requested, specific issues would be helpful. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I'll look at the prose after the tech stuff is finished.Greglocock (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The section on the PG&E tariff has been re-written. Can we get figures for the VW Golf TwinDrive instead of whichever plug-in SUV they used to come up with those gas price numbers? 69.228.80.150 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, can we use User:CanExplain's suggestion for how to compare with petroleum prices? 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

A non-exhaustive list of sources of questionable reliability:

http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/calcars-news/message/996 A Yahoo! groups post — Dabomb87 — continues after insertion below

This was a troubling source per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Business and Commerce because while on one hand it is an email authored by the founder of the California Cars Initiative (a nonprofit organization) who is a recognized and widely-published authority on the topic, it is also clearly a book recommendation and thus an ad (for someone whose views on foreign policy have been called in to question by himself -- but that should have no bearing on his views on environmental policy.) This reference is being used to support the fact that carbon dioxide contributes to global warming. There have been arguments over this assertion before, so I supplemented the email describing the less reliable but more generally lay-accessible source with a reference to a peer-reviewed academic journal article. I also put the book citation first in front of the email review link inside the reference. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will leave this unstruck for other reviewers to look at. Since it is supported by a journal, I suppose it can stay. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boschert's book is better than Friedman's for this reference. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~http://www.finkbuilt.com/blog/hybrid-car-ready-in-1969~~ a blog entry — Dabomb87 — continues after insertion below

This is an absolutely irreplacible historical document, used in the History section, originally sourced to a 1969 Popular Science article and fully meets or exceeds the criteria for primary sources in Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#History -- but it is also a secondary news report of the 800 car GM XP-883 concept fleet. The blog link is merely for WP:CONVENIENCE to our readers so that they might view the the primary and secondary source. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 10:44, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the convenience link itself should be reliable, as per WP:CONVENIENCE: "In cases where an editor reads only an "intermediate source" such as an on-line copy of a print publication, the editor should cite the intermediate source, but may also mention the original source. In such a case, the intermediate source must itself be reliable." Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That ref has been returned to its form during initial FA passage, with an access date added. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~http://www.greencarcongress.com/~~ — Dabomb87 — continues after insertion below

This is used thirteen times, going back to articles from 2005 to the very recent. As a news source, it has an experienced editorial and seperate publishing/commercial staff, the Editor holding a graduate degree in journalism from the Medill School at Northwestern. Per WP:RS, it is and has always been a reliable, third-party, published source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nobody in my memory has ever called its reliability, independence, fact-checking, or accuracy into question. As such, it does not suffer from the drawbacks described in Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Business and commerce and should be accepted as a primary source per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#History. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, having a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". To determine the reliablity of the site, we need to know what sort of fact checking they do. You can establish this by showing news articles that say the site is reliable/noteworthy/etc. or you can show a page on the site that gives their rules for submissions/etc. or you can show they are backed by a media company/university/institute, or you can show that the website gives its sources and methods, or there are some other ways that would work too. It's their reputation for reliabilty that needs to be demonstrated. Please see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches for further detailed information. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm going only on the Editor's Medill School graduate degree when I suggest, per Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches#Responding to queries about reliable sources, that he must be, "a member of the press with a reputation for reliability." Also I found several press citations with a web search, such as this from a major newspaper business writer. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~OK, that should work, although another would be nice. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)~~ OK, this does the trick: http://www.greenpresswire.com/cgi-bin/press.pl?record=22. Striking. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google News says this is another although I haven't personally breached the subscription wall on that particular article, it is certainly an insider trade publication ("AutomotiveWorld.com has been delivering accurate, insightful and timely information to professionals working in the global automotive industry for more than 15 years."[13]) 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~http://sirycars.blogspot.com/2008/01/bob-lutz.html a blog post.~~ — Dabomb87 — continues after insertion below

Thank you for catching that; the Lutz quotation is now sourced to Naughton, K. (December 31, 2007) "Bob Lutz: The Man Who Revived the Electric Car" Newsweek. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~http://motortorque.askaprice.com/~~ — Dabomb87 — continues after insertion below

Another excellent catch! http://motortorque.askaprice.com/news/auto-0801/toyota-announces-plugin-hybrid-by-2010.asp has been superseded by Ohnsman, A. (August 28, 2008) "Toyota Plans Electric Car, Earlier Plug-In Prius Test" Bloomberg, which was already cited in the article's introduction. There are no other instances of "askaprice.com" in the wikitext. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~http://www.autoblog.com/2008/03/31/carb-backs-off-a-bit-on-zev-mandate-orders-66k-phevs-sold-by-20/ a blog post.~~ — Dabomb87 — continues after insertion below

That was replaced by California Air Resources Board (March 27, 2008) "ARB passes new ZEV amendment - Measure could produce 65,000 cleaner vehicles by 2012" (government agency release) as a primary historical source in the History section. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~http://www.nicecarcompany.co.uk/home.html~~ Dabomb87 (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has no link to that URL. We link to ~~http://www.nicecarcompany.co.uk/go-electric-says-gordon-brown.html~~ to document the Brown statement and ~~http://www.nicecarcompany.co.uk/plug-in-hybrids-and-battery-electric-vehicles.html~~ for the Leape quote. Are either of those uses troubling? I replaced the latter with http://www.panda.org/index.cfm?uNewsID=129321 which seems to be the primary source for the quotation in question. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 11:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was the base URL, not the specific page. Struck the latter, may need to scrutinize more later. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced and struck the former with number10.gov.uk source from 2007. 69.228.80.150 (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As done as possible, pending answers to my boldfaced questions from the reviewers. All of the specific issues raised were addressed, along with other sourcing, formating, and a few related issues. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice work 69.228! I'm glad that this article, which is of considerable relevance in this day and age, is undergoing improvement. I still have questions about some more sources. In addition, all web citations should have a publisher and last access date. Now that some of the technical issues have been cleaned up, it is time that we find a copy-editor, because the prose needs some cleaning. As you request, I will be back with more specific issues and replies after I look at the rest of my watchlisted items and take care of something in real life. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will certainly add access dates and publishers. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intro down, 22 sections to go. 69.228.80.150 (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the access dates, you can put down today's date; the access dates are there so that if a link goes dead, we know when the last time it was live so that we can replace the link with one from the Web Archive from that date. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying you checked that all the links worked today? 69.228.80.150 (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that works does not show up here (only the links with red background are dead). Dabomb87 (talk) 22:37, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so are there any objections to repeatedly stating January 8 for default access dates? I guess I'll try some and see how it looks. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is this? 69.228.197.195 (talk) 13:38, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, because then readers won't know when the article was last accessed. Other purpose of access dates is that readers know how long ago the article was updated with that information. Putting the hidden comment up there makes it hard for other editors to find the access date, they won't expect it to be there. If you don't mind, I can put in the access dates; I have a script that eases the job a bit. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do; I will remove the comment. 69.228.215.76 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we trim the External links section? It seems that some of those links could be used as reliable sources. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, "Groups promoting plug-ins" should merge into "Organizations," and "News" has always been kind of a holding pen for things that should be written up in "History" or it's main article, but haven't been yet. 69.228.201.125 (talk) 17:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done with blue-sided ambox to suggest expansion at future production. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication and globalization

There are now three places where "plug-in hybrids that are planned or in production" are listed - the intro, "History", and "Production and commercialization". I think any announcements about future cars isn't really the level of detail History should have, that should be merged into "Future production". -- Beland (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Public Law 110-343 is mentioned three times, sometimes I think under the wrong name. Perhaps this and the California regulations should be consolidated in one place like "Government support". Not sure that needs to be under "History". I added a "globalize" tag because I'm sure there are other countries not mentioned which also have subsidies or relevant policies. -- Beland (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the "globalize" tag after shifting the international list of public deployments to the Governments section. 69.228.206.231 (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Compare to BYD F3DM#Principles of operation's section on modes of operation, which needs Anglisization to be in En. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- P.L. 110-343 has been addressed. 69.228.197.195 (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations, MOS, and prose. Joelito (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So I started to clean up the references, but then I encountered a far larger problem: there is no consistent cite format. Some references are formatted manually, others use the cite XXX family ({{cite web}} and {{cite news}}), yet others use the {{citation}} template. The first thing that needs to be settled on is which citation format should be used. The second thing is the addition of ref information and making sure that all sources are reliable, the latter of which is the most important. The last thing is the actual formatting, which can be done given time. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does criteria 2c require that the wikitext be the same "family"? Can I just upgrade the bare URLs and refs without publisher information instead, please? 69.228.195.86 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, publisher information is required. As I said, I can do all that, but we need to settle on a consistent format and make sure that all sources are reliable. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, which format is easiest to convert them all to? 69.228.195.86 (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cite XXX templates, since many of the references are in that format already. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but if the proposed time frame for completion is anything less than a couple months, I would like to see some evidence that criteria 2c has in the past required conformance of wikitext formats instead of the traditional footnote/Harvard distinction. 69.228.195.86 (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as work is being done, the director will let the FAR stay live. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean by "required conformance of wikitext formats instead of the traditional footnote/Harvard distinction". Dabomb87 (talk) 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the text of featured article criteria 2c. 69.228.216.60 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More source reliability issues:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/17930/?a=f — Dabomb87 — continues after insertion below

On which aspect of reliability is this source being questioned? 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it currently sources this statement: "Design issues and trade-offs against battery life, capacity, heat dissipation, weight, costs, and safety need to be solved." Dabomb87 (talk) 19:52, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that statement being challenged? It doesn't seem controversial to me. Assuming that someone thinks that the design issues don't need to be solved, which aspect of reliability is in question? 69.228.86.219 (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it an accepted fact in this area that these problems need to be solved? Dabomb87 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a suggestion that the problems do not need to be solved in any source anywhere near the reliability of the MIT Technology Review. 69.228.216.60 (talk) 14:16, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will let this one go for now, but I won't strike just yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.valence.com/ is a dead link—Ref 126. — Dabomb87 — continues after insertion below

I'll try to see if I can get it in web.archive.org or a more reliable live link. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.chevyvoltforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=273 Why don't you cite directly from the source?

Okay, if I can find it. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.wheels.ca/reviews/article/256058 — Dabomb87 — continues after insertion below

I need to review this. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.hybridcarchat.com/hybrid-technology/mira-introduces-plugless-plug-in-hybrid-conversion.htm —a blog. — Dabomb87 — continues after insertion below

Okay, I'll try to find another report of the same press release, or the original release. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=101846&topicId=103840033&docId=l:732161238 deadlinks.

http://web.archive.org/web/20080208091638/http://blogs.business2.com/greenwombat/2007/06/photo_green_wom.html

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/hybrid-car2.htm Dabomb87 (talk) 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there special dispensation towards howstuffworks.com and about.com in the reliable source criteria, somewhere? I think there was at one time. Maybe on WP:RSN or its archives. I'll look for that and try to address all of these. 76.254.84.5 (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

about.com covered here. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite long, some more trivial points, such as "Greg Hanssen and Peter Nortman of EnergyCS[118] and EDrive[119] attended the two-day session, and during a break in the proceedings, made an impromptu display in the LADWP parking lot of their converted Prius plug-in hybrid." could be removed without loss to the article. I also think the wiktionary links can be removed.

There is a little swapping between " x miles (y km)" and "y km (x mi)"; perhaps stick to miles first? The "smog" section could possibly be merged into the "greenhouse gas emissions" section; "operating costs" with "fuel efficiency"; and "Energy resilience and petroleum displacement" with "Vehicle-to-grid electricity". The sentence "has now taken over where Calcars left off..." is missing a word.

As the "greenhouse gas emissions" and "Emissions shifted to electric plants" sections cover the same ground, I would take them out of the "Advantages" and "Disadvantages" sections and merge them into a new section covering these issues outwith the advantages and disadvantages.

The "external links" and "see also" sections should be trimmed. Only the most relevant links should be given. DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Comments not addressed. Indeed, since my review more trivia appears to have been added as there is now a list of converters which consists mostly of red links. DrKiernan (talk) 13:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove, agree with DrKiernan (talk · contribs), also there are major sourcing issues and structural/organizational issues. Cirt (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Demote - Since Obama and the bailout bill thrust plug-ins back into the public light as a matter of national political interest and debate, it's been essentially impossible to keep the article as stable as required by criteria 1(e), and I expect that such stability will become more and more difficult as federal orders and manufacturer bailout negotiations bring new models into production. The demands of some FAR commentary are difficult to see as entirely in good faith, as well. The article should be re-considered for FA status after more models are in production, but in the mean time it seems to meet the GA criteria. 76.254.86.42 (talk) 17:13, 27 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.

^ Daniel C. Schechter (2002). Pacific Northwest. Lonely Planet. p. 33. ISBN 1864503777.
^ Cite error: The named reference Kiley-new-theater was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ "Home page". SYSO. Retrieved 2007-10-21.
^ "Home page". SYSO. Retrieved 2007-10-21.

[1] Daniel C. Schechter (2002). Pacific Northwest. Lonely Planet. p. 33. ISBN 1864503777.

[Kiley-new-theater-2] Cite error: The named reference Kiley-new-theater was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[3] "Home page". SYSO. Retrieved 2007-10-21.

[4] "Home page". SYSO. Retrieved 2007-10-21.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 43: / Line 43: @@
 ==Kept status==
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barack Obama}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Seattle/archive1}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works/archive1}}

Revision as of 03:36, 10 March 2009

Archives

Kept status

Barack Obama

Seattle

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Rogers Locomotive and Machine Works

Removed status

Dundee

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Władysław Sikorski

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Plug-in hybrid

Review commentary

FARC commentary