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
Line 50: Line 50:


==Removed status==
==Removed status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Equal Protection Clause/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Yesterday (song)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Eldfell/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Eldfell/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Omnipotence paradox/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Omnipotence paradox/archive2}}

Revision as of 03:45, 15 June 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

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 22:53, 7 June 2009 [1].

H II region

FAR commentary

Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Astronomy/Article alerts; main editor vanished

This article has very fiew citation and is not so complete; some sections need an improvement, expecially about the origin. Furthermore, a concise explanation of the late stages of the regions is needed. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 10:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I translated this article to spanish wikipedia and made it a good article there, the spanish one is a little bit larger and referenced, so it would be a good source to make this one better. Locos ~ epraix Beaste~praix 03:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations have improved somewhat since the start of FAR, and I'll try to help with it more during this week. Random astronomer (talk) 10:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added some new source and will add some more. Ruslik (talk) 11:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cite for the Herschel quote?
  • Perhaps the details of Russell's and Bok's seminal papers could be given?
  • I wonder if there should be a cite for comments like "thought to contain"?
  • There is some repetition of points from the end of the "Observations" section at the end of the "Origin and lifetime" section, though neither one looks out-of-place particularly. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Currently all statements (except some minor) in the article are cited. I also expanded the lead, which now satisfies FA criteria. I think the article may be kept as FA. Ruslik (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finished. The article can be definitely kept now. Ruslik (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"thought to contain many times as much matter as would be needed to create a planetary system like that of the Milky Way." The Milky Way is a galaxy rather than a planetary system. DrKiernan (talk) 09:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified. Ruslik_Zero 09:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Just one problem now: File:Rosette Nebula dss2.jpg is nominated for deletion [2]. I recommend removing the image for now, until the deletion request is resolved. DrKiernan (talk) 10:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: problems raised are addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 12:43, 5 June 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 22:51, 7 June 2009 [3].

Opera (web browser)

Review commentary

Notified: WP Opera Browser, Remember the dot

WhatisFeelings? (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see..."1d" is "neutral", and "1b" is "comprehensive". So, are you saying that there are opposing viewpoints that you do not feel are adequately discussed? Could you provide links to reliable sources discussing these viewpoints? —Remember the dot (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"1d not met": Because it's a relatively short article perhaps? This is because it is well modularised, surely a merit rather than a fault. If you take the sum of the linked "sub-articles" it's more than comprehensive - some might say overly so. If you mean #Critical reception specifically, it alone has 3 other sub-articles.
"1b not met": Examples? ɹəəpıɔnı 04:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article lacks balance; the entire Critical reception section as whole is an example. Not meeting 1d is a consequence of not meeting 1b. This also responds to the above "are adequately discussed?" To reply more: "provide links to reliable sources" - I googled for a second, and http://operawatch.com/ is among the reliable sources (you may wish to use it as a secondary source), though I like to remind the viewers that, in general, notifiers do not necessarily have an interest in keeping articles FA status when they does not meet the standards noticed, specific to that article.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as an addition remark, at least the Opera article attempts to improve, while the Firefox one does not, or at least it seems that way.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article already cites Opera Watch three times. —Remember the dot (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
that is one source, and the section lacks sufficient critical remarks; the FAR issues are already stated, and implied.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"the section lacks sufficient critical remarks" - Are you aware of any further criticisms? If so, please insert but editors can't invent criticisms. I'm not implying there aren't any, just that it seems to me all I'm aware of are in the article. ɹəəpıɔnı 04:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not know how to google??? "but editors can't invent criticisms" - haha, you are sooo funny. Oh gosh.
Future development is section #6 - keep the arrangement of sections in line with the Firefox article.
Furthermore, someone had added http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opera_(web_browser)&curid=18996620&diff=276029200&oldid=275733216 - this does meet WP:LINKS
WhatisFeelings? (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
it's also missing System requirementsWhatisFeelings? (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
←←
"do you know how to google???" , yes, of course I do. What's your point? This is a ridiculous retort. Please reply with something meaningful.
"haha, you are sooo funny" - Sorry, maybe my sense of humour is lacking; I don't get the joke.
On the future developments section being unlike the Firefox article - you are just after commenting above on how poor the Firefox article is, why on earth should the Opera article try to emulate it. There's no MoS entry for browsers or software that I'm aware of: here.
On the Russian link(s), they are allowable as per the first exception for foreign language links in WP:LINKS as they are the ONLY official source to the relevant Russia-specific statistics related to the browser.
System Requirements are in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the lead-in. ɹəəpıɔnı 02:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You may wish to change or amend the eight dead links (see [4]). DrKiernan (talk) 12:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed 6 of them. The 7th appears to be a toolserver problem, not a problem with the link. The 8th is in a language I don't speak so I don't know how to fix/find a suitable/relevant alternative. Should non-english links be used as references on en.wiki? Although it's possible the original link pointed to an english article. ɹəəpıɔnı 04:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dab checker tool reveals two dab links. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update - i'm not exactly sure but i'm assuming that if the FAR noticer is inactive, then the FAR in question is removed/canceled. in any event, there was very low activity from those i notified.WhatisFeelings? (talk) 23:49, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are broken links/citations, NPOV and comprehensiveness. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Broken links have been fixed since mention (the yandex error is a toolserver bug), and dab checker shows no dab links. On other issues, the single user who raised them has refused to elaborate, instead replying with pejorative remarks. ɹəəpıɔnı 05:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not a direct issue raised above, but in general sourcing seems pretty good throughout. Cirt (talk) 02:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm working my way through some cleanup (copyediting, MOS, ref formatting, etc.). I have concerns whether some sources meet RS. Also finding a fair amount of proseline to clean up. More later. Maralia (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I hope that improvements are on the way:
  1. Prose concerns: The word "Opera" is mentioned at least 13 times in the lead! Prose in "Features" is not compelling.
  2. "Opera responded to these accusations the next day." Saying what?
  3. "Critical reception of Opera has been largely positive,[84][85][86] although it has been criticized for website compatibility issues,[87][88] partly because many web sites do not adhere to web standards as diligently as Opera.[89][90][91] Because of this issue, Opera 8.01 and higher have included workarounds to help certain popular but problematic web sites display properly.[92][93]" Overloading with citations, which break the prose. Combine them or merge them or make a selection among them.--Yannismarou (talk) 09:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup still needed I see bare URLS in references, missing publishers in a few (foreign language) references, excessive external links (see WP:EL), questionable sources ([5]?), and undefined abbreviations (CSS). It's close, but not quite there yet. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's been a fair few edits recently with the release of the 10 beta so it's possible this is as a result of that, not older deficiencies. I'll take a look anyway. ɹəəpıɔnı 15:21, 8 June 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 03:45, 15 June 2009 [6].

Equal Protection Clause

FAR commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights, User talk:Hydriotaphia.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues. Article seems to have an essay-style tone to it. Could get away a bit from the primary sources and focus on secondary - a bit of reworking and overall referencing improvement throughout the article could help with this. Cirt (talk) 08:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, especially with the 6th section title. Also to me the article seems a bit unfocused and disorganized. I'd suggest splitting by Supreme Court case interpretation and how the EPC stands on affirmative action, etc. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote it, and I agree. It 'is' too essayistic, I now see. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to go back and change it. Thanks and good luck! Hydriotaphia (talk) 03:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, structure and organisation. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources.
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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 03:45, 15 June 2009 [7].

Yesterday (song)

FAR commentary

Notified: User talk:Johnleemk, User talk:Rodhullandemu, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Beatles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues. Article seems a bit short, considering the popularity of the song, surely there must be more discussion of it in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. Also, lots of short paragraphs and one-sentence paragraphs throughout, could use copyediting. There is not much info in the article about musical composition, certainly not much that is sourced. Cirt (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Rodhullandemu

  • First thoughts: Initial issues were (a) a {{cn}} tag on the original lyrics; these appear to have originated, as far as I can tell, from a factoid sourced to a poorly-written book, so for the time being, I've deleted that claim. (b) A deadlink to Guinness World Records.com, which I've resurrected from the wayback machine, but it doesn't substantiate the claim of 3000 cover versions, so I've corrected that; in particular, for a FA, the list of "eclectic" cover versions requires sourcing, and I've yet to find a reliable and definitive list. Rodhullandemu 22:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added a section on "Musical structure". Probably needs reviewing for style & against sources. Rodhullandemu 02:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Realist2

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:32, 26 May 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:05, 9 June 2009 [8].

Eldfell

FAR commentary

Notified: WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Iceland

OK, I saw that there is some activity on WP:Volcanoes, so might be a good time to spruce up the referencing. It has a total of 7 inline refs and an ugly tag that I cannot remove at the top. Should be relatively straightforward. I will tag (i.e. criterion 1c) and notify parties. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done, although the infobox is actually from WP:MOUNTAINS. -- Avenue (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image problems

I'd add some concerns about accuracy and comprehensiveness, although these are hopefully fairly minor. For instance, the "third of all the basaltic lava" statistic seems wrong, concerns about placename translations expressed on the talk page have not been addressed, and the volcanological content seems a bit light. -- Avenue (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:28, 26 May 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:05, 9 June 2009 [9].

Omnipotence paradox

FAR commentary

Notified: WikiProject Atheism, WikiProject Religion, WikiProject Philosophy, Anville, Lacatosias, Bmorton3, BrianH123, SandyGeorgia.

Criteria WP:FACR for the rewiew: 1a (sometimes weasel-like prose), 1c (missing citations), 2 (e.g. "infinity - infinity" has only short "-" ), specifically 2a (lead too long).--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 17:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I concur that the lead is too long. The rest will take a little more time to look at. It appears that the editors who bird-dogged this article as an FA and through its first real FAR have gone inactive. Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that the newer FAR is listed as "archive1"? Athanasius • Quicumque vult 14:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It had to do with the new archiving system. I fixed it. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I took a quick look at the article and found some problems:

  • Several paragraphs have zero citations. Some of those paragraphs really need citations.
  • The article doesn't mention the crucial connection between the omnipotence paradox and the law of non-contradiction. See: Horn LR (2006). "Contradiction". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
  • The article doesn't make the important connection between the omnipotence paradox and monotheism. See: Baillie J, Hagen J. "There cannot be two omnipotent beings". Int J Philos Relig. 64 (1): 21–33. doi:10.1007/s11153-007-9152-7.
  • The article doesn't mention that the omnipotence paradox is a standard argument for atheism. See: Grim P (2007). "Impossibility arguments". In Martin M (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Atheism. Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521842700.013. ISBN 0521842700. This could be illustrated with File:Atheism1.svg, which is both a logo and a diagram of a variant the paradox.
  • Likewise for agnosticism. See: Woods PA (2007). "From the middle out: a case for agnosticism". Sophia. 46 (1): 35–48. doi:10.1007/s11841-007-0008-5.
  • I agree that the lead is too long. Also, it doesn't really summarize the body: it contains several notions (e.g., the quote from Titus) not in the body, and some important notions discussed at length in the body (e.g., types of omnipotence) are not mentioned in the lead.
  • More illustrations are needed.

This article is clear and has good prose, but I'm afraid it'll take some work to fix these problems. Eubulides (talk) 22:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, lead. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 02:36, 26 May 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:05, 9 June 2009 [10].

New Radicals

Review commentary

WP Rock music, Artrush, and Fritz Saalfeld notified

Article was promoted in February 2006 when standards were far lower. Use of fair use images to depict a band automatically disqualifies it and it's far less comprehensive than other articles on similar subjects. Exxolon (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see a problem re comprehensiveness; the band had a short life span. Ceoil (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please check out the image talk pages here and here, as those concerns came up, and were addressed there, earlier. --Fritz S. (Talk) 08:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first one I still say must go, your rationale is not acceptable. A free image can be created that adequately presents the same information. I was not talking about the group shot, but the shot from the music video. All it shows is Gregg Alexander and a free picture can be obtained. He's alive and not in hiding. He doesn't need a scheduled event, people can run into him on the street. His representation can be contacted. File:New Radicals Gregg Alexander.jpg and File:New Radicals Someday Well Know video.jpg can be replaced by free images. Or they can be removed; with the group shot we don't need a second or third image of just Alexander. Jay32183 (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The copyright issue can probably be considered resolved since all but one of the copyrighted files has been deleted. Jay32183 (talk) 06:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 07:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uncited claims appear to include: "considered a relatively constant member" (reference given is not a neutral third-party); "well received by music critics...compared its funk and soul-influenced upbeat to the early work of Prince and Mick Jagger"; "received much media attention"; "mass media's excitement"; "fans immediately recognized". DrKiernan (talk) 15:21, 5 June 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 22:55, 7 June 2009 [11].

BC Rail

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia, Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Companies, User talk:Slambo, User talk:Skookum1, User talk:JYolkowski

The article fails criteria 1c, since most of the article lacks in-line citations. Arsenikk (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the citation is lacking for an article of its size. There is also an extremely large amount of broken wiki links for a featured article. The Locomotive section could be greatly enhanced by use of template box layouts, such as used for the locomotives on Virgin Trains. The citation and broken links problems are more critical however.81.111.115.63 (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article also fails criterion 3:

  • File:PGE timetable.JPG - This non-free image needs a stronger fair use rationale or needs to be removed. Why do we need to see this particular cover? What does it show visually that cannot be explained with words?
  • File:Optimized image 44efede4.png - This non-free logo needs a stronger fair use rationale or needs to be removed. Why do we need to see this former logo?
  • File:Bcrailway.png - This non-free logo needs a stronger fair use rationale or needs to be removed. Why do we need to see this former logo?

See this dispatch for help on non-free images. Awadewit (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, image copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 01:16, 21 May 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:49, 2 June 2009 [12].

Siege

Review commentary

MilHist WikiProject notified

One of the early promotions before the vogue for inline citations. An unsourced quote and example farm can be easily dealt with by removal, but a more thorough tune-up should also be considered. DrKiernan (talk) 08:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a little copyediting and MOS cleanup, but yes, citations sorely needed here. Maralia (talk) 04:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:14, 19 May 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:49, 2 June 2009 [13].

Mor lam

Review commentary

Notified: User_talk:Henry_Flower, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Thailand, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Southeast Asia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music/Regional and national rock music taskforce.

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues, could use a review of the images to see if the two free-use have appropriate documentation and if the fair-use image is appropriately used or is something that could be replaced by a free-use image, or simply described in the article's text. Cirt (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should follow a well defined transcription method for the many Thai words it contains. Preferred standard for Thai in wikipedia is Royal Thai General System of Transcription or RTGS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodstone (talk • contribs) 09:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Advocacy of your preferred transcription system is of course entirely legitimate, but it´s misleading to suggest that it is the standard on Wikipedia. For much discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Thailand#Romanization and the related drafts. In any case, there´s a lot more Lao and Isan here than Thai.
As far as referencing goes, you can decide for yourselves whether it meets currrent FA requirements. ;) HenryFlower 13:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two free images are fine. I'm not concerned by the fair-use one: it is a single frame comprising only one-twentyfifth of a second of running time, and it does illustrate the genre. DrKiernan (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, and diversity thereof (Miller is the author of Garland). Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:10, 19 May 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:49, 2 June 2009 [14].

Hrafnkels saga

Review commentary

Notification of all relevant parties complete: Nominator and main contributor User:Haukurth, WikiProject Books, WikiProject Iceland, WikiProject Norse history and culture

1(c) - currently no inline citations. It could be accurate but harder to verify and inline citations are now part of criteria. (Background:It was promoted 4 years ago and has not been reviewed since.) Tom B (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I wrote it, and you're right that it isn't in the current Wikipedia style. I honestly don't really care that it doesn't have footnotes - it cites its sources very carefully, even if it's not to page numbers. Having those numbers would probably not make a lick of difference to your ability to 'verify' the accuracy of the article since you presumably don't understand Icelandic to begin with.
Anyway, I'm fine with the article being demoted - I've learned a lot since I wrote it and I now think it's deficient in several ways (Wikipedia citation style being the least of these concerns). Haukur (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations and unspecified deficiencies not elaborated on by the author. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:15, 19 May 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:49, 2 June 2009 [15].

Comet

Review commentary

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues, lede needs work, copyediting needed throughout, lots of skimpy subsections with only a few sentences, lots of bullet points that don't look that great. Article was a promotion under the old FA "refreshing brilliant prose" system. Cirt (talk) 12:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:Bryan Derksen, User talk:TUF-KAT, User talk:Kingturtle, User talk:Gentgeen, User talk:Stewartadcock, User talk:Robogun, User talk:Cimon Avaro, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Solar System. Cirt (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Images
Alright, I went through the references and made them all nice and tidy. Some of them I removed and replaced with {{cn}} tags, as they were dead links or page no one could access. Some others did not support the sentences they were attached to, etc... Now we can work on reffing what needs to be reffed, style issues, etc... Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a number of citation issues, for example the claim that comets are balls of tar is certainly astonishing to me. DrKiernan (talk) 13:40, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As dark as tar, not tar.Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, prose, structure. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:08, 19 May 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=296478722"