Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:53, 12 November 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

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 19:53, 12 November 2009 [1].

TARDIS

Review commentary

Notified: Khaosworks, Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who, Wikipedia:WikiProject BBC

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

Un-referenced material.

Dead links in refs 6, 36, 38, and others.

The "Popular culture" section has clean-up tags on it.

And, though not sure, some of the pictures maybe unnessessary.

So, all and all, this article has a lot of problems to it and needs a major overhaul. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

An issue I see right off the bat is that it assumes too much foreknowledge of Doctor Who—things like Time Lords are not explained, nor the Doctor or much of the show's premise. The third paragraph of the first section is entirely unreferenced and seems to involve some original research (I'm not a Londoner, but a specific figure like 700 boxes in London in the 1960s should be sourced as not common knowledge.) There are several other unreferenced lines scattered throughout the article that I think similarly require citations.

Aside from referencing issues, there's excessive weight given to in-universe explanations and trivial details. I simply don't think 30+KB about every facet of the ship qualifies as summarized and succint coverage as recommended by fiction writing guidelines. Add to the fact that most of it's unreferenced and smacks of original research (for example, the bit on the changing exterior colors) and I'd say much of the article could be plainly gutted. Lots of these issues existed in the original FA version (oldid), but it's simply gotten bloated over the years with cruft. The final sections, rather than providing real-world critical commentary and sources that prove its notability, dissolves into a list of trivia.

Finally, the defensibility of File:Rani TARDIS.jpg, File:JadePagoda.jpg, File:Tinterior1.jpg, File:Tardis Console Circa 1996.jpg, File:Tardisconsole.jpg, File:TARDIS wardrobe.jpg, File:TARDIS Key.jpg, File:Hartnellconsole.jpg and File:Doctor Who - Secondary TARDIS console room.jpg are all amazingly poor. Considering there are free shots that can adequately replace the images of the exterior, one could even argue that there's no reason for a non-free image in this article at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 02:05, 16 October 2009

Comment on the image issue - yes, some could be removed. However, the interior shots, especially Hartnellconsole and Tardisconsole, are vital to understanding how the depiction of the TARDIS interior has changed over the years, and are extremely unlikely to be replaceable with a free alternative (especially the first, as the set was likely destroyed when the show stopped using it, like most unused sets were. I don't know of any free current interior shots available, either. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Update: I removed the three images with the weakest justification, cutting the number of fair use images by a third. The Wordsmith^Communicate 03:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would find a defense of the non-free shots much more reasonable if there were secondary sources and critical coverage about the appearance to prove that it actually mattered. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I'll make a do-over on the article to remove the most notable complaints some time this week. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
  - Update: I have personal issues making it not worth my time to edit Wikipedia extensively over the next few weeks. I think it's better to allow the project to start to work on this more once the series comes back next Spring, when we aren't constrained by a time limit. Sceptre ^(talk) 02:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The major issue I see in scanning the article are general concerns on Writing About Fiction. Some sections, particularly regarding production details, are perfectly well expressed, and are certainly above average for an article on a fictional topic. Other sections, including the lead section, blend a little too seamlessly between real-world aspects and fictional aspects. Most of these issues can be solved without too much trouble by prefixing the paragraph or section to explain the perspective of the content. Other places, the "character development" of the tardis should be expressed in terms of episodes/development schedule, not in-universe or unspecified (weasel) time. If more detail is needed for improvement, I can scrutinize the article more closely, and point to specific places in the article that concern me, but I suspect plenty of editors out there would have no difficulty resolving all the major concerns (which again, aren't too severe) without such help. -Verdatum (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a speedy delist for FAs with maintenance tags. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Cited FA criteria concerns are citations and focus YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, per my comments above. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Lack of inline citations (main concern), lack of alt text, a bulleted trivia section disguised as "Popular culture", poorly formatted referenced, David's image concerns, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 21:41, 9 November 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 19:53, 12 November 2009 [2].

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Review commentary

Notified: Jossifresco, Jkelly, Ludvikus, Humus sapiens, Goodoldpolonius2, Wikiproject Jewish history

I am nominating this featured article for review because

the lead section was overlong, uninformative, and confusing.
Inspecting the talkpage revealed that others have acknowledged issues with the article.
Inspection of the listed feature article revision reflects an article that is more readable and better follows WP guidelines.

-Verdatum (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose:

1) The confusion is due to the complexity of the subject matter, not the writing of the lead.

2) The article has already been edited to satisfy those "others" who raised the issue.

3) "Inspection of the listed feature article revision reflects an article that is more readable and better follows WP guidelines." Don't know what the boldface item is.

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire. The lede is too long, and—as is your style—overlinked. If other Featured Articles can get by with three- or four-paragraph ledes, there's no reason why this one can't. Please read WP:LEDE.
Your "improvements" have generally made the article harder to read, not easier to understand. Try to differentiate between important information, which needs to be discussed, and unimportant trivia, which should be excised. This is an encyclopedia article for a general reader, not a specialist.
What it means is that this version of the article, which is the version that was promoted to Featured Article status, is better than the current version.
A few other problems I noticed:

Several portions of the article lack footnotes, including some entire paragraphs.
There are quotations without citation. See, for example, "Structure and themes" (all of which may be WP:OR).
Avoid editorial interjections ("the notorious Protocols").
Decide whether the title is "the Protocols" or The Protocols. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[Book covers]:

File:The Protocols and World Revolution.pdf and File:Praemonitus Praemunitus - The Protocols of the Wise Men of Zion - The Beckwith Company (1920).jpg don't have a licence.
Anyway, it is unnecessary to show essentially the same book cover three times, and as they should be free I don't see why a non-free use rationale is necessary.
File:Pavel Krushevan.jpg doesn't have a source or author.
File:Protocols of the Elders of Zion 2005 Syria al-Awael.jpg is at an unnecessarily high resolution for a book cover; it should be reduced in size.
The non-free use rationale for File:Mexico low.jpg doesn't make sense. What has the cover of the book got to do with its contents? How does the cover illustrate the book is untrue?
File:Japan low.jpg is missing a fair-use rationale.
Does File:Protocols KL08.jpg need a fair-use rationale for the clearly seen book cover?

DrKiernan (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly oppose:

This item item was published in the USA in 1920, is in the public domain, and is the second edition of the infamous plagiarism.
There's no such thing as the "same" book. There are only divers editions, produced at different times. These three Title pages are taken from the seminal, original, publications, and as such are extreme notable, unlike contemporary imprints.
The source for Pavel Krushevan will be supplied.

Strongly support:

4., 5., 6., 7. None of these items are notable and should be deleted.

--Ludvikus (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the lede is much worse than the lede that gained FA status. The current version is far too detailed. A lede is supposed to be an introduction, a capsule, a summary of the more detailed article to follow. Instead, we find things like a typescript copy from 1919 and where it is archived. A reader has to wade through five and a half paragraphs of not very interesting dates and names before the reader even finds out what the content of the book in question is. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 23:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. But that can be fixed I think. Unfortunately, I find not many editors around like there used to be. I find quite a bit od duplication. Also, there's too much contemporary stuff at the end which makes the article too long. However, there's been new research around in the lat few years which emphasis the circulation of the typescript in 1919. I personally may need two weeks to help restructure the article. Also, it would be nice if we could have a Wiki project page for this article. I have no experience in that. I don't know who the editors are who with to assist in restructuring the article. --Ludvikus (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the article currently is nowhere near FA status; for one thing, doesn't the lead usually come before the contents? Also, this paragraph appears to end in midsentence: "It also appeared in 1919 in the Public Ledger (Philadelphia) as a pair of serialized newspaper articles. But all references to "Jews" were replaced with references to Bolsheviki as an expose by the journalist and subsequently highly respected Columbia University School of Journalism dean, [15]". I applaud the Herculean efforts of Ludvikus; perhaps the article can be cleaned up before it gets demoted (though that is where I think it is headed). Mario777Zelda (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Future participants in this review, you don't need to support or oppose anything. This is just to evaluate what aspects of the article could be improved, and what aspects fail the Featured article criteria. If appropriate, a discussion to delist this article is started after this step. This process of featured article review is detailed at WP:FAR. -Verdatum (talk) 05:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This FAR is pointless. Any attempt to improve the article is fought over by Ludvikus. Even something as simple as adding a license to an image is reverted. DrKiernan (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yah. Delist it now; it's so far from FA quality that the likelihood of it coming up to standard, as long as Ludvikus continues to apply his unique style to it, is close to zero. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this discussion should proceed to the next stage, Featured article removal candidate. After a week of intensive editing, some major issues still exist, in my opinion.

I still think that there are too many images at the top of the page (though this point has been addressed previously).
Large portions of the lead consist of very awkward, if not unreadable, prose. The lead is also overly long (and even with its length, may not summarize the article fully).
The first paragraph of the first section after the lead still ends in midsentence.
The shortened version of the title is inconsistent: it's seen as the Protocols, the Protocols, and The Protocols (at least).
The article is poorly organized. The section "The Times exposes a forgery, 1921", for example, is sandwiched between discussions of the book's imprints in various languages.
The lead sentence of the "Fiction" section reads: "As it turned the text a plurality of literary source besides Maurice Joly." What?
Some sections require further references, including the "Title Variations" section and the "Middle East" and "Eugene Sue" subsections.

Mario777Zelda (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose, structure, citations, lead, images. Also note the recent change to the criteria requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist I consider this article to be far from satisfying the Featured Article Criteria. It's currently undergoing regular major edits (as opposed to being stable), It needs rewriting, reorganization, splitting, and trimming. I judge the amount of worked needed to return it to such a status would be on the order of months. Most of the editors responsible for initially bringing this article to featured status appear to be retired from editing, or on long term break. -Verdatum (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per Verdatum, major editors pre-FA are retired or gone, article is unstable due to present work, lots of problems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my above comments and those of Verdatum.--Mario777Zelda (talk) 01:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Mario777Zelda brings up most of the pertinent points in his section in the FAR. The biggest problem is the lack of references, plus references requested since mid-2008. Dana boomer (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. One glance at the TOC alone convinced me that a pile-on delist isn't needed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 7 November 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 19:53, 12 November 2009 [3].

Isambard Kingdom Brunel

Review commentary

Notified WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Civil engineering, PopUpPirate (main contributor and FA nominator).

While a comprehensive article, several large sections lack inline citations (1.c), and sections of the prose, particularly the 'Early life' section, are quite poor. Image text does not conform to the manual of style, and there are two cleanup tags, including one requesting a citation (almost a month old). Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done; thanks. ~~Images need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ Eubulides (talk) 18:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It needs a prose clean up, as sections tend to be made up of many short paragraphs, making for a choppy read.

Dead links:

Keep Still worthy and one of the better Engineering-related articles which is under-represented. Non-conformance to a manual of style, and a couple of tags, do not automatically make a bad article! --PopUpPirate (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't ever suggest that were so - its still a 'good' article, but I doubt it would, in its present state, even pass WP:GAN. Parrot of Doom (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that under-representation and "worth[iness]" are not considered in whether an article meets FA criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images File:Saltashrab.jpg: missing permission. File:Great Western.jpg is a copyright violation: Mark Myers (born 1945) is still living. This is a modern imagining of an historic event, not an historic picture painted at the time. File:Great-Eastern-At-Sea-.jpg and File:Brunel-Launch-Leviathon.jpg: missing permissions. DrKiernan (talk) 10:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Great-Eastern-At-Sea-.jpg has been commented out and File:Brunel-Launch-Leviathon.jpg appears to have been upladed by the copyright holder with a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 license. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, MOS, prose, alt text, copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Poor prose: single line paragraphs, text doesn't flow, ~~formatted almost as a set of bullet points.~~ Images missing permission. Dead links. DrKiernan (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but I'm still not happy with it. There are problems with comprehensiveness and focus. For example, ~~the "Early life" section could be expanded with details of his schooling in Britain and his work for a French clockmaker, and~~ there are single-line paragraphs which are really nothing more than adverts for the Swindon and Didcot railway museums. The lead goes into unnecessary detail over trivia, e.g. "Some 143 years later..." when it should explain his lasting legacy not some unreliable television poll that was hijacked by Brunel University undergraduates. DrKiernan (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revisited. Still delist. DrKiernan (talk) 09:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC) 10:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as per DrKiernan. The dead-link image is particularly grating. Also, all the images still lack alt text (see the "alt text" entry in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page). Striking my "delist" for now, as article is improving. Eubulides (talk) 06:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, agree with DrKiernan (talk · contribs) and Eubulides (talk · contribs), as well as FA criteria concerns highlighted by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 11:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, only just came across this discussion. Will work on this over the next week. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, I was really hoping someone would step up to the plate to work on this. I can't help much with the lack of citations, but will work on prose, MOS, etc. Maralia (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone would like to cast their eyes over the references now (many have been changed, more added, that would be good. Maralia is still copy-editing, but feedback on the references would be useful. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working on that. ~~Could you also take a look at the alt text, as it's still absent?~~ Please click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Eubulides (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added alt text for all images, the tool does not show it, but a right click on the image and a click on properties does show it. I don't know how to add alt text to the icon for the wikisource in the ELs. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Good job on the alt text. The tool is sometimes delayed; I have a bug report in about that. I fixed the template generating the Wikisource image. Eubulides (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to leave a note mentioning that I'm still working on this. It's in much better shape already (thanks Jezhotwells!). I should be able to get back to it within a few days. Maralia (talk) 04:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to need quite a bit of MoS cleanup ... on a quick flyover, I saw a lot of WP:OVERLINKing and WP:ACCESS issues. As it gets further along, I'll have another look, but Maralia is likely to address these issues. For now, the article is not in keep territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful, to me at least, to point out where overlinking is a problem. I have removed some duplicate wikilinks and one or two taht seemed redundant. I can see any other instances or over-linking. I would also apprecaite guidance on what access issues the artcile has. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added two sample edits, faster than typing it all out, hopefully you can take it from there, and review WP:ACCESS and WP:OVERLINKing. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are some dabs that need fixing.[4] And some more citations are needed, including one for a quote. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dablinks fixed and several fact tags resolved (3 as yet unresolved). Working offline on a rewrite of some sections. Will update status next week. Maralia (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The prose needs work; it's saveable, but is someone going to organise it? I made a few tweaks at the top. Overlinking ("British"? "engineer"? bad piping of TA cable. Chain-links: "Portsmouth, Hampshire"—surely the second is at the opening of the first, so why link both? See WP:LINKING on adjacency. And please not "England, UK". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony1 (talk • contribs)

Still plugging away determinedly at this. Added the French clockmaker bit that DrKiernan has been asking for. Working like mad to improve the quality of the sourcing. I still have significant work to do in the 'text doesn't flow/single sentence paragraphs' arena. Will update here again when I feel it can withstand further scrutiny. Maralia (talk) 05:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am still working on this, but the FAR is admittedly heading into its fourth month. I would love to see it kept (that is after all why I've been working on it), but I honestly don't feel that it's there yet. I really don't want my personal opinion to count here, though, because if the decision is to delist, I will probably bring it back to FAC after additional work. I am going to post at WT:FAR asking for more input here. Maralia (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist
1. 2c Final fullstop in references inconsistent. Corporate authors inconsistently cited (fn 12 versus bibliography X and Y versus X; Y style). fn18 uses a title, titles are not used in cites. As a History of Science all works cited should be listed in the bibliography. Journal citation fn39 out of style (no pp). Dates in cites are inconsistent Month Year versus YYYY-MM-DD.
2. 1c Buchanan 2006's publisher seems dodgy. I can't find Gillings 2006's publisher to be academic. Wilson 1994 is dodgy since they don't do academic history and do professional not academic engineering. Beckett2006 is straight dodgy, its a picture book publisher (but is not relied upon). Brunel 1870 is self of course (but not relied upon). There is far too much OR leading to PRIMARY, fn57 for example makes a judgement from archival documents that only a contemporary nursing journal should be making. There are large gaps in the narrative between authorative High Quality RS focused on the life story: fns 4-11, 7-30, 32-38, 56-66, 68-78. The verification filler is made up of newspaper articles, websites, commemorations, archival documents, and single use papers which I have not checked for publisher provenance because they're not in a History grade bibliography.
3. 1c Scholarship since 2006 is missing on important topics to History of Science, for example, DP Miller "Principle, practice and persona in Isambard Kingdom Brunel's patent abolitionism" The British Journal for the History of Science, 2007 - Cambridge Univ Press. (Additionally, some Japanese Railway studies and a Geology Today paper appear possibly relevant). Fifelfoo (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This example seems to be narrow for a broad, overview topic; can you explain why it's important, or do you have other examples of missing sources? Specifically, what information is needed in this article that is not covered? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per Fifelfoo, dodgy sources, poor quality writing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 05:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide samples of poor quality writing, or your declaration might be considered invalid by the closing delegate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The many one-sentence paragraphs, for one. The first three headers each have a one-sentence paragraph that could be better put elsewhere. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined towards delisting only because Maralia hasn't yet been able to get to this (last edit Oct 17). I do want to point out, though, that minor issues like citation formatting or alt-text are not strong reasons for delisting a FAR. If they were, we would have to delist most of our FAs, because the alt-text requirement was only recently added. I have never seen an FA delisted over citation formatting; the quality of the scholarship is a different matter, and in this case, a specific example of missing scholarship was provided. However, I am unconvinced that the sample given by Fifelfoo is appropriate for a broad overview article; it seems to be too narrowly focused. In summary, I'd like to see more care in delist declarations here, but I'm leaning to delist only because Maralia hasn't yet gotten to this article. Jezhotwells doesn't seem to be actively working on the article either. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My questiones on Maralia's talk were mainly about the progress of work, not the state of the article YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 06:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There haven't been any articles delisted when the only things remaining were ALT text or bits of formatting. Eubulides makes the same reminder on each page but there is no indication that it was the deciding factor. I don't think it ever has been YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 06:20, 9 November 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 04:26, 3 November 2009 [5].

Voting system

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Politics

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is many problems with this article. First of all there seems to be an excessive amount of external links, also the following criterion seem to be violated:

1a. Some of the text seems confusing.

1c. Many paragraphs (outside of the history section) contain uncited assertions and or statistics

3. Images could use some alt text, although this is only a minor issue.

Nominator note: I'm not sure what users I should notify, beyond the WikiProject could someone help me with this? Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 06:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add alt text to images as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jean Charles Borda.jpg has an obsolete tag and lacks author information. File:Condorcet.jpg lacks author and source information (other than wikipedia). DrKiernan (talk) 07:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These images date to the 1700s and are public domain due to age regardless of where they were taken from. Scott Ritchie (talk) 05:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said they weren't. DrKiernan (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Major sections are without or with almost no references.--Sum (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:37, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Comments not addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 15:48, 23 October 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 04:26, 3 November 2009 [6].

Mandy Moore

Review commentary

Notified: Jack O'Lantern, Plastikspork

I am nominating this featured article for review on behalf of an IP, who feels that this article may not meet the FA standards. This article was promoted in August 2006, but due to a variety of factors, I (and others) believe that its status should be reconsidered. See here. Enigma^msg 04:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, 2c, 1c
1. 2c Citation styles not consistent
  1. Date styles all over the shop
  2. Needs a fine tooth comb
  3. fn 6 totally unacceptable
  4. fn 8 BLP vio?
  5. fn 9 broken template use
  6. fn 9-11 lack date
  7. general lack of authors
  8. fn 35 lacks retrieval date
  9. fn 42 lacks article title
  10. fn 47-49 not citations, simply linkspam.
  11. fn 50 not a cite
  12. fn 69 citation not in style
  13. fn 83 not a cite
  14. Magazines and Journal names not italicised as per style used here
2. 1c Unverified non trivial claims
  1. fn 42 SELF
  2. fn 48 SELF
  3. fn 87 SELF
  4. fn 100 incorrectly cited broadcast => unverified.
3. If you want to fix it: consistent styling of titles (ie: Italics). All authors attributed. All dates consistent. Remove SELF. Replace links with citations. Indicate issue number, volume number, date correctly for all items published. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:45, 3 November 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.

@@ Line 53: / Line 53: @@
 ==Removed status==
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/TARDIS/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Protocols of the Elders of Zion/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Isambard Kingdom Brunel/archive1}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Voting system/archive1}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Mandy Moore/archive1}}

Revision as of 19:53, 12 November 2009

Archives

Kept status

Removed status

TARDIS

Review commentary

FARC commentary

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Isambard Kingdom Brunel

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Voting system

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Mandy Moore

Review commentary

FARC commentary