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
cut to archive
k1, -4
Line 53: Line 53:


==Kept status==
==Kept status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sound film/archive1}}


==Removed status==
==Removed status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Hurricane Floyd/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cystic fibrosis/archive1}}

Revision as of 02:03, 5 January 2010

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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:03, 5 January 2010 [1].

Sound film

Review commentary

Notified: DCGeist, Wikipedia:WikiProject Films

Since reviewing more than one FA isn't allowed, I am nominating this particular featured article for review because of the follwing things...

  • Un-referenced material.
  • Lots of unnessessary images. There's images in the "Reference" section (WTF)?
  • And I think that there's a prose problem as well.
So give me your thoughts on this article. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing the alt text; it is a first-class job. Eubulides (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The article seems to fail the FA criteria for sourcing. Despite having 113 inline citations, it still has quite a bit that is not clearly reference or is unreferenced at all. The article does have formatting issues, and I agree that the number of images is overkill, as are the number of external links. Two screens worth of links?? And while the images are non-free, most are being used purely for decorative and superfluous manner. Many could be trimmed and replaced with a simple link to the Commons where they are all housed. Looking at some of the citations, I'm also a little concerned that there may be some SYNTH going on, as some of the references, like 88 and 90 seem to be pulling from a few sources to reach a final conclusion and uses non-neutral language in referring to some sources. I also can now see how such a short lead, compared to the article, is properly summarizing the article as a whole. There also appear to have been some legitimate raised concerns on the talk page over its ending at 1930, and seeming to have little contemporary history of the form, but nothing appears to have been done to address it. That would seem to indicate the article, lengthy though it is, is not comprehensive. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it does not meet WP:LIST; the lists under History and Aesthetic quality should be converted into prose. Additionally, its structure is lacking; section names like The transition: Europe separate those periods in the history of the topic from the earlier history, putting it out of context. Technology should be its own level two heading. Images don't belong in the reference section, and there are way too many external links. Mm40 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, MOS. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What referencing concerns? DCGeist has begun working on the article, the FARC period lasts at least two weeks, and entering a vague "Delist" the minute a FAR moves to FARC without more specifics gives him little to work with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the concerns laid out in this subsection above, by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHICH concerns? Which are the sources you dispute? What are better sources that are lacking? What needs citation or is wrong with the citations given? Please remember that the default at FAR, in the absence of identifiable specific deficiencies, is a Keep. Since DCGeist is working on the article, he should at least know what to work on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need for CAPS. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status report: I appreciate the opportunity to fine-tune the article this review brings. Addressing the distinct points that have been raised:

  • Alt text: Added to all images.
  • Images in Notes section: Eliminated.
  • Inline citations: I've added 19 to to the previous total of 113. I've also expanded and/or significantly revised 20 or so of the already existing citations. If I have missed any passages that call for inline citations according to our relevant policy, please specify them.
  • External links: I believe all of these are high-quality links, and each fully abides by the letter and spirit of our relevant policy. While their sum is not "minimal", they have each been carefully selected to pass the standards of "meritable" and "directly relevant to the article". The result is a consequence of two facts: there are an unusually large number of directly relevant high-quality resources online and they are relatively widely dispersed. That said, external links are hardly worth getting into a knotty debate about. If anyone wants to carefully pare the list, I will not challenge that effort. I would ask only one thing—for each link you eliminate, please offer a brief rationale here, so we have a clear new basis for future inclusion and exclusion.
  • Decorative images: The reviewer who raised this issue seems to have missed an important fact: decoration is good. That is why it exists. In the context of Wikipedia, decoration—which more neutrally we might call "illustration"—attracts readers, involves them, and helps retain their attention. Now, our relevant policy demands that fair use images serve a more transcendent purpose. There now remain only three fair use images in the article: each illustrates a film whose unique, historic importance is clearly explicated in the article; each is irreplaceable by free content; and each supports extensive critical commentary.
  • SYNTH. The reviewer who raised this issue seems not to have fully grasped the concept, as the content tied to the two specified notes evidences no arguable synth. Each pertinent main text passage presents data cited to a single source in the notes. Those notes proceed to gloss other, well-known sources for the benefit of those few interested in drilling deeper into the data. I have edited the notes in order to mitigate the impression of "non-neutral lnaguage". I have also elsewhere eliminated a couple phrases from the main text that might have constituted synthy conclusions.
  • Lead length: I admit I favor a relatively terse lede. Anyone else have a strong opinion here?
  • Comprehensiveness: This issue was indeed raised on the article's Talk page, but nothing close to a consensus was reached that a problem exists here. In fact, I believe this is currently the most comprehensive appraisal in any medium of the development, emergence, and immediate consequences of sound film on a global basis. Those who have said they want more have actually asked for an up-to-the-minute technological/industrial article which would logically be film sound—such an article, which Wikipedia is currently lacking, would indeed be quite worthwhile, but its content would diverge vastly from this historical article.
  • Image of Broadway Melody ad/poster: Replaced.
  • LIST: Two of the three arguable "lists" have been eliminated. The remaining narrative presented in bullet-point style concerns the pros and cons of discrete technological and commercial factors of sound-on-disc vs. sound-on-film. I believe the bullet-point style is the most effective and efficient mode for presenting this information, and the result in no way reflects the sort of inappropriate list that our relevant style guideline argues against.
  • Structure: Our standards for structure have hardly changed in the last three years, and I believe the existing structure remains the clearest and most effective. Did the reviewer really consider an alternative structure in which the reader bounces from the U.S. to Japan to the U.S. to England to the U.S. to India to England to...? And how exactly would a precisely chronological structure be structured, when we have precise months of release for the U.S. and England and some Western European nations, but not for much of the rest of the world? If the reviewer can sincerely visualize a preferable structure, please sandbox so we can vet it—in the absence of a well-articulated alternative, I see no way of addressing this concern. The proposal that "Technology should be its own level two heading" is even more obviously ill-considered. It would disrupt, for no appreciable gain, the existing, coherent structure built around the Consequences of sound film's emergence. Furthermore, no philosophical case has been made for this change. No reason has been spelled out to convince us that Technology is uniquely worthy of a level two heading, rather than Commerce or Cinematic form, each of which is just as fundamental an aspect of sound film's history. In sum, the current structure is coherent; the proposal is not.
  • Source quality: I have endeavored throughout, both during the central phase of the article's composition and the editing consequent to this review, to make sure that all sources supporting main text content are of the highest quality available. If anyone has any concerns in this regard, please specify them, and I'll address them immediately.—DCGeist (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist stricken for now. Cirt (talk) 09:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a few sample edits of items that may need review throughout, and the External link farm could warrant some pruning. I see a lot of unsourced paragraphs, but haven't reviewed the content there yet; are subsequent citations (in later paragraphs) meant to source those paragraphs? If so, can named refs be added? This is a bad link and should be a full citation:

  • See the January 25, 1930, New York Times review for a description.

Also, please review the dabs and dead links in the toolbox at the top of this FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Per Sandy's observations here and in article edit summary:

  • MOSDATE/p. vs. pp./specified link/dabs/dead (and redirecting) links: All addressed.
  • External links: Cut one identified as amateur. Could really use help in establishing objective basis for further pruning, if necessary.
  • Unsourced paragraphs: I've added 16 more inline citations to address these.—DCGeist (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking better, ready for review now from others. On the external links, see WP:EL; in theory, because FAs are comprehensive, there should be little need for anything in external links, the idea being that everything important should be covered in the text already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks in excellent shape overall. I'd certainly be opposed to any restructuring of what is a very clear and comprehensive history of the origins and emergence of sound film. I note that the two people who said on the article's Talk page that it should be entirely transformed to incorporate all sorts of information up to the present-day have not done a lick of work on behalf of their desires: no evident research, no sandboxing, no creation of a new article for a potential merger, nothing. The fact is, we have articles on cinematography and on film editing, and we do need a parallel article on the major craft field of film sound whose title would naturally be, yes, "film sound". But that would be a very different article from this. I have made a standing offer on the article's Talk page to collaborate with anyone who is ready to put in some work and develop a film sound article. As for the present article, I have four observations:

  • Note 17 (on circumstances of first Phonofilm screening): Needs to name the sources that provide the correct info. Unless a major work has gotten it wrong (Crafton, perhaps?), I think all that business can be cut.
  • Note 79 (first Japanese sound film and Burch errors): So Burch is a major source, and his errors are worth correcting in the note. But we need to name the sources that provide the correct info.
  • In "Transition: Asia": The line characterizing the Madhuri short as India's "mini–Dream Street", though helpful, sounds rather like a personal interpretation/observation. There's nothing like it in the cited source, and ithould probably be cut.
  • In "Aesthetic quality": This assertion--"Most latter-day film historians and aficionados agree that silent film had reached an aesthetic peak by the late 1920s and that the early years of sound cinema delivered little that was comparable to the best of the silents"--represents published opinion. Though the following example of the Time Out poll is very useful for elucidating it, it still requires direct citation. DocKino (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. And speaking of those external links, I'm ready to take up the challenge. I may have 9 or 10 cuts for you. First off, I think the "Historical writings" and "Historical recordings" sections are strong--it's unusual for a historical topic to have so much high-quality historical material online. It is all really valuable to someone researching the topic, and is a worthwhile, common-sense exception to the "minimal" standard. That said, there are two pretty obvious cuts here:
  • "A Statement"--cited as a source.
  • Dickson Experimental Sound Film--video deleted at site (also, item itself is blue-linked in article and carries its own ELs, yes?).
Now the lead list of ELs really should be pared to focus on the really strong, helpful, pertinent ones. Here are my suggested cuts. First are three that are accessible via the Film Sound History EL and, just like it, are hosted on filmsound.org:
  • "Documentary and the Coming of Sound".
  • "Moving Pictures That Talk".
  • "100 Years of Cinema Loudspeakers".
And now here are four more proposed cuts, with explanations:
  • Arthur C. Keller Oral History--goes way beyond the scope of this article, and offers most useful info on later technological matters.
  • Edison: The Marriage of Sight and Sound--more appropriate for Kinetoscope article; if the above item's too broad, this one's too narrow.
  • "Hollywood Learns to Sing"--redundant; all of the important material here is very well covered in our article, with much better sourcing.
  • "'You Ain't Heard Nothin' Yet, Folks—Listen to This!': The Sound that Shook Hollywood"--amateurish-looking reprint of 1977 New York Times article; we can lose this without great loss, right?
And my possible number 10:
  • "Let's Hear It for Sound"--it strikes me that this article could be a good source for a couple of things that would fit well into "Consequences/Technology": the effect of sound on (1) projection practices and (2) the required quality of film stock (and thus improved visuals).
I'll be interested to hear what you think. DocKino (talk) 05:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That all seems reasonable. I've made each of those ten cuts (using "Let's Hear It for Sound" as a source), plus two more, as well--one adopted as a source; the other (a book chapter) already linked in Sources.—DCGeist (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And two more external link cuts: the Kinetophone voice auditions, which have no visual component and which are already linked in the Kinetoscope article.—DCGeist (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In addition to the adjustments detailed immediately above, I've recently expanded the lede a bit and added several more refs. Of note: Since, the beginning of the FAR, 52 inline citations (including 5 multiples) have been added to the previous total of 113. At this point, pending any specific issues, I believe the article fully meets our current FA standards.—DCGeist (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All concerns addressed. Good to see this brought up to date. An excellent article, now even better. DocKino (talk) 20:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article improved dramatically when reviewed it and I think it really does maintain FA requirements. GamerPro64 (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • "they helped secure Hollywood's position as one of the world's most powerful cultural/commercial systems (see Cinema of the United States)"—this is better than a deceptive pipe to Hollywood, surely? Then the readers suspect that the following hidden links actually go somewhere analogous. Link to "film" via a deceptive pipe I didn't think was useful, especially given the link that follows end of that sentence.
  • Doesn't MoS say you don't have to use square brackets to show you've changed the initial case when winding a quote into the grammar of a sentence? Good thing, too, for our sanity: "[I]t ...".
  • The prose looks excellent, as you'd expect from Dan Geist. Tony (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony. Yes, making the first national cinema link transparent does help suggest the aim of the succeeding links. As for bracketing initial case changes in quotes, no, it appears that the MoS does not address this—because there can't be more than a couple of us fuddy-duddies who do it. It's time to defuddy! I've eliminated the three instances of such bracketing, and feel as fresh as if I'd just loofahed.—DCGeist (talk) 20:59, 24 December 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 02:03, 5 January 2010 [2].

Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2006

Review commentary

Notified: Whouk, Bondegezou, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom.

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it is far from meeting citation standards expected for a featured article today. Whole sections have a sparse number of citations, including "From close of nominations to end of voting", and "Opening of the campaign" (the longest prose section of the main body) has no citations at all. The other parts of the featured article criteria seem, to me, to still be met. HonouraryMix (talk) 14:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:47, 15 December 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 02:03, 5 January 2010 [3].

Hurricane Floyd

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

This was promoted in early 2006, when it did meet the FA criteria. For such a difficult storm, it is still a very good article to this day—but it is lacking in some areas. More specifically:

  • The Meteorological history section is far too brief, and it makes use of basically only one source. There are dozens of advisories from the National Hurricane Center on the storm that could be incorporated.
  • The Preparations largely ignores North Carolina, which is where the storm made landfall. Also, there are two paragraphs missing citations.
  • Although the Impact section is acceptable in some areas, it contains several unsourced statements and is not in any way complete. For example, it gives only one sentence of information to the storm's effects in New York.
  • There is little if any information on the aftermath of the storm. Ideally, the article should cover post-storm assistance, rebuilding efforts, cleanup, etc.
  • Major MoS issues throughout.
  • Very few references to reports and documents on the hurricane.

For these reasons I don't think this article meets the criteria, unfortunately. –Juliancolton | Talk 02:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, MOS, comprehensiveness. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:44, 15 December 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 02:03, 5 January 2010 [5].

Liberal Party of Canada leadership convention, 1968

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:SimonP - main contributor and nominator, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ottawa

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently lacks inline citations - featured article criteria 1(c) Tom B (talk) 14:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images
  • Ordinarily, no, they don't. The first image of Trudeau and Sharp is just two men talking to each other, and Trudeau on the podium doesn't show anymore than any moment in any political rally. However, in this instance the sources clearly state that there are no restrictions on use or reproduction, e.g. [6], and we have fulfilled LAC's requirements for reproduction of their material anyway [7]. DrKiernan (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve has only been able to make a small expansion and citing, so I moved this YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, image copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 22:43, 15 December 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 02:03, 5 January 2010 [8].

Cystic fibrosis

Review commentary

Notified: ImGz, InvictaHOG, Kyoko, WP MED.

This medical article is a 2006 promotion with unsourced statements, unformatted and inconsistent citations, doesn't conform with WP:LEAD, dead links and MOS errors, in addition to an overreliance on primary sources that don't conform to WP:MEDRS. Prognosis section is incomplete, epidemiology is poorly cited, and several sections are lacking appropriate sources. The article needs to be re-worked to conform to WP:MEDRS and the use of high-quality, peer-reviewed, secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:CFTR.jpg: it would be nice to have the issue and page number of the journal
  • File:Mucoviscidose.PNG: Missing information. I guess this is generated by the uploader using the Ensembl data? I don't know enough about the program/database to figure out how it is used, or who the author, etc is.
  • File:CFtreatmentvest2.JPG: no source or author
  • File:Dorothy Hansine Andersen.jpg: possibly not public domain. The National Library of Medicine says "Transmission or reproduction of protected items beyond that allowed by fair use as defined in the copyright laws requires the written permission of the copyright owners. Specific NLM Web sites containing protected information provide additional notification of conditions associated with its use."[9] If you look at the credit line, at [10], you can see that the photograph is credited to "Archives and Special Collections, Columbia University Health Sciences Division". (It is the other image at the NLM webpage[11] [the one at the bottom] that is credited to the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division.[12])
  • Other images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Aspergillus fumigatus 01.jpg: This image is captioned in a misleading way for this article, and it is a poorly chosen image for illustrating the problems of cystic fibrosis patients--Aspergillus spores are so common it would be unusual not to find them in a human lung. So, why not show the hyphae or a pathological lung instead? Aspergillosis tissue pathology is evidenced, usually, by the presence of hyphae, not specifically of conidia. I admit it is a nice conidiophore. Including this image, poorly captioned, will cause confusion for the reader with slight knowledge and misinformation for the reader with little knowledge. I'm not an expert so I don't know if the expert will get a chuckle from it, though. The image should be removed. I am unwilling to be "bold" having a prior attempt to remove a bad image from a featured article met with instantaneous reversion. --69.226.100.7 (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely in need of some work, particularly due to uncited content and reliance on primary sources. I'd be happy to help with wordsmithing, MOS cleanup, ref formatting etc. if we can get something happening on the content and sources end. Maralia (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

FA criteria concerns are sourcing, copyright, MOS, lead. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 05:31, 6 December 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=335923723"