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
Dana boomer (talk | contribs)
52,509 edits
Line 63: Line 63:


==Removed status==
==Removed status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/November (film)/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Max Weber/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Silverpit crater/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Silverpit crater/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy/archive1}}

Revision as of 02:00, 13 September 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

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 02:00, 13 September 2010 [1].

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

Review commentary

Notified: Ambuj.Saxena, India noticeboard, Universities WP

This is a 2006 FAR that has not been reviewed since it's promotion. The problems here are quite similar to those found in the Indian Institutes of Technology article, currently at FARC. Large unsourced sections, including statistics and opinion and several dead links, leaving other areas effectively unsourced are major problems. Poor prose, poorly updated statistics and multiple dab links are also issues. Dana boomer (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section by section analysis:
History
  • Quotation shouldn't be in curly quote thingies.
Admissions and Academics
  • First paragraph is kinda short. Can it be integrated?
  • LAOTSE and 5 year integrated Master of Science are redlinked. Are either important enough for articles?
Sponsored research
  • Ministry of Information Technology is redlinked. Is it important enough for an article?
Institutes and departments
  • One sentence section, no sources. Also uses "recently established" which is a vague term.
Festivals
  • "Breathe" links to a dab page.
  • Should Led Zeppelica be linked?
  • Use of "etc." is a copout. There should be no reason to use "etc." in article text.
  • Last two paragraphs should be combined.
Student organizations
  • Wow, this is a mess. Paragraphs are all bunched up; third-party links are within the text; reads almost like a copyvio. At the least, words like "has been instrumental in the establishment…" should be avoided.
Alumni
  • This is where the article really comes apart. From ad-like tone such as "maintained a warm rapport with its alumni" to a barrage of several short

sections and improperly formatted refs (period, followed by footnote, followed by comma — what the heck?!), it neds a total rewrite.

References
  • Many references are missing author credits. Several more are formatted as bare URLs.

The content is mostly there, but it would need a much tighter copy-edit, removal of weasel words and ad-like prose, better referencing and a complete overhaul of everything from "Student Organizations" downward. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, I'm not exactly sure why you're asking for references in some of the areas you are. Perhaps you could explain further? Especially areas like the administration section. Remember that WP:WIAFA doesn't call for everything to be sourced, just that which is appropriate, and links to WP:When to cite, which says that quotations, exceptional claims, contentious BLP info, and "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work" need to be referenced. I honestly don't see what in the unreferenced parts of the administration section fall into these categories. I would be more inclined to challenge areas such as the last paragraph of the Festivals section, which includes statistics ("3000 teams") or the section on Entrepreneurship Cell, which includes what I would consider to be exceptional claims, ("E-Cell has been instrumental in the establishment..."). Asking for everything to be referenced is not part of the FA criteria, and when experienced editors do it it provides a bad example for newer editors/reviewers. Dana boomer (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn the citation requests for now and will work on [citation needed]ing what I think need [citation needed]ing. Also, one thing I didn't catch last time is this clunky paragraph: "The senate controls and approves the curriculum, courses, examinations and results, and appoints committees to look into specific academic matters. The teaching, training and research activities of the institute are periodically reviewed by the senate to maintain educational standards. The director of IIT Kharagpur is the ex officio chairman of the senate." Three sentences in a row beginning with "the" = bad. I also raised some issues on the Alumni section here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GrapedApe's review
  • External links in the infobox should be removed.
  • I also don't think the "Deputy Director" is really worth having in the infobox
  • The rankings in the lead should be moved to the main body of the article.

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern include sourcing, prose and neutrality YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:23, 30 August 2010 (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 02:00, 13 September 2010 [2].

November (film)

Review commentary

Notified: Extraordinary Machine, WikiProject Films, American cinema task force

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are nine dead links, including 1c issues. This article was promoted to FA status in 2005 and it hasn't been reviewed since. JJ98 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paragraphs 5 and 6 of "Promotion and reception" (starting at "Marc Mohan of the Oregonian") are entirely unsourced. The Oregonian review seems to be down at the bottom as a link, when it should ideally be a footnote.
  • I think the article uses direct quotes way too often. IMO, more of these should be changed to be summaries of the quotes (e.g. , something like "while Joanne Bealy said it was 'a Mulholland Drive/David Lynch copycat ... even at 88 minutes, it was too long for me'."-->"while Joanne Bealy thought that it was derivative of Mulholland Drive and that it felt too long.")
  • There's a huge clump of references at the bottom that aren't being used as footnotes; more than half of them are dead, and this one points to a login screen. The few that still work should be moved upward into inline references to eliminate this full page worth of linkspam that clutters up the bottom of the article.
  • Oslo International Film Festival is redlinked and cited only to that festival's website. Is the sentence about it even necessary?

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, I haven't really looked at this article since I worked on it in 2005... understandably, standards have changed since then. Unfortunately, I myself don't have the time to address these concerns so I have no objections to move it to the FARC stage. Perhaps, one day, it will be FA quality once again. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern include sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:24, 30 August 2010 (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 02:00, 13 September 2010 [3].

Max Weber

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:Piotrus - most edits and original nominator for featured status, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WT:WikiProject Philosophy, WT:WikiProject Germany, WT:WikiProject Politics, WT:WikiProject Business

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently fails criteria 1(c), it has insufficient inline citations. It has quite a few citation needed tags and specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases. I looked at the version that was promoted which has a lot of deleted pictures and 10 fewer citations so going back to that version isn't the best way forward. Tom B (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found:
  • Foremost concern is the Critical Responses to Weber section. Contains at least one [dubious] tag and is almost entirely lacking in sources, leading to a great amount of OR; also has a one-sentence.
  • [Citation needed] tags in "As a critic of socialism" header.
  • Prose is also very choppy. "The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism" has many short paragraphs, and the paragraph beginning "Chinese civilization had no religious prophecy" is unsourced.
  • Does the Achievements section need the ginormous quote boxes?
  • Several [fact] tags and a [weasel-inline] in the biography section.
  • External links section may have spam. I whacked out a handful of the links, but I'm not certain on the rest.
  • At least two references contain bare URLs or otherwise improper formatting.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. I think this article should be put thru a plagiarism checker. From the first section after the lead: 'At the age of fourteen, he wrote letters containing references to Homer, Virgil, Cicero, and Livy, and he had an extended knowledge of Goethe, Spinoza, Kant, and Schopenhauer before he began university studies.' Almost word-for-word from a 1977 book [4] 'For the next eight years of his life, interrupted only by a term at the University of Göttingen and short periods of further military training, Weber stayed at his parents' house; first as a student, later as a junior barrister, and finally as a dozent/professor at the University of Berlin.' Almost word-for-word from a 1977 book. [5] I don't have access to a good plag. check tool. But if it shows up in the first section, it may well be present in other parts of the article too. Novickas (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, it looks like it might be from this and the following 2 edits from January 2005: [6]. I removed the additions from the article [7] Tom B (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for fixing it. I'm still a little concerned there might be more, but maybe someone with access to a checker will go over it.
Another comment. The article states he died of Spanish flu; this is not cited but does show up as a snippet in a Google book search. [8] On the other hand another reliable looking source says it was a cold that turned into pneumonia. [9]. Could someone reconcile these somehow? Novickas (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sad to say delist. I was one of the authors of the old, old FA, but the article has not kept up with our modern standards - and I don't have the time or will to update it. As things stand, it is not fully comprehensive (I've just added links to some of his works...), it can use better organization (some things, like his Protestant Ethics theory were discussed in three separate places), it has unreferenced content... PS. If we identified the source of the plagiarised info, I'd suggest rewriting it and referencing it with the source instead of just removing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are copyright, neutrality, weasel words, prose, sourcing, original research, comprehensiveness, structure. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:42, 27 August 2010 (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 Dana boomer 13:34, 8 September 2010 [10].

Silverpit crater

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Geology, author retired

The article fails 1c because there are lot of statistics, theories, and conjectures that are not cited YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this falls into section 1c, which deals with having references where they are needed. As the section you mention is discussing various hypotheses, they need to be sourced and attributed. Dana boomer (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note these issues:
  1. The lead section has only three citations.
  2. This section "Discovery" has three citations.
  3. The "Orgin" section has two citations.
  4. The "Evidence in favour of impact origin" section has no citations. This falls into section 1c.
  5. The "Evidence for alternative interpretations" section has five citations.
  6. The "Structure" section has three citations, but not enough to improve it.
  7. The "The impact" section has only one citation.
  8. This section "Age" has only four citations.
Overall, this article may not meet the featured article status because of lack of improvement. JJ98 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jj98, please note that counting citations is not the point of the FAR, or of any process on WP. The section "Discovery" (and others you mentioned above) may be completely sourced - it depends on if all of the information in each paragraph is sourceable to the reference at the end of the paragraph. To check this, you would need to access the source and check to see if the information was indeed included. Per WP:Lead, lead sections do not need references, although they may have them if the main editor(s) so wish. A more important concern would be to check if the lead is a fair and balanced summary of the article that includes no information which is not expanded upon in the body. While we appreciate your contributions here, Jj98, it may be useful for you to watch a few candidacies at WP:FAC (as there is more activity there) to see the sorts of issues that are legitimately counted upon, rather than just counting references. Dana boomer (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing and uptodatedness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:49, 23 August 2010 (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 01:15, 7 September 2010 [11].

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Review commentary

Notified: Wikiproject Novels, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Comedy

I am nominating this featured article for review because it appears to be lacking a significant number of citations, don't think it is up to FA quality any more. Also, lots of trivia without citations, Sadads (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:DYKCHECK indicates that the current prose is 5735 characters (7613 words) "readable prose size" however at FA it was Prose size (text only): 75995 characters (12694 words) "readable prose size". Although the number of references has remained at 47...it seems that some of the content may have been removed?Smallman12q (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: note these audio issues:
  1. File:Reg Nullify.ogg - 112 kbps is not low resolution.
  2. File:Hitch Hikers Theme Original Records Version.ogg - 117 kbps is not low resolution. --JJ98 (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take a look:
Prose
  • Stray one-sentence paragraph in intro: "The title is the name of a fictional, eccentric, electronic travel guide, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, prominently featured in the series."
  • Plot section's only four lines. I don't know much about this work, but I'm pretty sure the plot can be explained far more elaborately even with the individual plot breakdowns further down.
  • Third paragraph of "Background" is unsourced.
  • Four paragraphs in "Original radio series" are unsourced.
  • "Novels" has only one reference, and OR statement in "Eoin Colfer, who wrote the sixth book in the Hitchhiker's series in 2008-09, used this latter concept but apparently none of the plot ideas from "The Salmon of Doubt".
  • A section on "Analytical works" was unsourced and entirely redlinked, so I excised it.
  • "Related stories" has multiple short paragraphs.
  • Entire "Other Hitchhiker's-related books" section is unsourced.
  • "Radio Series three to five" contains no references after the first paragraph.
  • "LP Album adaptations" has no sources among the first three paragraphs.
  • "Many science fiction fans and radio listeners outside the United Kingdom were first exposed to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in one of two ways: shortwave radio broadcasts of the original radio series, or by Douglas Adams being "Guest of Honour" at the 1979 World Science Fiction Convention, Seacon, held in Brighton, England, UK. " — Unsourced.
  • Overall, a huge lack of citation throughout.
References
  • This, an open wiki, is fine as an external link, but not an inline reference.
  • The references use "ibid." which the MoS frowns upon.
  • Is this a reliable source?
  • Is this a reliable source?
  • Most of the online references are not formatted properly; they lack author info, publisher, access date, etc.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing and copyright YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:33, 20 August 2010 (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=384505749"