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
archive
Line 65: Line 65:


==Removed status==
==Removed status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Bratislava/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope/archive1}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Claudius/archive1}}

Revision as of 00:19, 11 October 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 00:19, 11 October 2010 [1].

Bratislava

Review commentary

Notified: Marek69, WikiProject Slovakia, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Hungary

I am nominating this featured article for review because I rather naïvely pointed to it during a recent FAC as an example of a compact FA on an older city. Several other people, including some regular FA reviewers, looked more closely and noted serious concerns [2] [3] with the article, including doubts that the originally promoted version would meet current FA standards. Daniel Case (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I have not notified MarkBA, the original FA nominator, because he was indefinitely blocked as a sockmaster a long time ago (which, I suppose, might have a lot to do with the article's decline). Daniel Case (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Demote per my comments linked in DC's original FAR nom statement. upstateNYer 23:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the instructions at WP:FAR; the FAR phase is for article improvement, declarations are entered if the article moves to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, didn't know that. Will keep my eye out for that stage. upstateNYer 01:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the issues:

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are structure, lead, undue weight (per linked diff comments), sourcing, images YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:26, 29 September 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 00:19, 11 October 2010 [13].

Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress

Review commentary

Notified: Trevor MacInnis, Bzuk, Mark Sublette, Snowmanradio, Kyteto (all users with more than 100 edits to the article), MILHIST, Aircraft

A 2007 FA that has not been reviewed since its promotion. There are quite a few spots that need referencing, verification or clarification (see tags). a few dead links and some potentially unreliable references:

  • Ref 50, "Aviation Photography:B-17 Flying Fortress". This is a sales site, what makes it reliable?
  • Ref 92, "Kern, Chris". Self published website, what makes Kern an expert on the subject?
  • Ref 126, "Williams, Kenneth Daniel". What makes this a reliable source?
  • Ref 147, "University of Texas: Tom Landry". Link broken, although link checker doesn't show it.

The see also and external links sections are huge, these should be trimmed. See alsos that are already linked in the body of the article don't need to be repeated, and a truly comprehensive article should already have links in the body to anything that is really needed in the see also section. Anything that is already used as a ref doesn't need to be in the external links section. Web references missing information (publisher, access date, etc), inconsistently formatted book references. Gets really "listy" towards the end. Survivors section - no references, and the numbers don't match up. Also, the bulleted format doesn't really tell the reader anything - turn it into prose, give some more description, etc. Dana boomer (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I registered my opinion of this article three years ago. I see it's still citing Joe Baugher, which is not a reliable source. The article is also replete with MOS errors and unformatted citations. Also, too many images, too many lists, haven't looked at content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kern has been replaced by a WP:RS.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although I have not been a major editor on the article, I am trying to help out. I removed a couple images that were causing whitespace issues for me, and I started working on cleaning up up the web citations. As an aside, is it a common practice to put all the citations in a list in the "references" section and just use cite names to point to them in the article? It does make it hard to fix a citation becuase you have to find it hidden in the refs section... -SidewinderX (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article is using a fairly new style of referencing called list defined references. I'm not a big fan of it either, but some editors love it. If you would like to change it, I would suggest asking on the talk page first, as it's considered rather rude to change the reference style without consensus. Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, you learn something new every day! I don't have any desire to change it... it's not as annoying once you realize what is going on. -SidewinderX (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since the featured version did not use list-defined references (and many of us hate them), the question is, was there consensus to change them to begin with, per WP:CITE? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well no-one objected when the change was made as part of User:Kyeto's improvements to the article, that eliminated most of the non-reliable sources that were claimed (and there arn't many left now) - so that implies consent.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The change was made here in September 2009, there was a note on the talkpage announcing it and there wasn't any dissent so "qui tacet consentire videtur." Woody (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - I thought it was later than that - anyway - it seems that there was consent (or at least implied consent) for the change.Nigel Ish (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I had absolutely nothing to do with that change. I've found it, as an operating editor, a nightmare in comparison with how it is done usually, I certainly wouldn't have it the way it is right now by my own choice. I don't object to it strongly, but certainly wouldn't (and didn't) promote it or impliment it. Kyteto (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I think that this article needs quite a bit of work to return to FA standard. My specific comments are:
    • Some sentences and paragraphs are unreferenced
    • The article contains some overstatements. For example: - "The aircraft went on to serve in every World War II combat zone" seems unlikely given that these aircraft played almost no role in the war on the Eastern Front in Europe or in China,
    • Poor quality prose - for instance, the 'The RAF' section is confusing as the narrative jumps around and sentence structure is frequently poor (and Royal Air Force doesn't seem to have been abbreviated the first time it appeared in the article)
    • The coverage of the air war over Europe seems rather generic, and isn't focused on the role B-17s played and their strengths and weaknesses
    • The article contains unnecessary foreign language terms ('Jagdflieger' and 'fliegendes Stachelschwein' where only 'fighter pilot' and 'flying porcupine' are useful to readers)
    • The 'U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard' sub-section seems greatly over-long given the small number of B-17s being discussed here
I agree, I had tried months ago to trim minor details from it, and found my revisions reverted. Considering how pathetically small the USAAF's section is in comparison, and how minor their usage in this hand-me-down context is, it is completely overboard. I've done a trim just now; still bigger than I'd like, but lets see how this floats. Kyteto (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The 'Other military achievements or events' and 'Civilian achievements or events' of the 'Noted B-17 pilots and crew members' section seem fairly trivial. The 'Civilian achievements or events' should probably be removed outright as these people explicitly achieved notability for things other than their wartime service in B-17s, and given the huge number of B-17 aircrew it's only to be expected that many of them either went onto achieve fame after the war or had some claim to fame before the joined the USAAF (Clark Gable seems an exception to this though as his wartime service is notable in its own right) Nick-D (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern are comprehensiveness, MOS, sourcing, list/trivia YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for FA criteria concerns per above by Dana boomer and YellowMonkey. None of those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 04:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per the unaddressed concerns raised above Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist In short, it simply isn't amongst the best content on Wikipedia, as the status it has now suggests. It has unreliable sources, tons of trivia, unbalanced sections, sketchy coverage (The USAAF section is tiny, there's more on Germany's usage of them than their primary user!), it doesn't meet the grade and that's been known for at least six months without revolutionary input other than my own TBH. I've tried my best to overhaul it, but it doesn't come up trumps now. Delisting is the right course of action. Kyteto (talk) 16:16, 1 October 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 00:19, 11 October 2010 [14].

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

Review commentary

Notified: The Filmaker, WikiProject Star Wars WikiProject Films

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has never been reviewed since becoming an FA nearly 4 years ago, there are expansion and additional ref tags, and the references could use some cleanup, as well. The Taerkasten (talk) 18:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing-- pls see FAR instructions, and give your first nom a bit of time before putting up another. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had already left this user a note about the multiple noms, asking that they not do it again in the future but saying I would leave the nom. However, I will not reverse your removal. I have let the editor know they can re-transcribe this page when the first article moves to FARC. Dana boomer (talk) 23:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable-- sorry, Dana, just catching up from travel, and it popped on my watchlist. Two on one topic back to back will really strain the editors working in that area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now retranscluded the review. As a note to myself (or YM if he works on this), the timestamp of my signature should be used to determine review timing, not the timestamp of the original nom statement. Dana boomer (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Way too many references to IMDb.
  • This is not a RS; it's a fansite. Same with this.
  • This is not a RS; it's a personal website hosted on a college domain.

Other sources that I'm not sure are reliable:

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaints on the Blue Harvest fansite references as well as the college domain's personal website have been addressed. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Star Wars Origins reference link [15], which is referenced quite a lot, appears to be nothing more than a marketing website. And what made it reliable in the first place?. --The Taerkasten (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the reference dates need consistency, e.g. some refs use September 12, 2006 others use 2006-02-04.--The Taerkasten (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like another user has helped fix this page by removing unarchivable sources and date formatting among several edits that he has made. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The state of the article is not clear so moving it down. There are inconsistencies in the ref formatting though, and I have seen previous refs to DVDs cite the time clock of the snippets, along the lines of page numbers, rather than just the title as well (the making of doco might be an hour or two?) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern comprehensiveness, sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist - This article is not up to current FA standard. --The Taerkasten (talk) 12:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist as per TaerkastUA - This article is better as a GA class because it is not up to quality standards. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, when/if this article is delisted from FA status, it becomes unassessed - it is not moved to GA status. If the editors wish it to be of GA status, they need to go through a new GA nomination and review. Dana boomer (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency of naming between the page titles of installments in a series isn't a concern according to the naming guidelines, though. Not that I want to raise a big fuss about it, it's just something to consider, along with the more pressing FARC issues. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this isn't really the place to discuss the title of the article. Make another request on the talkpage after this review, if you wish.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. As much as it hurts me to say it. It's not featured article quality. Good article maybe. I am going to try my best to watch these Star Wars movie articles to make sure they always cited and cited properly when edited. − Jhenderson 777 23:10, 7 October 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 00:19, 11 October 2010 [16].

Claudius

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:LaurenCole, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome.

FA from 2005, with 1c issues throughout - lots of big chunks of completely unsourced and uncited content in the article - this includes entire paragraphs, and issues with subsections. 10 images are used in the article - these should have an image review. At least one image is fair use and is inappropriately used on the page - this image should be removed and/or deleted. Issues with sourcing and WP:RS: appears to be lots of cites to primary sources, these should be avoided with secondary sources preferred, instead. Entire subsection, In literature and film, has zero references whatsoever, and basically no critical commentary about reception of these works. -- Cirt (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the sourcing of the literature and film section that bad; the source for the existence and plot of I, Claudius is I, Claudius - and so on. But there are individual claims of fact there which are genuinely unsourced. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding the issues:
  • There's a unsourced statements starting with "Antonia may have had two other children who died young, as well" and "up hope of public office and retired to a scholarly, private life" which is completely unreferenced.
  • The section "As emperor" has no citations. Fails criteria 1c.
  • The paragraphs "also put the imperial provinces of Macedonia and Achaea back under Senate control" and "Senate-emperor relations" in the section "Claudius and the Senate" are unreferenced.
  • There are two dead links like [17] and [18] which are completely dead. The Geocities web site no longer exist.
  • The section "In literature and film" has no citations or footnotes.
  • This image File:IClaudius.JPG has no rationale or source. Fails WP:NFCC and criteria 3. JJ98 (Talk) 04:55, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My observations:
    • As pointed out by nominator, loads of unsourced content. Statements like "However, as the Flavians became established, they needed to emphasize their own credentials more, and their references to Claudius ceased. Instead, he was put down with the other emperors of the fallen dynasty." should really be sourced.
    • Does "marriages and personal life" need the subsections? Every subsection is super short.
    • None of the external links looks like it's reliable. They all appear to be personal websites. We shouldn't have had a link to Geocities on there in the first place. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 01:56, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criterion of concern is sources YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:30, 27 September 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=389973407"