Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 02:08, 12 September 2011

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 Nikkimaria 02:08, 12 September 2011 [1].

History of Miami

Review commentary

Notified: User:FrickFrack, Donald Albury, Scaletail, Groveguy, Comayagua99, Brad101, Averette- WikiProject Miami, WikiProject Florida, WikiProject Cities

Note this older FARC from May 2006; Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/History of Miami, Florida wherein it was cited for the same reasons but got a nearly unanimous keep. That was 2006, the economy was up, wikipedia standards were low.

I am nominating this featured article for review because ever since the first time I saw it I was surprised it was a featured article. But not really, because all Miami/South Florida related articles are generally of lower quality and have fewer local editors (I should point out that on the top of the WikiProject Miami talk page an editor states that Miamians are disorganized and lazy). The reason being civic action, along with a long list of other things, is greatly lacking among that proud group known as Miamians. I'm sure the initial FAN, which did take place way back in '06 when things here were less evolved, must have been the most botched FAR ever to pass this thing. It has minimal references and content for the subject. And now, to top it off, it has the most annoying tag of them all, might I point out all tags are worthless in my book as many of them just sit there for years, the "this article needs additional citations for verification" tag. If we want the status of "Featured Article" to continue to mean anything, we need to de-list all articles like this. I would much rather see it be a FA, but for now it needs delisting until someone, not me on this one, finds the time to make it worthy of this elusive status. Good luck finding any such editor with that much of an historical infatuation with the place people go either to hide or to do what they don't confess, the city of vices. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note: I'm going to place this nomination on hold for now, as the required talk-page notification was only made today - it needs a bit longer for discussion first. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note: after talk-page notification and a hold period, the nominator has indicated that concerns warranting an FAR remain. Thus, the FAR is active as of this note. Note to nominator: please notify the primary contributors and the WikiProjects listed on the talk page if you have not already done so, and indicate the users and projects notified in the "Notified" field at the top of this FAR. 15:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've notified several users. An FA-related user just found and tagged seven dead links in the article, and this is out of an already insufficient amount. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.
- 1890s section is almost entirely unsourced.
- 1940s section is entirely unsourced.
- …aw screw it, everything is undersourced.
- Several citations are missing the name of the work.
- Even some of the Wayback Machine links are dead.
- What makes cuban-exile.com a reliable source?
- I went through and tagged a couple more dead links.
- Article needs a copy edit. I already found one usage error and a "recent" that needs removal. Also, the section on Elián González has three sentences in a row beginning with "the".
- Did I really see this article cite ANOTHER FREAKING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE?!?! Why do you morons keep doing that?

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, nobody will do those things required to fix it. That's why a delist is the only answer. Considering everything that's been pointed out, a speedy delist should be the best option. If it wasn't a FA, and I nominated for GA right now, it wouldn't even make that. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, calling volunteer contributors "morons" is no way encourage collaboration/improvement on this article. Please tone it down a bit. Daniel, there is no such thing as a "speedy delist" here - the article will be in the FAR section for at least two weeks and the FARC section for at least two weeks if it is delisted, the only way for it to be removed sooner is to be quickly improved back to FA status. The goal of the process is to improve articles rather than delisting them out of hand, so we give a fairly long time window for interested contributors to come forward and express interest in working on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if they didn't do stupid shit like cite another freaking article. Come on. Use some damn common sense. Even a 10 year old knows the site generally can't cite itself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but calling other contributors names is more likely to drive them away than convince them to improve the article. A simple "Other WP articles should not be used as references" would suffice and be much more polite. Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article originally, so i was surpriced I wasn't notified. The article has sourcing issues, I no longer have most of the sourcing, one of the history books of the subject, Helen Muir Miami U.S.A is unreliable. I'm going to try to find the second, more reliable book of the subject, by Parks, and the subbooks like Black Miami. Sourcing is rather hard as it doesn't benifit from current news sourcing, such as the Port of Miami Tunnel. Let me see if I could get the books I need, FAR it if I can't find the books by Monday. Secret ^account 01:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it to be a good article, don't get me wrong, but it degrades the meaning of being featured to have an article on such a broad (not to mention historical topics usually have the most clíche venerable print encyclopedia characteristics) subject in this state. I don't have time to fix it, in fact I shouldn't even be doing this. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Phew.. this article is in very poor condition. Agree with TPH's points made above plus another bunch not even worth mentioning at this point. Brad (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much is happening with the article. There's no need for an act of congress here. A little bit of credibility is lost every day an article like this is featured. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the time to look for sources and such, an article like this can be featured, as it's not broad. I don't know if I feel like fixing the concerns of the article, as its a subject I'm no longer interested in, but there's plenty of history of x articles that is still an FA. Secret ^account 05:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section focus mainly on referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist The article should be fast tracked to delisting. There is no ongoing effort to correct issues. Brad (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because nobody's doing anything. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Nobody is doing anything and nobody is opposing. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 02:08, 12 September 2011 [2].

International Space Station

Review commentary

(Note: This was filed on July 28 and never listed. User:Brad initiated discussion on the talk page on the 18th, so the matter was discussed properly first.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review was started by an inexperienced editor on June 28th and I happened across the article some days later and saw that it had been done incorrectly. Therefore I started the talkpage notification and was not sure what to do about this false started FAR. I think the whole process should be rebooted back to the time of my talkpage notice. Brad (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Spaceflight,WikiProject International Relations,WikiProject Europe/ESA ,WikiProject Russia/Technology and engineering in Russia task force,WikiProject United States,WikiProject Japan/Science and technology task force,WikiProject Russia,WikiProject Japan,WikiProject Robotics,WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology,WikiProject Chemistry

and a bunch of others, which is unconventional, but the ISS could use some help from experts who may be interested. There are plenty of specialties the ISS reaches into. I haven't told WikiProject Canada however, I did approach them to raise the idea of the article being included within Canada's scope, the Canadian Space Agency is after all a partner. I'm worried about my comments a few months back about the Robotic arms used on the space station, Canadarm2 it's called. I think I may have suggested about attaching the arms to a Japanese Space agency torso, maybe that's why I haven't got a response, but looking at the TV, maybe they're busy at the moment. There are still new sections such as Robotics and Computers that need help, amongst others.

Notified: 9 of top 10 contributors Colds7ream,TheDJ,Mnw2000,Themanwithoutapast,Hamiltonstone,Reubenbarton,MBK004,Pax85,Dawnseeker2000

The article's lead doesn't place the international space station in context amongst other space stations, I've expanded other sections with things like 'The Russian Orbital Segment is the eleventh Soviet-Russian space station.' which are quite stable, but can't put the overall context into the lead. If a child read this article for their homework, they couldn't answer the question 'is the ISS the fourth, seventh or tenth space station'. It's met with comments along the lines of We have to be careful making to many changes, we don't want to make it so bad it loses its FA status. and As this is a featured article, it is important to maintain stability which are good reasons not to update or improve the lead, however I've asked if there are other reasons, and have waited weeks for any response besides. The existing lead has errors, brought up on the talkpage, discussed by editors, implemented, and overturned. The reasons are addressed, despite their vagueness, and the updates are still overturned without discussion. Generally these updates are overturned by editors who won't offer any reasoning, and don't demonstrate any knowledge of the issue, or any willingness to do the most cursory checking, and won't enter into any discussion. Although, the edit summary gets a great deal more use than the talkpage. Especially this last month. It's an interesting read.

The issues like this, which aren't so much warring, but warring like, don't occur anywhere else in the article. Entire sections like costs are completely redone in my work, (refs here aren't yet done AT ALL, I've been begging for help), new sections are well accepted like end of mission, deorbit, maintainence, education and cultural outreach, docking, costs, and media(temporary section that one, to stop warring behavior) but what of their prose ? I have repeatedly asked for help updating this article, recently someone seems to have used 'search and replace' to fix text through the article, and this is helpful I guess, but help of substance is lacking. After being bitten too many times for touching the lead, I leave errors alone, sometimes even blatantly obvious ones, even with PR simple errors aren't fixed, few are willing to take a look at this article with anything more than a spell-checker, some editors are assisting, however after an edit war broke out between them and the page was frozen, they've not been as involved. They are very good editors too. Those two ironically aren't the problem at all.

The spell checker thing is about keeping the article in British english, which I'm fine with, I don't care because I'll convert text to Hindi, Japanese, Spanish or anything else that is necessary, but the ENG:VAR is used to exert ownership it seems to me and to some other editors. It's a source of great contention as the archives show, and rears it's ugly head from time to time, with no definitive explanation as to why it is British. The wikiproject list for the article shows it is of interest to a number of groups. It just seems to me that it is used by non-contributing editors as a tool to strike at each other. I couldn't care less, as it doesn't actually effect me. If it did, surely it would effect all of my contributions rather than just the lead.

The article suffers from contention, and FA status and ENG:VAR:OWN are the weapons of choice. The ISS is the epitome of technology to many people, it needs more respect than this. To Japanese Industry, Kibo is a design award winner. Less war, more people who at least read the first three paragraphs rather than check them for changes. Few people read anything after the lead in this article, I've got used to that. It's fine by me, I can work in peace and quiet with good editors who do take time to read it.

The hierarchy of the index was updated to include all the new sections, but some were thrust haphazardly about without explanation. I haven't fixed all of it, though I have explained reasons for the initial hierarchy and asked for discussion to no real avail. For example, The ISS is a unique laboratory providing long term access to space and microgravity. However, Microgravity isn't part of 'purpose' or 'science' it goes along with the power supply and computers as if it were generated on board artificially by the structure. That's Sci-Fi. I've asked why, to no avail.

Citations are woeful. Lots of sections are factual, up to date and correct, but incomplete on refs I expect. I'm quite responsible for a good bit of that. Some I took time with, some were rushed, maybe some need refs. Generally it's outdated refs or no refs for this article. But there are plenty of originals still good.

Neutrality was one of the main reasons I took to this article. Another editor described it as reading like a NASA brochure. It's gotten a good deal better, but has a long way to go. WP:OWN and wars aren't helping. Even though people are resisting improvement, it's still above FA level for NEU I think. The Japanese Laboratory is the Largest and best maintained on the station, but gets little coverage. NASA is giving up management of most of it's onboard science, but I'm weeks away from even mentioning that yet. I spend too much time making appeals to arbitration PR and FAR stuff, which I hate. I love to edit, and discuss with other editors, and reach outside the project for input from people and groups with nothing to do with wiki.

The Canadian space agency gets zip coverage, and a subsection of structure covering their wonderful robotics is yet to come. (they are so cool and look so good, they move like inchworms across the station, repositioning themselves) anyhow, if the homework asked how many robots are on the ISS ? who knows. It's worse than the old costs section.

Currently the lead does not prepare the reader for the detail in the subsequent new sections. Draft corrections are held back on prose or FA.

It's been pointed out to me that the prose I write to update the lead is one reason why the drafts are unacceptable. So it follows that the prose of the sections I have written, substantially expanded, or updated are not in the same prose as the lead. I've asked for assistance changing the prose of the sections I have written, to have their prose match the lead so the article is consistent, but I've had little or no assistance there. For some time I've asked the people who state prose, grammar, style and so forth is a problem, to expand on their comments, with little success. It needs correction, I agree the prose is not the same. Sometimes the comments are more vague, such as it doesn't sound as good or read as well. Either one part or the other needs correction.

There are faults in this article a blind mans dog would trip over and I won't mention them, they're 'low hanging fruit' as another editor put it. No knowledge of the ISS is needed to catch these. It's interesting to see editors overturn edits without reading what they are putting back, or manage to look at the page without seeing simple problems, forget familiar knowledge, you don't need your reading glasses for one of them. I won't mention them, I'd like to actually see anything in this article get fixed. (if your worried I'm not mentioning errors, I've already pointed out just under a gazillion on the talkpage, it's too verbose as it is) Right now, I am curious if it actually meets this FA glass ceiling editors always talk about. But I am more interested in the article being improved. Roll up your sleeves or get out of the way.

Do I talk alot ? yes? please for the love of God help harness this superhuman power for good rather than evil. :D Ok people, help me with these issues, I don't actually want FA removed, although it would be a good wakeup. I just want help, and FA to hold. I want to continue to improve this article with real editors who have real reasons and real discussions PLEASE! No more 'I can't believe they're not editors', GIMME some real help. Or just help keep unhelpful people out of the way. Penyulap_talk 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko comments

I see a few little things and you bring up some good points but none of these seem to be a reason to drop this article from FA status IMO and most are easily fixed.

Citations in the lede (normally not needed because the information would be in the body of the article, the lede just summerizes info already there)
Some dead links throughout(16 for example)
Some citations missing (citation needed tag in the Origins section)
Some citation formatting work needed (for example 164, 213, 229
Why are all the pictures on the right? Can we switch them around a little? --Kumioko (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I want to offer my sincerest thanks for your comments Kumioko Penyulap_talk 20:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Colm comments

The article needs a little FA maintenance, that's all. I see no valid reasons to bring this to FAR. Graham Colm (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely with Graham - this sort of stuff could very easily be dealt with in Talk or PR, there's no reason to bring it to FAR whatsoever. Colds7ream (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, it now is being dealt with properly on the talk page - User:Brad101 is going through the correct procedure on the talk page in the section 'Featured article quality has deteriorated.', and the issues are being dealt with. I suggest this FAR be closed and the issues be dealt with via the talk page; we can always open another FAR if needed at a later date. Colds7ream (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article fails 1e. Penyulap_talk 18:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This [3] is not edit warring, and no radical changes have been introduced. All I see is FA maintenance and a little fine-tuning going on. I suggest this FAR should be closed now.Graham Colm (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, wouldn't the frozen[4] article make it hard for people to do the FAR a month earlier ? I'll have to remember that one. Penyulap_talk 16:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the guidance in the docs for FAR is too open to interpretation, as in 'ongoing' edit wars and behavior. The Docs don't help you the admins don't help you, some editors don't help you but many do, I think it's ironic how un-cooperative and un-informative wikipedia can get. No wonder so many other good editors DGAF and don't stick around. 'Nonsense'. Damn right. When your right your right, and Graham, your right. The whole A-Z of wikipedia. Penyulap_talk 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my take on what needs fixing:

There are several unsourced statements scattered about, mostly near the end.
Paragraph 2 of "Assembly" is almost entirely unsourced.
"Assembly" and "Microgravity" need a copy edit. Way too many sentences begin with "the".
Way too many bulleted lists: "Cancelled modules", "Microgravity", "Mission control centres", "Utilisation rights" and "Legal aspects and costs" all have bulleted lists.
Some of the "see also"s have periods at the end when they shouldn't.
The Docking Schedule table is missing a few footnotes.
Underneath "docking schedule" is a stray "I" with a footnote. What is this?
I see several "currently"s and "as of"s, leading to potentially dated info. These should be fixed.
Under "Space environment" — "Large, acute doses of radiation from Coronal Mass Ejection can cause radiation sickness and can be fatal. Without the protection of the Earth's Magnetosphere, interplanetary manned missions are especially vulnerable." is unsourced.
Underneath "Anomalies" — "Unexpected problems and failures have impacted the station's assembly time-line and work schedules leading to periods of reduced capabilities and, in some cases, could have forced abandonment of the station for safety reasons, had these problems not been resolved." is unsourced. This is also a one-sentence paragraph.
What makes Heavens Above a reliable source?
There are also some "space news" sites that I would like further comment on as to their reliability.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerest thanks for your assistance Ten Pound Hammer (and your attention seeking otters too) Penyulap_talk 11:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1a: There are multiple short paragraphs and sections consisting of only one or two sentences or a single paragraph in the case of sections. There are bulleted lists that should be turned into prose. Cleanup tag is present. (Somehow forgot to paste this in from the talk page. Brad (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
1c: There are eight dead links to sources and several citation needed tags. There are multiple "update needed" tags. There is an over reliance on a single source of information (NASA) and several sources that are questionable in meeting the requirement of "high-quality and reliable".
2b: There are many short sections that are creating a long and complicated TOC in addition to the problems they're creating with criteria 1a. IMO the article needs an entire section overhaul.
2c: Citations are chaotic in their consistency. There is a mixture of date formatting (2011-03-25 vs 25 March 2011 etc), bare urls, and missing publisher information.
MOS: Fails MOS:Images for overcrowding, stacking, pics pushing down into sections below, text sandwiching and sometimes overwhelmingly large displays. Overall there are 49 media files (not including flag icons) consisting of pics, diagrams and video. Fails MOS:LINK for overlinking of common terms or items that are not helpful to the reader for understanding more about the article. Fails WP:EXT for external links.
note The above problems are what I listed with the talk page notice. Since then some of it may have been resolved but the article is on my watch list and not much has been going on lately. Brad (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many sincere thanks Brad101, for you comments here, there, and on you talkpage, it's a huge help to me. Even though there is nothing to stop me returning and working on these, I won't, as I don't feel I'm ready, I'm still a bit steamed about the article (I took a month break). My own draft looks a little contentious in parts, so I can't put it up yet. I still have to redraft it a few times into calmer wp:gibberish first. Penyulap_talk 10:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping colds7ream would have time in his schedule this week to spruce up the article. I'd love to see the 4 new modules added to the launch schedule, or at least be able to discuss it. I won't do it myself as it means changing the lead as well, and that just causes trouble. The lead always gets stuck back in the microwave and the 'back to 2009' button gets pressed[5]. It's happened to me heaps of times, I'm sure my edits must annoy some other people, so I'll pass for now. Penyulap_talk 04:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can we get some updates/comments from the above editors on whether this article should move to FARC? I see a couple of editors saying that FARC is not necessary, but I see other editors have posted lists of needed improvements. I also see that the article has dead link, citation needed and update needed tags currently in place, which will need to be fixed before the article is kept as a FA. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC In the initial hours after my talk page notice there was work done on the media and overlinking. Since then I've not seen much work going on. Brad (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dana boomer, thank you for your interest, the 1st and 2nd largest contributors positions are sort-of explained here Penyulap_talk 15:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include references, prose, MOS compliance and images. Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - So long as I get the go-ahead from Colds7ream, or he doesn't seem to care, I'll most likely help turn the article into a sub FA worksite, a condition that will persist for more than a year I expect. Until then, I'll add new ideas to my sandbox. I'm quite appalling at referencing, and given the amount of information I find from other language sources, that will not change until I learn how, or someone helps me. The only way I know to update and improve the article would involve a lot of major surgery, missing (english) refs and a very different look. Penyulap_talk 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist far too many problems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 03:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist And what a shame. It took years to get the article featured and only 18 months for it to deteriorate. Some work was done on MOS Images and MOS Link but that is the only extent of the effort so far. Brad (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's largest ever contributor, Colds7ream, has left a note on the articles talkpage here His work has been of the highest standard, and he now has less time for editing because he is saving lives in the real world. Penyulap_talk 01:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist There are many valid concerns by many experienced editors which can't be addressed immediately as we do not have sufficient labor resources at the present time. It will take a year or more in my opinion to update and improve the article to FA standard. Penyulap_talk 01:06, 8 September 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 02:08, 12 September 2011 [6].

Blaise Pascal

Review commentary

Notified: Christopher Parham (nominator), Dbergan (added some of the text around the time of promotion) All WikiProjects on article talk.

I am nominating this featured article for review primarily because of plagiarism and copyright concerns that will result in a substantially smaller, less thorough and non-'criteria meeting' article when cleaned. The article was promoted in August 2005 and much of it is copied/close-paraphrased from The Story of Civilizaton by Will and Ariel Durant (starting PDF page 69). The work was published in 1963 and the copyright renewed in 1991. This article does not meet FA criteria right now and it is unlikely it will in the near future. Aside from the copyvio, there is citation and lead concerns. Concerns about plagiarism and FA criteria have been on the article talk since March/November 2010 and it was just reported to WP:CP recently. I have cleaned some text out already and will continue clean more. See the CP report and talk page for more details.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the talk page, it doesn't sound as if the page will be fixed quickly. Unless someone comes forward quickly who is able to dedicate a lot of time, it is probably best to delist promptly.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking only at the talk page and not also at this discussion?

I agree. Plagiarized pages should be immediately stripped of their featured article status. Ryan Vesey contribs 21:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is being discussed elsewhere: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Blaise_Pascal_at_FAR. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note - The precedent-setting FAR for featured articles with significant copyright violations was Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1, in November/December 2010. This article went through the full FAR/FARC process. If Raul disagrees with this (I see that someone has already left him a note, which is good), he of course has the authority to delist without going through the full process. However, as it looks like there is some discussion on the Mathematics WP talk page, it is IMO best to give the article a bit more time to see if anyone comes forward who is interested in fixing it. Dana boomer (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stating the obvious here but in its present condition the article fails 1b and 1c. I also believe that a full FAR process should be followed. Brad (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article has been cleaned out by two editors.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

1b After the copyvio cleanout the article dropped 8k in size. I'm not sure if that has any bearing on "comprehensiveness" but it's a good assumption at this point.
1c May also be effected by 1b. Currently there are many citations needed throughout the article.
3 File:PascalTriangleAnimated2.gif What sources were used to assemble the information? Without sources this is original research. File:001Paskal.JPG This photo is not licensed correctly. It should be an OTRS matter but that was not followed. Pasting an incoherent email exchange into the description box won't cut it.
The "miscellaneous" section should be deleted with fire. Brad (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section originally focused mainly on copyright violations. Once these violations were rectified, the concerns changed to issues with comprehensiveness, referencing, images and trivia. Dana boomer (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per 1c concerns. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist because we have to get tough on plagiarism, with leave to renominate immediately once it is felt that it has been legitimately brought to FA standards. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Other than copyright cleanout many problems remain. Brad (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The copyright issue has been fixed. The material in question was added several years ago by a single editor and accounted for a relatively small proportion of the article. Imo that material could be just as well left out of the article even without the COPYVIO issue. I left a notification at WP:MATH on the current status since I think most people were not aware of remaining issues. Regarding the Pascal triangle animation (#3 above), I claim WP:CK since it is well known in the mathematical community. See Pascal's triangle for details. On the death mask photo, it seems clear that the image was released into the public domain. If there is an issue then I vote the image be removed pending an OTRS ruling, there are several other images of Pascal in the article so it is well illustrated without it.--RDBury (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re Miscellaneous section: This was trimmed and incorporated into the Legacy section. The remaining material, concerning a movie and documentary special on the subject, seems noteworthy.--RDBury (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If editors feel the concerns raised by the delists have been addressed, they should ping those reviewers to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The material that RDBury addressed was the least of the article's problems. The more serious issues are still comprehensiveness and referencing. Brad (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2011 (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 12:39, 7 September 2011 [7].

T-34

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject Ukraine, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Soviet Union, WikiProject Russia

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is no longer up to the standard expected of FAs. Looking at the article, and comparing it to the criteria:

It is—

(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;

The information on the tank's design is severely lacking, totalling as it does four completely broken up paragraphs.

(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;

Several chunks are completely unreferenced, including the last line of the "Background" section, an entire paragraph of "establishing initial production" and almost the entirety of "Design (T-34 Model 1941)".

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—

(c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.

Citations are completely and utterly inconsistent, ranging from the Harvard style to a divided bibliography-and-citations type. Many facts appear in the lead, but not in the text of the article proper.

Media. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

Images, rather than alternating, go down almost unbroken in a gallery on the right-hand side of the page. Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note - As there was no prior notification on the talk page of the possibility of a FAR, this review is being placed on hold. I have made the notification and will wait until editors have been given time to respond. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note - after hold and talk page notification, the nominator has indicated he still has concerns requiring an FAR. Therefore, the nomination is active as of this time stamp. 14:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Provisional delist. I think on balance, although the article author(s) have done a good job, there are substantial issues that will require some major research and expansion to address. There seem to be some questions about Zaloga's reliability as a source on the talk page; this is not a minor issue and could result in large sections of the article needing to be re-sourced. The image and citation formatting are less significant because they're relatively quick and easy to fix, but in all my feeling is that there's probably more work required than is realistically achievable over the duration of an FAR. EyeSerene^talk 16:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Comments[reply]

1c At a glance I have concerns over the "high-quality" of some sources; namely:
http://www.wwiivehicles.com/
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/
http://www.theeasternfront.co.uk/
http://www.taphilo.com/
http://www.lonesentry.com/

Brad (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing, comprehensiveness and image compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. It has been weeks since this review and yet no coordinated repair effort has started. I counted, and tagged, over 40 places where citations should be in place; that alone would disqualify this article from being a GA, let alone FA class. If nothing happens to substancially improve this article, it shouldn't keep its listing as "one of the best works on Wikipedia" because that doesn't appear to be the case here. Kyteto (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with most of those tags - many of them are for single sentences which aren't critical, and could simply be removed. (Hohum ^@) 12:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Major 1c problems and fails MOS Images. As stated above there is no effort underway to address any issues. Brad (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2011 (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 12:39, 7 September 2011 [8].

Point Park Civic Center

Review commentary

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania, User talk:Dream out loud

1a. Needs a copy-edit. I'm seeing a lot of consecutive sentences starting with "the". Also, "The two met in the summer of 1945" — clarify. Summer's different in the Southern hemisphere, so we try not to use seasonal terms.
1b. There are only five or six different sources cited. I doubt this is all there was to say about this building. Also, there are huge chunks of unsourced text.
2a. Points are made in lead that aren't addressed later in article ("The unused design has garnered scholarly attention" for one).
2c. "See a summary of this project at the Library of Congress website." is not the right way to do a reference. Whose boneheaded idea was that?

It's blatantly obvious that nobody's tending to this article since it was promoted so long ago; when it was on the front page, it got nearly twice as many edits as it had in the past 3 years put together. I raised the issues on the talk page and got the attention of User:Dream out loud, who felt that the article should be moved to FAR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 05:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the language used by the source is "early summer of 1945". I suppose the original author never imagined anyone would be confused about which hemisphere was being discussed. Do you have an alternate suggestion?
Generally speaking, specific facts & figures in the article come from the immediately following cited source. I didn't bother to repeat them more frequently to avoid clutter, but I'd be happy to repeat them frequently enough so that every paragraph has a separate footnote. Would that satisfy your concerns in that area? Christopher Parham (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my general question is, are there particular statements you are actually concerned about, or do you just want to see a higher count of citations, and if the latter, what # of citations would satisfy. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Mid-1945" would work. I've already pointed out a few [citation needed]s in the article. There's really no set number of sources that I think would be fine, but it does seem as if the article is awfully narrow in scope. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{copyedit}} and {{refimprove}} added to the article by me. I made a request of this article to the Guild of Editors, in order to avoid the article from being demoted. A\/\₉3r-(0la 21:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC – Most pressing issue is that several paragraphs remain completely without citation, as the tags indicate. This is definitely a lighter level of citation than newer FAs have, and is probably too light for FA status now. Articles don't need to have every sentence sourced, but at least one source in each paragraph is expected. The copy-edit tag at the top is also of concern, though I admittedly haven't read the article closely. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing, prose, and a proper lead. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per my concerns; nothing's happened. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist The article isn't even in that bad of condition but there is no effort to correct the problems. Brad (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – The sourcing issues have remained unaddressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:02, 7 September 2011 (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 76: / Line 76: @@
 ==Removed status==
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/History of Miami/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/International Space Station/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Blaise Pascal/archive1}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/T-34/archive2}}
 {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Point Park Civic Center/archive1}}

Revision as of 02:08, 12 September 2011

Archives

Kept status

Removed status

History of Miami

Review commentary

FARC commentary

International Space Station

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Blaise Pascal

Review commentary

FARC commentary

T-34

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Point Park Civic Center

Review commentary

FARC commentary