Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:26, 7 May 2012

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 Dana boomer 13:26, 7 May 2012 [1].

Federalist No. 10

Review commentary

Notified: Christopher Parham. Projects: Law, United States, Politics, Books, GLAM/NARA.

I placed a talk page notice about two months ago that had no response.

1a There are weasel words scattered about and at least one confusing passage marked with clarify.
1c The obvious is the lack of citations throughout the article. Direct quotes need citations.
2c Of what citations currently exist they're missing retrieved on dates and publication dates.
Minor problems not worth a mention at this stage. Brad (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section focused mainly on prose and referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist No acknowledgment of the FAR and other than a bit of copyediting, nothing has been worked on. Brad (talk) 02:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed the above concerns—"many other essays^[which?] ... saw much wider distribution⁸" If this is what the source states, is it reasonable to demand more? In cases where further detail was in an available source I added it.¶ The cn in the lead was accounted for in the later section Application.¶Direct quotes were clearly attributed to brief works. I referenced them to online copies.¶"missing retrieved on dates ": added.¶I added a brief preceding section on how and why the Constitutional Convention met. 86.44.26.64 (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great start! Thanks for the effort.
If a source makes a statement like "many other essays" it needs to be presented; example: Joe Smith said in his book Fun With Dick and Jane that "many other essays...blah blah" So essentially a quote.
An article on WP shouldn't be cited with the contents of original documents. There are several references to the Fed 10 papers themselves. It's not an ideal situation. Brad (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel there are precious litte raised issues outstanding.

If a source makes a statement like "many other essays" it needs to be presented; example: Joe Smith said in his book Fun With Dick and Jane that "many other essays..." I disagree. It sounds like you are mistaking the statement for opinion, whereas it is a sourced statement on the facts. Do you think "many" is opinion? what about "several", or "multiple"? It would be very odd indeed to attribute a statement like this, as it would imply there was something singular or opinionated about it. When a work states something on the facts, or shows that the statement is true, the thing to do is cite it, not attribute it to the author. Otherwise we must attribute every sourced line on the site. The source for the article's statement is Kaminski. 86.44.63.66 (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references to the Fed 10 papers themselves You requested specific references for direct quotes. 86.44.63.66 (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not having time to contribute to this, but as to citing the original document, my impression is that the precis of a work itself is regularly cited to the work. That seems to be the practice still even in recent FAs, e.g. plot summary sections. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update? Do any reviewers have an opinion on the current state of this article? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article does not meet FA standards. Just a couple of examples:

The claim that "Today, however, No. 10 is regarded as a seminal work of American democracy" is supported only by a popular poll conducted by newspapers.
"Federalist No. 10 is the classic citation for the belief that the Founding Fathers and the constitutional framers did not intend American politics to be partisan" only has several court rulings that quoted the essay to back it up. Such a statement is only tenable if you can produce a source, or preferably several sources, that actually say that. Listing several cases where the essay was cited in this way and concluding this statement from that is original research at the very least.

There are many more problems. Just fixing these two won't make this a featured article. They just serve as examples.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The prose leaves much to be desired. There are some phrases that are unclear and some that are weaselly.

"The essay is the most famous of the Federalist Papers" This phrase doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, in my opinion. I was under the impression that we concern ourselves with notability, not fame.
"No. 10 (along with Federalist No. 51, also by Madison) was chosen as the 20th most influential document in United States history." Did they share that slot? Or was No. 51 somewhere else on the list?
"David Epstein, writing in 1984, described it as among the most highly regarded of all American political writing" Who's this guy?
"A particular point in support of this was that most of the states were focused on one industry" I'm not sure that it's possible for a state to be focused on something. Mammals and books can focus on things, but states and other landmasses cannot.
"Federalist No. 10 is the classic citation for the belief that the Founding Fathers and the constitutional framers did not intend American politics to be partisan." I'm not a fan of the use of "classic" here. This statement is presented as a fact when it is actually an opinion of an unnamed author.

--Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:24, 2 May 2012 (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 13:26, 7 May 2012 [2].

Medal of Honor

Review commentary

Listed at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Article alerts, Template:WPMILHIST Announcements

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has the most cleanup tags of any featured article. Tagged with: lacking reliable references from November 2011; accuracy disputes from November 2011; dead external links from August 2011, June 2010, October 2011; unsourced statements from October 2011, November 2011, September 2011; disputed statements from November 2011; self-contradictory articles from May 2011. Someone noted problems on talkpage a month ago Tom B (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments There are some fundamental mistakes in the article:

As there were only two medals that could be issued until World War I including the Purple Heart Wrong. The Purple Heart was not instituted until the 1930s.
HLI Lordship Industries Inc., a former Medal of Honor contractor, was fined in 1996 for selling 300 fake medals for US $75 each.[58] Wrong. The medals were real. "fake" may mean not awarded.
Quality of sources are very weak and far from "high-quality and reliable". Too many "homebrew" websites are used.
The "post-Vietnam" section is out of place considering that no other war era has its own section. Brad (talk) 03:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section focused mainly on referencing and accuracy. Although some work has been done, the majority of the concerns remain unanswered, so I am moving this to the FAC section. Dana boomer (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist There are major problems with 1c and to a lesser extent 2c. Brad (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty-five edits only since the FAR was initiated, mostly an IP editing the Video game series section, little improvement. Having said that, while there are a large number of categories of tags, there are actually very few tags in the article (they're hard to find!) Some effort should be made to find a MilHist editor willing to work on this. Notifications to templates might not be noticed, and personal pleas may be more effective. Unless someone takes this on within the week, then I will also be an unfortunate Delist, but I consider it a shame, as the article should have been able to be repaired in the month is was here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna start working on this tonight and see if I can turn it around. I see a bunch of stuff I shoudl be able to fix and expand pretty quickly and I think that will help turn it around. --Kumioko (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help out, too where needed. Let me know where.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It looks like some work has been done on the article (thanks guys!), and all of the tags have now been taken care of. Can we get some comments by the above editors on how they feel the article stands right now? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 12:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, work by Mike appreciated, tags removed, but because of past concerns with Vanished User's work, I'd not like to enter a Keep without a source spot check. Where are all the MilHist folk? I'd think they'd care about this one (perhaps so many of them are non-US?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I just wanted to point out that Kumioko retired so its unlikely they will be doing any work on the article. ShmuckatellieJoe (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. Just to let you all know, I'm going to put in some effort over the next few days to save this one. Hate to see it delisted after almost 8 years. I'm unfamiliar with the article and I'll need to know what, other than the tags User:Tpbradbury mentioned and what User:Brad101 said, to do to fix things up. This is my first FAR so please be patient with me! Thanks, —Ed!^(talk) 18:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other editors and myself have trimmed dead links, replaced links with new links and added book referenced in place of some links. I've checked every link and all of them currently link to a source. I also can't find any more accuracy disputes tagged or any sources of questional reliability. Are there any issues with the sourcing I didn't spot? —Ed!^(talk) 22:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nice work, sir! --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prod I'm still waiting to hear any feedback from others. I believe all concerns have been addressed on the page, but I'm willing to work on any additional comments. —Ed!^(talk) 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ed, thanks for the great work! Feel free to ping the editors who commented above (Brad, TomB, etc) and ask them to revisit their comments. Dana boomer (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot check from Spinningspark

Sources spot-checked at 10% randomly machine selected

FNs 19, 73, 82, 85 all ok. FN29 agf; google snippets refuses to verify but facts easily confirmed with a gsearch.
FN23 does not verify the two routes for nominations
FN38 is verified, but citation should be expanded, the abbreviation is quite obscure. An online link would help also.
FN71 "numerically superior force" is not verified.
FN88 Source confirms facts but I don't think that the view of one source can ("...wall of government bureaucracy and prejudice towards minorities...") can be translated to "...many believe to have been overlooked because of his religion". Also president G. W. Bush is not named in hte source. It can be deduced that Bush awarded the medal from the date and the fact that this is normally the president that carries this out but I don't think that is really good enough, it needs a direct cite.

Spinning Spark 01:01, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the spotcheck turned up verification problems I feel further checks are needed but I am not willing to put in the work while the ones found so far are not being worked on. Spinning Spark 09:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI may be able to help out on some of the Civil War and Indian Wars stuff. The history section of the article is especially weak, IMO. This is also my first voyage into FAC territory, so please be patient with me.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Lots of issues, some of which don't even require a careful read-through:

Lots of one- and two-sentence paragraphs, including some in the lead. These should be expanded, merged, or deleted.
The article is not well-organized. Many of the sections contain information about both the present and the past. Appearance, for example, describes not only the current appearance of the medal, but also the historical designs. If there is historical information throughout the entire article, then why is there a History section at all? Conversely, if there must be a History section, why is there so much historical information presented elsewhere? One symptom of this poor organization is the existence of redundant information: "The only female Medal of Honor recipient is Mary Edwards Walker, a Civil War surgeon. Her medal was rescinded in 1917 along with many other non-combat awards, but it was restored by President Jimmy Carter in 1977 (see Evolution of Criteria, above)".
The quality of the prose is severely lacking in some places:
- "A ribbon bar that is the same shade of light blue as the neckband, and includes five white stars, pointed upwards, in the shape of an "M" is worn for situations other than full dress uniform." The subject of the sentence is "A ribbon bar", and the predicate is "is worn...", which appears 24 words later. The meaning is lost due to all the extraneous details.
- "Many Medals of Honor awarded in the 19th century were associated with saving the flag..." Saving from what? Does "saving" mean the same thing as "protecting" in this context? Or does it mean "rescuing"?
- "There were two awards of the Tiffany Cross Medal of Honor for non-combat to Commander, later Rear Admiral Richard Byrd and Floyd Bennett" Very confusing wording. Did they each receive the medal twice, or did they each receive it once? Why is Byrd's rank mentioned but not Bennett's? Or were they both Commanders?
- "On November 11, 1921, the U.S. Unknown Soldier was reciprocally awarded the Victoria Cross, the British military's highest award for valor." So he was awarded ${}^{\frac {1}{\text{Victoria Cross}}}$ ? Also, why is this relevant?

-- Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:17, 2 May 2012 (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 84: / Line 84: @@
 ==Removed status==
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Federalist No. 10/archive1}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Medal of Honor/archive2}}

Revision as of 13:26, 7 May 2012

Archives

Kept status

Removed status

Federalist No. 10

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Medal of Honor

Review commentary

FARC commentary