Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:48, 4 October 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 16:48, 4 October 2012 [1].

Operation Downfall

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:Raul654, WP:MILHIST, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

I am nominating this featured article for review because I posted about concerns on the article talk on 29 Aug. A few minor edits were made 29-31 Aug, but nowhere near addressing the concerns. Two users posted agreeing substantial work is needed: several page needed and citation needed tags, unsourced paragraphs, weak prose, heavy reliance on mostly just two sources, dead link on Silkett, could mention more the "intimidate-Soviets" aspect, isn't at all comprehensive, and doesn't reflect modern scholarship on this topic (especially Giangreco's book Hell to Pay, which is probably the best available book on this subject).PumpkinSky talk 15:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(stuff shifted to talk page; review belongs here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comments: Unfortunately this article now falls well short of FA standards. Some issues include:

As noted by PumpkinSky, the article's citation and prose standards are deficient
The article does not cover its topic fully. There have been a number of good books on this topic in recent years (most notably Hell to Pay, but also Richard B. Frank's excellent book Downfall and Stephen Zagola's short but very useful Defense of Japan 1945 ) which would allow the article to go into considerably more detail. The article should be at least a third longer than it currently is, and could justifiably be longer still.
The coverage of Operation Coronet is clearly much too short
The article needs to discuss the way the Allied and Japanese plans evolved over time, especially given that the Allies were only beginning to realise the scale of the Japanese forces in Kyushu in the last weeks of the war
The section on 'estimated casualties' is confusing, as it presents a series of different opinions. The focus should be on the way in which these estimates evolved over time. This section also doesn't cover the expected Japanese casualties, which is a major shortfall (Hell to Pay is particularly valuable on these topics).
The article doesn't note that the Allied build-up for Operation Olympic was well underway at the end of the war; for instance, the Eighth Air Force was within days of becoming operational on Okinawa at the time of the surrender, and large numbers of Army units were either travelling to the Pacific from Europe and North America or preparing to do so. Again, Hell to Pay provides good coverage of this. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Originally this article met the FA standards of the day; I doubt it would pass today though without some work. In addition to the above, two further issues I'd note:

It makes considerable use of Sutherland's 1945 planning document. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but Sutherland is a primary source, and as such needs to be used with care. There aren't supporting secondary sources deployed to back up the interpretation of Sutherland that's given, or to support the prominence of the use of the source in the first place. Fixable, but essential.
I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm surprised not to see more about the Soviet context and its effect on planning assumptions here. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC this is way more than enough to move to FARC. PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC. As above, especially Nick-D. This is not FA-Grade and never was. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include coverage, references and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Per the above. PumpkinSky talk 16:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. - Dank (push to talk) 16:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, agree with PumpkinSky (talk · contribs), Dank (talk · contribs) and Hchc2009 (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 18:34, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my comments above Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delist — Br'er Rabbit (talk) 09:06, 22 September 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 16:48, 4 October 2012 [2].

Infinite monkey theorem

Review commentary

Notified: Deepak, WikiProject Mathematics

I am nominating this featured article for review because of poor referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Numerous sections are in need of references, prose complaints date back several years. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Anyone here? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I am seeing little improvements, but the image File:Thomas Henry Huxley - Project Gutenberg eText 16935.jpg has no date and the lack of author information. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 09:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the nominator: this seems to fail the FA criteria on the referencing standards, haven't looked at the prose in detail. Overall it would take quite a bit of work to get this up to the sourcing requirements.
It fails 3c by quite a bit, I counted 12 or 13 unsourced paragraphs (not counting the lead)
Source reliability (1c) is an issue too. Likely non-high-quality reliable sources include: Think Biblically!: Recovering a Christian Worldview and Quotationspage.com.
Cruft (4) is probably an issue too, some of the references are a bit trivial, though it's not as bad as Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, Concerns have not been addressed. meshach (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the point where we vote on listing/delisting just yet. This is the point where we discuss problems and suggest improvement. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:13, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with 1a (prose), 2c (citations), and 3 (images problems). Looks like there is a large amount of work required to bring the article up to FA standards. meshach (talk) 01:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria brought up as issues in the review section include referencing, coverage, images and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Agree above comments by Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs), Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) and Meshach (talk · contribs), a lot of this stuff has not been addressed, mainly due to sourcing and cleanup issues. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 10:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my comments above. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per my nom statement and Mark's point about cruft. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, nothing's happening. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, It's an interesting article but is not up to FAC standards. Needs quite a bit of work on prose and references. meshach (talk) 09:12, 27 September 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 16:48, 4 October 2012 [3].

Red vs. Blue

Review commentary

Notified: Dr. B, TKD, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Halo, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Animation, Machinima work group, WikiProject Internet, WikiProject Internet culture, WikiProject Science Fiction, WikiProject Comedy

This article has a lack of citations throughout the section "Project Freelancer" and "Music" which fails 1c. I've posted on the discussion on the article's talk page, but no one hasn't respond and improved it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Filming" section is terrible. I'm seeing a lot of first person ("we"), informal tone with contractions, and overall bad writing (e.g. "recently"). Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 13:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When it was originally promoted, there were only four seasons of the show and now it's on its tenth. (The version that was promoted: [4]). It'll take a lot of work to get back up to speed, if I have time I'll try and flesh it out a bit. Nomader (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take a look tonight. My expectation is that the entire article needs to be refreshed, as their production techniques are no longer-machinima based with the amount of custom CG they do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've started (we're talking barely started) a list of resources in my userspace here that could be used to improve the article. I'll see what I can do... but as I've only ever worked on FLs and GAs, if I end up editing this heavily someone else should really take a strong magnifying glass to it and look over my changes. Nomader (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a note: I discovered Red vs. Blue production while searching for sources and I have to agree with the tag at the top of the page; it would really appear not to meet WP:GNG and is mostly just longer and worse written parts of the actual article. The actual article doesn't even link to it. Nomader (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria brought up as issues in the review section include referencing, coverage and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. No work has been done since I've started the FAR myself, plus I see little changes, however, maintenance tags, prose and referencing, not significant enough to address the concerns. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 09:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I copy edited the section tagged for it, but it still has multiple unsourced sections, which is a clear deal-breaker for maintaining FA status. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:29, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Agree with the concerns by Torchiest and Jj98, no work has been done and there are multiple unsourced sections as well. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, no evidence that any work has been done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:16, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Per what has already been said. GamerPro64 15:18, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - Only work besides superficial edits has been an edit war(?) and vandalism/vandalism reverting. Zappa O Mati 23:40, 3 October 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 89: / Line 89: @@
 ==Removed status==
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Operation Downfall/archive2}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Infinite monkey theorem/archive2}}
+{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Red vs. Blue/archive1}}

Revision as of 16:48, 4 October 2012

Archives

Kept status

Removed status

Operation Downfall

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Infinite monkey theorem

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Red vs. Blue

Review commentary

FARC commentary