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
→Removed status: Delisting three
Line 89: Line 89:


==Removed status==
==Removed status==
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Search engine optimization/archive2}}

{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Operation Downfall/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Operation Downfall/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Infinite monkey theorem/archive2}}
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Infinite monkey theorem/archive2}}

Revision as of 18:04, 14 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.

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 Nikkimaria 18:04, 14 October 2012 [1].

Search engine optimization

Review commentary

Notified: Jehochman, Bonadea, Ohnoitsjamie, Versageek, WP Computing, WP Business, WP Internet

I'm putting this up for FAR mainly because of reference issues.

  • See tags regarding original research, verification and unreliable sources. (Major concern)
  • There are additional untagged areas that need sources: third paragraph in White hat versus black hat section, second paragraph International markets
  • It seems strange that the Legal precedents section only covers a five year time span.
  • It seems that a huge proportion of the references are to what are in this case are primary sources (Google, Yahoo, Bing and their employees). I would hope that it would be possible to find secondary (and in many cases higher quality) sources for much of this information.
  • Some outdated information. For example, "In 2003, Danny Sullivan stated that Google represented about 75% of all searches." is almost a decade out of date.
  • Ref formatting should be made consistent and information (access dates, etc) added where necessary.
  • More minor MOS issues include formatting things such as extraneous spaces between punctuation and refs and similar concerns.

Overall the concerns with OR, verifiability and unreliable sources is the largest issues, in my opinion. This seems to be an article that is popular with people attempting to popularize themselves or their personal search engine, which is probably where a large portion of the un/poorly sourced information has come from. Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The prose needs a once over. I see lots of one-sentence paragraphs in "History", and nearly the entire last half of that section is nothing but "In X, Y happened."
  • As already mentioned, many citations are to Google, Yahoo! and Bing themselves.
  • Also as mentioned, there is a complete lack of more recent info, and much of what's already here is now quite dated. The article is clearly not being maintained.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated the worst problem contents, but it still would benefit from updating. I hope somebody takes on the task. The article is a magnet for spammers. All the spam and revert cycles result in occasional retention of bad content. That's been cleaned up. Somebody with time could read it top to bottom and help with gentle copy editing and updating. Jehochman Talk 20:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the review section include prose, content, sourcing and NPOV. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per stability problems alone, but no other problem seems to have been taken care of. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - while I appreciate the work that Jehochman did, this article is still a ways from FA status. Quite a few of my comments above have not been addressed (outdated information, ref formatting, Legal precedents section, etc). The biggest issue that I see is still the lack of secondary sources. The argument at the time of the FAC was that there were few (if any) books written on the topic; this argument cannot still be made, based on a quick Google/Amazon/WorldCat search. Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Times change. There are plenty of books now. Marketing in the Age of Google and The Art of SEO are two I recommend. This article was previously a good article. If it is delisted it should go back to Good, no? Hopefully an editor with time available will come along, read those books, and upgrade the article. The content of the article is still accurate. The extensions needed would be a discussion of recent algorithm changes by Google, including the Google Panda and Google Penguin algorithms. Also, it should be mentioned that Yahoo is no longer a search engine. They source their results from Bing. Jehochman Talk 20:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Times definitely change :) And, no, an article does not go back to GA status when delisted from FA - when an article is promoted to FA from GA it loses its GA status (is removed from the GA pages), and when demoted from FA does not regain that status. So, to be re-listed as a GA, it would need to go through a new GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am going to see if there is an editor who'd like to update this. It probably doesn't require a huge amount of work. Some of the online sources, such as SearchEngineLand are excellent. The books will only cover matters up to 2010 or so. For recent developments we will still have to rely on the online sources. Jehochman Talk 23:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment any progress? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It is outdated since a lot has happend in this area since the majority of this article was written. --Harthacnut (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I'm finding the quality is going downhill as article becomes more and more biased to showcase the views of insiders who hold stakes on this topic like Danny Sullivan (of Searchengineland a reference frequently quoted), Matt Cutts(of Google), Danny Sullivan, and others like "WebProNews". As you can see, Jehochman defends these arguably questionable reliability SEO producers while some of them watch his back and what I see as collaborative effort between SEO personnel (to look after each other) is threatening objective neutrality and veering towards industry newsletter. While we have Wiki editors like Jehochman who swear up and down that "Searchengineland is excellent source", there's no general consensus that they're considered reputable source. Same with iNetwork's WebProNews that offers articles by "staff writers" that can look like personal blogs. While tags may have been removed, reliability of these sources haven't been demonstrated beyond personal assertions from one or very few editors that they're "highly reliable".Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:50, 4 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.
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].

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 commentary

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

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]

  • 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]

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]


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 [4].

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: [5]). 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]


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=517776542"