Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2021

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Nikkimaria (talk | contribs) at 03:43, 31 July 2021 (upd). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Kept[edit]

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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:41, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [1].

Nigel Kneale[edit]

Notified: Angmering, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WikiProject Isle of Man, 2021-03-24

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is bloated, with numerous paragraphs per section. The article also has unreliable sources (including IMDB) and inconsistent formatting of references. No edits have been made since I posted the notice. Z1720 (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will say, however, that the IMDb cite issue was far less severe than I thought it would be judging by the comments made. IMDb cites were used only a very, very small minority of the time, and it turns out we probably didn't need as all they did was cite release date, Kneale and other actors and filmmakers for credits in productions. Plus, all the other sources are HQ and reliable, so this article may not be in the red zone after all. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so looking around, I'm trying to figure out what all still needs to be done here. There's two uncited spots, which I've tagged, as well as a large number of harv errors, most of which could probably be fixed by converting everything over to sfns. I haven't given this the full read-over, but this ought to be saveable, I think. Hog Farm Talk 17:55, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The layout has been vastly improved by sub-headings, so thanks to HxA for that edit. The IMDB references have been removed, but there are some other sources that might not be high quality. One is the Quartermass Homepage (Andrew Pixley): there is a book source for this organization but I cannot determine its editorial oversight of the website. Also, is ScreenOnline high quality? Z1720 (talk) 18:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumeably the Pixley & Nigel 1986 ref that's flagging an error should be Pixley & Kneale 1986, right? I can correct that, which will fix some of the harv errors, but since that is one of the sources challenged by Z1720 above, it may be better just to find an alternate source for that. Hog Farm Talk 14:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? `Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still updating the cite format. It's just taking a little bit to do so because of multiple sources that are from the same publication and authors. We're almost there. 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HF

Okay, so looking at this this isn't in horrible shape, but there's still some stuff that needs worked on here

  • It's unclear which source the "Hammer n.d." one is referring to, and it's flagging a no-target error.
  • "Dugoid & n.d. (b)." - this ref seems to have some sort of sfn error here
  • I'm unsure about the reliability of Off the Telly. The Quatermass Home Page is a primary source partially written by Kneale, so it's probably okay for usage here. If someone could give a look over the prose, that would be nice - I think this is close to keepable. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC - I've fixed the Hammer n.d. referencing error. The Off the Telly source is written by Graham Kibble-White, who seems to be a subject-matter expert. With the Quatermass Home Page source being primary, I think the sources are all okay enough. I can't figure out the Dugoid & n.d. reference error, but it'll probably be fine. Do you see any other things that need work here, @Z1720 and HumanxAnthro:? Hog Farm Talk 21:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was working on other stuff in the past month. For this article, I just focused on cite formatting and adding more section headings. Any comments about prose or content to include can be given by someone more experienced in detecting HQ prose. 👨x🐱 (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720

During a copyedit, here are some questions and requests for clarification:

  • The Times 2006 reference link seems to be broken and doesn't point to the article. (Although this might just be some weird thing that the website is doing for me?)
  • Birthdate is in the lede, but not the body. I can't find a source that verifies it, so I did not add it myself. Does anyone have a source for it?
    • The Times 2006 reference link I just archived includes it, so I have sourced it to there.
  • "He was educated at St Ninian's High School, Douglas, and after leaving studied law, training to become an advocate at the Manx Bar." Do sources say where he studied law?
  • "His son, Matthew Kneale, would later win the same award in 1988 for his novel Whore Banquets." I don't think this sentence is necessary in this article as it doesn't directly concern Kneale and feels like WP:TRIVIA. I suggest its removal.
    • Removed
  • "the first adult television science-fiction production," The first in the world? The first in Britain?
  • "held a large television audience gripped across its six weeks," I'm not sure this is WP:WIKIVOICE. I can't access the article to check it, so I can't determine whether it should be deleted or rephrased.

This takes me to "1958–1966: Film screenplays and adaptations". I'll continue this later, but feel free to fix the above in the meantime. Z1720 (talk) 04:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna keep going,

  • "Kneale commented in a 2003 interview that "I reckon I closed down at least two film companies." While interesting, I don't think this quote is encyclopedic as there is no evidence in this article that Kneale's involvement with these film companies caused thier demise. I think it should be removed.
  • "1963–1974: Return to BBC" has a citation needed tag that needs to be resolved.
  • "The island locations scenes for the production were filmed on the Isle of Man, Kneale's homeland." Did Kneale influence its filming in the Isle of Man? If not, delete per WP:TRIVIA
  • ""It lingered through the summer and slowly died as a project," he later commented." Not sure if this sentence is redundant. Do we need a quote from him here?
  • "The series was not a success, although Kneale later remained personally pleased with it." Not a commerical success?
  • "and he and his wife spent some time living at the Sheraton Hotel" Is this Kneale, or Landis?
  • "and cited as one of the programme's finest episodes" by who?
  • I did a large copyedit of the Legacy section by merging short paragraphs, removing quotes that can be or were already described by the prose, and other grammar changes. Please review and let me know if the changes were unhelpful. I don't like the heavy use of quotes, but I think the article can justify keeping them.
  • "Kerr became a successful children's writer, with the Mog series of books[3] and When Hitler Stole Pink Rabbit, which was based on her own experiences of fleeing Nazi Germany in her youth." Is this important information to have in a biography article about Kneale? I think this should be placed in Kerr's article instead.
    • I personally would think it's fine, since both members of the couple were accomplished writers and that Kneale worked with some of Kerr's stuff later. I think the current bit is about the maximum length that would be appropriate, but my personal opinion is that it's generally okay Hog Farm Talk 04:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Kneale was proud of his son's success as a writer. When his novel English Passengers won the Whitbread Book of the Year award in 2001, his father commented that: "Matthew's much better than I am. I just wrote screenplays."[91]" Is this necessary in this article? Seems unencyclopedic
  • Should information about Kneale's younger brother be placed at the beginning of the Family section, as it is assumed that Kneale met his brother before his wife? This will keep things in a somewhat chronological order.
  • "Between the lines" doesn't seem to be cited in the article.
  • I put the sources in columns to save on whitespace and scrolling. If this is unhelpful, please revert.
  • Kneale won the Bram Stoker Award for Lifetime Achievement, as noted in a template at the bottom of the page, but this is not mentioned in the article.
  • In external links, why is "Article by Mark Holcomb from The Believer, March/April 2010" included? Can it be used as a source?
    • It'll take somebody having access to the source. Link is currently broken, but used the Wayback Machine and determined that it's only a brief abstract of something longer, anyway. Hog Farm Talk 04:55, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the lede: "In 2000, he received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Horror Writers Association." Is this the Bram Stoker Award? This isn't cited in the body.

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 01:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC - I'm not gonna be able to address all of these. Tried posting in a few places to try to get some help, but it doesn't look like there's any interest in finishing this one off. I guess we'll have to let this one go, sadly. Hog Farm Talk 01:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is close to a save, but I am too busy in July to work on this. @WP:FAR coordinators: Can this be placed on hold until August, when I can devote more time to it? If another editor wants to work on it in the meantime, I encourage them to do so. Z1720 (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2021 (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 procedurally kept by Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Frédéric Chopin[edit]

Notified: Classical music, [diff for talk page notification]

I am nominating this featured article for review because a long standing RfC discussion, which has now been long awaiting closure, has resulted in edits which mean that it loses (imo) many of the characteristics of an FA (to which status I was amongst those active in bringing it). I would ask that the FA status be removed for the present, and then the article can then be resubmitted for FA when the discussion is resolved (whatever the outcome). The article gets >1m. views per year, and should not I think be presented as an FA in these circumstances, as it is not representative of the WP standards for such articles. Smerus (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at the instructions for who to notify, which is probably more than you've done so far. What FA criteria specifically are in doubt? Is it only stability? This process takes at least four weeks for most articles, so hopefully, stability can be restored within the FAR. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus, which edits exactly have caused the problem? SarahSV (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not seeing instability, and no deficiencies relative to WP:WIAFA have been specified. FAR is not dispute resolution. I suggest putting the FAR on hold until at least two weeks after the close of the RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with SandyGeorgia. This is premature. Once the RFC closes, then the page will likely become somewhat stable again. Seems like a long process to nominate it again for FA if it gets delisted now. Patience and let the process play through in the RFC.  oncamera  (talk page) 19:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not seek to use FAR for dispute resolution: it is only that some areas (eg. note 6 in the article) which have been added during the discussion are way out of FA standards, and cannot be adjusted while the RfC is going on without further edit arguing. I specifically asked above for a suspension of FA status, as there seems to be no way of withdrawing the FA standard apart from the review process. But if editors feel that suspension is not possible and FAR should only be moved after RfC resolution, so be it. I just hope in that case that someone will soon take on the task of resolving it. However the RfC is resolved it will need a rewrite. --Smerus (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smerus, can you elaborate on specifically what concerns you have regarding the FA criteria other than stability? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, I guess in the present situation it would be best to hope that the RfC will be soon resolved. In the light of the closing decision the article is then likely to need some rewriting and I will then submit it to FAR in the hope that the revision will still meet FA standards. Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All right. In that case I will put this review on hold pending the closure of the RfC. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Two months later ... it appears that the RFC is still open. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, we are still waiting. As the furore has died down and the votes for the different alternatives are in, it shouldn't be a complex problem to close....if there are any volunteers out there............--Smerus (talk) 19:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the RFC closed with no consensus. Nikkimaria what next ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Smerus, you mentioned above that you thought it likely rewriting would be needed based on the closing decision - does the no-consensus result change that? If so, are there outstanding concerns related to the FA criteria? If no, what is the timeline for that rewriting? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, there is some (peaceful so far) editing and discussion going on at present in the wake of the RfC. The article needs updating in various other ways, including listing and format of sources etc. I estimate about two weeks to complete this work and to ensure that nothing flares up again. Then it would be helpful if other editors could take a look and be satisfied that it still meets FA. I will post again here when ready. With thanks,--Smerus (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article now seems stable, contentious edits have been reverted or corrected, and there is no more controversy on the talk page. One editor who provoked much of the original fuss is now banned from Wikipedia. I am indebted to Aza24 for the edits he has made. I would therefore withdraw the proposal for review. Thanks to everyone for their patience.--Smerus (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2021 (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 kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC) [2].

Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector[edit]

Notified: WillowW, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Physics, Diff of talk page notice, 2021-04-17

I have a number of concerns about this article's compliance with the FA criteria. First and foremost (as pointed out by Hog Farm), many places are entirely unsourced; this presents serious concerns under criterion 1c. Additionally, some of the sources that do exist are of questionable reliability: many are quite old (two are from 1710, while others are from 1847, 1859, 1891, 1901, 1915, 1919, 1923, etc.). The article is also nearly impossible to understand without a graduate-level mathematics education (some of this is inevitable given the topic, but more "engaging" prose is likely required nonetheless), and a quick perusal yields a self-reference ("as described elsewhere in this article") and numerous unnecessary duplinks. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"As described elsewhere in this article" is completely different from what is described at MOS:SELFREF -- all it needs is an appropriate section link (as in Template:Section link). And mathematical truths are not time-dependent, so there is no reliability whatsoever with using historical sources. (There may be other reasons to prefer more modern sources, though -- like the primary vs. secondary distinction, or to ensure due weight.) --JBL (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a historical topic, deeply rooted in the development of classical mechanics and of significant importance for quantum physics as well, so historical references are good things. They shouldn't be the only citations, of course, and they aren't. There's repeated use of Hall's 2013 textbook, for example, and seven references to Goldstein. The topic is one that a physics student would encounter in a graduate course, and so per WP:ONELEVELDOWN, it ought to be accessible to advanced (or courageous) undergraduates. It needn't teach what vectors are, but it shouldn't presume knowledge of symplectic manifolds. For the most part, it hits this mark. (I'd say that it gets slightly harder at § Poisson brackets, but there's not a lot that can be done about that; that's just the material.) A few more pointers to textbook chapters where details are derived and discussed might be helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 00:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (The following comments should not alter it's FA status, which seems fine to me.) My complaint is that perhaps its written at too low a level, not too high a level. My impression is that all of the formulas are written at a level accessible to undergraduates in physics/math. (The original author who created the FA article -- User:WillowW was an undergrad, and did not have a formal background in advanced mathematics/physics. This is definitely not "grad level" stuff, which is why its a bit weak in places. It's peddling as fast as it can in first gear, never shifts into second.) What's missing is a slightly more advanced treatment of the group manifold. Right now, as it stands, the article notes that the lie algebra generated by L_i, D_i can generate the Lie groups SO(4), SO(4)/Z_2, SO(3)xSO(3) and SO(3,1). That's fine, but the relationships between these is less than entirely clear. (well, actually SO(3)xSO(3) does not seem correct!?) Where does the Z_2 come from, or rather, why does it go away? Why isn't there a SO(3,1)/Z_2? What happens in the parabolic case (in the conventional sense of elliptic==bound orbits, hyperbolic==unbound orbits), where the manifold flops from SO(4) to SO(3,1)? I guess that for the parabolic case, the manifold is SO(3)xR? It would be nice to see how this manifold flops over as a function of the energy. What's the quantum mechanics of the hydrogen atom at n=infty, right at that limit point where the discrete spectrum flops over into the continuous spectrum? What's the spectral density? (The spectral density density of states is the number of energy levels N=N(E) per unit energy interval: dN/dE. For bound states, it is a sequence of dirac deltas accumulating at 13.7. For the continuous spectrum, its flat for large energies. Is it still flat at the accumulation point? Or are there wiggles? Other systems behave as if the deltas widen into gaussians right at this point, and these sum up into a wiggly density. I honestly don't know what happens for the hydrogen atom.) I would expect the above questions to be handled in a review article; however, WP featured articles are written at a lower level and less stringent criteria than review articles, so the above comments shouldn't damage the FA status. (Review articles are typically 5-10 times longer than an FA could ever be, and aim at a target audience of professors and experts, rather than students. I have no clue if a review article for LRL has ever been written, ever.) 67.198.37.16 (talk) 16:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A warm thank-you to the reviewers who have written so far! Re-reading the article, I was actually surprised at how good and thorough the article is and how well it's stood up over the past 14+ years: a tribute to the editors who worked on it so scrupulously. As the erstwhile "chief contributor", I am not at all opposed to improving the article further, but I'm also conscious of the warning: primum non nocere. Here are my suggestions for what I can do:
    • I will seek out additional references to supplement the 50 citations already present. I noticed a few gaps right away, e.g., in the Context section, the remarks concerning conserved quantities in central-force problems and their relationship with symmetries. Well-known to advanced undergraduates, but worthy of citation. I currently don't have access to a university library, however, so I would be grateful for help in finding citations, esp. from colleagues at WP:Physics.
    • The duplinks and the intra-article reference can be eliminated.
    • I'm sympathetic to arguments that the level of the article is too low or too high. Most will agree that it's difficult to elucidate such an (admittedly abstract) topic both accessibly and encyclopedically. (As Einstein puts it, Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch List.) That's why, through the efforts of many editors, the article was designed to have a "ramp-up" structure, beginning simpler and gradually increasing in complexity, as discussed on the article's Talk page, two peer reviews, and FA candidacy. It was a delicate balance to strike, and I'm loath to tinker with the clockwork. I was happy to read XOR'easter's assessment that the article was well-suited for advanced undergraduates, since that was admittedly my target audience. (They seemed to me the most likely to profit from such an article.) Regarding the level and content of the article, I was also heartened by the praise of John Baez, which appeared roughly a year after this article became an FA and which could provide excellent source material to augment the article.
    • Additional applications and/or deeper connections of the LRL-vector could be added with citations, but a practical alternative might be to start a daughter article.
    • If there are other outstanding issues, I would ask Extraordinary Writ to list those in detail, so that we can set to work! :)
Warm regards to one and all, Willow (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you're still around! I think the flow of the article is fine (well, I only skimmed it, it seemed fine from a skim.) The penultimate paragraph from the Baez pdf should be inserted into this article, as it unlocks the "geometric insight" for why it is what it is. Although I'm still confused about the Z_2 which John does not seem to mention. The reason I'm picking on this is that eventually one sees other examples of Poisson manifolds, and its useful to compare those examples at that particular abstraction level. That particular level of abstraction was the launch-pad/foundation of mathematical physics, 1980's-onwards, when familiarity with all the geometry (e.g. instantons and Witten and Wess Zumino type stuff) became de rigeur in the theoretical physics world. This example sets you up on that launching pad. p.s. the history is very much appreciated. History is interesting. 67.198.37.16 (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ZOMG!!! How lovely to talk with you again; I feel as if I bumped into an old friend at a costume party. :) Do you realize that today is the exact 3×5=15th anniversary of the first time we spoke? What a wonderful coincidence. Anyway, I'm plugging away at improving the article and thank you so much for your suggestions! I'm fond of history, too, and I'm glad you're still here. Willow (talk) 16:58, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC. There's been a lot of work on this article since I started the FAR, and I'm glad to say that all my concerns have been addressed. A number of references have been added, and most of the places without citations can probably be justified as being, for purposes of this article, uncontroversial. The remaining issues that I pointed out have either been resolved or convincingly determined not to be issues at all. Thanks to all (particularly WillowW – I'm glad to see that you're back in the saddle) for your work on getting this article spruced up. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Extraordinary Writ and everyone else who's been contributing! For my part, I'll continue to augment the article — hopefully without damaging it — since I daresay it's not yet as good as it could be; all are welcome to join in. :) Willow (talk) 05:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hog Farm: what issues are outstanding here from your perspective? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: - I'm having a lot of trouble trying to assess this. To be completely honest, I just simply am several rungs in math education below where this concept is levelled. I see above that this is likely something in a graduate-level physics course, and while I have a bachelor's degree its in accounting and I've learned nothing even close to this. I can tell you that there's a source (Hall) in the further reading that is used multiple times and needs formatted as a ref, and that the non-English sources should probably state what language they're in. I just don't understand the article well enough beyond that, and don't feel confident even trying to comment on most of this article. Hog Farm Talk 03:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC - it's been over a month since this was opened, the FAR nominator states their concerns have been addressed, and no other major concerns have been brought up since. I can't assess the content well, but with no issues really outstanding and enough time for anything to be brought up, this is probably fine. Hog Farm Talk 22:17, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed[edit]

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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [3].

Cyclura nubila[edit]

Notified: Mike Searson, WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, WikiProject Caribbean, WikiProject Cuba, 05-08-2021

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has an extensive further reading section, which can be incorporated into the article. There are no post-2011 sources, and a Google Scholar search produced some recent sources that might be included, and there might be others if an extensive search of other databases is conducted. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that chunks of this article may be dated.

  • "The population on the US Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay has been estimated at 2,000 to 3,000 individuals," - three sources, most recent is 2005
  • "The population on Cayman Brac is less than 50 of these animals and Little Cayman supports 1,500. A feral population of C. n. caymanensis has been established on Grand Cayman" - source is from 2004
  • " As of 2000, there has been talk of removing or relocating this population of iguanas by the US Department of Interior. This feral population is the source for 90% of the captive Cuban iguanas held in private collections" - bizarrely, the source for something being "as of 2000" appears to actually be from 1998.
  • "Researchers on Isla Magueyes observed a single episode of cannibalism in 2006 when an adult female iguana chased, caught, and ate a hatchling" - source is from 2006, more about cannabilism in this species may be known by now.

The description content looks like it has good bones, but this is going to require a top-to-bottom workthrough to make sure that everything is up to date. Hog Farm Talk 16:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2021 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [4].

Cheadle Hulme[edit]

Notified: User talk:Majorly, WP:UKGEO, WP:CITY, WP:MANC diff for talk page notification

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because per the past talk page notice and the discussion when it was on the main page, it is not comprehensive and is missing sources, has self-published sources and the stats are out of date Bumbubookworm (talk) 03:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2021 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC) [5].

Making Waves (TV series)[edit]

Notified: Bradley0110, WikiProject Television, talk page notification 2021-04-08

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does fails different criterias for a Featured Article. The lede alone looks to fail 2.a as it looks so bare. Also the Plot and Characters section does not have any sources behind it, which they may need to GamerPro64 03:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close as it was nominated only a week after talk page notification when, according to instructions, you should wait two-to-three weeks or more after the notification to nominate. While this is a 2007 FA nomination that needs to be checked, I'm not noticing anything major, as the length is expected for a show that lasted for a few episodes and one season (although I haven't researched to see if there's any unused coverage to know how comprehensive the article is). Also, plot sections and characters generally don't need sources except for info that's up to subjective interpretation. There are, however, issues. Some citations have "[permanent dead link]" tags and could be archived, the lead is a little on the short side with nothing about its critical reception, and two reception sources are from unreliable tabloid newspapers; I generally wouldn't prohibit the use of tabloid sources for entertainment reviews, as these newspapers normally get in trouble for covering misinfo on more serious real-life issues, but I know more experienced FA reviewers would question it. Although the article definitely needs improvements, we must keep to FAR guidelines. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Place on Hold for one month, unless User:Bradley0110 indicates they have no intention of working on the deficiencies. GamerPro64, please follow the FAR instructions so as not to create extra work for Coords and reviewers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't really follow what the issues are here. Material like plot and characters that can be clearly verified by the show itself does not need to be sourced (so long as the show is still existent and published somehow), per MOS:PLOT's Because works of fiction are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source. Lead length is personal preference and this is within the band of acceptable range (this coming from someone who likes a much lengthier lead). But if you want it longer then how much work is it to bulk it up a bit yourself? The Daily Mirror removal is possibly necessary, as HumanxAnthro summarises well, but that doesn't require an FAR. A first read from top to bottom and skim of the references doesn't leave me with any particular urge to remove the gold star. Notice that the permanent dead links are not a problem because the references also work as references to the same articles in the print newspapers. — Bilorv (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there any indication that Sunday Mirror is any better source than Daily Mirror? It's looking like there's three citations that likely need to be replaced, although they only amount to two sentences between them. Hog Farm Talk 03:41, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I share the opinion of Bilorv. It doesn't hurt to have sources, but plot and cast and characters are basic facts verifiable by the show itself. It is standard practice to not include sources for a plot, and nothing in the cast and characters section strikes me as needing a secondary source. A sentence about the reception could be added to the lead as there is none currently. The Mirror sources should probably be replaced. Heartfox (talk) 03:07, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: After a quick skim, some concerns are the very short lede and single-sentence paragraphs that should be edited. The article only has 23 sources: Has anyone done a check for additional sources or reviews (perhaps in Newspapers.com)? I am willing to copyedit of the article if an editor will address questions/concerns that I have in the review. Please respond below if you are that expert! Z1720 (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to FARC This FAR has been open for a month and a half and there has been one bot edit to the article during that time. I think there are still concerns with this article, as I have outlined above. If an editor is willing to address the concerns, I'll withdraw my "Move to FARC" opinion. Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: There have been no edits to the article since late-April, concerns are still ongoing. Z1720 (talk) 13:39, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources are here, here, this is listed as reliable at WP:RSP, here, and someone who knows where to look better than me might find more. As thin as this article is, it's likely that those sources may be useful. And there's still the two blatantly unrelaible Sun sources. Delist for now unless someone steps up, but given that there have been no human edits as of when I write this since December 2020, I frankly don't think anyone cares. Hog Farm Talk 04:36, 30 July 2021 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [6].

Texas Tech University[edit]

Notified: Wordbuilder, Elred , Almosthonest06, WikiProject Big 12 Conference, WikiProject Texas, WikiProject Higher education, 28 April

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been maintained to standards. In places, it is outdated. Some info in the lede isn't repeated in the body (f.i. having over 25% of students identify as hispanic). There are problems with citations (heavy reliance on primary sources, sporadic uncited text) and citation formatting (all caps, bare urls). Depending on how deep the problems with outdatedness go, this might be salvable. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some editors were fixing up the article in mid-June, but work might have stalled. A quick skim reveals many uncited sentences at the end of paragraphs. "Online and regional learning programs" section should be expanded or merged with another section. Z1720 (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC Since this FAR was opened, there has been no significant effort to address these issues. ~ HAL333 21:16, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - the edits in June seem to have been primarily the removal of one particularly dated statistic and fixing a reference error. There are still significant amounts of dated statistics in the sections about Recent history, Academics, and Student life in particular, as well as elsewhere. Hog Farm Talk 21:28, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Is a featured article review opened with an eye toward improving an article to keep it featured or with an eye toward stripping the featured article status so there are fewer of these elite entries? With the former, editors would come together to improve the article and make it the best it can be, thus improving Wikipedia as a whole. With the latter, editors would merely talk about what's wrong with it and invest no time in correcting the deficiencies. While I worked with others to see this article elevated to featured status, I honestly don't care what becomes of it. I'm just trying to better understand this process. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work back then! With the hope of restoring it. When there are volunteers for the job, FAR regulars often help out to get it over the line. I think almost half of our core articles are significantly improved during a FAR, but that percentage drops off for more specialist topics. The accuracy of the FA symbol is sometimes an issue for me too: for sensitive topics we would not like to mislead our readers into thinking the information is vetted, when it hasn't been in a long time. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply and for helping me to better understand this process. →Wordbuilder (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 5 July 2021 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:46, 24 July 2021 (UTC) [7].

Duke University[edit]

Notified: Bluedog423, Tribe of Tiger, WikiProject Higher education

Review section[edit]

Myriad issues were raised at the talk page by RetiredDuke three months ago and do not appear to have gotten any engagement. They include excessive length and undue focus on certain areas, inadequate sourcing, and puffery. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answering to the ping; it seems like there's no one actively maintaining this article to FA standards. The Notable People section is a sprawling mess, the article's organization is lacking ("Duke Alumni Association" and "Duke Magazine" should not be their own sections, for instance), PROMO abound (why even the logos for the Medical School and Kunshan), and I've highlighted in Talk several instances where the text is not supported by the sources provided. Just now, as an exercise, I've focused on that Cultural groups on campus include the Asian Students Association... paragraph, and both organizations that I've randomly checked, Blue Devils United and Mi Gente, are not mentioned in the links provided. So I suspect there's some of "I'm familiar with this subject so I'll just edit it to my knowledge" going on, that needs to be thoroughly checked. RetiredDuke (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There seems to be some edits to this article; if those editors are willing to improve it, this article might be "kept". After a quick skim, some of my concerns include: too many images and MOS:SANDWICH happening throughout the article, some references are bare URLs or don't provide enough information, unsourced paragraphs, sections that are too short and WP:PROMO material that is not notable. I am willing to conduct a thorough copyedit if someone will respond to concerns I raise. Is that person you? Post below! Z1720 (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sdkb: Thanks for the ping; you woke me from my wiki slumber. I'm not up to date on current editing practices, but I can at least add a call out to User:jbmurray who might help again. Xsmith (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Xsmith; glad to have you back from the wikislumber haha! Essentially, featured article de facto standards have gotten more stringent since 2012, and Duke's page hasn't necessarily been maintained to standard, thus why we're here. If you or someone else goes through the objections above and at the talk page and tries to address them, there's a better chance of being able to save this. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delist: Nikkimaria did a major cleanup in mid-June, but concerns are still present in the article about unsources statements and too much detail. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2021 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC) [8].

England expects that every man will do his duty[edit]

Notified: Yomangani, Alansplodge, Woody, WP MILHIST, WP Heraldry and vexillology, WP UK, noticed in February

Review section[edit]

This 2004 promotion was last reviewed in 2006 and frankly isn't up to current standards. The lead is mainly background information, not a summary of the article contents. That background content is not in the body, which then pops up suddenly with Trafalgar going on, without any context besides the lead. There is also uncited text, as well as iffy web sources, such as the Flags of the World Website, a blogspot link, and wikiquote. This is fixable, but it's gonna need a good bit of attention. Hog Farm Talk 20:56, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oof, looks like a ton of work to do. I will make a background section for the background information in the lead.Blue Jay (talk) 14:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC) I made a background section and extended the prose a bit. As for the sources, I'm not really to sure what to do with them...Blue Jay (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:England_expects_that_every_man_will_do_his_duty#Confusion_over_wording? was brought up by ThoughtIdRetired. Given the poor sourcing, some uncited text, and the accuracy concerns, we're probably gonna have to let this one go unless a subject matter expert steps up. The sourcing issues will need attention from someone familiar with this topic. Hog Farm Talk 13:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include organization and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 5 July 2021 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC) [9].

Polar coordinate system[edit]

Notified: Mets501, WikiProject Mathematics, WikiProject Systems, Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, 2021-04-10

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are multiple uncited paragraphs throughout the article and the sources in "General references" should be consulted and used as references in the article or deleted. No major improvements have been posted since the notice was placed in April. Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing is indeed bad, with many paragraphs and entire sections unsourced. I also think that many sections are too much of the flavor of "here is a mass of equations" without any explanation what the equations are for, and that some of the sections are far from the central topic of the article. More than sourcing for the individual equations, what we need here is sourcing for why these are important aspects of polar coordinates (for instance: "Co-rotating frame", a piece of physics for which polar coordinates are convenient, but not actually about polar coordinates). Some sections that do belong are haphazardly organized: "complex numbers" really belongs together with the Cartesian coordinate conversions, and "Intersection of two polar curves" really belongs with "Polar equation of a curve". This looks more like C-class than FA to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I would love to assist in saving this rather ... ravaged article's FA status. Is there any sort of plan or task-list to follow? Knowing the answer is no, can we make one?

I should warn of my inexperience and lack of expertise, as I am, in fact, new to this sort of project. I merely hope that:

  1. I can execute others' instructions properly
  2. I am not speaking in an empty archive or something (re:inexperience)

Horsesizedduck (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Horsesizedduck: - @David Eppstein: can probably speak to this a little better than me, but essentially this needs a complete overhaul on the sourcing from somebody who is both very familiar with higher math and familiar with the WP:FACR criteria for sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 04:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's nothing in the subject matter preventing it from reaching that standard, and the expertise required is not that high compared with many mathematics topics, but it needs a lot of work (which I don't have time for this week, at least) and I don't think the time pressure of getting it all done within the period of the FAR is helpful. It's not like some other FARs I've seen where the bones of the article are strong and it just needs a little plastering over with better referencing. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein:@Hog Farm: I'm willing to do as I can, and I have some mathematical knowledge, but I am somewhat disconnected to the use of sources: I simply don't own most books mentioned and don't have access to the articles. That said, I notice there are segments of the article that swerve off-topic, and I can help with those. Most of all, it may be imperative to involve more people in this process. Horsesizedduck (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Horsesizedduck: Removing the off-topic material is a great start. Additional sources are at Google Scholar, archive.org, and WP:LIBRARY. Other editors might come and help edit the article, but it is more likely that you will be the only one doing the majority of edits. The FAR coordinators are willing to keep articles on hold as long as improvements are ongoing. Z1720 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I feel like I must recommend that the article lose its FA status. I'm more than willing to continue spending time on it, but, as it stands, the article does not deserve to keep its stripes while I presumably take ages to iron it out. Horsesizedduck (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 5 July 2021 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:28, 17 July 2021 (UTC) [10].

Mackinac Island[edit]

Notified: Mr.Z-man, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, WikiProject Michigan, WikiProject Scouting, diff for talk page notification

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because more than 2 months ago, RD posted the following on the talk page

This older Featured Article does not meet the current FA criteria. There are several unsourced paragraphs, the "notable people" section is almost completely unsourced, and I could find trivia in the article. Virtually all links are from 2007/8. The sourcing seems weak for a Featured Article; for instance mightymac.org and grandhotel.com seem promotional and not high-quality. Article needs work and I see similar concerns directly above.

Issues are still present in the article with minimal editing since then so here we are. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2021 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC) [11].

History of Baltimore City College[edit]

Notified: Bcc07, Golem88991, WikiProject Maryland/Baltimore task force, WikiProject Schools, WikiProject History, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, 08-04-2021

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article needs to be updated with post-2008 events, the lede needs a severe trim, and MOS:SANDWICHING needs to be fixed. Z1720 (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include currency and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 26 June 2021 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:29, 17 July 2021 (UTC) [12].

Mount St. Helens[edit]

Notified: Mav, Astro-Tom-ical, User talk:Hike395, Hydrogen Iodide, dscos WP Geology, WP Mountains, WP NRHP, WP United States, WP Volcanoes, Climbing, 2021-01-03

Review section[edit]

This FA, last reviewed in 2006, has both a good bit of uncited text, and does not seem to be complete. The article does not discuss plant/animal life on the mountain, which seems relevant, and does not state if any further geological activity from the volcano is expected. Also, at least on my system, there is massive MOS:SANDWICH issues with images thrown in there haphazardly. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme - some easy to fix things:

  • Some images have no alt= text
  • inconsistent use of nbsp; between St. and Helens.
  • inappropriate capitalisation in heading "Importance to Indigenous Tribes"
    • Fixed
  • External links may need to be converted to references that support extra text.
  • The science external link has a DOI 10.1126/science.aad7392 and author Eric Hand
  • The link for "Mount St. Helens photographs and current conditions" does not appear to go that that topic, instead redirects to Cascades Volcano Observatory.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2021 (UT Thanks for quick response

  • reference 9 "Mount St. Helens at 35". has author Kathryn Hansen, but what is on that page now claims to be Aug 7, 2017 (after retrieval, so does it still confirm?)
    • Fixed -- image removed, so reference no longer used. — hike395 (talk)
  • Reference 21 has author Donal R. Mullineaux; DOI 10.3133/pp1563 and year 1996
  • reference 31 "Rock Slab Growing at Mt. St. Helens Volcano". has "others" cs1 maint error

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC) Missing topics due to see also[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:18, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I like these old featured articles, this article feels more like a GA than an FA to me. I will do some fixing:

  • Images trimmed and sent to Commons gallery. MOS:SANDWICH problem fixed.
  • Alt text added for remaining images
  • nbsp; added for all uses of St. and Helens
@Ceranthor: we could use some of your FA magic here, if you're free to help out! — hike395 (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hike395 please remove the done templates and properly thread your responses without templates; templates are not used at FAC and FAR as they cause template limit problems, and responses should always be threaded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, fixed. — hike395 (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Started section on ecology, including disturbance ecology and biological legacies. Started section on future hazards. Both of these sections can be fleshed out further (either by me or other authors). — hike395 (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, there has been some engagement since the nomination, but the issues are extensive and are largely unaddressed. Moving to FARC does not preclude that improvements may happen, but it's not looking promising. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: --- could you kindly list more of the extensive issues? I addressed all of the comments from Graeme, and added (some) material re ecology and future hazards, which Hog Farm thought was lacking. I can certainly do more research and add more material on ecology, but if you think there are other large problems, I'd rather spend my limited WP time addressing those. — hike395 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do (not quite yet, busy), but as this FAR is getting lengthy, I will probably start a section on article talk. Lengthy back and forth on FAR just makes a mess for the Coords to read, when all they really need is a summary of where things stand. If you want something to work on while you wait for me,
  • huge portions of the article remain uncited, and
  • anytime you see a US government website as a source, that citation should include a date. They are frequently updated, and our articles need to reflect those updates. There are considerable dated sources used here (and the dates of the versions used aren't even given)
  • make sure ALL information is current.
These three alone will keep an editor quite busy for quite a while. If these are completed, pls ping me to the article talk, where I will continue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to delay closing of the FARC? Ceranthor, who has a proven track record of writing FAs about Cascade volcanoes, is interested in taking this up, but will not be available for ~1 month. — hike395 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hike395: The FAR coordinators are willing to hold articles in FAR with ongoing work or discussion. I've seen some last way longer than a month before. Hog Farm Talk 19:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time for more work on this --- I'm leaving it to Ceranthor, who is quite skilled at FAs for Cascade volcanoes. Hopefully they have time now? — hike395 (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I think I should be able to get to this starting this week. ceranthor 00:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hurray!! — hike395 (talk)

Something I noticed while taking a look at this article is that the introduction is too small for its size. Most volcano articles of this size with FA status have a lead section that is at least three or four paragraphs long. Volcanoguy 15:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of extending on the prose, and I'm planning for it to be 4 paragraphs. Blue Jay (talk) 05:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Coropuna and Newberry Volcano as examples. Volcanoguy 16:19, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the images are missing alt texts. Volcanoguy 18:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, hoping to revamp the ecology and future hazards sections this coming week and copyedit as I go. ceranthor 12:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on progress so far?Blue Jay (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting on replacing old sources with new sources. Blue Jay (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I haven't been able to contribute, so I would be ok with closing it at this time. I do intend to fix up this article eventually, but right now is tough for me personally. ceranthor 20:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was extremely busy with many things, and I had to deal with some issues in my personal life. Hopefully I can get back to improving this article.Blue Jay (talk) 12:21, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another paragraph to the prose, and replaced a couple more sources. I hope I could find more sources soon. Blue Jay (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:31, 26 June 2021 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC) [13].

B movie[edit]

Notified: Nominator is inactive, User:DCGeist was a frequent contributor but is now banned, WikiProject Film, 2021-04-28

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this article (a 2007 promotion) for featured article review for multiple reasons:

  • The elephant in the room in this article's length, and it was brought up the first time this article was nominated for review. It is way WP:TOOBIG, with sections filling it with content as if there were no other articles to place them in. We have other B-movie subtopic articles to put this stuff in (B movies (Hollywood Golden Age), B movies in the 1950s, B movies (exploitation boom), Midnight movie and so on), and we're probably gonna need more.
  • Adding to the length issue (as well as making this article at odds with 4 of the FA criteria) is content that is only tangentially related, particularly its excessive summaries of the state of the film industry in each era. Examples:
    • "By 1990, the cost of the average U.S. film had passed $25 million.[155] Of the nine films released that year to gross more than $100 million at the U.S. box office, two would have been strictly B-movie material before the late 1970s: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Dick Tracy. Three more—the science-fiction thriller Total Recall, the action-filled detective thriller Die Hard 2, and the year's biggest hit, the slapstick kiddie comedy Home Alone—were also far closer to the traditional arena of the Bs than to classic A-list subject matter.[156]")" If the article is going to talk about how major studios impacted the possibility of lower-budget movies being made and released, it should stay focused on that.
    • How does bringing up which people led certain major studios per era add to the topic?
  • There is content in the lead not summarized in the article. Putting Karen Black, Bela Lugosi and other actor names in a word search feature shows that those names only appear one time in the article (in the lead); that should tell you something.
  • Info like this needs citing: "A B movie or B film is a low-budget commercial motion picture that is not an arthouse film."

Simply put, the article is a unnavigable mess. On the positive side, much of the content is cited with professional high-quality book sources, but the issues above are too significant not for this to be reviewed. I suspect what should be in this article and what should be split would be up for long debate, so I think it'll need more time and work for this to be FA quality, and I mean lots of it. 👨x🐱 (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include length and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:58, 15 June 2021 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC) [14].

Paul Stastny[edit]

Notified: Maxim, Serte, WikiProject Biography/Sports and games, WikiProject Olympics, WikiProject Ice Hockey, Noticed 2021-03-14

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because the "Career" section needs to be summarized (specifically the Colorado Avalanche section), the "Style of play" section does not cite sources published post-2007, and there are some statements that need citations. Edits have not been made to the article since it was noticed. Z1720 (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree with this re-review and will be working to improve it. Not only does the Avalanche section need work but his ~4 season St. Louis Blues career is discussed in one paragraph! It definitely needs a lot of work on the more recent section but I believe I have added sources for everything.HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to acknowledge that I've seen this FAR. I don't have a particularly strong motivation or interest to work in the topic area. That said, I'm very glad to see that HickoryOughtShirt?4 has taken an interest in the article. Maxim(talk) 13:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked on a few FAs recently. This is a good article but not quite up to FA standards at the moment. There are a number of bare references and CS1 maintenance errors which I'm happy to sort out for you. There's one permanently dead link. Those are the things I've noticed on first pass through but I'll have a closer look today, make a few edits, and post my comments here. Rodney Baggins (talk) 11:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a few improvements to the article. There are some MOS:NUMBER and MOS:DUPLINK errors that I can fix, as well as CS1 parameter fixes. In the meantime, please see my comments on Talk page. Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for my part, I'm a lot happier with it now and would consider it to be back up to FA standard. I might do a bit more copyediting in the Avalanche section but nothing drastic. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article has seen drastic improvements by multiple editors. I think the Colorado Avalanche section could use another trim and copyedit. The Style and play section still needs to be updated. Perhaps there is commentary on his playstyle in news reports when he was traded or signed with a new team, as reports might comment on why the team traded him away or what skills and technique he will bring to the new club. Please ping me when improvements are finished and I will give a copyedit. Z1720 (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Rodney Baggins and Z1720: Have these last issues been sorted out? Are we at a point now where we'd be looking to close? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Style of play" section has not been updated yet and the Colorado Avalanche section still needs a trim. There have been no edits to the article since your last update request. Z1720 (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, coverage and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: Minimal edits since its move to FAR, still concerns about updating the "Style of play" section. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Am I the only one who considers it somewhat that his high school MSHSAA stats are included in the career statistics table? It's rare that high school stats are that significant IMO. Hog Farm Talk 01:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Didn't want to have to suggest delisting here, but this has been silent for most of two months, and there's some issues yet. A non-exhaustive sampling will follow below
    • "Stastny's play was one of the reasons the Avalanche experienced their best run of the season towards the end" - is sourced to single-game box score, which is very poor sourcing for a statement like that
    • I'm concerned that there's some significant weighting issues here. 2007/8 and 2008/9 are discussed in great detail, while the 10/11 season in particular is barely even mentioned. Or for that matter, the 13/14 season which is only describe with the trade deadline stuff
    • "He scored a goal and an assist in a 6–5 loss to the Nashville Predators" - the table says that he scored 4 goals and had 9 assists on the season for Winnipeg, what makes these specifically important enough to mention over the others?
    • The newest source in the style of play section is from 2008, at the very beginning of his NHL career, suggesting significant problems with datedness.
    • The lead barely mentions the latter half of his career at all

So while this didn't look to be in bad shape at a first glance, I am very concerned about what seem to be significant issues with the lead, style of play section, and the overall weighting of the article. Hog Farm Talk 03:45, 21 June 2021 (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/July_2021&oldid=1036368433"