Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAR)
Jump to: navigation, search
Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Raise issues at article Talk:

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. For articles on the Unreviewed Featured Articles list, no more than three nominations per week and twelve per month.
  2. For all other articles, one nomination at a time per nominator, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Save page".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews[edit]

Gwen Stefani[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Gwen Stefani, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject Punk music, WikiProject Fashion, WikiProject California, WikiProject Southern California, WikiProject Women

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been over nine years since the article passed for FA (this is what it looked like at the time) and it isn't up to par. Here is how it currently compares against the FA criteria:

First series of resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • No. Problems include (but are not limited to) how "descent, and worked as an accountant before becoming a housewife" is an incomplete sentence, "Hit" is too informal, and "The albums third single" is missing an apostrophe. It might help to integrate "Early life", "Career", and "personal life" into one "Life and career" section seeing to it that all her mentioned partners were in some way involved with her professional career.
Yes check.svg Done I don't agree with combining "Personal life" elsewhere, but I did integrate "Early life" and "Career" per your suggestion, and fixed the errors mentioned previously on August 30. Carbrera (talk) 00:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • I wouldn't say so. There's no discussion of the themes of her solo work, and the "Artistry" section lacks any detail on her most recent album This Is What the Truth Feels Like.
@SNUGGUMS: I added details regarding the third album, but where would you suggest adding themes during the "Career" section or the "Artistry" section? Just wondering, thanks. Carbrera (talk) 23:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Themes are best for artistry section Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:10, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Added themes and details about This Is What the Truth Feels Like; finished on August 15. Carbrera (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
  • Not exactly. Dead links need to be fixed, statements like" In 2010, they resumed writing their record, which was later recorded in 2011", and "The track debuted and peaked at #80 on the Billboard Hot 100 chart", and "Kuukuu Harajuku will be distributed worldwide by DHX Media" are missing citations, and there are subpar sources like "Breathe Heavy", "That Grape Juice", The Sun, and Us Weekly.
Dead links have either been archived or removed/replaced on August 25. Carbrera (talk) 04:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Bad sources have been removed and replaced, statements missing citations have been fixed, and once again, dead links have either been archived or removed/replaced. Carbrera (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • "Notably" in "notably appearing on the cover" is a subjective description. Same with "were more natural and better described where she was in her life".
Yes check.svg Done Removed on August 4th. Carbrera (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
  • Nothing of concern.
Yes check.svg Done Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • Almost. While the main No Doubt article's lead should obviously have more detail than the one here, it would help to discuss some of her work with the band here given Gwen's success with them.
Yes check.svg Done Definitely fixed! Carbrera (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • Looks fine to me.
Yes check.svg Done Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)
  • Far from it. Lots of citations use company owners when their inclusion is largely deprecated. Many are also malformatted (i.e. "Billboard Magazine" should read simply "Billboard" in italics, "E! Online" should just read "E!" without italics, and "" should read "MTV" or "MTV News").
@SNUGGUMS:, could you further explain "lots of citations use company owners when their inclusion is largely deprecated"? I'm afraid I don't understand exactly what you're getting at here. Carbrera (talk) 05:06, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
It seems that another user fixed much if it here. What I'm saying is that there are citations that include a work as well as the company that owns said work (i.e. Viacom owns MTV, Prometheus Global Media owns Billboard), and that we don't tend to include the companies that own them within citations these days. Snuggums (talk / edits) 05:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done
  • 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
Yes check.svg Done Removed both images on August 4th. Carbrera (talk) 04:36, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • There isn't really any need to mention mere Grammy noms when there are already Grammy wins mentioned, and they certainly don't belong in "Artistry".
Yes check.svg Done Removed on August 5, 2016. Carbrera (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

While not necessarily doomed, this will definitely need work to retain its FA status. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:51, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll be working on this too now. Expect fixes very soon. Carbrera (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC).
@SNUGGUMS: Shouldn't these issues have first been mentioned at the article's talk page? According to FAR procedure, the first step involves "attempt[ing] to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article" on the article's talk page without listing it on the page of FAR nominations. This article skipped that step altogether and was brought to the second step, a.k.a the review nomination. Carbrera (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I did leave comments here a while ago, and the sourcing seems to improved somewhat between then and when I started the FAR, but not enough to be on par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:37, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity; SNUGGUMS, would you ever be interested in addressing any of the article's issues? Thanks. Carbrera (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Far too little time for that I'm afraid :/ Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:29, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Apart from the sourcing, what other issues do you feel are outstanding? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Second series of resolved comments from SNUGGUMS

Looking through again, this has for sure improved. Here are some things I notice from a glance:

  • The lead should include genres of her solo work
Yes check.svg Done Genres were already included but I spruced it up a bit since a previous user kind of removed what I had originally intended. Carbrera (talk) 20:49, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • "hit" in "hit singles" is too informal
Yes check.svg Done Removed.
Yes check.svg Done Removed.
  • "At the 2005 Grammy Awards, Stefani was nominated for Best Female Pop Vocal Performance for "What You Waiting For?", and at the next year's awards, Stefani received five nominations for Album of the Year, Record of the Year, Best Female Pop Vocal Performance, Best Pop Vocal Album, and Best Rap/Sung Collaboration"..... seems like a bit much if she didn't win those and we already discuss Grammy wins; let's not overfocus on Grammys here
Yes check.svg Done Removed.
  • There's no discussion in the article body of her upcoming voice role in Trolls or the songs she contributed to its soundtrack
Yes check.svg Done Added.
  • I'm not so sure people she influenced belongs in "Artistry", though I certainly am not against mentioning such influence within the article entirely
@SNUGGUMS: Where else would you suggest the artists she influenced? I'm afraid I can't think of a better section than here. This is the last issue I believe needs to be resolved from your second round of comments. Your first round have been taken care of accordingly. :) Carbrera (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
That sort of thing more often tends to be included in a section on one's legacy/impact. Madonna, Justin Timberlake, and Lady Gaga's articles all have good examples of what the structure of such a section should be like. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:42, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

If things improve, we'll see where this can stand. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: I have now finished any edits to the page. I've had to kinda put it on the back-burner due to my schedule lately, but I am glad to say that I think I am done now. Feel free to take another glance at it. Thank you. Carbrera (talk) 22:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Third series of resolved comments from SNUGGUMS
Sorry to nitpick so much, but here's what I find when looking through the refs again:
  • Use MDY date formats per MOS:DATE since this is an American subject
  • The "" ref shouldn't have Vogue along with it; just use one work name or the other
  • Not so sure "E! News" should be italicized, but you either way need be consistent on whether you use that or just "E!" and only link it in first ref used
  • Only link Slant Magazine in its first use (ref#22)
  • AOL-affiliated sources tend to be subpar, so maybe try to find something better than AOL Music Canada
  • Remove "Hung Medien" from the Ultratop refs since use of parent companies for refs is largely deprecated when work is already included
  • Remove "Warner Bros" from the Extra ref; same rationale as the Ultratip refs
  • Be consistent on whether you capitalize the "D" in ""
  • Italicize The Washington Post
  • Ref#57 only has a title with no work or accessdate parameters; big problem
  • Not sure if Associated Press should be mentioned within ref#90 unless as an author parameter
  • Link Animation World Network without italics
  • What makes this a good source?
  • ref#97 should read ""
  • Try to get something better than Twitter
  • Something much better than Huffington Post is needed, particularly for something like dating life
  • "Tribune Company" shouldn't be included in the Chicago Tribune ref; see previous rationale on Extra and Ultratop
  • Blender shouldn't have "Alpha Media Group" in its ref; same reasoning as above
  • For ref#90, "The Canadian Press" should be where "CTV" currently is, and author is Victoria Ahearn
  • "VICE" should link to Vice (magazine) and not be fully capitalized
  • Since 34th Street Magazine is part of The Daily Pennsylvanian (TDP), something more professional is needed since TDP is a student newspaper
  • I'll assume good faith that ref's 94 and 95 are credible, but they both need to be complete with titles, work names, authors, and dates
  • Be consistent on whether you use "Pitchfork" or Pitchfork Media", and only link in the first ref used (ref#47)
  • ref#98 just links to a general home page, and Hello! isn't a very good source to use anyway
  • Is "Fashionista" any good?
  • Zimbio isn't exactly the best of sources
  • Location isn't needed for ref#173
  • Please tell me how this is supposed to be any good
  • I'm sure you can find something better than MySpace
  • "Popsugar" is by no means an ideal ref
  • "Toledo Blade" → The Blade
  • InStyle is one word, not two
  • Daily Mail is a very poor source, particularly for a BLP
  • "" is a dubious reference
  • Is "Rekwired" reliable? I've never heard of it and don't know how usable that is.
  • Not that Digital Spy is the worst, but it isn't something I would recommend for an FA; let's find something stronger
  • I'm pretty sure "Interscope Records" belongs in the author paramter for the PR Newswire press release (ref#169) if anyway
  • This might seem like a lot, but it's needed for this to be FA-worthy. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: Done again. Thanks as always. You keep me on my toes. :) Carbrera (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm known to do that sort of thing :P. I'll look through this again later to see if there's any other major concerns. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
  • After looking through again, I can't find any major issues. Serious kudos for all the improvements! Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • One last thing: while not exactly major, I just noticed now that all tours should be mentioned (and of course cited) within article body; merely listing them in "tours" section isn't enough. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: I meant to ping you about this yesterday: I added it. :) Carbrera (talk) 21:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • From what I can tell, that makes this good enough to keep as FA. Might not even need FARC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:47, 13 September 2016 (UTC)


Notified: JorisvS, Drbogdan, PlanetStar, ‎Astredita,‎ Kevin Nelson, WikiProject Astronomy

This article no longer appears to meet criteria 1, 2b, 2c or 4 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are several very short sections and paragraphs consisting of single sentences; some sections are merely lists of individual miscellanea. The table of contents is too extensive, and the citations are not formatted consistently. For an article that should be written in summary style, it is over-long with too many individual specific examples that should be summarized to give a more general picture. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This article about the now major astronomy topic deserves it once we address these issues, like expanding short sections and summarizing it. PlanetStar 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@PlanetStar: Please note that "keep" and "delist" are only used in FARC (removal candidates) and not here in FAR (review). As noted above, "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them." From a quick glance, it does in fact look like it's much too long. If it can be condensed adequately without removing anything essential, I think it has a good chance at staying featured. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"Relativistic beaming – Relativistic beaming measures the observed flux from the star due to its motion. The brightness of the star changes as the planet moves closer or further away from its host star." Is this name correct? I thought relativistic beaming was for matter moving at near light speed. It might be better to use 'Doppler beaming' unless this use of 'Relativistic' can be confirmed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Both terms are used, as well as others. The effect is very small even for close-in planets. The description in the article is poor, though. Lithopsian (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay yes, I found one instance that used the term in the context of a planet,[1] compared to many using "doppler beaming". Praemonitus (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
More generally - I see that some work has started to improve the article, but I'm struggling to see how it will be brought back to FA level. As DrKay describes, the problems go far beyond simply being too long. I guess give it a little time and see how it goes. Lithopsian (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: As a suggestion, the planet article tree can (and does) cover many of these topics. This article should focus on aspects specific to exoplanets: a high level discovery history plus the various detection methods, observation techniques, and nomenclature. Elements of the article that are highly dynamic, such as new discoveries, should be spun off to a child article, leaving just a summary here. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

There are quite a few minor issues to fix

  • There are some references where the title is all caps. (or other bits all caps) These should be changed. refs 91 144 165 196 201 207 Fixed x6   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • reference 8 claims to have invalid bibcode Not fixed Bibcode OK. Per Help:CS1 errors#bad bibcode, digits will be allowed in positions 6–8 at the next code update.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  19:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • reference 228 has lower case "kepler" — should this be upper case? Fixed (Kepler M-dwarfs)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 183 time not needed Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • not fixed Actually fixed this time   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 174 has "world★" with bonus "★" that should get stripped Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 150 looks to be deformed and missing stuff: Astronomers Find a New Type of Planet: The "Mega-Earth" date=June 2, 2014 authors=HARVARD-SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS (but in lower case) Fixed (used the 2 authors listed at bottom of source and publisher=H-S CfA)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 146 looks as if it would be a journal article, but may only be a web page. full date=6 January 2014 Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 145 missing most info "Probabilistic Forecasting of the Masses and Radii of Other Worlds" Jingjing Chen, David M. Kipping 29 Mar 2016 Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 149 is confusing, it seems you go to a page then click a piece of text to view a video. But what is "22:59"? It looks like a time or duration. Fixed ({{cite video}})   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 88 "01.17.96 – Discovery of two new planets -- the second and third within the last three months -- proves they aren't rare in our galaxy" needs information and formatting author=Robert Sanders date=17 January 1996. Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 79 "NameExoWorlds" is missing info, date=30 November 2015 publisher=IAU Fixed (& surrounding refs)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 79 clearly states "Updated on Nov 30, 2015" but you have added "July 2014" (should we use the current one or the version as retrieved when the article was written?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
      • (now ref #76) Using the version as retrieved makes more sense to me since it's talking about a 1-time event (the start of NameExoWorlds), so having a 2015 date for a 2014 event seems counter intuitive. The only problem is that the earliest entry is 15 Aug 2015, which prevents the next logical step of assigning a correct |archive-url=.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 60 Kepler telescope bags huge haul of planets is missing date=26 February 2014 author=Jonathan Amos, publisher=BBC News Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 59 missing publisher and retrieval date (perhaps many are) Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 45 Peter van de Kamp has an article, but do we need to author link when there is one in the page already? Fixed by someone else (I would have opted to keep it in, since someone might not see the prose-link while looking at the refs; will leave as-is)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 39 how about finding an online link for "On the Infinite Universe and Worlds"? And given that this was titled De l'infinito universo et mondi to start with, the quote is probably a translation, but from where? Fixed (now ref 36)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  20:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 4 is missing info. Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 203 " Patterns of Sunlight on Extra-Solar Planets" no publisher Fixed ({{cite web}})   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 191 "Astronomers May Have Found Volcanoes 40 Light-Years From Earth" missing info Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • " life as we know it" incorrect style Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  22:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "wasn't available" incorrect style Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "vs." should not be abbreviated in a title or text. Not fixed I don't see this mentioned in WP:MOS, and the MOS uses vs. in text.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • strange unicode in "V 391" ref 72 Not sure I can't find it it, and I don't remember fixing it. Is it still there? The only "weird" character I see is Ø, which isn't causing me any problems. (now ref #69)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It was between the V and 391. Perhaps it was thin space, but I have changed it to normal space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • upper-case or uppercase - choose one spelling. Fixed (uppercase)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • triple-star or triple star — choose one style Fixed (triple star, per Star system)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • time-scale or timescale - choose one spelling Fixed (timescale, the prevailing usage)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Super-Earth(s) or Super-earth(s) should Earth have a capital letter? and should it be in quotes:'super-Earth'? (I like caps version best) Fixed (super-Earth, per Super-Earth)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • spin-orbit or spin–orbit (perhaps n dash versus hyphen) Fixed (spin–orbit, prevailing & per Tidal locking)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • RJup is used as a unit without explanation (or non breaking space). Probably it is radius of Jupiter. Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In ref 57 a name appears here as Pr Sa, but originally listed in the journal as Andrej Prˇsa, also listed as Prsa, very likely should actually read "Prša".[2] Fixed Prša per pmid & IAU.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • planets' or planets' (I can't tell the difference in these) Not fixed Identical; all 3 instances use ascii 39 (keyboard apostrophe).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 67 and 163 are the same Rodler, F.; Lopez-Morales, M. (fix this last so as not to mess up the ref #s here) Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Should "non-linear" be "nonlinear"? Fixed (nonlinear)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • NASA’s or NASA's (different apostrophes) Fixed (straightened)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • maximum-masses should have no hyphen Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mass‐Radius or Mass-Radius (used in reference names so should not be an issue) Fixed (both titles currently use keyboard hyphens, per their respective bibcodes & dois)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Lopez-Morales also appears as López-Morales Not sure what to do; both are correct per their respective sources (I'm tempted to not consider this a problem).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "isn't" should not be used Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thomas N. Gautier III's ordinal incorrectly appears as Iii in ref70 Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • hydrogen-helium or hydrogen–helium or H–He? Pick one of the three. Fixed (hydrogen–helium, per List of planet types & Helium planet   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In ref 151 "Harps-N" should read HARPS-N Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • link G-type star on first use Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 201 non standard date format FEB Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • extrasolar or extra-solar Not fixed All (minority) instances of extra-solar are in titles.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • exoplanet’s or exoplanet's Fixed (straightened (except in filenames))   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • should equilibriums be equilibria? Fixed (equilibria)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia is excessively linked, and is this the same as Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia? Fixed (and yes, also fixed)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • disc or disk? Fixed (disc -> disk, 1 non-title instance)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 1-planet and 2-planet should be one-planet and two-planet Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • °F is used in one spot. Perhaps it should be dropped, or used in the other places with °C Fixed °C-to-°F replaced with °C-to-K.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • None of the images has alt= text, which should differ from the caption and describe what is in the picture, for those who cannot see the image. On hold I've never paid attention to alt text. Can you (or anyone here) point me to a good example-page, and I'll attempt to apply it? Just found WP:ALTTEXT & will apply it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Fixed All images have been assigned alt text to the best of my ability.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Tom.Reding: please let me do the striking of my own issues! which I will do when I have checked the issue is addressed. Then I know what I have checked or not checked. Thanks for the corrections so far. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Graeme Bartlett, oops... Sorry about that (I thought it was a just a formatting preference). I'll unstrike my new posts from today.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Lithopsian[edit]

The lead is, apart from being rather long, almost impossible to read because it is crammed full of inline citations. My understanding is that an FA should comprehensively address all the points that are summarised in the lead, making citations in the lead entirely unnecessary. If that were done here, the lead would be a lot more manageable and appear shorter even without having fewer words. Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to do this, but I hope someone else does (so page watchers know I don't plan on doing everything).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is too long. Citations don't make it hard to read in the final text. But the sentences in parenthesis make it hard to read. If we can turn these into flowing text it will be clearer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Fixed(?) Graeme Bartlett's suggestion by incorporating the longer parantheticals into the surrounding text. The remaining parantheticals are now only 2 words each.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
At least until Fdfexoex reverted it. And JorisvS fixed it. Thanks :) (didn't see that until later)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
More generally, the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article. It most definitely is not that. Praemonitus (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


Artistic views should be removed, and the intro should have one of the actual pictures of an imaged exoplanet. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Covent Garden[edit]

Notified: SilkTork, WikiProject London

This article is scheduled to be featured on the main page on 30 June, but it's a complete mess. The introduction is five paragraphs long and comprises a mix of tourist guide-style material and an extended paraphrase of a single source detailing the history of the area; the history section, which should and sometimes does have that information, is poor; the geography and landmarks sections are completely tangled, again frequently containing material that should be classed as history; the rest of the article is a hodgepodge of trivia and unnecessary detail: the stage of the Royal Opera House is roughly 15 metres square, the collection of the Transport Museum had previously been held at Syon Park and Clapham, The Harp has been owned by the landlady since 2010. Et cetera, et cetera. The writing is of poor quality throughout, largely as a result of how disorganised the article is. Here's an example: Platform access is only by lift or stairs; until improvements to the exit gates in 2007, due to high passenger numbers (16 million annually), London Underground had to advise travellers to get off at Leicester Square and walk the short distance (the tube journey at less than 300 yards is London's shortest) to avoid the congestion. The reader of this article, once they get their breath back after trying to read that in one go, will recall that the 300 yard factlet had already been presented to them irrelevantly in the introduction. It's not worth trying to scrub through this piece and spot and fix the issues in time for it to be featured again; this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting before it goes anywhere near the main page.  — Scott talk 22:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Since FAR generally requires more warning than this on the article's talk page, I'm guessing this will be rejected at FAR ... but if anyone here has time, it would be great if you could offer opinions before June 30, regardless of what happens to the FAR. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I brought it directly here because the article has had barely any regular editors and is due to be featured so soon. If this incredibly bureaucratic process rejects it because of that, well... the less said about that, the better.  — Scott talk 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
      • You are also welcome (and recommended) to have a go at tightening the prose yourself ("Before nomination, ... Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article.") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
      • And btw, this hasn't actually been transcluded to WP:FAR, so it's just us chatting at the moment. And note that SilkTork said on his talk page that he'll be looking for problems over the next few days. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Oops. Done.  — Scott talk 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think a question we should answer sooner than later is whether it's salvageable in time for TFA or if that slot should be rescheduled. --Laser brain (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I haven't worked on this article for years, so all my notes are gone. I did have it watchlisted to keep it tidy, but took it off my watchlist some time ago. I think I last made an edit about a year ago. I am in the same position, therefore, as anyone else looking at the article, and would need to do the same things. Because of personal circumstances I rarely have the time or energy to spend long periods on Wikipedia, so my time here is random and uncertain. Sometimes I can spend a few days on an article, but rarely at a high level. It will mostly be obvious tidying up. I will take a look at Scott's concerns, though I would urge him in the meantime to get stuck in and do the copy-editing of that sentence he finds over-complex, and to sort the lead into a more acceptable number of paragraphs. Also, Scott, it would help those who are to work on the article if you could more clearly list the areas you feel need attention. You mention the number of paragraphs in the lead, one sentence that is over-long, and that you disagree with the arrangement and value of certain pieces of information, but in general your comment comes over as "I don't like this", rather more than helpful and constructive criticism. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong on almost every point. I would suggest not involving yourself in this any further, out of kindness to our readers.  — Scott talk 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more constructive, Scott? I have seen some minor areas of concern which I am addressing, but other than that you dislike the lead having X number of paragraphs, and one sentence was too complex to parse easily, you haven't given us much to work on. At this point I'm not seeing a valid reason for this "review", and from the timing, the carelessness, the mistakes, and the language, this simply seems disruptive. I am willing to work on the article to address concerns, and I have already done some tidying up, but I am not seeing the cause for concern. At this point the article is substantially as it was when it was accepted as featured, and is up to date with relevant changes to the area, and with current Wikipedia policies and procedures. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
"Disruptive"? That's Wikipedia Discussion Bingo! I'm out of here. Would say good luck, but luck has got absolutely nothing to do with where you're headed.  — Scott talk 20:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
OK. I've just had a quick look, and it does have areas of concern. Some sourced material has been removed, and some trivia and grammar mistakes inserted ("Covent Garden is a area in London..." is currently the opening sentence). It looks like the article has been fiddled out with since I last looked at it. I'll see what I can do. It may be best to roll it back to the last secure edit, and then look at what positive edits have been done since that date, and reinsert them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SilkTork asked me to comment. I would say roll it back to the version that passed FAC, or the most recent version that SilkTork is happy with, and see whether Scott still has the same concerns. SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Judging by Scott's comments I think that Scott sees Silktork's writing as part of the problem. I don't think we can have two parallel versions. My vote would be for looking at the current version as it is already being worked on. Fresh eyes are good, so will look later. Will be in transit for a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't see a problem with the writing. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Nor I. The version as it stands is pretty much the version that was passed, and several people were involved in copyediting at the time. There has been minor updating is all. Over the past few months, as I had taken it off my watchlist, some errors had been introduced, which I have now corrected. I have looked at the transport section and refined the information regarding the underground station, which now reads better, and I hope satisfies Scott. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Scope and Stability The main problem with the article is its scope, which is huge – hundreds of years of history and hundreds of notable buildings and businesses. This is an issue for FA status because featured articles are supposed to be complete. As an example, note that the article has a section about "Pubs and bars" but has nothing much about eating establishments such as restaurants. This district contains numerous notable restaurants including London's oldest restaurant, Rules, several incarnations of the Beefsteak Club and modern institutions such as The Ivy. I have written several articles about such places myself, including Food for Thought, Gaby's Deli, Hawksmoor and Old Slaughter's Coffee House.
It might be feasible to expand the article to include missing aspects such as this but we will then have the problem that FAs are supposed to be stable. The page currently has a banner tag saying that it "is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" and this indicates that it is not currently stable. I'm not especially bothered about such formalities myself and so will give the page some attention over the coming days, as it approaches the main page.
Andrew D. (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Some good points. I will take down the updating tag, as I don't think there is that much work to be done to justify the banner. And I will also look into those eating establishments you mention. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
To add to this, the article has 26 kb of readable prose as of this revision, so there is scope to add material, if we take 50 kb prose as a limit to article size. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think User:SilkTork has this well in hand. I wouldn't worry too much about what Scott thinks, especially as he seems to have walked away. Despite being an admin, he is a combative and prickly editor. When I remonstrated with him once for abusing his admin powers (threatening to block editors who disagreed with him) he simply removed my comment from his talk page. I suppose this is a COI, but I've tried to be objective when reading the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In para 2 of the lead, it opens with Though mainly fields until the 16th century, - which is confusing as it seems to contradict what comes next and is out of chronological order - I'd either remove it or move it along to appropriate time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You know, that has always troubled me slightly, but I've never done anything about it... until now! Thanks for the push. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have addressed concerns raised, and added a restaurant section as suggested. Where do we go from here? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been walking through the area with a view to making suggestions. There's history around every corner there. Walking down King Street, for example, at one end, by the Apple Store, there's a plaque commemorating the National Sporting Club. Down the other end is the original branch of Moss Bros which closed recently, alas. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm too busy currently to give this much attention. Perhaps it can be postponed a month or two. Andrew D. (talk)
  • Comment The process is that "The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage." We are just waiting for that to happen. There was no first stage, so usually the second stage is rejected. I think there was no rejection of this second stage because the article is scheduled for the main page, and it was felt appropriate to give it a look over. It has been looked over and the article has been cleared of recent errors, and has been updated and expanded along the lines suggested in the FAR. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Fighting in ice hockey[edit]

Notified: Mus Musculus, WikiProject Ice Hockey

I am nominating this featured article for review because I don't think this article meet the criteria anymore, like User:DrKiernan point out at the talk page more than 18 months ago, major source problems still not addressed, and there's several paragraphs with no footnotes at all, two [citation needed] didn't get any attention. --Jarodalien (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment – I'll have a look at the article over the weekend, with the aim of improving it. At a minimum, I'll make sure that the blacklisted sources disappear for good. Although I don't remember doing so, I took the Hockeyfights link out of the References section last year, but I missed the fact that the two tables in the body use it. Replacing them will be my highest priority, along with adding references. It looks like the other two sources mentioned on the talk page have already been removed from the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I can see Giants2008 has been working on it - ping me when you feel waht you've done should by rights save it from FAR. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
If anyone here wants to see how progress is going, please feel free to do so. I'd still like to incorporate some of those "Notable" fights into the history section when I get a chance. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: About "Notable fights and brawls", do we had a standard for events that "notable" enough to be here?--Jarodalien (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    • As far as I can tell, no. I think the original editor just included some well-known fights that could be sourced from the references they had. Of course, this isn't optimal because such sections can easily turn into content farms, and I've been trying to move the more interesting content into the main history section while removing the less notable brawls. I'll continue to prune what is left of that section. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jarodalien and Giants2008: Any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not familiar with this sport, so right now my only concern is "Notable fights and brawls".--Jarodalien (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
    • I just finished moving material from that section into the history section. Hopefully, I can run through the article tomorrow and take care of any remaining cleanup issues. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:10, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
      • Okay, I've gone through and made copy-edits where I found issues. We should be fairly close to a keep here. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


I am nominating this featured article for review because this article is shit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 20:43, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Curly Turkey - usually I would ask you to clarify which of the FA criteria you feel the article doesn't meet, but given the discussion on the talk page I'm guessing you don't actually believe that. We can certainly run an FAR to deal with Poeticbent's concerns one way or the other, but both of you please keep in mind that FAR is not dispute resolution. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't care what happens to the article. Eveyone who comes across it has some beef with it, and I'm sick of dealing with it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 01:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think Poeticbent has some valid points but if both he and Curly Turkey are too disgusted at this point to engage in this process, I don't see a whole lot of progress being possible on this FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 15:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Awww, was just about to read the comic for the first time... If I get it done before this closes, I might have something to say. But I'm not sure what the issues are. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Delist per unsolved problems. At the risk of repeating myself ad nauseum in angry exchanges, I find it useful to bring back the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria at this point. The article is not well-researched, not neutral, and not stable. It is a target of ongoing edit wars with enraged participants hiding behind IP addresses in order to stay safe. I do not participate in edit wars by my own volition therefore there's no edit wars from me, which is but an illusion; please read Talk:Maus#FAR for more. The article goes into unnecessary detail where it does not matter, however, it lacks historical context of the Sosnowiec Ghetto in occupied Poland, with the sections on the Maus political impact abroad and surrounding controversy decidedly substandard, as I have already said both at the article talk page and on my own talk page as well. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 17:46, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Neither you or anyone else has to my knowledge pointed out any actual, actionable problems with the article. That would require some more substance than the subjetive critique you have advanced at the talkpage.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Poeticbent: We actually don't declare "delist" or "keep" at this stage. This is for delineating and attempting to fix problems. I've semi-protected the article for three months and will consider indefinite semi, because I don't see any useful contributions at all coming from drive-by anonymous editors. As for your other concerns, there is a question of whether we have any hope of addressing them without the involvement of the primary editors. If not, might as well fast track to FARC. --Laser brain (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The article obviously should be delisted (and shame on the reviewers for letting this garbage out of the bin), but not for Poeticbent's rationale. Reviewers should be very careful not to take Poeticbent's comments at face value:
There's been a lot of ciriticism of the article, so let's ping a whack of these people: @Cordless Larry, Bus stop, Softlavender, Sıgehelmus, NebY, Only in death does duty end, Volunteer Marek, and Lost in space:. I'm sure I missed someone. Feel free to ping them—we can't let this pile of shit continue to fester with that gold star at the top of it.
Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Last time I looked at it was like four years ago when it was up for GA and I don't recall having any major issues with it. In fact I vaguely remember thinking it was pretty good.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
As I explained on the article's talk page, I stopped watching it because of the tone of responses I got when I tried, on request, to provide some outside input into a debate. I don't get the feeling that that tone has changed, so I won't be contributing here. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the drama police ought to close this RFAR, and that noone should reopen it untill some specific actionable complaints preferably supported by reliable references showing how the article misrepresents the literature about the graphic novel.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Threatening to use the FAR process to push an edit is disruptive. maclean (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • My final comment. I would like to take User:Laser brain up on his suggestion (from above) and fast track this entry to FARC, because there's no hope for addressing my concerns here. I do not understand why there's so much aggression in some of the responses from above. – Reverting my single edit with citation from reliable third-party book of Holocaust history (with one-click) was, and still is, the canary in the coal mine for me. The whole affair makes me remember what happened when we suddenly realized that the article about the SS was controlled and heavily edited by a genuine i.e. self-identified fascist. (It has been fixed though.)
Our article about Maus is not balanced, and lack the encyclopaedic tone. It is written in a childlike manner (hallmark of all fan-pages), thus ignoring the criticism by published authors who point out that the representation of human beings through anthropomorphic animals: Jews as mice, German gentiles as blockhead cats, Polish gentiles as pigs ("unclean" by virtue, the only ones straight from Goebbels), Gypsies as Gypsy moths, Swedish people as reindeer and the British as fish; makes a connection between cultural identities of these nations and the metaphoric non-human animals in the minds of those who don't like them. It is a gimmick – as the critics point out – making fun of biological determinism by turning racial conflicts into natural predator/prey relationships (none of it is stressed in this article enough). Our Maus article denies the stereotypic connotations of Spiegelman's technique, but also turns that technique upside down. It fails to explain that the author is playing directly into the racist visions of Adolf Hitler. (Robert Harvey presses this point in Art of the Comic Book) The story's moral underpinnings are troubling. In fact, this is why I did not participate in the (quote-unquote) quality drive of this entry before now, even though I was aware of it much earlier. I stopped watching it similar to Cordless Larry, but for my own reasons. Things changed when I realized that Maus is being promoted in the factual Holocaust history articles from occupied Poland. I attempted to help bring some sense to it, and was reverted by "the owner" at an instance. That is why I'm here. For the record, I am not threatening anyone by informing them about my intentions in the follow up to their actions.
Some comic book critics question the use of the animal metaphor in relation to Holocaust history (Der Stürmer comes to mind immediately). Indeed, some have roundly criticized Spiegelman's use of the device as 'glib and irresponsible', although none of it is in our article. Hillel Halkin, reviewing Maus for Commentary in 1992 wrote: 'The Holocaust was a crime committed by humans against human, not – as Nazi theory held – by one biological species against another. To draw people as animals ... is doubtly dehumanizing, once by virtue of the symbolism and once by virtue of graphic limitations.' Other commentators insisted that fidelity to truth is essential to writing about the Holocaust. – The Sosnowiec Ghetto was destroyed during the courageous uprising in which all fighters perished. Stories of attempted rescue abound. And yet, there were also people like Moshe Merin in there, who aided the Nazis in the hunt for the leaders of the aforementioned groups. We know little to nothing from reliable third-party sources about people in this book. The lack of true historical background to Sosnowiec/Będzin Ghettos trivializes the matter. The Holocaust narrators are bound by an ethical imperative to represent details as accurately as possible according Sara Horowitz (Voicing the Void) and Wikipedia is no different I believe. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 11:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  1. Charles Hatfield, Alternative Comics: An Emerging Literature ISBN 1604735872
  2. Judith B. Kerman, The Fantastic in Holocaust Literature and Film: Critical Perspectives ISBN 0786458747
  • I do not understand why there's so much aggression—you can only be so dense. The aggression comes entirely in response to the bizarre, unprovoked threats and aggreession you've displayed ever since I offered to help you un-botch your ridiculous edit. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:24, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • none of it is in our article—holy shit! so you just up and admit you haven't read the article then? One of these critics even gets his photo in the article, and the Hillel Halkin and R. C. Harvey quotes you quote are in the fucking article! Just how blind are your to your own bias? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment – I can't say that I'm an expert on graphic novels or the horrors of the Holocaust, but I decided to check the source behind the disputed "little stereotyping" vs. "much stereotyping" sentence. Fortunately, the relevant page was available to me on Google Books. After reading it, I must admit to some confusion. It may be that the content is completely beyond my pay grade as an editor (it probably is in fairness), but I don't see where proof behind the "much" change is. Perhaps it's at the top of the page, where "one-dimensional animal caricatures and 'bestial' stereotypes" are mentioned, but the context is on the prior page, which I don't have access to. Therefore, I can't be sure one way or the other. Later on the page, I see discussion of how stereotypes are being "mitigage(d)", and how "Spiegelman may do much to reverse a negative stereotype" in one instance. That doesn't match up well with the edit; was there another source that was used for this information? If so, the source should have been swapped when the edit was made. While I have no wish to trivialize Nazi horrors, we do need sources that verify content changes. Then again, I might be missing it because I'm not as familiar with interpreting academic literature as some; maybe it's right under my nose, so to speak. I don't have any further opinion on the article, as I just don't know enough about the subject matter. I do hope, though, that we can get on without calling people's work "childlike" and basically calling people fanboys; that won't lead to the kind of collaboration this site thrives on. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
You don't have to have a PhD to read exactly what is being said and than substitute words which are synonymous to get to the bottom of things. The "owner" of this article admitted on my talk page to have written that sentence himself by saying (quote): "I may have misinterpreted the source..." Here is what he wrote: "The Germans are depicted with little difference between them, but there is great variety and little stereotyping among the Poles and Jews who dominate the story." Little stereotyping implies almost no stereotyping. Alas, depicting Poles as pigs and Jews as mice isn't stereotyping, because Poles are like pigs, and Jews are like mice. Look at the faces of those "pigs". There's "great variety" between them (sure), each one looks like a different filthy monster from Der Stürmer, with a brand new evil expression on his face. The "owner" of Wikipedia article chose to delegate this sort of racist talk to a dark little corner, and (when confronted) follow it with dismissive personal attacks full of hysterical filibustering and exaggerations. You don't have to buy it though. Poeticbent talk 05:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Good God, but aren't you fantastically dishonest?—
  • It's telling how you've edited my comment down from "I may have misinterpreted the source or gotten the wrong page", where I alsgo gave the likely pages (and removed the text until I could be sure). Where I may have made a mistake (but probably didn't), you introduced a clear, deliberate, and disgustingly sneaky distortion of the text to push your POV with the change from "little stereotyping" to "much stereotyping".
  • The "owner" of Wikipedia article chose to delegate this sort of racist talk to a dark little corner, and (when confronted) follow it with dismissive personal attacks full of hysterical filibustering and exaggerations—interesting (and totally dishonest) interpretation of my comment on your talk page, which really couldn't have been more congenial. I offered to find a way to work these matters into the text, and you responded by threatening to sic the admins on me. Supposedly I'm "aggressive", while Poeticbent has accused me of racism and OWNership and threatened me repeatedly.
  • Poeticbent still hasn't bothered to address his bizarre accusations that there is nothing in the article critical about Spiegelman's use of pigs, when there are in fact several such critical voices, include two exact quotes that he accuses the article of lacking. Why do you refuse to address this, Poeticbent? Is it because you haven't actually read the article?
  • I see some bizarre behaviour from Poeticbent elsewhere. He had the Treblinka extermination camp article promoted to GA, then after failing to have it promted to FA, had it brought back to FA by one of the supporters of the FA1, and then himself supported the FA2.
  • Once again, I urge anyone who feels like tackling this mess to first ttake a peek at "Contemporary Debates on the Holocaust in Poland The Reception of Art Spiegelman’s ‘Graphic Novel’ Maus" by Tomasz Łysak, an essay in a RS about Polish reaction to Maus that appears to have been written specifically about Poeticbent. And be sure not to ignore Poeticbent's "each one looks like a different filthy monster from Der Stürmer, with a brand new evil expression on his face", which says reams and reams about this editor's psychology.
Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • A week has gone by without a single comment from the broader community. What's happening, dear colleagues worldwide? Are you too afraid to dip your finger in this steaming pile of propaganda? Timothy Snyder, Housum professor of history at Yale University and author of seminal Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin wrote in the New York Times Sunday Book Review on June 22, 2012. – And ... no, you will not find his name in the reference section of this star decorated hate speech. But you can read his review online. I'm posting here a few selected samples from a very long essay, but with a sense of satisfaction, because the likelihood of "the article owner" deleting it from here is much smaller, when compared to the complete denial of my right to contribute to "his own article" in mainspace.

In a nutshell, the case against MAUS is that, despite its veneer of sophistication, the book is a rather primitive expression of the author’s prejudices in choosing to portray the Poles as a nation of swine. Furthermore, its portrayal of Poles contains serious misrepresentations regarding their alleged role in the Holocaust. This is contemptible, and unacceptable by Canadian standards.

Depicting Poles as disgusting and brutal animals is eerily reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda newspaper, Der Stürmer. Significantly, this point is usually omitted by reviewers of MAUS, even though the image of fat, fascist pigs permeates MAUS and is all too glaring to overlook. The fact that MAUS employs the same imagery of the Poles as found in Nazi propaganda, where Poles were often referred to as “pigs,” could perhaps be explained, provided teachers and teaching materials addressed this matter squarely. The fact is they almost never do.

Spiegelman does not humanize the Polish “pigs.” He humanizes only his Jewish mice characters, while depicting his Polish pigs essentially as racist stereotypes. By focusing on negative characters like the camp kapos, Spiegelman implies that the Poles, who were also victims of the Nazi regime, collaborated with their fascist enemies. Unfortunately, these crude stereotypes are, for the most part, simply perverse history and would be unacceptable in any other context. — Timothy Snyder, 3. Why is the depiction of Poles in MAUS objectionable from a historical perspective?

(Google cache) Poeticbent talk 14:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
The viewpoint of Snyder can be added to the article. The fact that it is not currently included is not a major problem, and certainly not a cause for delisting. You need to start taking a positive and collaborative attitude here, for example by suggesting actual changes using the normal editing mechanisms when one wants to include content and perspectives to the article. Your belligerent postures here do not help you in the least. Especially not when several of your claims about the article turns out to be untrue. This is simply a case where you want to fit the article closer to your personal point of view. The correct way to argue that is to use arguments to convince others that it is necessary, not to abuse editorial processes and make enemies out of the people who have worked in good faith to create a featured article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
@Poeticbent: While I do take you seriously, I have little desire to engage with agenda-driven editors such as yourself because you are incapable of editing from a neutral and dispassionate stance. I doubt you can claim with a straight face that you don't have an agenda and POV here. This is at odds with Wikipedia's mission. I agree with Maunus that Snyder can be added in an appropriate fashion. This FAR should be closed. --Laser brain (talk) 14:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
For the record. The article was promoted to a featured article status at 16:59, 17 January 2013 based on support votes from both, User:Maunus and User:Laser brain, neither of whom edited the article in the process. And please, spare me the personal attacks. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 15:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I did not support promotion. I can see others' points above when they grow frustrated with your inaccurate or dishonest representations of facts. If you see my calling out your agenda as a personal attack, so be it. But I'm still calling it out. I don't blame Curly Turkey for getting exasperated with you, because I'm already almost there just from these minimal dealings. --Laser brain (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - as a completely uninvolved editor, who hasn't even read the article, the amount of snark in this conversation is baffling. It all seems to boil down to: one editor wants some more critical views added to the text that deals with animal analogues. This editor needs to propose some fitting text that can be added (in line with WP:due weight) and be much more specific. It will take much less time than writing long tirades and endless discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
What would you like me to do, User:FunkMonk, "propose some fitting text" to whom?! – The people who refuse to edit on my behalf (like User:Curly Turkey), or those who abuse me verbally on a par, but without ever editing the article? You say, "the amount of snark in this conversation is baffling", but is there an affable and cordial way of talking about racism? MAUS is a Holocaust industry enterprise with a lot of money at stake. Please read Snyder comments on U.S. distribution practices (quote): "MAUS has been taught widely in U.S. high schools, and even elementary schools, as part of the literature curriculum for many years." This sort of thing usually translates into landslide resource revenues. The book is being promoted as non-fiction. Snyder writes: "MAUS clearly cannot be treated as an accurate historical record, although it is passed off as such. The perspective of the protagonist is too narrow and flawed. The voice of the author and narrator, rather than exposing the protagonist’s biases and misrepresentations of the historical record, reinforces them" (end of quote). Look what happened to Norman Finkelstein as soon as he began to expose the workings of similar phenomenons. His tenure at DePaul was denied. – However, I would love to see MAUS article developed like all other Wikipedia articles about highly controversial subjects (including Finkelstein article itself), but it will never happen for as long as this one entry is being walled off from joint editing through a preposterous Feature Article sticker awarded by a good faith mistake. That's why I'm here. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
And the obvious way to propose changes would be to make a very precise, point by point list of suggested changes on the talk page or here, so uninvolved editors can get an overview and judge for themselves. What you've done now is very counter-productive to your own cause, huge walls of rambling text (referring to older talk-page discussions, therefore hard to follow) with little specific suggestions on how to improve the article. It makes it extremely hard to follow what it is you actually want to achieve. FunkMonk (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
You're correct, of course, FunkMonk. I shouldn't let my irritation show, and I should stick to the content. What you point out is exactly why we're spinning our wheels here. We all presumably want to see the article improved if it's deficient, but we've now veered completely off-topic and have had a large paragraph about how Maus is making money by being taught in schools. It's thus far been impossible to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to Poeticbent's commentary. --Laser brain (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Bureaucratic creep. Another two weeks have gone by. Everybody talk but nobody listen. I have explained in great detail what is wrong with this article using comprehensive prose. My comprehensive prose is straightforward and clear. It is not a tirade. Suggested WP:BULLETS are not workable, because the coverage of MAUS is flawed to its core and, for as long as Curly Turkey's 'ownership' of this entry is protected by the FA sticker, all WP:RS voices of reason (which I quote, including comments by professional historians such as Snyder, Grobman, and McDonough) will be reverted, and nothing will be improved. I would like to have this article returned to standard editing (so it can be improved) and therefore ask the coordinators at FAR, User:Nikkimaria and User:Casliber, to please place my review at featured article removal candidates. In my substantive comments (from above) and at the article talk page I have raised complex issues about factual accuracy and neutrality. This I have done to the best of my abilities, and critics may say what they like. Thanks in advance, Poeticbent talk 16:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
FAs are subject to standard editing just as all other articles. You just need to get consensus for your suggested changes, which you have failed to do (partly because you havent proposed any concrete changes).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
"I don't like it", is not an argument. The reason you have received no comments is because you refuse the make a concise list of suggestions (which is what we have all been waiting for during these two weeks). It is very simple. "Flawed to its core", allegations of "bureaucratic creep", and other over-dramatic BS means little to nothing without readable suggestions for how to improve the article. FunkMonk (talk) 16:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate you think the article has flaws, Poeticbent, but this is a forum for article improvement, not for dispute resolution, and we're not here simply to remove the "FA sticker". As such, specific and actionable comments with reference to the FA criteria would be far more helpful in gauging next steps. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment from random passerby. I'm not sold that Poeticbent's complaints are valid. At best, add another sentence that Polish nationalists are offended by the comic and why. It's not cause to assume everything else is wrong. Don't move to FARC, just close this. SnowFire (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Outsider Opinion - This FAR, as I understand it, seems to be based around one user being upset at the content of the subject of this article. Because he is upset about the content of the subject, he wishes the article to also reflect how upset he is. The article apparently does this, but not to the extent that he wishes. That said, he refuses to articulate any specific changes he would like, instead preferring to lash out at the perceived acceptance of the hated content of the subject matter.
All this said, I see nothing to review about the article. The upset user has made no specific claims to review, other than in general being angry. This anger has led to the frustration of the nominator, who has up to this point brought the article up to FA status. Apparently, the upset user is not the first to make these kinds of vague, general claims of anger, and this is a recurring issue.
I do not recommend moving to FARC. I recommend everyone calm down and talk about specific points in a calm, levelheaded manner, on the article talk page or possibly peer review. Failing that, arbitration. As an article prone to spark controversy, semi-protection/protection MIGHT be warranted. Fieari (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.