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]

Keratoconus[edit]

Notified: User:BillC, WT:MED

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been updated with high quality sources since 2006 and thus many of the refs are old. Also a number of primary sources are used rather than high quality secondary sources. Also I just deleted a 1/3 of the article as it was little more than spam added by likely paid editors.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

  • This needs to be delisted for the reasons stated. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Transcluded this FAR to the main FAR page, so more people can see this and hopefully will repair the article. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Suleiman the Magnificent[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Ottoman Empire, Muslim history task force, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Turkey, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

Tagged for six months for lacking reliable references, failed verification, and unsourced statements. Original nominator has retired. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

  • This is going to require the attention of someone with considerable expertise in this area and access to appropriate references. Unless any such individual is forthcoming (which looks unlikely), I think that this is a case for FARC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe Al Ameer son? Has edited a lot of articles about Ottoman-era subjects, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2017 (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.

Indonesia[edit]

Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox

Review commentary[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because......unfortunately, this article has slipped from featured quality over the past decade. Last review back in 2008 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indonesia/archive1

Dead sources
Ref formatting all over.
Many one or two sentence paragraphs.
Duplicate reference and cite errors.
Sections with few refs. (like Architecture)
Odd image placement with text sandwiching.
Huge icons. Done Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Different styles of English.
Out dated info from 2006.

......list goes on....... Lots to fix.....needs a big overhaul ...Not even GA level at this point in my view. --Moxy (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the version from the 2008 FAR. It is a thorough yet concise appraisal of the subject. The current version is filled with boosterism, and has bloated to more than twice the size. Ditching the current article and working on the 2008 version instead may be the most efficient way to bring the article back up to par. CMD (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I would worry that might replace up to date material with out of date material. It would be easy to compare the two versions and move down the article and relegate material to daughter articles or remove it. The article stands at 71 kb of prose, which is significantly larger than the 50 kb prose we recommend maximum article size at. I'd normally insist that discussion have taken place on the talk page first but the size and breadth of the article mean that coming to FAR is inevitable and anyway FAR is probably the best place for a thorough overhaul (that is needed) to be properly assessed and reviewed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting just dumping the 2008 one back into the live version, but that working from that base and updating that may produce a quicker and better result than working from the current article and trying to trim down on the excesses in prose and tone. Sorry for the confusion. CMD (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Chris will want to see this, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: no, my bad. I should have realised that was what you meant. Still, we agree on that pathway anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've tried maintaining the article before. Ultra-nationalists always seem to find their way back to "fluff up" the article. I agree with Chipmunk: starting from the 2008 version will likely be easier.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Needs a thorough overhaul. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree. I have noticed this trend of fluff up/whitewashing on a number of country articles (most recently Saudi Arabia) and there is only so much we can do. I would be OK with starting from the 2008 base, comparing with the present version and adding content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I have copied the 2008 version to User:Chipmunkdavis/Indonesia (minus interwikis and category application), which is easier to look at than a page in history. It's there as a reference or as a draft page. I don't have time to work on it myself at the moment, but others can feel free to do what they want on that page. I don't know how long this stays open before the process moves to delisting, but it would be nice to save what was one of the best country articles. CMD (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include coverage, referencing, and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. Fails 1e (stability). Article undergoes major changes on a regular basis, such as the addition[2][3][4][5] and removal[6] of substantial pieces of content (examples from the last 30 days of changes not performed as part of the review process). The article is more than twice as large as it was when promoted and reverting to an earlier revision could lead to reinsertion of outdated material and removal of relevant content, nor would it address the reason(s) why the page is under constant revision. DrKay (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. Significant attention is needed to changes since nomination, and such work is not occurring. --Laser brain (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist for reasons above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Covent Garden[edit]

Notified: SilkTork, WikiProject London

Review section[edit]

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)

@Scott, Andrew Davidson, and Casliber: Where do we stand here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Trying to read this, the main outstanding concern appears to be @Andrew Davidson:'s issue around comprehensiveness. So the question is, what should be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Since you pinged, I'll answer. Despite the fiddling and diddling in evidence above your question, my concerns as originally stated remain almost entirely unresolved in this mess of an article.  — Scott talk 23:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
O-kay, before we get stuck into copyediting too far, do you think there's anything actually missing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually I do think the prose can be tightened. I'll take my coord hat off and keep trimming. Will solicit some independent and thorough eyes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
update - I've had one runthrough and I found some spots I had to massage. I tend to agree with Scott that some material is placed in odd spots, and there is some unnecessary repetition. I can't see any prose glitches now, but I generally find that if I found as many as I did, I suspect there are more that I will have missed. I need to sleep on this and have another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments / Singora CasLiber has asked me to look at the prose. I'll do this over the coming week. Singora (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Feedback / Singora

Scotts' comments can be summarized as:

  • 1. The introduction is too long.
  • 2. The history section is poor.
  • 3. The geography and landmarks sections are tangled.
  • 4. Much of the article is a "hodgepodge" of trivia and unnecessary detail.
  • 5. The prose is weak.
  • 6. Conclusion: this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting.

I agree with Scott. I'm surprised there's no section for footnotes (something needs to be done about the excessive trivia and unnecessary detail). IMO, the only interesting part of this article concerns Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies, the "essential guide and accessory for any serious gentleman of pleasure". Singora (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I think this needs to be moved to FARC as unresolved concerns are significant and I have been editing it so cannot wear coordinator hat...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the point of this process now. The page was featured on the main page and so that's a done deal. Further agonising about the content does not seem efficient – see diminishing returns. Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The point of the process is whether or not the article meets FA criteria. It has these two segments. From this point on folks can state delist or keep below and/or try and fix things. Whether or not an article has been on the main page is not relevant now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include prose, coverage and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Keep. The opening comments have some merit, but it's all arguable. I see nothing definitively outside the criteria. DrKay (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep. I agree with DrKay here. There are arguably quite a few things that could be improved here, but I don't see any workable comments. This is meant to be a collaborative process, and I don't see how meaningful work could commence based on what's posted here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)