Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Reviewing featured articles
Shortcuts:

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]

[[{{subst:Alpha Phi Alpha}}]][edit]

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because there have been many issues including the use of youtube as sources, hazing, purpose of organization and arguments about the history and founding. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Megatokyo[edit]

Notified: L33tminion, jimmyBlackwing, Webcomics work group

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the following reasons, which I originally brought up on the talk page without any response:

"The main issue I have is the current plot section. I counted fifteen passages detailing the entire story of Megatokyo, without any kind of sources. I've placed the two tags there a while ago, but barely any change seems to have been made. I don't know if WikiProject Comics has a specific guideline for this, but judging from other WikiProjects, I don't believe we would need more than five paragraphs to explain the comic's plot. I usually find that you only need to explain the plot as well as the reliable sources do.

Other issues I have are as follows:

  • I have a hard time imagining that this entire sentence can be verified using primary sources without it being original research. Has Gallagher described these influences in comments or something along those lines, or are trope-savvy people simply pointing out what they're seeing? I'm talking about this:
    • "a Japanese school girl, Yuki, who has also started being a magical girl in recent comics;[38] and Ping, a robot girl.[39] In addition, Dom and Ed, hitmen employed by Sega and Sony, respectively, are associated with a Japanese stereotype that all Americans are heavily armed.[40]"
  • Is the following part notable? It is only supported by a primary source, so I have no idea whether "anyone cares". I'm talking about the following:
    • "Characters in Megatokyo usually speak Japanese, although some speak English, or English-based l33t. Typically, when a character is speaking Japanese, it is signified by enclosing English text between angle brackets (<>)"
  • One citation has a bare link in it, which simply looks ugly: "http://dccomics.com/dccomics/graphic_novels/?gn=14558"
  • In the "Some critics, such as Eric Burns ..." paragraph in the reception section, it can be unclear what is and isn't supported by the "You Had Me And You Lost Me" source. Did Burns point out the "Shirt Guy Dom" strip or is this original research?
  • Though not necessary, it may be possible to split the references to primary sources and those to secondary sources, such as how it's done in xkcd. This would make it easier to judge the quality of the sources at a glance, but I suppose it's more a personal preference.

That's what I got for now. The bloated plot section is the biggest issue, though, and I hope someone could fix that."

Simply judging from WP:FACR, I'm worried that the plot section consists entirely of original research (1c) and goes into unnecessary detail (4). Megatokyo was promoted to FA in 2006 – back when Wikipedia was less strict – and it is currently the only webcomics-related article that is Featured class. I hope these issues can be fixed, rather than the article being delisted. ~Mable (chat) 10:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - Maplestrip, are you willing to trim the plot section? I don't think I'm understanding why you didn't just trim it if you thought it needed trimming. Plot sections don't require citations unless something is controversial or disputed. The rest seem like pretty easy fixes. --Laser brain (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have read a few years worth of the comic, and am still not really sure how to trim the plot section can be trimmed. I mean, I could probably sum it up to just the first chapter and change the section's title to "setting", but is that appropriate? And there's just such a variety of issues that I don't think I can fix it. I don't own the Megatokyo book, and I feel like the references should be looked through either way. There are a few dead links, a few with no publisher listed (for example: "An interview with Fred Gallagher" and "Manga Review: Megatokyo Volume 1") and there are so many primary sources used that I don't even know anymore what is and isn't notable. Getting this article to GA status would take some work, but I suppose I could do it if I put in the effort (save for the plot section, which I'm bad at). I'm definitely not planning on trying to get this to FA quality... Other things:
  • Following Gallagher's complete takeover of Megatokyo, the comic's thematic relation to Japanese manga continued to grow.[citation needed]
  • Megatokyo's fans have been called "some of the most patient and forgiving in the webcomic world."[by whom?]
  • Poking fun at this, Jerry "Tycho" Holkins of Penny Arcade has claimed to have "gotten on famously" with Gallagher, ever since he "figured out that [Gallagher] legitimately detests himself and is not hoisting some kind of glamour."[75][clarification needed]
The article just really hasn't aged well, and I'm not very good with working on articles like that... ~Mable (chat) 16:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, that makes sense! It is indeed challenging to work on these when the primary authors are checked out. Thanks for the response. --Laser brain (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hollaback Girl[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Songs, WikiProject Hip hop

I am nominating this featured article for review because...... ♫ Uh-huh, this is shit, the article needs cleaning up; a few times went to FAC, and it's not just gonna stay at FA, 'cause it ain't up to the standards, it ain't up to the standards ♫ :P. In all seriousness, here is how the article currently compares against the FA criteria:

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • Could be better. For example, the beginning of "Writing and inspiration" sounds like it could be for any album track from Love. Angel. Music. Baby., so it would help to specifically indicate that it is talking about this song given that the citation is titled "Road To The Grammys: The Making Of Gwen Stefani's 'Hollaback Girl'". Other instances that could be improved include "a moderately fast song" (what's that supposed to even mean?) and "solicited to radio" ("sent to radio" would probably be better).
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Not at all. The only bit the video has for critical commentary is a VH1 ranking, which doesn't seem like much for one of Stefani's best-known and most successful songs. It doesn't even mention by name what the MTV VMA nominations that she lost were. The "Critical reception" seems to rely heavily on album reviews and could use more reviews talking just about the song itself. There is also no commentary for "live performances" (even though those are currently unsourced).
  • 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
  • No. In addition to having dead links, the "Live performances" and "Track listings" sections are completely unsourced. That alone is an automatic fail even for a GA. Only two of the instances listed within "In pop culture" (which doesn't seem like a very professional section title) have citations. While plot summaries oftentimes don't need to be cited, I'm not sure why "To visualize the song's bridge, the Harajuku Girls spell the word "bananas" with cue cards. The video ends with a close-up frame of Stefani with her arms in the air." is unreferenced while other parts of the music video's description is referenced. The Grammy nominations and "Pharrell Williams, one of the song's co-producers, makes a cameo appearance. The complete version of "Hollaback Girl" featured in the music video was released commercially through CD singles and digital downloads, and some include remixes by Diplo and Tony Kanal." also need to be sourced. Twitter is discouraged as a reference, ATRL is a forum (thus unreliable), and I'm pretty sure "familyguyquotes.com" is a fansite. "Nodoubtweb" isn't even affiliated with Stefani's band No Doubt (there website is actually nodoubt.com). I'm not sure what to say about "8notes", "mvdbase", or "IMCDb".
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • Yes. This is free of bias.
  • 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
  • Fine as far as I can tell.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • No. The lead fails to take into account critic's specific opinions, the music video, genres (excluding influences), or any of "the majority of the charts" for nations where it reached the top ten but didn't go number one.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • Looks OK.
  • 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)
  • There's one bare URL (Twitter). Additionally, some references contain the publishing companies for works (a practice that became largely deprecated in January 2015) while others don't. "robertchristgau.com" should be capitalized for Robert Christgau. Same for "michaelgeist.ca" with Michael Geist. Also, "Top40-Charts.com" should read simply Top40-Charts, and "top40web.nl" should just be "Top 40 Web".
  • 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.
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • I don't see any excess detail.

Even though this is somewhat better than the edition that passed for FA in January 2007, it simply is not up to par and needs significant improvement in order to avoid being delisted. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Laser brain[edit]

  • Going to look at this in more detail later, but isn't it established that track listings don't need to be sourced? I just looked randomly at ...And Justice for All (album) and only the alternate version track listings are cited. --Laser brain (talk) 17:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • No, they are not exempt from sourcing. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, that may be your opinion. But there are plenty of featured articles out there where non-controversial information that's easily checked by looking at the primary source (the CD in the case of track listings; the book or film in the case of plot summaries) do not have citations. --Laser brain (talk) 19:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Even if not controversial and regardless of what WP:OTHERSTUFF has (or lacks), track listings have different requirements than plot sections, especially when alternate versions and remixes exist. Snuggums (talk / edits) 19:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Respectfully disagree, movies could also had "alternate versions" exist, doesn't mean people could get confused with the primary source and add notes to pilot section.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think it's trivial to add citations to track listings if requested, so it's kind of a non-issue even though I disagree as well. I've seen enough album and song articles where randoms come by and change track times, personnel, etc. to where it's better to have a citation people can refer back to in a dispute. --Laser brain (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Venus[edit]

Notified: Saros136, Fotaun, JorisvS, Ckatz, Kheider, Serendipodous, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy

The article has undergone major change since the latest FAR in 2008 (e.g. [1]). It no longer looks like the same article. There are a few issues that pop out to me - there is an over-use of images and not always in the correct context (one example "Pioneer Venus Multiprobe"). Some sections are very brief and refer to secondary articles without a summary that reads well and fits in well on the Venus page itself. The intro is a little brief and could be better written.Anon 09:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I've placed this review on hold at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination for the moment because I was unable to locate the first phase of the review ("Raise issues at article Talk"). DrKay (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I've updated the talk page Anon 21:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

  • Some of the images have no alt= text. And some images have alt text the same as the caption. Being the same is not useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Resolved. Serendipodous 08:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Fixed with archive link. A2soup (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • dead link for " Numbers generated by Solex"
  • Fixed. This just served to explain the source for the prior ref, so I combined them and gave an archive link. A2soup (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • the "Compare the Planets" references neither of the facts linked to it.
  • Fixed by finding old version of that ref with relevant link (now dead) & providing archive link. A2soup (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • ref "A. Boyle – Venus transit: A last-minute guide – MSNBC" missing information and is a dead link.
  • ref "See Venus in Broad Daylight!" no retrieval date (it is still there though)
  • ref "The Pentagram of Venus" is a blog, and is missing info, cannot tell if this is reliable or not.
Fixed. The guy has a wiki page, so he's probably reliable. Serendipodous 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • ref Fegley, B (2003). Venus (Treatise on Geochemistry ed.). has "ed.", no page number or ISBN. added
  • ref "title". Retrieved 4 January 2015. is missing detail. added
  • ref "РАН: запуск "Венеры-Д" состоится не ранее 2024 года" should have an English translation of the title. (perhaps an English language source is available)
  • ref "Atmospheric Flight on Venus" is a dead link for me and missing info
  • refs 166-175 look to be web references and miss retrieval dates and other information.
  • ref "The Magellan Venus Explorer's Guide" appears thrice, but the first time has no page number, and the second time has even less info. (there is no ISBN on the book so its absence is a non-issue) found page numbers in the book, linked online version, and made consistent.
  • This article should link to Venus in fiction possibly with a short sentence on the topic. Look at Observations and explorations of Venus#Impact on literature which belongs more here, than in that article.
    • I've added a prototype. It may need some holes filled. Serendipodous 20:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Is it good enough? Please let me know before I spend a day at a library. Serendipodous 10:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
        • I think the summary is OK. However we should not be using primary references for the first three documents, secondary references that mention the facts would be more appropriate. Whenever the popular culture section develops in other articles, material only referenced to the work it is in gets the chop, and only if others comment on it, is the mention worth having in Wikipedia. I will add these as an issue down below, so that this one can be resolved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Nowhere does Venus tell us that it appears as a white star. The colour is a basic fact that should be mentioned.
  • Added this fact (with ref) to first sentence of observation section. A2soup (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "thick clouds" composition does not match what the sources say. The sources also mention aluminium chloride, ferric chloride, and "sulfates", partially hydrated phosphoric anhydride and octasulfur. sulfur dioxide looks to be an atmospheric gas rather than a cloud droplet material. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Sky and Telescope" is used where the correct name appears to be "Sky & Telescope" fixed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Page is in this category: category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls so there may be an error hidden in there somewhere.
It apparently isn't any more. Serendipodous 10:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Citation needed for "Venus's opaque clouds prevent observing the Sun from the planet's surface"
added. Serendipodous 10:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
removed. Serendipodous 08:53, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
  • ISBN format dashes or not?
fixed. Serendipodous 13:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
More fixes; I wrote an in-browser ISBN tool a while back that can properly hyphenate ISBNs, and I've verified most of the ones currently in the article. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "Calculate/show" should this read "Calculate and show"? The page is called Apparent Disk of Solar System Object.
Fixed. Serendipodous 13:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • In one place we say Cassini–Huygens and another Cassini.
  • Since we use British English, should "center" be replaced by "centre" where it is not a proper noun, or title?
  • " Colonization -> Colonisation
  • " color -> colour (three times)
  • "co-orbitals" sounds a bit jargon-like.
fixed. Serendipodous 15:52, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • fixed Dawsow name error.
  • " destabilize -> destabilise
  • Encyclopædia or Encyclopedia? two different things used for Encyclopædia Britanica. "æ" look right here.
  • Britannica online encyclopedia needs capitalisation anyway - and is not the name the site uses also
  • fly-by or flyby? (also fly-bys or flybys)
  • Hitran or HITRAN?

Above spelling issues resolved. Serendipodous 10:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The "Lightnings on Venus studied on the basis of Venera 9 and 10 data" reference is actually in Russian. Did anyone actually locate a copy and read it? In any case the journal title ( Kosmicheskie Issledovaniia) and article title would be in Russian, so see if we can get original. Google suggests " Космические Исследования" An English translation is also published with bibcode=1980CosRe..18..325K
  • I found and read a translation. It looks like that journal was regularly translated and republished in America as Cosmic Research. I changed to ref to the translation. A2soup (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Should "false colour image" be "false-colour image"? (with hyphen in adjective)
fixed. Serendipodous 13:06, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Three primary references used in the "In fiction" section should be secondary sources instead. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
secondary sources added. Serendipodous 11:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • V.A. Krasnopolskii or V. A. Krasnopolsky — likely the same author with two transliterations.
Possibly but I don't see how we'd prove it. Serendipodous 13:05, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone changed it anyway. 23:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Serendipodous
  • MESENGER or MESSENGER ?
  • midday seems preferable to mid-day
  • Should "Planet-C" be "PLANET-C"?
Spelling issues resolved. Serendipodous 13:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
  • "in false-colour" should not have a hyphen as colour is now the noun, not part of adjective. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. Serendipodous 21:44, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"Pentagram of Venus" is a proper title, and so can't be changed. Serendipodous 12:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 630 nm should have a non-breaking space, and perhaps "nm" should be spelled out as nanometre
  • references should not be after a space, eg at "eccentricity = 0.006772" "asc_node = 76.680°" "deep interior than Earth's."
Other issues above resolved. Serendipodous 12:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Changed. Serendipodous 08:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

  • The lead is a bit too short for an article of this side. Add a paragraph on space-exploration and/or colonization
added. Serendipodous 18:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • The Planned and proposed missions section is basically a list without bullet-points
revised. Serendipodous 23:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


Super Nintendo Entertainment System[edit]

Notified: Anomie, WikiProject Video games

This article's status currently states that this article is a featured article; however, there happen to be a lot of errors, most of which are unverifiable claims, tagged by [citation needed] and [unreliable source?] tags. I have not (yet) noticed any dead links, but this article has a lot of problems, so I am hoping that we could delist this article and leave it like that until we manage to complement it once again. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - You notified yourself on the FAR and not the original nominator? Also, you didn't notify the Video Game Project. GamerPro64 13:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I must have rushed what I was doing, and, because this is my first time, I told for myself do something which is a not-to-do. I am sorry, and how do I notify the WikiProject of something? Also, am I in trouble for the clutter? Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment – Following references deadlink: 3, 8, 31, 42, 43, 44, 47, 85. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Pretty bad, it is. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Links 8, 42 and 43 repaired with archiveurl. Link 3 already has archiveurl. Link 31 is a print reference. Links 44, 47 and 85 load for me, do not appear to be dead. -- ferret (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
      • I can also confirm that 44,47 and 85 are working fine.--67.68.163.32 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Hi Gamingforfun, looks like this nom missed the step of discussing problems on the talk page first. Thus, I'm going to put this on hold to allow for this to happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Relisted: The talk page discussion has concluded that "romhacking.net", which is used in the article as a source, is self-published by the main editor of the article and that it therefore probably does not qualify as a reliable source. DrKay (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
    • Seems like a baby-with-the-bathwater situation to delist a FA on the basis that a single source is unreliable. Looking at the information it was referencing, I'm not convinced that I needed to know that level of detail about the technical specifications of the SNES. Could we just comment that stuff out until a more reliable source is found, if ever? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
      • I agree that if the only remaining issue is with a soure covering a relatively minor part of the article it wold make more sense to remove the content than the featured article status.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think we've taken the wrong tack here. It's not that the romhacking.net link needs to be replaced but what the hell is going on in the "Technical specifications" section? It is a romp through jargon that is totally unexplained and unhelpful to the general reader. None of our other console FAs have anywhere near that amount of superfluous technical detail—no wonder we're having trouble sourcing it to a mainstream source. The goal of the section should be understanding the hardware in the context of its time, not listing every spec—that's for another (specialist) website and outside our scope. Indeed, the section has only collected more detail since 2007. Trim it back, I say. This is not "brilliant prose" as is. czar 05:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Technical details have been purged entirely along with the unreliable Romhacking reference. This information already exists at Super Nintendo Entertainment System technical specifications anyways, apparently in exact duplicate. There are 3 new citation needed tags that were added when @Czar removed N-Sider. I am looking for replacement sources now. After that, all tags will have been addressed. -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

All unreliable, citation needed and deadlink tags have been repaired/addressed. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Keep as all issues have been addressed. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Comment What needs to be done for this to close? The major issues brought up, various tagging (Unreliable, citation needed and deadlink) in the article related to sourcing, have all been addressed. -- ferret (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the changes. Declarations of "Close" can help the co-ordinators determine that commentators are happy for the review to be archived. There is one remaining link to romhacking (regarding translations); is that being retained? DrKay (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Removed it. I thought all of the romhacking refs were all tagged and didn't think to search for romhacking directly *silly* -- ferret (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Close Follow up to my comment above, I believe this can be closed now. -- ferret (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the article as it stands now? Do you have concerns that are yet to be addressed? @Gamingforfun365 and Czar: Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

(Didn't get the ping.) My specific concerns have been addressed but there's still a fair amount of cleanup to be done. I don't have the time for a full review so I'm not opposing on this, but: (1) the lede is a mess—it's not a full summary of the article (and if it is, the article is missing a whole lot of detail), (2) specifically, one half of the lede is about the product's name! It needs to be pared down, footnoted, moved to another section. The lede is for introducing how the console is commonly known, not a catalog of how it is spelled in non-English speaking regions. See the Genesis article for comparison. (3) Many sentences are unsourced—those are simple fixes. (4) The emulation section has too much individual detail and not enough overview about how they were developed and used as a whole, which were most popular and why, etc. (5) The legacy section needs much, much more on how the console and its properties affected later industry prospects, how people continue to be influenced by the console, etc. It's essentially proseline as is ("X said it's the top Y"). That stuff doesn't matter and can be grouped together ("journalists from X, Z said it was among the best consoles")—we care about the broad arc of the console's influence. That many people called it the best is not nearly as important as the specific influence (with nuance) it had on people and the industry. czar 19:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Enceladus[edit]

Notified: Drbogdan, WolfmanSF, JorisvS, Volcanopele, BatteryIncluded, WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy
WP:URFA nom

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been tagged for update in the atmosphere section, which is very short. Readers are directed to a sub-article Atmosphere of Enceladus, but it seems to contain all the same information as the main article, and so appears somewhat pointless. In my opinion, the gallery section does not add much to the article, and a link to the commons category should be sufficient. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

comments from Graeme Bartlett
  • I am looking into this. There do not seem to be many more writings on the "atmosphere", and most do not distinguish it from the plumes. I found one thesis modelling the atmosphere, but does a thesis count as a reliable source?
  • One topic missing that I see quite a few papers about is the effect of Endeladus on the magnetosphere, but its own and that of Saturn.
  • Another is related, the auroral hiss[2].
  • referencing improvements required:
    • The Blondel, Philippe reference needs expanding with links.
    • Satellites of the Outer Planets: Worlds in their own right needs an ISBN.
    • "Cracks on Enceladus Open and Close under Saturn's Pull" has author Bill Steigerwald
    • 56 and 67 have a bibcode but no doi (needs a check)
    • Taubner R.S.; Leitner J. J.; et al needs some kind of link and et al should be expanded a bit.
    • "Ocean Within Enceladus May Harbor Hydrothermal Activity" should have publisher which is astrobiology, but this is a NASA press release, so there is probably a better source.
    • "Our Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water" is also a NASA press release
    • "'Jets' on Saturn Moon Enceladus May Actually Be Giant Walls of Vapor and Ice" needs author= Charles Q. Choi date=6 May 2015 publisher=Space.com
    • "A Hot Start on Enceladus" needs date March 14, 2007
    • "Atmosphere on Enceladus" needs standard format on date.
    • "Enceladus Life Finder" needs fixing, internal title is "ENCELADUS LIFE FINDER: THE SEARCH FOR LIFE IN A HABITABLE MOON" authors are J.I. Lunine, J.H. Waite, F. Postberg L. Spilker, and K. Clark, this is part of 46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2015)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I'll see if I can do something about the references tomorrow. As for theses, I'd say they need some external support (in the vein of other sources citing them) to work in and of itself.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Update, done with a few notes:
    • 56 and 67 does not seem to have a doi that I can find.
    • The NASA press releases are the sources of the images in question; I've found an article on Nature here about the hydrothermal activity in the ocean.
    I'll see about the auroral hiss and the magnetospheric effects later.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
    Replaced the press releases with that Nature citation too. The atmosphere will have to wait a bit, unfortunately.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Most images are missing alt= text. Please read WP:ALT before adding text though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • More checking word by word: (using tr "][()\t,.:;\"" " "| tr " " "\n" | sort -u )
    • There is inconsistent date format. Sometimes we have yyyy-mm-dd form, but it is mostly month dd, yyyy. This applies to access dates and publication dates. eg: 2007-04-15 2008-11-27 2011-12-17 2014-04-03 2014-04-04 2014-04-27 2014-12-17 2015-04-09 2015-04-15 2015-05-08 2015-09-17
    • There are a couple of nonprinting characters in the dimensions in the infobox "513.2 × 502.8 × 496.6" (surrounding the first and second ×) (these are halfwidth spaces, not a serious issue)
    • Inconsistent ISBN13, we have 978-1-4020-9216-9 978-1-4244-7350-2 and 9783540376835 (the last form is best)
    • Cassini‍‍ '​‍s has a non printing character before apostrophe (due to use of {{'s}})
    • Caption at internal structure " mantle/yellow and core/red" style should be " mantle (yellow) and core (red)"
    • infobox mean radius uses Earths and Moons - probably should be Earth's and Moon's
    • E-ring should be E-Ring
    • We have "g/cm³" (2 uses) as well as using superscript 3 g/cm3 (1 use, but I thought MOS said this one).
    • Two uses of wrong spelling: kilometres (It was convert template doing it, spelling mistake avoided by using |sp=us
    • Using m/s² in info box instead of superfixed 2
    • Abbreviated journal titles like "Orig Life Evol Biosph" should be expanded fully.
    • "Saturn׳s" has non-standard apostrophe
    • " —called libration— " uses spaces as well as m-dash (should be no space?)
    • I suspect " UV–green–near IR images" uses the wrong kind of dash. It is an adjectival form. (actually it appears to use –) (others use / or ,)
  • Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
    I think I got the issues except the inconsistent the dates (MOSUNITS does indicate the superscript standard; probably because it's easier to create that code than to create the superscripted number itself); will need a check on non-printing characters.
    • Striking corrected (notice I added more issues after you started work) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Did some more edits to resolve these issues, except for the dash and nonprinting character edits. I didn't find any "kilometres" in the source; I guess a template is causing these issues. Now, for the atmosphere I've to confess that other than using Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chilean volcano) as templates I've never worked with FAs; is the atmosphere section of Pluto plus the magnetosphere and auroral hiss a good template to follow?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think so, yes. Thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:33, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Another inconsistency is the possessive form: Enceladus' versus Enceladus's. I prefer the second, but is that right? Many of the sources use Enceladus' Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
It can be either, but I too prefer the second, because I think it's clearer in written prose. DrKay (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I personally prefer the first; at least to me it was indicated to be proper grammar. I'll do some other work here in about a week, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
You might like to read MOS:POSS and Apostrophe, especially the section Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe, particularly sub-section "Basic rule (singular nouns)". It seems that a lot depends upon how the possessive form is pronounced. Corinne (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Corinne

1) In this sentence in the lead:

  • Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging from old, heavily cratered regions to young, tectonically deformed terrains that formed as recently as 100 million years ago, despite its small size.

the phrase "despite its small size", because it comes at the end, sounds like it might apply only to the last clause, so is a little puzzling (if it does apply only to the last clause, I don't understand the connection between small size and relatively recent deformation of terrain). I believe you mean it to apply to the first clause, "Enceladus has a wide range of surface features". If so, I recommend putting the phrase at the beginning of the sentence:

  • Despite it small size, Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging...

2) The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is:

  • Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until the two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.

You haven't mentioned Voyager spacecraft before this, so saying "the two Voyager spacecraft" assumes that your readers know what they are. I recommend removing "the". You can, and I guess you do, go into more detail about the two spacecraft later, and who's to say there won't be more in the future?

  • Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.

3) The last sentence in the lead is:

  • Its resonance with Dione excites its orbital eccentricity, which tidal forces damp, resulting in tidal heating of its interior, and offering a possible explanation for the geological activity.

(a) I was confused by the clause, "which tidal forces damp". It is true that "tidal" is an adjective, so "forces" ought to be a noun; however, "damp" is more often an adjective or noun than a verb, so "forces" jumped in as a verb. It took a re-reading to realize that "damp" was the verb to the phrase "tidal forces". To a non-scientist, even one who knows what the verb "to damp" means, the combination of "tidal forces" and "damp" is so unusual that it is hard to comprehend. I'm wondering if another verb could be found other than "damp" to make this more comprehensible for the average reader. Perhaps "suppress", or "counteract"?

(b) Also, for the average reader, the word "tidal" suggests, of course, "tides", which in turn suggests the presence of a large body of water (or other liquid). The previous paragraph mentioned "a subsurface ocean of liquid water", but no connection between the tides and that body of water was made. If the "tidal forces" are related in some way to the subsurface body of water, that connection should be made clear. Since no surface body of water (or liquid) is mentioned here, the reader will look for it later on. In the section "Orbit and rotation", "tidal deformation" is mentioned in the second paragraph, but no body of liquid is mentioned. If these "tidal forces" and "tidal deformation" have nothing to do with a body of liquid, that ought to be made clear, also.


4) The first two sentences in Enceladus#Orbit and rotation are:

  • Enceladus is one of the major inner satellites of Saturn. It is the fourteenth satellite when ordered by distance from Saturn, and orbits within the densest part of the E Ring, the outermost of Saturn's rings.

I think the wording of the clause "when ordered by distance from Saturn" could be made a little clearer for the average WP reader. "When ordered" sounds like "ordered from a catalog", "ordered in a restaurant". I think it would be clearer if it were worded something like this:

  • It is the fourteenth satellite in order of distance from Saturn, and it orbits..."

5) In the second paragraph in "Orbit and rotation", can you put the conversion so that distances in miles are given?

Corinne (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

2) Without "the", it suggests that there have been more than two Voyager spacecraft, which is untrue. Any possible futute Voyager 3 would be crystal ball.
I don't agree. Saying just "until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby" is just introducing the spacecraft since you haven't mentioned them before this. It does not suggest that there were, or will be, more. It is really not good to use the definite article until you have first introduced or mentioned them. Corinne (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
3) a) I think saying it in the passive does the trick. b) Tidal forces also act on a solid body. The effect is only much stronger if they act on a liquid. For example, solid Mimas has been tidally locked to Saturn; in fact, none of the small regular moons of Saturn are known not to be tidally locked.
I have copy-edited the article based on several other points. --JorisvS (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Atmosphere section

DrKay's original concern was with the Atmosphere section, which I just removed. I'm not totally sure about it, so see my rationale on the talk page and let me know if you agree. A2soup (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

As we've established, it was not possible to expand the section and I think short sections should be merged into others, which is essentially what has been done here with the material positioned in the Cryovolcanism section. DrKay (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC. The prose is poor, using an unnecessarily repetitive and unidiomatic style that is also indicative of structural problems in the article. Because relevant material is deliberately excluded, the subject is not placed in its context rendering the topic non-comprehensive and difficult to follow without following links to other articles. Attempts to address these problems are reverted. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
If by "relevant material is deliberately excluded", you mean the atmosphere apart from the plumes, I have to disagree. That's more a case of "relevant material is not yet known". No argument on the other points, though. A2soup (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I mean for example that the article says Enceladus is "sixth-largest", "one of the major inner" and "fourteenth" moon of Saturn, but we are not told how many moons there are or how many of those are "major inner" ones. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 7 February 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.

Banff National Park[edit]

Notified: MONGO, WikiProject Geography of Canada, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject World Heritage Sites, WikiProject Alberta, WikiProject Geology

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's a 2006 promotion, and I don't think this still meet the criteria. Like I mentioned at talk page, there's still some paragraph lack footnotes.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll mention it to the primary author...all I did was nominate it. You could of course look for some references yourself and help out, as I mentioned on the article talkpage back in May. Some things are generally common knowledge that wouldn't need an inline ref.--MONGO 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
If they were common knowledge, then this should be very easily done.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Looking at your meager contributions to en.wiki, you are not only too lazy to assist but also too lazy to list the issues. Looks like trolling to me.--MONGO 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow... good for you.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Come up with specifics troll or be gone. Surely you can come up with specifics....no? That should be easy shouldn't it?--MONGO 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Guys, enough of the sniping here. Jarodalien, can you please specify which of the criteria you feel are not met and why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Already add cn tags more than 5 months ago, and mentioned at talk page. Lots of paragraphs have no inline citation at all.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that, but just so we're clear - your only concern with FA status here is the state of the article's sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Sourcing is my main concern, but shince you mention it, I also hope infomation like "As of the 2005 census, the Town of Banff has a population of 8,352, of which nearly 7,000 are permanent residents", "Climate data for Banff", "with 3,927,557 visitors in 2004/2005", "with 32 wolf deaths along the Trans-Canada Highway between 1987 and 2000, leaving only 31 wolves in the area" along with other data could least update to 2010s. Thank you.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I have added more sources, and could update some of the information like the census numbers. Aude (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak close. I have fact checked the entire history section, finding no problems. Consequently, although the geography and geology sections are not fully sourced, I'm inclined to believe that the content of those sections is also verifiable. There don't appear to be any statements in the section that are controversial. Other editors have done some updating of the figures, and I've done a copyedit and review of the images. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I see someone has tagged the geology section for citation needed and clarification with some detailed comments in the edit summaries. So, that section needs looking at. DrKay (talk) 18:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
For the issue related to climate data, it is from 1971–2000 and there is none from 1981–2010 since the weather station closed in 1995 so only 15 years of data from 1981–1995 using the 1981–2010 data. Environment Canada did opened an automatic weather station from 1997 until the present (Banff Cs) though no climatological normals for that station is published so manually calculating the normals from that station would run into WP:OR. It would be impossible to update the data to 2010s for it if the weather station closed in 1995. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that too. I've asked for help at WikiProject Geology for the geology section. Pinging User:MONGO and User:Aude. DrKay (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

I have moved to FARC mainly because of the Geology section needing cleanup. Comments on prose also invited. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Bridges, WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force, WikiProject Organized Labour, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because after a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, the following issues were left unresolved with a project-level consensus that this article should be reviewed here.

  1. There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
  2. There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
  3. The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
  4. There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues.

I left a notice on the article talk page on September 27, and nothing changed with respect to the article, so it's time to move things here. The account for the original FA nominator (SPUI) has been inactive for years, so notifying that editor is a futile endeavor. I am placing the customary notifications on the appropriate WikiProject talk pages. Imzadi 1979  01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will rehash the points I brought up at the ACR that touch upon the issues with the article, which include many minor and some major issues:

  1. "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.
  2. "The landmark structure", WP:PEACOCK.
  3. The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.
  4. "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.
  5. Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."
  6. Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.
  7. Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.
  8. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.
  9. "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.
  10. The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.
  11. Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."
  12. The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.
  13. "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence.
  14. The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.
  15. "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.
  16. "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?
  17. References 3 and 103 are dead links.
  18. The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.
  19. Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.
  20. Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.
  21. Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source. Dough4872 02:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
With regard to suggestions above:
  • "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.

X mark.svg Not doneCategory:Causeways appear to include numerous structures of similar type

X mark.svg Not doneLandmark aptly describes the structure, designated by NRHP, and referred to as such:http://www.northjersey.com/news/road-warrior-old-pulaski-rollercoaster-will-continue-to-ride-1.415651?page=all

  • The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.

X mark.svg Not done not necessarily as the the separate ideas derive no benefit from combining

  • "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.

Yes check.svg Done fixed; it is clearly established that the Skyway is in NJ

  • Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."

Yes check.svg Done link to Route 1 Extension covers topic in appropriate article

  • Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.

Yes check.svg Done countless road articles, including most in Category:FA-Class U.S. Highway system articles route description mention places w/o references; why here? Many appear to be from observations taken from maps and satellite imagery; info is pertinent, while pertinent, is non-esstenial, thus parenthetical. Nonetheless refs added.

  • Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.

X mark.svg Not doneWould seem to add unessential information into an already long article. An exit list has been previously deleted by consensus:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pulaski_Skyway&diff=389106688&oldid=389090659

  • I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.

X mark.svg Not done please do so, though

  • "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.

Yes check.svg Done It is clearly established that the Hack and Passaic are rivers; it is common to call rivers "the"

  • The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.

X mark.svg Not done combing could possibly create confusion about what reason for maintenance: the weight or lack of concrete jacking. Clear as written

  • Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."

Yes check.svg Done removed

  • The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.

Yes check.svg Done fixed

  • "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence

Yes check.svg Doneannouncement in January; "end of year" would not be specific enough, thus named "end of 2013" consistent with Wikipedia:DATED

  • The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.

Yes check.svg Done split

  • "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.

Yes check.svg Done fixed

  • "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?

Yes check.svg Done fixed Per source: "Construction began a year ago, and was expected to be finished by April 2016. A new completion date has not been determined yet." at end of the same added

  • References 3 and 103 are dead links.

Yes check.svg Doneref 3 de-linked, 103 not dead link

  • The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.

Yes check.svg DoneMap focus supports statement: Google Maps includes the Route 139 eastern approach.Google (October 16, 2010). "Jersey City, NJ" (Map). Google Maps. Google. Retrieved October 16, 2010. 

  • Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.

Yes check.svg Done location= Hoboken, NJ added

  • Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.

Yes check.svg Done removed

  • Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source.

Yes check.svg Done removed Djflem (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll reiterate that everything above is ignoring some fundamental issues with the article, and unless those issues are discussed, we're just doing work to text that will end up trimmed, summarized or even outright deleted. Imzadi 1979  09:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  • With regard to above:
  • There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.

but bit of a non-issue since many FA articles are continually be edited such, as Statue of Liberty, a FA with lt more hits than Pulaski Skyway, has had 120 revisions since October 2014; this article has had 56; but the point is, especially since you mention:

  • There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status

which would make sense since that time, the specifics of it the reconstruction have come to light as has the political backlash for it's funding

  • The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.

which which is long and would make sense since, as mentioned above, Pulaski Skyway#Rehabilitation covers a $billion reconstruction of the which is no small undertaking; it covers the reasons why it's being rebuilt, how it's being re-built, the alternatives to traffic while it's being re-built, and the political scandal that springs from the funding. While there is no WP:UNDUE issues (do you contend that there are differing points of view about the facts being presented/), can you be specific as to why it is too long and what should be removed?

  • There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues,

but the last edit made by that person was in April 2014: 140 revisions ago & the work has greatly changed since then.

Your statements, while clear, do not address improvements to the article with regard to content, style, and structure. Without specific concerns as to what appears Wikipedia:Published in the Wikipedia:Namespace, there seems little to be done with your concerns. Can you please state exactly what is wrong with the with the article in regard to Wikipedia:Content policies Djflem (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC. The paragraph on tolls looks incomplete: the last sentence should have a source or explain why tolls were not implemented. I'm not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue, given that not much appears to have happened in the history of the skyway: it was built, it stood, cars drove over it, it was shut for repairs, etc. Once the design and construction is covered, there's only a limited amount one can write about what happened during its years of use. As work on the article seems to have stalled, without obvious consensus on the article's status, I think we have to move to declarations. DrKay (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    It is unclear why you have moved this to FARC. The article is not stalled. You will note that where specific issues have been brought up, they have been addressed. Other commentary has been about "concerns" which have not been articulated in a way that express any reasoning for what the specific problem/solution is or have been thoughts or opinions based on personal taste. Other observation and broad generalisations have not been constructive or instructive about making improvements to the article. As seen above, the editor who suggested other changes has been asked to clarify on this page what their wishes are and to react to responses given to those wishes. (By the way, those concerns were never brought to the article talk page, where they should been hashed-out. They were presented as an afterthought in Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, a closed discussion was posted there). The editor has time to do so, so the lack of response IS consensus. I have waited for answers to questions as to how to handle statements for which are no sources to verify, but none have been forthcoming, and therefore, they have been removed. Any discussion about the claims about UNDUE cannot be talked about without there being an rationale as why they are being made, which has not been offered, thus not fulfilling the criteria for a to proceed from FAR to FARC.Djflem (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC - While many of the minor concerns I brought up were addressed, there are still major concerns with the article that need to be touched upon for this to remain a FA, including the undue weight given to the rehabilitation, unsourced information, and poor structure. Since it seems no one wants to address the major issues, we need to move this article to FARC. Dough4872 15:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    You will have to be more specific than the vague statement you have made above as you are stating opinion, but not backing it up with anything substantive. It appears most the items you brought up have been dealt with. Others are just a matter of preference for a writing style, which is a perogative. Please explain which issues are not addressed and why they should be, particularly in regard to the following. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section. Please explain why it would be better to present the material as you propose; otherwise your claims of improvement cannot be considered constructive. Also, please explain what and why you find the rehabilitation section has undue weight, citing exactly what you are talking about, as is stated above you have not "not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue".Djflem (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC—the only progress here so far is some minor polishing and window dressing, yet substantive issues related to weight of coverage remain untouched. There doesn't seem to be any interest in tackling those substantive issues, so I don't foresee this remaining as a FA at this time. Imzadi 1979  19:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Don't move to FARC Inappropriate at this time since no explanation, justification, or rationale has been given to any of the claims made re:substantive issues on this or Talk:Pulaski Skyway. As stated per Wikipedia:Featured article review

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.

This has not happened. Firstly, there is conflict with regards to [[Wikipedia:UNDUE as there are no opposing point of view about the simple facts presented. Further, the comments made do not provide for changes that are actionable, as explained in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions. Djflem (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

@Djflem: we generally only conclude Review sections as Keep if it is striaghtforward. Moving it here doesn't mean it is demoted, but it can undergo a more protracted editing period to ensure it gets sufficient time to be worked on (sometimes months...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's clear. So why move an article it to FARC if the review is not complete? If there are concerns they should be expressed by those who have them in such a way that other editors can address them, no? Djflem (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The main substantive criticism was the weight of the more recent section, but as I said above, I'm not convinced that the section is undue, given that the skyway has little history to describe other than its construction and repair. The other points raised are essentially arguable either way. I do think that the article is weak because it introduces material, such as the bill to raise tolls, but then doesn't build on or explain that. I suspect that the bill failed and so that's why tolls were never introduced but this is left hanging in the article because there are no sources (that I can find) that actually tell us what happened next. Similarly, we are told that in 1952 some trucks drove onto the skyway, but the paragraph covering that basically sits by itself and doesn't fit easily into the narrative flow, in my opinion. This style of writing can be typical of more esoteric topics, because there is so little material to gather, the article ends up being a hash of individual snippets rather than a flowing story. I am not saying that this material should be cut, only that the subject matter does not lend itself easily to good prose. DrKay (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep per DrKay. The narrative is not entirely brilliant, but I'm not sure it could be such given the material and sources. I'm aware that the weight issue is contentious, but I'm not convinced it's dire enough for delisting. --Laser brain (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)