Wikipedia:Featured article review

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, DrKiernan, 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: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Featured article log Featured article statistics Random featured article Former featured articles

Nominating an article for FAR The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows: For articles on the Unreviewed Featured Articles list, no more than three nominations per week and twelve per month. 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. 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. 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". From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text. 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". 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". 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

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

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)
    • See Template:FAR-instructions on how to make an FAR. GamerPro64 23:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I already started doing so even after I had left the page. Gamingforfun³⁶⁵ (talk) 23:28, 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)

Banff National Park

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

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)

Peru

Notified: Victor12, Materialscientist, Peru Wikiproject

I am nominating this featured article for review because...the article no longer meets the standards.

1. The history has become too long and with focus on random areas (such as Inca worship and Fujimori inflation statistics).
2. Citations are missing from several parts of the article. For example, foreign relations and military sections.
3. Too much focus is placed on unimportant topics, such as water supply and sanitation, making for a terrible structure.
4. The reference formats are too inconsistent.
5. Demographic statistics are of dubious neutrality, especially when considering the complex racial structure of the country.
6. Too many images, causing excessive text sandwiching.
7. The article is wordy as a whole and does not follow WP:Summary guidelines.

These are just a few of the many problems in the article. Unfortunately, it no longer meets the criteria for FA status.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where you have followed step 1 of the FAR process (raising issues directly on the talk page and giving editors a chance to respond). --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laser! Good to see you again. I made a comment on several of these same issues back in July 2014 ([1]), these include: the references, the use of images, the increasing use of text contrary to summary guidelines. None of these points were addressed at the time, despite promises by an editor working in the article to do so, and the article has fallen under further disarray. Victor12, the editor who had the most extensive knowledge of the topic, as well as being the article's original FA nominator, seems to have stopped editing Wikipedia (except for a few, minor and sporadic edits)—at this time, nobody is addressing other important points raised in the talk page ([2] and [3]).

I'd volunteer to work on the article and fix it, but have no time at present (in addition to being tied to an AN/I issue that is taking away what is left of my free time in WP). The article's FA status may be giving the wrong impression to potential editors who can help it. Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Pulaski Skyway

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

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.

Category:Causeways appear to include numerous structures of similar type

• "The landmark structure", WP:PEACOCK.

Landmark 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.

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.

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."

is there one? remove?

• 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.

countless road articles in 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

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

Would 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.

please do so

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

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

remove????

• 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.

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

announcement 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.

split

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

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?

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."

• References 3 and 103 are dead links.

ref 3 de-linked, 103 not dead link

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

Map 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.

location= Hoboken, NJ added

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

removed

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

Djflem (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Rwanda

Notified: Amakuru, Lemurbaby, BanyanTree, WikiProject Rwanda, WikiProject Countries

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it currently falls short of being comprehensive and well-researched. Parts of the article are rather dated. For example, the data on religion is from the 2002 census, not the more recent 2012 census, and much of the data in the economy, education and health sections is from the late 2000s. There are some questionable statements, such as "It is not clear who funded the next batch of 100,000 XO-XS laptops nor the additional laptops leading to the 400,000 XO-XS laptops", which is sourced to a wiki site. The section Millennium Development Goal 6 lacks context, with no explanation of what this MDG is. There is a general need to update the article, which quite a few relatively old "as of" statements present. I have personally rewritten the sport section, and have tried to encourage other editors to help with improving the article, but not much progress has been made. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

An inconsistency: the introduction states that "Rwandans are composed of three ethnic groups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa", whereas the demographics section states that "the population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: there's a general problem here, because it is quite a hotly disputed topic in sources as to what the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa groups actually are. In some sources, Banyarwanda are regarded as one ethnic group, sharing a language and culture, with Hutu and Tutsi being social classifications, while in other sources the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa are themselves regarded as separate ethnicities. The text tries to explain this issue, and I've changed the lead to match what's in the Demographics section. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but I still think this part needs work. The lede states "The Rwandan population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda, although within this group there are three subgroups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. The Twa are a forest-dwelling pygmy people descended from Rwanda's earliest inhabitants. Scholars disagree on the origins of and differences between the Hutu and Tutsi; some believe differences are derived from former social castes, while others view them as being ethnicities or tribes". The scholars who consider Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups can't consider that the Rwandan population is drawn from just one ethnic group. I think we need more of a sense that there is disagreement between scholars who think there is one ethnic group, and those who think there are multiple ethnic groups (both in the introduction and the demographics section). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Cordless Larry. I think part of the difficulty here is that the term "ethnic group" is not clearly defined. In the UK we tend to talk of an "Anglo Saxon" ethnicity, but that is of course itself a hybrid of various different peoples, not just Angles and Saxons, but some native and other peoples as well. The main source I used in this section is Mamdani's book "When Victims Become Killers", which looks at some of the arguments in the matter but doesn't really give a definitive answer. One thing he says is "If we understand an ethnic group to mean a cultural group, comprising those who speak a common language, then the Banyarwanda must be considered East Africa's largest ethnic group". So he's saying it doesn't matter what their origins are, as long as they share language and culture, then they're a single ethnic group. I've just edited the article and replaced "ethnic and linguistic" with "cultural and linguistic" to make this more clear, and I've removed the bit saying Tutsi and Hutu may be ethnicities, to more explicitly say that those scholars on that side of the fence believe they come from separate origins, but without treading the minefield of whether that means they're separate ethnicities or not. Let me know what else I can do to make this clear. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Amakuru. I think the new text works better than the old, and while there's more that could be said, I think this is about right for a main country article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Education and health

The main focus for my efforts this weekend is going to be bringing the health section into line. I would like some feedback on one thing though - at the time of featuring, this as the version of the article: [4]. Then, education and health were in one paragraph (which I had modeled on a similar paragraph over at Cameroon, an earlier FA). The education part has not changed much, apart from the addition of some over detailed analysis of laptops. The health section, however, has been hived off into a separate section, and largely filled with non encylopedic and over detailed information.

My question is whether it makes sense to fold these two back into one paragraph, with just a summary of the details of each. The thing to bear in mind is that this is strictly a summary article. Country articles can never hope to go into very much detail on any particular topic, which is why we have child articles Education in Rwanda and Health in Rwanda to provide much more detail on that. In fact, the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates does not suggest including any detail about education and health at all. Personally I would favour the approach of updating the paragraphs from the FA version, to reflect up to date information, but keeping the two subjects in one short section, as before. What think you?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few of the country featured articles do have health and education sections, often as sub-sections of demographics. Do they naturally belong together in one section? I'm not sure they do, personally. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've now rewritten the health section, it gives a general overview, with citations and some relevant statistics, but without going beyond two paragraphs. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Amakuru, that now looks much better. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sport sub-section

Amakuru's post above reminded me that I meant to mention that the sport sub-section that I wrote is currently quite long. There is perhaps a need to create Sport in Rwanda, to move the content of the sport sub-section there, and to summarise it for the Rwanda article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I had thought of that myself a while ago. That's a very good idea.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Things that need updating

Lead

• Confirm relgion figures. - Already done.
• Check females in government posistions fact - Done.

History

• Last paragraph updated for recent developments - Done.

Politics and government

• Mention the two term limit and current proposals to remove it - Done.
• Update with recent sources for criticism of constitution - Done.
• Update numbers of deputies with more recent election, including facts about female majorty - Done.
• Check on latest status of courts (in particular gacaca) - Done.
• Update facts and figures on corruption - Done.
• UPdate cites on the RPF dominance - Done.
• Update relations with France and Francophonie - Done.
• Update relations with Uganda and Congo - Done.

Administrative divisions No changes needed

Geography

• Make sure still 149th largest country (given new countries that have come into place) - Yes it is.
• Make sure climate figures are up to date - Yes.

Economy

• Update GDP figure - Done.
• Update USD exchange rate - Done.
• Update plans for EA shilling - Done.
• Update farming figures, and GDP contribution - Done.
• Update crops - Done.
• Update industrial sector figures and products - Done.
• Update tourism figures - Done.
• Update media and communications - Done.

Infrastructure

• Update water figures - Water is up to date.
• Update electricity figures - Electricity up to date.
• Update transport

Demographics

• Make sure basic figures and densities are up to date - Done.
• UPdate faith figures - Done.
• CHeck languages

Culture

• Check national holidays - Done.

Cuisine

• Check beers - Done.

Education

• Check and update - Up to date.

General

• Go through all references, check for deadlinks and format correctly.

@Cordless Larry: now that the sport and health has been dealt with, the above is a list of things I'd like to check and update now, based on a read through of the article just now. If you can think of anything else, please let me know. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work, Amakuru. I'm incredibly busy off-Wikipedia at the moment, but that looks like a good list. If I get some time, I'll help out making the checks you identify. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've not looked at this for a week or two, but it's still on my to-do list and I hope to get back to the tidy up very soon... please keep open for now!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I checked for more recent tourism figures yesterday, but could only find official statistics to 2011, though more recent figures have featured in reports such as this, so they must exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I also found this potential source for beers. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the number of public holidays from 11 to 12, but the source also lists Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Are these full public holidays too? If so, it should be 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The relevant law suggests that they are official holidays, so I will update to 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry. I have no idea why I looked at the new source and thought there were still eleven. I must have counted very badly!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry and Amakuru: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've not been able to commit much time to this, but Amakuru has been chipping away at it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry it's taking so long, (I've been very busy in real life), but as Cordless Larry says, I have been doing it little by little over the past few weeks. If it's OK I'd like to keep it open until I can polish off the remaining items on the list above, and then we can see where we are. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

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

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World

Notified: Clyde Miller, WikiProject Video games

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of it not being up to snuff in terms of standards for Featured Article. Throughout its page it uses references considered unreliable for video game articles (i.e Armchair Empire). Also the prose should be reworked, with sentences like "Empires‍ '​ multiplayer component, powered by GameSpy, is freely available to any player who has an updated version of the game. Though as of 2007, this game is no longer supported by GameSpy for online play." as its both poor and outdated. Overall not something I should have the bronze star on it in its current state. GamerPro64 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Time has not been kind to this article. Yep, at the very least the whole thing needs a through scrub and the lede is way too short for FA status. – czar 22:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

The lead does not summarize most of the content and the Reception section could probably be reworked. Anarchyte 04:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC No-one working on it. DrKiernan (talk) 19:55, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
• Move to FARC - This isn't going anywhere. GamerPro64 02:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

Standing concerns over reliability of sourcing and comprehensiveness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delist - Per my comments. GamerPro64 14:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delist and re-assess as B-class. The prose needs improvement, not all of the sources are appropriate per WP:VG/RS, and the lead disappoints. Could be a GA candidate given some editing, expansion, and (re)sourcing. Esquivalience ^t 22:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: I'd like to take a shot at saving this one. I remember supporting it when it passed back in the day, and the lead editor was a Wikifriend of mine. It should be fairly easy to polish up. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that's worth holding off delisting this for the time being. Jimmy knows how to get stuff done. GamerPro64 03:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks. It's going to be a bigger job than I initially thought, but I'm going to work on it steadily until it's done. Thanks for everyone's patience in advance. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Hey, if you get stuck into it, we can cut considerable slack for time...we're happy to leave it open for as long as it takes if y'er still plugging away at it. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Much appreciated. It might take me a couple weeks, but I'll whip this thing into shape. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
          • It's starting to come together. There's plenty of work ahead, but I can finally see the end of the tunnel. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
            • Everything's done except the lead and Reception, which are half finished. Progress will be slow this week because of limited Internet access where I'm at, unfortunately. I'm in the home stretch, in any case. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
              • Still dragging here, but rest assured that I haven't given up. I should be able to return to full work on the article this week. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
                • Thanks for keeping us informed! DrKiernan (talk) 08:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
                  • I wrote up a Reception section and finished the lead. The article's quite a bit smaller than it used to be, but I've tapped every worthwhile source I could find. How does it look, guys? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: and @Esquivalience: can you please offer an opinion on the improvements? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• This article is a massive improvement thanks in part to Jimmy. I'm striking my vote to Delist and voting to have it keep its FA status. GamerPro64 02:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Great unilateral save. Esquivalience ^t 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys - will ping the others who've commented above and if we have a consensus I'll close it up. ...hey @Czar:, @Anarchyte: and @DrKiernan:...who do y'all feel about this article now? Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice work on the cleanup, though I think the gameplay should be better described in the lede for FA status. (And the gameplay section presumes that the reader knows what real-time strategy genre gameplay entails.) Still nothing I feel strongly enough to hold up the train.  czar 21:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Tamils

Also note: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tamil people/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tamil people

Notified: Vadakkan, Sundar, Subramanian, Wikiproject India, Wikiproject Dravidian civilizations, Wikiproject Tamil civilization

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review. The article has been a prime candidate for FAR since 2010 and at that time Dana boomer and I had some discussion on getting this here. However, I didn't follow through on time. We've had posts about some of the problems on the talk page: Nov 2010, Oct 2013, Talk:Tamils#Featured Article Review. The major issues include (a)quality of sources used within the article, (b)image use -- while copyright vios are a regular concern, the random use of images without context is also a problem (c)Undue weight to certain aspects, including synthesis of information from external sources, (d) some copyvios have been inserted into the article and have stayed in for a while (a deeper check is still needed). I have also started a deeper source evaluation here; hoping it would be ready by the time we go to FARC. —SpacemanSpiff 07:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was hoping this would get some comments. Personally I don't think this is an easy fix, the history is complex and over the years a lot of unsourced content has been dropped in front of references. There's a lot of OR and POV stuff that's being edit warred over even during this review.—SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Sourcing, stability and copyright problems. A couple of years ago, I tried to fix up Azerbaijanis and eventually gave up after a large amount of work because it proved to be a wasteful time sink. This article appears to be suffering in a similar way, and I doubt it will be possible to fix it through this process. DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Got to know about the FAR just today. Agree, the quality of the article has come down in the recent years. May I ask to kindly allow a reasonable period of time? —Vensatry _(ping) 06:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

I note recent editing by blocked users. The articles's size and broadness/complexity means it needs a detailed FARC to come though with its star intact. Concerns are fidelity to sourcing, stability and risk/presence of copyvios. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but that's only one part of the whole mess. If you see this revert of mine (since reinserted) you'll notice how some of the POV nonsense is taking over the article:
  • "The Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka reflected some elements of Tamil martial traditions which included worship of fallen heroes (Maaveerar Naal) and practice of martial suicide. They carried a Suicide pill around their neck to escape the captivity and torture."
  • "A remarkable feature besides to their willingness to sacrifice is, that they were well organized and disciplined. It was forbidden for the rebels to consume tobaccos, alcohols, drugs and to have sexual relationship."
• It is really unfortunate as this is a subject that has significant scholarly study, but over the past three to four years the article has become a place to promote fringe perspectives and most editors who've been interested in maintaining this article have simply given up. —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delist. Unsourced statements from February 2011; dead external links from August 2015; apparently unsourced weasel words, such as "what is considered to be folk Hinduism"; mixture of American and British spelling; inclusion of material in the lead that is not found in the article body. DrKiernan (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Any update here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Midway

User:Jparshall inactive. Notified: WikiProject Military history

WP:URFA nom

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is currently in three cleanup categories: Wikipedia articles needing page number citations (tagged September 2010, June 2013, July 2013, October 2014, June 2015), articles with unsourced statements (tagged March 2015), and articles with dead external links (tagged July 2015). DrKiernan (talk) 06:59, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it and see what needs to be done.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I've made a start on fixing up the references. I hope to complete this tomorrow. Can you read through the article and look for any gaps and errors? One that is sticking out for me is that there is a section on Japanese casualties, but not on the American ones. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, the references are repaired, but there is a pile of uncited material. Hawkeye7 (talk) 12:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed one broken cite, but there's a fair amount of work to be done. Nothing too onerous, but it will take me a week or two to add the missing cites, etc.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• @Sturmvogel 66: Update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Thanks for the changes and work so far, but the article is still tagged for citation needed, clarification and pages needed. DrKiernan (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

Moved here now - I note the tags still present, so have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delist. Unsourced statements from July and August 2015; tagged as needing clarification and page numbers. DrKiernan (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

  Doesn't look too serious. I will do another pass over the references on the weekend. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep We have corrected all the bits needing citations, clarifications and page numbers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
• Keep - article now looks to be up to scratch as far as I can see following the recent work that has been done to it. Some minor points:
  • The notes next to the references don't really seem to be in-line with current practice and some seem to be a little judgmental / opinionated re sources. I'd suggest removing them.
  • There are some minor inconsistencies in the references and further reading section IRT presentation of the Naval Institute Press (sometimes also presented as "United States Naval Institute Press", "U.S. Naval Institute Press" or "US Naval Institute Press" etc.) I fix it myself but I'm unsure which is the preferred style here.
  • I did a minor copy-edit, added some bibliographic details / formatted some refs, made a few other changes [5].Anotherclown (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • While it is the United States Naval Institute, the publishing arm is Naval Institute Press. Set all the references to this.
    • I have removed some of the footnotes, and merged some into the text. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
• Query I have started creating Category:Aircraft carrier units and formations after noticing that USN and IJN carrier divisions were redirecting to each other (eg. Carrier Division 5). Currently the Japanese carrier divisions are at ordinals, eg Fifth Carrier Division, rather than the numerical-at-end-of-designation USN style. I think that it's possible that IJN carrier divisions started off their wiki-existence in USN style. So my query is is ordinals correct (5th Carrier Division, *not* Carrier Division 5) for the IJN? In that case, the article links need to be updated. Meanwhile the USN World War II divisions will eventually end up as Carrier Division Five (United States) etc. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Georg Forster

Notified: Kusma, WP Libraries, WP Germany, WP Plants, WP Journalism, WP Birds

URFA nom.

Review section

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standard; it has uncited text and some MOS issues, as mentioned on talk in April 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe in the future you could ping the appropriate projects, rather than just putting a comment on the talk page and hoping someone might notice? We didn't know there was a problem until you pinged us today with news of the review. :P Will see what I can do. MeegsC (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm thrilled to see people descending on the article for improvements, even though the talk page notice was ignored for more than two weeks, indicating that we had another older unwatched FA. Meegs, your suggestion is impractical for many reasons, which we could take up at WT:FAR (so as not to muck up this page) if you are interested. Please keep in mind that one of the main objectives of FAR is to improve articles, and being here is not a "punishment". Also, I hope you've noted from the FAR instructions that we can KEEP without FARC, which is an outcome that delights most of us here ;) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am a bit busy IRL these days, and do not have much wikitime to dedicate to this right now, especially not without a bit more detail on what is wrong. As I haven't kept track of everything that happened at MOS: could you point me to the major issues that you see? Also, not every sentence is followed by an inline citation, but if you could tell me where you would expect additional citations I am happy to go hunting through my Forster biographies. Sadly, my current university library doesn't seem to have a copy of Saine's biography, but I'll see what I can do. —Kusma (t·c) 13:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes-- happy to see people willing to work here! I will start a list, not yet comprehensive, and add to it as issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your list. I'll try to improve the messiness. Fortunately, there actually are page numbers in most citations to Saine's biography, but they are visible only in the wikitext, not in the displayed result. I do not recall why this is the case and whether they used to be displayed when the article passed FA. On the whole, the article has been quite stable since it became a FA, but I certainly agree it no longer looks like the best we can do. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• spaced WP:EMDASHes ... the article should use either unspaced WP:EMDASHes or spaced WP:ENDASHes.
• What is the order of the Works section? Alpha, chrono?
• Book sources need page nos.
• Citations do not have a consistent style (as but one example, look at the many different ways author names are rendered)
• Citations are incomplete or incorrently written. All sources need a publisher, all websources need an accessdate, and author and date should be supplied whenever available, also ...
  • [2], English translation at australiaonthemap.org.au (archived link, 19 July 2008) needs to be cleaned up to a correct citation.
• Check image captions (for example, The Pinnacle of liberty, A satire by James Gillray)
• Italics should not be used here, and I'm wondering if this can be reversed (that is, put the English version, with a footnote to the original ???) ("The freedom of the press finally reigns within these walls where the printing press was invented.) See WP:NONENG. That is one sentence: I don't think it needs a pull quote, but Maralia may know better.
• There's sort of a mess everywhere in terms of WP:ITALICS in relation to words as words, translations, quotes, etc:
  • called "Freunde der Freiheit und Gleichheit" ("Friends of Freedom and Equality")
• Avoid WP:OVERLINK on common terms known to most English speakers and not needed for understanding of this article (samples, Latin, England, philosophy, there is more) and link on first occurrence.

This is not a complete list, but is enough to get started. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment

• Fixed all dead links, captions and a few overlinks.
• Improved dash-usage (opted for spaced en-dash), but this will need another look (especially in refs).
• WP:ITALICS, "page numbers and other ref details", and "sorting of works" in a meaningful way is above my paygrade.
• I could try to transform references into cite-templates - if nobody is objecting against that citation style. Only a minority of references use cite-templates currently. GermanJoe (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC to keep on progress. Is anyone willing/able to finish this up? There are still inconsistent citations, minor amounts of united text, italics issues (e.g. quotes), and Overlinking, at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  I am still giving this 100% of my wikitime, but that hasn't been much at all (travelling, work, sick kids). I hope I'll get through the citations next week. —Kusma (t·c) 06:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks, Kusma; I will be traveling for a few weeks if you don't hear back from me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kusma: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Back from the dead (marking exams and other business meaning no wikitime at all), back to normal not-enough wikitime. Will report on progress as it happens, hopefully during July. —Kusma (t·c) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am having difficulties with the "Works" section, it is a completely random mess in my opinion. I am uncertain how to best approach it between OR and copyvio concerns. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not just remove the works section then? FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Would anybody object if it is gone? —Kusma (t·c) 18:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe I am saying that, but the list should stay imo. Granted, it is a bit messy and borderline-useless for most average readers, but someone interested in in-depth research about Forster may find the information useful. I trimmed a few entries with no conceivable immediate usage and sorted the list. GermanJoe (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It does look a lot better (thank you!) and does not compare too poorly to some other Works section in FA-class biographies. Something like Charles Darwin bibliography, while desirable, should not be necessary here. —Kusma (t·c) 14:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have cleaned up some of the more obvious problems with citations, switched to "surname, given name" format, and removed the optional publisher locations. Unfortunately several of the references include non-standard information and additional remarks, where I have no real clue how to improve them - or if it's even necessary. And I lack all of the older sources to add eventually missing details. Another look on the reference progress and additional advice would be great. I hope, we can give old articles a bit of leeway :), but can clean up some more if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

I have moved this here to clarify who thinks what about whether this article is kept or removed. So please comment here if you think it now meets FA criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The notes are still a bit of a mess, with lots of problems in formatting and consistency. I'll start going through them as I have time, and then I'll do a read-through of the prose for any other problems. I'm hoping we don't have problems with missing page numbers from inaccessible sources. --Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to be within criteria now. DrKiernan (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)

Gadget850 is retiring; Notified: WikiProject Scouting

WP:URFA nom

Review section

Per talk page notification: uncited text, and prose/style issues, including repetitive headings, short sections and too short lead. DrKiernan (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. No-one working on it. DrKiernan (talk) 07:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

Concerns raised in the review section focused on referencing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• Delist. Per opening statement. DrKiernan (talk) 14:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
• Delist - Per DrKiernan's comments. GamerPro64 18:28, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - I would like to take the opportunity to edit this article to meet the FA requirements.

  Bfpage |leave a message  15:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Bfpage: I am happy to hear that, we have plenty of leeway to leave these as open for considerable time to get them cleaned up...so go for thy life....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
• @Bfpage: please let us know when you feel satisfied this page meets criteria or at least when we should all look at it again. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• The article was proposed to be deleted in July. My first response was less than a month ago. I have done some confirmation of the references and done some refining of the prose. I have contacted other editors who have contributed to the article in the past and notified them that the article is under review. It is fairly long and will take more time. The reasons cited for delisting the article are mentioned above and are based upon the comments of Nikkimaria. My concern is that POV issues may arise and that those who 'don't like' the topic may begin to add to the list of issues. The Boy Scouts in general are are controversial group of topics, though the editing history on this article appears to be stable. I would like to leave a message on the talk page of the Project Scouting letting interested project members know that the article is undergoing review. Is that appropriate?

  Bfpage |leave a message  09:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I left a message at the WikiProject in July, but it does no harm to leave another. DrKiernan (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

According to the editing history there at least two of us who have made 52 edits since the review was initiated. In addition, the guidelines describing the FAR process strongly encourages those nominating the FA article for review to aid in its improvement. This has not happened yet.

  Bfpage |leave a message  09:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Umm, I don't follow. This is the FA review process.....realistically this will be kept open as long as there is active work going on to improve it, which in the past has spanned months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bfpage: I have re-read your post. As FAR delegate I can't really keep/remove candidates if I have edited them heavily, so I won't be doing that. If no-one else is interested in working on it, I will delist it and it can be improved later and renominated at FAC. All the FA star is convey current status. I understand if folks are too busy or not enthused enough. I'll give it a week.01:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The nomination appears to be stalled: the issues I identified in the opening statement remain. DrKiernan (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

O-Bahn Busway

Notified: Michael (original nominator, retired), Jj98, WP Buses, Australia noticeboard

URFA nom

Talk page notice Jan 2015

Review section

This is a 2006 promotion that has been tagged for a year as outdated. There are other issues, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

The review section concerned the article's datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delist. Needs updating and copy-editing. Unaddressed concerns with sourcing and comprehensiveness on the talk page: Talk:O-Bahn Busway#FA Concerns. DrKiernan (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delist - This needs a fair amount of work. In addition to other text previously tagged as outdated, the fares are out of date. The claim "The O-bahn design is unique among public transport systems..." seems to have been invalidated by the 2011 debut of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Some attention is needed to representations of money: Australian dollar is not linked until the sixth section of the article; some figures are given as A$ while others are simply $; and no conversions are given at all. The See also and External links sections need pruning. The citations need work: there's a bare url, a dead link, missing accessdates, and an undefined source (UBD Adelaide?). Maralia (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hold, improving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I am going to be traveling and may not have internet access (don't know yet); once Maralia is satisfied, I'm satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment A couple of us have put some work in to returning it to standard, but none of us are FA experts, so are really only responding to specific concerns, not the general principles. Any additional advice and assistance would be welcome, although it may be too late now. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I will be out all day, but will look in this weekend. Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Review

• Too much happening in this image caption, it took me a long time to figure out what it was trying to say: "Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied Mercedes-Benz O305 on the O-Bahn guide-way".
• Is this hyphen an Austrlian or English thing? "city's rapidly expanding north-eastern suburbs".
• Per WP:V, how would one go about verifying sources like these ?
  • Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson
  • Busway Information, Paper Three: Operational Strategy, South Australian Department of Transport (1983)
    • Are these published documents or some sort of in-house thing?
• Where is this information from the lead cited in the article?
  • The Adelaide O-bahn was the first bus rapid transit system in Australia and among the first to operate in the world.
• Is there any problem with the simpler language of:
  • The population of Adelaide more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
• instead of:
  • Adelaide has had significant population growth since the industrial expansion following World War II, with the population having more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
• In addition to the growing population, there was an explosion in the number of new motor vehicle registrations, a 43-fold increase in the period from 1944–65. This was fuelled by nation-wide full employment, annual economic growth close to 10%, and the discontinuation of government fuel rationing after World War II.
  • More unnecessary verbiage which sounds like a political promotion.
• There have been a number of proposals to extend ...
  • is sourced to 1983, suggesting the article still needs updating (what happened with that)?
• On a quick skim, I didn't find current usage/ridership/whatever data.
• Sentences should not start with numbers.
• Convoluted bodied bodied bodies ... I don't know what it's saying:
  • Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied 41 rigid and 51 articulated bodied buses, their cost included in the original $98 million budget.
• These along with a single Mercedes-Benz O405NH make up today's fleet.
  • No as of date, no idea what "today" refers to, and an incomplete citation, with no date as a clue.
• Biodiesel fuel was trialled between July 2005 and May 2006.
  • And ???

In summary, there are prose issues, but more significantly, I am still concerned about needed updates, and quite a few of the citations are incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: are you still following? More than a week has passed ... I am still at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That ping will not work as you did not sign again when you changed the name. Rcsprinter¹²³ (parlez) @ 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks, sorry, I thought I had! @ScottDavis: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry @SandyGeorgia: - I had seen your more detailed notes but not had time to look at them and the article properly since you posted them. Thank you, I'll try to address some in the next few days. I hope that @BarossaV: might drop back in to help too, but he/she might be away as they haven't edited for over a week. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Review response

Thank you for the detailed review. I have attempted to address most of your points, and perhaps a few others I saw for myself.

• I think I have trimmed and simplified the captions
• Yes. north-east is spelled with a hyphen in Australian English (ref: Macquarie Dictionary online)
• I have not found those documents online, not sure if that shows I didn't look hard enough, or if they are only available in hard copy somewhere due to their age. a comment on the Railpage forum confirms that one of them exists and can be found from that reference.
• I deleted the sentence about first BRT - I think it is probably true, but I have never heard it called that, so unlikely to find a reference that it was first, other than a complete list with start dates, if such exists.
• Thank you for the suggested simpler language. I think I went further in a few other places too.
• No extensions have eventuated, so references are simply to a selection of proposals. Something might come of the current proposal to add a tunnel or lanes closer to the city, but the consultation is not complete yet, so it probably won't look exactly like the concept drawings. If anything, I'd like to shorten that section to avoid undue weight, but I think it needs to remain in some form.

Thank you for the help on this article. I don't know if I've done enough to save its FA status, but I'm certain it has improved through the review process from where it was when it was nominated for review. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for continuing, ScottDavis, and for the improvements; I can give it another pass to see where we stand, if you indicate that you are committed to restoring it to standard. If not, I'm unsure if I should invest the time, so please let me know of your availability to continue work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes @SandyGeorgia:, I am prepared to continue working on it. Thank you for helping. I don't have easy access to resources that are not online though, so I can't verify or expand the citations for things that are cited to documents without URLs from the 1980s. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Update

1. The WP:LEAD is short and doesn't adequately summarize the article, but the work of finishing the lead is usually best left to last, after content in the body is nailed down.
2. In the "See also" section, I suspect that Bus rapid transit could be linked somewhere in the article and removed from See also, but I'm unsure where to link it.
3. Citation consistency, some have author first, some have author at end, some have author last name first, some have author first name first ... pick on :)
   • (author is last here). Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson ... and this is missing publisher ... where does one locate this document?
   • First name last name. Susan Marsden. "Hindmarsh – a short history". Professional Historians Association (SA). p. 23. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
   • Last name, first name. Donovan, Peter (1991). Highways: A History of the South Australian Highways Department. Griffin Press Limited. ISBN 0-7308-1930-2. (Books need page numbers)
   • tom name ? Pengelley, Jill; Zed, tom (16 October 2009). "South Road Superway to connect Regency Rd, Port River Expressway". The Advertiser. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
4. More citation consistency, some of the citations are rendered by manual (rather than template), and there is no consistent punctuation ... for example,

   Hunt for O-Bahn fleet Adelaide Advertiser 29 September 2007

   has no punctuation whatsoever, while other citations have periods after title and publisher. All of the citations should use the same format ... preferably with punctuation :)

5. Missing accessdates ... these things change ... Route 500 timetable Adelaide Metro ... and again, no punctuation ... you all might discuss whether you would rather use citation templates for consistency.
6. It is not clear that all of the External links are necessary ...

Prose (this is not a comprehensive list ... skipping around for samples)

1. "developed with American assistance" ... US ? Venezuelan? Argentine? All are America ... unclear what is meant here, government, private enterprise ? Vague.
2. The same as problem as before ... excess wordiness ... why not instead of:
   • A transport blueprint, developed with American assistance, was presented to the government in 1968: the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS).
   • A transport blueprint, the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS), was developed with assistance from (??) in 1968.
3. Isn't "abandonment" kind of a one-time thing? How do successive governments abandon something? The plan was abandoned by successive governments, ...
4. alluvial soil could probably be wikilinked ...
5. comma ? On some sections 115 km/h (71 mph) was achieved in tests.

This article is definitely improving, and you're on the right track, but I suggest that @Tony1: might help on the prose matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Maralia:, @DrKiernan:, fresh eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, getting better. I removed three external links (one was about transport in Adelaide generally; another was a personal website that had only 3 images; and the last literally did not mention the O-Bahn). I also took care of the rest of the citation formatting. Agree that some prose work is still needed, but this is getting close. I've struck my delist comment above. Thanks for your work, ScottDavis; just a little more tightening for clarity, along the lines of SG's "Prose" list immediately above. Maralia (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: Thanks for taking care of the specific issues mentioned above. This is getting close to ready, but the prose isn't quite there yet. I undertook a major rewrite of the Planning section in an attempt to demonstrate a more logical flow. I still think this article would benefit from a full copyedit. Maralia (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Maralia: I have read through and tweaked a few phrases, but I suspect I've reached the limit of my ability. The "Expansion proposals" section feels very long and somewhat incidental. It also seems to assume a fair bit of knowledge of Adelaide landmarks and geography. To someone reading from further away, does the article lose anything significant by deleting the heading and first three paragraphs of that section? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have stalled, but while the issues with the original article at the time of its writing seem to generally have been fixed, I think it's out of date. There is no mention of the extension in the lede, and gets all of two sentences in the article, which seems drastically short since it's both politically controversial and probably the signature public transport policy of this term of the Weatherill government. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

My reason for not putting any more about the current proposal to extend is that it is currently still only a proposal. I agree there could be an update that there are now four versions of the proposal in 2015, but it doesn't belong in the lead until it is actually happening; there have been many other proposals that have not eventuated. The political controversy probably belongs just as much in Rymill Park or Weatherill government. I need help from someone else to polish the text further, as FA-standard text is not what I usually practice. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I can understand it not going in the lede on that basis, but there still needs to be more details in the relevant section of the article since it is a significant political issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the quality of the text is fine.--Grahame (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. FARC section open for 4 months with no substantive delist votes remaining. DrKiernan (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• ozroads.com.au is a self-published source.
• Last two sentences of the second paragraph of Development not sourced
• First paragraph of Buses is not sourced
• The article would really benefit from a map of the route
• I would expect a more detailed route desription for the busway – from one end of it to the other, describe the direction it travels in, features it passes, type of development around it, suburbs it goes through, etc. See the route descriptions of Kwinana Freeway, Great Eastern Highway, Forrest Highway for some examples of how a route from point A to point B can be described – readers should be able have a basic idea of what a journey on the route is like.
• The Route table, which uses {{AUSinttop}}, can have an interchange column turned on. This will allow the location column to be used for the actual suburbs, which is its purpose.
• Does any reference show the distances ad being exactly 3.0, 6.0, and 12.0 km? If not, don't use a false precision.
• Converted speed limits should be rounded to the nearest 5 – the extra precision doesn't serve any purpose for readers
• In terms of structure/organisation, I would usually put a description-type section first, before a history-type section. This allows readers, especially those not familiar with the subject or area, to understand more of and have some context of what is discussed in the history section.
• The lead is meant to summarise the article, and so there shouldn't be information in there that isn't in the rest of the article – I don't see O-Bahn etymology, passenger capacity, operated by Light-City Buses, and current passenger numbers elsewhere in the article.
• The lead seems quite short and an inadequate summary of the article – whole sections aren't mentioned at all (Effects on local development, Environment).
• Has an infobox been considered? {{Infobox rail line}} has some appropriate fields, and allows ones that aren't applicable to be skipped. The route diagram could also go in the infobox.

Those are the more major issues issues I can see – I haven't done a full check for MOS or other minor/copyediting issues. - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to attempt to address all of those at once tonight, but am making a start...

• OzRoads is a secondary reference for two points about the MATS plan, the text probably is suitable by just removing it, but they are offline sources difficult to access.
• It appears the unreferenced sentences were referenced until a significant copyedit in April seems to have just dropped the reference, so I have put it back.
• I've cited the first sentence of that paragraph, haven't found a WP:RS for the rest yet.
• I've tried making a few maps for Wikipedia, but my computer system is not really up to the job yet. I think the SA roads datasets has the relevant data with a suitable licence. I hope to get a suitable computer within 12 months.

I've learned a new parameter for {{convert}} - thanks :-)

Route table, lead and infobox can wait for another session.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 14:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)