Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 2011[edit]

Kept status[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 13:32, 14 April 2011 [1].

Lion[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats, Wikipedia:WikiProject India, Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa, User:Casliber
  • "Recent" subspecies header needs a better descriptor. How recent is recent?
  • Last sentence of first paragraph, and entire second paragraph, of "physical characteristics" are unsourced.
  • Fourth paragraph of "mane" is unsourced.
  • Last sentences in first two paragraphs of "group organization" are unsourced.
  • Last two sentences in first paragraph of "health" are unsourced.
  • [not in citation given] tag under "interspecific predatory relationships" and "in captivity" headers.
  • Lots of one-sentence paragraphs in "Cultural depictions."
  • Several dead links in references, far more than are already tagged with {{dead link}}.
  • What makes these reliable sources?
  • Refs #37 and #76 from Honolulu Zoo are the same website.
  • Many refs are missing authorship and/or work credits, although most are the aforementioned seemingly-unreliable sites.
  • Unqualified "In relatively recent times" under Distribution and Habitat header, and two unqualified "currently"s under Population and conservation status.
  • Link to dab page Tsavo National Park.
  • Cultural Depictions feels like an infodump, using almost entirely primary sources for things like sports teams with lion mascots.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, even with semiprotection, this high traffic article has been tricky to monitor over the years. I recall giving it a cleanout at least once in that time (twice?). I agree with much of what is said above. When it was promoted I tried hard to make a succinct, well-rounded Cultural depictions section, much of which was secondarily sourced. There are still secondary sources which should be referencing a significant portion of it. I do not have a problem with a primary source for an obviously highly notable team such as a national soccer team or NFL team. Source rules are guidelines. I will have a go at finding some secondary ones where possible or relegating material. It has been a magnet, and that is one reason why there is a daughter article. I normally hate separate "IPC" articles but in this case as one of the most heraldic animals of human civilization I felt it warranted it. This might take a while. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NB: Holocene is what recent means. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All isolated paras combined and some less notable examples removed from Cultural depictions section. Ive tagged some items myself and fixed some links. Will look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Recent" is actually well-defined in the article—it means Holocene, as usual in historical biology and geology. The distinction between "Recent" and "prehistoric" is dubious, though; the second category would be more consistently called "Pleistocene". Ucucha 11:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. converted to align with preceding Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
removed the two currentlys Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good points - it gets hard in big articles at times what to prioritise. I intend to do some juggling between the parent and daughter articles (where I meantioned and sourced the pub name) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say this explanation makes the [2] a reliable source, however, I agree that peer-reviewed material is better where available. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing happening for a wekk, so moved YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criterion of concern is referencing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
okay, how does that impact on its current status and licence? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removed - I suppose I could research the age of the statue but I don't think it is an especially notable one, so will replace with one with suitable licence. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Flag of Sri Lanka.svg - Needs a verifiable source. Inappropriate authorship attribution (Zscout370 created only the derivative SVG, not the flag design).
      "'removed. Section is jammed full of images anyway Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Jerusalem-coat-of-arms.svg - Same as above (Eliyahu Koren created the coat of arms, per the summary. Cameltrade cannot release rights to a mere derivative.)
      "'removed. Section is jammed full of images anyway Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Cartercoatofarms.jpg - Bogus license. Creation date is not the same as date of author death. Who was the author? When did s/he die? What is the basis for claiming s/he has been dead 100+ years?
      "'removed. Low notablty anyway. Section is jammed full of images anyway Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • See MOS:CAPTION regarding period usage. Эlcobbola talk 14:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This simplifies things as the article is crammed full of images. I will happily get rid of a bunch of them. 06:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, if the frankly fairly minor referencing issues & remaining image issues are sorted. Unlike most on this page this looks & feels like an FA to current standards. Really more sources should be moved down to "works cited", or those now there moved back to the notes section. But I wouldn't oppose on this. The pub name might be mentioned, but I don't agree more is needed on specifically Brit lion culture - almost every country uses lions in lots of ways & thinks they have a special relationship with them. Johnbod (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is work on this coming? Dana boomer (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! My free time is unpredictiable and I have some RL committments for the next two or three weeks. I need to fetch the Schaller book from the library and review some references. I need a stretch of free time where I can really sit down and review some consilidated bits. Until then I can tinker with it a little (remove some images, replace some Reliable sources etc.). This one is long but is closer to keeping FA status than some others I've worked on. I am also trying to help on Tasmanian devil which is further down the production line... Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still too many images that seem to have been dropped in since the FAC and need to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Luckily, many ones with questionable copyright status make for straightforward removal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I will get the Schaller book from the library this week, to double check numbers and sourcing (can't see the right pages on google preview :( ) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Cas, I know you're busy with your ArbCom candidacy, but how is work coming along on this? Dana boomer (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I finally pulled out the book yesterday and double checking. Not sure how long it will take. I'll say three weeks at the outer. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've pinged Casliber to ask that very question. For my money, the article looks good - but I can pitch in on some of the minor lingering items, if there are any. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of my biggest dilemmas is what to do about the Interspecific_predatory_relationships section. It needs going over and I have wondered whether it is just too much detail for this page. If we keep it, we need to review the references for it.
  • Boring stuff still to do. Format refs to "Smith, John; " where possible from "Smith J" etc. A few of these...
  • one dead link (groan)

All help appreciated :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Some progress on the links and images. I replaced the range map with the old one from the time of promotion, fixed the dead links, and fixed some of the redirects. It's tedious work. --Andy Walsh (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, it is a little bit. I will do some more in the next day or so. I do think we are heading towards keep territory, but to be fair need a little bit of housekeeping to do yet. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could we get an update on how this is going? The review is quickly approaching six months at FAR, and there has been no activity on this page for over a month. Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My (involved) vote is for leaning keep pending any changes pointed out by independent reviewers. I would like some guidance from outside voices over whether to keep or remove Interspecific_predatory_relationships. If we keep it, i'll have a go at improving that segment, which I haven't done as I wondered whether it was too much detail for an already large article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:10, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just been through it again and I recommend keep. A small worklist can be compiled for future consideration, but that is true of any FA. Cas, I think the section you mention should go—it seems to needlessly stretch the scope of the article. --Andy Walsh (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would keep the section, tighten it (if you hate losing the content do a daughter), move it up right after hunting, and rename it "predator competition". It's really kind of a cool section, but the title is a turnoff.TCO (talk) 06:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now why didn't I think of that? Okay, done. I will look at streamlining content if I can. done some trimming. tightened up the prose...actually upon reading it again I like the subject matter. Anyway, I am feeling better about it and the article as a whole. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A couple minor things that need to be taken care of, and then I think this can be closed:
    • A couple of "not in citation given" tags.
they are duplicated ones of ref 147 where the source has obviously deleted the page. I'll try and find an alternative today. If not I'll remove (which is a bit of a pity) Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
update - the WAZA site has been rejigged. One has to click on the "In the Zoo" button to see all the zoo stats in the ref. Not sure how to explain in the inline though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a "note=" field that says something like "click on "In the Zoo" to see zoo statistics"? Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A mix of British and American spelling (meter/metre, behavior/behaviour, etc).
converted to british all colours, meters and -izes. Did you see any others? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still seeing a bunch of "behavior" (shouldn't British spelling be "behaviour"?). Also "defense" ("defence")? And "neighbor" ("neighbour")? Dana boomer (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I tackled 8 "Behaviors", 1 "defense", and 1 "neighbor". I left one behavior in a reference (It's how the title is spelled in the original work) and one in a piped link (why bother with the redirect). UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dang, well spotted! Yes I'd keep the original spellings in the refs. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have all of the image issues above been taken care of?
yes Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once these are taken care of, the article should be good to go. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 19:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at long last. I don't see any other lingering issues, apart from those noted by Dana Boomer. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 20:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Raul654 05:20, 14 April 2011 [3].

Japan[edit]

Notified: John Smith's, WoodElf, TakuyaMurata, HongQiGong, WP Japan, WP East Asia, WP Countries

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article needs quite a bit of work to remain at featured status. Here are some of the first things I saw on a sweep of the article:

  • Extreme sandwiching of text between images and between images and infoboxes. A major cull of images is needed, as is a review of all image licensing.
  • Galleries are discouraged in featured articles, and I don’t think that the one in the culture and recreation section really adds enough to the reader’s understanding to really be needed.
  • Short paragraph scattered throughout the article break flow. Try combining or expanding these.
  • Quite a few little places that need references. For example, the two paragraphs about territorial disputes in the Foreign relations and military section. This is just an example, there are other places.
  • Several fact tags that need to be taken care of.
  • All uses of "%" should be spelled out – i.e., use "percent" instead.
  • There are three dead links and three dab links.
  • The prose needs a run-through, as there are quite a few little errors that need to be fixed. For example, in the history section, "The smallpox epidemic of 735–737 is believed to had killed as many as one-third of Japan's population." should be "…killed as much as…", not "as many as".
  • Simple grammar question: "is believed to had killed" sounds wrong to my ears but I cannot think of a grammatical reason to fault it and while "is believed to have killed" to me sounds better, having have which is usually plural paired with the singular epidemic does seem to be inconsistent. I checked the phrases on Google, however, and the version with have is overwhelmingly used more. So what gives? What's the proper form and why? Only explanation I can come up with is that subject-verb agreement is fulfilled by "is believed" and "to have" is the proper infinitive form but then there is the following "killed" that seems to kill that explanation. Lambanog (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lambanog, you are quite right. I went for the lesser grammar mistake in that sentence and completely missed the most obvious one. But this just further points out the issues with the prose. Dana boomer (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bullet point lists, such as the one in the Climate section, are discouraged by MOS when the information could be easily presented as prose.

There are probably other issues, but, as I said, this was what I saw in a first sweep. Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article still needs a lot work. ja:日本 is much longer. I would like to see:
* Summary of Foreign_relations_of_Japan
* Alternative energy, IT, life science, metrology, nanotechnology, material science, etc.
* Marine transport, shipbuilding, ports, deep sea exploration, and untapped seabed resources --Shinkansen Fan (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may be room for expansion and addition, but you also need to be careful that the article doesn't get too long. It's already at 115 kb and 6800 words, which is well into the maximum size recommended by WP:SIZE. Extra information being added should be balanced by other sections more effectively using WP:Summary style. Dana boomer (talk) 17:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is material probably better added to specific articles. A few lines could be inserted in total, but as Dana suggests it might better to trim some other text in order to fit any additions in.
By the way, I think that a lot of changes have been made and the review is coming along well. I am going to have a look for anything that needs a citation. John Smith's (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to update the image captions to follow the image MOS - i.e. fullstops only for full sentences. John Smith's (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this has an editorial reason, but shouldn't the image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:M%C5%8Dko_Sh%C5%ABrai_Ekotoba_2.jpg be more in the middle of the history section as second image? In my browser it is at the top of the section near the praehistoric history - where it doesn't fit to the chronological order of the text. GermanJoe (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just down to the minimum realistic size of images and the fact that there's more than one in the section. If images were to sit exactly where they were referred to, articles would often look awful as the pictures would be clumped up and distort text. John Smith's (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments - I was asked on my talk page to return to my comments, so here are some more thoughts:

  • Still text sandwiched between images in the Politics, Infrastructure and Sports sections. I've also asked an image expert to look over all of the licensing, so he will hopefully be stopping by soon.
  • Still the gallery in the Sports section, see comment above.
  • Still many references inconsistently formatted/missing information. I'm seeing bare links, missing publishers, missing access dates, some repeated refs that use the named ref feature and others that don't, and quite a few middling-quality refs when the FA requirement is for high-quality sources and a thorough review of the available literature (including books, peer reviewed journal article, etc).
  • Still quite a few short, choppy paragraphs and sections.
  • Still one dead link (see here), and the dab link to Demographics of Tibet - perhaps ping wherever you placed the request?
  • A mix of British and American spelling (both neighbor and neighbour, for instance). Please make a sweep through the entire article.
  • Another sweep of the prose should be done for clarity and purposeful writing. While there are fewer grammatical errors, there are still quite a few places that are unclear. For instance, from the 20th century section:
    • "In 1935, local assemblies were established in Taiwan." What are local assemblies? Does this mean that Japan invaded Taiwan and set up a government?
    • "The Allied powers repatriated millions of ethnic Japanese from colonies throughout Asia." What does this mean? That ethnic Japanese were removed from colonies in East Asia outside of Japan and forced to return to Japan? Also, which Allied powers, Japan and its allies or the United States/Britain/etc, which are typically referred to as the Allied Powers?
    • "all members of the bacteriological research units and members of the imperial family" This seems like a weird combination of people...scientists and royals. I know this is a summary article, but some hint needs to be given to the reader of why these scientists even had the possibility of being prosecuted.

A significant amount of work has obviously been put into this article since the beginning of this FAR, and for that I thank and congradulate the editors working on it. However, a bit more polishing is needed before this article is really back to FA quality. Dana boomer (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Number of islands in lead with "Japan is an archipelago of 6,852 islands." differs from the geography section of the article itself stating "Japan has over three thousand islands" (ca. 3,400?). I guess this could be a problem, how you count islands and which size still constitutes an "island", but the number should be consistent throughout the article. Maybe add a small comment, how the number (either one) is calculated, if there is such a large possible difference. GermanJoe (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Joe, that was a good one to spot. It was easily rectified, as the 6,852 figure is the official Japanese figure (see the link in the lead). I've decided to go with that one and replace the 3,000+ number. John Smith's (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns:

The above should be addressed to show the best work of Wikipedia (using the best available verifiable sources and images compliant with policies and guidelines). Side note: Japan has freedom of panorama for outdoor architecture, File:Tokyo stock exchange.jpg could be construed as a copyright violation of the internal architecture. It is my view that the LED panels and seating/office arrangement are temporary structures, and are not "architecture", which I believe are permanent structures. As such, I do not think the image is a copyright violation. Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I think that those images you refer to should be put through the usual deletion/query process for files on Wikipedia. If there's an obvious violation of copyright I can see the need to remove an image. Otherwise I think they should be put up for deletion/review. John Smith's (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Featured articles are supposed to be the best examples of the project's policies and guidelines, and the rules evolve. An image may not necessarily be a copy violation or require deletion because it does not comply with certain policies or guidelines. However, their flaws/non-compliance mean they are not the "best examples that the project can provide", which FAs require. Jappalang (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problematic non-maps have all been replaced. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prefecture map has been removed, infobox map has been replaced. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and Suggestions - i really enjoyed reading that article and found it mostly well-written and informative. However i have two general concerns and a long list of minor tweak suggestions. General Concerns - Linking throughout the article is a bit loose, several general common terms are linked. On the other hand whole phrases are linked to only partially relevant sub-articles. I have added a few examples in my suggestions, but would encourage a main editor to strengthen the link quality over the whole article. As second point the article focus seems to be be a bit broad and too detailed, especially for the longer sections like history or economy, chances for trimming should be checked again.Suggestions for tweaks following:

  • Lead "Since adopting its constitution in 1947" ==> maybe "Since adopting an entirely revised constitution in 1947", the actual version sounds, like Japan didn't have a constitution before.
  • "It has the highest life expectancy of any country (according to UN and WHO estimates) and the third lowest infant mortality rate." ==> Avoid brackets with "According to UN and WHO estimates it has ..."?
  • Prehistory "the Nara period is characterized by the appearance of a nascent [written] literature" ==> redundant for literature.
  • Feudal era "The Tokugawa shogunate enacted measures like Buke shohatto to control the autonomous daimyo." ==> The actual phrasing forces the reader to click the Buke-link to understand the whole context. Add a small descriptive phrase like "...Buke shohatto as code of conduct to control ...".
  • 20th century After "In 1936, Japan signed the ..." four consecutive sentences start with "In {year}, Japan". Try rewording the 2nd and 4th sentence. Also 3rd and 4th sentence use "invaded", switch second occurance to "occupied" or something similar.
  • "After the Soviet invasion of Manchuria and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender on August 15 (Victory over Japan Day)." ==> I am bit sceptical about using the (probably loaded) allied term "Victory over Japan Day" in an article about Japan under NPOV considerations. As mentioning all names for this day of both sides for neutrality would go a bit too far, i suggest to remove the allied term.
  • "The Allied occupation", "a major recession" ==> Unlink "the", "a" and check for similar link phrases.
  • "Japan later achieved spectacular growth.." ==> I agree, it was spectacular. But consider using a little more neutral term within the article ("rapid", "enormous", ...?).
  • "This ended in the mid-1990s when Japan suffered a major recession. Positive growth in the early 21st century has signaled a gradual recovery." ==> Two short sentences, which could probably be combined with a ",but".
  • Geography "The 1923 Tokyo earthquake killed over 140,000 people. The most recent major quakes are the 2004 Chūetsu earthquake and the 1995 Great Hanshin Earthquake." ==> Combine sentences and sort earthquakes by ascending date in order of events.
    • Disagree with combining sentences, as the first sentence refers to a historically significant earthquake resulting in major loss of life, whereas the second sentence offers examples of important recent earthquakes - the two are separate points. Chrono order is neither here nor there - I don't see a compelling rationale for either order in the context of the second sentence, so if you want to change it to 1995 then 2004 you can. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Climate "The Central Highland is a typical inland climate,..." ==> "... has a typical inland climate". Don't switch between different meanings of "climate", it is already used as a feature of a region.
  • "and the stationary rain front gradually works its way north" ==> "...gradually moves...", a rain front is no bulldozer :).
  • "In late summer and early autumn, typhoons often bring heavy rain." ==> Link typhoon.
  • Biodiversity a very short paragraph, either merge with "Climate" or add a bit more about typical Japanese fauna and flora?
  • Enviroment As a central issue for Japan it's probably worth including here at length, but does it really need 3 whole paragraphs? Is it possible to trim it down to 2, avoiding side details?
  • Economy merge first 2 paragraphs (both deal with historic aspects and the first is a bit small).
  • "Japan's exports amounted to $US4,210 per capita in 2005." ==> typo, US$. "$US4,210 per capita" shouldn't be linked (see WP:easter egg).
  • Is it possible to trim the section a bit? The whole economy chapter reads like a massive wall of text and statistics, overwhelming the reader. I am not convinced, all those details are really needed in the main country article.
  • Science and Technology No need to link "scientific research" and "research and development" as common phrases.
    • Disagree, as "research and development" has a specific meaning that may not be apparent to casual readers, and provides context for those interested. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Infrastructure "Japan's road spending has been extensive. Its 1.2 million kilometers of paved road are the main means of transportation." ==> Two directly related sentences, combine with comma. Check "its 1.2 million" - it's?
    • Comma would be inappropriate here - they're not that directly related, although a semicolon might be workable. "Its" is correct - Japan's roads, not "It is" roads. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The largest ports include Nagoya Port." ==> a bit short, can you add a bit more on the role of ports and sea connections for Japan?
  • Demographics "Japan suffers from a high suicide rate. In 2009, the number of suicides exceeded 30,000 for the twelfth straight year. Suicide is the leading cause of death for people under 30." ==> Combine related short sentences with comma (or semicolon for the 2nd and 3rd sentence).
    • Again, comma would be inappropriate. I would prefer to keep these sentences intact, but a semicolon may be workable. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Religion "Taoism and Confucianism from China have also influenced Japanese beliefs and customs." ==> How? Is it possible to add 1-2 very brief examples?
  • Language "Besides Japanese, the Ryukyuan languages, also part of the Japonic language family, are spoken in Okinawa; however, few children learn these languages." ==> Change semicolon to comma, as those sentences are not distinct enough.
    • Again disagree about appropriateness of comma here. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said, a very good article, but due to it's sheer size even a minor tweaking results in a massive list of points. GermanJoe (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, GermanJoe. I've fixed all of them unless otherwise noted above. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
List updated. As the remaining points are probably a matter of taste (or my poor grammar), no problem with keeping the text as is. I will try and do another readthrough soon, when i find some more time. GermanJoe (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - round 2 after another readthrough.

  • Prehistory "In 784, Emperor Kammu moved the capital from Nara to Nagaoka-kyō for a ten-year period before relocating it to Heian-kyō (modern Kyoto) in 794." ==> remove "for a ten-year period". Start and end already given.
  • Feudal era "Japan's feudal era was characterized by the emergence of a ruling class of warriors, the samurai." ==> Can a whole era be characterized by the emergence of something? Consider rephrasing "The beginning of Japan's feudal era ...". Also, when the samurai were so important, one sentence in the whole section seems a bit short and vague - why were they so important or what was their role in Japan's society?
  • Actually, there is more than a sentence - it just wasn't clear enough. Now rephrased
  • "Zen Buddhism was introduced from China(?) in the Kamakura period (1185–1333)" ==> with no deeper knowledge of the different kinds of Buddhism, this seems to contradict section "Prehistory". There the article states, Buddhism was introduced from Korea(?) (a different kind of Buddhism?). Please clarify in Prehistory or here.
  • "During the 16th century, traders and Jesuit missionaries ....between Japan and the West" ==> "the West" seems a bit vague and Japan-centric. Why not name the countries in question?
  • Actually prefer this wording, despite its vagueness, as it more accurately reflects the dominant view presented in RS
  • Geography "Japan was originally attached ... around 15 million years ago." ==> Put the plate related info directly behind other plate facts after "...Okhotsk Plate to the north. " to keep the topic together in one place.
  • Climate "... foehn wind phenomenon." ==> Just "foehn wind" is clear enough.
  • "The highest temperature ever measured in Japan—40.9 °C (105.6 °F)—was recorded on August 16, 2007." ==> A fun tidbit, but information on average temperature values would be far more useful within an encyclopedia.
  • Environment "As a signatory ... obligations.[62]" ==> Please check link 62, the article behind it seems to be removed. Consider trimming the whole 2 sentences, there are only a few notable facts in them anyway (a lot of countries are obliged to reduce their emissions and their governments are "promising" improvements, that's hardly unique for Japan). Maybe reduce it to mention only the Kyoto conference briefly.
  • Politics "The Diet consists of a House of Representatives with 480 seats, elected by popular vote every four years or when dissolved, and a House of Councillors of 242 seats, whose popularly-elected members serve six-year terms" ==> So both Houses are popularly elected? What's their main distinctive difference?
  • The length of the terms and the number of seats, as described in this sentence
  • Foreign Relations / Military Both sentences about UN security council seating in "Military" should be part of "Foreign Relations".
  • "Military" could be filled up with the RIMPAC-statement from "Foreign Relations" or with some basic statistical data (number of personnel for each military branch for example).
  • Please reread both sections and separate the content clearly between international politics and military stuff (where possible).
  • Infrastructure "As of 2008, ...of Japan's electricity.[120]" ==> Link "nuclear power" one sentence earlier, also link "hydro power".
  • Demographics "The Japanese population is rapidly aging as a result of a post–World War II baby boom followed by a decrease in birth rates." ==> Maybe grammatically correct, but reads awkward - the aging is the direct result of decreasing birth rates after the initial post-world war II baby boom. Consider rephrasing with the earlier cause first.
  • Not sure what you mean here - could you clarify?
No worries, i guess the structure is clear for a native-English speaker.GermanJoe (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Many younger Japanese are increasingly preferring not to marry or have families." ==> "increasingly preferring"?, rephrase "A growing number of young Japanese prefers not to marry or have families."?
  • 1 dab-link in cities-table with second "Shizuoka".
  • Religion link "syncretic". (GermanJoe (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Already linked earlier in the section
All done except where otherwise indicated. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All relevant tweak suggestions done by Nikkimania, a nice improvement altogether. I see no glaring issues left actually. GermanJoe (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments This is looking quite close to a keep without FARC (I won't be the one closing, obviously, since I initiated the review, but that's my opinion). A few more comments, however:

  • Foreign language refs (such as #1, 39) should have the language specified.
  • Why are we using two different editions of Totman's A History of Japan as sources?
  • I can only guess that some editors have been using one edition, whilst another edition was used by someone else. I can't verify all the references with my edition (2000), so I think it's better to leave as it is.
  • A lot of the references use acronyms (JNTO, OECD, etc) that won't be obvious to many readers.
  • Feudal era, "who was soon himself defeated". Sounds odd; perhaps "who was himself soon defeated..."?
  • Done.
  • Feudal era, "like Buke shohatto". Should this be "buke" with a lowercase "b"? That is how it is used in sentences in its own article.
  • Done.
  • 20th century, "The Allies (led by the US) repatriated millions of ethnic Japanese from colonies and military camps throughout Asia." Why?
  • Because the war was over and the empire was eliminated. Attempted to clarify. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography, "About 70 to 80 percent of Japan..." 10% is a large difference - do sources not agree?
  • Climate, "the stationary rain front gradually moves" Doesn't stationary mean it doesn't move?
  • Removed "stationary".
  • Economy, "As of 2001, Japan's shrinking labor force consisted of some 67 million workers." This statistic is 10 years old; can we find something more recent?
  • Done.
  • Science and technology - The discussion of the Kaguya program is almost four years old. Is the probe still up there? Has it done anything interesting?
  • Done.
  • Demographics - Are there any theories for the reason behind the high suicide rate?
  • Plenty of theories but no hard evidence as to any single reason. It's a very complex subject, and I'm not sure we could do it justice here. Though if someone has a good article covering all the viewpoints I guess we could add that in.
  • Music, "A 1993 survey by the Cultural Affairs Agency...". Any updates in the page 18 years?
  • Not that I've been able to find, but I'll keep looking. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Literature, "the chōnin, the ordinary people," Perhaps "the chonin, or ordinary people"?
  • Clarified.

Overall, looks nice. A bit more work on comprehensiveness and prose and it should be good to go. Thank you to everyone for their great work on this article. Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Am too tired to do anymore, would appreciate it if someone else could take the rest forward. John Smith's (talk) 00:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All done except where otherwise indicated. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is there a reason to use the CIA map for Japan. It seems strange to highlight ASEAN+3 in a map of Japan. Surely an orthographic projection map which doesn't shove Japan to a corner but places it in the centre would be much better? If there's a problem with the sourcing here, then every country using these maps will have an issue. If this can't be used, can another one be made from a current PD map that does not highlight ASEAN+3 and has Japan much more centred? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edited the map. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Calling everything up to the Heian period "Prehistory" is very unusual as far as I am aware of. Maybe the section name could be changed to "Prehistory to Classical Japan" or "Prehistory, Ancient and Classical Japan" or to something else. bamse (talk) 12:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC) Also, for variety maybe the first image (in prehistory section) could be replaced with something older (e.g. Jōmon Pottery, dogū, haniwa). The present picture is a bit too similar in style (scroll) and content (horses) to the second (Mongol invasion) image. bamse (talk) 13:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep without FARC - At this point, I believe enough work has been done on this article to warrant it being kept without a FARC. I would suggest pinging other editors who have made comments to see if they share my opinion or have further comments. I will leave a note for Raul, letting him know that this will be his to close, since I have been rather intimately involved :) Dana boomer (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I tend to agree with Dana, there's been a lot of work done here - and a lot of improvement. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some sections (History, Economy, Politics, Demographics) still "feel" a bit too detailed, but this isn't enough to demote it in my opinion. The article has seen many significant improvements in structure and content. GermanJoe (talk) 14:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Although I agree with GermanJoe that some parts such as History are slightly too detailed (subsections that don't even have main links), the pictures could be rearranged into a much nicer format, and one or two tiny paragraphs, the article is referenced throughout and well-written, and I feel that the tiny problems in the article are inconsequential and the article should remain a FA. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Dana boomer 19:45, 4 April 2011 [4].

Latter Days[edit]

Notified: Dev920, SandyGeorgia, WikiProject Film, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not meet the current Featured Article criteria 1(b): comprehensive. The 'Development and production' section is very short, like not even of GA length. To bring the section up to FA standard would require an enormous amount of research and work. - Kollision (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe the de-list proposer should make a substantive actual review. Like Sasata going over "Painted turtle". Starting this whole process of with a paragraph does not make sense. Delister should show that he's read the article in detail front to bakc and composed a thoughtful hit list to really review the thing up and down. If we are going to spool up other reviewers and authors, then the delist proposal should be a first class review to start things off.TCO (talk) 14:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TCO, and thanks for your comments. When there are major issues with a FA, such as the comprehensiveness issues brought up by Kollision above, it often does little good for the FAR initiator to spend a lot of time writing up a review, although they can if they wish. A line-by-line prose review, like you often see at FAC, normally does little good, because if there is someone around who wants to bring the article back up to meeting the FA criteria, they often re-write the whole article, or large parts of it, making the reviewer's line-by-line review moot and rather pointless. So, it is often best to start out by pointing out one or more large areas, and then, if someone appears to work on the article, get more and more detailed once the major issues have been nailed down. Although some FAR initators write longer reviews than the one above, others are even shorter. It just depends on how much is wrong with the article - you often see shorter reviews with more problems, because it's easier to point out where the issues are. Dana boomer (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughtful review does not equate to detailed prose go over. TCO (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This is not the kind of film that will have a long article, much less a long section about production. I am not sure if it is necessary to do a Featured Article review for this reason. Possible improvements would include shortening the plot summary (and excising the unhelpful Idaho image) and converting the "Cast" section into a list of actors and roles followed by prose, but I do not think we will be finding extensive production information or critical analysis for this film. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More detailed review by Kollision

Infobox
  • Needs American theatrical release date
Lead section
  • Needs box office details
Plot
  • A smidge long. WP:MOSFILM recommends a word count under 700 words for films like this.
  • Could also use a reduction in the number of paragraphs, if possible.
Cast
  • "Cox said that Erik's" → "Cox said that Palladino's"
  • Too much plot information in Sister Gladys Davis' description. Remove everything after "cannot accept the fact that her son is gay."
  • "upon learning that he's gay" → "upon learning that he is gay"
Development and production
  • Surely there's got to be more out there that could be added to this article.
    • Alot of emotional "reviews" can be found, but very little substantial facts beyond those already present. GermanJoe (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example, in this article Cox talks about how the sexuality of the actors was unimportant in the casting process, why the film was released unrated, how he showed the film to his family, his research into Mormon excommunication tribunals, and how Bisset offered suggestions to the script. All of this should be in a Featured Article.
    • Done - details added to production (grammar up to improvement ...), however i believe the family detail doesn't really belong in the article. I don't think it's notable enough for the film itself (it would be different, if suggestions from the family were taken into consideration for the production - but there is no evidence for it). GermanJoe (talk) 18:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Filming location?
  • Principal photography start and end dates?
    • No exact dates available (atleast i can't find some). GermanJoe (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Release
  • A lot of the information in the Critical section is not about the film's critical response at all. All non-critical response information should be split into a Release section.
  • "One person who attended Outfest"
    • Who?
    • Move to Critical response section
  • "aired at Seattle and Washington film" - "aired" → "screened"
  • "The film was released in few other countries, mostly at gay film festivals, as the ones in Barcelona and Madrid (where it was also a popular pick) and Mexico City."
    • I don't understand this sentence.
      • Clarified this (and similar lead phrase) a bit. The problem is mixing of "country releases" and "festivals" in one structure, i think. GermanJoe (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2005 it had already received nine best film awards."
    • Does that mean it received nine best film awards in 2005 or does it mean that by 2005 it had received nine best film awards.
    • Which nine best film awards?
      • Done, clarified and award list updated GermanJoe (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to Awards section?
      • I'd like to keep it there, if it's not critical. A single sentence looks odd together with the awards table and the promotion at dozens of festivals apparently was an essential part of the release strategy. GermanJoe (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made $834,685 from a maximum of 19 theaters." - Not in citation given. Replace with Box Office Mojo citation.
  • "As of October 2009, the film is the top grossing film from its studio TLA Releasing." - Source?
Critical response
  • "Critical reviews have also been mixed" - remove "also"
  • "one wrote, "Cox's screenplay, while" - Who?
  • "with one critic saying Latter Days was" - Who?
  • A total of only five reviews. More should be added.
    • Another critical review added, most reviews have similar details and arguments and don't really tell anything new. GermanJoe (talk) 20:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rotten Tomatoes
    • Move sentence to after "Critical reviews have also been mixed"
    • "movie review website" → "film review website"
    • Remove italics from website name
Soundtrack
  • "written by C. Jay Cox for Julie" → "written by C. Jay Cox for Rebekah Johnson"
  • "impressed with C. Jay Cox's musical" → "impressed with Cox's musical"
References
  • iblist.com citation needs accessdate
  • The title for one of the Rotten Tomatoes citations is "Hancock Movie Reviews"
  • Several dead links. Fix if possible.
Images

— Kollision (talk) 04:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: Alt text is no longer required for featured articles. Editors can add it if they want, but it is not necessary. Dana boomer (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: very solid stuff, Kollisen. Shake your manly hand. If there is a "lover" of the film, he has the workplan for what is needed to fix it. Sounds like there is a general issue of several flaws as well as a key content gap in the film production background.TCO (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think deeper discussion of the commercial aspects of the film is needed. There's the infobox and then a slim paragraph. But if we are going to do FAs on niche films that didn't make money, let's tell the story of how they bombed (release plans, week one, blabla). Also discussion of any DVD versions and the take is warranted. Other than that, will add a note on the drama and gay project boards, see if they want to do the work to build up the article. Added a See also to Orgazmo (although a spoof, pretty similar content (sex and Mormon missionaries).) [edit, signed late and cut note below, just for clarity, no intention to mess with others talk!]TCO (talk) 16:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awards - "Which nine best film awards?" The German language site http://latterdays.profun.de/preise.html shows 7 awards (all audience awards apparently), but seems to be incomplete as atleast Madrid is missing. So 9 seems reasonable. If any more details from this site are interesting, i can probably translate them. Most of the information is already incorporated in the article. GermanJoe (talk) 12:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I researched it in the Project talk [5]. TN is fine. There are two sources they use, BOM (owned by IMDB) and TN (owned by this Nash research firm). Each uses a method for estimating takes as they don't have the P&L actually (inside the companies). They're the estimates used by industry and our project. they can differ from each other, so for a particular problem, you might have an idea which is better. Also have to be careful when combining numbers from the two sources (like a breakout versus total). But basically yeah, that source is good.TCO (talk) 22:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided above is a search page. Could you please provide a link to a specific project discussion that decided it was a reliable source? Also, just because the project decided it was reliable doesn't necessarily mean that it is a high-quality reliable source as required by the featured article critiera. For this, you need to prove that the information is compiled by subject experts, or that the site is quoted by other high-quality reliable sources. Dana boomer (talk) 22:34, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to maker a reasoned argugment to disagree with the project practice that is fine with me. I read the About us section on TN website and it passed my sniff test for an RS (an independant busines, not a hobby site, been around for a while and does consulting). That and I checked several discussions (I won't copy all the urls, but just go the ones that have a "section" that calls out the "the Numbers" or "the Numbers or BOM", you will see them readily. Check the first three and it will back up my story).TCO (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is the main editor's burden to prove reliability of sources, and the reviewer's burden to question sources that might not meet the HQRS criteria. I have given the method by which this can be proven. Also, please re-read my comment about project vs. FA sources. Dana boomer (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have investigated the issue and discussed it in a higher level of detail. It is my considered opinion that this is a reasonable source for movie takes. TCO (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I looked at all the FA movies in Portal Film that started with A or B. None of them used TN. All used BOM (Box Office Mojo). I don't know why one is favored over the other (they are both estimates), and I'm even open to learning why one is better (did not hear clear reasons in the talk page discussions). But if you can get BOM numbers might as well use those. If you can't, I think we should throw down on this why is BOM better than TN issue. (I still think it would be interesting to hear a rationale for why one is more FA worthy than the other, not just that's how we do it, but why.) BTW, there was at least one FA (Blade Runner) that did not have its gate sourced. Also a lot of variance as to whether the infobox had a citation or the article, but I tried to dig in article for the ones that lacked it in box.TCO (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "discussed it in a higher level of detail"? You have yet to show evidence that the source is of a high quality - all editors are obviously allowed to have opinions, but they are expected to provide evidence to back up those opinions. Pointing to other FAs is not always reasonable, as many times older FAs did not have the source checking done at FAC that is done today. As I said above, showing that the source is by a subject expert or that other high quality sources reference this one is what is needed to prove HQRS. Dana boomer (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dana, I've now bolded the earlier comment which was exactly on the topic of industry expertise. It was my summary of the About Us field which describes the firm and its output. Just click on it and read it. Then give an up or a down. I already gave like four points about it. I'm not going to do more translation between the website and here. On the earlier FAs, yes, I completely agree that "error carried forward" is an issue and my comments reflected the same caveat you have.TCO (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TCO, I read that part of your comment. What the business says about itself is really a minor part of the equation. I can set up a website that says I am an established business that does consulting - that doesn't make it true. Does the New York Times reference their information? Does the author of the website write articles on the subject for other reliable sources? I'm not saying that you have to provide this information - I'm simply saying that you should be prepared to provide this information before declaring that it is a reliable source. Dana boomer (talk) 00:04, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not The-Numbers.com is a reliable source has been brought numerous times (including recently) at WikiProject Film and the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (eg. here and here). The current consensus is that it is a reliable source. Box Office Mojo is considered more accurate most of the time but The-Numbers is still reliable. The website has been mentioned in The Wall Street Journal, The Times and MovieMaker. - Kollision (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[Unindent] While i agree with the others, that TN looks like RS, i have added the similar BOM-statistics as ref for the moment. BOM is already used, so we avoid mixing sources and a longer discussing within FAR. I wasn't aware, there was a can of worms here to step in, sorry :). If other sources are deemed more reliable, it can simply be replaced. GermanJoe (talk) 11:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links - all broken external links can be fixed with archived sites from wayback, except ref 13 for Mexico, the archived links are accessible, but page format looks broken. I can add the other ones, just need a bit time as i have to get used to the tool. GermanJoe (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - all ELs up to date or linked to web archives, 1 meaningless DAB removed, ALT text for info box added. All References points of nominator addressed. GermanJoe (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done - Info box theatrical release and lead box office info added. GermanJoe (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plot - Shortened a bit, removed a few side details, rearranged paragraphs. Feel free to change wording, where necessary. My English is sub-optimal at times. GermanJoe (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Names of critics clarified, (hopefully) award count for 9 awards clarified.

Kollision, your points have been very thorough and helpful. Would you mind double-checking and striking finished points? Thank you. As i haven't edited many articles, this comes as a nice exercise (i realize someone else will probably need to do a final copy-edit and MOS check). GermanJoe (talk) 15:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time, with these to-do lists in reviews you are free to strike-out anything you've done yourself. I've struck off the done items anyway. Good job.- Kollision (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update - all points of the original nominator are adressed, either with edits or with additional information, where the edit wouldn't be beneficial in my opinion. If i missed any major point, please update the list accordingly. GermanJoe (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Could the nominator and other interested editors/reviewers comment on whether they think that this article can be kept without a FARC? If not, more comments on what needs to be fixed would probably be helpful for the main editors to the article. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Save. Many small issues were identified and improved. The one key issue of production details was improved as reasonably possible (this was not Gone with the Wind (movie), we are never going to have super detail on the production). There have been no negative commens for a month and does not seem to be even a debate of a key issue. I say Kudos to Kollison, the initial reviewer and to GermanJoe, the one who jumped and did work. The process worked as it should and I think you can reasonably move this to keep without discussion (that the crits petered out a month ago, should be enough, IMO).TCO (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The quality of the article has been improved greatly over the review period and I support this article being kept as an FA. - Kollision (talk) 04:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted status[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 19:34, 4 April 2011 [6].

Devil May Cry 2[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: Deckiller, Chensiyuan, WikiProject Video games
Comprehensiveness issues
  • Article fails 1(b) (comprehensiveness). This is an article on a highly-publicized 2003 video game. With the Internet plus print sources. There is currently nothing from any print sources (i.e. PlayStation Magazine, Game Informer, Electronic Gaming Monthly, GamePro, and so on), in which there would definitely have been. A video game article like this should certainly have much more than 11KB of readable prose.
WP:NFCC issues
  • Article fails FA criterion 3
  • All images currently fail WP:NFCC#8; that is, none of the fair-use rationales clearly spell out how they increase readers' understanding of the article as opposed to the prose alone; merely saying that the images are "informative" is not enough.
  • To say the least, having both File:Dmc2dantesword.jpg and File:Dmc2dantedt.jpg are not necessary; one of them needs to go, as they are both gameplay images which are showing the exact same thing.
  • On the same reasoning as above, having two pictures of Dante and Lucia (File:Dante & Lucia.JPG and File:Dmc2diesel.jpg) are likewise not necessary, and one of them needs to go.
Verifability issues
  • Article fails 1(c) (well-researched and verifiable). There are large portions of unverified content all over the article. Citation formatting is very inconsistent.
Prose
  • I would (though weakly) claim that this fails 1(a) (well-written); I can't put a finger on it, but the prose leaves a little more to be determined. Perhaps it's because I was looking for full, complete paragraphs (such as like in the Plot section, which I think is one of the decently-written sections here).

For the reasons stated above, I feel this article does not currently meet the standards for Featured Articles at this time and recommend delisting until it does. –MuZemike 21:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delegate comment - This review is being placed on hold until the required talk page notification has been made and a sufficient amount of time expired for interested editors to comment. Dana boomer (talk) 23:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As little work has been completed on the article in the intervening time, despite the talk page notification, this review is now being relisted and may proceed as normal. Dana boomer (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say strengthening the remaining image rationales is important; I'm still not entirely sold on the utility of File:Dmc2diesel.jpg; unless there were reviewer comments on it I think we can just replace it with better text. Jimmy brought up some sources that could be used. The gameplay is mostly good although it doesn't properly introduce some elements, a minor rewrite should fix that. The biggest issue is the relatively scant reception and development information. I think Jimmy's sources once integrated might be enough for the reception, but that still leaves the game creation. Other minor issues: incomplete refs (missing work and/or publisher fields). There's a 404 on one of the refs, but since that's pointing to a print mirror anyhow replacing it with the proper citation info and cutting the URL altogether would be sufficient. I'm not sure how much time I'll have, but I'll try and address at least the minor things mentioned above, starting with the images. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree with the criticisms. It is very light in content, and I'm certain that it is far from complete in terms of reception and the general history of the game. The lead seems very light, has references in it, and in general, the gameplay section lacks references to verify much of it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include references, prose, comprehensiveness and images. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Compared to other FA Video Game articles, it doesn't look up to standard. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I think the images issue is addressed, but I don't have the time to try and bring this guy up to snuff on the more critical issues. As written it fails the comprehensiveness criterion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I contemplated making the appropriate fixes, but I don't know or care enough about the series to get interested (though strange coming from someone who's written quite a few articles on pretty average games). - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – The article strikes me as slight compared to the video games articles I've seen at FAC lately, in terms of sources more so than just length. It feels like more could be done with it, and I agree with those citing 1b. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – agree as it stands there are deficiencies in reception. Not sure how long this will remain here and will revise if work is done on it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - per the concerns by GamerPro64, New Age Retro Hippie and David Fuchs. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 19:34, 4 April 2011 [7].

Emu[edit]

Review commentary[edit]

Notified: WP:BIRDS, User talk:GamerPro64

I posted multiple concerns on the talk page over a month ago, and only two were addressed. The rest, listed below, have not:

  • One [verification needed] dating from 12/07 under "Diet".
  • [Citation needed] under Cultural Referenes.
    This has now been referenced. MeegsC | Talk 14:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citation errors:
    • Synthesis in using search results to verify that certain places are named "Emu something or other". Is that statement even needed, much less with this shaky "source"?
      • Is it the fact that the citation is a search result that you're objecting to? Because the Australian government would seem to me to be a pretty reliable source for the place names. MeegsC | Talk 14:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • My concern is that it's entirely possible that some of those places weren't named for the emu — the source doesn't say that they were named for the bird. They could've been named from a bastardization of some other word, for instance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okaaaaayyyy... Rather unlikely, but I see your point. Not sure how/where we'll find a single source for all 600 places, but perhaps it's out there. MeegsC | Talk 23:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major 1a (prose) issues. Every sentence under "Classification" begins with "the", as do several adjacent sentences under "Description". Several sentences under "Diet" begin with "Emus".
  • Last paragraph of "Economic value" is unsourced, as are large portions of "Cultural reference".

So we have failure in 1c mostly, with some 1a.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary[edit]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 20:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, minimal improvement since FAR started. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Yeah, like TPH, there's not a lot of improvement on the article that would let it still be a Featured Article. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/April_2011&oldid=426904616"