Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2013

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

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 User:Dana boomer 08:39, 31 December 2013 [1].

Steamtown, U.S.A. edit

Notified: Ishtar456, Oanabay04, Begoon, and Pinkbeast

I am nominating this featured article for review per the discussions on the talk page there is significant enough consensus to request a review on the basis that this article is too long and too intricately detailed. Due to this and a disagreement which has escalated to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard‎‎#Talk:Steamtown, U.S.A. this article is no longer stable. All of this means that this article no longer meets FA requirements 1a, 1e, or 2a.Technical 13 (talk) 14:31, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with the assessment made by Technical 13. The article needs significant work to bring it up to FA standards.Oanabay04 (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The article has not change much at all since its FA review. The only thing that has really happened is that one editor put some arbitrary tags on the article and I asked for help in determining if there was actually a cause for the tags. Another editor, who I guess was trying to help, added several more tags. A third person advised that since the article had been thoroughly reviewed the tags were unnecessary. I agreed with that and removed the tags and then one of the people who tagged it started removing sections of the article. The article is about a steam locomotive excursion and museum that was the forerunner to a National Historic Site, but no longer exists as it once did. The article covers the history of the site and the collection it once housed. A couple of people (whom I believe did not actually read the article) think that each piece that was in the collection should have its own article and that just the history should remain on the main article. Up until two weeks ago, there was nothing at all written on the talk page and, as I said, the article itself has changed very little since the last FA review. I believe that, for some reason, two people created the instability on this page and then one of them nominated it here in order to have the FA removed.--Ishtar456 (talk) 02:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is 35k characters in prose (almost 6000 words) for those who don't want to count. A little blubber could be trimmed, I think, but the article looks solid enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:49, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem isn't necessarily the overall length of the article Crisco. It's the fact that the words are specific details about the different types of engines which would only be important to articles about the engines and which aren't important to an article about a place that use to house such engines. It's appropriate for all of the engines to have a paragraph about how they relate to the place, and a section hat note pointing back to the main article for the engine for those that want to know more about an engine, but it's not okay for each engine to have multiple paragraphs about the engine itself. Technical 13 (talk) 14:59, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never said 35k is necessarily a bad thing. I just said there is likely some blubber that could be trimmed, and meant to imply that 35 is fairly reasonable. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am the "third person" who agreed with Ishtar456. Whilst any article, even a featured one, can be improved, and should be, I see nothing that should necessitate the removal of FA status here, In an article about a train museum there are likely to be details about, well, trains... The detail isn't excessive, and, quite frankly, it would piss me off as a reader to have to leap about between a zillion little stubs to read the piece. I, and I assume others, find it much easier to read a decent length article, and that's what this is, and what the reviewers obviously felt it was.
Any "instability" has been caused by unnecessary tagging and retagging without any attempt at prior discussion, and my feelings on that episode are on the article talkpage for anyone who's interested to read. I shan't repeat them here, save to say it would be a damn shame if a good editor and an excellent article both suffered because of that.
I regret my part in getting upset at the pointy behaviour, since that probably caused heels to dig in harder and sticks to be clutched more tightly. I would like to think we're better than that, and can move on. If small improvements are desired to be made, fine, talk them through, but I see no need for removal of FA status in the meantime. Begoon talk 16:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the detail is appropriate and well handled. Its very polished. There needs to be some freedom of arrangement that is not prey to someone coming in and doing aggressive carve-outs of a well developed article. Also, really these trains are not so noteworthy on their own and they are much better understood in the context of the collection. (Steamtown is not really so much a town or a museum as it is a collection of pieces (was moved and pieces evaluated and all that). Furthermore, I don't think that the FAR should proceed. (The only way the filer will be appeased is if his desire to redesign the article is made so. But it passed in the current arrangement. It's not an issue of needing to clean up agreed to mistakes. -TCO208.44.87.91 (talk)
  • Keep – After taking a look through the article, I don't see anything that would require the removal of FA status. I agree with Crisco that a few details could probably be cut out, but this can be accomplished through talk page discussion and I wouldn't want to see too much taken out. Like TCO, I think that having information on the trains enhances the article, making it a more interesting read. I would like to see references added to the next-to-last paragraph of the article, but I have good faith that this will be done and won't treat it as a deal-breaker. While I'm here, I feel compelled to say that some of the suggestions on the article's talk page from those seeking a delisting are questionable. One person recommended a three-to-four sentence lead, which is way too short to meet FA standards. Another was curious as to why GA status wasn't sought before FA; please keep in mind that GA is not required for an article to have a shot at FA. If an editor is talented enough to directly go for FA and succeed, I have no problem with them skipping the months-long wait at GAN to have a shot at an FAC review. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:17, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had a death in the family and have not been on for several days. Since I was last on, the discussion on the dispute board regarding this article has apparently closed. I did not see what was concluded and alterations have already begun on the article. I don't even understand why this was put up for review while a dispute was going on, but no one ever answered my query. In any care, this article was GA before FA. It won the "four award". --Ishtar456 (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If the article is being altered while this review is going on (by the person who wants to decrease it) which version is being reviewed? If the decision ends up being "keep" would it be for the cut-up version or the version that it was when the review started? --Ishtar456 (talk) 00:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Removed 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 User:Dana boomer 09:04, 20 December 2013 [2].

Abbey Theatre edit

Notified: User:Ceoil; WikiProject Ireland

Review commentary edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because my request on the article talk page for improvements has met with silence. The article seems to me to fall short on criteria 1b and 1c, and most seriously 2c: something like a third, possibly nearer a half, of the statements are uncited. I think they're very probably true, but for a featured article such a wholesale lack of citations won't do. I have done a small bit to improve the article, but I haven't the expertise on the topic to do much more, and given the lack of response on the talk page I regretfully raise it here. Tim riley (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Transclusion to WP:FAR on 15:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This article has not had a major edit since February 2008, at the time of the previous FAR. I have made a couple of cosmetic changes since this request was opened, but I doubt if there is anybody with the expertise, the enthususiasm and the time to undertake a major edit right now. Scolaire (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Full disclosure: Abject apologies! I omitted to add this page to the list on the FAR page. As the review has, not surprisingly, stalled, I have asked several regular WP editors to look in, if they are interested in doing so, to add comments pro or con delisting. Tim riley (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The article is missing many references, and the research and writing in the "recent" section is poor. This article no longer comes close to the FA criteria. I do not believe that it is that close to meeting the GA criteria. It appears that the editors who brought this article to FA are no longer maintaining it. With regret, I feel that it must be delisted. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - article fails to meet the standard for FA. Jack1956 (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist regrettable, but there are too many holes in the citations. Needs a rework.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:26, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, sadly. Too many holes all over - the "recent" section is enough to delist on its own, as it currently stands. - SchroCat (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, reluctantly. Nobody likes to see this, but there are far too many holes in the article which needs a lot of work for it it to even be considered good enough for the nominations process, let alone a fully fledged FA or GA. CassiantoTalk 12:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all - please realize that this is the FAR section, where discussion happens and (hopefully) improvements are made. Voting happens when the article moves to the FARC section, generally about two weeks from when the article is transcluded here. This is done to give interested editors a chance to improve the article after seeing it listed at FAR. It doesn't always happen, but we'd prefer to give it a chance :) Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further apologies! I seem to have made a right old lash-up of this process. By all means let us wait two weeks in the hope of improvements, though as I raised the matter back in the summer I don't hold out much hope. If there are no improvements, shall we all have to vote again or can the above be carried over when the voting stage is properly opened? Tim riley (talk) 14:07, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, given the long period of time during which the article was tagged for FAR, there's a good chance that no-one is interested in improving the article right now. However, sometimes people see the article listed here on the board and decide to improve it, and we like to give them every chance to do so! If there have been no changes to the article after two weeks, when the article is moved to FARC, I don't think any re-votes will be needed. However, if there are any substantive changes in content during that time the voting editors will need to come back and state whether their opinions have changed. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Concerns raised in the review section dealt with referencing, comprehensiveness, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, really. So sorry to have messed up the review process, but I think the comments above remain applicable as the article has not been improved in the past weeks and there is no reason to hope that it will be in the near future. Tim riley (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2013 (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 User:Dana boomer 09:04, 20 December 2013 [3].

Soprano Home Movies edit

Notified: RalfiParpa, WikiProject Television

Review commentary edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because... yikes. Loads of sections are unreferenced, an overlong plot (it's over 900 words - this even goes over WP:FILMPLOT), the first reference appears to be WP:SYNTH, and the image fails WP:NFCC#8. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 01:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D I don't think that this is even a B-class article, and would suggest that this move to FARC immediately given that it would need to be almost entirely re-written to regain FA status. My specific comments are:

  • I agree with all the points raised by Taylor above
  • In terms of referencing and style, only the Reception section is of GA or higher standard. But I don't think that this is a FA standard article section as it includes only US ratings figures and critical comments, and the critical commentary covered is limited to what was published shortly after the episode aired - I imagine that there's material in the more recent academic and critical analysis of this series which could be drawn upon.
  • Having 'First appearance', 'Deceased' and 'Title reference' and 'cast notes' sections seems pretty clunky, and is not a suitable way to structure a FA article
  • The material on the episode's production is pretty brief, especially given that this episode marked the start of the final series to be filmed - I imagine that more could be written about this. Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

The version that passed FAC is much more pleasant-looking. But given that there has been much scholarship on the show over the last five years, it's still not comprehensive enough.122.174.21.237 (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Concerns raised in the review section dealt with referencing and coverage/organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I'm with the IP on the top saying that the older version of the page being more pleasant looking compared to this one. If someone were to go back and retool the article like it was before, make it more comprehensive and add more citations in it, its possible to reclaim its status, or at least GA status. But for now, I believe it should be demoted. GamerPro64 18:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist This article no longer meets the FA criteria, nor even the B-class criteria and there has been no recent work to improve it. Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2013 (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 User:Dana boomer 09:04, 20 December 2013 [4].

Sanssouci edit

Notified: Samuel Blanning, relevant WikiProjects, article's talk page

Review commentary edit

Seems like another relic of the Brilliant Prose days. Referencing is clearly insufficient - numerous unreferenced paragraphs, so a failure of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria 1c. References are not properly formatted, so that's 2c. I am sure veteran reviewers can add to this list. I started a discussion on article's talk last week, and notified major authors three days ago, but no editor volunteered to help. Time for a FAR, I am afraid. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Concerns raised in the review section focused on referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, if only because almost every paragraph in the article lacks inline citations. Yikes. Ruby 2010/2013 18:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – I say this with regret, because it is a most interesting and comprehensive article and excellently written, but the shortage of citations cannot be gainsaid. – Tim riley (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Thanks for the kind words on my writing Tim, but you are right it does want delisting, if only to escape the attentions of ignoramuses who demand a certain quantity of citations per paragraph rather than by what is not commonly known and accepted. "Yikes" indeed.  Giano  18:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Per Tim, well written but lacking citations. In the last few years, due to a series of high profile cases, Wikipedia lost the luxury of only citing controversial or obscure claims. The FA criteria reflect that and so this article wouldn't pass FAC today.. Acer (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2013 (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 User:Dana boomer 09:04, 20 December 2013 [5].

Mosque edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Tariqabjotu

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

  1. Many pictures used are of low quality
  2. The lead does not summarise the article, it jumps to the details straight away and is too short, does not have the prose of a FA quality article
  3. For such a key subject of Islam, this page is very short
  4. No diagram like we have on Kaaba
  5. Lacks many historical examples , for example Mosque#Social_conflict only mentions examples of modern day conflicts
  6. Pictures plastered everywhere and some huge gallery for some reason.

Loomspicker (talk) 13:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Loomspicker, please notify the interested projects (there are three listed on the article talk page). Dana boomer (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where in the project page to put this?--Loomspicker (talk) 20:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave a note on the each project's talk page. You can use the same template you did when you left a note on Tariqabjotu's talk page. Dana boomer (talk) 13:17, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont know that I agree with many of the reasons listed above (the article is near or beyond the recommended max page length and not too short for example) or very easy to fix (removal of images, particularly low quality and redundant) , but it does appear that there has been a lot of unsourced content that has made its way into the article which could be very problematic. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:47, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing, images and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 18:44, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If people could be a bit more specific about issues that need to be addressed (certain sections or paragraphs), I'd be willing to tackle them. -- tariqabjotu 14:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. There still many images that don't contribute anything to the article, some are just pictures saying this is mosque x in country y, why is that specific mosque more relevant than the other million in the world? These would be better replaced by relevant images, such as Dome, Ablution facilities, Dress, lack a good quality image. Lower quality relevant ones are placed elsewhere in the article.
  2. "The Qua'ran is a special book know by Muslims." - vandalism?
  3. "In India, the first mosque has been claimed as Cheraman Juma Masjid in the early 7th century, but this claim is dubious" - claimed by who? (WP:CLAIM)
  4. There is no tables, graphs or maps showing the distribution, rise, concentrations of mosques, I'm sure there is data out there for this.
  5. Lacks mentions of certain data, for example Minarets section doesn't say how high they are. Prayer hall doesn't provide any examples of how many people can fit in them.
  6. Mosque#Social_conflict, provides specific incidents, but would be better to summarise that the mosques become specific targets in response to the islamic terrorist attacks.
  7. Contemporary features section unsourced.
  8. "Under most interpretations of sharia, non-Muslims may be allowed into mosque" the source is from someone who lived 972 C.E, more modern sources would be good to confirm this is still true today.
  9. Quran quotes need additional sourcing, as you are interpreting the meaning of the passage yourself, making it original research.--Loomspicker (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel some of these are unnecessary changes (namely, the table and data you seem to want is unlikely to exist), but I'm going through the entire article to make the text sound better and improve source (issues that I feel are much more important than some of the things you mentioned here). -- tariqabjotu 15:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm in the middle of a relocation now, so I've slowed down progress on restoring the article to featured level. I'll continue working on it in my spare time and, as you see, I've already made some headway (see the much improved History section). So a bit of patience with this would be greatly appreciated. -- tariqabjotu 17:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove It's too bad because it's such an important article, but it is very far from featured status. I randomly chose a paragraph to read carefully, and found it to be very very poorly written. Consider the sentence: "However, nearly every mosque assigns a muezzin for each prayer to say the adhan as it is a recommended practice or sunnah of the Islamic prophet Muhammad." What? Consider this: "before the five required daily prayers, a muezzin calls the worshippers to prayer" and then followed by "the adhan is required before every prayer." which is just repeating the same thing twice in a row. By the way there are no citations for any of the examples I've given. I think it needs a very significant rewrite and I cannot see it salvaged in any short amount of time. Hope it gets improved, it's a vital wikipedia article. Mattximus (talk) 23:54, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Tariqabjotu, are you still interested in working on this article? I don't see any edits to it from you since mid-October. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dana boomer: Yes, I suppose I'm still interested in working on the article, but, as others mentioned above, this article really does need significant work. Had I been more motivated, I could have probably done it within a month. But I wasn't, and it's been a couple months for this FAR already. So, I would not object to the article having its FA status revoked. -- tariqabjotu 14:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Per above, citation and prose issues. It's a 2006 FA that hasn't kept up with stricter standards. It's still way better than most articles but not FA unfortunately. Acer (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2013 (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/December_2013&oldid=589648323"