Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2010

< 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 Raul654 17:11, 1 February 2010 [1].

Shuttle–Mir Program edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Human spaceflight

I wrote this article up to FA status some time ago, and am aware via my efforts at International Space Station that it probably doesn't meet the FA criteria any more. As a result, I'd like to get some input from the community as to what changes I need to perform in order to bring it back up to scratch. Many thanks, Colds7ream (talk) 19:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text done; thanks Its images need alt text, but you probably knew that already.... Eubulides (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that should be all the images alt texted. Colds7ream (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a source reliability issue that needs to be resolved, and I think a few more references would be useful, particularly in the subsections under "Background". Also there appear to be two bare URL external links at the end of the references section, which should be correctly formatted, and either moved inline or to the External links section. Other than that, I think the article is still of a fairly good standard. --GW… 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll have a hunt round and do some referencing. Incidentally, I've just dealt with the bare links in the References section - thanks for pointing them out. Colds7ream (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I looked into the dodgy sources and they were indeed somewhat dodgy, so I've removed the relevant paragraph. I've also begun work on the alt texts, if someone fancies checking my work so far, and as per a suggestion on the talk page, removed all the redlinks from the references. Colds7ream (talk) 17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've begun some work on finding more references, and continue to add alt text to the images. Colds7ream (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source given for File:Shuttle-Mir Astronauts.jpg is spacefacts.de not NASA. It is watermarked by Spacefacts on their website [2], and Spacefacts say that they have been forced to watermark their photos "because several websites are using our portraits without asking for permission" [3].

Are the Russian logos on the navigation templates, e.g. File:Mir_insignia.svg, really free use? DrKiernan (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I dealt with the portrait by selecting a NASA-based source, and applied the correct copyright tag to the insignia image. Colds7ream (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, folks, I think I've dealt with all these issues - anyone got any more concerns? Colds7ream (talk) 16:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. In reviewing the alt text I noticed two instances of Image:Mir insignia.svg, obtained via templates, that did not render at all in the article, botching the display. The first, via Template:Mir modules, generates the HTML '<img alt="Mir insignia.svg" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Mir_insignia.svg/120px-Mir_insignia.svg.png" width="120" height="79" />', but that image doesn't seem to exist on Wikimedia; when I try to retrieve it I get:
     HTTP/1.0 500 Internal Server Error
     Server: Sun-Java-System-Web-Server/7.0
     Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:37:08 GMT
     X-powered-by: PHP/5.2.8
     X-wikimedia-thumb: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/thumb.php?f=Mir_insignia.svg&width=120
     Cache-Control: no-cache
     Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
     Content-Length: 427
     Connection: close
The second, via Template:Manned Mir flight, renders the image to '<img alt="Mir insignia" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d2/Mir_insignia.svg/75px-Mir_insignia.svg.png" width="75" height="49" />', which has a similar problem. Assuming you can fix both images, please mark them with "|link=|alt=" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. Eubulides (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was fast. Eubulides (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested criteria are lack of quality/formatting of referencing. Also note the recent changed to WP:WIAFA requiring "high-quality sources" YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems pretty good. Not sure how it would fare today at WP:FAC, but not really enough to delist. Cirt (talk) 21:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'm happy with the changes made. Colds7ream (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the changes seem sufficient, per Cirt. -MBK004 05:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove, most of the sources are by NASA, so most of the sourcing is primary/non-independent. Also, Encyc Astro is a home-made website. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per YellowMonkey. This still has major issues with sourcing, and Encyc Astro seems unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the Encyclopedia Astronautica references, but fail to see why the accurate NASA sources present a problem. Colds7ream (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because there's so little that isn't sourced to NASA? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why is that an issue? The space agency that operated the programme is by definition going to be the best source of accurate information regarding any project - secondary sources regarding space operations are either completely incorrect (if written by non-space specialist journalists) or suffer from small errors that collect in writing up the info. All information written on the programme is based almost exclusively on NASA documentation, whether public or internal, so what's the point in using secondary sources for the sake of using secondary sources? Colds7ream (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not independent, and don't appear to have been peer reviewed YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 02:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This FARC has been going for over a month, and is 4-1 in favour of keeping - when can we expect it to close? If this were a FAC it would have been closed ages ago... Colds7ream (talk) 07:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • FAR usually proceeds at a much slower pace than FAC ... hopefully YellowMonkey or Marksell will close this next week. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, on another note, having the numbers doesn't mean that it will be kept, it isn't so much like AfD etc. FAC/FAR is less bound by that so people shouldn't assume that getting the numbers, even if no canvassing was used, is a guarantee of success. In this case I am completely sure that there wasn't any keep canvassing, so no worries there YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (help the Invincibles Featured topic drive) 03:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. I am working from the bottom of the list, and just started on this one. I am finding many unaddressed issues, for example, mixing citation and cite templates, incorrect section headings so far. This isn't ready to close. Some of the declarations appear premature, or that the article hasn't received a review worthy of FAR. I'll get back to this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixes needed. WP:MOS#Captions review for punctuation in image captions; mixes citation and cite templates (see WP:CITE); use of informal & in place of "and" (I corrected the faulty use of special characters in section headings, which others should have seen before, see WP:MSH); what is the story on the commented out text and why isn't it removed to article talk; do the citations at the end of "increments" cover the entire section; there are faulty endashes on date ranges, so a MOS review is needed (example: 1995 – 1997 should have no spaces since the date elements have no spaces, see Wp:MOSDATE); some measurements have conversions, others don't, they should all use the convert template; and more importantly, has anyone besides YM taken a serious look at whether the article overrelies on NASA sources? Will those declaring Keep please address the quality of the sourcing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone still needs to take an indepth look at the sourcing issues; I don't know when/if I'll have time for that, but, adding to his comments above, YM is under no obligation to close this quickly if there are still concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remove unless the prose is cleaned up throughout. Here are examples from the top.

  • "experience into"?
  • Remove "respective"?
  • "the largest spacecraft ever flown at that time in history"—"ever to have been flown"
  • "allowing the construction of the ISS to proceed much more smoothly than would have been likely"—last bit is odd ... "than would otherwise have been the case"?
  • program, then programme.
  • Lots of clumsy "with + noun + -ing", and I mean lots. For example, "with only the base block of that station, DOS-8, having been constructed", and "With the fall of the Soviet Union ending the Cold War and Space Race, Freedom was nearly cancelled"—and is it US or British spelling? "cancelled/led". Tony (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must concur with Tony (but disagree with YM that NASA is not a good source per se; although overuse of a single source is an issue). Some more prose issues (just examples):

  • "Originating during the Cold War, the Shuttle–Mir program originated" - Suggest getting rid of one of the 'orginateds'. Rest of that sentence is awkward. Suggest breaking it in two.
  • "Similar difficulties were being faced by the U.S. and other nations with plans for space stations." Awkward and a bit wordy phrasing. Also sounds passive. Something like "Other nations had similar difficulties with their own space station plans."
  • "During the course of the program, 11 Space Shuttle missions flew to the station, carrying out crew exchanges, flying a docking module and a new set of solar arrays to Mir and conducting myriad scientific experiments aboard the space station." Monster snake of a sentence. Suggest breaking it up. Something like "Eleven Space Shuttle missions flew to the station during the program. These flights rotated crews and delivered a docking module and solar arrays." THEN say something about the scientific experiments (at least a paragraph). In fact, I think an entire section on those experiments is needed.
  • Text seems to be more wordy than it needs to be. Suggest taking User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing. See my rewrite suggestions above and this example from our moto: "Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." -> "Imagine a world in which everybody can freely share in all knowledge." (just concentrate on the information in those two sentences) I'm sure my version can be improved further, but my point is that not as many words are needed. Always try to trim out unnecessary words.
  • Overuse of transitions make the prose sound old fashioned ('In addition", "therefore", "also"). Modern writing organizes text well-enough so that most transitions can be implied. Try rewriting some sentences w/o them. They are not always needed.

I stopped reading after the first section. Will read and comment more if that section is fixed. May even copyedit myself if I see enough effort in this direction. --mav (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Status? No edits since November 7; is anyone still working on this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am, but awaiting the result of the RfC, which, given the comments made here, is clearly relevant. Colds7ream (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a bash at cleaning up some of the first sections, what do people think? Colds7ream (talk) 16:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: still needs a substantial copyedit - all of nitpicky things I'm afraid. Duff punctuation, misrelated participles what! I'm a grammar school girl overlinking (words like spacecraft seem to be linked every time they turn up, not just once), inappropriate capping up. Silly annoying stuff. I'll go over it if you're OK with me doing it, or would you rather I listed everything? Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be genuinely thrilled if you wouldn't mind going for the Copyedit - had a lot of bad experiences lately with what I like to call 'drive-by commenting'. :-) Colds7ream (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See what I can do tomorrow. It's beddy-byes time here Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't get as far as I hoped due to dreadful lurgie. Still working on it. Could you explain the following three sentences, which follow each other across two paragraphs During the early 1980s, NASA had planned to launch a modular space station called Freedom as a counterpart to the Soviet Salyut and Mir space stations. Because of budget and design constraints, however, Freedom never progressed past mock-ups and minor component tests. With the fall of the Soviet Union ending the Cold War and Space Race, Freedom was nearly cancelled by the United States House of Representatives.

I can't work out whether Freedom was cancelled or not.Elen of the Roads (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It became merged into the International Space Station, as the US Orbital Segment. Colds7ream (talk) 11:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a crack at some of the copyediting, and will try to do some more tomorrow. I left off at the section "America arrives at Mir (1995)". UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great copyedit work by others seemed to stall some weeks ago so I did a couple hours worth of my own. First half of the article was already in good shape, so my edits there were mostly minor. The second half had some really awkward phrasing and long and/or poorly constructed sentences. I tried to fix as much of that as I could. Lots of unnecessary words removed as well. Peacock terms and phrases toned down or removed. Redundancies removed including duplicate links. ===Attitudes=== subsection was toned down as well (read like an essay before). Still has too much, er, attitude for me but not enough for de-listing. Images also too big for my taste (I prefer to not hard-code width unless it is absolutely needed), but that is a personal preference. Overall, a keep for me now. --mav (please help review urgent FAC and FARs) 04:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold After review I found some further concerns against the FA Criteria:

  • Criteria 1C: Well-researched
    • Page numbers really need to be provided for all book citations, especially where multiple consecutive paragraphs are all being sourced to the same book (for example the first three paragraphs of the Background section). Another example is the first paragraph of the Mir section, where I would figure the claims mentioned would be on several different pages of the source book.
    • I added [citation needed] templates where I thought a citation was missing and needed, especially after entire unsourced paragraphs.
  • Criteria 4: Length
    • Section "Phases Two and Three: ISS (1998-2016) doesn't really seem relevant to the Shuttle-Mir Program, instead talking more about the building of the International Space Station.

Thanks for your attention. –Grondemar 20:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I've added in citations to the paragraphs you requested them for. I'm not entirely sure how you'd like me to number them, given that each book is used multiple times, though? As for the ISS section, its in there because its what directly followed Shuttle-Mir- the SMP was run purely as a warm-up to ISS, hence its relevance. Colds7ream (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For any multi-page work used numerous times citing different pages: I put the reference detail in a ==Bibliography== section and use Harvard-style referencing inside the ref tags. See Mono-Inyo Craters for an example. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs) 00:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for adding the requested citations, I struck that concern above.
I modified the ISS section to remove the paragraph about the first module being launched and added a {{main}} hatnote to International Space Station. Let me know if you have any objections; if not, this would address my concern regarding relevancy.
I reviewed International Space Station; the difference between that article and this one is that the ISS article uses far fewer book sources and I only saw one book source in that article that didn't include a page number reference. You really need to include page number references in Shuttle-Mir, especially where multiple paragraphs are cited against the same source. –Grondemar 02:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but can we cut "the Earth spinning serenely beneath them"? It seems rather overblown. The article uses both Progress and Progress, should it be italicized throughout? DrKiernan (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:21, 25 February 2010 [4].

Imperial Japanese Navy edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Per Honor et Gloria, Military history WikiProject and associated task forces, WikiProject Ships, WikiProject Japan

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article was promoted in November 2005 and since then the criteria have became more stringent. This article is currently lacking in its referencing (1c) with several sections lacking any in-line citations and those which do still need more. There are also issues with the inconsistent format of the referencing (2c) and with lists of content which should either be removed and/or replaced with prose in the Bases and Facilities section (3b). -MBK004 11:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll do my best to try to update this cherished 2005 FA to the level of a 2010 FA (lots of work!), but, anybody, please don't hesitate to pitch in and improve the article directly. Thanks! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • done with the list of bases and facilities (3b), which were removed to a separate list article. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Half done with the process of adding enough references to the article (1c)/ (2c). Still ongoing. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Getting there Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 14:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are three links to disambig pages, two broken external links and none of the images has alt-text.bamse (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The three links to disambig pages are: Attrition, Hachette and Splinter. You can find them via "disambig links" in the toolbox on the top right of this page. Alt text still needs to be done as mentioned below.bamse (talk) 08:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text is not done correctly. It is not intended to use the same wording as the captions, but instead to convey what the image looks like to the visually impaired reader. Please thoroughly re-read the MOS page and then ask questions of Eubulides. -MBK004 05:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's better, but there are still some problems.
Eubulides (talk) 09:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, it's better, but a lot of some work is still needed. The first two images still lack File:Imperial Seal of Japan.svg still lacks alt text (I struck the rest). And many of the details still assume knowledge that a typical Wikipedia reader cannot verify from the images. Let's take the first alt text as an example: "Groups of Samurai on small Japanese ships, fighting each other." One cannot tell from the image that the ships are Japanese, or that the fighters are Samurai, so those two words need to be changed or removed. The second alt text says "Color Japanese woodblock print of a Japanese Red Seal ship." but an average reader cannot tell that the print is Japanese (it might be Chinese or Korean, for all they know), or that the ship is Japanese, or that it's a Red Seal ship. The third alt text says "Western-style Japanese warship." but the average reader can't tell it's a warship. Furthermore, these alt text entries don't describe the essence of the images well. For example, "Western-style Japanese warship" might be describing the Yamato for all the visually-impaired reader can see. I'm afraid that every alt text entry in the article has problems like this. Please remember that alt text has a completely different function from the caption, that any text in common between the caption and the alt text means that there's probably something wrong with the alt text (and perhaps with the caption instead), and that the alt text is supposed to briefly describe the important info conveyed by the visual appearance of the image (and not explain or interpret the image: that's for the caption). I suggest looking more carefully at Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, particularly the lead and WP:ALT#Repetition. Eubulides (talk) 20:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully done :-) Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, thanks, but some problems remain.
  • File:Imperial Seal of Japan.svg still lacks alt text.
  • The alt text is a bit too brief. For example, "Radiating rising sun" could just as easily describe File:Jamaica sunrise.JPG; it doesn't tell the reader they're looking at a stylized flag with a solid red circle offset to the left on a white background, with sixteen red rays extending to the flag's edges. "Side view of a warship on a flat sea." doesn't describe the most distinctive things about that image, which is of a three-masted ship with a smokestack. And so forth. It's good to keep alt text short but not too short.
  • Please remove the phrase 'for "Imperial Japanese Navy"' from 'Chinese characters 大日本帝國海軍, for "Imperial Japanese Navy"', as per WP:ALT#Verifiability and WP:ALT#Repetition.
  • Please omit the phrase "photograph of" (several instances) as per WP:ALT #Phrases to avoid.
Eubulides (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Unfortunately this article is no longer even close to FA standard. The widespread lack of citations is a show-stopper and needs to be addressed for it to reach B class standard, much less FA. My other comments are:
    • Some wording is awkward and some paragraphs are very short
    • The see also links should be integrated into the article's prose
    • The article is unduly focused on ships and their armament; there's not enough coverage of issues such as doctrine, logistics and training
    • The article is over-loaded with images
    • The article contains some dubious claims about the overall effectiveness of the IJN (eg, "In order to combat the numerically superior American navy, the IJN devoted large amounts of resources to creating a force superior in quality to any navy at the time. Consequently, at the beginning of World War II, Japan probably had the most sophisticated Navy in the world." - I note that this is referenced to a book about Japanese trade policy, not the IJN (the standard book on the IJN in this era, Kaigun, argues that the IJN had some strengths, but also some crippling weaknesses).
    • On a similar theme, Attributing the eventual US victory in the Pacific War to "technological upgrades to its air and naval forces and a vastly greater industrial output" is nonsense; the ships and aircraft which broke the back of the IJN's combat fleet at Midway and Guadalcanal were pre-war designs. While improved technology helped and greater output made victory all but inevitable, the IJN had already been crippled by the time the USN was upgraded and started to receive mass produced ships.
    • The history section also doesn't discuss the IJN's role in propelling Japan towards war with the United States (an argument made very convincingly in Kaigun)
    • The 'Bases and Facilities' section needs to be converted into prose. Nick-D (talk) 23:33, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • done with the list of bases and facilities, which were removed to a separate list article. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if that's an improvement: The topic of the IJN's bases needs to be covered in the article as they were vital to the force's operations. Nick-D (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

There are a lot of images, so my comments on each will be brief.

The template showing the First ships of the IJN isn't directly relevant and can be removed. The See also and External links sections should also be trimmed; only very relevant links should be listed. The IJN template should probably be moved down so that it's next to the JapanEmpireNavbox. DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

=> Image improvements
Thanks! Didn't think bringing a 2005 FA to 2010 FA level would be so time-consuming :-) Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:Chiyodagata.jpg Source added
File:DanNoUra.jpg replaced with File:AntokuTennou Engi.7&8 Dannoura Kassen.jpg
File:ShoheiMaru.JPG Source added
File:Kanrinmaru.jpg Source added
File:Stonewall-Kotetsu.jpg PD-US license
File:Japanese Ironclad warship Ryujo.jpg Source added
File:RyujoAndHorse.jpg Source expanded
File:GanghwaLanding.jpg Source expanded
File:Kongo(1878).jpg Source added
File:Matsushima(Bertin).jpg Source added
File:Kotaka.jpg Source added
File:Weihaiwei surrender.jpg, not my image, unaware of source. Removing from article.
File:Naval battle.ogg, not mine, but Japanese images and videos before 1950 are public domain anyway, per {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}, aren't they?
File:BoxerJapaneseMarines.jpg Source added
File:JBMikasa.jpg not mine, replacing by File:Japanese battleship Mikasa.jpg
File:IJN Satsuma.jpg replacing by File:IJN Satsuma 2.jpg
File:NisshinMalta.jpg removing from article as I can't remember where it came from.
File:SempillMission.jpg Source added
File:TogoAndFrenchAirforceMission.jpg Official photograph taken in Japan at Gifu, most likely Japanese photographer.
File:IJN Izumo in Shanghai.jpg not mine, don't know about first date of publication, so removing it from article.
File:Kikka.jpg not mine, replacing with USAF File:KikkaNavyBase.JPG
File:I400 2.jpg source added.
File:I-8Brest.jpg removing from article.
Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are prose, comprehensiveness (structure and doctrine), paragraph structure, citations, formatting (MOS), images YellowMonkey (Southern Stars photo poll) 06:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - while PHG has done an admirable job in attempting to save this article, there are still many things outstanding including the majority of concerns put forth by Nick-D. Those which are specifically egregious include the overabundance of images in the article, the comprehensiveness concerns listed by Nick in his comments, prose and formatting (especially single sentence paragraphs), and the see also links which should be incorporated into the prose of the article where available (having this many see also links leads me to believe that the article does not cover all that it should). -MBK004 07:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist While the article has improved over the course of this project, some content remains uncited and I don't think that the article is either comprehensive or entirely neutral. I do hope that this can be brought back to FA status though, as it is a really important topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Per MBK and Nick. Some work was being done to restore the article but as of now nothing has been done for over two weeks. --Brad (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Many outstanding issues, and no work since the end of January. Photo crowding, lack of references, an empty Bases and Facilities section (not to mention the improper capitalization of section titles), lots of small choppy paragraphs, and citation formatting that is just...weird. Dana boomer (talk) 01:59, 24 February 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:32, 11 February 2010 [5].

Captain Marvel (DC Comics) edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: FuriousFreddy, WikiProject Comics

Shazam! I present a Featured Article with problems "The Big Red Cheese" may think is impossible to complete. O.k, I'm exaggerating. But the problems are still big.

There are lots of sections with un-referenced material, failing 1c.
Moreover, it also fails 2c, with some references un-cited.
Some pictures seem unnessessary, with criteria 3 being failed.
GamerPro64 (talk) 18:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote. I don't really care. Most featured articles are poorly written pieces stuffed with fake citations that were never actually used as references, so it's not the same sort of elite company that one would desire their writing be included in. As long as the article is accurate and written in decent English, I could give less than a care about a little star in the upper right hand corner. --FuriousFreddy (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that there are six Unreferenced section templates added to the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern are citations and fair-use/copyright YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 23:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I tried to clean this up around two years ago, but I discovered that reliable sources were thin on the ground. Most of what's available is already cited in the article, and much of the uncited stuff comes from fansites. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Per my comments. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, major concerns about sourcing throughout. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. No work has been completed since the initiation of the FAR. Multiple banners and tags, plus other lack of referencing is major issue, as well as image/alt text concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2010 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:32, 11 February 2010 [6].

Franklin D. Roosevelt edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WikiProject Military History, WikiProject U.S. Presidents

I am nominating this featured article for review because of a lack of formatting for many of the citations, sections of questionable importance, and sections without citations. Although the article is generally good, it could do with improvement. Some areas of improvement:

  • Many (about 20) lack formatting; some are merely hyperlinks, others provide inadequate information which renders them useless.
  • The sections on "Coat of Arms", "Boy Scouts supporter" and "Limousine" seem unimportant.
  • Further, two of these sections ("Coat of Arms" and "Limousine") are not referenced.
  • "Administration, Cabinet, and Supreme Court appointments 1933–1945" requires a better layout.
  • Citations are needed generally in other areas (end of the "Fourth term").
  • Prose could be tightened in places. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File review
  • File:FDR speech.ogg: What's the CC license all about? What's the real source and license supposed to be?
  • File:Sunshine Special -6.jpg: source is an internet forum. "Johnny of Cadillac Club Message Forum" is not the copyright owner.
  • Other files OK.

The external links and bibliography sections need trimming/splitting off. DrKiernan (talk) 14:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The speech should be {{PD-USGov}}, of course, since FDR had been a federal employee for at least a minute or so by the time he delivered it. However, ideally there would be a source for this. Obviously the authorship is clear enough, but it would be better to have a provenance. Chick Bowen 06:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few of the concerns raised above are a bit vague. For example, how does that particular section need a better layout? –Juliancolton | Talk 04:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The table takes up the entirety of the left side, squeezing the text onto the right and leaving a huge margin. As well, the image above pushes the text further down. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested featured article criterion concerns are uncited passages, undue weight, prose. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, I see many chunks of uncited passages. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think we can keep this one, with some work. I'll have a look. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 18:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I trimmed some unsourced material several weeks ago, but haven't had time to get further into it. Let me take a closer look today, and I'll report back. I see a lot of sources, so it's possible that this might be more of an exercise in matching passage to source, rather than hunting for new sources - but there are a lot of unsourced passages. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:17, 1 February 2010 (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 Raul654 17:11, 1 February 2010 [7].

Karen Dotrice edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: listed WikiProjects. Author completely retired in mid-2007 and resigned his admin tools.

Article has unsourced sections, the fourth cite is dead, and some of the sources are unreliable such as christopher-plummer fansite, the disney fansite, and her father's website. Unsourced information on second marriage (and therefore divorce) and quotes. I have no clue if it is comprehensive or not, but it is very short YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 15:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • In my opinion, wikipedia should not have two fair-use files that show exactly the same thing: one of File:Dotrice Garber.jpg and File:Poppins Kids.jpg should be deleted.
  • The fair-use rationale for File:UD 5 Lily.jpg is weak, because the photo only shows Dotrice's face: the image shown has no bearing on the costumes, makeup or visual style of the show. On the file page it even says "public domain images have been located for the subject of the article". So, there is no need to use fair-use images to depict the subject's face, and no basis for the claim of fair-use. DrKiernan (talk) 18:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree with Yellow Monkey. This is way off a FA. The prose is thin and unpolished not to mention very sparse and short. Even if reference and image issues were sorted it just lacks the quality of an FA. Support delisting. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested featured article criterion concerns are uncited passages, reliable sources, copyright, comprehensiveness. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, concerns about images, referencing issues, comprehensiveness. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, Only bot edits since FAR was listed, nothing done to resolve the issues listed there. Major issue is lack of references, especially for quotes, and unreliable references. Secondary issues include lack of alt text and improperly formatted citations. Dana boomer (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no improvements since nomination, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Comments not addressed. DrKiernan (talk) 20:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per my nominating statement YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 06:36, 1 February 2010 (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 Raul654 17:11, 1 February 2010 [8].

Turkish literature edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: All WikiProjects.Author is completely retired, no edits for 2.5 years.

This article fails 1c by a long way because many subjective statements ("Perhaps" etc) as well as entire paragraphs and sections are not cited. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 20:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:Fuzuli Divan.jpg: the poetry is by Fuzuli, but the artwork is presumably by someone else. No date, author or description. Is this an image of an original sixteenth century copy or a nineteenth century one?
  • File:Ozan.jpg: upload source is a dead link. No author or original source.
  • File:Kaygusuz Abdal.jpg: source is a dead link. No author, date or description.
  • File:Ottoman Garden.jpg: the poetry is by Baki, but what of the artwork? Unclear date: is it from the sixteenth century or a later copy?
  • File:Fuzuli.jpg: no description, date, author or original source.
  • File:Evliya Celebi.jpg: source is a dead link. No description, date, author or original source.
  • File:Tevfik Fikret2.jpg: no author, date, or date of first publication.
  • File:Genc Kalemler.jpg: no date. The article says the journal started in 1911, but it doesn't say when it ended. Presumably the date is on the cover written in Turkish, so perhaps a Turkish speaker could look at the image and transcribe the date into english?
  • File:Orhan Pamuk3.jpg: I can't access any of the four sources given, including the web archive.
  • Other images OK, but alt text required, see WP:ALT for guidance.

On another note, the purpose of navigation templates is to provide links between related articles. On the templates here, half the links are red. They should either be stubbed or removed. If the writers are not notable enough to have an article, then they are notable enough to be on the template. DrKiernan (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two references sections and a notes sections. Might want to regularise that. Also references, need more. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


FARC commentary edit

FA criteria concerns are sourcing, copyright, alt text. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 05:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - no work has been done to address the concerns listed at the FAR since that process was begun. Delist vote based mainly on lack of referencing - many claims, statistics, potentially controversial statistics are left without references. Other concerns include a lack of alt text and prose issues, such as number presentation. References are improperly formatted, with books and websites lacking publishers and foreign language references not having their language specified. Dana boomer (talk) 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Why was User:Saposcat never notified of this? The nominator says he hasn't edited in 2 and a half years--that is not true: he has edited every few months, most recently in April, and there's no reason to assume he doesn't watch his talk page. This FARC is premature; I will notfiy Saposcat now, but he should be given an opportunity to make improvements. Chick Bowen 18:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just dropping a note to say that since the notification (over two weeks ago), Saposcat has not made an edit, and has not edited at all since April. Dana boomer (talk) 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, substantial amounts of uncited text, little progress after more than a month at FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, concerns about referencing issues. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pity; I have to agree about the referencing. Tony (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC) PS Would it be possible to ask at the Turkish WP for contacts who speak good English and who would be able to help? I wonder where on the Turkish WP. Their article on "Turkish language" or "Turkish literature"? I could try at inter-wiki ... see if there's a translater there who'd know how to do it. Tony (talk) 11:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Tony (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2010 (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/February_2010&oldid=346984553"