Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2011

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

February 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 22:13, 3 February 2011 [1].

The Catlins edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: User talk:Grutness, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand

The article is lacking in sources in many places. It is also lacking in information on whether any hospitals or schools are accessible to the areas. The information about the politics needs to be more specific as the area is only a very small part of the electorate, and the overall restul of the area may not be reflective of the particular enclave. The first two websources in the citelist are not acceptable. The first is an ameteur source. Teh second leads to the front page of a news site without anythign specific YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:13, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The politics section covers various levels of government, only one of which has a ward that corresponds closely to the Catlins. But they are all covered, including the parliamentary electorate that includes the Catlins. I don't see a real problem there.
  • I'm not suprised there's been some linkrot in the sources over the last four years. I'll see about replacing those two. --Avenue (talk) 03:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That passage (on big wave surfing) is now reworded and I think well sourced. --Avenue (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the issues:
  • There is a unreferenced paragraphs starting with and Tahakopa-Wyndham route and (820 ft) long tunnel in the "Transport" section, which has not cited.
  • This section "Government" has no footnotes or citations. This falls into section 1c.
  • This section now has seven inline citations.--Avenue (talk) 12:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are eight dead links in this artcle:
  • Four down, four to go. --Avenue (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still looking for a replacement for the southlandnz.com source. All the other dead links are fixed. --Avenue (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't found a replacement for that last link, so I've removed the statement it supported. --Avenue (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a small section on schools. It's very rough and ready, though, so will need substantial copyediting to get it into FA shape. Grutness...wha? 05:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The nearest dedicated secondary schools are South Otago High School in Balclutha and Menzies College in Wyndham. - what about adding an indication of how far away those places are? Kahuroa (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have thought that necessary. Both Wyndham and Balclutha are marked on the Catlins area map near the top of the article, and since the boundaries of The Catlins are imprecise any kilometre value would be as well. Grutness...wha? 00:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are sources and comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for FA criteria concerns above. JJ98 (Talk) 02:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I've now fixed the captions. As I recall, the maps were created by Grutness, but it's probably best if he confirms that. --Avenue (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very strange, but hopefully now fixed. One of them I was still listed as the creator of, the other one I'd originally listed using {{gfdl-self}}, so somehow the author information must have got lost in transit. In other words, the file histories clearly showed that these had verifiable sources per WP:IUP. Grutness...wha? 22:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that Grutness created these files, but what they need is the source of the underlying map. I presume these weren't drawn from memory. Эlcobbola talk 15:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They were drawn by combining details from about six maps, and I'm beggared if i can remember now which ones they were - this was a considerable time ago. I never use one specific map as my source, feeling that to do so would be copyvio, but rather amalgamate information, and many of the features would have been drawn freehand. Grutness...wha? 21:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a section on medical services, including nearby hospitals. I believe all the issues raised above have now been addressed, either here or in the article; please give specifics if you have any remaining concerns. --Avenue (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll be away on holiday for the next ten days. If any more concerns do come up, please hold the review open until I get back and have a chance to respond. --Avenue (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As one of the authors, no doubt I'm biased, but I believe the concerns expressed above have now been addressed, and the article meets the FA criteria. --Avenue (talk) 08:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck my keep; new concerns keep arriving, most of which I think have been dealt with, but more work is still required on citation formatting. --Avenue (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I acknowledge that I am also biased for the same reasons, but since all the objections raised have been met and fixed, I see no reason why this should still be considered for delisting. In similar circumstances with an article which I had not helped write, I would say the same thing. Why would you delist an article if all the problems raised with it have been fixed? Grutness...wha? 10:09, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Avenue and Grutness. All concerns have been addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 15:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is still short, and many snippets of information are not cited, in particular, some statistics YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have the requirements for a FA changed, YellowMonkey? I ask, because this became a featured article with the lede exactly the length it is now. If it was fine then, why is it not fine now? Grutness...wha? 08:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • My impression is that the criteria haven't changed much, but the interpretation of them has become much more stringent. Even leaving that aside, the article now has two new sections, so we should at least expand the lead section to cover them. --Avenue (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK - that makes sense. Grutness...wha? 23:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've extended the lede to incorporate the new sections and a bit more info from the rest of the article. Grutness...wha? 23:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some inconsistencies with the surname, given name and the usage of colons etc in the authors in the refs. which styled is desired?? YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article name; could someone please verify that this article is correctly named, and not a breach of WP:MSH ("The")? I see numerous citations among the sources that refer to the place as Catlins, not The Catlins. Every official government source I can find refers to it as the Catlins or Catlins: THE is not part of its proper name, sample here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure I understand. In the document you cite as an example, the vast majority of occurrences of "Catlins" are preceded by "the", with sensible exceptions along the lines of "Catlins River", "Catlins cultural history", and "the wider Catlins". Or did you expect to see "The" capitalised? This isn't common usage, but that doesn't determine whether the region's name includes the "the". Anyway, the NZ Geographic Board finally formalised the name earlier this year:[2] '“The Catlins” is a locally used recorded name now formalised as the official geographic name with a bounded extent as published in the New Zealand Gazette on 4 February 2010 [...].' --Avenue (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, they are preceded by "the", not "The": not a proper noun, see WP:MSH. Almost every source I reviewed indicated the name is the "Catlins". However, since you now have a new document that shows the name was formalized to "The Catlins" earlier this year, that means we're OK now, but the article was improperly named until February of this year. These are the sorts of things that should be checked at FAC and FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk)
  • Citation consistency: there are still problems. Does "Department of Conservation" go first or after the article title? There's an ibid in there-- we don't use Ibid on Wiki! Citations need review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grutness has fixed the ibids, at least. --Avenue (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Process note: two of the three Keep declarations at this stage are from the article's original FAC nominators-- independent review is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll come by and give a review shortly. Iridia (talk) 23:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Iridia ... unwatching now on the assumption that most of what I raised has been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • "Archaeological evidence of human presence dates back to AD 1000." Say what? That would be the earliest habitation in NZ... That needs an academic literature cite at the very least.
    • Well spotted! The Department of Conservation source repeats that date twice, and talks about migrations "from the North Island between 850AD and about 1650AD." Looking at their reference list, it seems some of the archeological detail they're reporting may date back to the mid 20th century or even earlier, so it's probably quite outdated. I have tracked down a 1992 paper on the Papatowai site that critically reviews the earlier work and gives better dates (around 1350 AD). --Avenue (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If confirmed...then the Lead should mention that human habitation dates from c. 1000 AD. Also, wikilink big wave surfing.
    • I've added the new date to the lead, and that wikilink. --Avenue (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Structural issue: As pointed out in the FAR stage, the History stops at about 1850. This is confusing. Some of the information in Population and demographics, and in Economy, should be moved there to give a better flow to the present. Either that, or move detail such as rabbiting into Economy, since that's talking about the Catlins' economy. Some rearrangement there should smooth things out without too much alteration needed.
    • I don't see where this was mentioned before. I've rearranged it now, anyway. --Avenue (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the mention of Hone Tuwhare in Population and demographics? Should mention he lived there from 1992 until his death in 2008, and that he was a noted NZ poet. Following that sentence with a block quote from a Tuwhare poem about the region, to emphasise how he wrote about the region and enhanced its significance in NZ culture, would be ideal. I would like it to be mentioned in the lead as well, but am not too concerned there.
    • I don't see a perfect place to cover him, but I've moved it to the Geography section. I've added a relevant quote from one of his poems, but I'm not very familiar with his poetry; maybe someone else can find a better one. I don't really see the need to mention him in the lead, but don't feel strongly either way. --Avenue (talk) 15:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Species name consistencies: In the lead alone we have Yellow-eyed penguin followed by New Zealand fur seal. This continues in the article body; switching between sentences from kakariki to Hector's Dolphins. Needs formatting for one style or the other, ie. Yellow-eyed Penguin or yellow-eyed penguin.
    • Yes, this was a mess. Now fixed I believe. --Avenue (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some prose needs cleanup: eg. "shipping much of the resultant timber", run-on sentences like "The Catlins take their name from the Catlins River, itself named for Captain Edward Cattlin (sometimes spelt Catlin), a whaler who purchased an extensive block of land along Catlins River on 15 February 1840 from Kāi Tahu chief Hone Tuhawaiki (also known as "Bloody Jack") for muskets and £30 (roughly NZ$3000 in 2005 dollars).", "The Catlins boasts a rugged, scenic coastline" (how does a coastline boast?)
    • Those passages are now tidied up, along with a few other bits. --Avenue (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the Geology section would be particularly accessible for a general reader, but then again they often aren't.
    • I've added a introductory sentence; maybe that will help. --Avenue (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise the coverage seems fine; I didn't go and check for closeness to sources/prose similarity. Iridia (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've made a start on some of your points, as noted in between. Still quite a few to do. --Avenue (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • All done now, I think. --Avenue (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - still a few fixes needed before this is closed:

  • What makes ref #81 (Letsgo) a high quality reliable source? It is a budget travel guide written by students.
    • Let's Go is written by students, but there is some editorial oversight.[3] I think it is sufficiently high quality and reliable for the statement it supports (namely that "the [old hospital's] building and grounds now host a youth hostel and holiday park"). But this is not the most central point in the Medical Services section, and I wouldn't object to its removal if anyone feels the source is inadequate. --Avenue (talk) 14:28, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geography, second paragraph, last sentence - the parenthetical needs a ref due to the use of words like "notably" and "iconic".
  • Wildlife, second paragraph, last sentence - due to containing a statistic (most populous) this needs a ref.
    • I haven't been able to found a source confirming this, so I've changed the statement to something that I can support. --Avenue (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are quite a few really short (1-2 sentences) paragraphs scattered throughout the article, which make it aesthetically choppy and harder to read. Could some of these be combined with others?
    • No single-sentence paragraphs left, at least. --Avenue (talk) 12:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Once the above are taken care of, this should be good to go. Dana boomer (talk) 14:27, 13 January 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 15:34, 27 February 2011 [4].

Nirvana (band) edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: ChrisB, WesleyDodds, Wikiproject Alternative music, Wikiproject musicians

I feel the duty to nominate this article for review, and generally open it up to discussion. Featured five, nearly six years ago, I believe that it no longer meets criteria. Here are my concerns:

  • Problems with sources, sometimes dubious and completely lacking, as well as broken links.
  • The article's overall prose is in my honest opinion, hollow and insufficient. While I that respect Nirvana only had a short career (compared to say The Beatles or Frank Zappa), featured articles on bands such as Joy Division and the Sex Pistols, who had even shorter careers, document and describe what Nirvana's article lacks entirely, namely in their contemporary regard and legacy, musical influences and style. My primary concern is uninformativeness. At this point, I believe the article should be delisted, and would at best be considered a good article when its reference problems are dealt with. I'm happy to work in improving it. Sir Richardson (talk) 14:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • My main concern is the referencing. Reference numbers are as of this revision:
    • Number 28 - dead link.
      1. 44: This does not appear to be a RS.
      2. 46: This does not appear to be a RS.
      3. 47: This is a mirror of Allmusic; just use the Allmusic link instead.
      4. 48: This does not appear to be a RS.
      5. 56: This is definitely not a RS, as it's the same website (Rock on the Net) that hosted that dubious ARC Weekly Top 40 chart.
      6. 57: Another link from Rock on the Net, same as above.
    • Also, many footnotes are missing work and/or author credits.
  • I agree that there is very little on the band's legacy and musical styles, both of which are crucial bits of information for a FA. Comprehensiveness seems the most lacking in this regard. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 14:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have "musical style" and "Legacy" sections I've have on the back-burner on my user page for a while now. If you give me some time, I should be able to bring the article to modern FA standards with no problem. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time will of course be given. Articles are at FAR/FARC for a minimum of one month, and this can be extended if work is progressing on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References: These have now been all brought up to date with reliable sources and they have been correctly formatted. The only issue still surrounds the iloveindia reference for Cobain's bronchitis and laryngitis. I've been unable to find an alternative source for this yet. --JD554 (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall it being mentioned anyway, although if anywhere it might be in either the Rolling Stone or New York Times obituaries. Still, it's not essential to include. I'll dive into Come As You Are for more references sometime this week to beef up what's already in the article. The "musical style" and "legacy" sections will take longer to craft. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criterion of concern are prose, referencing, comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for FA criteria concerns. Above those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 19:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Keep The article has been improved, and no issues to addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 18:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, per concerns over unsourced chunks, and quality of referencing with regard to WP:RS on an FA, and unaddressed issues. -- Cirt (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per my concerns over references. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC) Keep since all major concerns appear to be addressed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold Sorry, I haven't had time to contribute lately. I'll get on it starting this week. WesleyDodds (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, no problem. We'll hold as long as you need. I was actually about to ping you when I saw this message :) Dana boomer (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial progress - I've cited and expanded the "early years" section, and will move forward as I can get around to it. The Azerrad book is hazy on dates sometimes, but I can probably use Cross' Cobain bio Heavier Than Heaven to plug in any gaps and clarify anything that people might ask about later. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update I got roped into working on another Nirvana article at the moment, but I plan to do further work this weekend. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - How is work on this coming? We haven't had an update from you in a while! Dana boomer (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working slowly but surely. When I do get the time to work, I get a lot done. Now I'm at a point where I can just pull material I've already cited elsewhere (mainly in Nevermind and In Utero (album). Question: does anyone else think the 1992 MTV VMA performance gets undue weight here? WesleyDodds (talk) 09:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another user has said he'll help with the article so I can focus on crafting the missing musical style and legacy sections. Meanwhile, as for what's in the article that still needs to be cleaned up, I should be able to source the rest of the "posthumous releases" section (mainly the material about the box set and "You Know You're Right") by mid-week. WesleyDodds (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It has been over a month since I brought the article to review. Reference problems have been fully dealt with, but comprehensiveness otherwise remains lacking. Sir Richardson (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See above. I'm working slowly on it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wesley, pls ping me when you're done and I'll do a MOS check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update I hope to wrap this up by the end of the month. That's the goal I'll set for myself, and I aim to meet it. Aside from the addition of information about the band's musical style and legacy (and I know I need to add references for the paragraph about "You Know You're Right"--currently working on that), is there anything else people feel needs major attention in the article? WesleyDodds (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delist — A regretful delist opinion by me. I feel that the major gap in the article, which should be a FA, is that it fails to produce any material regarding the influence of the band, their musical inspirations, their ambitions, their legacy. To me thats a big hole in the article. Hence, this fails as a FA. Further content addition is required, rather than make it a timelined bio. — Legolas (talk2me) 07:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As noted above, I'm working on that in a user page before I add it to the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the delist and would like to have this article keep its FA status. My main qualm with Nirvana was that the article lacked an analysis of their musical style, influences and a betterment of their legacy. This has been added, a fruitful one I must say. Wonderful work WesleyDodds. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I'm going to need another two weeks, due to a particular American holiday getting in the way. I have just finished citing the last of the unsourced statements in the article (in addition clarifying some post-dissolution legal wrangling about the band that was misinformed previously), and now I can focus on crafting the "Musical style" and "Legacy" sections. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update Just going to take a little more time. I have the sources on hand to craft the missing sections, I just need to get through the next few days so I can have the free time to do it. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Image The lead image is claimed to PD, but following on to the source it is copyrighted, thus the article fails WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's copyrighted now, but there is a template at the Wikimedia Commons page which says "This image, which was originally posted to Flickr, was reviewed on September 8, 2005 by the administrator or reviewer Flominator, who confirmed that it was available on Flickr under the above license on that date". So I guess it is ok? (and the image is licensed as CC2.0, not PD)—indopug (talk) 12:22, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Media The audio track has a boiler plated invalid FU rationale, thus the article fails WP:FA Criteria 3 Fasach Nua (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had a problem with this sort of fair use rationale before. Can you explain how to strengthen it? WesleyDodds (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot tell you how to strengthen it, however I can let you know what my concerns are
  • It illustrates an educational article that specifically discusses the song from which this sample was taken.
The purpose of wp is to support the m:mission of the foundation, and creating content specific to one platform is not in support of this
FN, I think you got it in the opposite way. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is used to specifically illustrate the song's noted used of dynamic shifts, and is used to enhance commentary on its composition.
We do not use non-free content to enhance commentary or to illustrate articles, we use it to enhance understanding, and this the rationale should make direct reference to the content and WP:NFCC
WD, just mention how it increases thereader's understanding by helping them comprehend a basic use of dynamic shifts. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a short sample from a much longer recording, and could not be used as a substitute for the original commercial recording.
It needs stated what the criteria was to select the sound, what elements are included, and how the length was decided, and the sampling rate and sound quality
Mention that WP:SAMPLE guided you for the length etc. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted sample of comparable educational value.
A reasonable statement
  • It is believed that this sample will not affect the value of the original work or limit the copyright holder's rights or ability to distribute the original recording
A reasonable statement
I hope this helps (I don't generally watch FAR, if you have follow up, drop a note on my talk page) Fasach Nua (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale seems to fit Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria fine, which are the guidelines specifically mentioned in the FA criteria. Can you elaborate on where the rational fails to meet these guidelines? That would give me a clearer picture on how to tighten the rationale. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:47, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale indeed fits WP:NFCC and its guideline. See my inline responses. — Legolas (talk2me) 09:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update The meat of the "Musical style" section is now present in the article. I should be able to polish it off on Christmas Day, with Legacy following soon after. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any updates on this? Also, please feel free to ping all of the editors who have commented above once you feel that their concerns have been addressed. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 13:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update I'm almost done. Can someone really knowledgeable about fair use review the media again? WesleyDodds (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update The Legacy section is now complete, and thus the article now includes everything it was previously missing. I am in the process of redoing the lead section to better match the article, as well as performing some minor tweaks. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked User:Jappalang to take a look at the images, as he is one of the image experts who often works at FAC/FAR. If you wouldn't mind, can you ping Sir Richardson and SandyGeorgia to take another look? Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've contacted Sir Richardson already, and will contact Sandy shortly. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Media concern: The photograph is fine but I agree with Fasach that the music sample for "Smells Like a Teen Spirit" fails NFCC, mostly with criteria 8 (contextual significance) and 1 (free replacement — text). We have an article about the song (which is rightly so, considering the amount of press and analysis) and the music sample best fits there. The Nirvana article itself carries little if any critical commentary about the song in the main text (I do not consider the quoted description of the music in the caption as a significant analysis either). The impact and popularity of Nirvana's hit is not helped by the sample and can be described in words. Jappalang (talk) 00:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of moving it to the Musical Style section, which I can restructure to reference the song explicitly. The main purpose of the clip in this article is to demonstrate how Nirvana as a band sounds (the dynamics part, mainly), which can be described in prose in a very basic way, but can only be properly conveyed via a sound sample. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To reiterate, at this point, the sample is used only in an illustrative manner. The article states the song made Nirvana famous: "'Smells Like Teen Spirit' was almost omnipresent on radio and music television." Those words are clear and do not need the sample to demonstrate what is said. The caption's description is more apt in the article about the song or its genre than here, as it does not state what relevance those characteristics have to Nirvana. The sample would have more contextual significance to the band's article if "Smells Like a Teen Spirit" is demonstrably (and explained in the article) the standard of Nirvana's works; i.e. the song is characteristic of most of the band's works (for a certain period or throughout their existence) and what makes them unique. This (the characteristics and its significance to the band) is not explored in the article and thus the sample is not needed. Jappalang (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I've addressed this now. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The recent changes somewhat addressed this; however, fair use rationales should be individually addressed for each article the media is used in and not "lumped" together per WP:NFCC #10 (c): "and a separate, specific non-free use rationale for each use of the item". Please write out a fair use rationale for Nirvana on the image page. Jappalang (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done. WesleyDodds (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationales are to be specific on the use of the media to each article; thus I modified the rationale for this article.[5] No one should just use a "blanket" rationale as there are now for the other 3 instances this sample is used on other articles; however, that is a concern on the media's use and the other articles and not for this article about the band, so I will not beleaguer the issue here. Jappalang (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did try to to make the rationales as specific to each instance as possible, and attempted tweaking again. WesleyDodds (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is comprehensive now.—indopug (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good work, Wesley. Sir Richardson (talk) 17:21, 14 February 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 22:14, 3 February 2011 [6].

2007 Samjhauta Express bombings edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Nishkid64, WikiProject India, WikiProject Pakistan

I am nominating this featured article for review because there have been ongoing investigations into the attack which are not appropriately covered, so the article is no longer a comprehensive treatment of its subject (1b, 1c). I mentioned this to the nominator in January of this year, but never received a reply, and the article has if anything degraded since then. Also see Talk:2007_Samjhauta_Express_bombings#Deleted_material. JN466 22:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article requires more than a few days' work to get back to FA status. Unfortunately I will be preoccupied for the remainder of the academic semester, but I'm sure I could fix the article up during my winter holidays in late December-early January. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:03, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. --JN466 12:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have an update on the timetable for this? Dana boomer (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

The main featured article criteria brought up in the review section was comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist has a few one-sentence sections and I see insufficient evidence of updates. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:07, 24 January 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 15:36, 27 February 2011 [7].

Cape Horn edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Johantheghost, WikiProject Chile, WikiProject Islands

This article is way short of the FA criteria. Passed in 2006, the article has not deteriorated significantly since then, so a simple "massive revert" will not solve any of the issues, which include:

  • Large parts of the article are unreferenced.
  • Many places the prose is weak and has non-compliance with the MOS. Examples include single-sentence paragraphs, incorrect use of italics and boldface, unexplained acronyms, inline use of coordinates, misuse of hyphens.
  • Despite the article being about the island, most of the article is connected with the "rounding of the Cape". Although worth mentioning, perhaps there should instead be an article looking of the concept of sailing around South America, which is a much broader concept (and entirely different) from an article on a cape. There is little about the island itself, nothing on geology, very little on geography, and the two lighthouses and the naval station are barely mentioned, even though they are the only structures.
  • The literature section (which I am uncertain of is appropriate at all) contains long quotes from what seems to be random works. Any world-renown landmark like this will make many appearances in popular culture. The section fails to describe why the cape is of any more importance in literature than other landmarks, or even why a literature section is notable.
  • The see also section needs to be trimmed. Either articles should be written into the text to provide context, or removed entirely.
  • The external links seems to be a linkfarm, and even includes a link to the German Wikipedia's article.
  • Some of the references lack page numbers.
  • Mixing of comment footnotes and references.
  • Disambiguation link.
  • 14 dead links, including both references and external links.
  • It is difficult, using any of the five maps, to see where the cape actually is.

Arsenikk (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delegate note - This nomination is being placed on hold while the required article talk page notification (now required to be done prior to FAR) is completed. Dana boomer (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate note - This nomination is now ongoing. The two week FAR window starts as of the date of my signature. Dana boomer (talk) 23:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the review section include references, prose, MOS compliance, comprehensiveness and trivia. Dana boomer (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This has been at FARC for over two weeks. Could we get some comments on whether this should be kept or delisted? Dana boomer (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as it stands. Interesting topic and a shame to see it go. I wouldn't remove the literature section myself. Lots of inline referencing needed and choppy paras. The information could do with some buffering which researching inline sources would help. There has been little activity here and I don't see any forthcoming. I'd be interested myself but I have way too much on my plate as is and would be nowhere near as good at finding refs as for other articles currently reviewed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist since almost none of my concerns were addressed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist agree with the concerns per Casliber (talk · contribs) and TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs). Above those issues are not addressed. JJ98 (Talk) 07:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist a shame to see it go, but it is simply below the criteria. Comments from myself and TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) have not been addressed in ample time. Arsenikk (talk) 09:44, 21 February 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 15:36, 27 February 2011 [8].

Exploding whale edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu), WikiProject Internet culture, WikiProject Oregon, WikiProject Cetaceans


According to the template, featured articles are supposed to be among "the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community." In my opinion, this article - initially promoted in 2004 - doesn't make the cut by our present-day standards. Here are a few of the current issues (note that all reference numbers are based on this version:

  • The article title and scope are problematic. The first sentence says that "The term exploding whale most often refers to an event at Florence, Oregon, in 1970 [...]" but later on in the article, other events are mentioned. The problem is that the article doesn't cite any reliable sources that tie together all these disparate events under the rubric of "Exploding whales". A Google Book search did turn up one reliable source ([9]) that appears to support this synthesis, since it mentions both the Oregon and Taiwan events as "well-documented cases of exploding whales on land". However, this source is not cited anywhere in the article. And there's still no source that justifies the inclusion of the "Others" section. Reference links #21 and #22 are also not working properly.
  • Sourcing is terrible, especially for a Featured Article. There is one published, full-length book that appears to cover this specific subject (The Exploding Whale: And Other Remarkable Stories from the Evening News, by Paul Linnman and Doug Brazil, 2003), but this is only cited once in the article. Why? Also, as noted above, the one reliable source that appears to tie together the Oregon and Taiwan events under the "exploding whales" classification is not cited at all. Reference #4 appears to infringe WP:LINKVIO and is not a particularly reliable source - we should be citing Linnman's book instead, or referencing the TV show directly, not linking to an unauthorized transcript on a random website. Reference #9 is again to TheExplodingWhale.com — what makes this a reliable source? I can't find any information on who wrote it or whether they have a reputation for fact-checking and reliability. Reference #10 is to perp.com — what is this site? why do we think it is a reliable source? Again, I can't locate an author name. Citing random websites for article sources may have been acceptable in 2004 when this was promoted, but not now, especially not on a FA. References #11 and #12 are Usenet posts — not sure why this is considered worthy of inclusion. Some other sources (e.g. #2, #7) do not mention whale explosions at all, and their inclusion would appear to be a violation of policies on original research by synthesis. Several books are listed under "References" — why aren't there any inline cites for any of these?
  • Both the article and the lead are very short. Even with markup included, it's only about 18K. This is far shorter than most featured articles.
  • The prose isn't that great. The opening sentence is rather clumsy, as are parts of the third paragraph. None of the article consists of what I would consider brilliant prose.

Concerns over quality have already been raised by several editors on the talk page; see comments by Eaglizard ("I don't really know how some articles get FA") and Tisane ("I know this article has sentimental value, but is it really up to today's featured article standards?"). Even the original nominator, TBSDY, has noted that "You really should check when that was made FA. It was like 2 or 3 years ago, and since then it's changed hugely, and the standard of course has risen."

In short, I think this article violates Featured Article Criteria 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), and 4. Quite frankly, I'm not sure there is enough out there to upgrade this article to what we would today consider legitimate FA status. It might be able to measure up as a Good Article, but even that would require a lot of work. *** Crotalus *** 14:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed that the "others" section is complete synthesis. Will work on a further analysis. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tagged the dubious sources. Also, under almost no circumstances should we ever cite a newsgroup. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the main issue here is to decide whether the article should focus on and properly cite only the two notable notable incidents and tie them together under that one supporting source that mentions both, or to expand the article to include all incidents of "exploding whales" - both intentionally exploded by humans or spontaneously and unexpectly, in which case the article would need multiple reliable sources to back up the claim that exploding whale incidents do occur worldwide and that their cause can be either natural or manmade to be mentioned alongside properly cited definitions of what an "exploding whale" constitutes. ~AH1(TCU) 03:31, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the review section include references, prose, original research/synthesis and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This has been at FARC for over two weeks. Could we get some comments on whether this should be kept or delisted? Dana boomer (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure whether, as nominator, I'm supposed to post a bolded !vote, but I would favor delisting as the issues mentioned mostly don't appear to have been addressed at this time. *** Crotalus *** 16:37, 15 February 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/February_2011&oldid=416682138"