Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2017

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept edit

Removed 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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC) [1].

Indonesia edit

Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox

Review commentary edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because......unfortunately, this article has slipped from featured quality over the past decade. Last review back in 2008 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indonesia/archive1

Dead sources
Ref formatting all over.
Many one or two sentence paragraphs.
Duplicate reference and cite errors.
Sections with few refs. (like Architecture)
Odd image placement with text sandwiching.
Huge icons. Done Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Different styles of English.
Out dated info from 2006.

......list goes on....... Lots to fix.....needs a big overhaul ...Not even GA level at this point in my view. --Moxy (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is the version from the 2008 FAR. It is a thorough yet concise appraisal of the subject. The current version is filled with boosterism, and has bloated to more than twice the size. Ditching the current article and working on the 2008 version instead may be the most efficient way to bring the article back up to par. CMD (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would worry that might replace up to date material with out of date material. It would be easy to compare the two versions and move down the article and relegate material to daughter articles or remove it. The article stands at 71 kb of prose, which is significantly larger than the 50 kb prose we recommend maximum article size at. I'd normally insist that discussion have taken place on the talk page first but the size and breadth of the article mean that coming to FAR is inevitable and anyway FAR is probably the best place for a thorough overhaul (that is needed) to be properly assessed and reviewed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting just dumping the 2008 one back into the live version, but that working from that base and updating that may produce a quicker and better result than working from the current article and trying to trim down on the excesses in prose and tone. Sorry for the confusion. CMD (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chris will want to see this, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: no, my bad. I should have realised that was what you meant. Still, we agree on that pathway anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tried maintaining the article before. Ultra-nationalists always seem to find their way back to "fluff up" the article. I agree with Chipmunk: starting from the 2008 version will likely be easier.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Needs a thorough overhaul. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I have noticed this trend of fluff up/whitewashing on a number of country articles (most recently Saudi Arabia) and there is only so much we can do. I would be OK with starting from the 2008 base, comparing with the present version and adding content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have copied the 2008 version to User:Chipmunkdavis/Indonesia (minus interwikis and category application), which is easier to look at than a page in history. It's there as a reference or as a draft page. I don't have time to work on it myself at the moment, but others can feel free to do what they want on that page. I don't know how long this stays open before the process moves to delisting, but it would be nice to save what was one of the best country articles. CMD (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Issues raised in the review section include coverage, referencing, and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Fails 1e (stability). Article undergoes major changes on a regular basis, such as the addition[2][3][4][5] and removal[6] of substantial pieces of content (examples from the last 30 days of changes not performed as part of the review process). The article is more than twice as large as it was when promoted and reverting to an earlier revision could lead to reinsertion of outdated material and removal of relevant content, nor would it address the reason(s) why the page is under constant revision. DrKay (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Significant attention is needed to changes since nomination, and such work is not occurring. --Laser brain (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for reasons above. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2017 (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 delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC) [7].

Exoplanet edit

Notified: JorisvS, Drbogdan, PlanetStar, ‎Astredita,‎ Kevin Nelson, WikiProject Astronomy

Review section edit

This article no longer appears to meet criteria 1, 2b, 2c or 4 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are several very short sections and paragraphs consisting of single sentences; some sections are merely lists of individual miscellanea. The table of contents is too extensive, and the citations are not formatted consistently. For an article that should be written in summary style, it is over-long with too many individual specific examples that should be summarized to give a more general picture. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article about the now major astronomy topic deserves it once we address these issues, like expanding short sections and summarizing it. PlanetStar 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PlanetStar: Please note that "keep" and "delist" are only used in FARC (removal candidates) and not here in FAR (review). As noted above, "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them." From a quick glance, it does in fact look like it's much too long. If it can be condensed adequately without removing anything essential, I think it has a good chance at staying featured. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Relativistic beaming – Relativistic beaming measures the observed flux from the star due to its motion. The brightness of the star changes as the planet moves closer or further away from its host star." Is this name correct? I thought relativistic beaming was for matter moving at near light speed. It might be better to use 'Doppler beaming' unless this use of 'Relativistic' can be confirmed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both terms are used, as well as others. The effect is very small even for close-in planets. The description in the article is poor, though. Lithopsian (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay yes, I found one instance that used the term in the context of a planet,[8] compared to many using "doppler beaming". Praemonitus (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More generally - I see that some work has started to improve the article, but I'm struggling to see how it will be brought back to FA level. As DrKay describes, the problems go far beyond simply being too long. I guess give it a little time and see how it goes. Lithopsian (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a suggestion, the planet article tree can (and does) cover many of these topics. This article should focus on aspects specific to exoplanets: a high level discovery history plus the various detection methods, observation techniques, and nomenclature. Elements of the article that are highly dynamic, such as new discoveries, should be spun off to a child article, leaving just a summary here. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett edit

There are quite a few minor issues to fix

  • There are some references where the title is all caps. (or other bits all caps) These should be changed. refs 91 144 165 196 201 207   Fixed x6   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference 8 claims to have invalid bibcode   Not fixed Bibcode OK. Per Help:CS1 errors#bad bibcode, digits will be allowed in positions 6–8 at the next code update.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  19:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • reference 228 has lower case "kepler" — should this be upper case?   Fixed (Kepler M-dwarfs)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 183 time not needed   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 174 has "world★" with bonus "★" that should get stripped   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 150 looks to be deformed and missing stuff: Astronomers Find a New Type of Planet: The "Mega-Earth" date=June 2, 2014 authors=HARVARD-SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS (but in lower case)   Fixed (used the 2 authors listed at bottom of source and publisher=H-S CfA)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 146 looks as if it would be a journal article, but may only be a web page. full date=6 January 2014   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 145 missing most info "Probabilistic Forecasting of the Masses and Radii of Other Worlds" Jingjing Chen, David M. Kipping 29 Mar 2016   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 149 is confusing, it seems you go to a page then click a piece of text to view a video. But what is "22:59"? It looks like a time or duration.   Fixed ({{cite video}})   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 88 "01.17.96 – Discovery of two new planets -- the second and third within the last three months -- proves they aren't rare in our galaxy" needs information and formatting author=Robert Sanders date=17 January 1996.   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 79 "NameExoWorlds" is missing info, date=30 November 2015 publisher=IAU   Fixed (& surrounding refs)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • 79 clearly states "Updated on Nov 30, 2015" but you have added "July 2014" (should we use the current one or the version as retrieved when the article was written?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • (now ref #76) Using the version as retrieved makes more sense to me since it's talking about a 1-time event (the start of NameExoWorlds), so having a 2015 date for a 2014 event seems counter intuitive. The only problem is that the earliest archive.org entry is 15 Aug 2015, which prevents the next logical step of assigning a correct |archive-url=.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 60 Kepler telescope bags huge haul of planets is missing date=26 February 2014 author=Jonathan Amos, publisher=BBC News   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 59 missing publisher and retrieval date (perhaps many are)   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 45 Peter van de Kamp has an article, but do we need to author link when there is one in the page already?   Fixed by someone else (I would have opted to keep it in, since someone might not see the prose-link while looking at the refs; will leave as-is)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 39 how about finding an online link for "On the Infinite Universe and Worlds"? And given that this was titled De l'infinito universo et mondi to start with, the quote is probably a translation, but from where?   Fixed (now ref 36)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 4 is missing info.   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 203 " Patterns of Sunlight on Extra-Solar Planets" no publisher   Fixed ({{cite web}})   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 191 "Astronomers May Have Found Volcanoes 40 Light-Years From Earth" missing info   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • " life as we know it" incorrect style   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  22:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wasn't available" incorrect style   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "vs." should not be abbreviated in a title or text.   Not fixed I don't see this mentioned in WP:MOS, and the MOS uses vs. in text.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • strange unicode in "V 391" ref 72   Not sure I can't find it it, and I don't remember fixing it. Is it still there? The only "weird" character I see is Ø, which isn't causing me any problems. (now ref #69)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • upper-case or uppercase - choose one spelling.   Fixed (uppercase)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • triple-star or triple star — choose one style   Fixed (triple star, per Star system)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • time-scale or timescale - choose one spelling   Fixed (timescale, the prevailing usage)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-Earth(s) or Super-earth(s) should Earth have a capital letter? and should it be in quotes:'super-Earth'? (I like caps version best)   Fixed (super-Earth, per Super-Earth)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • spin-orbit or spin–orbit (perhaps n dash versus hyphen)   Fixed (spin–orbit, prevailing & per Tidal locking)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RJup is used as a unit without explanation (or non breaking space). Probably it is radius of Jupiter.   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 57 a name appears here as Pr Sa, but originally listed in the journal as Andrej Prˇsa, also listed as Prsa, very likely should actually read "Prša".[9]   Fixed Prša per pmid & IAU.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • planets' or planets' (I can't tell the difference in these)   Not fixed Identical; all 3 instances use ascii 39 (keyboard apostrophe).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 67 and 163 are the same Rodler, F.; Lopez-Morales, M. (fix this last so as not to mess up the ref #s here)   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should "non-linear" be "nonlinear"?   Fixed (nonlinear)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • NASA’s or NASA's (different apostrophes)   Fixed (straightened)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • maximum-masses should have no hyphen   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mass‐Radius or Mass-Radius (used in reference names so should not be an issue)   Fixed (both titles currently use keyboard hyphens, per their respective bibcodes & dois)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lopez-Morales also appears as López-Morales   Not sure what to do; both are correct per their respective sources (I'm tempted to not consider this a problem).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "isn't" should not be used   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thomas N. Gautier III's ordinal incorrectly appears as Iii in ref70   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • hydrogen-helium or hydrogen–helium or H–He? Pick one of the three.   Fixed (hydrogen–helium, per List of planet types & Helium planet   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In ref 151 "Harps-N" should read HARPS-N   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • link G-type star on first use   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 201 non standard date format FEB   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • extrasolar or extra-solar   Not fixed All (minority) instances of extra-solar are in titles.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • exoplanet’s or exoplanet's   Fixed (straightened (except in filenames))   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • should equilibriums be equilibria?   Fixed (equilibria)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia is excessively linked, and is this the same as Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia?   Fixed (and yes, also fixed)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • disc or disk?   Fixed (disc -> disk, 1 non-title instance)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1-planet and 2-planet should be one-planet and two-planet   Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • °F is used in one spot. Perhaps it should be dropped, or used in the other places with °C   Fixed °C-to-°F replaced with °C-to-K.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the images has alt= text, which should differ from the caption and describe what is in the picture, for those who cannot see the image.   On hold I've never paid attention to alt text. Can you (or anyone here) point me to a good example-page, and I'll attempt to apply it? Just found WP:ALTTEXT & will apply it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)   Fixed All images have been assigned alt text to the best of my ability.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Tom.Reding: please let me do the striking of my own issues! which I will do when I have checked the issue is addressed. Then I know what I have checked or not checked. Thanks for the corrections so far. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graeme Bartlett, oops... Sorry about that (I thought it was a just a formatting preference). I'll unstrike my new posts from today.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  23:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from Lithopsian edit

The lead is, apart from being rather long, almost impossible to read because it is crammed full of inline citations. My understanding is that an FA should comprehensively address all the points that are summarised in the lead, making citations in the lead entirely unnecessary. If that were done here, the lead would be a lot more manageable and appear shorter even without having fewer words. Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to do this, but I hope someone else does (so page watchers know I don't plan on doing everything).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is too long. Citations don't make it hard to read in the final text. But the sentences in parenthesis make it hard to read. If we can turn these into flowing text it will be clearer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed(?) Graeme Bartlett's suggestion by incorporating the longer parantheticals into the surrounding text. The remaining parantheticals are now only 2 words each.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least until Fdfexoex reverted it. And JorisvS fixed it. Thanks :) (didn't see that until later)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article. It most definitely is not that. Praemonitus (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
N edit

Artistic views should be removed, and the intro should have one of the actual pictures of an imaged exoplanet. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Multiple concerns were raised in the review section; moving here so we can establish consensus on what issues remain and where this stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley edit
  • The article has a number of unreferenced statements:
  • Notes a to d.
  • Nomenclature section.
  • Last sentence of History of detection section.
  • The last sentences in the second and third paragraphs of Confirmed discoveries section.
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph, and the last clause in the final paragraph, of the Planet-hosting stars section.
  • Last sentence of Moons section.
  • The Candidate discoveries section is out of date.
  • The article is not an easy read, it has far too many one sentence paragraphs, and the Detection techniques section is inadequate, but it does not seem to have any faults beyond fixing (I see that Tom Reding has already made a major contribution) by an editor far more competent than me. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Thank you for the work done so far, but Dudley's comments remain unaddressed. DrKay (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Sufficient work has not happened, as the article contains unreferenced statements and out-of-date information. --Laser brain (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk) 11:47, 9 February 2017 (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 delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC) [10].

ToeJam & Earl edit

Notified: Bridies, WikiProject Video games

Review comments edit

This article no longer meets 1a, 1b, 2b and 2c of the FA criteria. I can see that it has unfortunately slumped over the past few years as a lot of it is also out of date. I'll list some of the more glaring issues in broad strokes: the lead does not summarise the article, the reception section has overquoting issues and is not comprehensive enough, there is an inconsistent use of "Genesis" and "Mega Drive", and the majority of the prose is choppy. Also, some references are unformatted and unreliable. The article has deteriorated since 2009 and seems shy from meeting the GA criteria in its current state. I'll alert the original author, Bridies, but he's sadly retired. JAGUAR  12:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Reception section in particular needs work—should be cohesive prose rather than one-off summaries of reviewers. czar 00:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I removed a section on a revival, as YouTube and Kickstarter were the only sources cited in it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. Like czar, I think the most glaring issue here is the lack of cohesiveness in the reception section. It also isn't anywhere near comprehensive enough as I could find almost a dozen scans just through a cursory search. JAGUAR  12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the ping guys. I think the blunt end of what I have to say is that I doubt I'll help bring it back up to FA standard, if it's even possible; if there were a bullet-point list of things to "fix" I might be tempted, but on the other hand, I don't want to contribute to the site (other than fixing typos etc.), on principle. I think much of the mess in the reception section seems to have simply been caused by someone smacking the enter button and turning each sentence into a paragraph. I considered a big roll-back revert but it appears infeasible. Ditto the inconsistent citation style seems largely (the kickstarter stuff now being removed) the result of someone changing refs (and/or new ones) to template-d ones (instead of using the simpler, no-templates, style that was in place before; I checked the FAC and, yes, this is still how new refs should be added). With the prose issues and "over-quoting issues" I am tempted, if you will forgive me, to simply raise my middle fingers. I vaguely recall there being complaints about my use of directs quotes (and I liked to do so, because the style of reception section otherwise advocated, e.g. here, as in "Reviewers XYZ said the graphics were good. ABC said they were very good." and so on, is coma-inducing, and part of the reason no one actually reads Wiki articles beyond the lead. In my humble opinion.) Anyway. The prose went through copy-edits (previously, there may have been many more quotes!) by at least one guy with a load of FAs and a load of FA copy-edits (and from what I gathered from my talk page interactions with him, professional writing and editing experience - as I now also have). Although I've seen his FACs take a bashing on prose too, I think. TLDR: The FAC prose requirements are a hugely subjective moving target which I no longer take very seriously; but most of the prose passed FAC as-is (just with less treatment of the enter button). The really big issue I see above is the assertion that the reception section is not comprehensive, and that many more scans are easily available. I'm pretty certain this was not the case when I wrote the thing in what, 2009? But I can well believe that there could be now. I think they would be for someone else to add, though. A last quick note on the review summaries being short: I think reviews from the early '90s, at least the ones I saw, were simply themselves very short, and certainly on substance. Cheers, bridies (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good to see bridies again, although the circumstances could be better. I felt compelled to reply here because I was the "one guy with a load of FAs and a load of FA copy-edits" mentioned above. The article's prose is clinical and stripped down, to be sure, but there are many valid ways to write a Wikipedia article. This sort of strictly-business staccato has been my preference for years. And, although I've run into my share of prose trouble at FAC, I don't recall a single objection over that style—not even from Tony1. The article's prose may very well have actual flaws (I copyedited it around 7 years ago), but style preference is not an actionable objection. Also, at a glance, the lead seems to summarize the article fairly well, and I see absolutely zero unreliable sources in the citations. (Perhaps these two things have changed since the FAR started.) Finally, per WP:CITEVAR, template-free citations are fine as long as they're applied consistently. Template-free cites were always bridies' go-to, if memory serves. Looking at the featured version, no templates were used—which means that the templates now in the article were added later, by editors apparently unaware of CITEVAR. Barring a few small carry-overs, I see no reason not to revert the page to the 2009 version and call this FAR done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also read through the 2009 version, and I'd say it looks alright, but simply reverting back to that version isn't enough. The reception section seems like a mashup of random comments from reviews. I understand that older games didn't get extensive reviews like they do nowadays, but it seems like there's no direction. Also, certain retrospective articles would need to be included, like The Verge and GameSetWatch. I think that if someone is willing to put the time into fixing up the 2009 version, which is in better shape than the current version in my opinion, then I think we can close this FAR. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a pretty easy rescue job. I'd do it myself but work has me tied up until mid-January, and probably later. Any Good Samaritans interested in the chance to save an FA? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably make an attempt. Not until 1st Jan at the earliest, though, for the same end-of-year reasons as probably everyone else. bridies (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will be quite busy myself until January at the earliest, but I'll be happy to help. To summarise I think the reception section could also do with a mention of its GameRankings aggregation and more cohesive prose, which seems to be the more glaring issue. JAGUAR  17:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, MOS, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I haven't looked at the other issues, but dead links, bare urls and inconsistent citation style are enough for me to declare at this point. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist now, but if we resolve even a couple of the issues here, it'd easily be back to GA. FA status seems a bit further, however. Referencing shouldn't be too hard, and I disagree with the prose and comprehensiveness issues. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 21:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. It doesn't seem too far off, but with no one willing to give it the attention it deserves, it shouldn't have the star. I think it's more than a cleanup task; further research is surely needed plus a re-writing of the Reception section. --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk) 11:45, 9 February 2017 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 6:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC) [11].

Judy Garland edit

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Women,

Review comments edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't meet today's FA standards. Dr. Blofeld previously started two threads about how the article wasn't up to par, and I can't say these have really been fulfilled. Details to follow. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I find when comparing this article to the FA criteria:

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • Could be better. As an example, "Emmy nominated" should be hyphenated (if mentioning noms at all), "Film appearances became fewer" reads rather awkwardly, and I'm not sure about the tone of "hit on a winning formula". There are also lots of rather short paragraphs which make the text look choppy.
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Certainly not. It doesn't talk about her genres of music or any studio albums she recorded, and the "legacy" section says nothing about her impact/influence on society or the music and/or film industries.
  • 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
Fixed all dead links but the Google News link about an article in St. Petersburg Times. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • This needs work. "Notable" in "Other notable roles" is a POV description. Same with "memorable" in "her most memorable role", "attractive" and "dowdy" in "the attractive leading lady, rather than the dowdy girl next door", "notably" in "Most notably, she performed" and "disastrous" in "A 1964 tour of Australia was largely disastrous". "Tremendous" in "a tremendous critical success" is borderline puffery.
  • 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
  • This is absolutely A-OK.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • No. I don't really see the need for mentioning Mickey Rooney here, and there's nothing on her musical works except for Judy at Carnegie Hall. Not even her song "Over the Rainbow" is mentioned. As for accolades, it's best to just include what she won to avoid over-focusing on awards, and have any mere nominations instead be included within article body.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • Seems fine to me.
  • 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)
  • One bare link, and url names shouldn't be listed when work titles are already included
Fixed all bare URLs, and which one is the listed URL name? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • Maybe. I'm not sure if "Her daughter Liza Minnelli made her film debut at the age of two and a half at the end of the film" is necessary. Not so sure this needs to go into detail about nominations she lost when there are other accolades she won.

This clearly is going to take some work to salvage, and the promoted version doesn't look much better even if FA standards weren't so strict back in 2008 when it passed FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC comments edit

  • Demote the citation needed tags alone would keep it from being even GA. HalfGig talk 14:43, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Demote while there have been some improvements since I opened this review, they're nowhere near enough to make the article FA quality. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. In addition to the points raised here and tagged in the article, there are unresolved issues on the talk page, such as whether her sister's suicide should be mentioned. DrKay (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2017 (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_2017&oldid=767422849"