Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2015

< 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 DrKiernan 14:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Joy Division edit

Notified: Talk:Joy Division

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it no longer meets the requirements of a FA. It was promoted more than 7 years ago. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 15:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the WP:FAR instructions. I see you noticed talk only five four days ago: is there an earlier notice? If not, this FAR is premature and should be withdrawn. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have read WP:FAR. It states "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks". Typically. Not must. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: On a (very) brief scroll-through it at least seems well-cited and WesleyDodds usually did a good job keeping his FAs in good order. What are your concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I believe Lugnuts has nominated at FAR before, and knows we need a list of actionable items, and that notifications must be done. There's nothing here or here at FAR, and I still suggest this is a premature nom that should be withdrawn. @Ceoil: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find a previous nomination, then good luck. I guess you're OK with sub-standard articles having the FA tag. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a meaningful critique is posted here, I'm certaingly willing to engange. Article is FA atandard IMO, though no article is perfect. I would welcome feedback, frankly. And thanks for the ping. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am placing this on hold. The pre-FAR step of raising issues on talk is intended to give interested editors a chance to address perceived problems with the article. However, no specific issues were brought forward on article talk or in this nomination, and there are no maintenance tags on the article, which appears adequately cited and otherwise compliant with the criteria. While it's certainly possible that the article has issues, none are readily apparent. Lugnuts, please let us know specifically what you feel needs to be addressed here, and notify the main contributors and WikiProjects as outlined in the instructions so we can proceed. Thank you. Maralia (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article hasn't been reviewed since it was promoted more than seven years ago, hence why I am asking for the review. The FA process has changed alot in that time and I don't think it's up to the current standards. In other words, if this was put through as a nom today, it would fail. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This review has been closed; no specific issues were identified. DrKiernan (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2015 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:18, 14 March 2015 (UTC) [2].

Cerebellum edit

Notified: Looie496, Fnielsen, Iztwoz, Wimpus, WikiProject Anatomy, WikiProject Neuroscience, WikiProject Medicine [Nominator A314268 and major contributor Nrets are inactive]
URFA nom

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted over 9 years ago and has not been reviewed since. In that time it has grown by almost 200%. The article is tagged as needing page number citations and (as noted before) some parts are lacking citations. I shall be going through the article in detail over the next couple of weeks. DrKiernan (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Quickly scanning the article I immediately noted the "Happiness" section. Supported by a single original study. There needs to be done something with this. Removed? Personally I would also like to see a critical eye "Functional imaging studies have shown cerebellar activation in relation to language, attention, and mental imagery". Given the methodological problems with fMRI I am personally sceptic, although I am not really into the subject. Interestingly the idea of non-motor function of cerebellum goes further back the human neuroimaging [3] and G. G. Berntson — fnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I had the exact same thought about the happiness section, in fact I almost removed it straight off, but when I checked for references there seems to be other work in the area of emotional function. I'd like to investigate how the topic is treated in reviews. If it is notable, then it ought to be better integrated into the article. DrKiernan (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have removed the "Happiness" section, which somehow slipped in while I wasn't watching. Regarding functional imaging, the statements in the article are massively supported by literature. I too am skeptical about their significance, but the fact is that this stuff has received enormous attention, to such a degree that leaving it out would misrepresent the literature. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Isn't the article too human-centric? Cetacean sh/could be mentioned. [4]. — fnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the article is too human-centric. I suppose it would be possible to split off some material into a human cerebellum article, but that doesn't strike me as a good thing overall. Lots of our readers are specifically interested in humans. Regarding cetaceans, I don't know anything about their cerebellum, but if there are facts that are important enough to belong in the article, I encourage you to add them. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing that we have done in a number of other anatomical articles is split content into the main article, focusing on the human cerebellum, and then include an 'other animals' section as is done here (this is also part of the manual of style entry). This structure is particularly useful when the majority of sources and studies used are focused on the human structure, when users expect to read about the human structure in the main article, or when it is confusing to be constantly comparing the structures of different species throughout the article. That said, it might not be as relevant for a well fleshed-out article like this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  3. What about Cerebellar hypoplasia and Cerebellar hypoplasia (non-human)? — fnielsen (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a rare condition in humans at least, but it could be worked into the "Cerebellar agenesis" section, which is another low-quality thing that crept in without me noticing it. I'll see what I can do with that. Looie496 (talk) 14:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Another suggestion may be a 'congenital abnormalities' subsection covering agenesis and hypoplasia and any other abnormalities. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background: Let me fill in some history here. This article was promoted in 2005, but when I came to it a few years later, it was obvious to me that it was nowhere near FA quality. The cerebellum is not the brain area I work on, but I have long been fascinated by it and know the literature pretty well, so I decided to rewrite it. I did so in late 2009, to such a degree that the current article bears little resemblance to the version that was promoted. Early in 2010 SandyGeorgia did an extensive style review, making numerous changes. Since then the article has been pretty stable. I've tried to keep an eye on it, but my attention hasn't been constant, and no doubt I've missed a few things. In particular I didn't see the "Happiness" section show up -- I'm about to remove it as undue. In any case, and FA review is welcome -- with the caveat that I have no intention of wasting my time on minor style issues. Looie496 (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for your attention Looie496 and for raising this, DrKiernan. I work a fair bit on anatomy articles with WP:ANATOMY and stated earlier that I think this article is lacking sources and sometimes a little nonstandard (like heaps of images of cerebellar cross-sections which are quite large by wiki-standards). I've been hesitant to make edits because the article does have FA status, but I'll also have a look. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think then that we should cut File:Sobo 1909 657.png? It seems to show much the same features as File:Sobo 1909 658.png, but 658 shows all four nuclei. DrKiernan (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you all can get the substantial matters cleaned up (prose, sourcing, flow, etc), I'll be glad to go in and "waste my time on the minor style issues", but it's not worth doing that kind of cleanup until/unless the bigger stuff happens. Ping me if all else is settled, and minor style stuff is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queries

  1. In the "Subdivisions" section, the sentence "There is another small region, known as the biventer lobule." appears like an afterthought. Is there a better way to integrate it into the paragraph? DrKiernan (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, what the hell is that? I've never even heard of it. I'll try to figure out what is going on. (We have an article on the biventer lobule, but it lists no sources except Gray's Anatomy.) I suspect that there is really no need to mention something so obscure. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved it out to Anatomy of the cerebellum. DrKiernan (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In the paragraph on "Divergence and convergence", have I read correctly that 200 million inputs is considered "modest"?
    Well, the number of parallel fibers is over 100 times larger. But perhaps "modest" is not quite the right word. Looie496 (talk) 02:22, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I only have two unresolved comments, one above in "Queries" about use of the word "modest" and one on the talk page (in Talk:Cerebellum#Animated gif in title box). I consider both of these minor, and they do not threaten the featured status of the article. I'm happy for this review to be closed without a FARC stage. Many thanks to the editors who helped, contributed and commented. DrKiernan (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipate we'll be able to keep this without a FARC, but I just quickly glanced at a few sections and see copyedit needs;[5] I will work on it over the next few days. Also, a few questions that Looie496 might be able to resolve:

  • Why do we have three (old and incomplete) items by the same author listed in Further reading? If the three of those are worthy of keeping, they need to be completed, but it "smells" like someone pushing one author's work added all of them.
  • See also is typically not needed when an article is comprehensive. Why are those items there, and can those be worked into the article?
  • I am seeing many incomplete citations.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the Further reading section. There are a few other things -- major books -- that might be more appropriate there, but I think we can live without it. I also removed two of the See Also items. The "cerebellar theory of dyslexia" is actually notable enough to be worth mentioning in the article, but not so important as to be essential, so it means to me reasonable to leave it there. Regarding incomplete citations, is that just about page numbers, or something more? Looie496 (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many times, page numbers from the History section, but also some incomplete things, eg, what is happening here?
    • Eccles JC, Ito M, Szentágothai J (1967). The Cerebellum as a Neuronal Machine. Springer-Verlag.
    • The Cerebellum as a Neuronal Machine, p. 311
  • Also, there are many instances of text sandwiched between right and left images. Are all of those images necessary, and can any of them be moved down? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, flow needs to be checked. Marr and Albus are explained in detail in the Learning section, but are mentioned first in passing before that, in the Climbing fibers section. I will get through the article, but it would help, Looie496, if you would re-read for things like this, since you know the topic much better than I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[6]i noticed the article does not directly touch upon the topic of Autism and the Cerebellum, perhaps you might contemplate this reference and a mention--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 25072321 is a primary source, so would not meet WP:MEDRS (and its inclusion would probably be undue). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I could find an appropriate secondary source/review article [7](however you state its undue)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PMID 24825948 is a recent secondary review, but specific to autism. So the question for someone who has the sources is, do broad overviews of the cerebellum mention autism? And if so, do they include an all encompassing list of every condition that affects the cerebellum? If so, something could be worked in around this part of the article:
  • The list of medical problems that can produce cerebellar damage is long: including stroke, hemorrhage, tumors, alcoholism, physical trauma such as gunshot wounds, and chronic degenerative conditions such as olivopontocerebellar atrophy.[3] Some forms of migraine headache may also produce temporary dysfunction of the cerebellum, of variable severity.[39]
It is troubling that our "list of medical problems" is from a 1985 source; we should update that. What do more recent sources say about the number of conditions and medical problems involving the cerebellum, and do they include autism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:57, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you are correct, in so far, as Autism (beside the secondary source and the "primary" which could go a long way) there is not a lot more. However, to your more general question, as to more recent (non-1985) [8] this might do the trick, if not I will search again, this is very interesting, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[9] here is another, just found--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusions of PMID 24523305 are somewhat unconvincing, but someone from WP:MED is going to need to review this article for comprehensiveness; the 1985 source is not optimal, and we need to know what role the cerebellum has across the board in medical conditions. Additionally problematic-- the 1985 source is cited 12 times. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
will this help"across the board " I found a few you might want to look at (keeping in mind im pulling for Autism), there is this [10] on Schizophrenia, looks interesting, there is also dyskinesia[11] , we have dystonia [12] and finally, [13] which might merit though congenital . I would be very happy to help in any way , --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[14] [15] these additional ones deal with Parkinson's and TARPs--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you would please provide PMID links, it would be easier to check those. You only need enter PMID followed by the identifier (4-digit) number; from the PMID link, one can easily see what kind of paper it is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding autism, and to a lesser extent some of the other conditions mentioned here, the basic issue is that it often appears in people who have severe developmental disorders. Those disorders often produce widespread alterations in brain structure. Thus there is a statistical correlation between autism and development-related cerebellar dysfunction. But does the cerebellar pathology play a causal role in the social-interaction problems that lies at the heart of autism? There is very little evidence to support that idea, in my reading of the literature. Looie496 (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is also my impression, but I am still concerned that we need to update the 1985 source throughout, and find one source that says what conditions/diseases are involved with the cerebellum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember doing some MOS work on this...just looked up when, and it was *2008*, yeesh. The references look good, with the exception of the incomplete cites of The Cerebellum as a Neuronal Machine. I think that the Clinical significance section could do with some reorganization and possibly doesn't need the four subsection headers. I will take a stab at rewriting that section in a sandbox tomorrow, and link it here. Maralia (talk) 05:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Maralia and other editors for participating. I agree the clinical significance section needs reorganizing and copyediting, the structure at the moment is strange and certainly the hatnote should not point to 'main' as 'ataxia'. I'll see if I can help out with this section on your draft. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick note to say that I've almost got something comprehensible drafted—sorry for the delay, and hope to have something to show for it shortly. Maralia (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This FAR has been up for six weeks. Maralia, where do we stand on Clinical significance and list of medical conditions (now sourced to a 1985 book)? Also, there are a number of images crammed in to the top part of the article, with numerous instances of text sandwiched between images, while the bottom of the article seems to be relatively bare of images; could someone address the text sandwiched between images. Move to FARC to keep the process on track; it has been six weeks, and issues have not yet been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have been having trouble finishing my work on this because I just 'upgraded' to multifocal contacts and I can't flipping see! My distance vision is great, and I can read the computer screen with effort, but changing focus back and forth from printed material to a screen is just not happening yet. I switched to glasses tonight and made some progress on my draft; you can see it here. Maralia (talk) 06:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: This nom has been up for two months; could it be moved to FARC to keep the process on track and to get more feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Concerns raised above include missing citations (please tag these) and reliable sourcing. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section on tumors could do with a few more sentences (and citations). I might have a look myself. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. OK, I'm going to be bold here and say delist despite all the work that's been done (including by me) and my earlier comment above that the review could "be closed without a FARC". Since my last comment, citation needed tags have appeared and the clinical significance section needs to be sorted out. We (User:Looie496, User:Casliber, User:Maralia, User:LT910001, User:Fnielsen) need to decide whether to cite or cut the tagged sentences and whether to keep the current medical section or replace it with Maralia's. I need you biology experts to finish off the last few bits so I can scratch out my delist! DrKiernan (talk) 11:03, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Maralia's draft is usable, except that a few parts need to be translated from Medicalese into Ordinary English. Most of the CN tags can be replaced with references to the Cerebellum chapter in Synaptic Organization of the Brain. Let me note that the basic facts about cerebellar anatomy, physiology, and pathology have been understood for many decades, and aren't going to change, so a demand for recent sources doesn't really make sense. It just means changing the reference from one textbook to a newer textbook. Once you've reached the point where all the usable references are tertiary sources, it doesn't do any good to be picky. Looie496 (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looie496, OK, I'll take your word for it that we need not replace the older sources, so where do we stand on Maralia's draft? It's time to get this thing closed one way or another, and you're the content expert here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be okay for me to copy Maralia's draft and rework it? I'm usually reluctant to step on people's toes that way. Looie496 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Maralia:  ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for being so considerate, Looie, but you're quite welcome to save me from myself :) Maralia (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've fixed the CN tags, most of which are there because I was trying to avoid repeating the same citation for several sentences in a row. I have also added Maralia's material and integrated it. As far as I know that fixes the outstanding issues. Looie496 (talk) 15:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looie496, if Clinical significance is now comprehensive, why do we have still what looks like two stragglers in "See also"? If those are significant, should they not be incorporated into the article? If they are not, why are they in See also?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't paying attention to that part of the article. I added a wikilink to intention tremor where it is mentioned in the text (more precisely, I changed "tremor" to "intention tremor" and wikilinked it), and I removed "Cerebellar theory of dyslexia", as that is basically a minimally notable fringe theory that would be UNDUE in the article. Since there was nothing left in it, I then removed the "See Also" section. Looie496 (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Looks good to go, then. Keep. Thank you for the effort, Looie! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:11, 9 March 2015 (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 Maralia via FACBot (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC) [16].[reply]

Hyderabad edit

Talk page notification: December 2014
Notified: Omer123hussain, WikiProject Cities, Noticeboard for India-related topics

I am nominating this featured article for review because since its promotion the new state of Telangana has been created. This has introduced instability to the article, and a blanket change of all mentions of Andhra Pradesh to Telangana has resulted in frankly false statements such as the claim that Hyderabad is in the north-western part of Telangana, which it isn't. The entire article needs copy-editing, fact-checking and updating. DrKay (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand your concerns, but I dont think there is any emergency to review the articles FA status, We had been visiting the article regularly and updated required changes and c/e. May be minor corrections are required which we can do with concensus by discussing on articles talkpage, I am ready to cooperate. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 19:06, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is now only one part of the article that I am not happy about, but as it is in the lead, and impacts on more than one of the featured article criteria, it is sufficient to preclude me from supporting the FA status of this article. Namely, the article says that Hyderabad State join[ed] the Indian Union in 1948. Such wording implies that the State joined willingly, and it entirely omits to mention the invasion. Firstly, this is not neutral: it is bias towards the Hindu viewpoint that the annexation of Hyderabad was justified. I understand that saying the invasion was illegal would be seen as a Muslim viewpoint and also bias; however, the way to resolve such a disagreement is to come to a compromise, not select one view over another. I also feel that this phrase is neither comprehensive, since it omits key details, nor well-researched, since it does not reflect the prevailing consensus that Hyderabad was invaded and annexed. If joining cannot be replaced with was annexed by or was incorporated into, then something more substantial needs to be said, to avoid misleading readers.
The last discussion on the talk page that seems to tackle this issue (Talk:Hyderabad/Archive 5#Corrections and clarifications needed....) suggests instead of after joining the Indian Union in 1948, and ... the wording: after 1948, when the Nizam signed an Instrument of Accession with the Indian Union at the conclusion of Operation Polo. It ... I see no opposition to this on the talk page. It is worded more fairly than the present but less concisely than one of the other alternatives, so I propose this as a third alternative wording. DrKay (talk) 17:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, its a very valid point you (DrKay) highlighted, I suggest to replace Joined with brought. "The city continued as the capital of Hyderabad State after it was brought into the Indian Union in 1948". Hope it works. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 23:05, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've put it in. Let's see how it plays. DrKay (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC, having gotten a swift response to my one remaining concern. Even if the new wording does not take hold, I believe this single point (which only effects one word) should be resolvable through ordinary editing or on the talk page of the article. DrKay (talk) 08:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Common capital of ... " section, I suggest we need either some re-phrasing or quote marks from the text supported by this source. Based on that, a spotcheck for close paraphrasing might be in order. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is better if we chopp that section Common_capital or atleast merge it into some suitable section, The same phrases are mentioned in Notes. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the section should be kept since it is clearly an important point, but the note and notes section could be cut; I presume they are only there because there was disagreement over whether it was a common capital at first. Personally, I don't think it's a problem to quote from the act, given that it is clearly marked as a quote and it precludes disagreements if we just report what the act says. DrKay (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DrK, you lost me on "clearly marked as a quote"? I'm talking about the top ofthis section, which is not in quotes, or indicated as a quote, or paraphrased adequately ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I see; I've added quote marks. DrKay (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that the uploader at flickr had changed the license to one that is no longer compatible, but it is not possible to revoke rights once released. The image was originally uploaded to flickr as cc-by, and so it remains cc-by. The subsequent change at flickr to by-nc-nd is invalid. I have added a note to the file. DrKay (talk) 08:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Climate section needs attention. The prose and the weatherbox disagree on figures repeatedly. They are cited to different sources, which themselves represent data for wildly disparate date ranges. The prose cites a source that claims anywhere from 18–50 "years on record", while the weatherbox is based on sources covering 1951–1980 and 1971–1990. This results in such anomalies as different months being determined the coldest (January or December?). Aside from the internal inconsistency issue, data that ends at 1980 or 1990 seems quite insufficient especially when it comes to climate. Maralia (talk) 19:39, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hope its okay now, thanks DrKay for your prompt action. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 05:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think I wasn't clear. Before, we had numbers in the prose and the weatherbox that did not agree, and data in the weatherbox that was sorely out of date. With this edit, the numbers in the prose now match the weatherbox, but the underlying problem of out-of-date data remains: the weatherbox does not reflect any data from the past 25 (and sometimes 35) years. Maralia (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything more recent for six of the nine parameters. I have updated the three others to the figures collected 1951–2000. DrKay (talk) 17:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't find anything before either—NOAA only had figures for 1971–1990—but I got fed up and dug further, knowing that we have several other Indian city FAs. The climate sections on Darjeeling and Mysore both cite this document from the IMD, which contains data from 1951–2000 and does have figures for Hyderabad as well. Wish I had looked this far earlier. Thoughts on incorporating this source? Maralia (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's the one I used above to update "to the figures collected 1951–2000". I'm reassured though, that someone else has also checked for sources and come up with the same. DrKay (talk) 08:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, this made me laugh (at myself) so hard! It's awfully charitable of you not to point out that I appear to be losing it. That's what I get for working on content and sources in the wee hours. Maralia (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2015 (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 DrKiernan via FACBot (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Enzyme edit

Notified: TimVickers, Vital articles/Expanded, Vital articles, WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, WikiProject Genetics

I am nominating this featured article for review because, I think this article doesn't fit the criteria anymore. There's a lot sections or sentence need additional footnotes, "Uncompetitive inhibition", "Non-competitive inhibition", "Mixed inhibition", "Uses of inhibitors", "Control of activity" said there's five main ways that enzyme activity is controlled in the cell, but two sections without any footnotes, consider this article are already been featured for more than 8 years, I think is time to have a good review here.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also, I had nominated the article translated from this article (version 2007) for FAR at Chinese Wikipedia, and there's a huge objections against to me personally, apparently a lot wikipedians there feel this is such an "important", "vital" article, so doesn't need to strictly follow the criteria, or least should had a "different" criteria, or pointed out there's only 3 footnotes at German version, 29 footnotes at Japanese version, but they're all featured articles... The thing that make this even more pathetic is, there's nobody, I mean nobody done anything to improve it, I could only hope nothing similiar will happen at here.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the WP:FAR instructions; you were supposed to give two weeks notice. Eight days is cutting it close: [18]. I suggest that an email to Tim Vickers would resolve the issues; he is no longer active, but he is still around. I will email him now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tim is notified. @WP:FAR coordinators: coordinators will decide if this FAR should remain listed, since the requisite two to three weeks notification was not given (marginal at eight days). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article isn't really up to standards any more. Knotty and technical lead, random little factoids that have crept into the text, and not enough references. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tim ... so I recommend this article remain listed, even though FAR instructions were not followed. Good to "see you" again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to apologize for the inconvenient that I caused, I have no intention to do anything harm the procedural fairness. Mostly I'm only active at Chinese wikipedia, translate articles from here to there, so I'm not quite familiar with the procedure here, and as everybody here could notice that my English are very poorly. The last article I nominated for reivew is Paul Kane, almost one year ago, down there is FAR coordinator Nikkimaria's reply, "If in a week or two there has been no action, feel free to re-raise this FAR." So I thought one week is just fine. Again, I apologize for this, feel free to do anything that fit the procedure.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's like a 2006 reunion in here. I wandered back a few weeks ago and this popped up on my watchlist, so I cleaned out some of the creeping cruft. A couple of quick comments before I forget:
  • References: I see at least eight textbooks in the ref list - Stryer 2002, Voet & Voet 2011, Moran 2012, Cornish-Bowden 2004, Blackstock 1989, Price 2000, Skett 2001, and Suzuki 2015. Cornish-Bowden and Suzuki look a little more specialized, but the rest are general biochemistry textbooks cited for very basic general claims. It'd be nice to either consolidate on one offline text (recent edition of Stryer or Voet & Voet presumably) or replace/supplement with links to relevant sections of the Stryer edition supplied by NCBI Bookshelf here.
  • Lead image: I hate to object to one of Willow's images, but I don't love this one. The rotation is fast enough to be distracting on a small screen where it dominates the text, and there's not enough depth cuing - am I the only one who gets the spinning dancer effect here? My brain can't seem to make up its mind on which way the protein is spinning. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with O. regalis on the rotating lead image problems (at time of writing, boghog has replaced it with as static version). The fast spinning is a bit distracting (compare to slower version). Perspective in protein ribbon diagrams is often difficult but rendering outlines helps by resolving which loop is in front of which.
I'd love to render a new lead image if others are happy - Are we set on glyoxalase? I think it'd be better to use a structure with bound substrate to show the active site. Any suggestions? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! No particular attachment to glyoxalase from me. How about lysozyme? Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lysozyme has the advantage of being a relatively small enzyme that is easy to view in a small figure (see example). I also agree that it would be good to show a bound substrate (or product). PDB: 148L​ might be appropriate (catalytically inactive mutant lysozyme with substrate). I used PyMol to create the graphic and I agree that the default cartoon is harder to visual in a small figure. Using the setting cartoon_fancy_helices, 1 produces a more distinct outline. Boghog (talk) 08:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestion on consolidating the book citations. I will work on this (using the online Stryer NCBI Bookshelf as much as possible) as I find time. Boghog (talk) 09:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a good choice for the lysozyme structure. Thanks for working on Stryer - I think it's a good idea to have an accessible online reference for the kind of basic information these textbook cites are mostly attached to. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are incomplete citations everywhere, and some of the new citations breach WP:CITEVAR (Tim used the Diberri format). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent journal citations are now used throughout (note: {{vcite2 journal}} templated citations render identically to Diberri format: Vancouver system for authors and CS1 style for everything else). Citations with PMIDs should be complete. A few journal citations that are not stored in PubMed as well as book citations may be incomplete. I will try to locate and add the missing citation data. Boghog (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much! What I'm seeing now is numerous websites that have no publisher listed, and no accessdate. If no one else gets to those, I can eventually do them. The journals are consistent now, but it's the websites that have incomplete citation info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, looks like I cargo-culted the {{vcite2 journal}} template without fixing the author parameters. Thanks for fixing that and the web citations, Boghog. (BTW, what tool are you using to fix the template parameters and retrieve the DOIs? The auto-PMID-filler doesn't seem to capture DOIs.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And thank you Opabinia regalis for the extensive work that you have put in getting this article back to FA standard. In answer to your question, I am using Wikipedia template filling which is essentially Diberri's tool with one minor change ({{cite journal|author}} → {{vcite2 journal|vauthors}}). This tool obtains its data from PubMed. PubMed doesn't always have the DOIs either, so sometimes I manually fill these in. Boghog (talk) 06:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! So I guess you have a script that runs that tool for all the malformatted PMID-containing templates in an article? Either that or you have a hell of a lot more patience than I do ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citations look good now (thanks, everyone!), except that I'm not sure that introducing inline page numbers isn't a change in style that introduces inconsistency-- not fussed about it, but not thrilled with it either.

On the other hand, there are MOS issues everywhere. Image captions are overly long to the point that the text in them should be cited, image layout is creating problems with text, there is incorrect use of italics and bolding throughout (I got some of it, but by no means all), etc ... a thorough MOS review will be needed once text is settled. And this is a glaring WP:MSH issue:

  • 5 Cofactors and coenzymes
    • 5.1 Cofactors
    • 5.2 Coenzymes
This is another MSH issue:
  • 8 Inhibition
    • 8.1 Types of inhibition
    • 8.2 Functions of inhibitors
The text in the lead is bouncing all over the place, with no clear flow (the lead in the featured version did not have that problem ... returning to some of Tim's original wording might help).

Repetitive prose: half (three out of six) of the paragraphs in "Etymology and history" begin with "In <date>" ... prose needs to be varied.

Do we really need that bolding in the chart in "Industrial applications"?

Further reading and External links need some serious pruning. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good suggestions Sandy. I nuked the external links section since it didn't seem to contain any links of great value. Concerning inline page numbers, I am not sure what the best solution is. Different pages of the same textbook are being cited to support different statements and it is important to specify the specific page that is being cited. The options are (1) repeat the full citation, changing only the page number, (2) use {{rp}} as is done now, or (3) switch to {{sfn}} templates. Option #1 is redundant, #2 is the simplest, but is a bit messy looking and as you say inconsistent, and #3 is more complicated and harder to maintain. IMHO, as long as {{rp}} is not used too often, solution #2 is the most practical. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead: back to something very similar to Tim's version.
  • History section: tweaked prose a little.
  • External links removed (thanks Boghog!) and further reading trimmed.
  • Italics/bold sorted out, I think.
  • Page numbers: this problem gets a 'meh' from me. I think it's a case of false precision to be pointing at specific pages in specific editions of specific printed textbooks for basic material that can be found in most college-level textbooks on the subject, not to mention that the internet is full of mostly futile attempts to explain enzyme kinetics to premeds. These must all be in the same chapter/section of the book; maybe just cite "chapter 3" or whatever it is.
  • Industrial applications table: if this hadn't been in the featured version I would've suggested moving it to its own page. It's ugly and bulky. I think the bold text does help highlight the applications in the table, since the rows are all different sizes and they don't all have a picture.
  • Images: I'm a little lost on the image-crowding issue you mentioned in your edit summaries, Sandy. I'm looking at it on a very small screen (macbook air) and I don't see problems. I put File:Competitive_inhibition.svg back to the larger size because it's unreadable as a thumbnail (but maybe a simpler image would be better). File:Methotrexate_and_folic_acid_compared.png should probably be replaced in any case with a 2D SVG version with the compounds stacked rather than mirrored; much easier to see the differences that way. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not fussed about the page numbers, and agree with Boghog's analysis of the options (prefer those to dreaded sfn). On the images, I can live with it if others disagree-- I will look at the article on other computers and browsers once we're "almost there". Thanks everyone for rescuing Tim's work !!!

Can someone who speaks biology address the MSH issues I mentioned above, by perhaps renaming the overall sections so that the sub-sections aren't repeats? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about the headers. Fixed the cofactors (turns out the two subarticles got merged at some point anyway). Call me unimaginative but I'm not coming up with a good solution for inhibition; making the subheads 'types' and 'functions' is unsatisfying. Enzyme inhibitor has a lot of TOC repetition too, for the same reason. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning on going through the images this weekend and updating several of them to be at least in a consistent style, and better labelled. Additionally, I agree that the table is horribly formatted - can we reformat it somewhat (e.g. WP:MST) with either shading, or altering the orientation of the cells? Ps, sorry if I'm indenting wrong, I struggle with wikimarkup formatting in longer conversation threads! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 11:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the images from the chart would be a good step. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's great on the images, thanks! I did think those black backgrounds were looking a little dated.
I tried removing the images from the table and tweaking the cell alignment; it looks a little less sloppy now. Also trimmed some cruft and fixed some links. The idea of decorative images here isn't bad, but they're hard to format and even if we make them all consistent sizes, cruft will creep back in. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jarodalien, if you have any remaining concerns about the article, could you please list them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Based from the version I can see now, feels:
  1. lead section, too many paragraph;
  2. five types of inhibition, four main ways to control enzyme activity, their names should not be boldface;
  3. More footnotes: "Structure" (second & third paragraph), "Thermodynamics", "Involvement in disease", "Naming conventions", "Kinetics" (second paragraph), "Functions of inhibitors" (first paragraph, and "A common example of an irreversible inhibitor that is used as a drug is aspirin, which inhibits the COX-1 and COX-2 enzymes that produce the inflammation messenger prostaglandin, thus suppressing pain and inflammation."), examples at "Industrial applications" should all have footnotes, just feel featured articles should not require readers go to another article try to locate a source.
That's all, thanks.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:57, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jarodalien. From this version reviewed, I see the issues on 1 and 3. On number 2 (the issue of bold in the lists), at the time this article was written, WP:MOSBOLD called for bolding of items in a bullet-point list. It no longer does, as far as I can tell. I don't know when that change was made, but it does appear that what was once correct per MOS is no longer called for, and that bolding should be removed. Perhaps Maralia has kept up with that MOS issue, or one of the other FAC or FAR coordinators ... @FAC coordinators: , @WP:FAR coordinators: ... and can inform us on current guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boghog, per WP:ITALICS, I'm not sure that changing the bolded list to italics is correct;[19] see my explanation above for why the list was bolded (it was called for in older versions of MOS). And to whomever has dealt with this, thank you !!!! Overuse of however; (I thought I had checked Tim's version for too much however, henceforth, furthermore, and subsequently ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia I don't have any really strong feels about this and I will not oppose changing it back if that is the consensus. I wanted to note however that the guidelines on the use of italics and bolding in these situations is not so clear. These bolded/italicized phrases beginning each bullet point are functionally equivalent to section headings. Per MOS:BOLD, one use of bolding is [t]o identify terms ... at the beginning of a section of an article, which are the targets of redirects to the article or section. However in this case, there are already separate articles devoted to each these terms. According to WP:HEAD, Headings should normally not contain links, especially where only part of a heading is linked. Also IMHO, the look of bolded wiki links is somewhat jarring. One possible solution is to move the links out of the bolded phrases entirely. Finally per MOS:EMPHASIS, Italics may be used to draw attention to an important word or phrase within a sentence. Boghog (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia These bulleted lists can be considered an embedded lists and in particular definition lists. I have formatted the list using H:DL markup (<semicolon> "term" <colon> "definition"). Does this look any better? Boghog (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I now also moved the wiki links from the bolded term headings to the prose in this edit. Does this look OK? Boghog (talk) 19:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Much better, thanks Boghog! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two weeks in, and the article is still a long way from standard-- mostly uncited text at this point. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Long discussion with subheads moved to the talk page in this edit per comments below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, someone made a wreck of the Table of Contents at WP:FAR by adding sub-heads here ... please review FAR instructions ("... and should avoid segmenting review pages ..."), and we can use article talk for lengthy commentary (please do). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot that this page is transcluded into WP:FAR. The length of this review is getting pretty long and is become difficult to navigate and edit. Perhaps it would be best to move the last two sections of this review to the enzyme talk page. Boghog (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done, see above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any other outstanding source concerns here? I am out of time this week for writing that isn't work, but digging up niggling references is doable. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of good work, but uncited text still. Jarodalien, perhaps you could add cn tags on any text that you believe still needs citation? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarodalien:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I already did that, looks fine to me now. I just hope someone else could review those sources.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jarodalien, what sources are you concerned about? All of the editors working on this article are experienced Wikipedians ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this article now. I didn't mean to question any sources, only seens each FAC will had a source review (and image review) by another editor. So how's this work next, should I withdraw the nomination?--Jarodalien (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned about images, we can ask Nikkimaria to have a look. If all of your concerns as the nominator are satisfied, you can suggest the FAR be closed now (without moving to the FARC phase), or you can suggest (with reasons why) that it be moved to the FARC phase for others to opine whether the FA should be delisted or kept. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All my concern has been addressed, I suggest close this FAR if no one else rise anything other issue within one week, thanks for the good work and patient from everybody.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found a good amount of uncited sentences and paragraphs in the article. I tagged them with the citation needed tag. This review should probably not end until after these missing citations are added. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 04:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Our remarkably patient Boghog has provided additional citations. PointsofNoReturn, it appears that you simply tagged the last sentence of every paragraph if it did not already end in a citation, even for trivial statements and near-tautologies (e.g. penicillin and aspirin are common drugs; the enzyme-product complex releases products; quantities of enzymes can be changed by degrading them). Thanks for your review, but it would be more helpful in future reviews to be a bit more discriminate. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As this looks to be in keep territory and there are editors active in maintaining the article, I am going to close this. If you feel the close was premature, please do raise any issues on the article talk page or improve the article yourself! DrKiernan (talk) 15:17, 7 March 2015 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:58, 27 March 2015 (UTC) [20].

Trade and use of saffron edit

Notified: Saravask, WP Agriculture, WP Plants, WP Food and drink
URFA nom
Talk page noticed January 2015

Review section edit

This is a 2006 FA whose main editor is mostly inactive, and that has taken a good deal of uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does it just need citations, or how much more would there be to this? MicroPaLeo (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor appears who has access to the sources and is willing to work on the article, I'll do a more thorough review, and list any additional issues noted. The article was well written when it passed FAC, so a diff of changes since FAC could be instructive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will see what sources are available and get back here with what I can do. A lot of the FA requirements are beyond my patience but sourcing an agriculture trade article is not. MicroPaLeo (talk) 14:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to a university library, so I don't take on improving an article unless someone else can do the sourcing part-- if you can do that, I can help with any other cleanup needed as we go. This is a deliberative process, so keep the page posted, and I'll weigh in to review as I have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a very readable article compared to when it was a Featured Article. I found the main editor and compared versions from 2007, when he/she was still editing. Simple statements based on sources have been canged to Latinate hemming and hawing; it will be more work than expected, but I will give it a go. I hope you are not a person who disparages a good three letter word when one can find seven three syllable words with Latin roots to obscure meaning. Sometmes "big" is best. MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be easier to revert to the featured version, and then compare what changed, and update production stats and anything else that is new? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more readable. I was going to try that in my sandbox first, then compare paragraphs. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Saravask was a competent writer, so that may be the way to go ... restoration may be painstaking in sandbox, but I submit it will yield a better outcome than trying to fix all the new additions since the FA version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He/she wrote well in a style that makes you enjoy reading; after posting in my sandbox, I see it even looks beautiful on screen. Sigh. MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I misspoke on reverting to the FA version (2006). I see that Saravask last edited it in 2011, so a good version would be found more recently. Which (date?) version are you starting from? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I picked from their last edit in December 2007. They appeared to stay on top of all edits until then. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I missed all the 2011 edits. I picked this edit but will look at the last 2011 one before moving on. MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the one closer to the FA is better. I will work in sections and be careful with edits. First, reading about the saffron trade! MicroPaLeo (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK ... did you notice article talk that you're working in sandbox? Ping me when I should have a look. Thanks !!!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will not be working on this. MicroPaLeo (talk) 01:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've already left, Micro, and your page is deleted, so I'll say here that I'm really sorry to see you go. Not only because your help here was invaluable, but also because I hate it when bot and bot-operator silliness chases off content contributors. I will go mention on article talk that we lost you ... my best wishes to you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is anyone else willing to work on this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC; it looked like MicroPaLeo was able to restore the article, but s/he has left Wikipedia, and no one else has taken this on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Main concern: verifiability. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Much as I love our trio of articles on saffron, this one needs quite a bit of work to get it up to current referencing standards for an FA. Maralia (talk) 14:52, 17 March 2015 (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) 15:58, 27 March 2015 (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) 5:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC) [21].

Ina Garten edit

Notified: Air.dance, Javaweb, WP Women writers, WP Food and drink
URFA nom
Talk page notified Jan 2015

Review section edit

This is a 2005 FA that has taken on uncited text; there are other issues also noted on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually came onto this article's talk page with the intent of suggesting that this article be sent to FAR. There is a lot of un-referenced prose in this article; this being the case, it would not pass a GAN today, let alone a FAC. At this current stage I would be inclined toward de-listing it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, no edits, no progress, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC only edit since the start of the FAR is someone refining a category. BencherliteTalk 00:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Main concern: verifiability. DrKiernan (talk) 15:47, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist this has quite a bit of uncited text. I also see inconsistent citation formats and incomplete citations, as well as a list of "References" that confusingly are not cited. It appears the article is somewhat out of date: she won another daytime Emmy after the one mentioned in the text. The "Barefoot Contessa other publications" section is strangely named and seems to have acquired all manner of cruft. Maralia (talk) 15:23, 17 March 2015 (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) 15:57, 27 March 2015 (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 Maralia via FACBot (talk) 3:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC) [22].

Crab Nebula edit

Nominator User:Worldtraveller retired. Notified: WikiProject Astronomy
URFA nom

Review section edit

One section tagged for citation, and failed verification on at least one issue. DrKiernan (talk) 15:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • For the references there are some with incomplete information, such as
    • no DOI for some journal articles,
      • Looks to be old stuff or journals that never allocated DOI back that far. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • no ISBN,
    • missing dates or authors,
    • red linked author (which is probably useless). John C. Duncan
    • Perhaps some authors do have articles and are not linked.
    • Most authors have space between their intials, but Rossi, B.B.; Mayall, N.U. and Burn B.J. do not.
    • Dud DOI at 10.3847/BAASOBIT2012011 - all BAAS obituaries seem to bad dois
    • Dud DOI at 10.1086/129507 10.1086/123101 (on JSTOR)
    • Abbreviated journal BAAS should expand to Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society.
  • Text in foot notes 5 and 9 should probably go in-line in the text, as it is not obvious that there more on these topics below.
  • All this (apart from DOI) should be easy to fix. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the "done" templates (they cause problems in archives), but the entry is unsigned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject FAR: are we really going to fail an article because of a single random edit made the better part of a decade after the FA? And are we going to do that without making the slightest effort to contact the editor in question to address the problem? Seriously? Don't worry, I took care of that. As to the rest, Graeme, are any of these even needed? DOI's and ISBN? Nice to have, surely (well not really, you may as well ask for their index card numbers), but listing them here suggests these are FA-level issues. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I say is not intended to fail this, but lead to improvements. Remember that FA is the best that we can do, so if it can be improved then we do so. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Minor copyediting for clarity. Cite provided (one click away). Maury Markowitz (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we are not going to "fail" an article over a single random edit. We never do that at FAR. The emphasis at this stage is on review and improvement with a view to keeping the article featured. See the instructions at the top of the WP:FAR page. DrKiernan (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the improvements, and please read FAR instructions and lower the temperature. As DrK mentions ... and the talk page was noticed weeks ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sample problem found with a quick glance: in this section, the first two paragraphs are uncited (an explanatory footnote is not a citation). In this section, half of the second paragraph is uncited.

Why Solar Transit but Lunar transit (upper vs. lower case)? (And short choppy sections-- why are separate sections needed on those?)

Does the article use British or American English (favourable vs. ize)?

A short biography of Jan Hendrik Oort, Section 7 is not a citation.

Yes, a thorough review and update is overdue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, in late December I asked at WP:ASTRO for help cleaning up this article and Enceladus. I just tagged the unsourced sections mentioned by Sandy. Some minor attention is also needed for consistent capitalization, linking on first occurrence, langvar, and ref formatting; I'll be happy to pitch in on those if we can get the unsourced content taken care of. Maralia (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Transit inconsistency taken care of. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, to keep on track. It has been almost two weeks, and while there has been some improvement, there is still work to be done and it's not clear anyone is undertaking to restore this to status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More than two weeks in, major issues still not addressed, lots of uncited text. Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. I'm sorry I can't help on this one; the subject matter is too technical for me to contribute usefully. The uncited text and verifiability is still a concern. It's fairly short for an FA, which might indicate a lack of comprehensiveness. The composite image should have details for each image that is used to make up the composite; information templates would be helpful on each of the image files; the video file is subtitled in Danish, which is somewhat distracting; and the images do not appear, with one or two exceptions, to relate to the adjacent text. DrKiernan (talk) 17:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Concerns raised in the review section largely concern referencing, prose, and images. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist fails on referencing alone - and until the references and the verifiability of the content are sorted there's no point in sorting the prose. BencherliteTalk 23:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am able to reference all the citation needed bits. So there is no need to delist. I am also concerned that coverage may not be complete. But that is much harder to determine. I suppose someone will have to get a recent book, or review on the topic, and see if everything is covered. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are declaring keep at the same time you are saying the article may not meet 1b, and hoping someone else will fix that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, as the attitude here seems to be to get rid of the FA status without trying to fix the problems, so someone has to oppose that! So far I have found no books written recently on the topic. That means that it is more likely that the article is not too deficient. The scope is important too, as there are separate articles for Crab Pulsar and SN 1054. So this has to be more detailed on the nebula. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. Anyway, we still have incomplete citations, and now an external jump in the lead. [23] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad the images seem to be sorted, but the article and prose are not; sustained attention is needed. On the minor issues, wikilinking is all over the place (how many times can we link Saturn and the Titan moon in one article-- for that matter, in the lead alone). The LEAD should be digestible to a layperson (that's me-- it's not). The reader is required to click on multiple links to understand what the lead is saying. I stopped there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. Thank you for the citations and the improvements to the images. Unfortunately, I am not able to support the continued listing of this article. I've just tried to address one of my more minor comments from the review section by attempting to integrate the images with the text. By doing so, I've confirmed two other comments I made there: the complexity of the content and the issue of comprehensiveness. For example, I was looking for a home for an image "showing Rayleigh–Taylor instabilities", but (as far as I can tell) there is no explanation of what they are or why they are important or how they relate to the nebula anywhere in the article. Similarly, there is a video about "Fermi spots" but apart from the video and the image caption, Fermi spots are not mentioned or explained anywhere in the article. These examples demonstrate that the article is not comprehensive. I admit that I am nowhere near an expert on this subject matter but I can tell from these images that there must be research on the nebula and its features that is not covered in the article, except in passing in unenlightening image captions. DrKiernan (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist (I forgot to declare above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist"Connection to SN 1054" section, third paragraph needs referencing. I also agree the issue of comprehensiveness. And about the comment from Graeme Bartlett, I guess we are, and should just determine this article meet the criteria or not.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:49, 14 March 2015 (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. Maralia (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2015 (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 Maralia via FACBot (talk) 3:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC) [24].

Only Fools and Horses edit

Notified: Bucs (FAC nominator, inactive), Ritchie333 (October 2014 comments on talk page); the WikiProjects with tags on the talk page: BBC / BBC Sitcoms Task Force / Comedy / Television / London / England
Notified: the three editors with the highest number of edits to the article (FAC nominator is fourth on that list): SteveO, FlapjackStantz and NewTestLeper79 - stats tool wasn't working yesterday so couldn't find out who the main editors were until now. BencherliteTalk 09:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Review section edit

2006 FA, not reviewed since. Complaints about lack of citations in 2011 and in October 2014, unaddressed. Also unreliable sources (fan/self-published sites like www.ofah.net and www.epguides.com, tabloid newspapers). FA nominator Bucs is inactive. BencherliteTalk 11:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ritchie333

In my view, the following are all deal breakers and mean the article does not meet the FA criteria, and I would pull up all these issues for discussion on a GA review as well:

  • A source "Clark (1998). Only Fools and Horses Story. p. 15." does not comply to FA standards - there is no mention of publisher, full name and ISBN. I realise this is actually mentioned in the prose down at "Merchanside" but ISBN numbers are part of references, not text. FA quality sources must make verification as easy as is practically possible.
  • The second paragraph in "History" is half-unsourced
  • "It attracted a respectable, though unspectacular (by those days' standards) 9.2 million viewers" - "respsectable" and "unspectacular" are just too POV for an FA. Just saying "it attracted 9.2 million viewers" would be better, and if the reader requires more information, a footnote listing typical audience figures for soaps and the most popular entertainment shows in 1981 would be informative and neutral. Additionally, this is the only place in the "History" section that gives viewing figures, the remainder is in the "Reception" section
  • "and allowed for more pathos in the series" - is unsourced
  • "The seventh series, which was to be the last, was aired in early 1991" - this is confusing, given that 12 years later you could still watch a new episode
  • The "Main cast" section is just far too rambling. This article may be read by somebody in America or India who may have a cursory knowledge of the show via syndicated repeats but even Brits who remember the show from day one (like me) would probably agree there is just too much detail here. Are "naive", "generally gormless" and "lacking common sense" good encyclopedic terms for Rodney?
  • The presence of File:JimBroadbent07TIFF_cropped.jpg seems to be a case of an article looking for a picture and not especially relevant to the show
  • The "Minor cast" information has too few sources. I realise a lot of this is of the "not challenged or likely to be challenged" variety, being simple "'x' played 'y'" facts
  • "Scenes such as .... have become iconic British comedy moments" - iconic is far too POV (and are they really as iconic as "Don't Tell 'em Pike", "Don't Mention The War", "And it's goodnight from me...", "Look, this isn't an argument", insert audio clip of David Brent singing Disco Inferno here etc etc)
  • "Other British slang words commonly used and popularised in the series include "dipstick", "wally" and "twonk", all mild ways of calling someone an idiot." - unsourced, "commonly used"? "popularised"? Says who?
  • "Several books have been published, most notably the officially sanctioned "The Only Fools and Horses Story" by Steve Clark" - see WP:ITSHOULDBENOTED
  • "It also featured on a cavalcade of everyday items" - I would not have expected to see the word "cavalcade" here, and the information following is unsourced, so I've got no idea if any of the spinoff merchandise is important, whether it's collectable or not, does it fetch a good price on eBay, who knows?

I appreciate that is just a brief scan through the article, but from just that brief spin through I think it is currently around B/C class, certainly nowhere near an FA. The lack of sourcing is a showstopper, without that I cannot see any way of this article being quickly salvaged to retain current FA status, and would support a motion to delist.

Also pinging @SandyGeorgia: who was involved in the original FA review. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dismal. In the FAC, I only got to citation formatting issues, said I would read through it later, but never got to it; I think I bowed out there because it was so odd that an editor with a name too close to mine was editing right behind me. I don't think it should have passed FAC, but standards were lower then. The articlehistory was wrong;[25] something seems to have changed in the date formatting department. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed that date thing. BencherliteTalk 13:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Here is the version that passed FAC; it had a competent GA reviewer (RelHistBuff was a good editor). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, SteveO has replied to my message, saying "It has been obvious the article has needed work for some time, I just haven't had the time or inclination recently. I'll try to get round to it at a later point, but it won't be before the FAR ends." BencherliteTalk 23:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - only edits since nomination have been to tidy reference format (and remove one sentence with an unreliable source), leaving the bigger issues untouched. BencherliteTalk 17:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Main concern: Verifiability. DrKiernan (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2015 (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) 6:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC) [26].

Paulins Kill edit

Notified: WikiProject Rivers, WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject Geology

Review section edit

Before I started editing Paulins Kill, there were multiple unsourced paragraphs and sentences. Digging deeper in just half the article, I've tagged multiple cited paragraphs as original research or verification needed. Since this subject matter is outside my scope, please check my work.

This article's major contributions was the result of User:ExplorerCDT, then later one or more of his sockpuppets. Paulins Kill is listed on User:ColonelHenry/Cleanup as a possible WP:CCI. I've added numerous URLs to "Books and printed materials" to aid in this review. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Concerns raised while FAR was on hold
I agree that this article needs reviewing (and do his others), and I'm glad to see someone taking the initiative. However, you have only begun tagging it today, and have not posted to the article talk page or notified any other contributors to the article, so no one has had a chance to respond. Given the hoaxing issues discovered elsewhere, I absolutely understand your concern here, but the tags you placed (1 for original research; 3 citation needed; 2 verification needed) and the content of the tagged statements do not seem to indicate such egregious issues as to warrant skipping steps of the regular FAR process. Suggest you temporarily remove the FAR tag and post to article talk to give other editors of the article a chance to address these issues prior to proceeding to FAR, if necessary. Maralia (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, no rush. I'll put it on hold to give interested parties a bit of extra time to consider potential improvements. « Ryūkotsusei » 21:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I was heavily involved in the Peer Review and FAC back in 2006, but do not have special knowledge about the stream beyond that. I kept an eye on the article when User:Vanished user azby388723i8jfjh32 disappeared for several years from Wikipedia (coming back later as User:Colonel Henry). I added the current lead image when the previous one was deleted (it is from Flickr). I do not have the time or sources to work on checking the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 23:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ryūkotsusei: A fair bit of work has been done on this in the last couple weeks, some of it by me. My impression thus far is that there's nothing heinously wrong aside from general sloppiness, but two sets of eyes are better than one, and (like most articles promoted so long ago) it definitely needed some tuning anyway. Currently there is only one unresolved tag. Would you take another look and see if you can identify anything else that needs work? Thanks for being patient. Maralia (talk) 09:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not liking the Latin vocab used instead of page or chapter numbers for cited books spanning hundreds of pages. As if its not enough work already finding the book, but once you do... search around? If that's a real issue at FAR, you know that will be time consuming to fix. « Ryūkotsusei » 00:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Ugh—I hadn't yet made it that far down the article in verifying sources. I absolutely agree that there's a major problem with missing page numbers for book cites. The rules used to be much more lax, but we definitely can't have things like multiple passim cites of a 1,000+ page book. The entire history section is largely unverifiable, with so many missing page numbers. Can you help add {{pn}} tags where you see page numbers missing? I will do so as well, and once we've demonstrated the scope of the problem with tags, I think it's time to put this back up at FAR. Thanks for your help. Maralia (talk) 01:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged 9 {{pn}} plus reference 14 as {{nonspecific}}. « Ryūkotsusei » 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


Procedural note: This FAR was previously put on hold to give editors some time to try addressing issues raised above and on the article's talk page. (While it was on hold, I performed a copyedit and rewrote/re-sourced the Watershed section, so I am recused on this one.) Outstanding concerns at the moment include potential copyright issues mentioned above (although none have been identified thus far), and the verifiability of the Early settlement section, where page numbers were not provided in many book citations. Maralia (talk) 02:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. Thanks for the work done on the article, but I've just tried to verify some of the content and of the four sources I checked against the material in the article, only one is clearly supportive. The statement The NJPIRG has ranked the Paulins Kill as the seventh in a collection of rivers and creeks in a Top 30 listing of 'New Jersey waterways to Save' was sourced to a press release now offline. I managed to verify this in a secondary source. However, the claim that the Paulins Kill viaduct was the largest [concrete] viaduct in the world was sourced to an ASCE page on a different bridge, but this source only appears (at least at the present time) to talk about the other bridge. The Paulins Kill viaduct isn't mentioned at all. Some of the history section is sourced to an 1895 book by Chambers, but I could find only one mention of the kill in Chambers on page 18, and it doesn't say much at all. Finally, the material sourced to Schaeffer and Johnson (1907) is not, in my opinion, verifiable. For example: the book was published in 1907 and so it cannot support (as it claims to do) the statements Still, pollution reaches the Paulins Kill from nearby residential developments and farm run-off containing agricultural pesticides and fertilizers. Several farms along the banks of the Paulins Kill produce alfalfa, wheat, corn, hay (and historically, barley, buckwheat and rye). Fruit trees in orchards produce cherries, apples, plums, peaches and pears, while native wild grape vines, and blackberry bushes are also found in the valley. DrKiernan (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: Is anything else needed for sectioning this to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Outstanding issues from the review section mostly concern verifiability. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well ?? @Ryūkotsusei:, @Maralia:, @DrKiernan:. Enough progress? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. Unresolved issues, detailed in the review section. DrKiernan (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still delist as nominator. A lot of printed materials lack page numbers, and span hundreds of pages. « Ryūkotsusei » 20:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Delist due to verifiability concerns, especially within the History section but also elsewhere as noted above. DrKiernan, could you tag the specific statements that you noted as failing verification? Thanks. Maralia (talk) 19:20, 28 February 2015 (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) 16:08, 7 March 2015 (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/March_2015&oldid=860711685"