Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2012

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept status edit

Removed status edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 16:57, 17 September 2012 [1].

Raney nickel edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: JZCL, WikiProject Chemicals

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous {{fact}} tags and according to the review page there are a fair number of factual inaccuracies. I think the time has come for substantial improvement of removal of FA status. JZCL 21:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The last paragraph of the intro is not a summary, but rather states facts not present elsewhere. It is also full of WP:OR ("However, since the Grace company itself does not use any generic names for the catalysts it is supplying, "Raney" may become generic under U. S. trademark law.")
  • What makes this a reliable source?
  • This link — I have no idea what this even is. It seems to be some sort of search algorithm.
  • Some of the refs are incomplete, lacking authorship info, etc.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: File:Raney nickel phase diagram.png has no source information, needs a source per WP:IUP. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria brought up in the review section include OR, sourcing, MOS and images. Dana boomer (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, still has sourcing problems and the intro is too short. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above, no one is bringing those issues addressed lately. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 09:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 17:38, 5 September 2012 [2].

GameFAQs edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: RockMFR, WikiProject Video games & WikiProject Computing

I believe that this article clearly fails the FA criteria in regards to 1c (sourcing) and 2c (citations). About 2/3 to 3/4 of the citations in the article are to GameFAQs itself--I think it should be delisted primarily because of this level of dependence on primary sources. Also, the citations are inconsistent and poorly formatted. There has been very little activity on the article over the past couple years, and no one responded to my post on the article's talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • History section seems rather sparse. Did nothing of note happen in the many gaps? Did any signficant history occur between 2004-06 besides the few one-offs mentioned? What about after 2007?
  • History also needs a copy edit. Most sentences are "In/On [this date], [this happened]." again and again. Also, "Veasey's departure" should be expanded or merged elsewhere.
  • Could a better picture of the HQ be found? That one has such a bad angle I feel like I'm watching Battlefield Earth.
  • Are the user levels on the forums really that important to an average reader? There also seems to be some undue weight on them versus the history.
  • Likewise the contests. This seems like fancruft to me.
  • As mentioned by the OP, there are far too many primary sources.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Teancum

  • I agree that the article relies far too heavily on primary sources. Of the 92 references I counted 17 that were not primary--too many primaries by a huge margin.
  • Many refs need updating with Cite web parameters that are missing, and some lead to forums (though usually the post is by a GameFAQs employee) and may need reassessed

Teancum (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The sourcing was admittedly very weak when it originally became a FA – I stretched primary sources further than probably any FA ever has. And if anything, it has degraded since then. In its current state, I think it also fails to be comprehensive. Unfortunately, I don't think sufficient secondary sources exist such that this could be changed to be a FA-quality article at this time. — RockMFR 01:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, you got a lot out of it, that must have taken some work :) Things were different back then, for sure. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments All the above...plus one sentence section (not just one sentence paragraph), two cite needed tags. This simply isn't up to snuff. PumpkinSky talk 11:50, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Issues raised in the review section primarily dealt with sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 17:38, 5 September 2012 [3].

Austin Nichols edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers

I am nominating this featured article for review because...I was shocked when I happened upon it in random surfing that it had the featured-article star. It has a three-sentence lead, no picture, three dead links, and if nothing else, the sniff test. It just doesn't look like it's (anything remotely close to) Wikipedia's best work. The article's history shows that it was promoted in 2006, at which time it's my understanding that FA standards were much more lax, reviewed once in 2007, and never again vetted by the community. Five years is a long time to go between reviews, no matter what. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 11:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This nom seems to have skipped the talk-page discussion required by the FAR instructions. Therefore, this nom is on hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:22, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No response on talk page; FAR is active as of this timestamp. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose is extremely choppy. Loads of one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
  • As mentioned, the intro is too short.
  • The article's only picture was deleted as a copyvio back in January.
  • "Box office and critical success" has an "As of 2007". Surely that should be updated.
  • Several unsourced sentences, which I have tagged.
  • TV and Filmography table should have a source.
  • A few dubious sources are used, including a press release from PR Web
  • One of the Rotten Tomatoes cites mentioned the score that fans gave the film. You can't do that!
  • One citation is to a LiveJournal account, which I have removed as it did not contain the information anyway.
  • Nearly half the references are dead links.

tl;dr: This article is way short of FAR, and I'm as usual disgusted that people continue to think that just because it got a gold star, it should never be updated or rechecked. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Falls clearly short of FA requirements: inadequate lead, full of citation tags, ridiculous breathless tabloid prose ("it was revealed that Nichols has been dating fellow One Tree Hill co-star Sophia Bush")... I added an image, though.  Sandstein  16:25, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria mentioned as problematic in the review section include prose, MOS, images and sourcing. Dana boomer (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Nikkimaria 17:38, 5 September 2012 [4].

Scout Association of Hong Kong edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Wimvandorst, HenryLi, WikiProject Scouting

I am nominating this featured article for review because after finding it in a CCI, I had a hunch to check all the reference rather than just the modifications done by the user in question. What I found was a rather high level of very close paraphrasing, and some copyvio, where there were whole sentences lifted from sources. The further I got the more issues I found with the article, and the copyright issues are serious enough to warrant removal of FA status. On top of that, many parts are unsourced and there are areas where the language was poor, generally around the areas that I found copyright issues. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 18:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Queen's Scout (Scout Association of Hong Kong).png has a fair-use rational, but none for this article. File:Scout Association of Hong Kong 1950s-1980s.svg has no caption. The referencing is rather thin in places, with none whatsoever in the #Air Scouts section. Chris857 (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In its current state, this is not FA level. PumpkinSky talk 21:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except for the degree of referencing question, the other noted questions seem not deep rooted. Noting the items with close paraphrasing problems would lead to an easy fix, as well as prose. Whether or not degree of referencing is an issue should be discussed. North8000 (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Modern FA standards require everything be ref'd, at least one per paragraph. A whole section un ref'd is no longer acceptable.PumpkinSky talk 23:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria brought up in the review section include copyright violations and close paraphasing, lack of referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2012 (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/September_2012&oldid=515987913"