Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2017

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept 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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC) [1].

Covent Garden edit

Notified: SilkTork, WikiProject London

Review section edit

This article is scheduled to be featured on the main page on 30 June, but it's a complete mess. The introduction is five paragraphs long and comprises a mix of tourist guide-style material and an extended paraphrase of a single source detailing the history of the area; the history section, which should and sometimes does have that information, is poor; the geography and landmarks sections are completely tangled, again frequently containing material that should be classed as history; the rest of the article is a hodgepodge of trivia and unnecessary detail: the stage of the Royal Opera House is roughly 15 metres square, the collection of the Transport Museum had previously been held at Syon Park and Clapham, The Harp has been owned by the landlady since 2010. Et cetera, et cetera. The writing is of poor quality throughout, largely as a result of how disorganised the article is. Here's an example: Platform access is only by lift or stairs; until improvements to the exit gates in 2007, due to high passenger numbers (16 million annually), London Underground had to advise travellers to get off at Leicester Square and walk the short distance (the tube journey at less than 300 yards is London's shortest) to avoid the congestion. The reader of this article, once they get their breath back after trying to read that in one go, will recall that the 300 yard factlet had already been presented to them irrelevantly in the introduction. It's not worth trying to scrub through this piece and spot and fix the issues in time for it to be featured again; this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting before it goes anywhere near the main page.  — Scott • talk 22:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Since FAR generally requires more warning than this on the article's talk page, I'm guessing this will be rejected at FAR ... but if anyone here has time, it would be great if you could offer opinions before June 30, regardless of what happens to the FAR. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I brought it directly here because the article has had barely any regular editors and is due to be featured so soon. If this incredibly bureaucratic process rejects it because of that, well... the less said about that, the better.  — Scott • talk 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are also welcome (and recommended) to have a go at tightening the prose yourself ("Before nomination, ... Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article.") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • And btw, this hasn't actually been transcluded to WP:FAR, so it's just us chatting at the moment. And note that SilkTork said on his talk page that he'll be looking for problems over the next few days. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I think a question we should answer sooner than later is whether it's salvageable in time for TFA or if that slot should be rescheduled. --Laser brain (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I haven't worked on this article for years, so all my notes are gone. I did have it watchlisted to keep it tidy, but took it off my watchlist some time ago. I think I last made an edit about a year ago. I am in the same position, therefore, as anyone else looking at the article, and would need to do the same things. Because of personal circumstances I rarely have the time or energy to spend long periods on Wikipedia, so my time here is random and uncertain. Sometimes I can spend a few days on an article, but rarely at a high level. It will mostly be obvious tidying up. I will take a look at Scott's concerns, though I would urge him in the meantime to get stuck in and do the copy-editing of that sentence he finds over-complex, and to sort the lead into a more acceptable number of paragraphs. Also, Scott, it would help those who are to work on the article if you could more clearly list the areas you feel need attention. You mention the number of paragraphs in the lead, one sentence that is over-long, and that you disagree with the arrangement and value of certain pieces of information, but in general your comment comes over as "I don't like this", rather more than helpful and constructive criticism. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong on almost every point. I would suggest not involving yourself in this any further, out of kindness to our readers.  — Scott • talk 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you be a bit more constructive, Scott? I have seen some minor areas of concern which I am addressing, but other than that you dislike the lead having X number of paragraphs, and one sentence was too complex to parse easily, you haven't given us much to work on. At this point I'm not seeing a valid reason for this "review", and from the timing, the carelessness, the mistakes, and the language, this simply seems disruptive. I am willing to work on the article to address concerns, and I have already done some tidying up, but I am not seeing the cause for concern. At this point the article is substantially as it was when it was accepted as featured, and is up to date with relevant changes to the area, and with current Wikipedia policies and procedures. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Disruptive"? That's Wikipedia Discussion Bingo! I'm out of here. Would say good luck, but luck has got absolutely nothing to do with where you're headed.  — Scott • talk 20:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I've just had a quick look, and it does have areas of concern. Some sourced material has been removed, and some trivia and grammar mistakes inserted ("Covent Garden is a area in London..." is currently the opening sentence). It looks like the article has been fiddled out with since I last looked at it. I'll see what I can do. It may be best to roll it back to the last secure edit, and then look at what positive edits have been done since that date, and reinsert them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • SilkTork asked me to comment. I would say roll it back to the version that passed FAC, or the most recent version that SilkTork is happy with, and see whether Scott still has the same concerns. SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Judging by Scott's comments I think that Scott sees Silktork's writing as part of the problem. I don't think we can have two parallel versions. My vote would be for looking at the current version as it is already being worked on. Fresh eyes are good, so will look later. Will be in transit for a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a problem with the writing. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nor I. The version as it stands is pretty much the version that was passed, and several people were involved in copyediting at the time. There has been minor updating is all. Over the past few months, as I had taken it off my watchlist, some errors had been introduced, which I have now corrected. I have looked at the transport section and refined the information regarding the underground station, which now reads better, and I hope satisfies Scott. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scope and Stability The main problem with the article is its scope, which is huge – hundreds of years of history and hundreds of notable buildings and businesses. This is an issue for FA status because featured articles are supposed to be complete. As an example, note that the article has a section about "Pubs and bars" but has nothing much about eating establishments such as restaurants. This district contains numerous notable restaurants including London's oldest restaurant, Rules, several incarnations of the Beefsteak Club and modern institutions such as The Ivy. I have written several articles about such places myself, including Food for Thought, Gaby's Deli, Hawksmoor and Old Slaughter's Coffee House.
It might be feasible to expand the article to include missing aspects such as this but we will then have the problem that FAs are supposed to be stable. The page currently has a banner tag saying that it "is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" and this indicates that it is not currently stable. I'm not especially bothered about such formalities myself and so will give the page some attention over the coming days, as it approaches the main page.
Andrew D. (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some good points. I will take down the updating tag, as I don't think there is that much work to be done to justify the banner. And I will also look into those eating establishments you mention. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this, the article has 26 kb of readable prose as of this revision, so there is scope to add material, if we take 50 kb prose as a limit to article size. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think User:SilkTork has this well in hand. I wouldn't worry too much about what Scott thinks, especially as he seems to have walked away. Despite being an admin, he is a combative and prickly editor. When I remonstrated with him once for abusing his admin powers (threatening to block editors who disagreed with him) he simply removed my comment from his talk page. I suppose this is a COI, but I've tried to be objective when reading the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In para 2 of the lead, it opens with Though mainly fields until the 16th century, - which is confusing as it seems to contradict what comes next and is out of chronological order - I'd either remove it or move it along to appropriate time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You know, that has always troubled me slightly, but I've never done anything about it... until now! Thanks for the push. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have addressed concerns raised, and added a restaurant section as suggested. Where do we go from here? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been walking through the area with a view to making suggestions. There's history around every corner there. Walking down King Street, for example, at one end, by the Apple Store, there's a plaque commemorating the National Sporting Club. Down the other end is the original branch of Moss Bros which closed recently, alas. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm too busy currently to give this much attention. Perhaps it can be postponed a month or two. Andrew D. (talk)
  • Comment The process is that "The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage." We are just waiting for that to happen. There was no first stage, so usually the second stage is rejected. I think there was no rejection of this second stage because the article is scheduled for the main page, and it was felt appropriate to give it a look over. It has been looked over and the article has been cleared of recent errors, and has been updated and expanded along the lines suggested in the FAR. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott, Andrew Davidson, and Casliber: Where do we stand here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to read this, the main outstanding concern appears to be @Andrew Davidson:'s issue around comprehensiveness. So the question is, what should be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you pinged, I'll answer. Despite the fiddling and diddling in evidence above your question, my concerns as originally stated remain almost entirely unresolved in this mess of an article.  — Scott • talk 23:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
O-kay, before we get stuck into copyediting too far, do you think there's anything actually missing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do think the prose can be tightened. I'll take my coord hat off and keep trimming. Will solicit some independent and thorough eyes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
update - I've had one runthrough and I found some spots I had to massage. I tend to agree with Scott that some material is placed in odd spots, and there is some unnecessary repetition. I can't see any prose glitches now, but I generally find that if I found as many as I did, I suspect there are more that I will have missed. I need to sleep on this and have another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments / Singora CasLiber has asked me to look at the prose. I'll do this over the coming week. Singora (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback / Singora

Scotts' comments can be summarized as:

  • 1. The introduction is too long.
  • 2. The history section is poor.
  • 3. The geography and landmarks sections are tangled.
  • 4. Much of the article is a "hodgepodge" of trivia and unnecessary detail.
  • 5. The prose is weak.
  • 6. Conclusion: this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting.

I agree with Scott. I'm surprised there's no section for footnotes (something needs to be done about the excessive trivia and unnecessary detail). IMO, the only interesting part of this article concerns Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies, the "essential guide and accessory for any serious gentleman of pleasure". Singora (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I think this needs to be moved to FARC as unresolved concerns are significant and I have been editing it so cannot wear coordinator hat...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing the point of this process now. The page was featured on the main page and so that's a done deal. Further agonising about the content does not seem efficient – see diminishing returns. Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of the process is whether or not the article meets FA criteria. It has these two segments. From this point on folks can state delist or keep below and/or try and fix things. Whether or not an article has been on the main page is not relevant now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Concerns raised in the review section include prose, coverage and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The opening comments have some merit, but it's all arguable. I see nothing definitively outside the criteria. DrKay (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with DrKay here. There are arguably quite a few things that could be improved here, but I don't see any workable comments. This is meant to be a collaborative process, and I don't see how meaningful work could commence based on what's posted here. --Laser brain (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've been watching this for a while, and like DrKay and Laser, I agree that there are some valid points raised above. Unfortunately, there is nothing really actionable or concrete. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Scott, Andrew Davidson, and Singora: Can you summarize any unresolved concerns? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still not seeing the point of this process but, since you ask, I reckon that the article still has significant gaps and so is not complete. For example, today I was trying to park in the area and, while the article says something about the underground and buses, it has little to say about other ground transportation from carts and carriages to modern vehicles. The district is semi-pedestrianised now and the article doesn't seem to say much about this. Also the era of the fruit and vegetable market is not covered in enough detail – key aspects like the early morning nature of the market's timing; the surrounding warehouses which still have characteristic features; the porters with iconic towers of baskets on their heads; the flower girls; &c. Specific details can be nitpicked as the area is regularly changing; for example, its Apple store is no longer the largest in the world. And there's nothing about the Freemason's Hall; a massive building which seems comparable in importance to the Theatre Royal and which forms the centre of a cluster of related businesses. Andrew D. (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:} Singora is currently blocked so might not be in a position or mood to comment, but I don't think the article has changed much since his opinion above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, back in action. I need to clean up my recent TFA (which was horribly butchered), then I'll get on to this. Singora (talk) 08:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback / Singora The consensus here seems to be to keep the article as is. I've no desire to rock the boat, but:

  • 1. The intro contains this: "while the south contains the central square with its street performers and most of the elegant buildings". Surely "elegant" is POV / subjective.
  • 2. Paras 2 and 3 of the intro are quite good.
  • 3. Early History: "The route of the Strand on the southern boundary of what was to become Covent Garden was used during the Roman period as part of a route to Silchester, known as Iter VII on the Antonine Itinerary". Repetition re: "route".
  • 4. Overall, this section is quite good.
  • 5. Bedford Estate: "Apart from this, and allowing several poor-quality tenements to be erected, the Russells did little with the land until the 4th Earl of Bedford, Francis Russell". This sentence is a bit lame.
  • 6. Bedford Estate. The second para is weak.
  • 7. Modern changes. This seems okay.
  • 8. Governance and Economy. Has anyone checked the sources?
  • 9. Landmarks: Royal Opera House: The second para uses the word "extensive" twice.
  • 10. Landmarks: Covent Garden Square: "Designed and laid out in 1630, with building work starting in 1631, it was the first modern square in London, and was originally a flat, open space or piazza with low railings". The second instance of "was" is redundant.
  • 11. Landmarks: Covent Garden Square: "A casual market started on the south side, and by 1830 the present market hall was built". Present simple versus present perfect. The words "was built" should be "had been built". Alternatively, switch the "by" to "in".
  • 12. Landmarks: Covent Garden Square: "acting as the prototype for the laying-out of new estates". Shouldn't this be "acting as a prototype for the design of new estates"?
  • 13. Landmarks: Theatre Royal, Drury Lane: "The design is believed to have involved Christopher Wren, who may also have been involved in the similar Dorset Garden Theatre, though it is not certain Wren was involved in either building". Lame.
  • 14. Landmarks: Theatre Royal, Drury Lane: "In 1791, under Sheridan's management, the building was demolished to make way for a larger theatre which opened in 1794; but that survived only 15 years, burning down in 1809". Punctuation.
  • 15. Culture: "The Covent Garden area has long been associated with both entertainment and shopping". The "both" isn't needed.
  • 16. Pubs and bars. I have a problem with this section: the detail seems a tad excessive and reads more like tourist blurb ("Welcome to London and its historic pubs!!!") than formal, encycledic content.

And that's all for now. I've not checked any sources. Singora (talk) 13:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty in there that is specific and actionable...so will get onto it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok then keep - am happier with the article now. We could go on indefinitely but I feel we're in more unequivocal territory now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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) 11:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed edit

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

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 4:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC) [2].

Suleiman the Magnificent edit

Notified: WikiProject Ottoman Empire, Muslim history task force, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Turkey, WikiProject Royalty and Nobility

Review section edit

Tagged for six months for lacking reliable references, failed verification, and unsourced statements. Original nominator has retired. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is going to require the attention of someone with considerable expertise in this area and access to appropriate references. Unless any such individual is forthcoming (which looks unlikely), I think that this is a case for FARC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Al Ameer son? Has edited a lot of articles about Ottoman-era subjects, at least. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the consideration @FunkMonk:, and excuse me for the very late response. I've gotten pretty busy w/ work the past couple weeks. Not sure if I'd be able to tackle this. It would need a pretty dedicated editor to sort things out if there are deep sourcing problems. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Main concerns are that two texts used to support multiple passages are outdated and were possibly unreliable in the first place, as well as material lacking citations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:06, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC) [3].

Keratoconus edit

Notified: User:BillC, WT:MED

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been updated with high quality sources since 2006 and thus many of the refs are old. Also a number of primary sources are used rather than high quality secondary sources. Also I just deleted a 1/3 of the article as it was little more than spam added by likely paid editors.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This needs to be delisted for the reasons stated. Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transcluded this FAR to the main FAR page, so more people can see this and hopefully will repair the article. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: This has been open for more than a year. Wondering if we should delist it now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Concerns raised in the review section include sourcing and whether the article is representative of the current literature. DrKay (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. A quick look shows a number of unreferenced comments still not fixed since the article was nominated for removal 18 months ago. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per the above. 18 months is plenty of time for a thorough review, I believe. If the concerns raised were quick fixes... well, if that were the case, someone would have done it already. As it stands, this sits closer to "Comprehensive rewrite to account for more current sourcing/literature" than quick fixes. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/April_2017&oldid=775674826"