Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2014

< 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. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast Mariners FC edit

Notifying: User talk:Daniel, WikiProject Football/Australia task force, WikiProject Football, WikiProject New South Wales, Australian Wikipedians' notice board

I am nominating this featured article for review because this is a 2007 FA that is not up to current standards. I posted a list of concerns on the talk page nearly a year ago, after the article was put forward for TFA consideration, but some of the problems remain unaddressed. Issues that I can see (there may be others):

  • Lead - "The club's training grounds are located at the Mariners Centre of Excellence in Tuggerah, a facility which when completed will also become the permanent headquarters for the club." This is only in the lead, not in the main body, and is sourced to a 2011 source - has nothing happened since?
    • I don't see this in the lead right now, so it must have been removed. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lawrie McKinna era - the last five paragraphs of this sub-section have one reference between them, and peacock/POV phrases such as "the many fine Youth Academy players", "following a remarkable final round", "match ended in controversy", "this was controversially referred to as a strike", "The 2008–09 season was disappointing compared to the standards set in the previous season". I've just removed the unsourced BLP problem "This is the first time [redacted] had played professional football since 2003, due to drug problems" from this section as well.
    • Good call on the BLP issue, and a couple of the items above have been fixed. There's still more to do, though. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've added a bunch of print references to this section. Further copy-editing is still needed, but this is looking better than when the FAR started. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Graham Arnold era - further unsourced material, and use of "however" (which is a word setting off alarm bells about the quality of the prose)
    • The alarming word is still there until I go through the article more carefully, but the citation level here is much better after I added some more print sources. I also added some more content to update the article to reflect the most recent season, which ended in April. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The word should now be gone, and the article as a whole should be a bit cleaner than it was before. The linking in particular needed a large amount of work. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colours and badge - we have material such as "Mariners enjoyed considerable success in the 2005–06 away strip" sourced to a no-longer-existing page on the club's own website - even if the club thinks the success was considerable, better sourcing is required for POV claims like that.
  • Rivalries - sourced only to footballderbies.com - what makes this a reliable, let alone a high-quality, source, when it says that "This website has been produced by and for football fans all over the world"?
    • This has now been re-written with print sources. It was hard for me since I'm unfamiliar with how to write about soccer (football to you) rivalries, but it's at least reliably sourced and better than what was there before. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Affiliated clubs: unsourced
  • Current squad: unsourced
    • Fully sourced and up to date now. Link to sources will be stable. Daniel (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captains: unsourced
    • Removed, should be covered in history section. Daniel (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Club officials - the managers section is unsourced, and the source given for the management does not mention the patron, given as the first on the list, making me worried that other material in the article may not be backed up by the sources.
    • It looks like sources have been added to this section. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Records - "the club's most prestigious award" is POV. The top scorers chart is 18 months out of date and unsourced.
  • All time matches win/loss - uncited.
    •   Done Split to records article, was too detailed for main article. Daniel (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of work is needed to bring this up to modern FA standards. BencherliteTalk 19:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more than happy to help get this article back to Featured article standards.--2nyte (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 2nyte. It's definitely fallen by the wayside since I nominated it five years ago. Needs a huge refresh and an update. Daniel (talk) 07:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I've looked at the article and agree with Bencherlite and the others that it doesn't meet the FA criteria at this time. The good news is that some work has been done on it already, and I have contributed a few references and some rewriting myself. Unfortunately, I am an American and have only spotty access to Australian sources. Daniel and 2nyte, if you are willing to help with building up the sourcing, I can give the writing a polish. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Thanks to Giants2008 and everyone else for pitching in and helping out. Nikkimaria was kind enough to allow us an extension beyond the two weeks noted in the FAR instructions, so hopefully we can keep chipping away at it over the next couple of weeks. Thanks again, Daniel (talk) 11:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just a note in response to say that I'm glad to see that people are working on this (although I've not checked what's actually been done yet). Let me know when you want me to take a fresh look. I'm not an expert on football articles, but perhaps people who are (like Dweller and The Rambling Man, for instance) might also be worth asking in due course for their input. (Hi guys!) BencherliteTalk 19:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • You can offer more comments any time you'd like, and I'll certainly listen to them. We're getting to the point where further input would be helpful. Daniel said he was going to format the references, so the few bare links and the like that are left should be fixed soon. Other than that, and some necessary dead link repairs, I think keeping the article at FA is certainly possible. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The last of the formatting of the references I have just finished. I feel as if all the concerns have been addressed. I'd like the FAR co-ordinators to have a look and make their determination (hopefully in the affirmative, obviously). Daniel (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all, this has gone rather stale and, since the last of the concerns were addressed and the last part of the writeup completed, there hasn't been any edits to the article or this FARC. Can it be closed now by chance, or are there any standing issues with the article? Daniel (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, sorry for not replying to the various pings / messages earlier. I think that the lead/article could do with a few "As of [month/year[" or "As of [year]" to make it clear how up-to-date some records etc are, but apart from that small point this looks to be in much better shape than it was when the review started and I'm happy for Nikkimaria or another FAR coordinator to close this review now. Well done Daniel, Giants2008 and anyone else who helped out. BencherliteTalk 17:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few of those as of indicators just now. Allow me to added a (biased) keep and say that I think this is good enough to retain its FA status now. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 27 August 2014 (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

S.H.E 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 at 14:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review commentary edit

Notified: Pandacomics, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject Taiwan

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe there are certain issues I can't handle myself. I will list them below:

  • The lead is too brief and does not conform WP:LEAD, nor criteria 2a.
  • The majority of the references are not accessible (dead links), which makes the prose hard to verify.
  • The prose has some errors; namely the last heading of the history sections and some paragraphs in the music style (criteria 1a and 1b)
  • The audio files are not according to WP:SAMPLE, contradicting the third FA criteria.

I am not familiar with this topic, so I'll need input from the parties involved in the previous FAC to resolve the problems. All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 07:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Concerns raised in the review section included prose, media, referencing, and organization/coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I concur with Retrohead, this is not FA material at all for the reasons he gave. The "lyrics" subsection of "musical style" also seems rather short compared to the rest of the section. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as nominator and because no subsequent work has been done to improve the article.--Retrohead (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It fails FA criteria, and it seems the major contributors wanna let it go.Forbidden User (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2014 (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) 14:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Opera (web browser) 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 at 14:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review commentary edit

Notified: Remember the dot

I am nominating this featured article for review because an update template has been tagged in the article since August 2013. Huang (talk in public in private | contribs) 11:05, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Huang, it doesn't look like this has been previously discussed on talk, as required by the instructions. Therefore, I am placing this review on hold and opening a discussion on talk, where you should feel free to participate. If in two weeks your concerns have not been addressed, feel free to re-open the FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Article issues has not been addressed, so I am listing it for review. HYH.124 (talk) 08:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist; organization is spurious, with frequent one-sentence paragraphs, and the article is wanting of current information on the browser's updates and features. Also, "Opera Developer and Opera Next" should be merged somewhere else as it's really awkward in its current position, and regarding "Opera responded to these accusations the next day" - how did they respond? Tezero (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tezero: You don't vote for delisting just yet. This is the time when people point out the flaws in the article and/or fix them up. Then when the nomination's sat around a while, then it gets moved to the section where you get to vote on delisting or not. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:50, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've made that mistake before. Just treat my delist vote as a comment and, when this reaches FARC, a delist vote if the problems haven't been resolved. Same with Microsoft. Tezero (talk) 17:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want to note that this article covers several web browsers, with one of them – Opera Mini – being only slightly related to the subject (from the technical point of view at least). What is IMO worse, it does so implying that all of those browsers are actually the same software, while developer regards them as distanct products, and I have never seen a source that would mix them as well. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:12, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist; organization is spurious, with frequent one-sentence paragraphs, and the article is wanting of current information on the browser's updates and features. Also, "Opera Developer and Opera Next" should be merged somewhere else as it's really awkward in its current position, and regarding "Opera responded to these accusations the next day" - how did they respond? Tezero (talk) 11:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist; an article with an organization like this (extremely short paragraphs, not fully researched topic) and brief introduction shouldn't be an FA.--Retrohead (talk) 08:23, 31 July 2014 (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) 14:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Paul Kane 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 at 14:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review commentary edit

Notified: Lupo, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Toronto, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ontario, Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland

I am nominating this featured article for review because there's a lot sections have no source, or least didn't have enough footnotes, for example: "Travels in the Northwest" (there's three sub-sections below), I feel this is a major problem need to be fixed, doesn't meet the criteria anymore.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Already more than 10 days passed, why there's no reaction? Did I done something wrong or is there anything else I should do? I'm new here, please don't be mad me. I could just withdraw this nomination if necessary.--Jarodalien (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarodalien: These things take time. Everything looks to have been done properly. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've cleaned up the dead links quite a while ago. Mayb e you did not notice but I don't know anything about the subject to add much more. I'll take another look at it. ww2censor (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer:, @Ww2censor:. Thank you, and what shall I do next? Or the procedure will keep going, I don't have to do anything? I'm asking this only because is already over a month passed, and I don't have any idea about how long this progress need.--Jarodalien (talk) 16:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarodalien: Just let it run its course mostly. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section mainly focus on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 20:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Flea (musician) 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 on 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Notified: NSR77, Alternative music WikiProject

Review commentary edit

I feel this article no longer meets the FA criteria mainly due to its lack of sourcing in various cases. I raised these issues on the talk page almost a month ago, and the article has seen hardly any progress since. The issues raised were:

  • First off, YouTube is not a reliable source in this instance...eman17 is not a company or anything seriously relating to Flea.
  • I have had to place several [citation needed] templates due to lack of sourcing.
  • Many sections lack prose quality, specifically "Chili Peppers hiatus, return to school, I'm with You and Helen Burns (2008–2012)" and "Effects" should be integrated to include more prose, rather than pretty much just a list.
  • Lead does not conform to WP:LEAD

Each issue continues to remain unresolved, and I feel as though articles like this give FAs—and Wikipedia for that matter—a bad name. I'm sure the article has more problems, but honestly it just bothered me to see an FA in such poor condition when I know that this would be far from FAC passing material today. Thank you for any comments, --CrowzRSA 16:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The article has many citation needed templates, a few unreliable sources, inconsistent reference's formatting, and is poorly organized.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I personally think this is salvageable, though it is one of the many articles Wikipedia:WikiProject Red Hot Chili Peppers built up to FA status before abandoning the project. CrowzRSA, are you interested in working with me a bit to get this back into shape? I know the list you posted on the talk page probably isn't meant to be exhaustive, but if I work on fixing the basic issues are you willing to go back through it and re-review? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Since I can't vote now, I'll add that the section "Chili Peppers hiatus ..." consists mostly of one- or two-sentence paragraphs that go like "On such-and-such a British date 2011, such-and-such happened." No further organization. The "Musical style" section is also poorly organized; the paragraph before the first subsection is giant and ranges in content from physical technique, musical styles, other instruments, and legacy. The lists could also use some formatting or splitting-off. Tezero (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I won't be working on it since the nominator hasn't even respond to my questions. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Concerns raised in the review section mainly concerned sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2014 (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/August_2014&oldid=628370721"