Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2009

< 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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 15:11, 18 December 2009 [1].

Tornado edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Runningonbrains, Evolauxia, WikiProject Severe weather

I am nominating this featured article for review because there is a bunch of unsourced information here and there are too many stubby sections.John Asfukzenski (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Super Outbreak Map.PNG is not from the NOAA. It is labelled as coming from the University of Chicago. NOAA use the image, but image copyrights do not automatically transfer to the user. I've nominated it for deletion.[2] Other images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Struck 08:16, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have uploaded a higher-resolution version from a source which is clearly public domain. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 04:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take on this one. –Juliancolton | Talk 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has been 11 days now and not since october 12 has there been any edits. I think it is obvious that there will not be much effort to improve the article. John Asfukzenski (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you would point me to a some phrases you think need sourced, I would be more than happy to look for sources. As for stubby sections, I don't see how they can be improved when most of them discuss topics with an article of their own and are marked as such. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 23:44, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also getting to work on this article, but I would appreciate some additional criticism other than generic sourcing concerns. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 15:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the "stub sections" concern, this is a gigantic topic with many, many forked articles according to Wikipedia:Summary style, and I see no problem with a short section linking to a main article.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 16:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concerns are referencing (1c) and stub sections (2b). Marskell (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I appreciate it might be hard to avoid, the stub section issue is a fair point. The article is quite visually distracting in places. Marskell (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes needed:

  • The article is "Tornado" but there is a section "Tornado": see WP:MSH.
  • Incorrect use of WP:MOSBOLD in several places.
  • Apparent incorrect use of the {{main}} template: it is used when this article summarizes another article using WP:SS. If that's not the case, a different template should be used.
    • I do not understand this criticism. All uses of {{main}} are at the head of a section summarizing the linked article, as far as I can see. Can you cite specific examples where it is used incorrectly? -RunningOnBrains(talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe I have resolved this problem, by substituting see also templates with some of the main article templates previously within the article. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jargon unexplained or wikilinking lacking: example, cumuliform cloud.
  • Incorrect use of WP:ITALICS: samples in "Tornado-like circulations" section.
    • Fixed. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is still incorrect use of italics throughout, for example .. everywhere. See WP:ITALICS and the list moved to the titles sub-article of Italics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My bad...I fixed the one below this. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 03:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Curly quotes need to be fixed: example, or an irregular sound of “noise”.
  • External link farm needs pruning, per WP:EL
    • I have pruned the external link section to a more reasonable size. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can Further reading not be alphabetical?
  • Do all of those redlinked authors in citation really meet notability guidelines?
    • I removed the non-notable redlinks. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also section is a problem and needs pruning or incorporation into the article (see WP:LAYOUT, and Sister links belong in External links.
  • Red links are fine in an article, except when the fact that the link is red makes this article have undefined terms. For example, this term needs to be either defined, or the redlink filled in: Other rich areas of research are tornadoes associated with mesovortices within ...
    • Took me forever, but found a reference, created a wiktionary page for the term, and linked the redlink to said page. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 05:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See alsos used in this manner is poor practice and poor prose: ... susceptible than others.[22][80][81] (See Tornado climatology). ... and ... bad shelter during tornadoes (see next section).
  • The number of short, stubby sections indicate better organization of the TOC may be warranted.

That's as far as I got on a quick flyover, but more work is needed to bring this article to standard. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I believe all these concerns have been addressed. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 01:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Struck items completed.
      • Main and See also templates are used inconsistently: some are uppercase, others are not.
      • WP:NBSP check needed, I left sample edits.
      • I'll check linking and jargon on my next pass through, after other editors are finished. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still far too much going on here to list it all, or for this to be in Keep territory. I suggest you might ping in Juliancolton (talk · contribs), Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) and Titoxd (talk · contribs) for a look and some help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Juliancolton knows of this I should think, as he made a comment above...I have, however, just left a generic note on the other's talk pages (just the FAR notification template and a section header saying SandyGeorgia recommended they be contacted). Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did some overhauling last month, but haven't kept up with this, sorry. I'll do some more this weekend. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (ec)See, here we have the fundamental flaw of this process. People say "This article isn't up to standard", but don't give enough information for people like me to actually fix it. I've written a large portion of this article, so I'm not in a very good position to proofread; I see very few problems with the article as it stands right now. -RunningOnBrains(talk) 20:55, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already left one extensive (first pass) list, but there is still just as much to be done. The quickest way forward is to get experienced weather editors on board; then the rest of us can go through afterwards and see what's left. I'm not on for another long list until some of the weather editors have run through; after that, I'll be glad to have another look. Thanks for the work so far! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll see what I can do on this one. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:59, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple comments. The lead doesn't summarize the article below, and appears too short, requiring expansion. For example, there appears to be no information from sections 3, 5, and 8 within the lead. A line concerning each would help out greatly. You can tell this article passed GA and FA before the current standards were in place. I'm not sure (lead-wise) the article would pass GA right now. Reference-wise, the name order within references 16, 23, 29, and 50 do not fit the pattern used in the rest of the article. Consistency in referencing, with use of the various cite templates, is required for FA last I checked. And yeah, I was one of the editors of this article three years ago before it was GANed; even then I was concerned it wouldn't pass. Thegreatdr (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in citation formatting is required; citation templates are not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I believe I solved the name order issue, but there may be other issues with the ref section. A fresh eye should take a look to see if there are any other reference issues. Thegreatdr (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles listed in "See also" suggest that this article is not yet comprehensive; some of those articles appear to contain content that should somehow be mentioned or linked or discussed in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears referencing and wording (both jargon and encyclopedia-style) are the remaining items to address. I'm making an effort to address both issues. If there are others, please mention them. The other items above appear to have been addressed. Thegreatdr (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Other tornado-like phenomena which exist in nature include the gustnado, dust devil, fire whirls, and steam devil. - all of those terms should be linked.
  • Tornadoes are detected through the use of storm spotters and weather radar, though the use of velocity data and reflectivity patterns such as a hook echo. - isn't Doppler radar required for wind vector information?
    • Yes, but doppler radar is a type of weather radar, no? Thegreatdr (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, but I think that we could be more specific about the kind of radar without making the article unnecessarily complicated, at least in that sentence. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I like how the sentence was split as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doppler radar is not necessary to detect the presence of a tornado in all cases...hence the mention of the hook echo ...I liked it the way it was.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 17:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fujita scale and the Enhanced Fujita Scale rate tornadoes by damage caused. - some temporal frame of reference would be nice. When was EFS introduced?
    • Dealt with. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd recommend a rewording of the sentence: Between 1971 and 2007, the Fujita scale rated tornadoes by damage caused... in 2007, the Fujita scale was replaced with the Enhanced Fujita Scale. Also, if you capitalize EFS when spelled out, should "Fujita scale" be capitalized as well? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is where the situation gets complicated beyond the scope of a summary article: The EF scale has only replaced the F scale in certain countries, such as the US and apparently France (though they have been inconsistent). Also, there's the TORRO scale, still in use in the UK. I think I've summarized it as best can be done without being too verbose. Also, regarding capitalization, I know I've posted this somewhere else in the past, but can't remember where: Enhanced Fujita Scale is capitalized in every official document I could find, but Fujita scale seemed to be alternately capitalized and uncapitalized, with no discernible preference.-RunningOnBrains(talk) 17:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AMS Glossary of Meteorology points out that tornadoes produce "the most intense of all atmospheric circulations.[3]" Why is this buried two-thirds of the way down the article in the Extremes section? (And it is mentioned in a very roundabout way there, too.)
    • Dealt with. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • All right, although I'm not sure whether the way that is worded (The most intense of all atmospheric phenomena) is too technical. Sandy? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm getting too old to spot the difference between jargon and regular words :-D -RunningOnBrains(talk) 17:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, #Types should come after #Life cycle. In fact, Life cycle should be brought up several sections. The article would make more sense if terms such as mesocyclone and RFD were explained before being used.
  • Most significant tornadoes form under the storm's rain-free base, or the area under the thunderstorm's updraft, where there is little or no rain, making them visible. - add a ref for this, please. It might be more accurate to call it the updraft base, though, per SPC/NWS Norman's recommendation.[4]
    • See if that works for you. Thanks for the link/ref. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tornadoes emit on the electromagnetic spectrum, for example, with sferics and E-field effects detected. Little is yet understood, however. - the grammar here is weird.
  • For example, on June 24, 2003 near Manchester, South Dakota, a probe measured a 100 mbar (hPa) (2.95 inHg) pressure deficit. - pressure deficit? Huh?
    • Changed to pressure decrease, which should be easier to understand. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The storm is contracting into a rope-like tube and, like the ice skater who pulls her arms in to spin faster, winds can increase at this point. - conservation of angular momentum, anyone? Needs a reference as well.
    • I believe I just solved this problem in a different section of the article. I can add a new ref for it though. Thegreatdr (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd just copy the reference, since the article is large enough that the references might be hard to find otherwise. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Enhanced Fujita Scale was an upgrade to the older Fujita scale, with engineered (by expert elicitation) wind estimates and better damage descriptions, but was designed so that a tornado rated on the Fujita scale would receive the same numerical rating. - it almost sounded like the elicitation clause was tacked on at the end. Rewrite this part.
  • Doppler radar data, photogrammetry, and ground swirl patterns (cycloidal marks) may also be analyzed to determine intensity and award a rating. - while I know this is true, a reference wouldn't hurt.
    • Still outstanding. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've run out of time and won't be able to resolve this issue. If it's still a problem in mid-December, I'll be able to help. Thegreatdr (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm having trouble finding a reference for the ground swirl and photogrammerty, although I also know it to be true...I did, however, find a reference of the radar measurement part. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This area extends into Canada, particularly Ontario and the Prairie Provinces. Strong tornadoes also occur in northern Mexico. - MOAR REFS
  • I'm honestly not sure what to do with the [clarification needed] request in the climatology section, so unless someone else brings something up, just kill it.
    • I do, since I tagged it a while back. That line isn't quite right. In the US, tornado formation gets suppressed to more southern latitudes such as the gulf coast/Florida during winter. In the US numbers decline, but this may not be true in other countries/areas of the world, so the line has been removed. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tornadoes are focused in the right poleward section of landfalling tropical cyclones, which tend to occur in the late summer and autumn. - while I can see how this would be true in storms with a south->north landfall vector, is this true for east->west landfalling storms? Would it be more accurate to say that tornadoes form in the right-front quadrant, or would the right poleward quadrant still be more precise?
    • Making the change. Poleward wasn't the right wording in this circumstance. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A picture of a hook echo would come in handy in the Detection section, alongside the vortex signature pic.
    • I put in a radar loop that has both, but I'm not sure if it works better or not. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 16:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of Storm spotting needs references. Also useful might be the cross section of the WSR-88 precipitation mode scan pattern[5], since you mentioned it. Link tornadogenesis in the paragraph as well (or just call it tornado formation...).
    • Added references and moved a couple lines (surprise) to the radar section. Tornadogenesis is already linked in a section above...you sure it should be linked to again? Thegreatdr (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last paragraph of Visual evidence essentially regurgitates the Life cycle section. I'm not sure if this is by design, but I'm not entirely convinced it's necessary to maintain two copies of the same thing...
    • The only duplication I'm seeing regards funnel cloud information. The other structures described visually don't appear to be repeated in the section above. In general, this section does appear to add to the article with minimal duplication. The second opinion would be good here. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The latter half is not as repetitive, true, and I guess since you do need to bring back context, the repetition is unavoidable. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was also the second costliest tornado in history at the time, but has been surpassed by several others non-normalized. - grammar parser syntax error: expression does not compile
    • I believe I understand what the author of that line meant. Damage normalization is done by accounting for population changes over time within a specified area. See if my rewording has led to sufficient improvement of the sentence. Thegreatdr (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This outbreak had a staggering sixteen tornadoes on the ground at the same time at the peak of the outbreak. - zOMG!!!!1! No need to get excited and lose the encyclopedic tone there, though...
    • Changed wording to make more encyclopedic. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 18:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Better, although I'd like a second opinion on the whole paragraph's tone. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The breathtaking and menacing prose of the most dangerous paragraph in the history of mankind has been eliminated, once and for all! Thegreatdr (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The highest wind speed ever measured in a tornado, which is also the highest wind speed ever recorded on the planet, is 301 ± 20 mph (484 ± 32 km/h) in the F5 Moore, Oklahoma tornado. When? Also, this contradicts what is written in the Doppler on Wheels article (the strongest tornado being in Bridgecreek), so one or both articles need to be fixed.
    • It depends on your perspective. The tornado is known as the Moore F5, but the winds were measured as the tornado was passing through Bridgecreek. Which would be more appropriate? Ks0stm (T•C•G) 17:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both. There is no way a reader without previous knowledge of tornadic records would know such a thing. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 17:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since 1999_Oklahoma_tornado_outbreak calls it the "Bridge Creek-Moore Tornado", I'd change it to something similar. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, and linked to the outbreak page's section on that tornado. Ks0stm (T•C•G) 20:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The link to the outbreak also helps clarify things, thanks. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 20:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Highway overpasses are extremely bad shelter during tornadoes. - grammar again
  • Ongoing research looks... unresearched. Add references throughout.
    • Numerous references have been added, which has led to a rewording of one of that section's sentences. Thegreatdr (talk) 13:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 00:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's left

Main problem which remains appears to be referencing of the research section, which is ironic, but there it is. We also may still have an issue with the wording (too technical or jargony), but I'm not going to be of much use there either in its identification or fixing, since I've been steeped in the technical wording for nearly 20 years between college and professional life. Nearly all the other comments made by Sandy and Tito have either been responded to or apparently fixed. It is up to those commentators to strike out what they feel has been addressed, so we have a better idea of what is left to do otherwise. Thegreatdr (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When Titoxd is satisfied, I am. But I still see inconsistent capitalization in hatnotes, for example
  • See also: funnel cloud ...versus ...
  • See also: Supercell
Please pick one and be consistent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So.....I'm not sure, but I think all the concerns have been addressed. Anyone move for closure? -RunningOnBrains(talk) 16:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well, I'm happy now. What's remaining is at most minor prose massaging, but content issues are resolved. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I left some sample edits of minor issues; some of the citation templates are used incorrectly, and I saw a bit of overlinking. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think ive sorted all citation templates out now.Jason Rees (talk) 04:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken another stab and minimizing duplicate wikilinks, outside the ref section. Does the overlink comment apply to the ref section as well? Thegreatdr (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2009 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:30, 5 December 2009 [7].

Thierry Henry edit

Notified: Chensiyuan, GilbertoSilvaFan... WikiProject_Football, ...

I am nominating this featured article for review because following Henry's handball in the World Cup qualifier against the Republic of Ireland and the controversy that followed, this article no longer meets the featured article criteria, as it does not cover to the controversy comprehensively, possibly due to a lack of neutrality in highlighting 'positive' aspects of Henry's career far more than this. Prose is no longer well written, as it is hamstrung by a narrative style. Stability of the article has been an issue since the handball took place. Petepetepetepete (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this article, as we aren't going to FAR every still-active BLP as soon as some rumbling starts off, eg Obama, Jackson dies, McCain, H Clinton. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
but that doesn't answer any of the four reasons that I have requested the review? He hasn't died, but was involved in a footballing controversy which still hasn't been incorporated comprehensively into the article. (which also has other faults) Petepetepetepete (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the requirement goes beyond raising the problems, remedies must also be proposed. Brief rejoinders, however: a substantial paragraph has been written and there is a link to the incident that is really situated in a wider context; claim of positive bias is framed in a broad brush and in any event, is unsustainable because only the facts are stated; nominator is asking beyond the inclusion of so-called negative facts, nominator wants an aspersion-based narrative; prose has remained largely the same since it was first nominated for FA; and not sure what to make of the stability claim because it is semi-protected only because of the constant childish, partisan vandalism. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
zomg it out with procedure if you want and leave it as it is, but my interest is in improving the article to comprehensively cover the life and times of Thierry Henry. A review would have been able to bring together a number of people to propose how to best to do this. I've proposed how best to do this on the talk page, in short to include a mention of it in the article lead. Besides, the review wasn't closed on the grounds that you've just suggested, but simply because Henry has been involved in a controversy and apparently ipso facto can't be reviewed, which seems wrong to me as the qualities which make an FA can be compromised if they dont reflect the controversy (two weeks on, with a lengthy full protection imposed at the time).

FAC states that (articles is...) "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" The constipated style in this article plainly is none of the aforementioned. The style is unhelpful to such an extent that a worldwide controvery featuring the player is reduced to a couple of sentences placed at the end of his 'international career' section, simply because they were the most recent things to have happened in his international career. Petepetepetepete (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest why the review was closed. Again, examples. You keep talking in broad terms about constipated prose, let's see you walk the talk. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's the first time i've mentioned constipated prose. Might I sugggest that your defensiveness with this article is characteristic of your edits in the Emmanuel Eboué article, where, by the look of the talk page, you've managed to blur out any mention of the fact that one of the most notable things that has happened in his whole career was when he was brought on as a subsitute and played so badly that he was brought off too resounding boos; something that hardly ever happens in football and was a huge talking point across England. Petepetepetepete (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First explicit use of the word yes, but you've talked several times about the problems of the prose without providing any concrete examples. The Eboue example is irrelevant to the current discussion, though the arguments that you try to raise with it already belie your own tendency to elevate unsubstantiated normative claims. That a substitute being substituted is booed is one of the most notable things in his career... right. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]] are four examples of where you've just removed edits on that article to remove mention of an incident which Eboue is possibly best known for in English football without making any attempt to place it into the article in any better way. Not living in England, it's possibly difficult for you to judge the reaction to footballing events, such as Eboue playing so badly in a game that he was subsituted off despite having only just come on, I can actually only remember this happening to one other player. I knowit does happen a lot in US sports, where subsitutions have a greater significance. I'm concerned that your priorities on WP are to protect the articles of sports teams that you like from anything but positive information. Petepetepetepete (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already closed this and moved it off the FAR list, it's just that the bot hasn't done the packaging yet. Please stop filling up this page with stuff that is veering off topic and beginning to analyse editor's skills more than the content directly at hand. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (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 removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 15:11, 18 December 2009 [12].

Dime (United States coin) edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WikiProject Numismatics, User:Wehwalt

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is in terrible shape and would need nearly a total rewrite to become FA class again; just fixing the sources alone would require a great deal of work from a large number of editors. There's almost nobody watching it; nearly every edit this year has been made by an IP, with an occasional bot fix or vandalism revert.

  • There are several unsourced paragraphs "History," "Seated Liberty," "Winged Liberty Head" and other sections.
  • Design history contains some percentages that aren't in the citation.
  • Per the summary style guidelines, the header on the Roosevelt dime should, at the very least, contain a summarizing paragraph under the {{Main}} template. It does not.
  • Is the mintage figures list even needed? It's a really butt-ugly list and it's unsourced.
  • Almost every citation seems fishy: CoinResource, CoinSite, US Coin Values Advisor all look like personal sites with no indication of authorship.
  • The Dictionary.com reference is not formatted properly, containing a bare URL.

Overall, the article is in terrible condition and mostly cited to an unreliable-looking website (CoinSite). It's blatantly obvious that this was promoted back in 2007, before FA guidelines were quite as strict. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The only way for someone to salvage this article would be to go through with some reference books on US coins. I don't own any.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a couple but they're 10-15 years old, and probably got wrecked from being in the basement for so long. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review

Two of the commercial coin merchants used as image sources claim that they hold copyright over the images. These claims are unlikely to be enforceable. In the United States, simply scanning or photographing items already in the public domain is not considered sufficient to create a new copyright. Furthermore, merely arranging two images side-by-side so that the obverse and reverse of a coin are depicted together does not require either great skill or any creative input. Consequently, in my opinion, and as I understand it in the opinion of wikimedia, these images are in the public domain. The article meets the criterion for images. DrKiernan (talk) 11:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of the citation style is very poor. More worried about the quality of the citations themselves and the research they represent. Fifelfoo (talk) 10:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, research. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, referencing issues. Cirt (talk) 21:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist does not meet FA standards, no one has the books and the willingness to do the work, so very little choice here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Almost no edits have been made to the article since the FAR was initiated, and nothing that significantly improved the sourcing of the article, which is the largest problem. Multiple unreliable sources (listed in the above FAR), information in the lead that is not in the body, large amounts of the article not sourced at all (much of this marked with valid citation needed tags), no alt text, etc. I agree that the mintage figures could be presented in a much nicer way that doesn't take up so much space, and they also need to be referenced, as they are some very specific figures. Improperly formatted citations (bare URLs and improper capitalization). Dana boomer (talk) 00:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I really wish I could save this, but I don't have the sources necessary. Reywas92Talk 02:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Needs a total overhaul and a huge amount of reliable sources; the current sources should be deboned, for starters. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 03:50, 9 December 2009 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 15:11, 18 December 2009 [13].

Three Laws of Robotics edit

Review commentary edit

Notified:

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article is poorly sourced and contains OR. _R_ (talk) 19:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notify the wikiprojects and author if they are still around? YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 20:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified everyone who notified me of the original FAC - which is only fair, I think. _R_ (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • File:I Robot - Runaround.jpg: I agree that there is no profit-loss to the makers of this image by having it here, and images are abit thin, so I think it's OK. Perhaps we could also argue that it depicts a robot taking care of a human to boost the relevance argument of the rationale?
  • Other images OK. DrKiernan (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, original research. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, the nominator never indicated if significant contributors and Projects were notified: I hope someone will check. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh he didn't. I should have checked. His answer was as cryptic way of saying that nobody advertised the FAC to him so he didn't have to do anything. Let's see. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 05:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WPs notified. Nom and main author hasn't edited for 18 months. Nobody else with 12 or more edits YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 05:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have left a note at the Isaac Asimov talk page. Mike Christie (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, unsourced bits, odd structure, overquoting. Missing: A subsection on secondary source commentary and critique, the article is mostly descriptive, with no secondary source analysis presented, and I am sure the topic has seen an extensive treatment of this. Cirt (talk) 21:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. There is quite a bit of unsourced text that needs sourcing, including quotes and statements of what various people thought or felt. This is the main problem that needs to be fixed, and no work has been done on this since the FAR began. Other, more minor, issues include the lack of alt text, a lead that needs to be expanded, the (I think) improper use of curly quotes and improperly formatted refs (foreign language refs not specifying the language, book refs lacking page numbers). Dana boomer (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that notifications were delayed, I think additional time is appropriate; this should not be delisted till it's clear work is not proceeding. Mike Christie (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, and as soon as possible : this article is a shame for Wikipedia. Freewol (talk) 09:25, 15 December 2009 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 15:11, 18 December 2009 [14].

Padmé Amidala edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Deckiller, Jappalang, LtPowers, Dmoon1, and Star Wars.

I am nominating this featured article for review for a number of reasons. It's understandable that this may have happened, as the featuring of this article was many years ago, but it still has to be addressed. Some concerns include:

  1. It has a severe lack of referencing in much of the Appearances section;
  2. It has a dispute over the number of fair use images;
  3. Speaking OF the fair use images, I'm eternally neutral. While their purpose is clear, I'm not entirely sure it's necessary to demonstrate the inspiration for particular costumes twice.
  4. The 2008-2009 Clone Wars section is criminally underdeveloped, merely stating she appears in it. Perhaps even, it should be slightly expanded and The Clone Wars film section should be trimmed, since they are clearly connected.
  5. The film Clone Wars section seems incredibly large, considering that not only is her role not as "major" as in the prequel trilogy, but it seems undue weight with or without the long plot summaries in it. The other appearances sections, especially Episode III, could use some trimming as well to just the bare, most important facts of Padmé's role.
  6. To call her "appearance" in Jedi an appearance comes off as very in-universe - she didn't appear, and she was likely a very different character then (if there was a character to speak of). It should be given a short sentence in the beginning of the Appearances section.
  7. It really has no reception or appearances in popular culture which are both, in all intents and purposes, the most important out-of-universe content. I'm sure someone involved in Star Wars could go on for the longest time about creating the Gonk Droid, but if no one else gives a crap, the Gonk Droid won't have its own article. Not to suggest Padmé does not have her own reception, just that even after it was brought up on its talk page [which is clearly not inactive, or not too so], nothing was done to fix it.
  8. Does not cover the character in video games in any way; it was even mentioned a few years ago, but was dismissed that her appearance in video games was irrelevant and she had no major roles in the games.
  9. It lacks any coverage of her appearance in Star Wars merchandising.

I wouldn't mind throwing my hat in the ring to improve it in some way, but what I can provide ATM is very limited, so basically the same FAR jargon - I'll give the editors a chance to fix the problems, but if it's not addressed in the next seven days, I will move to the consensus process. Good luck! The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image concerns

On the "free" images

  • File:Xenia.jpg: there is no proof that this was first published in Russia, nor is there proof of the publishing date. The two links provided are dead, but can be retrieved at http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3513146.html and http://web.archive.org/web/20030522063737/http://www.hoover.org/pubaffairs/newsletter/99winter/romanoff.html. According to them, this photo is very likely a private possession of Xenia until the Hoover Institution acquired it. If so, first publishing of this photo is 1999 (in the exhibition), which means US copyright lasts for 70 years after the death of an author, or 31 December 2004, whichever is greater.[15] That leads to to question the authorship; someone has put down in Russian that the photographers are "Boasson and Eggler". The Hoover Institution does not state this and no proof is given by the editor that they are the photographers, but the photographers did take another photo that has Xenia in another pose and location, wearing the same gown.[16] Not conclusive, but a likely identity. If they are the authors, then we would have to find out their death dates (for the 70 years pma) if the photo was not first published as a post card. All in all, this photo lacks verification for its first publishing date and location, and authorship, to claim that it is public domain in its country of origin (and United States).
  • File:MongolianRoyalty.jpg: link provided does not point to the page of the photo. Neither does it provide the necessary information to verify that this photo is indeed "free"—i.e. first publishing date and location, and authorship (including death dates).

On the copyrighted images

  • File:Padme ep1.jpg: does not fulfill WP:NFCC. Specifically, there is nothing stated about its significance (other than her first appearance), not is there critical commentary about this image.
  • File:RefugeePadme.jpg: per Talk:Padmé Amidala#The Gallery, the costume portrayed by this image is so close in appearance to File:Xenia.jpg (if Xenia is a verifiably "free" photo) that a free replacement is available (Xenia + words). Hence, it would fail NFCC on that ground alone (again provided Xenia's photo is indeed "free").

The images used as they are would not have passed muster at current FAC standards. Jappalang (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Xenia + words" is not a suitable replacement for the actual image. Powers T 13:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, once this article is demoted, I will be merging it into an appropriate list. Out-of-universe content is one thing, but no one seems interested in the least in saving it, so I doubt anyone's going to do the work to add critical reception of the character. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? A main character of the prequel trilogy? You've got to be joking. There are sufficient references just for her costuming alone. There is no way this should be merged. Powers T 14:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about her clothing makes her notable? How the director made the character is so far from adequate notability. This article lacks any coverage by independent secondary sources. At what point does "notable to Star Wars" become notable to the real world? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the place for that discussion. If you propose a merge once this review is closed, we can discuss it there. Powers T 01:54, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to drag this out here, but you responded to the statement by arguing against my statement with a countering point, so don't try to look like like the mature one. I was stating my intention that when this article is demoted, I would be merging it because it has no critical commentary. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:58, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely uninvolved admin here, any merge of an article without being properly discussed on the article's talk page will be reverted. -MBK004 04:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I probably wouldn't merge it in the end, but it just goes to show how people react. No one cares that it's of low quality, but people care when its low quality is reason to merge it [but will also do nothing to fix the problem]. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's because low quality isn't a reason to merge; the merged content would still be low quality. Powers T 15:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Low quality attached to an article of normal quality. Though the list is in horrible, horrible shape, too, so it's actually impossible to merge anything anywhere at this point. The problem isn't "it's bad", it's "at no point does it ever suggest that this subject is important to anything but Star Wars itself". And like it or not, being notable to Star Wars is not an argument. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 15:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, undue weight, copyright. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 23:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remove. Few to no problems listed on the review have been addressed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delist I concur with Jappa above on the serious issues with non-free content. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above, none of the issues have been addressed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, unaddressed issues. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2009 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:11, 4 December 2009 [17].

Xanadu Houses edit

Review commentary edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of this discussion. —S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should we even have an FAR and AFD going at the same time, even though both its status as FA and its overall notability are in question? I think we should play out the AFD first. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that at least one editor is doubting the notability, I hardly think the {{Notability}} tag is unsubstantiated. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This was listed at FAR and AFD at the same time; AFD closed as keep. My concerns re: the notability still stand. The sources are very thin and the article clearly not of FA quality. I'd barely even call it anything more than start class. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sheesh, TPH, you must be kidding. You closed the AFD yourself, and then come here and still question its notability? That isn't wise; why'd you close the AFD then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably because it was a snow keeper, and TPH has learned not to fight consensus.

    Meanwhile, back in the land of on-topic, I have not yet notified anyone of the FAR. The primary contributor seems inactive.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Indeed; consensus is clearly against me, but I still say that the notability is tenuous at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Notability feels okay to me, three independent newspaper articles spread over three years. (Pretty flash in the pan, but not a single incident). More troubling is the SELF/VANITY angle in Acropolis books, which should be sent to RS/N for a detailed investigation of their publishing quality in the early 1980s. "For almost five decades, Acropolis Books has been a respected publisher of non-fiction books. In 1995, Acropolis started to reintroduce out-of-print classical mystical literature, and began publishing works of the 20th Century mystic, Joel Goldsmith, whose teachings have helped hundreds of thousands of people around the world grasp the eternal principles of spiritual living." The second statement puts lie to the first in my mind. ... I'm deeply uncomfortable with a FA being sourced from the creator's account of his creation. Personally I'd claim Author-Creator is self for anything but an impeccable academic press. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notability is there, I think - but sourcing is an issue. The limited number of sources (and footnotes) was noted as an issue in 2005, when the article was promoted, and there has been little improvement. Couple that with the fact that sourcing requirements have gotten stricter, and it's not a good picture. I'll see if I can find anything else to add source-wise. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 15:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no one is working on the issue raised above, no edits besides mine and TPHs for days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for lack of secondary sources and lack of progress in article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Concerns about standards of sourcing. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2009 (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 YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:11, 4 December 2009 [18].

Data Encryption Standard edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: User talk:Matt Crypto main editor and nominator, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently lacks inline citations. Tom B (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing problems including a mixture of inline and footnote citations. Either is fine. Pick one and be consistent in its use. Text inline like this: "and improved by Biham and Biryukov (1997)." shouldn't exist if footnote referencing is being used. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
  • File:Board300.jpg: source is a dead link. Confused licensing: says both copyright and GFDL.
  • File:Copacobana.jpg: missing permission. DrKiernan (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yet another reason why we need a "speedy delist" for former FA-class articles now in this lousy of shape. Once again, I think this is proof that FA is flawed: articles get promoted to a certain standard, and never get touched again after their promotion, even if the standards are increased. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See here; perhaps if you had written an FA yourself, you might feel differently about the amount of work that someone once put into this article. Patience, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is still in terrible shape. I retract my statement on speedy-delists, but I still think it's absurd that articles can still be called "FA" if they are this bad. Fifelfoo's concerns about sources are, as always, spot-on. As tagged, there is one whole section that lacks sources entirely, and overall there seem to be several other unsourced areas. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, formatting of citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 02:31, 20 November 2009 (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/December_2009&oldid=335459903"