Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2018

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept

edit

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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:49, 5 February 2018 (UTC) [1].

Blyth, Northumberland

edit
Notified: Dbam, WikiProject United Kingdom

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the demographics and education sections need updating. Some unreferenced additions noted. Not too much work but not none either, and enough to warrant a formal review. I placed a request months ago with no response. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

No action - issues remain outstanding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I removed the {{update}} tag from the Demographics section. The tag states "...section needs to be updated..." (emphasis not added) as if a new census means the article content is incorrect. It is totally valid to say "...at the 2001 UK census it had a population of 35,818...", just like that section states the populations for the year 1981. It would be nice if the article stated the most current census and it certainly should in order to meet the "comprehensive" FA criteria but the tag was not placed correctly. —maclean (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Delist. The article was promoted in 2007, and it is showing its age. There is discussion of a proposed power station which "which would open in 2014" and a 2007 comment by a councillor criticising a development project. As pointed out above, the demography and education sections are out of date - they are also partly unreferenced. There is a "not in citation" at the start of the article. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no progress on stated issues and still needing updating. --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay and Nikkimaria:, I'd do the honours myself but I did nominate it so should be someone else...unless we want to leave it open longer....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 31 January 2018 (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) 2:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) [2].

Palpatine

edit
Notified: WikiProject Star Wars

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because... many people have edited over a period of time that may have deteriorated the quality of the article, that is why I believe that this article should be reassessed.

Hi Eltomas, can you clarify which of the FA criteria you feel are not met, and could you please notify relevant WikiProjects and editors? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well it feels like it's poorly written and doesn't really have that much detail — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eltomas2003 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to co-opt the FAR or anything, but I've also got my concerns about the article. I've brought this up on the Star War WikiProject before, but off-the-bat two(-ish) of my main concerns as far as FA goes:
  • It's not comprehensive. I don't seriously expect an article on a character as widely-appearing as Palpatine to list in detail his every appearance in tie-in media. However, the only video game mentioned is the just released Battlefront II; it would surprise me if this was Palpatine's only notable appearance in the medium. The article's Legends "literature" section hasn't really changed that much since 2006, which while obviously not inherently a problem, leaves me wondering if any gaps have emerged. More importantly, I find the "In popular culture" section pretty shallow. Now, for its contents, that should probably be renamed "Cultural impact" -- but that's simple to change. My more drastic concerns: currently the article simply mentions two instances of Palpatine being referenced in politics, and one FOX editorial briefly mentioning the comparisons he's been involved with. Fine enough, but the lead is arguing that Palpatine's "become a widely recognized popular culture symbol of evil, sinister deception, dictatorship, tyranny, and the subversion of democracy". Has the article proved so? There's also a minor dab of analysis in there two about dualism, but it's really not built on or supported with talks from other sources, so it really just ends up highlighting a gap. I understand that some of historical comparisons are discussed and mentioned in the Characteristics section, but I really feel there should be more to talk about here. Palpatine is not an obscure figure, and I expect more to back up his status as an American icon, etc.
  • It's poorly structured and kind of unfocused. More minor, it's sectioned kind of weirdly: Rebels and The Clone Wars have their own subsections, while the "Prequel trilogy" is pretty sprawling. The infobox is so dense with different portrayals that it's not really useful as an infobox. (I'd be open to limiting it to just McDiarmid and maybe Eaton/Revill, but there are others that could be worth including.) More importantly, I wonder if we really need to give Palpatine's appearance in Tartakovsky's Clone Wars such depth. A TV miniseries is probably more in the public eye than a lot of Star Wars books, but we don't really need to recap it completely and currently it's got an image drawing attention to it -- a fair use image that I'm concerned isn't properly justified.
I haven't really thoroughly combed through the article, but my gut instinct is that it probably doesn't really deserve its FA status by current standards. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 18:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@The Millionth One: I think I agree that it needs some work. I think given that concerns have been raised in the past we will let the FAR process proceed. I can see the Character creation section needs some inline cites and possibly some expansion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include organization, comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2018 (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) 2:25, 16 February 2018 (UTC) [3].

Hurricane Mitch

edit
Notified: Hurricanehink, Titoxd, WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest, and as such most heavily decayed and neglected FAs of the Tropical Cyclone project. This one has been a contendor under discussion by the project for years now – it's time to finally cut the knot. The article simply does not reflect the mounts of literature and data available, while much of the information it does contain is unverifiable, as mentioned by SandyGeorgia back in 2015. More specific subsections that need attention:

  • Lead - A bit sparse for the deadliest modern hurricane ever. Should more adequately reflect the severity and destruction of the storm.
  • Preparations - This section does not properly cover the scope of this storm; a Category 5 stalling and approaching Central America is bound to create more upheaval and media attention than is currently reflected. Moreover, a bit of discussion and context would be helpful: If there were preparations and evacuations, why the high number of deaths, still? Did local authorities fail to anticipate the unprecedented severity of this storm or did residents not heed the warnings? I am sure there have been studies on this.
  • Impact - The only country that has been covered reasonably well is Honduras, and that one has a subarticle. There are no Spanish language sources for a predominantly Latin American phenomenon, nor are there links to journal articles or important books on the storm.
  • Aftermath - Same as above. No mention of the homeless, no real context given to the scope of the devastation, no sense of global response sketched, and the discussion of the recovery phase is lacking. A quick search on Google Scholar reveals a plethora of journal articles mentioning its effects on numerous areas, from ecology to psychology, while a scan of Google Books gives numerous high-quality, important accounts of the storm, its impact, and its implications.

Overall, then, my biggest issues are with 1 b. comprehensive and 1 c. well-researched, due to the omission of crucial book, journal and Spanish-language sources and insufficient verifiability of the sources currently used. Auree ★★ 09:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section focused on coverage, both in terms of content and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per nom—kind of depressing that not a single editor made a comment here. Nobody wanted to work on the article? This once super active WikiProject seems quiet these days. Unfortunate. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:15, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: are you interested in keeping this Featured? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:47, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. I've moved onto more local articles. I don't want to write about so much death and destruction anymore :/ ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I feel the same way about extinct animal articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 16 February 2018 (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) 2:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC) [4].

Summer of '42

edit
Notified: WikiProject Film, WikiProject United States

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it poses major problems primarily with regard to citation, sources, coverage, and prose which is far from the professional writing standard expected of FAs. The plot section—which has 914 words—is well over the 700 word required per WP:FILMPLOT, and isn't exactly well-written as there are some excessive scene-by-scene breakdowns, especially the opening paragraph. (Who in the world begins a plot summary with 'The film opens'?). The reception section is rather underdeveloped since it includes not a single review from critics (not even a report from Rotten Tomatoes!) which could back its claim of a "critically-acclaimed" production, and its theatrical run is not adequately reported. Finally, the sequels, soundtrack, and cultural impact sections have some unsourced statements, and two coverage are missing: a theme/analysis section, given the film's intriguing subject matter, and a home media section for its VHS, DVD, Blu-ray releases. I don't find this article's FA status particularly appetizing for these reasons and it's really unfortunate. Slightlymad 15:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

Well, someone kindly added a Rotten Tomatoes review. Still needs trimming of plot and buffing of reception section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist—1a, 1b, and 1c issues per above. Plot section is overlong. Prose needs a massage (e.g. repeated uses of "the film" as a term, redundancies, etc.). I mean, look at snakes like this: "The film became a blockbuster upon its release, grossing over $32 million, making it the sixth highest-grossing film of 1971 and one of the most successful films in history, with an expense-to-profit ratio of 1:32;[8] beyond that, it is estimated video rentals and purchases in the United States since the 1980s have produced an additional $20.5 million.[9]" Needs work. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:24, 5 February 2018 (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) 2:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC) [5].

Houston

edit
Notified: WikiProject Houston, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Texas

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

  • There are statements failing verification from citations. Please see section on History, and section on Crime, as two examples.
  • There is much outdated material. Some material could be replaced with new data; other material should be retained and supplemented with new data. Another editor placed a request to update the Transportation section in 2016, but there has been little change since last year.
  • There is unsourced material in the History section.
  • {{{1}}}The History section is not comprehensive. There is a main article History of Houston, but this has been largely unsourced for years. I recommend as a part of improving the Houston article to improve its context within Wikipedia relative to several important Houston-related articles. This would allow the main article to be comprehensive, but offering greater detail indirectly through links to related articles.
  • Some parts of the article have become a Christmas tree, with Houston's appearance on various rankings. Could these be updated or culled? Some segments reads like spare parts thrown together. Sometimes people just have a little factoid to post, and that is their contribution. Editing these segments to better unify the narrative would help.

These are several categories of issues with the Houston article, and this I compiled from a fairly cursory reading. As I continue to check citations, this list could grow.

However, I hope this is not too negative. There must have been a great effort and good work by many various editors to bring this article to FA back in 2007. This is more than ten years later and it appears that the article needs a comprehensive effort. For those Houstonians who are are still cleaning up after Harvey, or helping others doing the same, there could be nothing more important. But not everyone interested in improving the Houston article currently lives in the region. Thank you for reading, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Total area and land area The citation from 2009 cites a land area of a bit over 599 miles while the text reads 667 miles, which is given elsewhere as the total area.

  • Has the total area and land area increased since 2009?
  • What is the correct source for these figures?
  • Geography nerds: what is the correct denominator for population density: land area or total area? (Since people don't usually live on the water.)

In any case, the article and the citation disagree.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section has old links Some citations link to articles from 2010, 2011, and 2012. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Land purchase, founding of Houston A statement in the History section is incorrect:

  • The sale of land from the Parrotts to the Allens did not occur on August 30. It was August 26, 1836
  • August 30, 1836 is the date that the Allen brothers first advertised their land scheme.
  • The Parrotts did not sell 1.5 leagues (6,642 acres) to the Allens. They sold a half league (2,214 acres).
  • The Parrotts did not sell land to the Allens in consideration of over $9,000. They sold it for $5,000.
  • Two days prior, on August 24, 1836, the Allens did buy one league (4,428 acres) for $4,428 from the estate of John Austin's brother. There is no indication that the Allens had plans for developing this land. This is difficult to source (original research) because this ended up being a convoluted transaction, and many writers try to simplify the story by combining the two transactions. Sometimes writers combined the two transactions incorrectly.

Second, when Houstonians claim that the city was founded August 30, 1836, the significance of this date is the famous advertisement that the Allen placed. For some reason, people attempt to attach other events to this date.

Sports: claim fails verification "It is the only MLB team to have won pennants in both modern leagues." The Astros just won their first AL pennant last month, but the sentence is followed by a citation to a web site last retrieved in 2013. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: area Perhaps there is are editors who have already vetted these numbers and who are still on Wikipedia. I know it is tempting for other editors to change one of the numbers in a way that renders the other number correct. Confession: A few years ago, I think I changed a total population number without changing the density number, for example. I apologize to those who were trying to keep the page in good order. In any case, these current numbers are inconsistent:

Area 

• City	 667 sq mi (1,625.2 km2)   (I have seen 599.6 elsewhere.)
• Land	 639.1 sq mi (1,642.1 km2)
• Water 667 sq mi (1,625.2 km2)   (I have seen 27-ish elsewhere.)
• Metro 10,062 sq mi (26,060 km2)

Once these correct numbers are reintroduced, I would agree to monitor them for unhelpful edits. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geography statement fails verification
Houston#Geography:

"The Piney Woods are north of Houston. Most of Houston is located on the gulf coastal plain, and its vegetation is classified as temperate grassland and forest. Much of the city was built on forested land, marshes, swamp, or prairie which resembles the Deep South, and are all still visible in surrounding areas. The flatness of the local terrain, when combined with urban sprawl, has made flooding a recurring problem for the city."

Here is the archived link from the citation.

If I have read this correctly, this links to dry paper on the modeling of measurement of storm events, without any characterization of regional features or analysis of flooding. I agree with some of the statements, but this is not what the linked source talks about.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Moving to get some more opinions on the state of this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist—nobody seems interested in addressing the issues above. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:21, 5 February 2018 (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/February_2018&oldid=825904212"