Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2015

< 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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC) [1].

Ghosts I–IV edit

Notified: Drewcifer3000, WikiProject Albums, WikiProject Metal, WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Industrial

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are whole sections not sourced: Track listing, all but 2 on Personnel are unsourced. There are unreliable sources: IMDb, and techdirt; and sources not formatted correctly. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why were instructions not followed to post concerns to the article Talk page first? I have this page watchlisted and would help address any concerns. Recommend closing this as premature. --Laser brain (talk) 12:50, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coming to also remind Lady Lotus to review FAR instructions and give talk page notice well in advance; recommend closing and housekeeping delete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I am not used to these FAR or FLRC or anything like that. I will take it to the talk page, thank you. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Placing this on hold to allow talk-page step to occur. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: , nothing happening here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Off hold. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Lady Lotus: re off hold now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, Lady Lotus' concerns were addressed. So, I'm unsure under what pretext this FAR is continuing. --Laser brain (talk) 13:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If so this should quickly get consensus to keep and will be closed as such. See Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_review/Coordination#On_hold_2 for process discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That :) Laser brain, I don't know how to better write this citation ... maybe you have ideas ??
  • Ghosts I-IV PDF booklet
Also, if Lady Lotus indicates her concerns are resolved, this can be a quick Keep without FARC. But there are still issues. I went to check on the funky punctuation in quotes, and found a dead link:
  • Viglione contributed percussion to tracks 19 and 22. He stated that Reznor's instructions to him were to "build a drumkit. Piece together any stuff that you want to bang on; rent what you want to rent. Have fun and ... be creative—See where your mind and your ideas take you."[1]
Perhaps you know if that blog is a reliable source? If so, we can look it up in archive.org, but we may want to take a closer look at everything else. Also, the External links checker in the toolbox indicates some other citation issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

References

  1. ^ "Inside Trent Reznor's Sanctum". Rock Band.com. April 3, 2008. Retrieved April 4, 2008.
I'll dive back in and take a look at those. If the blog was written by the developers of Rock Band via an interview with Reznor, it should be reliable. --Laser brain (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Could you look at the others that pop up as iffy under the External links checker? For example, one is a youtube ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I found stuff to do—there are several problems with currency of information in addition to the dead links, etc. Working on it now. --Laser brain (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Status: I have fixed various issues with broken links and out-of-date information in the article, plus done some random editing. Hopefully everyone's concerns have been addressed. Lady Lotus, it would be nice to get an update from you regarding your satisfaction with the article's current state. --Laser brain (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When Laser and Lady Lotus are satisfied, I'm good for Close without FARC. (I do worry though, over the long run, that we don't specify as of dates whenever we mention $$ amounts-- 20 years from now, those numbers will need inflation adjustment, and I don't think FAC and FAR do a very good job of staying on top of that.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once the IMDb source is replaced, then I will be satisfied. LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: Ah, missed that one. I moved that statement out of the lead (looks like it was a drive-by add-on) and changed the source to The Huffington Post. --Laser brain (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a way to replace that one too, I have always been told that Huffington Post isn't reliable because of them being "biased" or something. I've never been able to use them in FC, so if you could replace it with something else, THEN I'll be satisfied ;) LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lady Lotus: I'm unconcerned—I've read over at RSN that HuffPost should be used with care on BLPs and controversial matters, but the tracks appearing in the film is completely uncontroversial and verifiable to anyone who simply watches the film. I added another source anyway. --Laser brain (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me LADY LOTUS • TALK 18:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm good ... Keep without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since the original nominator is gone, who is keeping this watchlisted, so we don't end up right back here next year? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: I'll adopt it. It shouldn't need anything more than routine maintenance until the unlikely event that Reznor releases another series of Ghosts. I'm subscribed to his email list so I'll know if that happens. --Laser brain (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 5 May 2015 (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 Nikkimaria 12:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Devils edit

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Jersey, User talk:Sportskido8

Review commentary edit

The article was promoted in November 2006 and has not been kept up to featured article standards. I'll outline below some specific issues, but overall there are a lot of citation issues, dead links, and prose problems.

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • A copyedit would help here. The writing style seems just slightly outdated and has not been kept up with since the FAC was passed, specifically all of the information about the team that has been plugged in since 2006. Examples include:
  • "Martin Brodeur, their longtime goalie signed to the team for two additional years, and ended speculation that his career was over. He will enter his 21st season, after turning 40 on May 6, 2012, during the Stanley Cup Playoffs second round, game 4 against the Philadelphia Flyers." -- this has passed by now?
  • "Goalie Johan Hedberg and rookie goalie Keith Kinkaid were used when Brodeur was injured however neither of them performed well enough to help the Devils put anything together."
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Article doesn't neglect any major facts, as I'll explain a few points down.. it instead has too much information in many spots.
  • 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
  • For some of the older history, it's okay. Anything from 2001 through present time, have to say no.
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • Some spots need attention.. for example "The team would now be playing right in the middle of the New York–New Jersey–Connecticut tri-state area, home to the three-time defending Stanley Cup champion New York Islanders, as well as the very popular New York Rangers." --- "the very popular New York Rangers"?
  • 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
  • No problems here.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • Doesn't look too bad, however per WP:LEDE it shouldn't have any citations in it. All of the info is covered and sourced in the article.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • I believe this is still pretty OK, compared with all of the other NHL team articles. I do wonder, though if any of the "Team identity" or "Players and personnel" subsections can be combined?
  • 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)
  • No, for the most part. A good chunk of sources are not consistently formatted, many aren't even slightly formatted.
  • Many spots in the article are currently not sourced at all, mainly in the "2001–2007: A third Cup and the lockout" and "2007–2013: Move to Newark and Return to the Finals" sections. The first three paragraphs in the 2007-2013 section don't have a single source, as well as two paragraphs in the middle, and the final two paragraphs at the end of the section.
  • There are sections that are completely unsourced, such as "Home arenas", "Affiliate teams", and "Television and radio" and a very good amount of "Players and personnel"
  • Many dead and problematic links
  • 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  • Looks OK, but could use a review from someone more experienced with images.
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • No, in some places. Excessive details on each season aren't necessary when we're dealing with an article that should cover the team's history. For example, the biggest paragraph in the entire article is currently a very detailed play-by-play of how the team did in the 2012 playoffs. All of that belongs on the article for the team in that season.

I don't believe this article would even pass a good article nomination in its' current state. A lot of work needs to be done here. Gloss 00:34, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See instructions at WP:FAR; you only raised the concerns on article talk two days ago.[2] Is there an earlier FAR notice? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like some of the other listings at FAR/FARC didn't even get a talk page notice, so I wasn't sure how strictly that part is being followed. Forgive me if I jumped the gun. Gloss 02:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any other FAR that did not have a talk page notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The one you nominated (Gas metal arc welding), doesn't look like it had any concerns raised on the talk page since 2011 before you nominated it for FAR. So I was going to jump right to the FAR since this article did have concerns raised about it being an FA with this thread also in 2011: Talk:New Jersey Devils#Recentism, but I added another notice a few days ago since I didn't know how recent the notice had to be. Gloss 00:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gloss, older notifications are okay - the idea of the talk-page step is to see whether there are people willing to step in and help get the article up to standards without a full review. But the section you point to is not so much concerns about it being FA so much as a suggestion that a new article could be created from this one and brought to FA status. I think we'll put this on hold for a few days. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, not a problem at all. Again, my apologies. Gloss 01:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gloss did let us know at WP:HOCKEY, so there is that. I won't make any promises about fixing it up, but I will try to give the article a read over today or tomorrow to see how much work is required and whether I want to bring it back to FA level at this time. Resolute 15:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. I've just copyedited the lead and the Kansas City/Denver sections, and no, I don't believe the FA status can be saved without a tremendous amount of work. I could copyedit the entire thing, but massive amounts of the article are completely unsourced and I really don't have the inclination to do the kind of research necessary on this article. I would happily support someone else if they were to take that work on, however. This article truly is a relic of another era in Wikipedia's history. Resolute 23:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From a glance, I'm quite concerned about the amount of unsourced content. In fact, when an article contains multiple completely unsourced sections/subsections, that alone is an automatic fail for GA. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, but you all are commenting on a FAR page that is not at FAR, because it's on hold. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It won't be on hold forever and I find it unlikely much changes between now and then. If it does change, my only comment has been to note the amount of work required. SNUGGUMS' comment is similar. Resolute 15:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't disagree with the basis of the FAR and thought the article was in a shoddy state when I first learned there was going to be an FAR. I've begun to work on improving it and have finished a couple of the history sections. My schedule here and elsewhere is full, but I'm going to try devoting more time to polishing up the rest of the article in the hopes of being able to pull off an improbable save. Giants2008 (Talk) 03:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confident in your ability to restore-- please ping when we should have a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review. I have nominated File:KovalchuckMapleLeafs.png for deletion. The others seem OK. DrKiernan (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just to give everyone an update, I've just about finished citing the history sections and am going to start working on the other sections. Progress has been slower than I had wanted, but it's getting there. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giants2008, we are approaching two months now ... how is it going? Should we move this to FARC just to keep the process on track? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you all think it needs to be moved to the next stage, don't let me stop you. There are still a few areas that I want to add cites to anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Primary concerns raised during the review include verifiability, comprehensiveness, and length (wrt summary style). Maralia (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation situation is looking much better. Giants2008, could you give us an overall update? Thank you for all the work you're putting in here. Maralia (talk) 00:52, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been too busy recently to do much to the article, but I think it's almost there. There's still one paragraph that I know of that ends without a cite, so that still needs to be fixed. Things should clear up for me within the next week to 10 days, and I'll try to wrap up my work on the article then. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not seeing any obvious problems, and judging from the lack of delists, neither is anyone else. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – After some more copy-editing and sourcing, by myself and others, I think the article is finally there. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Giants, what a ton of work you have done! I'm looking through now; on this ...
  •   = current Devils player
see WP:COLOR on accessibility issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks grand to me. @Gloss: the nominator. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has definitely improved. Aside from Sandy's comments on accessibility, the only issue I can see is how "Fans" is too short to warrant a separate section (only two sentences), and I'm not sure it's even notable enough to include. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE: I went ahead and removed the "Fans" section since its significance was questionable and was too short for a separate section. Looking through again, should "Hall of Famers" be in list form or prose? Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:29, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno ... defer to others ... I usually object pretty strongly to any sort of listiness in articles, but that one isn't grating on me. I do wonder if the section heading "Hall of Famers" is too colloquial, and if it should just be "Hall of Fame"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:41, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I don't have nearly as much free time as I had in January when I opened this up. On a quick scan, it looks much better. Good job, Giants2008. I don't see any major issues left, but again, I don't have the time or energy to look deeply into it. Gloss 02:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like the flow at Calgary Flames. Following that format, I changed the section header to "Hall of Fame honorees", made it a subsection of "Honored members", and took a stab at rewriting it in prose form. I think it's an improvement; take a look? Maralia (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does look better now :). I can now confidently say keep as the article has no outstanding issues. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wrote the Calgary Flames article, so naturally, I prefer prose. ;) But it would always come down to being case by case, as prose for a team with only a handful of Hall of Famers is easy. When you get into the dozens like Montreal and Toronto, it becomes impractical. In those cases, a prose introduction with a list is better. Resolute 15:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maralia's improvement was reverted, so we now have redundant prose in the list ... everyone's entry reads similarly. If a list is preferable to prose, at least it has to be written better. Oknazevad, since there seemed to be consensus here, pls discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in my revert edit summary, it just comes off as a dijointed wall of text; it's really too long for one paragraph. It still reads like a choppy list. And there is no flow between the sentences; each sentence stands on its own too much. If they were each separate paragraphs it would deal better with the flow issue, but each would be a fragmentary bit that might as well have a bullet point. So that's exactly what they have. In short, the prose read terribly. It works better as a list. oknazevad (talk) 02:07, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I preferred the prose, personally. Can I try making the flow a little better? Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For everyone's benefit, I have a cleaned up version of the text at User:Giants2008/Sandbox. I must say that it looks reasonable to me and didn't seem to flow too badly. It was also three paragraphs, not one. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others may want to wordsmith, but it is quite nicely done, and a considerable improvement over the boring listy prose now in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I attempted a fix at the WP:COLOR problem by adding an asterisk on the colored fields. If that is settled, then I'm a Keep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to make a similar edit to yours yesterday and saw this. Thanks for doing that! I lost my network access temporarily and couldn't edit here, so it worked out for the best. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:12, 5 May 2015 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC) [3].

Saffron edit

Notified: Saravask, WP Plants, WP Food and Drink, WP Herbs and Spices, WP Agriculture, WP Iran

Review section edit

This is a 2006 promotion with numerous issues noted on talk over a long period of time. These include biomedical claims that need MEDRS-compliant sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 25072266 could be addressed for comprehensiveness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PMID 23538079 needs to be examined for MEDRS. Adverse effects per PMID 23472485 should be discussed. PMID 22432635 and PMID 23971874 are not used.

There are numerous harv ref errors, so it's unclear which sources are being used without checking one by one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Concerns raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged as dubious in the lead and for citation needed in the first section. Entire paragraphs, which are full of peacock and weasel words such as "strongest", "very high quality", "real", "undermining", "extremely", "poorest", "finest", "greater", and "typically", are unattributed. DrKiernan (talk) 12:53, 29 May 2015 (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) 01:11, 30 May 2015 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC) [4].

Dixie (song) edit

Notified: Main editors retired, WP American music, WP MT, WP Songs
URFA nom

Review section edit

This is a 2006 promotion that has taken on some uncited text, unaddressed since talk notification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. I looked briefly at this but the problems go beyond recent uncited text. There are things even from the FAC-passed version that require better sourcing and attention from an interested party. --Laser brain (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Concerns raised in the review section centre on referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:33, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements include "It was a runaway success", "By [insisting that it had been fairly captured], Lincoln demonstrated his willingness to be conciliatory to the South", and "turned sentiments against the project, and the groups were ultimately unsuccessful". The "Modern interpretations" section looks like a miscellaneous list. References section contains a dead link that does not appear to be used inline. DrKiernan (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2015 (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) 01:12, 30 May 2015 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC) [5].

Geology of the Capitol Reef area edit

Notified: Mav, WP Earthquakes, WP Utah, WP Geology
URFA nom

Review section edit

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to FA standards; see talk page notice from March 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The FAR for History of the Grand Canyon area came at a bad time. But I should have some free time for this one after this weekend. BTW - I don't check my watch list anymore so the most effective way to get my attention is to leave a message on my talk page. --mav (reviews needed) 22:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ah, ha ... so we can credit URFA for dragging you back in here !! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something like that. :) --mav (reviews needed) 02:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of the current citations have this wording added to them already: "For the whole paragraph, except where noted". So it should not be a problem adding more cites as needed once I get all the books in front of me to confirm. --mav (reviews needed) 02:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
mav, please keep the page posted on your timing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No edits yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through my relevant books now. --mav (reviews needed) 23:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First pass done. Refs distributed and many overlinks nixed. --mav (reviews needed) 00:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mav, you haven't edited since 28 April-- are you waiting for feedback? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still needing citation. Mav, I'm confused about this article organization:

  • 1.1 Cutler and Kaibab formations (Permian)
  • 1.2 Moenkopi Formation (Triassic)
  • 1.3 Chinle Formation (Triassic)
  • 1.4 Glen Canyon Group (Triassic)
  • 1.5 San Rafael Group (Jurassic)
  • 1.6 Morrison Formation (Jurassic)
  • 1.7 Cedar Mountain and Dakota formations (Cretaceous)
  • 1.8 Mancos Shale and Mesaverde Formation (Cretaceous)

Can that be instead:

  • Permian
    • Cutler and Kaibab formations
  • Triassic
    • Moenkopi Formation
    • Chinle Formation
    • Glen Canyon Group
  • Jurassic
    • San Rafael Group
    • Morrison Formation
  • Cretaceous
    • Cedar Mountain and Dakota formations
    • Mancos Shale and Mesaverde Formation

Move to FARC to keep process on track; work still to be done, no recent work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:36, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mav has not edited since April 28. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist, it looks like Mav is gone again, there are still issues, including a good deal of uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. On a very quick scan, I could find "can't" in the prose, and I can see "1,500 foot thick" as well as "400 feet thick" being used, indicating that on closer inspection other copy-edits would be apparent. Some of the uncited text is descriptive of local conditions, which to some extent is verifiable by visiting the site (although notability of the material cannot be verified without citation); however, there is text such as "presence of planktonic foraminifera was used to date this member" that is not self-evident. DrKiernan (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2015 (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) 01:12, 30 May 2015 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:12, 30 May 2015 (UTC) [6].

Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp edit

Notified: Halibutt, WP Correction and Detention Facilities, WP MilHist, WP Austria, WP Germany, WP Poland
URFA nom

Review commentary edit

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to FA standards; see talk page notice March 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for pinging me, I would respond at the talk page if someone notified me of it. Sure, the article did not see any substantial changes in recent years (ever since I wrote most of it), but I believe most of the issues you raise above are easily fixable, there's nothing wrong with the article itself I believe.
As to specific issues, I took the liberty to reply at the article's talk page. In short, out of roughly 10 issues you raised, most are either non-issues (at least I can't see link farms in the see also section, can't see hidden text, can't see any problems with the sections and so on) or were already fixed (en dashes, some 8 in-line citations still using <ref> instead of {{sfn}} and so on). And in the case of the rest you would have to raise specific concerns for me to be able to fix the article - or the matter is up to debate (as in the case of lists you say should be prosified, whereas they were converted from prose to lists specifically per WP:EMBED).
All in all - I'd be happy to fix the article, but would need some help from you in pointing me to what there is to be fixed. Please be specific. //Halibutt 15:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Responding and addressing issues on talk is good -- thanks!! -- no need to clutter the FAR with back and forth on ongoing improvements. I am off for the day, but will get back to you this pm on article talk with more specifics (I disagree that there is not significant work to be done, but am confident it can be done, and will give you more detail on article talk). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary feedback on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment not relevant to WP:WIAFA moved to talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAR coordinators: because the original nominator seems concerned that I may be expressing personal preference, additional commentary from someone other than MOI on issues or deficiencies in this article might be helpful. There is a lengthy section on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look sometime in the next 48 hours. Just popped on for a tic - this will need some reading and digesting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In January 1945, the camps, directed from the central office in Mauthausen, contained roughly 85,000 inmates. - what does "directed from the central office" mean in this sentence?
since Germany started the war against Poland in September 1939 - since = "after" or since = "because of"?
Prisoners were also "rented out" as slave labour, - don't need quotes here I think
last para of Liberation and post-war heritage needs inline references
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 01:48, April 21, 2015‎

Move to FARC, at the two-week mark, there has been some improvement, but in spite of walls of text on the talk page outlining the problems with MOS, prose, citations, and comprehensiveness, the substantive issues have not been addressed, and some unwillingness to address those issues is apparent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

The review section largely concerned MOS, referencing, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An IP edit that needs to be verified by someone who has the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist no siginficant improvement, no ongoing work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "no significant improvement"? Oh. I guess that was insignificant then! Ferma (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My sincere apologies, Ferma, for the unfortunate word choice. Your copyedit is appreciated, but there are still significant issues relative to WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aw, shucks, it is nice to be appreciated :) There has been quite a lot of discussion on the talk page, and the article has seen a fair amount of editing in the last couple of months. Could you briefly précis the outstanding problems? I think I have done all I can, but others might be willing to deal with them. Ferma (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
  • Have removed all the overlinking, and fixed a few dash errors. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 04:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have tagged all paras needing citations. From my brief look at the article and skim of the talk page, I believe that this article should be delisted. If someone fixes all the issues, it can be re-nominated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for citation, expansion and gallery section. On prose, I would prefer to see fewer vague terms of size, such as "some 1,200", "some 3,000", etc. DrKiernan (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2015 (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) 01:12, 30 May 2015 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC) [7].

Chromatophore edit

Notified: Rockpocket, WP Cephalopods, WP Animal anatomy, WP Molecular and Cellular Biology
URFA nom

Review section edit

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standards; see talk page notice from March 2015. There are problems beyond the lack of citations, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:40, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wrote the original content back in 2006. I don't think it is too far away from FA, but sadly agree that it does not meet current standards and its narrative flow has suffered from piecemeal development over the years. I unfortunately do not have the time to maintain this myself these days, but would be very willing to assist as much as I could if anyone wishes to take it on. Rockpocket 20:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Concerns raised in the review section largely concerned referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced sentences/paragraphs. Prose could be tightened, for example "It has been demonstrated..." occurs three times in three successive paragraphs and there is a mixture of spelling variants: organize/organise; cell signalling but sulfur bacteria, etc. DrKiernan (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2015 (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) 00:56, 15 May 2015 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC) [8].

Kid A edit

Notified: WikiProjects Albums and Alternative music

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is currently in nine clean up categories: Articles needing additional references (January 2015), Pages with citations having bare URLs, Pages with citations lacking titles, Articles lacking reliable references (January 2015), Articles with unsourced statements (January 2015), Articles that may contain original research (October 2014), Wikipedia articles needing factual verification (October 2014, January 2015), Articles with failed verification (January 2015). DrKiernan (talk) 07:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Having worked on the article for a couple of days now, I've realised that its problems run very deep.

  • Even apart from the stuff that's been tagged (as mentioned above), a lot of stuff is sourced to blogs, fansites, university term-papers, and obscure, niche publications. Given that this album has received Sgt Pepper-level adulation from all manner of mainstream sources, this is unacceptable.
  • The article is also incomplete; the Legacy section needs to be expanded to incorporate said adulation.
  • The Recording and Music sections suffer from a lot of overlap and repetition.
  • The Reception section doesn't really represent the breadth of opinions that accompanied the album's release.
  • The prose is often choppy; a clear narrative doesn't shine through, making reading tiresome.

Keeping this at FA standard will require more of a rewrite-from-the-ground-up effort than merely finding some missing sources. OK Computer   should be a good model.—indopug (talk) 06:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Popcornduff did an excellent job rewriting the Release section and seems to have more work lined up. I myself want to concentrate on The Communist Manifesto till 14 April (when the WP:Core Contest ends), but will try to chip in with copyedits etc after that.—indopug (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on this. It would be super useful if someone (not me as I find it super tedious) could update the professional ratings box with some better sources. We can have a maximum of 10 (there's only 8 at the moment) and maybe get some more interesting publications in there. Perhaps some negative reviews would be good too, for demonstrating how divisive it was on release? Then we have a separate reviews box for the collector's edition rerelease, like the OK Computer and Hail to the Thief articles do, showing a wall of 5/5s. Popcornduff (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to address the unreliable sources that are still tagged in the article. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 09:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, duh. Popcornduff (talk) 11:54, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For everyone's information, it's still my plan to dramatically rewrite this article (you can see my work in progress on my sandbox), but it's not going to happen soon. So yep, do what you gotta do. IMO this article hasn't been worthy of FA for years or maybe ever. Popcornduff (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing, comprehensiveness, prose, and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Though improved, problems remain; as shown by the remaining tags: lacking reliable references from January 2015, needing additional references from January 2015, bare URLs, citations lacking titles, and needing factual verification from January 2015. DrKiernan (talk) 08:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, insufficient progress on deficiencies noted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist mainly due to lack of comprehensiveness as noted by editors of the article. Thanks to Popcornduff for the improvement thus far; hope to see it back at FAC eventually. Maralia (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2015 (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) 12:45, 9 May 2015 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC) [9].

Rabindranath Tagore edit

Notified: Saravask, WP Religion, WP West Bengal, WP Brahmoism, WP Philosophy, WP Poetry, WP Bangladesh
URFA nom

Review section edit

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been kept at standard; see the talk page note from Jan 2015. There is uncited text (some without attribution and amounting to hagiography) and a MOS tune-up is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, two weeks, a couple of edits, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Concerns raised in the review section include referencing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements; weasel-words; harv errors. DrKiernan (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Major work is needed. There are eight citation needed tags, an according-to-whom tag, undefined terminology (pandit?), redundancy (his renunciation of knighthood is mentioned anew in two separate sections), prose issues ("His artist's eye for his handwriting were revealed"?), and MOS and layout problems. Maralia (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2015 (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) 12:45, 9 May 2015 (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 DrKiernan via FACBot (talk) 0:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC) [10].

South Australian state election, 2006 edit

Notified: Timeshift9, WikiProject Australia, WikiProject Elections and Referendums, WikiProject Australian politics, WikiProject South Australia

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because: 1. There's a lot uncited sentences; 2. The lead is too short, doesn't covered even half of the article. Promoted December 14, 2006, talk page notice March 2. Nominator still very active, notefied.Jarodalien (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this is definitely evidence of how standards have changed over time. I think it basically meets GA status (or if not, at least could with a small amount of work), but falls well short of modern FA standards. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section concerned referencing and lead issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, nothing happening. And that infobox is utterly dreadful-- it takes over my whole screen. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Numerous 1- and 2-sentence paragraphs, a 1-sentence subsection, unbelievably large infobox and tables, WP:MOSCOLOR issues with background shading in tables, uncited text, bare urls in citations, and an insufficient lead. FA standards sure have changed. Maralia (talk) 05:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, another 2 weeks passed, still nothing happened.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2015 (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/May_2015&oldid=664643167"