Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2011

< 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 Dana boomer 12:53, 26 September 2011 [1].

Halo 3 edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WikiProject Video Games

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it does not look to have been kept up in the ~4 years since its was nominated to FA level. Specifically:

  • 1a and 1b
    • the gameplay section is far too detailed. While going over the basics and some of the more complex aspects is part of any game article, this one becomes WP:GAMEGUIDEy. Specifically going into details such as how to use Forge, the minutia about gameplay video size and bungie's website, going into minute details into the game's scoring, going into possible WP:COATRACKy detail on Xbox Live's ranking system, etc. The prose is also quite verbose such as "On a single console, up to two players can play a campaign and up to four can participate in a versus competitive multiplayer match through use of a split screen."
    • The plot has been trimmed, but is still more detailed than need be, especially when you include characters and setting. While not a plot only article, it goes into far more detail than is necessary for the average reader.
    • DLC - first of all I think the organization bad, but specifically about point 1b, it basically goes into far more detail than nessasary for what amounts to patches and additional game elements, particularly since they lack commentary.
    • There seems to be a lack of info on the staff. If they are important, their should be relevant commentary near them otherwise its undue weight to list them; most video games don't list their voice actors unless they have said commentary, are mentioned in development/production, etc.
    • Finally, the place that seems lacking is actually in the reception, speficially the awards. The prose lists the awards, but doesn't really give any details about why they were given those awards. That may not exist for everything, but I know its there for several of them. This and the cast info are why we use prose instead of just using lists.
  • 1c
  • the article doesn't use general refs and there are several items (outside plot) that don't have inline citations and aren't summary sentences, specifically the multiplayer section is where I saw these.
  • 2a
    • minor, but since I'm listing the issues, the last sentance is WP:COATRACKy in that it doesn't really need to mention the date of the previous release, let alone that its a sequel (that it had 3 in its title and was previously mentioned as a franchise should be enough to assume [[[WP:COMMMONSENSE|the average reader]] will realize its a sequel to Halo 2.
  • 2b
    • There appears to be too many subdivisions, but this could be due to 1a and 1b. It also doesn't follow the WP:VG/GL for placement of certain info like beta test info should be in development rather than gameplay (its not a part of final product), but part of its development.
  • 1d
  • 4
    • As mentioned above, it had a few items that seem to be coatracky and goes into excessive detail in the in-game aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai (talk • contribs)
Also:
  • Sources:
    • Questionable reliability:
      • 29
      • 50
      • 53
      • 64
      • 67
      • 68
      • 75
      • 79
      • 82
      • 85
      • 104
      • 110
      • 111
      • 119
      • 121
      • 123
    • no publisher
      • 33
      • 55
      • 60
      • 124
    • Inconsistant citation style
      • 65 vs. 76
      • 94 - bare url 29
      • A lot of publishers have .xxx (bungie.net) while others don't (IGN). Choose one or the other.
      • This one probably has more, but those ones I could easily spot.陣内Jinnai 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Was step one done before this review started? (Raise issues at article Talk: In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.) GamerPro64 00:54, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note - As there was no prior notification on the talk page of the possibility of a FAR, this review is being placed on hold until such a notification can be made and editors have been given time to respond. Dana boomer (talk) 01:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some work, and I updated the list to reflect that, but a majority of the issues have been left.陣内Jinnai 17:17, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, you would want a Featured Article to be delisted just because it has 3 dead links in it? GamerPro64 15:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not only. Look at the comments above. TGilmour (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok but you can't vote to keep or delist until it becomes a Featured article removal candidate. GamerPro64 16:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, perceived. TGilmour (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TGilmour is a blocked disruptive sock and troll. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I wasn't aware the FAR was progressing, I've just been listing on the talk page. I've taken care of the dead/unreliable refs, truncated the gameplay section, condensed down the plot a little more, and removed the images. I've started working on beefing up the reception section, and once that's done I'll go back and reference some of the gameplay that got left behind. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:44, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On sources there are still a lot of issues.
Inconsistant citation style jumping from listing the url vs. the publisher name. FE: (2) bbfc.co.uk vs. (6) Information Week. There's no reason that one needs to list the url are the url isn't the publisher. This is also used inconistantly for same publishers - Bungie.net vs. Bungie Studios. Others include 1UP.com vs. IGN (that they use 1up.com in their logo doesn't make it their name. Their statements do not include the ".com" bit). Xbox.com's publisher isn't Xbox.com; it's Microsoft.
18 - that is not formatted like the rest of the references at all.
31-34 - those are quotes? They should be placed after most of the more relevant info (publisher, title, etc). This may need to edit video game template.
Still not sure what makes these RSes
106 wortotalvideogames.com
108 Team Xbox
110 gamecritics.com
112 cinemablend.com 陣内Jinnai 17:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the list and made changes to all the references. I don't know what to make of the RS question, mostly since the sources in question are only used in the Reception section, and they are all fairly notable sites (Team Xbox and Cinema Blend have articles here, and GameCritics and Total Video Games are used in many other VG articles). Clay (talk) 12:31, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Clay here. GameCritics and Total Video Games are also worth mentioning here because they were among the lowest scores rated for the game; I'd say they're given a bit too much time as written but that's because I haven't recast the entire section as of yet. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - what is the status of work being done here? Do editors feel more issues remain? Should this article be moved to FARC at this time? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've propped up the reception, and the gameplay and plot were cut down and recited. I've pinged Jinnai on his talk page; I'm still hoping to add more to the development as that's the weakest element right now. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question - does anyone think the plot section needs to be cited with sources of quotes from the game? because the plot sections in the Halo:Combat Evolved and Halo 2 articles references quotes, but the Halo 3 article doesn't have any-SCB '92 (talk) 17:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's generally accepted that since a work's plot sections are referencing the work itself, you don't necessarily need plot citations; I generally only do it if there's something potentially contentious. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • @David Fuchs - sorry, this being the summer I'm not as available so its why it took so long.
      • Overall the article has improved greatly since I started the review process. There are still some issues that concern me.
        1. Gameplay - things seem to go into far to much detail at time and imo cross GAMEGUIDE and COATRACK. Specific examples:
            1. "Halo 3 offers a form of file sharing, where items such as saved films, screenshots, and custom variants can all be uploaded to Bungie's official website, Bungie.net. Anyone can browse user created content that has been uploaded to Bungie's website and tag it to automatically download to their console next time they sign into Xbox Live on Halo 3." - A lot of excessive detail to basically say you can create movies from gameplay and share them with others through Bungie's website.
            2. "Local area network or Xbox Live supports up to sixteen players in versus multiplayer matches, with game modes including variations of deathmatch and Capture the Flag. Players must actively seek out other players through their Xbox Live Friends list, using the party invite system, or the LAN search feature to play multiplayer matches with their own custom rules and customized maps. If they are connected to Xbox Live however, a player can choose to have the game decide for them the exact rules and map to play on, as well as finding additional people to play against or with, using the "Matchmaking" system (the automated grouping of players of similar skill). A player will decide from a selection of developer designed "playlists" which each contain a certain way to experience the game." - Esentially a long-winded explanation of exactly how to setup a multiplayer game. That kind of detail isn't needed here. The basics that you can create MP games through LANS or Xbox Live and maybe some brief info that their can be custom rules for the map is all that's needed to get the point across to the average Wikipedia reader.
            3. "Like other multiplayer Xbox 360 titles, Halo 3 uses a customized version of TrueSkill ranking system for its matchmaking on a per-playlist basis. A linear measure of a player's experience with the matchmade portion of the game and each particular playlist is also tracked (denoted as EXP).[25] To help players have an enjoyable time online, several peace-of-mind features are implemented within easy reach, such as avoid/feedback options on a player's service record, as well as voice chat mute straight from the in-game scoreboard.[26] Like Halo 2, Halo 3 supports downloadable content and updates.[27]" - First off, "Like other multiplayer...titles," sounds like OR since I don't find that statement in the source. It's also vague.

              ultimately that whole paragraph though feels entirely like a COATRACK statement. It's a description of how Xbox 360 ranks players regardless of what title they play. The info that it uses the 360's ranking system could be summed up in 1 brief sentence earlier on and the rest left to the 360 article where it belongs.

          2. Plot
            1. there are a couple of statements that are more subjective than objective in that section. Those that are subjective do require citations, even by those who generally allow for not needing citations here. I will go ahead and tag those.
            2. Just reading the plot section I noticed numerous grammatical errors in addition to very poor prose. I am not going to say whether the prose is engaging or not (i seem to have an opinion that differs to much from most people I think on what's "engaging"), but there are certainly numerous problems stuff like italicizing ship name names, run-on sentances, unclear meanings in some statements, excessive wordage such as "previously destroyed". There is enough to say there that I cannot fathom this passing a a GAN let alone an FAC.
            3. The whole synopsis section uses "Elite" which is a peacock term unless its tied specifically to a type of unit as part of the units title. Since there is no definition of what these "Elite" units are I can only assume that its a peacock term that is also improperly capitalized.
          • Partly clarified.
          1. Sources - Finally none of the sources mentioned above as being questionable have been removed or otherwise justified. The citation style has been made consistent, however.陣内Jinnai 21:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The part about the Elites was cleared up to me, but it still needs to be rewritten. They are capitalized in the gameplay without mentioning what they are there. That is defiantly a necessity at a minimum because its the first use of the race's name. However, I'd go so far that each section that uses it should restate it in someway once because its such a common word; however, I know some might not agree with that.陣内Jinnai 15:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can we get an update on how this is moving along please? Does anyone have an opinion on whether this needs to be moved to FARC or whether it can be kept before that stage? Dana boomer (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I hate how the second paragraph of the lead is just a sentence long, and could either be merged with another paragraph in the lead or expanded-SCB '92 (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fleshed that out with development and marketing info to better represent the contents of the article as a whole. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 20:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And the one sentence paragraphs in the Development section-SCB '92 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While most of my concerns have been addressed in some way or another, a few major concerns that have been there since the beginning have yet to be addressed, one of them is quite substantial. Withe a few exceptions, no one has bothered to answer why several sources are considered reliable. This was brought up in some cases by more than me and yet no one here has defended a single one of the sources questioned.
  • Second, there has been no change to the modes section which violates WP:GAMEGUIDE by going into unnecessary detail on how to setup the game for an article about the game (specifically the 2nd 2 paragraphs on the Modes section).
  • Finally, given that I, a person unfamiliar with the game, made a mistake about what Elites were, the info has not been mentioned with the first mention of them in the gameplay section. The way its presented in the first paragraph in the Modes section someone not familiar with the game could get the idea there that it was a capitalization mistake as elite is a common word normally. Added myself.
  • The rest of it has been satisified in some manner or another so its a lot better, but imo still not shown its FAC level, specifically because of the lack of concern on addressing the reliability of the sources. Notability or the lack thereof has nothing to do with reliability.陣内Jinnai 14:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The specific refs I take issue with are
    • 61 - Who is Justin McElroy and why is he a RS?
    • 64 - Who is Mike Fahley and why is he a RS?
    • 90 - Who is Gavin Odgen and why is he a RS? Just publishing a book doesn't make someone an expert.
    • 110 - TeamXbox - while it may be notable, it doesn't appear reliable.
    • 111 - What makes GameCritics reliable?
    • No attempt has EVER been made since this FARC started to demonstrate their reliability. It's a shame that the FARC reviewers simply take the word that notabability = reliability at the word of those who said so, especially when GameCritics isn't even notable.陣内Jinnai 21:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Although extensive work appears to have been completed on this article in the FAR section, none of the reviewers appear willing to enter a declaration at this point in time. I am moving this to the FARC section in the hope of spurring additional discussion on the improvement of this article. Dana boomer (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delist Keep Going with weak based on my inexperience with the subject matter and the current limbo status of the article. Everything appears ok; I fixed a shipload of overlinking and updated retrieved on dates related to 2c. I believe there could be some trouble with confusing the |publisher= and |work= parameters. That needs resolution. Brad (talk) 04:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask which ones? "Work" doesn't really apply to websites where they are not a physically distributed product (italicizing websites isn't accepted style). Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the issues again you're correct. I had only skimmed the listings. I struck the delist accordingly. Brad (talk) 22:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Well, it definitely has improved a lot since the FAR started, and the quality is on par with most other video game FAs-SCB '92 (talk) 16:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after a complete read-through and brief look at sources. A few minor suggestions regarding prose and neutral tone:

  • Lead: "beyond the hardcore fans" ==> beyond the established Halo fanbase.
  • "Overall, the game was very well received by critics, with the Forge and multiplayer offerings singled out as strong features." ==> The reception section lists some criticisms, for example regarding plot in single player mode. Suggest removing the weasely "overall" and adding a brief remark about main critics.
  • Gameplay: "support weapons", but Equipment ==> why the different formatting of terms?
  • Modes: "Local area network or Xbox Live supports up to sixteen players in versus multiplayer matches, .." ==> why the "versus" here? versus each other?
  • Setting: "According to the backstory, humans developed faster-than-light travel and colonized dozens of planets before encountering the alien Covenant in 2525" ==> first mention of Covenant in main text, needs brief addition, what the Covenant actual is.
  • Release: "Upon release, some of the Limited Edition ..." ==> Can the amount be specified? If it's only a minor percentage, the section could probably be dropped as trivia (it's actually not that uncommmon for game releases, that packaging is faulty somehow). If it was a major problem, it should be stated more clearly.
  • Reception: "Reception of the single-player aspect varied. Yin-Poole wrote that while the cliffhanger ending of Halo 2 was disappointing, the campaign of Halo 3 "is anything but"." - what is meant with "is anything but" here? I couldn't find the phrase in the source - please double-check source.
  • "Halo [veterans] weep big sloppy sobs of joy". ==> Ouch advertising. I realize Gamespy wrote this, but could this be replaced with a more factual, neutral phrase? What exactly did Gamespy like about the multiplayer mode? GermanJoe (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
fixed some minor points myself, others need more background knowledge. GermanJoe (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to address the rest above. There aren't hard numbers on the amount of disc defects but it was a major gaming news story at the time, numbers aside. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 17:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for improving those details. I stroke the remaining points. GermanJoe (talk) 20:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query - has the nominator been pinged recently to revisit? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The specific refs I take issue with are
    • 61 - Who is Justin McElroy and why is he a RS?
    • 64 - Who is Mike Fahley and why is he a RS?
    • 90 - Who is Gavin Odgen and why is he a RS? Just publishing a book doesn't make someone an expert.
    • 110 - TeamXbox - while it may be notable, it doesn't appear reliable.
    • 111 - What makes GameCritics reliable?陣内Jinnai 00:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also add:
    • 37 - Why is Gameplayer reliable?
    • Sorry, the list was long so it's easy to miss one. I think that's all though.陣内Jinnai 01:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Justin McElroy - here; replaced Mike Fahley as his article was just a few words tacked on to a press release; Gavin Ogden replaced with 1UP article. As for the other 3, I don't want to mess around with the content so I'll let someone else deal with them. ClayClayClay 08:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cite 110 and 111 are supported by additional citations, so could be removed. Cite 37 covers "Unlike Halo 2, in which Bungie scrapped much of the game and started over, development of Halo 3 was much smoother.", which is problematic anyway (smoother?) and could be removed without much loss - development details are explained later anyway. GermanJoe (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think its best to remove the rest, then that's fine (assuming for the other the statement is removed). Then all the sourcing issues I had will have been taken care of. I still think the modes section deals too much with stuff that should properly go with Xbox 360, but I appear to be the only one here who believes that.陣内Jinnai 19:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't interpret the RS-rules so strictly myself (especially for a videogame), but as the 3 sources didn't add that much essential information - removed them. GermanJoe (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your opinion, but if this had been brought up as a FAC today, those would have been brought up so they should be at an FARC.∞陣内Jinnai 17:09, 20 September 2011 (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 20:00, 18 September 2011 [2].

Felice Beato edit

Notified: Pinkville, Biography, History of photography, Japan, China

I am nominating this featured article for review because for its failure of 1.c, as sections like "Japan" and "Later Years" are unreferenced. Also, there should be a removal of the "Selected photographs" as its irrelevant. GamerPro64 20:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question/request. When you say that there should be a removal of the "Selected photographs" as its irrelevant, do you mean that photographs by Beato are irrelevant to Beato? If you do mean this, I am somewhat surprised; please explain how it is that photographs by somebody whose (perhaps minor) fame rests on his photography are irrelevant to that person. If instead you mean something else, please explain what it is that you do mean. -- Hoary (talk) 00:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    What I meant is that the section is very trivial. I don't understand why there should be a section about certain pictures Beato took in his career. GamerPro64 20:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course I know what "trivial" means in normal, Wikipedia-unrelated English. And of course some words have radically different meanings within and outside Wikipedia. ("Notability" is a glaring example.) So, thinking I should bone up on the WP-specific meaning of "trivia(l)", I clicked on the link you provided -- and was taken to "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". Ummm? Are you saying that the actual photographs by somebody known as a photographer are trivial, or that these are trivial examples among his works, or that the descriptions of them trivialize them, or what? -- Hoary (talk) 00:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I meant to link this. The section just seems trivial as it just has links to pictures that only shows what pictures Beato took. If someone would like to see pictures Beato took, they could see the ones already on the page. GamerPro64 01:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with GamerPro, and i would favor a deletion of the "selected photographs" part. Photographs should be shown into the article itself, some links are even dead...--Narayan (talk) 18:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes indeed, if people want to see what pictures Beato took, they could see the ones that are already on the page. We shouldn't worry their little heads with any others that aren't on the page. I've removed the offending section. Is there anything else that should be cut from this article? -- Hoary (talk) 00:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, its good. But the main concern is that there needs to be more referencing in the article, including the sections I mentioned before. Also, red-links need to be gone and this File:PrinceGong1.jpg should be moved somewhere else, like the left side. GamerPro64 01:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there indeed needs to be more referencing in the article. Or rather, more precise referencing. I'm pretty sure that all the material in the article appears in the (sufficiently authoritative) sources listed at its foot, but all of this was done (mostly by Pinkville) back in the dark ages of WP, before we all realized that every damn clause had to be specifically linked to this or that specific source. Pinkville then had access to a splendid library of material about C19 photography but I don't think that he still does; for whatever reason, his interest in this area seems to have diminished to defending his articles against vandalism and stupidity. Meanwhile, I have access to a grand total of one (1) large and authoritative book about C19 photography in Japan, so time permitting I may be able to help there. I have access to next to nothing about C19 photography anywhere else (e.g. China) that's of concern to this article. ¶ Red links are indeed ugly, but I did not know that they should be gone. (Should I reread the sometimes nutty FA requirements?) ¶ Feel free to move File:PrinceGong1.jpg where you think it belongs. -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Red links are not part of the FA criteria and do not need to be removed just because they are there. If they are to non-notable people/organizations, etc, they should be removed, or if they are excessive, but in this case, I think I only saw two or three and they looked to be reasonable. Dana boomer (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. That was irrelevant for me to mention red links. I'm just gonna strike out that part of my comment. GamerPro64 16:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can we get an update on how this work is going? GamerPro, have your concerns been addressed? Does anyone feel this can be kept without a FARC, or should it be moved to the next stage? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:29, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you demand that assertions in the article are each matched with individual sources, then this article will need many more footnotes, which can only be produced by somebody willing to spend a lot of time in a library which (unlike most university libraries, let alone municipal libraries) has a good supply of books on photographic history. I have only ever encountered one Wikipedia editor who had both access to such a library and the interest to do this kind of work: Pinkville. But that was some years ago; since then, Pinkville seems to have lost interest in the subject area, or access to the library, or both. ¶ I am no expert in 19th century photography but I have some interest in it. Moreover, one hour from where I live is a library that will have several of the books that were used and are cited. In August, I should have some time to go to the library, but not in July. -- Hoary (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Its good to know that it may be possible for more references to be found to address the concerns I made. However, I think that this review should go to the next stage soon as such concerns hasn't been addressed. GamerPro64 02:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your concerns at the start (with my numbers added): [1] its failure of 1.c, as sections like "Japan" and "Later Years" are unreferenced. Also, [2] there should be a removal of the "Selected photographs" as its irrelevant. Later: [1a] the main concern is that there needs to be more referencing in the article, including the sections I mentioned before. Also, [3] File:PrinceGong1.jpg should be moved somewhere else, like the left side. ¶ (1) The section "Japan" has plenty of references, though it should have more. The section "Later years" is still unreferenced. (Can you help here? I'm busy till August.) (2) The section "Selected photographs" has been removed. (3) If you want a graphic moved somewhere, then please move it. -- Hoary (talk) 10:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update? Should this article be moved to FARC at this time? Have sufficient improvements been made or is more work needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I saw some more citations added to the article but it needs more since there's some information missing references. So I think it should be at FARC now. GamerPro64 16:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Article when nominated back in June, 16 footnotes; article on 8 August, 24 footnotes; article now, 47 footnotes. Mere numbers say little, of course, but they should indicate that editors have been at work on this and that the article hasn't stood still. During the next 48 hours or so, I hope to do more sourcing, but I don't yet know how much material will be available in the library that I'll visit. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated update: Article now, 62 footnotes. I have now exhausted the [visible] capabilities of the better library at my disposal. There certainly won't be much in a second library, but it might have additional odds and sods; however, I shan't have time to investigate there or do much else till late September. -- Hoary (talk) 04:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad101 issues resolved. Brad (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments This is the first time I've looked at the article and I see problems:

  • All of the photos currently in the article are incorrectly licensed. They don't even contain a US copyright tag which is required to host them on commons. I can try and help to fix these but the licensing must be top notch for FA's. Also read MOS:Images for layout. WP:ALT is recommended.
  • See WP:LEAD, one para seems a bit short.
  • There are still uncited passages in the article. If Hoary claims above that his references are exhausted then uncited text should be removed. Brad (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for your interest in this article.
[The photos] don't even contain a US copyright tag: with this word even, you imply that there are other problems, but it's not immediately obvious what these are. Anyway, I have attached PD-US to File:Upper North Taku Fort.jpg, but am not immediately able to say which tag (if either) can be applied to:
To do this, I'm going to have to look in websites and libraries. Again.
This time two days from now, I shall be in a plane somewhere over Russia; I don't have time to do this work before I leave, and my vacation (of less than three weeks) will also, I hope, be a vacation from the interwebs.
Also read MOS:Images for layout. I've just now skimread it. Before skimreading it I noticed no layout problem, and when I skimread it I didn't notice any (pseudo-) problem. A long time ago, GamerPro64 did write above: File:PrinceGong1.jpg should be moved somewhere else, like the left side. No reasoning was given, and moving it to the left would sandwich text, which is something that MOS rules against. I replied If you want a graphic moved somewhere, then please move it. There was no response to this.
WP:ALT is recommended Yes, this is one clearly relevant thing that MOS:IMAGES says. It sounds like a lot of work, if it's to be done in a way that's genuinely helpful. I'm willing to do some of this work, but only for images that I'm sure can stay. So the copyright stuff should be attended to first.
See WP:LEAD, one para seems a bit short. There's nothing more that I immediately want to say. Perhaps I'll think of something later, but I'm not going to expand it for the sake of expansion.
There are still uncited passages in the article. If Hoary claims above that his references are exhausted then uncited text should be removed. A few minutes ago, I did this. Occasional uncited sentences and clauses may linger; you are free to cut these. -- Hoary (talk) 09:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will work on the image licensing. A lot of these will be fairly easy because Beato died in 1909 meaning that it's been over 100 years since his death. I don't understand where the idea came from to use the PD-art tag but it wasn't and isn't correct. File:PrinceGong1.jpg may just have to be removed from the article as there is limited space available. Thanks for removing the uncited text. Brad (talk) 21:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful offer. As the article says (or ought to say), Beato published a lot of his work during his lifetime, which as you pointed out conveniently ended over a hundred years ago. These published albums are now rare and valuable; they'd only be accessible in the rare books room of a tiny few libraries, none of them anywhere close to me. And I haven't seen or heard of any Errata-style reproductions of any of the albums as a whole. Few of the books that reproduce his photographs bother to say where these photographs first appeared, and indeed many of the reproductions are pointedly made by museums, etc directly from 19th-century prints in their possession. Still, some of the relevant catalogues (which are conveniently listed under "External links" seem to provide a lot of other information, which may include details of earlier appearances in books, etc. (Sorry but I cannot think of starting on this work until mid September.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed all of the licensing and removed the Prince Gong photo. ALT text is not difficult to do. You just need to explain what the photo is showing. An example of what I added to the top pic. Excessive detail is not needed. Brad (talk) 03:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. But the speed with which you fixed the licensing problems goes to show that you work at a superhuman rate, or that I have no real idea of the issue here, or both. (I'd thought that I had to show that the photograph was published -- and not merely printed and left somewhere -- either within the US by/before 1923 or outside the US by/before 1923.) Time permitting, I'll look again at ALT text within the next ten hours. -- Hoary (talk) 04:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At this point I don't see any strong reason why this should continue on to FARC. Hoary did a lot of work and there are just a few rough edges left over. I did request a copyedit from GOCE. Brad (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It still seems really short. As I said, is there any more that could be said on his impact? That sentence is a whopping TWO sentences. Expand it or merge it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have done done copy editing and fixes to the references and notes. Regards, --Dianna (talk) 05:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I eliminated the short section about impact if that's what you were referring to. Diannaa did a great job with copyediting and the article no longer reads "essayish" as I saw it. As for the length of the article overall a lot of passages were removed by Hoary because he could not reference them. Hoary claims the sources available to him have been exhausted and I have no reason to not believe that. If the article isn't up to standards (I believe that it is) then I guess we wait for Hoary to return from his holiday. Brad (talk) 09:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the entire article, I now believe that its up to FA standards. So I don't think it going to FARC is necessary. GamerPro64 20:47, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm back. Several people have edited the article in my absence, and although I might make one or two quibbles the article seems to have been improved. So good, thank you all. Above, people seem unenthusiastic but satisfied. Yet the article's talk page still tells the reader This article is undergoing a featured article review. [...] Please feel free to leave comments and/or be bold and improve the article directly. So what needs to be done? ¶ Incidentally, I suspect that quite a bit of the material that wasn't specifically sourced (and which I therefore dumped into the talk page) comes from Terry Bennett's Early Japanese Images; does any of you have access to a copy? -- Hoary (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to be worried about if this review is still going on. So far its been very productive with improving the article and keeping it featured. I can get a copy of the book you mention but I have to request it via a statewide network as there are no local copies here. Statewide requests can take a few weeks to deliver. Brad (talk) 12:45, 14 September 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 03:40, 27 September 2011 [3].

Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: James500, Richard75 WikiProject Politics WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article as it is bears little or no resemblence to that passed in 2005 (reviewed and kept 2006); it fall woefully short of "modern standards" in unfortunately many respects. First and foremost, there are large parts that are unreferenced, and I also believe that the coverage is not deep enough for two defining reform bills in UK constitutional history. I have not taken the usual step of attempting to rectify such problems because they are simply too big: the talk page respondents cannot be expected to rectify such large problems within a sufficient timeframe. I hope to be able to improve the article myself over the coming months. (Notified above are those who have made more than 6 edits, and at least one since 4 years ago. The original nom, Morwen, is currently inactive.) Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:25, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: today, I re-added it to FAR (thanks to Dana boomer for assisting). My previous comments stand as appropriate. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 16:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • There is a problem with the infobox. It only applicable to individual Acts. There were originally two. Someone has merged them in a manner that is not factually accurate.
  • I think that the best way to deal with this article is probably to split it into two (or three) parts, to be located at Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 etc, as I previously suggested.
  • WikiProject Law should be notified about this FAR.

James500 (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox has been fixed since I posted this comment.James500 (talk) 07:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Law notified. It was because the two separate articles were too short, I think; certainly, I think the ideal solution would two articles that were long enough. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 18:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, a member of WP:LAW popping by – no previous involvement with the article, but interested in trying to keep it featured if I can. I'm a practising rather than an academic lawyer. I too am wondering whether this is something for one article or two. My instinct is to say one article because the two Acts work as one. E.g. when someone wants to find out (or link to) the use of the procedure to pass the Hunting Act in 2004, would they look under the 1911 Act (the starting point), or the 1949 Act, which modified the 1911 Act? I would have thought that the infobox issue can be worked round, either by having a modified infobox for both in the lead section, or an infobox for the 1911 Act at the start of the section discussing that Act, and an infobox for the 1949 Act further on. Anyway, is there any point in trying to work on the article until it is decided whether we want one or two articles? And what happened to the idea of raising concerns on the article talk page first as a mandatory first stage of FAR? BencherliteTalk 06:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm happy to have a look at it in a general sense, but at the moment the FA status is merely obfuscating the issue. I'm thinking two pages that are context-driven with mentions of the other, but it can all be sorted in good time. For now, the FA status should be removed. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 13:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate note - Bencherlite, thank you for pointing out that the talk page discussion had not taken place. Grandiose, this step is mandatory, not optional. For now, this review is being placed on hold, pending a talk page discussion. Take it to the talk page, discuss it there for a week or so, and if nothing has moved forwards, ping me and I will reopen the review. Dana boomer (talk) 13:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Grandiose's concerns have not been addressed, this review is now active again, with actions (moving to FARC/archiving) to be taken based on the date in my signature. Dana boomer (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sourcing is terrible. Almost everything is primary or a bare URL. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure which primary sources you are referring to, but for the avoidance of any doubt, printed copies of Acts of Parliament and the transcripts of parliamentary debates in Hansard are secondary sources that are prima facie proof of what was said. In the case of an Act of Parliament (or rather the more recent ones), the only primary source is the authentic text that is kept, I think, in the Public Records Office. A printed copy of the Act is not a primary source. In the case of a parliamentary debate, a primary source would be listening to it in person. James500 (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You can find my comments as to the article on the talk page of the article. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • 1a There are areas with numbered and bulleted lists that should be in prose. Always a good idea to have the entire article copyedited by an uninvolved editor.
  • 1c Many citation needed tags.
  • 2c Bare URLs, no uniform date layout, incomplete information.
  • WP:SEEALSO ...........Brad (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment by nominator. Some of the comments above are duplicating the work I already did, and even then only because of the need for due process rather than, well, just looking at the article for a bit. I copy my comments to here:
  • On 1a): well written. My prose has come under fire before, so I'm not the best judge, but I think the prose could be improved considerably. The are for example, vague terms and sentences like "the Conservative opposition, many of whom were large landowners themselves" and "hundreds of new Liberal peers". Sentences like "One of the reasons for the Irish Parliamentary Party MPs' support for the Parliament Act, and the bitterness of the Unionist resistance, was that the loss of the Lords' veto would make possible Irish Home Rule (i.e. a devolved legislature)." lack clarity and a clear understanding.
  • On 1b) Comprehensive. I do not believe that the subjects as covered in enough depth. As two of the most important documents in British parliamentary history, there is a lack of thorough discussion of what was being brought it, how, the audience, critical reception (in the press, for example) and only a thin discussion present of the effects of the act on future events. Whilst this sort of detail would be suitable for a GA (perhaps) it is not comprehensive. The 1949 act is given one paragraph where I believe it is possible to write an entire article on it (which I hopefully will do).
  • On 1c) well researched. There are large areas left unreferenced, and the sources used are mixed, with some (eg. "Epolitix.com") not appropriately scholarly.
  • On 1d) neutral. Quite possibly. It's hard to form and opinion without a thorough text. For example, the weight given to Labour's plans in the 1997-2010 period may or nay not be justified.
  • On 2a) The lead. Not a poor representation, by any means; I don't think it's the main problem with the article. The weight on the 2004/5 events seems disproportionate, however.
  • On 2b) Layout. I'm not sure whether this is included under 2b, but I think the use of bullet points in the text could be improved with prose.
  • On 2c) citation style. Some of it could be improved, with different date styles and ways of referencing web pages used in the notes, as well as being a mix of 'notes' and 'citations'. Overall they use ref tags rather than inline bracketed forms, but are not in teh thorough style (ISBNs, dates, publisher info, that sort of thing) that are required by FA reviewers, if not by the criteria per se.

Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 19:31, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include prose, comprehensiveness, referencing, neutrality and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 12:23, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per 1a, 1c and 2c. Little if any progress has been made. Brad (talk) 11:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per 1b. James500 (talk) 16:49, 18 September 2011 (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 Dana boomer 12:53, 26 September 2011 [4].

Tuberculosis edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Microbiology, Medicine


I am nominating this featured article for review because there are clarification, dead external links, lacking reliable references, and unsourced statements tags in the article. As well, the "Research" section is unferenced and the "Notable victims" section should probably be expanded. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure why it was put up for FAR, instead of asking authors to help clean it up. Whatever. Most of these things can be fixed easily. And, in fact, we shouldn't be adding any more Notable victims. I hate those trivia lists, and in any medical article I edit, I delete them immediately. I don't agree with the desire to make medical article centers for popular knowledge. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 02:20, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there was a request to fix the problems here but since there was no comments there, its now up for FAR. GamerPro64 (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, progressing to the next step on this page is not a given. They are parked here for a couple of weeks, so if concerns are addressed promptly it might not be needed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

The main focus of concern mentioned in the review section is the featured article criteria on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist still some concerns over linkrot and reliability of a couple sources. I also found several one-sentence paragraphs in need of copy editing, and I think the Symptoms and Society and Culture sections are woefully underdeveloped. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:25, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can someone uninvolved with the writing of this article do a substantive review? On a quick glance at the article, I feel the brief comments above don't do justice to the article as a whole. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update? Should this article be kept or delisted, or is additional work needed and ongoing? Does anyone else wish to review the article? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forgotten about this one..medical articles are too much like, umm, work really :/ I will just wind up looking over a GA review I started and post some ideas here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to review the whole article and try to fix the problems. However given the length of the article and the long list of references, this is likely to take me weeks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Given that articles often sit at FAR for months, I think it is reasonable to allow this time for it and get it fixed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll help too. But it is a long, difficult article, with lots of citations. My one concern about this process is editors want to delist it rather than make any effort to assist in fixing it. Since this is a medical article, and I at least understand the terminology (but probably flunked microbiology in my past), I'll help as best I can.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update? How is work progressing here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why were notifications of significant contributors never done? I have only now noticed this FAR, and it's months old-- that's wrong. As is the notion that "Notable victims" should be expanded-- see WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "look" is poor. Left some thoughts on the article talk page, but the first impression just viewing the page's visuals is that they seem poorly coordinated. (No offense, honest.) Think crispening this up is important to improving the article's impact with the general public.TCO (talk) 05:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, I (as the delegate responsible) never noticed that the notifications had never been completed, and so this issue was not remedied until just now. Because of this, this review is being extended, and will not be removed from this page for at least another 2 weeks (July 20, 2011). This time frame will be extended longer if necessary. Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original nomination statement was poor to inaccurate (reference to expanding notable victims): would the persons who want this article improved please list the items that need improvement? I don't see any of the issues mentioned in the nomination statement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are currently no dead external links, so at least that is taken care of. DigitalC (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Have you put it in to a deletions process to clarify?TCO (reviews needed) 13:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked and someone (Kiernan?) has put one of those 7 day exploding tags on it. I don't think this is appropriate given the long usage of the image accross multiple projects in a high profile article. I have put it into formal deletions instead to get eyes to look at it and determine proper action.TCO (reviews needed) 13:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The American Lung Association, which the museum director has suggested as the copyright holder,[5] claims copyright[6]. DrKiernan (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI...that image is fine. 7 keeps so far.TCO (reviews needed) 05:51, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was replaced anyway. DrKiernan (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Even with the added two weeks, with some improvement, the concerns I made have not been fully addressed. GamerPro64 13:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gamer, which of your comments wasn't addressed? It looks like all of the tags have been taken care of. Dead links have all been fixed (the tool shows one, but it's been properly archived), and as far I as can see, the Research and Notable victims sections don't exist any more. Dana boomer (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are still some unreferenced parts in the article, with In other animals, Study and treatment (6th and 7th paragraph), and Screening needing references. GamerPro64 14:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like the India article I could nitpick this one too but I'm not going to. Substantial improvement has been made. Brad (talk) 07:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistent citation format I've formatted the citations consistently apart from references 139 and 140, which I wasn't clear what to do with. DrKiernan (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Signs & Symptoms section

The signs and symptons section does contain symptoms, but also contains much more information about extrapulmonary tuberculosis, which doesn't really relate to signs and symptoms. The paragraph on pulmonary tuberculosis could be expanded to include extrabronchial tuberculosis, and then moved to a different section? Also, it seems like both the 75% and 25% claims should be cited (possibly to the same source?) I don't have access to the fulltext of the source used for the extrapulmonary source - does it cite this statistic? DigitalC (talk) 01:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This source could be used to expand the signs and symptoms section to describe the signs and symptoms of both pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Respirology did a Tuberculosis series in 2010. This source also includes a paragraph on pediatric tuberculosis which the article currently barely mentions - perhaps this could be added to the article as well? The 10 articles in the review series can be accessed here. DigitalC (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the above source, I have created a very rough draft in my sandbox if anyone is interested in working on this section of the article. DigitalC (talk) 02:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I'm confused. There's no source for the 75% of cases being pulmonary, and this source says 85% of cases are pulmonary. Also, the article says the extrapulmonary infection moves from the lungs, but then it says later on that pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB "may co-exist", which implies that extrapulmonary TB does not necessarily arise from an active lung infection since it can also arise without active disease in the lungs. I think this needs to be re-phrased to make the distinction between latent and active infection clear. DrKiernan (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I find this article confusing at present, partly because the distinction between latent infection and active disease and primary disease is not always clear, but mostly because of the structure. I think it would be helpful to move that part in pathogenesis about the switch from latent to active infection earlier, say between "Causes" and "Risk factors" so that we understand how the switch occurs and why the risk factors cause the switch. So, merge the two sections "Causes" and "Pathogenesis" and have four sub-sections on the causative agent, its transmission, its pathogenesis, and its risk factors. In addition, there is some unnecessary repetition of material that leads to further confusion and contradiction; for example, in the "Causes" section it says that diabetes increases the risk two- to four-fold, and then two paragraphs down it says it increases it three-fold. I think some material needs to be trimmed out; for example, silicosis is probably not responsible for the vast number of TB cases, and so it should not be the major focus of the risk factors section. In the "Diagnosis" section we're told about the QuantiFERON and T-SPOT tests twice. The last sentence in the "Treatment" section looks as if it could be cut. Material in "Epidemiology" seems to replicate material in "Risk factors". The definition of phthisis is given twice. The "Age" sub-section should be merged into the second paragraph of "History". The claim that it led to beauty and creativity is duplicated in the "Folklore" and "Society and culture" sections. Some updating is needed; in the "Vaccines" section we're told that a DNA vaccine from 2005 could be available for humans in "four to five years"—so, is it available? Another vaccine is "currently" in phase II trials, but the reference is from 2006. In the "Epidemiology" section, in 2007 there are 13 million cases, 9 million new cases, and 2 million deaths, so the next year there are 13+9-2=20 million cases? And the year after that 20+9-2=27 million cases? This doesn't seem to add up, and besides the graph next to this paragraph shows over 50 million reported cases. Another contradictory claim is "Mycobacterium tuberculosis is in the remains of bison" when earlier we are told "humans are the only host of Mycobacterium tuberculosis", presumably this is confusion between the complex and the species. DrKiernan (talk) 19:23, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It's been a week since my review, and there's been no reply or action. While I could probably fix the prose issues I outlined, I wouldn't be comfortable attempting to amend the contradictory, outdated and unverified material I mentioned. DrKiernan (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update? - is work still happening here? Have the delist !voters' comments been addressed, and if so have they been asked to revisit? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no movement on my comments. DrKiernan (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think the article needs a copy edit. There are still a lot of one- and two-sentence paragraphs, and multiple consecutive sentences starting with "the" or "in". Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 18:20, 7 September 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 02:08, 12 September 2011 [7].

History of Miami edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: User:FrickFrack, Donald Albury, Scaletail, Groveguy, Comayagua99, Brad101, Averette- WikiProject Miami, WikiProject Florida, WikiProject Cities

I am nominating this featured article for review because ever since the first time I saw it I was surprised it was a featured article. But not really, because all Miami/South Florida related articles are generally of lower quality and have fewer local editors (I should point out that on the top of the WikiProject Miami talk page an editor states that Miamians are disorganized and lazy). The reason being civic action, along with a long list of other things, is greatly lacking among that proud group known as Miamians. I'm sure the initial FAN, which did take place way back in '06 when things here were less evolved, must have been the most botched FAR ever to pass this thing. It has minimal references and content for the subject. And now, to top it off, it has the most annoying tag of them all, might I point out all tags are worthless in my book as many of them just sit there for years, the "this article needs additional citations for verification" tag. If we want the status of "Featured Article" to continue to mean anything, we need to de-list all articles like this. I would much rather see it be a FA, but for now it needs delisting until someone, not me on this one, finds the time to make it worthy of this elusive status. Good luck finding any such editor with that much of an historical infatuation with the place people go either to hide or to do what they don't confess, the city of vices. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate note: I'm going to place this nomination on hold for now, as the required talk-page notification was only made today - it needs a bit longer for discussion first. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delegate note: after talk-page notification and a hold period, the nominator has indicated that concerns warranting an FAR remain. Thus, the FAR is active as of this note. Note to nominator: please notify the primary contributors and the WikiProjects listed on the talk page if you have not already done so, and indicate the users and projects notified in the "Notified" field at the top of this FAR. 15:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've notified several users. An FA-related user just found and tagged seven dead links in the article, and this is out of an already insufficient amount. Daniel Christensen (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow.
    • 1890s section is almost entirely unsourced.
    • 1940s section is entirely unsourced.
    • …aw screw it, everything is undersourced.
    • Several citations are missing the name of the work.
    • Even some of the Wayback Machine links are dead.
    • What makes cuban-exile.com a reliable source?
    • I went through and tagged a couple more dead links.
    • Article needs a copy edit. I already found one usage error and a "recent" that needs removal. Also, the section on Elián González has three sentences in a row beginning with "the".
    • Did I really see this article cite ANOTHER FREAKING WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE?!?! Why do you morons keep doing that?

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, nobody will do those things required to fix it. That's why a delist is the only answer. Considering everything that's been pointed out, a speedy delist should be the best option. If it wasn't a FA, and I nominated for GA right now, it wouldn't even make that. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
TPH, calling volunteer contributors "morons" is no way encourage collaboration/improvement on this article. Please tone it down a bit. Daniel, there is no such thing as a "speedy delist" here - the article will be in the FAR section for at least two weeks and the FARC section for at least two weeks if it is delisted, the only way for it to be removed sooner is to be quickly improved back to FA status. The goal of the process is to improve articles rather than delisting them out of hand, so we give a fairly long time window for interested contributors to come forward and express interest in working on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if they didn't do stupid shit like cite another freaking article. Come on. Use some damn common sense. Even a 10 year old knows the site generally can't cite itself. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but calling other contributors names is more likely to drive them away than convince them to improve the article. A simple "Other WP articles should not be used as references" would suffice and be much more polite. Dana boomer (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote the article originally, so i was surpriced I wasn't notified. The article has sourcing issues, I no longer have most of the sourcing, one of the history books of the subject, Helen Muir Miami U.S.A is unreliable. I'm going to try to find the second, more reliable book of the subject, by Parks, and the subbooks like Black Miami. Sourcing is rather hard as it doesn't benifit from current news sourcing, such as the Port of Miami Tunnel. Let me see if I could get the books I need, FAR it if I can't find the books by Monday. Secret account 01:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like it to be a good article, don't get me wrong, but it degrades the meaning of being featured to have an article on such a broad (not to mention historical topics usually have the most clíche venerable print encyclopedia characteristics) subject in this state. I don't have time to fix it, in fact I shouldn't even be doing this. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phew.. this article is in very poor condition. Agree with TPH's points made above plus another bunch not even worth mentioning at this point. Brad (talk) 19:21, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not much is happening with the article. There's no need for an act of congress here. A little bit of credibility is lost every day an article like this is featured. Daniel Christensen (talk) 03:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't had the time to look for sources and such, an article like this can be featured, as it's not broad. I don't know if I feel like fixing the concerns of the article, as its a subject I'm no longer interested in, but there's plenty of history of x articles that is still an FA. Secret account 05:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section focus mainly on referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The article should be fast tracked to delisting. There is no ongoing effort to correct issues. Brad (talk) 23:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist because nobody's doing anything. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Nobody is doing anything and nobody is opposing. Daniel Christensen (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 02:08, 12 September 2011 [8].

International Space Station edit

Review commentary edit

(Note: This was filed on July 28 and never listed. User:Brad initiated discussion on the talk page on the 18th, so the matter was discussed properly first.) Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This review was started by an inexperienced editor on June 28th and I happened across the article some days later and saw that it had been done incorrectly. Therefore I started the talkpage notification and was not sure what to do about this false started FAR. I think the whole process should be rebooted back to the time of my talkpage notice. Brad (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Spaceflight,WikiProject International Relations,WikiProject Europe/ESA ,WikiProject Russia/Technology and engineering in Russia task force,WikiProject United States,WikiProject Japan/Science and technology task force,WikiProject Russia,WikiProject Japan,WikiProject Robotics,WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology,WikiProject Chemistry

and a bunch of others, which is unconventional, but the ISS could use some help from experts who may be interested. There are plenty of specialties the ISS reaches into. I haven't told WikiProject Canada however, I did approach them to raise the idea of the article being included within Canada's scope, the Canadian Space Agency is after all a partner. I'm worried about my comments a few months back about the Robotic arms used on the space station, Canadarm2 it's called. I think I may have suggested about attaching the arms to a Japanese Space agency torso, maybe that's why I haven't got a response, but looking at the TV, maybe they're busy at the moment. There are still new sections such as Robotics and Computers that need help, amongst others.

Notified: 9 of top 10 contributors Colds7ream,TheDJ,Mnw2000,Themanwithoutapast,Hamiltonstone,Reubenbarton,MBK004,Pax85,Dawnseeker2000

The article's lead doesn't place the international space station in context amongst other space stations, I've expanded other sections with things like 'The Russian Orbital Segment is the eleventh Soviet-Russian space station.' which are quite stable, but can't put the overall context into the lead. If a child read this article for their homework, they couldn't answer the question 'is the ISS the fourth, seventh or tenth space station'. It's met with comments along the lines of We have to be careful making to many changes, we don't want to make it so bad it loses its FA status. and As this is a featured article, it is important to maintain stability which are good reasons not to update or improve the lead, however I've asked if there are other reasons, and have waited weeks for any response besides. The existing lead has errors, brought up on the talkpage, discussed by editors, implemented, and overturned. The reasons are addressed, despite their vagueness, and the updates are still overturned without discussion. Generally these updates are overturned by editors who won't offer any reasoning, and don't demonstrate any knowledge of the issue, or any willingness to do the most cursory checking, and won't enter into any discussion. Although, the edit summary gets a great deal more use than the talkpage. Especially this last month. It's an interesting read.

The issues like this, which aren't so much warring, but warring like, don't occur anywhere else in the article. Entire sections like costs are completely redone in my work, (refs here aren't yet done AT ALL, I've been begging for help), new sections are well accepted like end of mission, deorbit, maintainence, education and cultural outreach, docking, costs, and media(temporary section that one, to stop warring behavior) but what of their prose ? I have repeatedly asked for help updating this article, recently someone seems to have used 'search and replace' to fix text through the article, and this is helpful I guess, but help of substance is lacking. After being bitten too many times for touching the lead, I leave errors alone, sometimes even blatantly obvious ones, even with PR simple errors aren't fixed, few are willing to take a look at this article with anything more than a spell-checker, some editors are assisting, however after an edit war broke out between them and the page was frozen, they've not been as involved. They are very good editors too. Those two ironically aren't the problem at all.

The spell checker thing is about keeping the article in British english, which I'm fine with, I don't care because I'll convert text to Hindi, Japanese, Spanish or anything else that is necessary, but the ENG:VAR is used to exert ownership it seems to me and to some other editors. It's a source of great contention as the archives show, and rears it's ugly head from time to time, with no definitive explanation as to why it is British. The wikiproject list for the article shows it is of interest to a number of groups. It just seems to me that it is used by non-contributing editors as a tool to strike at each other. I couldn't care less, as it doesn't actually effect me. If it did, surely it would effect all of my contributions rather than just the lead.

The article suffers from contention, and FA status and ENG:VAR:OWN are the weapons of choice. The ISS is the epitome of technology to many people, it needs more respect than this. To Japanese Industry, Kibo is a design award winner. Less war, more people who at least read the first three paragraphs rather than check them for changes. Few people read anything after the lead in this article, I've got used to that. It's fine by me, I can work in peace and quiet with good editors who do take time to read it.

The hierarchy of the index was updated to include all the new sections, but some were thrust haphazardly about without explanation. I haven't fixed all of it, though I have explained reasons for the initial hierarchy and asked for discussion to no real avail. For example, The ISS is a unique laboratory providing long term access to space and microgravity. However, Microgravity isn't part of 'purpose' or 'science' it goes along with the power supply and computers as if it were generated on board artificially by the structure. That's Sci-Fi. I've asked why, to no avail.

Citations are woeful. Lots of sections are factual, up to date and correct, but incomplete on refs I expect. I'm quite responsible for a good bit of that. Some I took time with, some were rushed, maybe some need refs. Generally it's outdated refs or no refs for this article. But there are plenty of originals still good.

Neutrality was one of the main reasons I took to this article. Another editor described it as reading like a NASA brochure. It's gotten a good deal better, but has a long way to go. WP:OWN and wars aren't helping. Even though people are resisting improvement, it's still above FA level for NEU I think. The Japanese Laboratory is the Largest and best maintained on the station, but gets little coverage. NASA is giving up management of most of it's onboard science, but I'm weeks away from even mentioning that yet. I spend too much time making appeals to arbitration PR and FAR stuff, which I hate. I love to edit, and discuss with other editors, and reach outside the project for input from people and groups with nothing to do with wiki.

The Canadian space agency gets zip coverage, and a subsection of structure covering their wonderful robotics is yet to come. (they are so cool and look so good, they move like inchworms across the station, repositioning themselves) anyhow, if the homework asked how many robots are on the ISS ? who knows. It's worse than the old costs section.

Currently the lead does not prepare the reader for the detail in the subsequent new sections. Draft corrections are held back on prose or FA.

It's been pointed out to me that the prose I write to update the lead is one reason why the drafts are unacceptable. So it follows that the prose of the sections I have written, substantially expanded, or updated are not in the same prose as the lead. I've asked for assistance changing the prose of the sections I have written, to have their prose match the lead so the article is consistent, but I've had little or no assistance there. For some time I've asked the people who state prose, grammar, style and so forth is a problem, to expand on their comments, with little success. It needs correction, I agree the prose is not the same. Sometimes the comments are more vague, such as it doesn't sound as good or read as well. Either one part or the other needs correction.

There are faults in this article a blind mans dog would trip over and I won't mention them, they're 'low hanging fruit' as another editor put it. No knowledge of the ISS is needed to catch these. It's interesting to see editors overturn edits without reading what they are putting back, or manage to look at the page without seeing simple problems, forget familiar knowledge, you don't need your reading glasses for one of them. I won't mention them, I'd like to actually see anything in this article get fixed. (if your worried I'm not mentioning errors, I've already pointed out just under a gazillion on the talkpage, it's too verbose as it is) Right now, I am curious if it actually meets this FA glass ceiling editors always talk about. But I am more interested in the article being improved. Roll up your sleeves or get out of the way.

Do I talk alot ? yes? please for the love of God help harness this superhuman power for good rather than evil. :D Ok people, help me with these issues, I don't actually want FA removed, although it would be a good wakeup. I just want help, and FA to hold. I want to continue to improve this article with real editors who have real reasons and real discussions PLEASE! No more 'I can't believe they're not editors', GIMME some real help. Or just help keep unhelpful people out of the way. Penyulap talk 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko comments

I see a few little things and you bring up some good points but none of these seem to be a reason to drop this article from FA status IMO and most are easily fixed.

  1. Citations in the lede (normally not needed because the information would be in the body of the article, the lede just summerizes info already there)
  2. Some dead links throughout(16 for example)
  3. Some citations missing (citation needed tag in the Origins section)
  4. Some citation formatting work needed (for example 164, 213, 229
  5. Why are all the pictures on the right? Can we switch them around a little? --Kumioko (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to offer my sincerest thanks for your comments Kumioko Penyulap talk 20:30, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Colm comments

The article needs a little FA maintenance, that's all. I see no valid reasons to bring this to FAR. Graham Colm (talk) 21:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree entirely with Graham - this sort of stuff could very easily be dealt with in Talk or PR, there's no reason to bring it to FAR whatsoever. Colds7ream (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a matter of fact, it now is being dealt with properly on the talk page - User:Brad101 is going through the correct procedure on the talk page in the section 'Featured article quality has deteriorated.', and the issues are being dealt with. I suggest this FAR be closed and the issues be dealt with via the talk page; we can always open another FAR if needed at a later date. Colds7ream (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article fails 1e. Penyulap talk 18:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. This [9] is not edit warring, and no radical changes have been introduced. All I see is FA maintenance and a little fine-tuning going on. I suggest this FAR should be closed now.Graham Colm (talk) 19:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it, wouldn't the frozen[10] article make it hard for people to do the FAR a month earlier ? I'll have to remember that one. Penyulap talk 16:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking the guidance in the docs for FAR is too open to interpretation, as in 'ongoing' edit wars and behavior. The Docs don't help you the admins don't help you, some editors don't help you but many do, I think it's ironic how un-cooperative and un-informative wikipedia can get. No wonder so many other good editors DGAF and don't stick around. 'Nonsense'. Damn right. When your right your right, and Graham, your right. The whole A-Z of wikipedia. Penyulap talk 17:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my take on what needs fixing:
  • There are several unsourced statements scattered about, mostly near the end.
  • Paragraph 2 of "Assembly" is almost entirely unsourced.
  • "Assembly" and "Microgravity" need a copy edit. Way too many sentences begin with "the".
  • Way too many bulleted lists: "Cancelled modules", "Microgravity", "Mission control centres", "Utilisation rights" and "Legal aspects and costs" all have bulleted lists.
  • Some of the "see also"s have periods at the end when they shouldn't.
  • The Docking Schedule table is missing a few footnotes.
  • Underneath "docking schedule" is a stray "I" with a footnote. What is this?
  • I see several "currently"s and "as of"s, leading to potentially dated info. These should be fixed.
  • Under "Space environment" — "Large, acute doses of radiation from Coronal Mass Ejection can cause radiation sickness and can be fatal. Without the protection of the Earth's Magnetosphere, interplanetary manned missions are especially vulnerable." is unsourced.
  • Underneath "Anomalies" — "Unexpected problems and failures have impacted the station's assembly time-line and work schedules leading to periods of reduced capabilities and, in some cases, could have forced abandonment of the station for safety reasons, had these problems not been resolved." is unsourced. This is also a one-sentence paragraph.
  • What makes Heavens Above a reliable source?
  • There are also some "space news" sites that I would like further comment on as to their reliability.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 00:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerest thanks for your assistance Ten Pound Hammer (and your attention seeking otters too) Penyulap talk 11:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • 1a: There are multiple short paragraphs and sections consisting of only one or two sentences or a single paragraph in the case of sections. There are bulleted lists that should be turned into prose. Cleanup tag is present. (Somehow forgot to paste this in from the talk page. Brad (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  • 1c: There are eight dead links to sources and several citation needed tags. There are multiple "update needed" tags. There is an over reliance on a single source of information (NASA) and several sources that are questionable in meeting the requirement of "high-quality and reliable".
  • 2b: There are many short sections that are creating a long and complicated TOC in addition to the problems they're creating with criteria 1a. IMO the article needs an entire section overhaul.
  • 2c: Citations are chaotic in their consistency. There is a mixture of date formatting (2011-03-25 vs 25 March 2011 etc), bare urls, and missing publisher information.
  • MOS: Fails MOS:Images for overcrowding, stacking, pics pushing down into sections below, text sandwiching and sometimes overwhelmingly large displays. Overall there are 49 media files (not including flag icons) consisting of pics, diagrams and video. Fails MOS:LINK for overlinking of common terms or items that are not helpful to the reader for understanding more about the article. Fails WP:EXT for external links.
  • note The above problems are what I listed with the talk page notice. Since then some of it may have been resolved but the article is on my watch list and not much has been going on lately. Brad (talk) 09:48, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Many sincere thanks Brad101, for you comments here, there, and on you talkpage, it's a huge help to me. Even though there is nothing to stop me returning and working on these, I won't, as I don't feel I'm ready, I'm still a bit steamed about the article (I took a month break). My own draft looks a little contentious in parts, so I can't put it up yet. I still have to redraft it a few times into calmer wp:gibberish first. Penyulap talk 10:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping colds7ream would have time in his schedule this week to spruce up the article. I'd love to see the 4 new modules added to the launch schedule, or at least be able to discuss it. I won't do it myself as it means changing the lead as well, and that just causes trouble. The lead always gets stuck back in the microwave and the 'back to 2009' button gets pressed[11]. It's happened to me heaps of times, I'm sure my edits must annoy some other people, so I'll pass for now. Penyulap talk 04:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can we get some updates/comments from the above editors on whether this article should move to FARC? I see a couple of editors saying that FARC is not necessary, but I see other editors have posted lists of needed improvements. I also see that the article has dead link, citation needed and update needed tags currently in place, which will need to be fixed before the article is kept as a FA. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC In the initial hours after my talk page notice there was work done on the media and overlinking. Since then I've not seen much work going on. Brad (talk) 03:30, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dana boomer, thank you for your interest, the 1st and 2nd largest contributors positions are sort-of explained here Penyulap talk 15:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include references, prose, MOS compliance and images. Dana boomer (talk) 15:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So long as I get the go-ahead from Colds7ream, or he doesn't seem to care, I'll most likely help turn the article into a sub FA worksite, a condition that will persist for more than a year I expect. Until then, I'll add new ideas to my sandbox. I'm quite appalling at referencing, and given the amount of information I find from other language sources, that will not change until I learn how, or someone helps me. The only way I know to update and improve the article would involve a lot of major surgery, missing (english) refs and a very different look. Penyulap talk 23:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist far too many problems. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist And what a shame. It took years to get the article featured and only 18 months for it to deteriorate. Some work was done on MOS Images and MOS Link but that is the only extent of the effort so far. Brad (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article's largest ever contributor, Colds7ream, has left a note on the articles talkpage here His work has been of the highest standard, and he now has less time for editing because he is saving lives in the real world. Penyulap talk 01:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist There are many valid concerns by many experienced editors which can't be addressed immediately as we do not have sufficient labor resources at the present time. It will take a year or more in my opinion to update and improve the article to FA standard. Penyulap talk 01:06, 8 September 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 02:08, 12 September 2011 [12].

Blaise Pascal edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Christopher Parham (nominator), Dbergan (added some of the text around the time of promotion) All WikiProjects on article talk.

I am nominating this featured article for review primarily because of plagiarism and copyright concerns that will result in a substantially smaller, less thorough and non-'criteria meeting' article when cleaned. The article was promoted in August 2005 and much of it is copied/close-paraphrased from The Story of Civilizaton by Will and Ariel Durant (starting PDF page 69). The work was published in 1963 and the copyright renewed in 1991. This article does not meet FA criteria right now and it is unlikely it will in the near future. Aside from the copyvio, there is citation and lead concerns. Concerns about plagiarism and FA criteria have been on the article talk since March/November 2010 and it was just reported to WP:CP recently. I have cleaned some text out already and will continue clean more. See the CP report and talk page for more details.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the talk page, it doesn't sound as if the page will be fixed quickly. Unless someone comes forward quickly who is able to dedicate a lot of time, it is probably best to delist promptly.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:21, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you looking only at the talk page and not also at this discussion?
I agree. Plagiarized pages should be immediately stripped of their featured article status. Ryan Vesey contribs 21:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This matter is being discussed elsewhere: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Blaise_Pascal_at_FAR. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural note - The precedent-setting FAR for featured articles with significant copyright violations was Wikipedia:Featured article review/Grace Sherwood/archive1, in November/December 2010. This article went through the full FAR/FARC process. If Raul disagrees with this (I see that someone has already left him a note, which is good), he of course has the authority to delist without going through the full process. However, as it looks like there is some discussion on the Mathematics WP talk page, it is IMO best to give the article a bit more time to see if anyone comes forward who is interested in fixing it. Dana boomer (talk) 02:09, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stating the obvious here but in its present condition the article fails 1b and 1c. I also believe that a full FAR process should be followed. Brad (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The article has been cleaned out by two editors.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • 1b After the copyvio cleanout the article dropped 8k in size. I'm not sure if that has any bearing on "comprehensiveness" but it's a good assumption at this point.
  • 1c May also be effected by 1b. Currently there are many citations needed throughout the article.
  • 3 File:PascalTriangleAnimated2.gif What sources were used to assemble the information? Without sources this is original research. File:001Paskal.JPG This photo is not licensed correctly. It should be an OTRS matter but that was not followed. Pasting an incoherent email exchange into the description box won't cut it.
  • The "miscellaneous" section should be deleted with fire. Brad (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section originally focused mainly on copyright violations. Once these violations were rectified, the concerns changed to issues with comprehensiveness, referencing, images and trivia. Dana boomer (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per 1c concerns. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist because we have to get tough on plagiarism, with leave to renominate immediately once it is felt that it has been legitimately brought to FA standards. Daniel Case (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Other than copyright cleanout many problems remain. Brad (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The copyright issue has been fixed. The material in question was added several years ago by a single editor and accounted for a relatively small proportion of the article. Imo that material could be just as well left out of the article even without the COPYVIO issue. I left a notification at WP:MATH on the current status since I think most people were not aware of remaining issues. Regarding the Pascal triangle animation (#3 above), I claim WP:CK since it is well known in the mathematical community. See Pascal's triangle for details. On the death mask photo, it seems clear that the image was released into the public domain. If there is an issue then I vote the image be removed pending an OTRS ruling, there are several other images of Pascal in the article so it is well illustrated without it.--RDBury (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re Miscellaneous section: This was trimmed and incorporated into the Legacy section. The remaining material, concerning a movie and documentary special on the subject, seems noteworthy.--RDBury (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If editors feel the concerns raised by the delists have been addressed, they should ping those reviewers to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The material that RDBury addressed was the least of the article's problems. The more serious issues are still comprehensiveness and referencing. Brad (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2011 (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 Dana boomer 12:39, 7 September 2011 [13].

T-34 edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WikiProject Ukraine, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Soviet Union, WikiProject Russia

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is no longer up to the standard expected of FAs. Looking at the article, and comparing it to the criteria:

  • It is—
    • (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
      • The information on the tank's design is severely lacking, totalling as it does four completely broken up paragraphs.
    • (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;
      • Several chunks are completely unreferenced, including the last line of the "Background" section, an entire paragraph of "establishing initial production" and almost the entirety of "Design (T-34 Model 1941)".
  • It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of—
    • (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)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. The use of citation templates is not required.
      • Citations are completely and utterly inconsistent, ranging from the Harvard style to a divided bibliography-and-citations type. Many facts appear in the lead, but not in the text of the article proper.
  • 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.
    • Images, rather than alternating, go down almost unbroken in a gallery on the right-hand side of the page. Ironholds (talk) 05:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Delegate note - As there was no prior notification on the talk page of the possibility of a FAR, this review is being placed on hold. I have made the notification and will wait until editors have been given time to respond. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Delegate note - after hold and talk page notification, the nominator has indicated he still has concerns requiring an FAR. Therefore, the nomination is active as of this time stamp. 14:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
    Provisional delist. I think on balance, although the article author(s) have done a good job, there are substantial issues that will require some major research and expansion to address. There seem to be some questions about Zaloga's reliability as a source on the talk page; this is not a minor issue and could result in large sections of the article needing to be re-sourced. The image and citation formatting are less significant because they're relatively quick and easy to fix, but in all my feeling is that there's probably more work required than is realistically achievable over the duration of an FAR. EyeSerenetalk 16:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC) Comments[reply]
    Brad (talk) 20:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing, comprehensiveness and image compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 14:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Delist. It has been weeks since this review and yet no coordinated repair effort has started. I counted, and tagged, over 40 places where citations should be in place; that alone would disqualify this article from being a GA, let alone FA class. If nothing happens to substancially improve this article, it shouldn't keep its listing as "one of the best works on Wikipedia" because that doesn't appear to be the case here. Kyteto (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment. I agree with most of those tags - many of them are for single sentences which aren't critical, and could simply be removed. (Hohum @) 12:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Delist Major 1c problems and fails MOS Images. As stated above there is no effort underway to address any issues. Brad (talk) 23:21, 29 August 2011 (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 Dana boomer 12:39, 7 September 2011 [14].

    Point Park Civic Center edit

    Review commentary edit

    Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania, User talk:Dream out loud
    • 1a. Needs a copy-edit. I'm seeing a lot of consecutive sentences starting with "the". Also, "The two met in the summer of 1945" — clarify. Summer's different in the Southern hemisphere, so we try not to use seasonal terms.
    • 1b. There are only five or six different sources cited. I doubt this is all there was to say about this building. Also, there are huge chunks of unsourced text.
    • 2a. Points are made in lead that aren't addressed later in article ("The unused design has garnered scholarly attention" for one).
    • 2c. "See a summary of this project at the Library of Congress website." is not the right way to do a reference. Whose boneheaded idea was that?

    It's blatantly obvious that nobody's tending to this article since it was promoted so long ago; when it was on the front page, it got nearly twice as many edits as it had in the past 3 years put together. I raised the issues on the talk page and got the attention of User:Dream out loud, who felt that the article should be moved to FAR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Unfortunately the language used by the source is "early summer of 1945". I suppose the original author never imagined anyone would be confused about which hemisphere was being discussed. Do you have an alternate suggestion?
    • Generally speaking, specific facts & figures in the article come from the immediately following cited source. I didn't bother to repeat them more frequently to avoid clutter, but I'd be happy to repeat them frequently enough so that every paragraph has a separate footnote. Would that satisfy your concerns in that area? Christopher Parham (talk) 06:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess my general question is, are there particular statements you are actually concerned about, or do you just want to see a higher count of citations, and if the latter, what # of citations would satisfy. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Mid-1945" would work. I've already pointed out a few [citation needed]s in the article. There's really no set number of sources that I think would be fine, but it does seem as if the article is awfully narrow in scope. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 16:56, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • {{copyedit}} and {{refimprove}} added to the article by me. I made a request of this article to the Guild of Editors, in order to avoid the article from being demoted. A\/\93r-(0la 21:07, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to FARC – Most pressing issue is that several paragraphs remain completely without citation, as the tags indicate. This is definitely a lighter level of citation than newer FAs have, and is probably too light for FA status now. Articles don't need to have every sentence sourced, but at least one source in each paragraph is expected. The copy-edit tag at the top is also of concern, though I admittedly haven't read the article closely. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    FARC commentary edit

    Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing, prose, and a proper lead. Dana boomer (talk) 14:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist per my concerns; nothing's happened. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist The article isn't even in that bad of condition but there is no effort to correct the problems. Brad (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delist – The sourcing issues have remained unaddressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:02, 7 September 2011 (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/September_2011&oldid=453313264"