Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2019

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC) [1].

Chartwell edit

Notified:KJP1, Tim riley, NicholasNotabene

I am nominating this featured article for review because I do not believe it meets the following criteria:

well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard.
Compared to the requirements of [[WP:TONE}, it lacks "businesslike" use of language, and uses excessive contestable adjectives and a rather romanticised prose, going beyond the strictly factual.
neutral: it presents views fairly aand without bias
It has a tone that is unduly favourable towards Winston Churchill and reflects an editorial bias of his actions as being important by virtue of being his actions.

The main editor has been very dismissive of these concerns, although he has addressed some areas of unreferenced claims on the lead, and items in the lead that were totally absent from the body of the article. The fact that these were there suggests a less than thorough process of inspection before it was raised to FA status. Kevin McE (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Tim riley edit

I think the nomination is ridiculous and the allegations absurd. This review is wholly without merit in my opinion and should be closed as soon as possible. The FAC was conducted by experienced editors, familiar with WP's standards, including SchroCat, Nick-D, Ceoil. Hchc2009, Brianboulton and Johnbod. I don't know what Kevin McE's agenda is, but I regard this review as frivolous, unjustifiable and contemptible. Tim riley talk 19:09, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Laser brain edit

This nomination should be closed as out-of-process. Conversation on the article Talk page is ongoing and has been going only for a short time. This strikes me as a tantrum because the nominator isn't getting their way. FAR isn't a dispute resolution avenue. --Laser brain (talk) 19:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Brianboulton edit

I agree with Tim and Andy. WP processes such as FAR should not be weaponised as a means of driving home a point. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SC
  • (edit conflict) Echoing the three comments above. Although no article on WP can ever claim to be 'perfect', to somehow consider this article does not mean the FA criteria is just wrong. - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild edit

Edit conflict.

If this is a joke, it is in poor taste. If it is not a joke, it is in worse. I am not sure what to add to Tim and Lb's comments. The use of language is indeed not "businesslike", and the article is the better for it: it is certainly engaging and in my opinion and that of the five editors who supported it at FAC only two years ago is of a professional standard. (Regular followers of recent FACs will know how picky I can be regarding use of language.) I can see a few things, both in the prose and more generally, which I wouldn't mind changing, but to suggest that it isn't of FA standard is (I paused here for some time trying to think of a more neutral word, but this one seems most appropriate) ridiculous. The nomination seems to cover several of the scenarios in WP:ATA. Suggest summary dismissal with prejudice. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Response by KJP1 edit

I am very appreciative of the supportive comments above. As briefly as I can, my own thoughts are as follows:

well-written, Tone/Style - there are some 5,937,027 articles on the English Wikipedia, with 5,633 rated FA. Given those numbers, it seems clear to me that a variety of writing styles will be employed. I completely accept that my own style will not find favour with everyone. But I try to write, and to collaborate on, articles that are accurate, that are well-referenced and that inform and engage the reader. That is what I have sought to do here.
Neutral, Hagiography of Churchill - The article describes Churchill's activities at Chartwell as these are the only reasons for the house's Grade I listing (see the HE listing). It records the exceptional nature of Churchill's accomplishment because that that is what all the accepted sources of which I'm aware do. To suggest that Churchill's actions at Chartwell in the 1930s equate to "what anyone does in his home/office" or, more oddly still, stand comparison with the actions of Chris Grayling, seems perverse.

The nominating editor has chosen to personalise this discussion by describing my responses as "very dismissive". Others can judge the fairness of that characterisation. On Chartwell, I have tried to do what I always try to do: to write accurate and interesting articles on significant subjects, and to engage with other editors interested in those subjects in a courteous and productive way. KJP1 (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I applaud such a measured and gentle response. If I had been responding to such petulant squalling I should have been a great deal less forbearing. Thank you, KJP1: you are an example to us all. Tim riley talk 21:54, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm impressed too, particularly given the utter intransigence of the OP. "It is evident that there is little interest here in creating anything properly encyclopaedic" was his latest edit summary. I have asked them to stop casting aspersions on other editors with such nonsense. - SchroCat (talk) 08:36, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fear your advice will go unheeded. It lasted just six minutes on the user's talk page before he deleted it. Tim riley talk 09:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an acquaintance of mine is wont to say, "Consider it character forming". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This nomination seems premature given that concerns were raised on the talk page only a few days ago, so I'm going to close this at this time. It can be renominated in future if concerns remain; however, all are advised to bear in mind that FAR is not a dispute resolution venue. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2019 (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 edit

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC) [2].

Kate Bush edit

Review section edit

This is my first FAR listing. I feel that the article has some organization and neutrality issues. (lack of album reviews and critical opinions) I'm uncertain about the lead and the article does have instances of unreferenced statements, as well as questionable audio samples of two of her hit singles that hold questionable merit. I did state on the talk page of attempting to fix these issues in a timely manner, but I do think for now, that a delist would be appropriate. 100cellsman (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I wasn't sure of who to notify for this article review, so I just didn't. 100cellsman (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems very premature to nominate it here (should be a last resort), the issues should be dealt with on the talk page, were it seems they have just been brought up, giving them little time to be addressed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonk Perhaps I'm just wondering if even if the issues have been fixed, whether or not it would still meet the criteria.100cellsman (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This nomination should have been closed on procedural grounds a month ago, but since no one has responded on the article talk anyway, I concur that it's clearly deficient. There are unsourced statements, and it's obvious that anyone with an interest in the subject hasn't kept it current in the last several years. The "2014–present" section is WP:PROSELINE and contains barely any information on her activities in recent years. --Laser brain (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, she's more concerned with family and her projects, so there wouldn't be a whole lot to add. I've been slowly getting myself to work on the issues I raised in the talk page. I need to carefully pick some of the critical views of her work which are constructive, summarizing and interesting; and to get rid of some likely trivial info. Though I feel bad for putting this article in the FAR because thinking back now, this article could be saved. I just haven't been editing as much as I used to. 100cellsman (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well it still can be saved. :) --Laser brain (talk) 20:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I landed independently on the Kate Bush article and found it of poor quality for a FA. I wouldn't have passed it as GA. This feels more like a C quality. So I support the notion that this article needs reviewing. I found the lead to be an inadequate summary of Kate Bush. It fails 2(a) because the lead does not prepare "the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections". On reading further I felt that the article reads like a series of notes toward an article rather than the finished item. There are several very short paragraphs, including some single sentence paragraphs. It is a poorly written article. Example, the disjointed and trivial nature of this paragraph: "Bush's only tour, the Tour of Life, the ran for six weeks in May 1979, covering Britain and mainland Europe. The BBC suggested that she may have quit touring due to a fear of flying, or because of the death of a lighting engineer, Bill Duffield, who was killed in an accident during a warmup concert. Duffield was the lighting director for the Tour Of Life. On 2 April 1979, after a show at the Poole Arts Centre in Dorset, the equipment had been loaded for the journey to the next date, and he was having a last look around the stage area to make sure nothing had been left behind. Someone had left an open panel in the flooring. As Bill crossed the stage he tripped and fell 17 feet onto a concrete floor under the stage. He was rushed to hospital but tragically died a week later. . Mercer, who signed Bush to EMI, said touring was "just too hard ... I think [Bush] liked it but the equation didn't work ... I could see at the end of the show that she was completely wiped out." Bush described the tour as "enormously enjoyable" but "absolutely exhausting." It fails 1(a) "well written". I have not read the article in depth, but having read the lead and the Artistry section, I feel the article does not supply the detail required for an understanding of why Kate Bush is respected, and so fails the comprehensiveness required for a FA. The article appears not to have used a single book or academic sources, relying on media articles and internet sources, so is clearly not well researched, failing 1(c). SilkTork (talk) 19:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SilkTork, I feel like the prose issues are mostly because of the unnecessary detail that disrupts the flow; I've seen some instances of that the article could do without. I'm also not sure if magazines count as "a book source". This article uses quite a bit of that. 100cellsman (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the excessive detail, and there is also the little errors "the ran for six weeks", "a week later. .", the magazine style prose "rushed to hospital", "tragically died", the bathos of "rushed to hospital but tragically died a week later". The oddity of statements like "quit touring" when she had completed the tour. You can only quit something you are doing. The paragraph is unclear in its intention, and appears to be random material on her tour put roughly together. If the intention was to describe and explain the long gap between The Tour of Life and Before the Dawn then there is a serious lack of research, too much weight on speculation, and little in the way of explaining the material discovered. It looks like someone did a Google search on the internet for "kate bush dislike of touring", and then cut and pasted statements from the first source found, a 2014 BBC entertainment column. There doesn't appear to have been the merest effort at doing further research and actually constructing something meaningful. There are books which go into more depth on the matter, such as Under The Ivy, and these are not hard to find, but they have not been used. This is not a FA standard, not a GA standard, not even a B class standard article. It reads like pretty much every other Class C article you can find on Wikipedia. There's been no research done, no organisation of material found, and little attempt to write it up in a meaningful way. SilkTork (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Concerns raised in the review section include currency, sourcing, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged as lacking sources from June 2019 and for unsourced statements from July 2019. Article has had problems marked for longer than that, which I've corrected, but each time I fix one problem another seems to crop up a month or so later,[3][4][5][6][7] indicating that the article needs more work than just that tagged. DrKay (talk) 13:30, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Sufficient progress hasn't been possible on the issues listed. --Laser brain (talk) 12:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. In addition to the discussion above regarding prose (that I agree with, and has not yet been dealt with), I think that this article's sourcing is poor, especially if we take in consideration the article's subject. The current sourcing is mostly made up of interviews in magazines and write-ups in blog-like publications. Kate Bush has been subject of coverage in scholarly publications and I find that the article does not reflect that at all. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't have the right state of mind to improve this article significantly at the moment, especially since she is such a prominent figure in music. It could take months of planning and research to get it back to the top again. Whether or not it'd be from me, I hope that this article will get turned around at some point in the future. 100cellsman (talk) 20:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC) [8].

Ceres (dwarf planet) edit

Notified: Drbogdan, JorisvS, WolfmanSF, Ruslik0, Ckatz, Urhixidur, Kheider, Materialscientist, Deuar, The Enlightened, Ryulong (emailed), The Singing Badger, Edisonwhite, RJHall, Serendipodous, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been adequately updated since the Dawn mission in 2015, which revolutionized our understanding of Ceres. In April this year I updated the 'internal structure' section, which was still based on pre-Dawn publications (with some post-Dawn stuff tacked on at the end). This suggests that there'd been no serious attempt at a general update of the article since the Dawn mission (not counting sporadic bits and pieces, a lot of nifty new images and the data in the info box), making it too dated (or the data not well enough integrated) to be FA. My attempt at updating the 'internal structure' section resulted in 2 contradictory paragraphs, as I don't know the lit well enough to evaluate it. My edits certainly weren't up to FA standards. It's now two months later, and there hasn't been any editor response on the article talk page to my concerns or to the possibility of an FAR. — kwami (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree it's not up to FA standards at present. The lead section alone is suffering from bloat. The added content needs to be moved down to the body of the article, with the lead serving as a high-level summary. There are far too many images in the Maps section and below. A few of the references also need refinement. The content could do with a thorough re-edit to eliminate a lot of the accumulated dross. For example, do we really need to know this: "Dawn's arrival in a stable orbit around Ceres was delayed after, close to reaching Ceres, it was hit by a cosmic ray, making it take another, longer route around Ceres in back, instead of a direct spiral towards it"? Praemonitus (talk) 19:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Concerns raised in the review section include currency and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for updating since April. Choppy five-paragraph lead. Large gallery section. Unclear captions with weasel-words, such as "Notable geological features" (why are they notable and what are they specifically?) and "Internal structure August 2018" (what are the different layers and why is the date significant?). DrKay (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I started to write my own comments, but DrKay's summary above sums it up better than I could. I would also agree, to greater or lesser extents, with the various other issues identified. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The lead section needs an overhaul to get rid of the choppiness. Similarly, the "name" sub-section introduces a lot of small sentences without them being interwoven into a cohesive, flowing narrative; this disconnected flow in prose is a recurrent problem throughout the article. Towards the end, we are introduced to a massive number of images that are... just there. There's no supporting text whatsoever to make sense of any of the images in the "maps" and "gallery" sections. Finally, the article is seemingly in need of substancial updates. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Although the lead section has been recently shortened, I still believe that some sections (Internal structure and potential habitability) seem unfinished and require some additional information. In addition, the amount of images in the gallery below is too excessive and takes up at least half of the whole article. As RetiredDuke has mentioned, there isn't much context behind the images, especially the repeated usage of oversized Ceres maps and Dawn images. Nrco0e (talk) 22:32, 13 September 2019 (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_2019&oldid=918469326"