Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2015

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Maralia via FACBot (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Plutonium

[edit]
Nominator and main editor User:Mav semi-retired; notified 13:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Automatically included at Wikipedia:WikiProject Elements/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject California/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Government/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/United States military history task force/Article alerts

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not hold the standard that is expected, and has not done so for a significant time. It even has issue tags that have been present, but without improvement. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF, see the instructions at WP:FAR. Was the article talk page notified in advance? If so, then you should post a link to the talk notification done earlier, and do the notifications of significant contributors and WikiProjects (see top of the FAR). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As there does not appear to have been any talk-page discussion, I am placing this review on hold. If after a week or two insufficient progress has been made the review should be reopened. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - at FAR now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Many improvements by Hawkeye7, and I especially find the restoration of a 4 paragraph lede as important. I'm supportive of keeping FA status with a little more work. I'll give it an in depth look this weekend. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can External links be pruned, and sister links combined into one link (I forget how to do that)? And, there is an inconsistent citation style; some citations link to references, some don't. Some are short citations, others aren't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have consolidated all the books in the References section, and all have short references. The web pages and journals remain inline, which is the usual style. I;m not sure what you mean by sister links. Do you have any examples? Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure Sandy is referring to links to commons, quotes etc. as in sister-projects?-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I've been so busy ... see bottom of autism for one link to sister projects. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close without FARC: Thanks for the work done. I found this article easy to understand, which surprised and pleased me. I often find chemical articles out of my league. Two minor comments: (1) Both "tonne" and "ton" are used, but I wasn't sure whether this was a deliberate inconsistency to use "tonne" whenever referring to metric tons and "ton" when referring to short tons? Anyway, I left it alone but it struck me as a bit odd. (2) Both "weapons grade" and "weapons-grade" are used. I wasn't certain whether there should be a hyphen or not, so I left that alone as well. DrKiernan (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The ton-tonne issue needs to be sorted; it is non-trivial. The hyphen issue should be easily solved (I would use the hyphen). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it is trivial. The first thing you need to know is that fissile material quantities have always been measured in metric. Even in the US and UK, and even during World War II, and never in troy grains or ounces. When we went metric in Australia back in 1970s, the spelling "tonne" was advocated in order to avoid confusion with the old (long) ton, and our style guides still reflect this, but the Americans decided to use "metric ton". The article uses "tonne" consistently. That leaves only the kiloton of TNT, which is not a unit of mass at all. It is a unit of energy that is defined as 4.184 gigajoules precisely. In other words, one gramme of TNT is conveniently defined as one kilocalorie. There is a link to this in the article. As for the "weapons grade" versus "weapons-grade", I have taken the Wikipedia articles as the yardstick, and standardised on "weapons-grade". So the article is now consistent in this regard. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank y'all for cleaning up the article - especially Hawkeye7. The article looks great once again. --mav (reviews needed) 02:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Maralia (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Maralia via FACBot (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC) [2].[reply]

Nine Inch Nails

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Alternative music, WikiProject Industrial

Some parts of the article no longer look like a featured article. The last part of the History section in particular reads more like a list of facts than prose.

Also a big part missing is an "Influences" section (as is done on The Beatles article - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Beatles#Influences ), i.e. by which bands were Nine Inch Nails influenced. I'm suprised this is missing as it is a rather important section for a band.

The end of the "Disputes with other corporations" section also read like a list of random facts added over time. Laurent (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at FAR 3 February. [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment - Since there doesn't appear to have been any talk-page notification prior to this FAR (please point it out if I've missed it!), I'm going to place this on hold to give interested parties a bit of extra time to consider potential improvements. If after a week or two insufficient progress has been made, this review can be reopened. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has been several weeks, and I still see WP:MSH issues at least; enough time has elapsed to bring this FAR back off hold so others can opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: Could we get this taken off hold for more eyes to evaluate status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia the nominator has stated the FAR can be closed. Please be more specific and we can fix whatever issues you see. Many thanks! — MusikAnimal talk 12:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has now fixed the WP:MSH issues, but page numbers are needed. I haven't had time to check further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to address the "page needed" tags? I would accept that the page numbers are not necessary to meet criterion 1c (verifiability) but the tags are placing the article in a cleanup category. DrKiernan (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know we could not find those page numbers, so if they indeed are not necessary I'd say it's safe to remove the tags. For me, a trip to the library is pretty unlikely, however I can try to find alternate internet sources if deemed necessary. — MusikAnimal talk 15:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're taken from the online transcriptions at http://www.theninhotline.net/archives/articles/manager/list_articles.php?category=1 rather than the original magazines. But that's probably not considered a reliable source. DrKiernan (talk) 16:27, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Coord comment: I'm taking this off hold and listing it at WP:FAR now. There are currently 16 citations (15 plus one reused) with 'page needed' tags. Most of these are citations of magazine articles, which are typically short enough that not having a specified page number is not a huge barrier to verifiability, but some are citations of direct quotations, and two are citations to a 200+ page book, so further consideration may be warranted. Maralia (talk) 16:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Maralia for listing this for more eyes (it will be beneficial five years from now to have a record in articlehistory, and to track FAR saves). I have no issue with pages on magazine articles, but books and direct quotations need to be cited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain, Maralia, and SandyGeorgia: I've gone through and improved the sources to the best of my ability. There is now only one {{page needed}} maintenance tag. That source is indeed a book, and supports two small portions of the article. Both are very detailed so it may be difficult to find alternative sources to support the exact same information. If we can't locate the print source itself to identify page numbers I'm happy to rewrite the content based on whatever I can find for online sources. — MusikAnimal talk 01:34, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have the Self Destruct book coming through the library. --Laser brain (talk) 12:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I found the page numbers using the "Look Inside" feature on Amazon and searching for the terms mentioned. Since it displays only snippets, I will verify when I receive the physical book. In the mean time, there are no remaining "page needed" tags. --Laser brain (talk) 13:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news! Once Laser brain is satisfied, I'm good with Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same here; fine to close. Thanks for all the work done! DrKiernan (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I got the book and verified the page numbers I found through "Look inside". I'm satisfied that the page numbers are accurate and that this book as been properly cited. --Laser brain (talk) 16:23, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: Two weeks, unanimous to close; is there anything pending? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by Maralia via FACBot (talk) 17:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Pedro I of Brazil

[edit]
Notified: Lecen, DrKiernan, Astynax (original nominators)

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

A featured article cannot actively mislead its audience, in any way.

If we're going to use historic artworks to show him, we need to use as accurate as possible copies of those artworks, as they, in themselves, become part of the story of the person. File:Unidentfied artist - Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg is by the Google Art Project, who are noted for taking great care in getting colour balances accurate. File:Anônimo - D. Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG is a random, low-quality image off a random internet site. lies about its source, and post-hoc mangles the colours.

However, the group who originally nominated it are literally edit warring to keep the bad-quality, inaccurate depiction of the painting in the article, and claiming that the historic painting is a racist depiction that has to be digitally modified to be a better representation of him. " There have been attempts in populist revisionism to adjust portrayals of fair-featured popular leaders to make them look more like the general populations of today." [5]; "He was white, you ignorant racist" [6] - the image is from c. 1835, so roughly contemporaneous with Pedro I, who died in 1834; hard to say if it's posthumous or not.

Wikipedia should not be in the position of actively misrepresenting its subjects. This includes major, important historic documents about them - and a painting is a document. It might be inaccurate. In fact, it's a painting; I'm sure it's inaccurate in many ways. But one can't make up conspiracy theories ("populist revisionism"; etc.) or claim that the reliable source (the Google Art Project) is wrong purely because of said conspiracy theories.

To quote our article on the Google Art Project:


As I said, highly reliable source.

We can't have misrepresentation in a featured article, and that includes changing historical documents. I don't think we need to delist it, but we cannot let the situation stand: Either the image needs to go completely, either the image needs changed to the reliably sourced version, or proof needs to be provided that it's not a reliable source, despite it's very good reputation. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand anything you just said. Really. You opened a FAR because you didn't like a painting in an article? This painting? --Lecen (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conspiracy theories aside, the purpose of using images in an article is, according to policy "to increase the reader's understanding of the subject." This article is not about a painting, but about a historical figure who reliable sources report was fair-skinned with brown hair (as the other images in the article show). The oversaturated, contrasty image which was introduced made him look like he had black hair with tan skin and garishly colored decorations. Though condition and variations of these official portraits may be at fault, the image proposed makes his dark blue tunic look black and the background a foreboding brownish tone. Official portraits were made by the dozen from the same archetype, and Google's Art Project itself hosts at least 2 knockoffs of this model. When the size is reduced for display in the article, the distortions in hair and saturation are worsened. Some images on Wikipedia are heavily color corrected, some are entirely the original artwork of editors, but the goal is the same: to illustrate the article. As I attempted to explain on the article talk, the proposed image is even more different than how Pedro I is described in the article's text. • Astynax talk 08:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC. This dispute is over which of two images should be used as the main image. The two images are in fact identical apart from the resolution (which is high in both cases but slightly higher in the "darker" version) and color balance. The color balance in the "lighter" version was, originally, identical to that in the "darker" version (see previous versions of the file for confirmation) but the yellow tones have since been reduced. It is this reduction in the yellow tones that Adam objects to on the grounds that the subsequent tone, particularly of Pedro's skin, is unverifiable.

In my personal experience, old artworks tend to yellow with age, and so the tones in old artworks are often now not those that were originally painted. I also note the contemporary description of Pedro quoted in the article: 'After "years under a tropical sun, his complexion was still light, his cheeks rosy".' I also note that the reduction of yellow tones has been applied consistently over the entire artwork, and by doing so the tones of the braiding and ribbon look, to my eyes, more natural. They do not look too blue or unnatural to me. Also, it is unlikely that the skin tone of someone descended exclusively from European royalty 200 years ago is any different from the skin tone of someone descended exclusively from European royalty today, and so it is not rational to suppose that Pedro's skin tone would be darker than that of royalty today, or indeed other royalty of the time.

Consequently, on the balance of the written evidence that Pedro had light rather than olive skin, the propensity of older artworks to darken and yellow with age, and the comparison between the skin tone of the manipulated image and that of other comparable people, I do not feel that the digital manipulation of the image (reducing yellow tone) has damaged the artwork or rendered it misleading or significantly altered the image from what was originally intended by the artist. DrKiernan (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just change paintings on a whim! That's basically the opposite of good practice. That's terrible, and, frankly, given the results, whoever modified the image clearly has no idea what they're doing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say google art project "are noted for taking great care". Now the google file purports to be the copy of this picture that hangs in the Pinacoteca in São Paulo. Look at this painting actually hanging on the wall in the gallery: [7][8][9][10]. Still think the google color balance is more accurate than the other file? I don't. It's no more or less reliable than any other internet source. You claim that the current lead image is a "random, low-quality image off a random internet site" but it is the exact same file as the google file. Look at the google file and the original unmodified other file side by side at the same resolution. They're identical. DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Your argument is that because uncolourbalanced snapshots look different, and very different from each other, they should be considered more accurate. That's mind-boggingly stupid, and basically shows you have no clue what you are talking about. Seriously, cheap personal cameras don't have any colour fidelity. Take a photograph of a picture you own without flash and compare it to the original image. Though that you think that the other three photographs are the same means that you probably aren't going to see a difference... Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, my argument is not that. Read my argument again. And don't call editors, or their arguments, stupid. DrKiernan (talk) 13:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded. And the argument is completely ignorant, there's no point engaging with and argument that only works from incompetence. I'm sure you have many fields that you're competent in, but you're so far from even beginning to get to competence to judge images if you're making the argument you're making... Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued insults and misrepresentation of my opinion just makes your own arguments look weaker. DrKiernan (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my apologies: I presumed that the editor had actually used the source he said he did, which is the one given in the description, instead of replacing it with a Google Art Project image then mangling that. I was presuming that the source was [11] - the first upload - which would have meant the editor had some competence Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the painting is a issue I don't see why this is necessary. At worst we would need to remove the painting (Not calling for that) and doing that would not negatively effect the article to a point where it should no longer be featured.--65.94.252.63 (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If the nomination continues, it needs to be listed at WP:FAR (see step 5 of instructions).

Notifying @FAR coordinators: , as I am not sure, that all of them are aware of this nomination yet, as the main page shows no update. GermanJoe (talk) 13:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coord comment: as far as I can tell the issue wrt FA status was raised only 2 days ago (please correct me if I've missed an earlier discussion), so if this FAR is to go forward it would be on hold for at least a few more days as the talk-page step continues. However, if the review concerns solely which image should be used and no other WIAFA problems, I wonder if an RFC might not be a more productive approach than an FAR. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that an RfC on the image is the appropriate course. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but given the claims of racism being thrown out willy-nilly by one of the article's FA nominators, it would need to be a very carefully monitored RFC. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also note: The nominator for this FAR is running a concurrent request for deletion at Wikimedia for the image being used in the article. Considering that the image is being discussed in at least 2 more appropriate places, further discussion here of an issue that has nothing to do with FA criteria is unwarranted. • Astynax talk 19:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that this is necessarily relevant to meeting the FA criteria. I get the concern about not altering works of art. However, Google Art also has this image of Queluz National Palace's copy of the painting, which is similar in coloration to the lighter of the two being argued over. You can see a comparison of the two Google Art images here. Either the Queluz copy of the painting is poorly done/very deteriorated, or Google Art has done a terrible job of capturing it—and I think either conclusion is relevant here, as it means either (1) at least one copy of the painting truly is quite light, or (2) Google Art image quality is not beyond reproach. Maralia (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FAR is not dispute resolution, and the issues raised here are not sufficient for removal of FA status. Close review, and raise issues in appropriate forums, or run an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC. Legitimate concern/dispute, but can be handled via RFC. --Laser brain (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC. Considering the uncollaborative atmosphere in parts of this dispute, FAR is certainly not the right place to solve it. GermanJoe (talk) 15:30, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC) [12].[reply]

Vivien Leigh

[edit]
Notified: WP BIO, WP Women's History, WP England, WP Theatre
WP:URFA nom

Deficiencies (mainly uncited text) noted on talk several weeks ago; no progress. Main contributor hasn't edited for three years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I am awaiting delivery of one of her biographies (through WP:McFarland), and I have a certain amount of info on Leigh from a recent Laurence Olivier re-write with Tim riley (currently at PR, prior to an FAC visit). If you can hold off pulling the trigger on this one, I should be in a position to fill in any citation gaps and give the article a quick spruce up, bringing her up to 2015 standards. Is that possible? (I have no idea on how long the McFarland process will take: it's a new process, so we're feeling our way into it, so I understand if the delisting comes before the book delivery. – SchroCat (talk) 12:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bzuk has also been working on it, and it is looking like a save. FAR is a deliberative process for that reason, and if progress is being made or expected, we can wait ... please keep the page posted on your timing, but it's looking good! See my talk page queries on reliable sources ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC: I am satisfied with the progress here, and although there has been a talk kerfuffle about the infobox, I believe that can be resolved through normal discussion and DR. The article is good enough now to avoid demotion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC: Thanks for the work done to improve the article. I've left two comments on talk regarding unclear points in the prose, but these can be dealt with there rather than here. DrKiernan (talk) 15:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 16:06, 7 February 2015 (UTC) [13].[reply]

Euclidean algorithm

[edit]
Notified: WillowW, WikiProject Mathematics

Review section

[edit]

One section of the article has been tagged for verifiability for over four and a half years, and many other paragraphs and sentences are without cites. The original nominator said this algorithm is taught to 10-year-old children, in which case the article ought to be easier to understand but much of it is impenetrable. DrKiernan (talk) 12:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There was one {{citation needed}} tag, that I supplied an easy reference for. WP:SCICITE does not require that every sentence or paragraph have a citation. From that guideline "[I]n sections or articles that present well-known and uncontroversial information – information that is readily available in most common and obvious books on the subject – it is acceptable to give an inline citation for one or two authoritative sources (and possibly a more accessible source, if one is available) in such a way as to indicate that these sources can be checked to verify statements for which no other in-line citation is provided." The original nominator stated that the Euclidean algorithm in its simplest form is understandable by children, not that the general algorithm is. The algorithm has been generalized and studied in many different situations. A comprehensive encyclopedia article should include this kind of information, regardless of whether it is understandable by 10-year old children. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DrKiernan, which parts are impenetrable? Let me suggest that the lead section can be aimed, not so much at 10 year olds per se, but, instead, non-experts who might actually be curious. Consider the most likely reader, then, perhaps the lead section could benefit from the attention of editors. My thoughts, Grandma (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I won't be contributing further either here or elsewhere. I don't appreciate being called anti-intellectual or idiotic and am not willing to invite further abuse. DrKiernan (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable. We need to try to keep the rhetoric conducive to teamwork. @DrKiernan, if possible, please recognize that your initiative is appreciated by Grandma (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, let's do try to keep the rhetoric down to get through this as effortlessly as possible; the kind of commentary directed at DrKiernan needs to stop. The article is most definitely deficient, and pretending it is not will not get the article where it needs to go.

Here is the version of the article that passed FAC three years ago. I was FAC delegate then, and I didn't promote the article FA, but I didn't have problems with it then, or I would have recused and Opposed (since I was a math undergrad and have a graduate degree in a very mathematical field of engineering; I shouldn't even have to say this, but seeing the reaction to DrKiernan indicates it may be necessary.) At least the lead is written in English in the version that passed FAC.

Here is the version of the current article I am reviewing. Lest people who are not comfortable with math feel that they might not be reading English-- they're right. The second paragraph of the lead (which must be digestible to a general audience) is not written in grammatical English. Let me be clear: this is not a math problem-- this is an English problem

The Euclidean algorithm is a basic tools for proving many fundamental properties of the integers, such as Euclid's lemma, Bézout identity, the fundamental theorem of arithmetic. It is also used, directly or through its consequences for many advanced results, such as the classification of finite Abelian group. It allows to compute modular multiplicative inverses, and is therefore used for the classification of finite fields and for the computation in these fields. As a large part of modern number theory uses finite fields, the Euclidean algorithm is indirectly used in many deep results, such as the Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem.
So, considering that the article has been quite substantially rewritten since it passed FAC, and the version that passed FAC was decipherable at least in English, I suggest that the first step towards preserving Featured Status here is a revert to that version. Making math digestible is not rocket science: textbooks and other websites do it all the time-- we can, too.

There is potentially another problem: the second para listed above looks like it could only have come from a very bad Google translate from another language. And if that is the case, that could be a copyvio. Revert the article; it has not been shepharded by people versed in making the English in the article accessible, and it may contain Google translate copyvio. Stop claiming that the math is over the head of people reviewing (in this case, it is not and should not be); that has been a frequent argument seen in every math FAC or FAR, and persisting in that line of thinking will only prolong this FAR. Few editors are likely to be willing to weigh in if attitudes that this topic cannot be made decipherable (or at least sections of it) prevail.

The article should be reverted. If it's not, move to FARC for declarations of Keep or Delist, and I'll be declaring Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that proposal. The original FA version of the article was much better than what is there now. Perhaps a revert to this version, followed by discussion of what to restore. However, I hasten also to point out that the issues you are now mentioning have actually been committed to the article in response to this FAR. None of the above problematic text appears in the version that DrKiernan initially complained about, which was substantially similar to the original FAR revision (apart from the lead, which I think should be rolled back to the original FAC lead). But if going back to the pre-FAR version is all it takes to have it re-listed, what was the point of subjecting it to an FAR (for silly reasons, too) in the first place? Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, the editor who introduced the problematic text has the second highest edit count on the article (since the FA nominator left), so that could account for part of the problem.[14] If Google translate is being used, we could have copyvio issues. Yes, going back to the original FA version, and editing to update from there would be the fastest route to assuring this article can retain its Featured status. I suggest dropping the persistence that the FAR was "silly"; FARs have to be noticed on article talk first, and only if nothing improves does the article come here. And historically, on every Math FAC or FAR I've participated in or observed, the math editors have made claims like those aimed at DrK, so let's drop the rhetoric, and get busy. Reverting the article, and cleaning up from there, is the best way forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't really answer my question, but ok. We can go back to the pre-FAR revision, and someone can review it, hopefully with comments that are actually helpful. But in light of this discussion, I won't hold my breath. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which question is unanswered ? (My apologies for whatever I missed: I have the flu.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with above comments that put the quality of English writing above the quality of the content, with above obviously wrong threats of copyvio, and with Sławomir Biały's revert on the aticle page. I have opened a Request for comments on the article talk page. D.Lazard (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out—and I hope you're not offended—that while your English is very good, it does not sound like the English of a native speaker.
@SandyGeorgia: This user is an expert in the subject; some of his publications would in fact be reliable sources for this article. But, as his user page says, his mother tongue is French, not English. There is no Google translate involved. Ozob (talk) 14:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thankx, Ozob-- good to know. And opening a separate RFC is process wonkery, because basically a FAR is an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please, be WP:CIVIL and do not use slang (wonkery), which I do not understand clearly, and I consider as name-calling. Maybe "basically a FAR is an RFC", but I guess that only few of the 188 watchers of this article are aware of this discussion. Reciprocally, it seems that few of the editors participating to this discussion have read the discussions on the talk page that have been posted since the opening of this review. Moreover, the discussion on the article is split in three different pages, this one, article's talk page and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. Therefore the discussion on the best version for starting improvements must be centralized where all interested people could find it easily, and it is not here. D.Lazard (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Watchers of the article will have seen the FAR posting on the talk page, and this is the central place for discussing whether the article will retain featured status. That doesn't preclude discussions of improvements happening elsewhere, but the decision on FA status is made on this page.

While discussion at the Math Project page is interesting,that page is not where FA status is determined.

I'm sorry you have a problem with English slang, but "process wonkery" is not uncivil.

I don't believe the revert was to the Featured version: the featured version is this. The revert was to a version pre-FAR, which is not what I suggested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at some sample sections, and have found (niggling) prose and MOS cleanup needed (See my sample edits). More significantly, citation cleanup and consistency is needed. Examples:

  • Reynaud A.-A.-L. (1811). Traité d'arithmétique à l'usage des élèves qui se destinent à l'École Polytechnique. Courcier. Incomplete
  • Some short citations have punctuation, others don't.
  • See also Werke, 2:67–148. incomplete.
  • There are sources listed in Bibliography that aren't used in Citations.
  • Some section heading stuff (see my sample edits).
  • Wikilinking check needed (see my sample edits).
  • Some of the short citations link to the Bibliography, others don't.
  • Why are there five items in "See also"? That is, when an article is FA-quality and comprehensive, typically all items worthy of mention in See also will have been worked into the article. If they haven't been worked into the text, is the article comprehensive? Or should they be removed from See also?
  • Some inconsistency on final punctuation on equations that do or don't end a sentence.
  • Can't read this character: A set of elements under two binary operations, + and ·,
  • Please review throughout for the difference between WP:EMDASH, WP:ENDASH, hyphen and minus sign (see my sample edits).
  • Punctuation on captions needs to be checked (full sentences should have final stop, fragments don't).
  • "Visualization" section, please review colors for WP:ACCESS#Color.
  • Please review the "Generalizations" section for citations.

Move to FARC, to keep the process moving forward, and to allow more time for improvements, followed by evaluation of prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've handled some of the wikilinking issues (changed wikilinks that unnecessarily went through a redirect) and some of the see-also issues (removed three see-alsos that were already in the main text). I also removed the whole "Generalizations" section (and the lead section sentence summarizing it), as Lazard had done earlier, as being too far off-topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, struck some. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also handled: consistency of punctuation at ends of short references (currently: no periods on any of them) and of author name formatting, linking of short references to the bibliography, checking that those links all work, and removing bibliography items not used in footnotes. I'm not sure what problem you see with Reynaud (we have title, year, and publisher for this book; what else do you want) or Gauss ("Werke" is just German for "works", I.e. Gauss's collected works). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Courcier, then, is presumably a publisher? Location? And page number?

Generalizations is still there (you indicated earlier it was removed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what I removed in this edit was "Generalizations to other mathematical structures". The other "Generalizations" section is still there, so your request to review it for citations is still valid. As for Reynaud, I found more detail about that reference in Shallit 1994; I haven't found the original text of that edition of Reynaud to check against, so I included an "As cited by Shallit" note at the end of the Reynaud reference. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay; I lost internet contact for a few days over Christmas and this dropped off my watchlist. I've checked the caption punctuation and the different kinds of dashes. (We don't have any ems, but there are hyphens, en-dashes, and minus signs, all of which appear to be correctly distinguished from each other.) —David Eppstein (talk) 02:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Captions and dashes are in good shape. Reference formatting looks good except there is a bare reference to http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PortersConstant.html. The Generalizations section seems to be lacking citations still, though. Maralia (talk) 04:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the bare url. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Concerns raised in the review section mostly dealt with prose, sourcing, and formatting/consistency. Please remember to keep commentary focused on the Featured article criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My outstanding concerns from the FAR section are:

  • "Visualization" section, please review colors for WP:ACCESS#Color.
  • Please review the "Generalizations" section for citations.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re color accessibility: all images are still clear and understandable when my monitor is switched to grayscale. However, the caption for the illustration in the "Algorithmic efficiency" section no longer makes sense in this view. The same is also true for the "worked example" animation with the squares of different colors Any suggestions for making these captions more accessible? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Graham87 is the accessibility guru; perhaps he has advice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:14, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm totally blind, so I can't help you guys here. Graham87 08:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking, Graham! David, does WP:ACCESS give you any guidance? There's a lot going on in this article with color, so I'm concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the two problematic captions, in one case to avoid color terms altogether and in the other to augment them with light/dark descriptions that I think should work regardless of color. As far as I can see the only other significant use of color is in the first illustration in the article, but in that case it is not mentioned in the caption, and is only used to distinguish different stages of the algorithm, so readers only need to be able to distinguish the different colors from each other, not to tell which one has which name. As I said earlier, I checked this in a monochrome view and it was still distinguishable, so I think it should be ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re references: I just added 11 more, mostly to the Generalizations section. The "Euclidean domains" and "Noncommutative rings" subsections still need work in this regard, but I think the rest of the section is better now. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, those last two sections are now better sourced as well. Are there any remaining issues to address? —David Eppstein (talk) 03:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the work! I will look it over in the next few days; pinging DrKiernan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Anyone still here? Should this be moved back to the main FAR page or closed? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, David Eppstein; the ball has been in my court for two weeks, but I got extremely busy IRL all of a sudden. I should be able to review the article this weekend (unless someone else gets there first). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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

The article was delisted by DrKiernan via FACBot (talk) 10:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [15].[reply]

2012 tour of She Has a Name

[edit]
Notified: Cirt, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Theatre; article creator and nominator Neelix has retired
There has been no talk page discussion per se, but I believe the AFD stands in lieu of that step of a conventional FAR nomination.

Review section

[edit]

This ... is likely to be contentious, I fear. As regards the FA criteria, I have concerns based on 1b, 1c, 4. And more broadly, WP:CFORK. First, some background. This article was created as a result of the first FA candidacy for the parent article She Has a Name. There, amid suggestions that the article was overlong in some aspects, Cirt suggested, and the article's primary editor, Neelix implemented, a split of some material into two daughter articles: the one currently under discussion here, and Critical response to She Has a Name. All of these articles have had a long history with the curated content processes, and several trips apiece to FAC, but only the 2012 tour article has the bronze star. Both daughter articles were recently subject to AFD discussions, largely on undue weight grounds; the AFD for this article was closed no consensus by Drmies, who essentially suggested that FAR was the proper first venue. His closure of the Critical response AFD redirected it to the parent article. Both AFDs were complicated by participation by unclean hands accounts evidently involved in harassing Neelix, coordinated offsite; perhaps as a consequence of those actions, Neelix has retired from the project. I consider that detestable, and I hope he is able to return to editing at some point ... but I nevertheless do have concerns about this articles fitness with respect to the FA criteria.

  • 1b: Part of the "comprehensiveness" criterion is that the article "places the subject in context". But that's not true here. Simply put, there was nothing special about the 2012 performances of this play. The overwhelming bulk of the references for this article are the same as the references for the parent article. And the two, by and large, say about the same things. That's because there's not a separate topic to be had here. That's the principle (at least in part) behind WP:NOTINHERITED. This is part of the undue weight issue at hand: by taking the 2012 performances out of context, it provides the impression that this tour is somehow distinctly notable, rather than just a natural aspect of the play itself. I do think it's possible for a theatrical tour, or even an individual performance, to be notable—but those should clearly be the exception rather than the rule, and this just isn't it. While I'm aware of the inherent weakness of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST, sometimes it's important to analyze the reason for that non-existence. Context is a big part of it.
  • 1c: Criterion 1d is the sourcing criterion. Now, obviously, this article is exhaustively sourced. But the FA criteria demand "high-quality" sources (emphasis mine). I objected on these grounds in the parent article's second AFD, and those objections are still true here. Why are free community paper London Community News or family-published Christian paper Country Sunrise News high-quality sources? Or the Mennonite Brethren Herald (which doesn't even seem to have an About Us or editorial policy page available) which added an About Us page since 2013? One of the few references that directly discusses differences between the 2012 tour performances and the 2011 showings of the play is the Maranatha News; I'm not certain that constitutes a reliable source, much less a high-quality one.
  • 4: The length criterion requires that coverage not be overly deep nor overly shallow. This is simply too much detail, and the net effect is to make the play in general—and the 2012 tour in particular—appear more important and more renowned that the sources warrant.

Ultimately, this is an acceptably well-written and exhaustively researched content fork, but that doesn't mean its not a content fork. We don't (and probably shouldn't) have unique articles for every production of Cats, nor for every time a film is re-released to the theaters, nor do we source theatrical articles to every small-town micropress to comment on them. Or at least, if we do, we shouldn't expect the result to be awarded the bronze star. I continue to believe that the correct course of action is to rebuild the parent article with a selective subset of the sources, giving the 2012 performances no more—and no less—weight than they deserve. But what I don't believe is that there is any way that this article can be altered to meet the FA standards. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • We certainly hold different opinions about this article with regard to the FA criteria. However, I am not "quite upset"; please don't make insinuations about my motivations here. If nothing else, the number of editors with substantial contribution records who advocated deletion at the AFD would warrant a status review here, even absent the AFD closer's suggestion that doing so might be prudent. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review FAR instructions: Keep and delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying and hopefully resolving issues. Keep or delist are declared in the FARC phase, should the article progress to that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to She Has a Name. In all fairness to the article creator, this is a WP:CONTENTFORK I believe, as are the other side articles about this play. All of the side articles are overly detailed, overly prolix, and probably repetitive of each other. It seems the article creator does not yet know how to be concise, how to summarize, how to recognize relevant detail versus unnecessary detail, and how to avoid redundancy and repetition. I think the article creator is an excellent writer and researcher, and simply needs guidance and mentorship in those areas I mentioned. (That is, if they return to Wikipedia; I have heard that the editor has been hounded off of WP by a group of trolling types.) Softlavender (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notwithstanding the fact that the AFD closer suggested bringing it here, this honestly feels like an WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based fishing expedition. Seems some people didn't get the result they wanted at AFD, so now we're switching forums. That said, onto the concerns. I don't buy CFORK if a WP:SPLIT was suggested due to length reasons. Comprehensiveness: The opinion that "there was nothing special about the 2012 performances of this play." is irrelevant to the featured article process. The remainder of the 1b argument is a rehash of the failed AFD. The 1c argument is effectively only casting aspersions against various publications. The argument regarding point 4 of the FA criteria is again an irrelevant argument about the subjective "importance" of the article subject. I might agree that this is a very well written article about a very trivial thing, but the argument presented here largely fails to present actionable deficiencies. Resolute 00:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because a split on length was proposed, does not mean it was warranted, and I believe that unnecessary forking is absolutely an actionable deficiency as FAC/FAR understands it (if the delegates feel otherwise, I'd be happy to stand corrected on that point). WP:SPLIT is not intended to be the Banach–Tarski paradox for articles, capable of making two where one would suffice. As for the sourcing, given their own self-descriptions, if you're going to convince me that Country Sunrise News and Maranatha News especially are reliable sources, it will take more than suggesting that I'm forum shopping and "casting aspersions". Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can't get a consensus that this article should not exist, then I am not willing to pull the featured status on the basis of disagreeing with the article's existence. The only question with any validity here is the media cites, and I don't see them as self-evident fails. Certainly not if they went through the FAC process, of which regular reviewers are often highly focused on those same sources. Resolute 02:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Drmies and Squeamish Ossifrage that FAR was and is in order for this article. The fact is, the AfD was in obvious bad faith, and the proper proposal would have been a Merge proposal, not an AfD. Reso, if you say "I might agree that this is a very well written article about a very trivial thing," "but the argument presented here largely fails to present actionable deficiencies", the deficiencies are that it is a (vastly in my opinion) overly detailed and unnecessary content fork. The actionability is to Merge or to open a Merge proposal. That's how I see it. Softlavender (talk) 10:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, if you cannot get a consensus that this article should not exist, then I am not willing to pull the featured status on the basis that it should not exist. Merge requests do not require FAR. Resolute 16:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that whoever requested the FAR should probably eventually propose a Merge Request. However, I don't personally believe this FAR was submitted in bad faith. Nearly everyone here so far agrees that this is an (overly) large article about a very trivial thing; which in itself should cause some head-scratching, drastic gutting of extraneous bloat, and eventually questioning of the FA status as to whether it actually warrants FA or not. I think the FAR was and is a possibly necessary step before a Merge Request, given that the FA status can have too much of a halo effect in those discussions (just like it did for me personally in the AfD). Softlavender (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article, as currently written, contains a lot of problematic wording. I'll just document what I found in the first two paragraphs of the lede:
  1. "Despite the fact that She Has a Name is set in Southeast Asia, the producers deliberately cast mostly actors who were not of Asian descent to avoid the impression that human trafficking happens only in Asia." -- this wording implies through the passive voice that the producer's choice is somehow noble when the action is prima facie racist. At the very least, it should be acknowledged that race in the theater is something that has been seriously interrogated (e.g. [16]). If there is no independent notice of the racism of this tour, then such discussion deserves removal.
  2. "Panel discussions were held after the Saturday matinées during the tour to raise awareness about human trafficking that takes place in Canada and elsewhere." -- This is not an encyclopedic phrasing for the lede of an article. The assumption here is that "raising awareness" took place as a sui generis attribute of a panel discussion. This evaluative claim is probably what the tour producers wanted, but it is hardly a dispassionate coverage of the fact.
  3. "while She Has a Name toured across Canada to raise awareness about human trafficking, ABW raised money to help women and children who had been trafficked in Thailand as part of the country's prostitution industry." Compound coatracked claims here. The proper way to write about this tour is that it was intended to raise awareness. There is an implication that this actually occurred while there is no evidence of this. The claim as well is that the money raised "helped women and children". Again an arguable claim. If the money went directly into their pockets, that may have helped them, but it didn't according to the article. It is essentially a political claim that the charitable money raised "helped women and children". It's also not clear that the money actually helped any "trafficked women and children" since there isn't any sources in the article that I can see which document how the money was spent precisely. Finally, there is a compound claim that the Thailand's regulated "prostitution industry" has, as a part of it, "human trafficking". This is like saying that Pakistan's regulated poppy cultivation industry has a part of "drug trafficking". A case can be made, but it is not neutral to simply posit that this is necessarily the case when there are legal strictures in place in Thailand that specifically prohibit human trafficking as part of the regulated prostitution in the country.
So it seems there is a lot to do to clean up this article to bring it into line with what an encyclopedic article should look like. As it stands, this is not a very good reflection of the quality control features of Wikipedia.
jps (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to She Has a Name. I agree with the comments from DGG (and others similar) at the separate but related AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Critical response to She Has a Name, and believe those comments apply equally here. There is too much duplication of content, and the separation of articles almost appears more for the purpose of generating a featured topic than for any useful reason. The article passed FAC with minimal support, with one reviewer (Nick-D) expressing reservations.

A (successful) merge request on the article would likely result in a delisting of this Featured Article, which is the course of action I support here and the reason a merge request for a Featured article happens at FAR. See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Meteorological history of Tropical Storm Allison/archive1 for a similar merge FAR resulting in the demotion of an unnecessary content fork, which I believe to be the same case here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of other possible FA content forks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • At the risk of being a bit off-topic, mostly, no. I scanned the FA list, looking for either sets of multiple articles on the same general subject or single articles on extremely specific subtopics. In no particular order:
  • Saffron is part of a set of 3 FAs, and while I can quibble a bit about where the divisions were made (and some cleanup wouldn't hurt), there really is a lot of material on one of the world's most famous and valuable spices.
  • Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is a GA, but individual articles for each player on that team are FAs (such as Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948). There's fairly little textual overlap, and since this was evidently one of the most significant bit of cricket-playing in the world, perhaps the detail is understandable.
  • Leningrad première of Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 is an example of when an article on a specific performance is warranted, and stands starkly in contrast to the one under discussion here.
  • Ricketts Glen State Park / Waterfalls in Ricketts Glen State Park. A full merger would be impossible for space concerns. The subtopic leans a bit heavier on the 2004 Brown source than I'd really prefer, but strangely enough, this actually seems like an ultra-narrow topic that exists with cause.
  • Rongorongo / Decipherment of rongorongo. A full merger would unquestionably have space concerns. I have objections about the subtopic article's organization and lack of a cohesive synthesis by third parties. I suspect this does not meet the modern FA standard (but it's also an unreviewed 2008 promotion, so that's not entirely surprising).
So, in general, no, I don't think this is indicative of a wider problem. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about video games and movies?
E.g.) Final Fantasy · Final Fantasy Tactics · Final Fantasy VI · Final Fantasy VIII · Final Fantasy IX · Final Fantasy X · Final Fantasy X-2 · Final Fantasy XI · Final Fantasy XII · Final Fantasy XIII · Final Fantasy XIII-2
Or Star Trek: First Contact · Star Trek: The Motion Picture · Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan · Star Trek III: The Search for Spock · Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home · Star Trek V: The Final Frontier · Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country
jps (talk) 21:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy to engage in this analysis in greater depth, although that discussion should probably happen somewhere else. That said, I think that the individual entries in a series of video games or films are clearly separate topics, and so not at all what's going on with article in this FAR, nor the idea of excessive subtopic splitting in general. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Ernie Toshack and other cricketers in 1948 articles, at least they seem to be backed up by research from scholarly books, rather than to local newspapers.—indopug (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unware of others like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC for further commentary; nine days in, concerns persist. @FAR coordinators: , Nikkimaria supported the FAC, so is a likely recusal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Concerns over prose, sourcing and unnecessary level of detail. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by DrKiernan via FACBot (talk) 10:17, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [17].[reply]

Celine Dion

[edit]
Notified: Journalist, WP Canada, WP Pop music, WP BIO
WP:URFA nom

Review section

[edit]

Talk page noticed of deficiencies, mainly citation, a month ago: no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Main concern is verifiability. DrKiernan (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, almost three weeks in, and there is still uncited text. The (large) effort that would be needed to bring this article back to standard has not happened. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I concur with Sandy that this will take considerable work to be up to par. In addition to uncited content, there are malformatted references, dead links, and subpar sources like Daily Mail and Perez Hilton. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist: I was surprised to find that, despite the comments here, there was not a single citation needed tag on the article. I have added seven cn tags and a few better source tags. There are 39 marked dead links at this time. This is clearly deficient, and no one has taken on the necessary work to improve it, so it's time to delist. Maralia (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/February_2015&oldid=647951204"