Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2021

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 8:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC) [1].

Weymouth, Dorset

[edit]
Notified: Rossenglish, WikiProject Dorset, WikiProject UK geography, WikiProject Cities, Talk page notification 2020-10-23

An article promoted in 2006, that has never been reviewed. Issues:

  • uncited text (mainly in History);
  • dated figures;
  • lack of coverage regarding several social issues such as deprivation or teenage pregnancies (You just need to skim through a news article to get an idea of the sort of data that is missing);
  • prose is not of FA standard, for instance Parts of Sandsfoot have fallen into the sea due to coastal erosion. During the English Civil War, around 250 people were killed in the local Crabchurch Conspiracy in February 1645. - in one sentence we're talking about coastal erosion, in the next about the English Civil War;
  • please check the two notes on the talk page, there are more examples listed there. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RetiredDuke several editors (including an IP) have been working on this; update needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's coming along nicely. There are still some inline citations missing (particularly in the notable people and the governace sections). I spotted close paraphrasing of Thewordtravels, I'll leave a note at the talk page. I's a work in progress. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on this but have limited time and from next week, when I return to work, will have even less. I am dedicated to saving the article however and hope I will be granted an extension to do so.--Ykraps (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ykraps There is no rush or deadline at FAR, from what I've seen the FAR coordinators are very flexible with time when there's someone actively improving the article (just check Wii below, for instance, or Earth, that was kept after 2 months). Please ask for feedback here when you feel the article has progressed enough (when everything is cited and up to date), so we can weigh on the smaller stuff. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:01, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RetiredDuke and Ykraps: update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I am looking for up-to-date sources for the Education section. The Sports and recreation, and the Notable people sections need a copy edit. Apart from that, I think I have attended to User:RetiredDuke's concerns (although I am happy to hear anymore of his thoughts) - I have added a couple of sentences noting deprivation in the Economy section. Which together with notes on the decline of trade and loss of cross-channel ferry services in the history sections, seems reasonable coverage to me. Particularly as the worst deprived areas are in Portland and not Weymouth. I have added missing citations, fixed close paraphrasing and the circular reference, and added updated figures where available.
As there hasn't been any comment from others, I have also been working on things that I think need fixing, such as bringing the history section up to date and adding a Culture section. --Ykraps (talk) 09:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coming along. Some citations still missing in "Notable People" and some minor updating needed. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of improvement happening, but it is still easy to see lots of problems. As an example, look at the dates of the sources used in the "Economy" section; the "Governance and politics" section; housing prices, crime and unemployment in "Demography"; and "Transport". Yikes; considerable work remains here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A week later, no progress in the sections mentioned above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Can we take this one step at a time and be a little more specific? I've been looking at the demography section and taking into account that the last UK census was 2011, it looks pretty much up to date. Local authorities and the ONS produce mid-year estimates but not for everything. Note how in this example, some of the 2018 mid-year estimates are sourced to the 2011 census.[[2]] If we can agree on the demography section first, we can move onto another section. Thanks for taking an interest in the article, by the way.--Ykraps (talk) 08:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer that I tag statements that need attention? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Sorry, completely missed your last post. Are these issues resolved now? I am about to start on the lead.--Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can look in tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:20, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, @RetiredDuke: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Starting my review ... please pardon the typing issues, as my computer is in repair and I am typing from a bluetooth iPad teensy keyboard.

I am considering replacing the reference but I need to know what it is referencing first. The one without the publisher doesn't help me much. I have already trawled through all the references but presumably, I missed it and thought you could save me a bit of time.--Ykraps (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adventure under sail is the name of the charity that owns her and is an acceptable source for the information given in the article. However, the vessel is registered at London and doesn't appear to be as Weymouth-based as it once was so I have removed entirely.--Ykraps (talk) 19:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nomis (in citations) is apparently “Office for National Statistics” ?? At Durham University ? Please complete the citations enough that non-UK people can understand what they are ... review throughout.
    Nomis is a database of labour market statistics run by the University of Durham. It is the official web-site for census information which is collected by the ONS but it is not the ONS.--Ykraps (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Nomis is a database. It is provided by the Office of National Statistics and hosted at Durham University. The citation is giving us no indication. Similarly, we have to guess that RYA is Royal Yachting Association. It would be helpful if you would comb through the citations and make sure others can understand who the publishers are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be helpful if you pointed to the guideline or MOS that is relevant here so I can better understand your objection and work toward a solution. The publisher of these statistics is Nomis, not the ONS so I'm not sure what you're asking me to do. Explaining the workings of UK government is really beyond the template's capabilities.--Ykraps (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This page and this one explain that it is a database hosted at the University of Durham, but for the Office for National Statistics. The database is a work, the publisher is ONS or Durham? Presumably ONS, as they are the ones providing the data that Durham hosts in a database? What I am asking you to do is not make readers guess what sources are. That is, I don’t list NINDS in a citation, and expect people throughout the world to guess what that acronym stands for ... I list National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke. US National Institutes of Health. Help the reader know what kind of source you are using (that is, help the FA reviewer, too :) Who knows what RYA means? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I thought you were asking me to explain the roles of each publisher.--Ykraps (talk) 18:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Jurassic Coast Trust is the independent charity responsible for managing the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site. Clicking on the link from the UNESCO site takes you to Jurassic Coast.com. [[3]] I really don't think that describing something as wide is puffery but I have removed nevertheless.--Ykraps (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes this a reliable source? https://web.archive.org/web/20071208042329/http://www.johnrnew.demon.co.uk/quaybrch.htm
    • Also, I could not verify Transport police, and the sentence is convoluted ... An unusual feature of the railways in Weymouth was that until 1987 main-line trains ran through the streets and along the Weymouth Harbour Tramway to the Quay station at the eastern end of the harbour, to connect with ferries to mainland Europe and had to be escorted by the British Transport Police. Due to declining business, goods traffic ceased in 1972, but passenger services continued until 1987.[109]
    I've rewritten and added a new source.--Ykraps (talk) 09:18, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could not verify the 1,000 (I suspect a subpage of the source is the intended citation): Weymouth's Sealife centre, a zoo and adventure park on the outskirts of the town, has over 1,000 examples of aquatic and semi-aquatic life, including sharks, turtles, otters, frogs and penguins.[103]
    Underneath the photograph of the penguins, it reads, "Explore an amazing underwater world and take a fascinating journey to the ocean depths at Weymouth SEA LIFE Adventure Park! Get up close to over 1,000 creatures in 15 different zones, including our playful otters, mesmerising sharks, and rescued sea turtles". I think WTC have messed about with their website since so I have added a second reference for the creatures.--Ykraps (talk) 10:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here, there are two citations at the end of the next sentence; could you put the citation that verifies the 17% on that sentence? Tourism is important to the local economy, employing 17% of the local workforce.[citation needed]
    I have removed one of the references as the other was sufficient for both sentences.--Ykraps (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was unable to verify this statement: The international kite festival, held in May each year on Weymouth Beach, has attracted around 40,000 spectators to the esplanade from around the world.[130]
    I've added a reference for this. Do you think they are the same 40,000 kite groupies that attend these festivals all around the world? [[4]][[5]][[6]][[7]] :) --Ykraps (talk) 08:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was a completely random look at samples of the sources and citations indicating they are not yet ready for a full review.

  • MOS:SEASONS Weymouth Beach attracts thousands of visitors in summer.
    Summer, in this instance, is referring to the warmest part of the year. As the warmest part of the year is the summer the world over, I don't see the relevance of MOS:Seasons. If you prefer, I could change it to "warmest part of the year".--Ykraps (talk) 08:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See User:Tony1 writing exercises on overuse of the (almost always redundant) word ‘’also’’.
    Almost always, perhaps but certainly not always. Do you have a particular occurrence in mind?--Ykraps (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acronyms should be spelled out on first occurrence, eg Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB).
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:CURRENT ... The town has undergone considerable regeneration in the last two decades, much of it in anticipation of 2012 Summer Olympics. Work began in 2007 on improvements to the esplanade: a public square was constructed around the restored statue of King George III, the Art Deco pier bandstand was restored and extended, a Tourist information centre and café was built, along with Victorian-style shelters and seasonal kiosks, a beach rescue centre, and a sand art pavilion for the sculptures of Mark Anderson.[80]
    • THe “last two decades” will become dated— the entire thing can be recast to avoid mentioning the last two decades, using specific dates instead.
    The specific dates follow. I have simply removed the sentence to avoid confusion.--Ykraps (talk) 09:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this is enough for a start; we are still quite far off of WP:WIAFA standards, but the larger problems are no longer datedness, rather sourcing, citations, verification, and source-to-text integrity. I have not (yet) read the entire article nor undertaken a complete review— this is only some random bouncing around to check things, and this indicates a good deal of work is needed to bring this to standard before others can review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that most of my concerns have been addressed, but if other reviewers do not weigh in, we may need to Move to FARC just to get more feedback. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:08, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Two more comments:

Just a quick note that I have received the ping, but did not engage sooner because I did not want to step on anyone's (mainly Sandy's) toes. I am now copyediting the article and will post here shortly. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I will stop now, because I can't work with so many edit conflicts. Just my luck, when I finally put my hands on it. Will resume in a few hours. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ykraps: Minor comments:

I have previously engaged in the article's talk page and Ykraps has incorporated all the suggestions and sources I presented there. I performed a brief copyedit and found no major issues. The article looks OK to me now. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is a maintenance tag in the lead. And I am so sorry if I already asked this, but what makes https://neglectedauthors.wordpress.com/ a reliable source? (It is hard to keep up when editing from an iPad as my computer is in repair.). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it “testing of the Bouncing bomb” as opposed to the bouncing bomb? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing comments

And see WP:RSP, the Daily Express is a tabloid ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the discussions at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, there doesn't seem to be consensus that it is "generally unreliable". Nor is the 1885 date questionable, coinciding as it does with the Redistribution of Seats Act (1885). However, as it isn't adding much, I've removed.--Ykraps (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And is movie-locations high-quality RS? I'm not familiar with most British sources, so I can't guarantee there aren't others I missed. Also a little distracted when I looked through this, as I'm still a bit frazzled from accidentally catching the lawn on fire earlier today. Hog Farm Talk 04:05, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, as it's not controversial, whether it requires a high-quality source is arguable but I have changed nevertheless. Caught your lawn on fire!!! mine's still underwater! :)--Ykraps (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RetiredDuke:, @SandyGeorgia:, @Femkemilene:, @Hog Farm:, Are you satisfied now that this article meets FAR criteria?--Ykraps (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are still a few bits that may need updating / explicit mention of time.
  • The 2018 float is described as 'still worth 4 million', even though Brexit export declines may be upended that. Should be dated in text.
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph of culture is completely sourced to pre-2010 sources.
Updated.--Ykraps (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the school closed on 1 May 2019 -> specific date surely not relevant? Month+year / only year
I think the specific dates are required in order to give an indication of how long the school was shut for. May 2019 to June 2019 could be less than 24 hrs.--Ykraps (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Level 4+ qualifications aren't mentioned on the linked article. Could you explain? Is that space between 4 and + okay?
I've added a footnote.--Ykraps (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • windsurfing / kitesurfing don't have hyphen
Removed.--Ykraps (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well there was the 2012 Olympics of course but that has been over-mentioned. Most recent ones have been cancelled due to the pandemic but I'll see what I can dig up. The 2015 ISAF Sailing World Cup was held there; I'll try to find a reference for it.--Ykraps (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wanting to stick with international events, I've added 3, post 2015.--Ykraps (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2021 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC) [11].

Caroline Island

[edit]
Notified: Sethant, WikiProject Micronesia, WikiProject Polynesia, WikiProject Islands, Nov 2020

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of Sandy's comments on the talk page. Verifiability and need for updating were among the issues cited. (t · c) buidhe 03:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition to those, I'm unconvinced of the reliability of altapedia and oceandots, two of the sources used in the article. Oceandots in particular is used a number of times. Hog Farm Talk 03:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
References amended in accordance with your comment. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, just a short pause, there's still work for me to do here, and I'll be carrying on for a few more days. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've largely finished adding to the article, but it definitely needs to be looked over by someone else. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that Nikkimaria should recuse as FAR coord and look in here, as she is our best Geography editor.

  • The article uses mdy, but the citations were using dmy; I converted via script.
  • Why is the article organization different than typical, where History is first? Flora and fuana are usually later; perhaps there is a reason for a different organization here?
  • Should a statement like this be sourced to 2010? In comparison with other atolls, Caroline Island has been relatively undisturbed.[3]
  • Prose issues, don’t know what this means: The crew of the Dolphin were able to be supplied by fish obtained from the island using boarding pikes and boat hooks. The central pacific ocean is Kribati? is the easternmost of the uninhabited coral atolls which comprise the southern Line Islands in the central Pacific Ocean of Kiribati.
    • This is one sentence:
      • First sighted by Europeans in 1606, claimed by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in 1868, and part of the Republic of Kiribati since the island nation's independence in 1979, Caroline Island has remained relatively untouched and is one of the world's most pristine tropical islands, despite guano mining, copra harvesting, and human habitation in the 19th and 20th centuries.
  • The volcanic stuff could be looked at by Jo-Jo Eumerus
  • Wikilinking: sample, igneous rocks.
  • Dead links and citation needed tags still.

The prose is so rough and the organization is so odd that I don’t think this one can make it without serious intervention; unsure if Nikkimaria would be willing to take it on. Other reviewers might look in now; there are more problems than I have listed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a bit about the geology of the Line Islands. I've looked a bit at Google Scholar but many of the sources are actually discussing the Caroline Islands. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:57, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've put as much as I could find about the island into the article, it seems little has been specifically written about it for over a decade. My apologies if I've created a lot of work for someone else by leaving it so roughly written. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies needed; looks like this one was a tough gig, and your attempt is appreciated. I don’t know if anyone else wants to pitch in, though; Nikkimaria is the one who knows how to deal best with geography articles, but this is a blend of geology and geography more than straight geography. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:29, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, let me know if you think I can be of further help here. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:48, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had made a start on this, but have had all my edits reverted - waiting to see if an explanation is forthcoming. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems resolved; thanks for taking this on, Nikkimaria, and sorry for the rough start! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A big issue is that it appears that the name of the island was officially changed to Milennium Island, so we need to move the article. Did I miss something ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking in:

  • The page ranges are messed up. I don’t know what this means or what to do with it: Schlanger et al., pp. 11,261–11,262. What is 261 to 11
  • Why are tide predictions worthy of an external link?
  • Access dates are missing on multiple citations (I can do this kind of grunt work if Amitchell125 is not willing to ... sample, "Millennium Island, Kiribati". NASA. 2009. there are more
  • Milennium Island, NASA, is listed twice as a source.
  • Wikilinking is a mess in both directions (overlinking and underlinking and just general oddness requiring a review, eg Ministry of Line and Phoenix Groups, ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There’s just a lot of work needed here still, my edits [13] don’t scratch the surface, Amitchell125 and Nikkimaria did their part, Buidhe do you want to bring this one over the hump? It’s your nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ??? John T. Arundel and Co. took over the lease and the industry in 1881; supplied a total of about 10,000 tons of phosphate until 1895, when supplies became exhausted.

Someone needs to go through again and generally clean up. Or we decide to let it go and delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 15 March 2021 (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) 2:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC) [14].

The Million Dollar Homepage

[edit]
Notified: User talk:X-Editor, User talk:Pigsonthewing, WP:INET [15], WP:WEBSITES [16], June 2018 talk page

Review section

[edit]

FAR discussion was initiated by Jytdog back in 2018 but never finished due to that user being indefinitely blocked.

Their concerns of "absurdly promotional and detailed page" and " excessive quoting from the founders, the laundry list of media mentions - all this kind of stuff is classic PR, not even aiming for the mission of providing people with knowledge" do not seem to have been addressed.

There has been plenty of time to make improvements to the article. However, the talk page has been a ghost town since 2012, with Jytdog's post being the only one since then that wasn't a bot notification.

Page traffic is extremely low as well; only about 400 visits a day, and only eleven (mostly minor or bot) edits in the past 365 days. (In fact, two of the top three page editors are bots!) It's clear that this is just a 2009-vintage FAR that's just been gathering dust since.

I feel that I am not out of line by skipping step 1, as another editor did so in 2018 but never finished the job, and it is abundantly clear that their Step 1 attracted no attention.

  1. Lead: No major points of interest since 2009 are mentioned.
  2. Media attention: Lots of one-sentence paragraphs; no update on Tew since 2016?
  3. Survival: All one-sentence paragraphs; is there nothing newer on this?
  4. Pixel sales: Constant references to horribly outdated measures of site traffic such as the long defunct Digg.
  5. Sources:
    1. Almost all of the sources are from 2005 and 2009, suggesting a lack of breadth.
    2. Reference 48 is incomplete.
    3. Lots of self-reference to the website itself.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ten Pound Hammer: I would agree that currently, the article does not meet FA criteria as the article is very promotional sounding, with a huge section on media coverage alone. In fact, the article was very promotional sounding back when it was initially promoted to FA status, calling into question why it was promoted in the first place. A significant rewrite of the article to remove the promotional stuff and some updating of the article would be needed to bring this to FA status. X-Editor (talk) 05:52, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jytdog had a particular bug-a-boo about what he viewed as conflict of interest, but it is fallacy to think we can't have FAs about business ventures-- even successful ones. It is also fallacy to think we can't have FAs about historical ventures; if there is new information that needs to be incorporated, please bring forward the sources.
  • Page views on Wikipedia have nothing to do with WP:WIAFA.
  • If an article meets notability, it is acceptable to quote within policy from their website; please identify anything inappropriate.
  • I have removed the laundry list of media mentions, and reorganized the sections to include Reception and Legacy.
  • There are no more one-sentence paras, after that reorganization.
  • Measure of website traffic then are still relevant to information about that time period.

Please be specific about any puffery or other issues that still attention (I have only made a first pass), as these complaints (so far) are fixable and ... too vague. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The two "see also" items should probably be worked in to the article somewhere:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC) The "Copycat websites emerged." sentence seems a bit out of place where it currently is in the lede. Maybe move it somewhere else more appropriate? X-Editor (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is in the wrong paragraph. Unless someone else gets to it first, I will get it when next not on iPad; unhappy to have killed my laptop by spilling coffee on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Which paragraph do you want it in? Nvm, I moved it myself. Do you approve of where I moved it? X-Editor (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, my computer is out for repair for at least a week, thx! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Thanks! Once you get your computer back, I would suggest fixing the references and archiving the dead urls in the refs. Also, how do you link to an author in a reference? X-Editor (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to archive dead URLs ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Use the wayback machine. X-Editor (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Old dog, new tricks, and not something I intend to do while my computer is away for repair. @X-Editor and TenPoundHammer:, I have done all I can do, and checked Google scholar, where I found sources that all led back to Gounds, Wall Street Journal, and reported nothing new. What’s next here? Close without FAR, or move to FARC, or are theres still issues? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there truly is nothing new to report in the intervening years, then that does have me questioning the completeness of the article, and whether this is still sufficient for FA status if there truly is nothing else to say about it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TenPoundHammer if there is nothing we haven’t covered, then the article meets WP:WIAFA 1b, comprehensive, so I am not following your logic. 20:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what I was trying to say there. If it's as complete as we can get, then I think it should be satisfactory to keep. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer and X-editor where are we? Is this a close without farc, or move to farc for further review and ebaluation? A declaration at the two-week mark is useful ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer and X-Editor:, faulty ping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I'm not to familiar with reviewing featured articles, so I'll let Ten Pound Hammer decide. X-Editor (talk) 17:07, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer:@SandyGeorgia: Have you checked to see how many of the sources are dead links? Most of the sources are pretty old. X-Editor (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The external links checker tool does not turn up any dead sources, and I am not versed in archiving links (now do I intend to learn to do that :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]

Concerns raised include breadth of sourcing and outdatedness Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 4 March 2021 (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) 1:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC) [17].

Wii

[edit]
Notified: jhsounds, WP Video games, talk page 2020-10-25

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2007 promotion that was last reviewed in 2012, with no major contributors still editing it. It has taken on some cruft since its review eight years ago, and should not be difficult to restore if someone will undertake improvements.

  • WP:NOTPRICE needs review.
  • There are citation needed tags.
  • A MOS review is needed. Samples only: WP:WAW ... The USPTO said they would accept Nintendo's trademark filing if the company disclaimed exclusive rights to the word "remote" in the term and if the word “remote” ... with curly quotes as well. Spaced WP:EMDASHes.
  • In the "Launch titles" section, MOS:DONTHIDE and a footnote
  • Incomplete citations everywhere.

This should not be a difficult restore if someone will undertake the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:09, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm doing a quick scan related to the prices but I'm not seeing an issue. As a home consumer electronic and particularly with video game consoles, listing the base cost in major release regions is a common practice; the price is noted by most sources and used to compare to other consoles (at the time of its release), so the brief list in the infobox seems appropriate within the context of NOTPRICE. But perhaps I'm missing something elsewhere. Same with noting the typical game price. --Masem (t) 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These citations are going to need a thorough going-over. I'm not familiar with video game sources, but there's a lot of malformed ones, and references such as "RawmeatCowboy (April 13, 2008). "Korea – Wii launch date confirmed, and more info". Go Nintendo. Retrieved January 17, 2015." look iffy. There's several others I suspect to be blogs. There's a handful of missing citations. I'm seeing sourcing as the primary issue here. Hog Farm Bacon 16:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep. Big citation cleanup needed, obscuring the WP:NOTPRICE problem. I see at least one press release citing a price. Wikipedia policy (emphasis added) calls for

      An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention. Prices and product availability can vary widely from place to place and over time. Wikipedia is not a price comparison service to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices and availability of a single product from different vendors or retailers.

      but with incomplete citations, it is difficult on a quick glance to determine if prices comply. And, while it is possible that mainstream sources do exist for some of these prices, it is not apparent that they have been used, as most use of prices seems to be either product reviews or press releases, rather than mainstream independent media sources. The use of the template:cite press release would be a good thing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm working on a major rework that's addressing sourcing problems (lots of sources that today, we'd not accept at VG/S nor as RS) as well as lacking information we know now (eg after Iwata's death, a lot of his involvement in the Wii's development was better known). There's a bit of Nintendo-fanboy-ism in this which needs to be worked out as well. It is an important console to VG history and thus needs good documentation, but there's some of this that gets a little odd in some places, which I am slowly working through. And yes, I will fix the issues on the price sources, I know I can get third-party RSes for that. --Masem (t) 17:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, when I starting through, this clearly was a FAC from a different era. It's not terribly far off, but it is going to take more than just a few fixes. I am working on it though, so don't rush to demote, please. BTW, I have fixed the prices issue (press releases nixed, and have third-parties to even address the cheaper costs relative to other consoles). --Masem (t) 18:31, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyGeorgia: Obviously I'm still working on this to drastically improve it, but I do have a FAC question to ask related. The current Sales section is currently relatively duplicative (to an extent) of the Wii sales article, but in terms of notability, the latter really shouldn't be standalone. Now, across both there is some additional "fanboyism" elements to strip and focus on the big picture - something I've had to do over at the Nintendo Switch page for comparison. I am thinking of bringing in the Wii sales page into this article as to reduce redundancy, but is there any allowance for the table on the Wii sales page to be started in a collapsed state? Or (and I haven't investigated this in detail), collapsing the middle section and leaving lifetime sales (last row) visible. I know I can show the entire table but I'm curious if there's allowance for collapsing anything. --Masem (t) 22:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SandyGeorgia: I'm still working on this but one thing I noticed in trying to fix citations is that the Citation Bot link up on the template here (the one I recall using to check for missing/broken refs and to quickly find the ones missing information) is no longer present? Is there a replacement? (This and a MOS check should be all that's left, the CN issues are fixed as well as my overall rework to remove the fanboy-ish coverage). --Masem (t) 20:36, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many missing publishers and incomplete citations, sample, "Anniversary Bundles and Wii Remote Plus Confirmed for US". Too many for me to clean up.

Masem that is all I have time for right now; I think cleaning up the citations before going in for MOS checks and copyediting is imperative. I am concerned that we might want to ask Miniapolis, who copyedited this article the last time it was at FAR, if they might run through it again, as I am finding too many prose issues. But cleaning up the sourcing and overlinking should happen first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, SandyGeorgia. Let me know when you're ready for the copyedit. Stay well and all the best, Miniapolis 23:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a prose check would help as I have had to take my hand to fix sections (putting in more reasonably appropriate material for an encyclopedia), and I know I suck at first pass writing. I'll ping VG to see if someone else can also check. I will be doing the source check with the EL tool tomorrow, there's too many to check through and verify right now in addition to completing incomplete references. But yes, it is far closer than it was. --Masem (t) 22:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also will check the dup wikilinks (now have that script, very useful I see). --Masem (t) 23:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Masem, if you don't get any bites on the copyedit, let me know and I'll make time. My FA chainsaw is rusty but I bet it still works. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 00:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Jaguar

To compliment Sandy's initial points above I am concerned that this article doesn't meet any of the FA criteria and see that the issues are not restricted to its prose. I will list some broad issues found from a cursory scan:

  • The lead doesn't comply per WP:LEAD. It is far too long at the moment and is riddled with cruft. Are the model names "RVL-101" and "RVL-201" important enough to be chucked in there? While it does make a show of summarising the article the prose is not concise enough to allow for snappy information-taking
  • The main body of the article (particularly the history section) relies too much on quotes and doesn't flow well. It all needs rewriting from an historical viewpoint
  • The majority of the article still gives an impression of it being written in 2007 - reading it feels like we're locked in those dismal years of recession! The launch section contains too many precise dates, some sentences remain in the present tense and generally the focus gives too much weight to how much the console was sold for. This benefits nobody
  • The article contains inconsistent measurements and conversions. Even the prices aren't formatted consistently ($ - US$; £ - GB£). Lose the country prefixes if they are mentioned in the context
  • The hardware section is imbalanced and the whole structure far too choppy. Even discounting the cruft there are several unsourced parts
  • The specifications should ideally be in prose format, though I know how much of a pain this is. A FAC reviewer would most likely request it
  • "Built-in content ratings systems" just contains a list of national rating boards. This isn't necessary
  • The Media support subsection is trapped in time, littered with banalities like when things were released
  • The table list of launch titles shouldn't be in the article, if anything it should be in its own or in List of Wii games or the like
  • The reception section needs nuking and rewritten from scratch
  • I believe enough time has passed to warrant a legacy section in this article. The Wii had a profound impact on gaming and yet it's not clear if this article mentions anything
  • The latter half of the article isn't structured well. After the reception section it jumps to legal issues, and it doesn't feel right that the article closes with "Homebrew and emulation". The final stretch of the article should have a Legacy section, and in it could contain its successor and a few points regarding homebrew
  • The images contribute to the cluttering and general disorientation of the article. There are two images of queues outside and inside shops at seemingly random points, poor quality images like someone holding a remote to a TV (you can't even see anything!) and two bland photos of CPUs. I know there are better pictures out there
  • The sources are also formatted inconsistently, many are missing publisher fields and there isn't even a bibliography subsection - two unused references are lumped right above the citations

I think it's a big task to salvage this in the state that it's in right now. If this article was nominated at GAN it would probably be quick-failed. I am willing to help after I've finished with PlayStation (console) but for this to reach the standards of 2020 would require a lot of work, or a multi-editor project. I'm always sad to see an FA delisted, but if it does happen a better future for this article may await. JAGUAR 00:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did get a start on addressing some of these points (mostly on a structural standpoint). I *still* need to hit the sourcing issues. I mean, I rid the Forbes contributor pieces (there's a Forbes staff article in use though), but as I started to parse incomplete sourcing, I'm not very satisfied with the general sourcing used on some sections on the article, which may also be tied to how some of the sections were written. (That said I felt I did already try to re-write the history section beforehand from a historical standpoint, knowing what I knew we had from Iwata's death (his contribution to the Wii) and then what retroactively we knew based on the Switch's design back through the Wii U to the Wii.) But the article was in a far "worse" shape beforehand, while it was FAC passed in 2013, I dunno if standards were lower then or if it was edited since but it wasn't great at all. --Masem (t) 01:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Masem where do things stand on Jaguar’s concerns? Do you still want to save this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of the issues: I *have* fixed through the monetary conversions, the hardware section (including removing the hardware specs table), reworked the Media section table, removed the launch title table, added a Legacy section (which could still use some expansion), removed some of the images that were in question, and have done a massive rework of the entire sources to get their formatting complete (via prove-it) and/or replacing poor sources with better RSes, which also has basically had me touch most every other section of the article, save for the Lede and the Reception section. (eg in other words, the point about being in 2007 should also be fixed).
        That would only leave addressing the lede, reworking the development section to remove quotes (but I will add I added those in early stages of fixing this and feel those are actually appropriate considering the confusion/nature of the Wii's name), and the Reception section. The point about the console's cost is something that is standard in how consoles are written about and compared to (eg how take into account the NOT#CATALOG aspect), since these are third-party sources discussing the prices and in comparison to other consoles. I did think I took out a few regions of release that were not the major English-speaking regions or Japan since that list could go on. --Masem (t) 14:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • (edit conflict) I would hate to pile work on Masem. Comparing this article to other console FAs like Sega Saturn or Mega Drive illustrate that the issues lie in its content, or lack of. This article doesn't just suffer from prose rot but rather it appears to never have had the quality encyclopaedic material to begin with. I will be happy to work on this as a project after I've finished with both PlayStation (console) and my university work (the latter of course takes more time!) but I think the best option would be to nuke some parts and write from a fresh perspective. I'm not an expert on Nintendo however - maybe there are others at WP:VG who could provide pointers on missing content. ♦ jaguar 14:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          Just to add, I have reworked the lede and also just did a rundown on the duplicate links. --Masem (t) 15:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No edits since 11 December: @Masem and Jaguar: where do things stand, and should I have another look yet? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a feeling based on Jaguar's comments that while I've been able to correct the issues that brings the state of the article where it was before the FAR was started to where the issues related to all the "mechanical" issues (source consistency and completenss, sourcing quality and trying to improve on various factors), and acknowledging that I know my writing style does tend to some copyediting, we're looking at a content deficiency that was present that had always been there from when the article was first promoted to FAC but which at that point in time a combination of reviewing standards and expected content for VG consoles articles (particularly with the Wii's importance) wasn't identified. Thus as Jaguar has suggested, needs more work in terms of content completion. In other words, I can't see a route that avoids indefinitely delisting this unless more eyes are put onto it soon (I'll ping the VG project again, but I've pinged for help before), but it should at least be seen that if we get editors to help bringing it back to an FA status is not a starting-from-scratch point. --Masem (t) 01:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to be pitching in to assist. I think step one, to make this manageable, must be to divide it among us. If myself, you, and Le Panini work on it, this shouldn't take too long, provided we each have a manageable section of the article to work with. Otherwise, it’s going to be chaos — us misusing our time with too much overlap when we need significant coverage. Let me have a look at the article now. I'm going to move this discussion into the Talk page (where SandyGeorgia and any other observers can join us, if they have any follow-ups. ImaginesTigers (talk) 06:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for helping, User:ImaginesTigers; should you reach that point, please remember that you have two offers to copyedit on this page (Miniapolis, Czar). I will join in when the article has advanced to the point where a review from a non-gamer will help; we aren't apparently there now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at Talk:Wii#Avoiding the abyss. There's been some good progress. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 08:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts
Not sure if you're around, Sandy, so if you don't reply within a day or so I'll leave a message on your Talk about this. The hard reality is that this article does not require a significant amount of work. I can earnestly say that History and Hardware are pretty much FA-ready. Hardware could have some tweaks, but is essentially ready. There are very few sources that I'd consider unreliable and, if so, they could be excised at a moment's notice without damaging the article structurally. The rest of the article is looking better. Legacy and Reception in particular seem strong to me. I think this article does still need a bit of a copy-edit, but after that, I'd be fairly comfortable subjecting it to the review process. The main issue now is some issues with referencing style and, honestly, I don't have it in me to go through them all and fix them. You will agree about the issues with referencing (I can even see some errors), but right now I'm in the middle of tearing Dracula apart. I have to at least finish that before I can touch the references here, because I've torn massive parts out of Dracula and I want it fixed before students start using the article for this semester of schooling. I estimate the references would take a single dedicated user about 2-3 hours to fix. Some are fine, some are not. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will look in to see if I can clean up references; that's all I can offer (not a gamer). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the references, and some minor copy-editing, I think it’s in good shape now, and ready for some interrogation. If you'd rather wait until I have the time to copy-edit it (early February?), I can do that. Otherwise, I'd say you can interrogate it any time you like. If more problems become apparent... I'll post on WP:VG again, but I'm not expecting anything. Thanks, Sandy :) — ImaginesTigers (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria what is the convention on wikilinking publishers/websites within citations these days? Am I supposed to link only the first, or all of them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Either. The rule is consistency. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: There is this source about how the Wii was born from Ars Technica that contains quite a bit of info that could be incorporated into the article. This source was also mentioned in the talk page of the Wii article not too long ago. X-Editor (talk) 01:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The prose doesn't read to me as "engaging/of a professional standard", mainly due to the list nature of the article (so many subsections and very little connective tissue). This said, not standing in the way of closing. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 06:37, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article's structure has markedly improved, but I agree with czar that the overall prose doesn't meet the FA standard. Let's see what people at FARC think. ♦ jaguar 21:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jaguar: If this article does end up getting demoted as an FA, It could still be promoted to GA afterwards. X-Editor (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section included sourcing, style and prose. DrKay (talk) 22:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jaguar the Coordinators move articles from FAR to FARC; I see DrKay has now endorsed the move, but in the future, please leave such moves to them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Gonna go with keep. I'm no expert on video game consoles and their hardware, but this article seems reasonably well-written, comprehensive, and well-sourced. I do think there are some things I'd change (I feel like the "Software" section could be rearranged a bit to eliminate the subsection headers and make it less list-like and the "Critical reviews" subsection could easily be expanded a bit more) but I don't think these are outrageous enough to take away the article's star. It seems to have improved a lot since the FAR was started. JOEBRO64 00:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also at Keep, acknowledging that my standards are lower for FAs that have already run TFA, but I don’t see any problems here significant enough to warrant stripping status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I wouldn't necessarily delist as the source problems shouldn't be too hard to solve. I'll see if I can find more reliable sources to replace the unreliable ones when I have the time, but it'll require some digging. X-Editor (Talk) 06:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back at Keep, now that Hog Farm’s sourcing concerns have been addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:55, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back at Keep now as well. The article isn't perfect, but it's good enough for FA status. X-Editor (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing comments

I need a break from accounting homework, so I'll give these sources a glance. Not sure about the following:

  • A Critical Hit! - funded through Patreon, looks like something in the bloggish-range, not sure that it's high-quality RS
  • What makes The Inspiration Room a high-quality RS?
  • WP:VGRS says Kotaku is reliable after 2010, but we've got two 2009 Kotaku citations in here. What makes that one high-quality RS?
  • Gamedaily.biz is listed as inconclusive at VGRS, so it's not gonna be high-quality RS
  • Destructoid is listed as situational by author at VGRS, and so that means Jim Sterling needs to be determined to be a RS author. Given that his other contributions to Destructiod have titles like "Videogame characters that look like David Bowie", "Top Ten Legit Pokemon", and "Julia Child's Ghost Penis", I highly doubt we're dealing with anything that would pass WP:SPS here.
  • What makes MaxConsole a high-quality RS?
  • The citation isn't formatted great, but we appear to be citing the New York Daily News. This is a bit on the marginal end for reliability; so what makes it meet the higher FA sourcing guidelines than basic reliability
    • After a further look, this source is just picking up something by an Associated Press writer, so I'd say its fine.
  • What makes gamingdaily.biz high-quality RS? Is this the same thing as the questionable gamesdaily.biz source mentioned above?
  • We've got a 2008 Kotaku in here too
  • What is Money, Inc? The bluelink goes to a wrestling tagteam, this seems to be some sort of obscure web source. Is this high-quality RS?

This shouldn't be hard to fix, but there's some definite issues here. I'm not sure this is quite ready to be kept with this number of questionable sources, but I may be wrong about them or just be a crank. Pinging commenters in the FARC section and Jaguar, the editor who moved this to FARC - @X-Editor, Jaguar, TheJoebro64, and Jaguar:. Hog Farm Talk 05:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thanks for bringing up these issues. I replaced one of the pre-2010 Kotaku sources, replaced the Money, Inc. source, and removed the link to the WWE wrestling team. There are also some refs that need proper formatting. Withdrawing my support until these issues are resolved. X-Editor (Talk) 05:54, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I also got rid of the critical hit and inspiration room sources. X-Editor (Talk) 07:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Didn't get the ping.) I'll look over this in more depth a bit later, but I will note that Jim Sterling is considered one of Destructoid's reliable authors around the video game space. Sterling's written for other publications considered RSs and was one of Destructoid's editors. JOEBRO64 19:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So if several of the iffy ones are gone and Sterling is probably okay, it's looking a good deal better. And the NY Daily News source is off of the AP wire it looks like, so that's okay. Which just leaves MaxConsole, two pre-2010 Kotaku cites, gamedaily.biz, and gamingdaily,biz. So only 5 sources that may need replaced. Hog Farm Talk 20:49, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I replaced the Gamedaily.biz source. I'll try to replace more soon. X-Editor (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: And I'm done getting rid of the unreliable sources. All that really needs to be done for me to support keeping this article's FA status is adding the names of the reporters to the references that don't have them and archiving all the sources to future-proof them. X-Editor (talk) 08:03, 28 February 2021 (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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:48, 31 March 2021 (UTC) [18].

Amchitka

[edit]
Notified: CynicalMe, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Alaska, WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Islands, Noticed 2021-02-01

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article has numerous concerns, including gaps in the history section and no information about the island post-1993, references that need to be formatted and some citations that do not give the specific page number. No edits have been made since I posted my notice. Z1720 (talk) 21:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include coverage and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC) [19].

Hasekura Tsunenaga

[edit]
Notified: Per Honor et Gloria, WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Biography Talk page notice

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion that has never been reviewed since; the main contributor has not edited since 2011. Issues:

  • the article has several unsourced full paragraphs;
  • the article does not have a consistent citation style, with footnotes used as the main "style", and then random parenthetical citations in the text;
  • the article relies a lot on lenghthy quotes;
  • the prose in the "Hasekura today" subsection is not "FA-level";
  • "Timeline and itenerary" is not needed;
  • The notes and the references need work.

RetiredDuke (talk) 17:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've started working on cleaning things up, but this one is going to take a while. Once the refs are cleaned up and consolidated (there are a number of duplicate refs that I haven't fixed yet), then we can see more clearly where issues are with existing refs and where we need to add in more. I'll slowly chip away at it as I can.
Regarding your points:
  • There definitely need to be more sources used, though some may already be in the article and not be used fully yet.
  • I'll be cleaning up the citation style so it's consistent and easy to read.
  • I've moved all the quotes into a notes section so they don't clutter up the actual references. If possible, it may be good to see if any of them are on Wikisource, and link to those instead of including large quotes here.
  • As you said, the "Hasekura today" section reads more like an "In popular culture" section right now. I think things could be converted to a "Legacy" section (or something like that), and the language can be cleaned up and made more encyclopedic.
  • I agree, the timeline and itinerary section can be sorted out into the appropriate sections of the article.
  • Already addressed the notes and references.
Thanks for your patience while I carve out time to work on this. You can see my recent work on Manzanar (diff) and Boshin War (diff) to see what I have done before. Diffs are from before I started to when I finished, though others also contributed during those times, so it's not entirely my doing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking on this article. I don't think we are pressed for time at FAR, as long as the article is being worked on. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are working on an AI to automatically identify statement issues around minor POV problems and missing citations. It has identified some statements that need citations on this article. They are given below:
  • He spent his young adulthood at Kamitate Castle (上楯城)[3] that was constructed in Hasekura Ward, Kawasaki City (ex-Hasekura Village), Miyagi Prefecture, by his grandfather Hasekura Tsunemasa (常正).
  • The embassy was probably, at that time, part of a plan to diversify and increase trade with foreign countries, before the participation of Christians in the Osaka rebellion triggered a radical reaction from the shogunate, with the interdiction of Christianity in the territories it directly controlled, in 1614.
  • The galleon, named Date Maru by the Japanese and later San Juan Bautista by the Spanish, took 45 days work in building, with the participation of technical experts from the Bakufu (the Minister of the Navy Mukai Shōgen, an acquaintance of William Adams with whom he built several ships, dispatched his Chief Carpenter), 800 shipwrights, 700 smiths, and 3,000 carpenters. The daimyō of Sendai, Date Masamune, was put in charge of the project.
If the predictions are relevant, and they could have eased the review burden, we appreciate more feedback here to help evaluate our AI and make it robust. More details can be found on the research page. Sumit (talk) 06:05, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've cleaned up the refs so they are all using appropriate templates and formatting. Now we can see where we are. @RetiredDuke:, if you will go through the article and add {{cn}} to every place that doesn't have a citation and you think it needs one, that will allow me to know exactly what I need to find. Please ping me here when you've done that. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my, what a layout, image, MOS:SANDWICH mess. Thank you, again, for taking on a big one, Nihonjoe. Once you are further along, I will volunteer to re-format all the image layout to resolve layout problems. Meanwhile, if you see any that can be deleted ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Went ahead and sorted what I could on the image mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's definitely a mess (or it was, anyway). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 19:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I have now tagged the whole article like User:Nihonjoe asked above. However, I respectfully ask them if they are sure they want to do this. This FAR is going to be a major rescue job, and while I greatly admire the work done rescuing Boshin War and Manzanar, those articles were never this bad. Many of the sources in the Hasekura article are primary sources, documents and letters from historical figures contemporary to Hasekura. The article draws conclusions solely from historical documents in several sections of the article. Lengthy quotes from historical documents are used verbatim as part of the narrative, instead of being paraphrased. I've added 80+ cn tags to the article. At some point this will become a completely different article from the current one. It's like a new FAC. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It may take some time, but I think we can do it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will help in what I can, but I truly only realized the scale of the job once I read the article sentence by sentence. There's no rush though. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nihonjoe, progress seems stalled. Are you still on this one? Update? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Progress hasn't stalled. It's the holidays, and I have a lot of other things going on. I'm still working on it as I can. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the references would be easier to find for people in Spain, Italy, Mexico, or Vatican City. I've pinged the following projects to see if they can help find some of those sources: WP:SPAIN, WP:ITALY, WP:MEXICO, and WP:CATHOLICISM. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nihonjoe, you may find the Resource Exchange/Resource Request helpful if you're having trouble finding sources. Aza24 (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: Thanks. That was going to be my next stop. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, four months in, there are still 68 citation needed tags, and progress has been stalled for over a month. Moving to FARC does not preclude that further improvements will be made, but will keep FAR on track. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section mostly concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Improvements have stalled and there are major unaddressed concerns, including the citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Dead external links from September 2017, page number citations needed from November and December 2020, unsourced passages need footnotes from November and December 2020, clarification needed from November and December 2020. Thanks for the improvements, but the article is still far from meeting featured article criteria. DrKay (talk) 10:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Considerable improvements by Nihonjoe, effort recognized, but much remains to be done in this difficult full-rewrite-needed FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - solid effort, but it's been stalled out for some time, and is still a long ways from the criteria. Hog Farm Talk 15:07, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist as I don't have the time or the resources to fix all the current issues in a timely manner. Thanks to Zupotachyon for all their efforts, too. The talk page of the article has a very good list of things to work on, however, so anyone who can do so is welcome to work on those issues. If they are all addressed, it's very likely this article could be a FA again. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:37, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Thanks for the ping Nihonjoe. As it currently stands, it's next to impossible to tell where sourced analysis ends and OR begins. As stated by others: lots of unsourced claims, claims based on primary sources alone, etc... I tried going through the [citation needed] tags, but after a few days it became apparent that simply adding references is not enough. I could cite several claims back-to-back, but it wasn't always clear whether those claims were meaningful or significant. For example, one could reasonably ask whether anything in the 'Background' section provides sufficient or relevant context to Hasekura's journeys. Even if each sentence's claims were cited, the combination of sentences as a paragraph may easily imply a conclusion unsupported by any expert text -- and I haven't figured out if this is the case or not. It's an open question whether the section reflects academic consensus, is pure OR, or something in-between -- and this applies to the entire page. I've done what I can but I've hit my limit, unfortunately... Zupotachyon (talk) 05:42, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: it's snowing here, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 31 March 2021 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 9:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC) [20].

Greek mythology

[edit]
Notified: Yannismarou, Paul August, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greece, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rome, 2020-11-21

Review section

[edit]

Last reviewed in 2006, and with no recently active main editor, this very old FA needs a tuneup to bring it to current FA standards. The talk page notice three months ago yielded no response and no edits. There is uncited text, listiness, poor image layout, inconsistent citations, MOS issues, and more detailed on talk. This is one of our oldest FAs, harking back to the days of Refreshing Brilliant Prose, so I hope knowledgeable editors will engage to bring it to status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments, not a complete review:
    • Citation formatting is very inconsistent.
    • I question the use of Victor Davis Hanson here, considering the polemical nature of his work (Who killed Homer); the sentence According to Victor Davis Hanson, a military historian, columnist, political essayist, and former classics professor, and John Heath, a classics professor is also very awkward.
    • The whole section "Greek and Roman conceptions of myth" looks bizarre and possibly OR. It relies way too much on Hanson and Heath. The inclusion of that very long citation of Plato is not properly done as well.
    • The writing is often unnecessary long, such as in the introduction of "Survey of mythic history" (a bad title btw), where it mentions pederasty. The style and titles should be simpler.
    • I don't like when modern paintings are used randomly in the article while we have a wealth of ancient artifacts and pictures to illustrate the subject; modern paintings should only go in the "Motifs in Western art and literature" section, because they give a distorted interpretation of the myths (that of modern painters). Pictures of ancient Greek coins are also missing from the article (they often depicted Greek myths).
    • Despite the lede sentence saying "Modern scholars study the myths to shed light on the religious and political institutions of ancient Greece", there is no real discussion of the political use of mythology among the Greeks.
    • IMO, it must be delisted. T8612 (talk) 04:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello T8712; thanks for your actionable comments. To keep motivations high and time pressure low for editors that want to save an article at FAR, we don't declare keep or delist in this phase; that's for FARC. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
llywrch comments
  • I find many of the "facts" presented about Greek mythology too definite when they are, in the end, opinions. Informed & expert opinions, but still opinions. When X says A, one should not write "A is true" but "X believes A" & why.
  • The archeological angle is not well integrated. Obviously there are Mycenaean roots to Greek mythology, but these roots are not explicated. And the role of imagery on Greek pottery -- that it often portrays alternative versions of myths -- is badly explained. (As well as mentioning the possibility that these alternative versions may only be idiosyncratic inventions of the pot's decorator.)
  • Structuralist or post-structuralist analysis of Greek mythology is relegated to a sentence under "Comparative and psychoanalytic approaches". Not all analysis of mythology is either comparative or psychoanalytic in nature.
  • One fact is overlooked: much that can be written about Greek mythology does not apply to mythology of other civilizations. This is an issue that crops up when the various generalizations or insights about Greek mythology are applied to Native American or Chinese Taoist mythology: their myths do not involve gods & goddesses, but supernatural creatures who are not the object of worship. (I believe G.S. Kirk in his Myth makes this point.)
  • T8612 makes a good point about the selection of illustrations: better to use examples of contemporaneous art than modern ones, unless there is a reason to use modern ones.
  • I also made some comments at Talk:Modern understanding of Greek mythology that might be applicable here.

This is a complex subject. Even experts goof up in covering it. So the fact that it's not perfect should not be read to mean it is incompetently written. -- llywrch (talk) 07:35, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A. Parrot comment

In addition to everything others have said, the "Motifs in Western art and literature" section needs expansion. (It has a corresponding subarticle, but it's only a paragraph longer than the section.) Greek mythology pervades Western culture, and while the section lists a lot of the more significant examples, its sheer extent doesn't really come across. And while the article acts as if Greek mythology was nearly forgotten until the Renaissance, the Byzantine Renaissance and the Matter of Rome beg to differ. A. Parrot (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, comprehensiveness and style. DrKay (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This article isn't that different from many non-FA articles on large and popular topics. A lot of the content and sourcing is solid, but the comprehensiveness is a bit wonky (some major topics are unmentioned, others are overemphasized), some of the sourcing is questionable, and the article as a whole doesn't feel very cohesive. Having unsuccessfully attempted to write an FA-level article on the mythology of another culture, one on which the sources are far less voluminous, I have some idea of the kind of work it would take to revamp this one. Nobody seems to have stepped up for that so far, and barring a herculean effort (pun intended), I don't see it happening on the timescale of an FAR. A. Parrot (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per A. Parrot. This sort of monumental topic is hard to get balanced and comprehensively sourced, but this article falls pretty far from the FA criteria in its current state. Hog Farm Talk 00:05, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DrKay: you forgot to add this to the FAR archive. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:10, 27 March 2021 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 8:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC) [22].

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery

[edit]
Notified: DDima, WikiProject Ukraine, WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Middle Ages, talk page notice 2021-01-23

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns that I posted on the article talk page, including not much history post-2006, whole paragraphs without citations, sources from the Ukrainian wiki that are not used, and a deep copyedit needed. No one has edited the article since I posted the notice. Z1720 (talk) 02:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I see your concerns, I will attempt to get around to it within the next week or so. Cheers § DDima 21:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section included sourcing, copyediting and datedness. DrKay (talk) 20:07, 5 March 2021 (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) 4:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC) [23].

Frank Klepacki

[edit]
Notified: Zeality, WP Video games, WP Biography, WP Rock music, WP Dungeons & Dragons, 2021-01-24

Review section

[edit]

The primary problems with this one seem to be that a number of the sources wouldn't be usable in a modern BLP FA, and that much of the article seems to be stuck in 2009. Hog Farm Talk 00:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. 99% of the sources would not meet the standards, many of the footnotes I hovered across are of his website. Way too many primary ones. 웃OO 06:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Put bluntly, it doesn't appear like Mr. Klepacki has done much that is Wikipedia-notable since 2009, so I'm not sure I agree that the article being out-of-date is really an issue (re nom's comment that "article seems to be stuck in 2009"). He apparently did the soundtrack to Grey Goo and claims he won an award on his website (but awards are a dime a dozen these days, take with a large grain of salt), and I guess Command & Conquer Remastered Collection includes his soundtrack but that isn't actually new? But very little in the "Works" section of the article post-2009 appears to have any importance at all: those are minor, forgotten games & albums that will have little critical commentary I presume, just bullet points on a list that shows he's still technically active. SnowFire (talk) 07:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even so, there still needs to be some prose to summarize all that. And to tie up loose ends like " Klepacki expressed a desire in 2009 to score an Unreal Tournament series game and a "generation one-style" Transformers game, as well as a blockbuster movie" - Did that ever happen? And look for such like that. So I guess the biggest issue here is the questionable sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 18:32, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sometimes life be like that. If reliable sources haven't commented on it, then there's nothing Wikipedia can say. That said, it looks like the Cinevegas link is broken, even in archive version? The other reference for that line doesn't appear very substantial. So I can see removing that line about Unreal Tournament & scoring a movie entirely (rather than attempt to find a most likely nonexistent source that says "Update: Klepacki's dreams went unfulfilled and his ambitions to score a blockbuster movie lie in tatters, you the reader's hopes are probably futile as well, all is lost.") SnowFire (talk) 20:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2021 (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) 2:37, 19 March 2021 (UTC) [24].

Michigan State University

[edit]
Notified: Lovelac7, WP Higher Education, WikiProject Michigan, diff 2020-11-08

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails the sourcing criteria, with sourcing missing and poorly formatted as noticed by DrKay November last year. Also some sandwiching, and examples of outdatedness (f.i. student democracy numbers cited to 2006 source). FemkeMilene (talk) 07:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a serious mess of images crammed in gratuitously, and the alumni section is out of control. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is too long to be read comfortably, per WP:SIZE; there is no need for the alumni section to be so long when List of Michigan State University people exists. The promotional claim in the lead that MSU pioneered the studies of packaging, hospitality business, supply chain management, and communication sciences. is not in the body of the article, or sourced. Too many unsourced claims throughout. Total confusion between rankings/years, we have Michigan State ranks 101–150 in the world in 2016, according to the Academic Ranking of World Universities. in the text, then 2020 data in those tables of rankings (which shouldn't be in the article anyway). RetiredDuke (talk) 19:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section included sourcing, images, size and datedness. DrKay (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC) [25].

Hero of Belarus

[edit]
Notified: Zscout370, SZv, WP MILHIST, WP Belarus, WP Orders, decorations, and medals, WP Eastern Europe, 2020-09-28

Review section

[edit]

A handful of issues here - uncited text throughout and while I don't read Russian so I can't evaluate a lot of the sources used, I can tell the formatting is off - We've got two bare URLS and several refs with the title "Archived Copy". We are also told "This resolution was outlawed and replaced by Law N 288-З on May 18, 2004." with no context as to what (if anything) this changed. Hopefully we can get ahold of someone who can read the non-English languages the sources are in to help with that. Hog Farm Talk 01:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. Getting such an old FA to current standards would be impossible. Wretchskull (talk) 13:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't declare delist/keep in the FAR phase. If the article is far far below standards, the coordinators are open to move it to FARC in an accelerated fashion. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, heheh, apologies! I'm a newbie to FAR, thanks for the info. Wretchskull (talk) 21:31, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accelerated move to FARC: only 24 sources in total, many one-line paragraphs, possible contradictory info (it's outlawed, but also currently awarded..). Unless somebody fluent in Belarusian and Russian comes in to save the day of course. FemkeMilene (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accelerated move to FARC. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to address the concerns. This was one of those FA's I wrote so long ago and while I am very happy the standards have improved, there is no way I can expand on the article itself to get it similar to (for example) the Order of Canada (similar category and one I also had a major hand in). But as time grew, my time on Wikipedia has dropped significantly. I do hope someone else will be able to give the TLC this article needs, but I agree with the others that it needs major surgery and fleshing before it can be up to snuff again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think accelerated move to FARC is probably the right call here, as this needs significant work, and the nominator agrees that while this met the criteria active at the time, this isn't particularly close to the current criteria. Hog Farm Talk 06:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC) [26].

Climate of Minnesota

[edit]
Notified: WxGopher, WP Minnesota, WP Meteorology, 2020-11-23

Review section

[edit]

This early 2007 promotion has uncited text sprinkled throughout, as well as some outdated statistics, such as a precipitation table that is only current through 2000. At least on my device, the layout is very problematic, with MOS:SANDWICHing occurring in several spots, and a massive gap of whitespace between the climate and temperature subheadings. Additionally, there seems to be a few recent events not mentioned, such as the Pagami Creek Fire, 2011 Red River flood, and the March 2012 North American heat wave, the latter of which had very severe effects in Minnesota. This just hasn't been kept current, and is no longer up to FA level. Hog Farm Talk 19:35, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the climate change section in an excerpt, and therefore awkward prose within the article. The section mostly consists of a large quote. FemkeMilene (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC) [27].

German occupation of Luxembourg during World War I

[edit]
Notified: Batmanand, Bastin, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Luxembourg, WikiProject Germany, [28]

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because issues raised on the talk page have not been resolved. This includes inconsistent formatting in the citations, a lede that needs expansion to cover the later parts of the occupation, and a disorganised Background section. Z1720 (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Indy beetle
  • I agree that the lede is insufficient. This statement; The German government justified the occupation by citing the need to support their armies in neighbouring France, although many Luxembourgers, contemporary and present, have interpreted German actions otherwise. is a wholly inadequate vague euphemism for what I presume is German designs on annexation.
  • There is an overreliance on primary sources that makes this article smack of WP:Original research and WP:Synth. The third paragraph in the "Invasion" subsection relies wholly on a telegram, a speech, and letters. Scattered throughout are citations to more letters, telegrams, speeches, and even a "Proclamation". There are no links to these resources either, so it may be that they were never even published (thus not useable for any claim under our guidelines). This is a major issue.
    • There is other use of questionable sources. It's not apparent to me how the World@War article by Richard Doody is any better than blog posts. WorldStatesman.org is equally dubious.
  • Citations are missing in many places.
  • The following photo caption: The outpouring of national grief at Eyschen's funeral was evidence of the nation's debt to him. is POV and sentimental.
  • I think the legacy of this war could be expanded upon...for example, Charlotte's decision to flee Luxembourg during WWII was directly motivated by the legitimacy crisis her sister faced for staying during WWI and appearing to be a collaborator.

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Sturmvogel_66
  • I've cleaned up the actual references section by adding OCLC #s and ISBNs as well as publisher locations.
  • I think that all of the various letters, proclamations, etc. are found in the GWDPA page at the head of the references section. I agree that the article looks too heavily reliant on them.
  • The footnotes use a mix of author (date), page and full-length cites that needs to be standardized on one or the other. My preference would be to move the long ones into the bibliography.
  • I'm also concerned by the advanced ages of many of the links.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2021 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 1:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC) [29].

G. Ledyard Stebbins

[edit]
Notified: Peta, WP BIO, WP Plants, WP History of science, WP Univ. of Calif, diff for talk page notification 2020-12-24

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2006 promotion whose main author stopped editing ten years ago. The article is not at current standards, with considerable uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:06, 27 February 2021 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 1:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC) [30].

Royal assent

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Commonwealth, WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Australia, 18 December

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because as RD stated on talk, "This needs work to rise to current FA standards." The original nom has not edited since 2006. (t · c) buidhe 18:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ceoil: apparently saved it back in 2007, see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Royal Assent/archive1. (t · c) buidhe 18:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Buidhe, the differences in standards in 2021 vs 2007 are far more stark than between 2007 vs 2004. However, its an interesting topic and hope to reengage during this review. Famous last words, however believe this review is warranted. Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for offering to work on this article. The review is open as long as improvements are ongoing; it can also be placed on hold if you'd like more time to make any changes. (t · c) buidhe 19:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the "other Commonwealth realms" section should mention the two refusals of Royal Assent in the 19th century in colonial Victoria (which occurred 150 years after the last refusal of royal assent in the UK - source here. Deus et lex (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ceoil: Are you still intending to work on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikki, yes, in next week or so. However, would like to note that there is very little that is actionable in the nom, apart from somebody complaining about things on talk that probably fall under SO:FIXIT. Is that the extent of Buidhe's concerns, or are there more to come. Unsourced paras are one thing, but a number of the other criteria are subjective. Ceoil (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The original notice posted by RetiredDuke stated,

    There is significant unsourced text, particularly in the "Other countries" section. Malaysia and Thailand are mentioned once and never expanded upon. The Netherlands part is completely unsourced and the Spanish subsection is not much better. There are unsourced, stubby subsections like "Church of England Measures" and "In the other Commonwealth realms". The unsourced single sentence at the end masquerading as a section is conflating royal assent with presidential vetoes in European republican systems (!!!!), which is baffling considering the diversity of European countries that use the presidential veto.

    I know very little about how royal assent has worked throughout history, so I am not necessarily well positioned to judge factual accuracy, comprehensiveness, or neutrality. (t · c) buidhe 22:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am now more in the dark than before regards expectation. The nom is the very definition of drive-by. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To restrict FAR to nominators familiar with the topic area is incompatible with the goal of reassessing ALL old FAs to see if they meet the current criteria or can be brought up to standard. The reason I nominated this article was that in the state it was in at the time, it clearly did not meet the FA criteria, and I am still seeing issues with uncited content and stubby short paragraphs. I hope RetiredDuke will chime in to comment on what he sees as outstanding issues with the article. I am not sure you are approaching this from the right direction, it is not a forum for editors to make specific complaints about the article and have someone fix them but to determine if the article meets the current FA criteria (do YOU think it does?) and if not, can we get it there? (t · c) buidhe 23:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But you mentioned no criteria, nothing actionable, just handwaving, expecting others to come along 1. interpreted and verbalize the short comings, (2) fix the "perceived" short comings (3) judge the updates against actual criteria. It seems like a whole load of "off-loading" to me; the sucks I know nothing was particularly disappointing, and again the very definition of unstructured, aimless, edit clocking, drive-by. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so. In my notice, I pointed out: unsourced paragraphs, the stubby subsections that looked like drive-by additions and should be harmonized/integrated into the relevant sections, and one thing that made no sense to me in this context (the Presidential veto paragraph). I see that Ceoil's copyedit has removed the extra small sections and has tightened the prose throughout the article. The veto thing has been removed and the article looks almost there in terms of citations. I'll help looking for sources for the sections that are still missing some (Spain and the Netherlands). Apart from that, the article looks (to me) close to the criteria now. I have stated in some notices that this or that older FA fails the comprehensiveness criteria, when I can see that something important is not covered in the article. In this case I cannot. I think that we must stick to actionable objections in our reviews. I have no further comments apart from the paragraphs that are missing citations. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A pleasure to have your input RetiredDuke. Have seen you around over the years, and agree on all points above as to what needs to done here. To note RD is compiling potential sources in user space. Happy days. Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There has been a lot of progress, with a only a few (3 or 4) remaining paras to be reff'd. Article has been further copyedited. Can we get say, another two weeks before voting? Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ceoil: How are things looking now? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, should now move to voting phase. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article's title is misleading. It suggests that readers are informed about an important event in the law making process in monarchies independently of time and place. Actually the article is mainly dedicated to Commonwealth countries with some remarks about modern constitutional monarchies. Borsoka (talk) 12:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be taken to FARC now at this stage. Ceoil (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, do you have a ref for the final citation needed tag? The first paragraph of the body can probably do with some merging of paragraphs.
No need to go to FARC if almost everything is sorted. If an article is fixed at FAR, we simply close the review here, and keep the star. FemkeMilene (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is clear, the article does not meet all FA criteria. 1b. It does not provide a picture about the idea and practice of royal assent en general, but about royal assent in major Commonwealth contries, with random sections dedicated to modern monarchies. 1c. It is not well-researched, because the books/articles cited are mainly about royal assent in the UK. 2b. Its structure is not appropriate: lengthy sections about the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guersney, two sections about "Development". Borsoka (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Its structure is better, but the article does not cover its title. The article provides information about the development of the institution in England, and about present practices in the UK, other Commonwealth realms or in randomly selected countries of the world, but it does not provide a general picture. The article suggests that royal assent is something very English/British, although it existed in most feudal and modern monarchies of Europe. Borsoka (talk) 03:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 27 February 2021 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC) [32].

Campbell's Soup Cans

[edit]
Notified: TonyTheTiger, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts, Wikipedia talk:GLAM/Museum of Modern Art, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New York City, [33]

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2007 promotion that has been noticed since 2016, and again in December 2020, with no improvements made. Issues include, but are not limited to:

  • There are unaddressed issues on the talk page dating back four years.
  • There has been no response to the need for improvement posted three months ago.
  • There is uncited text.
  • Images have been crammed in without regard to layout, and there is considerable MOS:SANDWICHing.
  • A MOS review/update is needed, eg MOS:ALLCAPS.
  • There are poorly formatted citations, eg ... various authors (2012). Regarding Warhol: Sixty Artists, Fifty Years. Metropolitan Museum of Art. p. 272. ISBN 978-0300184983.
  • WP:NOTPRICE; prices are sourced to a Christie's press release.
  • An abundance of unattributed opinion.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:40, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a licensing expert, but by my count we have 11 items of non-free content as of this revision. While articles about modern art are going to have higher numbers of non-free works to fully explain the topic, I have my doubts that '11' meet the minimal number of items requirement in WP:NFCCP #3a. The two that catch my eye the most for removal to get this in line with the NFCC policy are the juice box, as not directly related, and one of the two torn label cans (my instinct being File:Big Torn Campbell’s Soup Can (Pepper Pot), 1962.jpg). The juice box one is used in two other articles, so removing it will only result in needing to update the fair use statement to indicate that it is no longer used in this article. But the two torn label ones are both used only in this article, so removing one will orphan it and set it up for delayed deletion, so it'll probably be better to FFD it. But then I'm worried we'll get a "But we can't delete Warhol" response at the FFD, even though I don't think two illustrations of "Warhol drew pictures of soup cans with torn labels" is compliant with NFCC. @Nikkimaria and Buidhe: - Y'all are better with licensing than I am, so what's all y'all's opinions about the NFCC situation here? Hog Farm Talk 22:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking the more pieces of non-free content you have, the harder it becomes to justify each. 11 would require a whole lot of justification as to the specific value of each, and I don't see that here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the juice box image and am getting ready to nominate one of the torn label cans images at FFD. I hope I do not anger someone for attempting to delete modern art. Hog Farm Talk 22:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And my removal has been reverted, so we're back up to 11. Hog Farm Talk 23:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A number of these images can be removed as lacking contextual significance (WP:NFCC#8). Happy to weigh in on any nominated at FFD—just ping me. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 23:35, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've FFD'd the crushed can image per WP:NFCCP #8, and removed one of the two freely-licensed modern can images for space reasons. Images are a mess in this one. Hog Farm Talk 01:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak images, but noting that a) this FA was passed in the era before serious image reviews started, and b) most of those images were not in the version that passed FACanyway. The article has an abundance of other issues, and saving its star will take quite an effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are literally 12 "citation needed" and 5 "according to whom" templates on the page. This article needs improvement badly, and is not up to modern FA standards. -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 14:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, layout, and style. DrKay (talk) 18:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ugg, I wouldn't agree with the deletion rational, but will stay out; above vote is based on lack of sources to back up the text, and that the text often seems confused. The images are historically significant, FA or nay. @ Modernist. Ceoil (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ps, no offence Hog Farm, just a difference of opinion. Ceoil (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry Ceoil, none taken. I take a narrower view of WP:NFCCP than most, so I periodically have differences of opinions on non-free images. Hog Farm Talk 06:07, 27 February 2021 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC) [35].

John Brooke-Little

[edit]
Notified: RetiredUser2, Evadb, WP Heraldry and vexillology, WP Biography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject University of Oxford, 2018-2-25 and 2020-12-27

Review section

[edit]

An old 2006 promotion that is not up to the modern standards. Bits of unsourced text as noticed by Chetsford on the article talk page back in 2018, the citation to the "Old Claymoresian Society" doesn't quite look high-quality RS, and there's some stuff on article talk about possible close paraphrasing issues. Not the most decayed I've seen, but this needs some attention. Primary author has made one edit since 2009, so I don't think we can expect help from that direction. Hog Farm Talk 01:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, paraphrasing, and style. DrKay (talk) 18:55, 20 February 2021 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC) [36].

Youngstown, Ohio

[edit]
Notified: Daysleeper47, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Ohio, WikiProject United States, Dec 2020

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because almost two months ago, Hog Farm noted that "There is unsourced content throughout, a couple of the web sources are dodgy, there are many formatting errors in the referencing, and some of the history and culture material appears to be a bit outdated or missing recent events." There has not been progress in fixing these issues in the interim. (t · c) buidhe 19:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my findings...

Prose
  1. "The city had the prestige of a prestige, albeit second tier, city within the Mid-West in terms of transportation connections." -- unencyclopedic tone, improper spelling of "Midwest". Also this paragraph is unsourced until the very end, where six footnotes are all bunched up in a row, making it unclear what is being cited to what.
  2. "In 2004, construction began on a 60-home upscale development called Arlington Heights..." -- entire paragraph is unsourced
  3. Neighborhoods section has a lot of redlinks. This doesn't seem like it needs to be there, since most of them are unsourced and the rest do not have articles.
  4. "Extensive coverage of Youngstown's economic challenges has overshadowed the city's long entrepreneurial tradition. A number of products and enterprises introduced in Youngstown became national household names." -- unencyclopedic tone
  5. "Entertainment" section is unsourced
  6. "To the immediate north of YSU is the Arms Family Museum of Local History." -- paragraph is unsourced and seems irrelevant
  7. "Mill Creek Park encompasses approximately 2,600 acres..." -- unsourced
  8. "Hockey" -- why is there a table here if it only has one entry? Get rid of it.
  9. "Boxing" section seems to be of dubious relevance
  10. "Other newspapers that print in Youngstown include bi-monthly..." -- unsourced
References
  1. Multiple newspaper sources do not cite the page number(s) or are otherwise incomplete
  2. Citation 1 is a bare URL
  3. Citation 4 (Census.gov) does not credit the work
  4. Citation 6 (Ohio Hometown Locator) does not seem to be a reliable source
  5. Citation 21 (Naco.org) does not seem to be reliable either
  6. Citations 41 and 42 have bare URLs
  7. Much of the "Culture" heading is heavily reliant on WP:PRIMARY sources. A few other sections have this issue as well

So yeah, this one needs a lot. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:22, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC, there has been considerable cleanup, but this article is still a mess. The word “recent” occurs ten times, no date given, there is uncited text, and the neighborhoods section is nothing but a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, coverage, layout, and style. DrKay (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2021 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC) [37].

Baltimore City College

[edit]
Notified: Bcc07, Golem88991, 67knight, Basic Editor, Amerikasmuse, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Maryland, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, WikiProject Schools, Jan 10, 2021

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there has been minimal engagement on the article since I left a notice. Concerns include the lede which leaves out aspects of the article's body (criteria 2a), the history section which has no information after 1978 (criteria 1b) and non-notable faculty members and principals listed in the article (criteria 4). Z1720 (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. DrKay (talk) 18:49, 20 February 2021 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 7:51, 5 March 2021 (UTC) [38].

The Country Wife

[edit]
Notified: User:Bishonen, User:Rezhang1628, User:Mellery, User:Bobamnertiopsis, User:TonyPS214, User:Pmaxred, User:Geogre, User:Deb, Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia:WikiProject Comedy, Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre, Wikipedia:WikiProject London

Review section

[edit]

The request for inline citations on the talk page has gone unaddressed. -- Beland (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I also noted that. In my opinion, the sections on Plots and Key Scenes contain a lot of what looks like original research. Deb (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and original research. DrKay (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC) [39].

MTR

[edit]
Notified: Mailer diablo, Citobun, WikiProject Hong Kong, WikiProject Trains, diff 2020-11-17

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because: there is considerable uncited text, information that appears only in the lead, very short paragraphs, near-duplicate images, inconsistencies in citation formatting. Needs quite a lot of attention. FemkeMilene (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yay, another total mess of an article.

  • "Initial Proposals": Large chunks of uncited text.
  • "Line Extensions": Very choppy, lots of one-sentence paragraphs.
  • "Partial privatisation and merger": {{refimprove}} tag from December 2018
  • "Recent extensions": Section should be titled differently per WP:RECENT; also has several sentences in a row beginning with "the".
  • "Future expansions": Improperly formatted list (I have literally never seen anyone use 1.) 2.) 3.) instead of the number sign). Also needs to be watched for updating.
  • "Infrastructure": Section consists entirely of images and a table. Is there a better and less cluttered way to present this?
  • "Rolling Stock": Entire table is unreferenced.
  • I also feel the sections underneath (Metro Cammell EMU (DC), Adtranz-CAF EMU, etc.) could be better integrated. There are too many subsections and a lot of image bunching.
  • "Commerce and journals" -- entire section is unsourced
  • "Head office" - very short section, could be expanded or combined. Also not sure of that red link.
  • "Visual identity" - very short and unreferenced; expand or combine with something else. I'm not sure if this is even needed.
  • "Involvement in 2019–20 Hong Kong protests" -- I believe you're not supposed to put links in headers; also there is no summary here, just a {{main}}.
  • The references are very inconsistent in formatting. I also spot a few YouTube fan videos which are not in any way reliable sources.

This is another article so thoroughly deficient in WP:WIAFA content that once again I feel a need to accelerate the delisting. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Give this at least a week or two to see if anyone is still interesting in working on this. I know there is a large HK transport community out there, just not sure if they are still active on this especially in the current climate. I don't think I can rework on this myself without spending a significant period of time, but if there is a team effort then this might still be salvageable within the timeframe. One thing I obviously noticed is there is a lot of scope creep added to the article since promotion, and I am inclined that whole sections would need to be removed outright for the quality to improve. - Mailer Diablo 09:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, structure, prose, and style. DrKay (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2021 (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/March_2021&oldid=1015317247"