Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2010

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept status

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

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 07:46, 22 September 2010 [1].

Michael Brown Okinawa assault incident

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Japan, WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, WikiProject Military history

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

General problems
  • The article overwhelmingly uses two papers, one US Military paper and one Japanese paper. Using one source from each side is not demonstrative of a neutral point of view; a neutral point of view is to present every side with the weight it is due, not each side with equal weight. On top of this, one source is written by the same person, with the same underlying opinions and biases. I refuse to believe there are no other news organisations which have covered this subject.
  • The lead section is broken up and in tiny paragraphs.
  • You've got sections with a single reference right at the end, and quotations which are not immediately given inline citations.
Specific problems
  • "Early in the morning of November 2, 2002, a female employee of the Camp Courtney officers' club on Okinawa drove up to the Courtney main gate and reported to base security personnel that a Marine Corps major had just attempted to sexually assault her in her car on a deserted road near the back gate of the base. She identified the Marine as Major Michael Brown and stated that during the assault the major threw her mobile phone into the nearby Tengan River. The woman was later identified as V. N. who was 40 years old, and originally from the Philippines, had lived in Okinawa for 17 years, and was married to a Japanese citizen of Okinawan descent. She reported " - reported, twice. Identified, twice.
  • "Michael Brown was at the time 39 years old, was married with two small children, and was a 19-year Marine veteran assigned to the command element of the III Marine Expeditionary Force at Camp Courtney on his second tour on Okinawa." - completely unreferenced, and a standalone sentence; should be in a paragraph.
  • What exactly is the JNP? It isn't initially explained or linked.
  • "V. N. repeatedly stated that Brown was innocent and that she wanted to withdraw her complaint. She stated that any contact between her and Brown on the night in question was consensual. V. N. stated that she allowed Brown to fondle and kiss her breasts. At that point, V. N. said, she began to resist and Brown became angry. V. N. testified that when she threatened to call police, Brown threw her cell phone into the [Tengan] river. Angry at the loss of her cell phone, V. N. stated that she then embellished the story when she told it to the guards at the Courtney main gate. V. N. further stated" - stated, four times. [Tengan] shouldn't be there; you don't need to substitute words unless you're quoting something. If you're quoting something, quote it; otherwise, give a source for "Tengan".
  • "13,500US$ " - $13,500", and an equivalent amount in Yen would be useful.
  • Is the subsequent arrest and conviction at all related to or relevant to this case?

Ironholds (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are prose, research, citations, POV YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this. I'll fix the concerns next week. I'll add some more references from Infotrac. I don't agree, however, that a single source is a problem. It was primarily the Stars and Stripes that covered this story in English. Based on a quick perusal of Infotrac, some other sources noted some of the events in the article, but not many. Nevertheless, I'll add them next week and work on the other concerns. Cla68 (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I fixed the intro and added additional refs from ProQuest NewsStand and Infotrac [2]. Cla68 (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(aka Alford pleas, from North Carolina v. Alford)" needs a citation; elsewhere I can see two new sources, both from the same newspaper. Is there honestly no other coverage of this? Not sure if the image concerns have been addressed Ironholds (talk) 12:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The majority of coverage being from two sources only? I've explained above, it causes serious NPOV problems. If, however, those are honestly the only sources available, I guess that IS all the coverage and thus neutral - I'll keep shtum about the whole thing. Ironholds (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Although some of the reviewers here have made some helpful improvements to the article, I guess I just don't have time to fix all the concerns that remain, since it appears to have been left to me to fix most of them. If the decision is made to delist, then I guess I'll have to renominate it for FAC if I ever get around to addressing the concerns. Cla68 (talk) 00:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Final concerns
  • "August 14, 2009 Brown entered a nolo contendere plea (aka Alford pleas, from North Carolina v. Alford)" still needs a citation.
    • I rewrote and resourced this a little bit. He actually entered a Kennedy plea, which from what I can tell is the same as an Alford plea and is a type of nolo contendere plea. I'm not a lawyer, however, so I may have just mucked it up completely. Dana boomer (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is far too short, barely one paragraph in its own right.
  • "Brown's family hired Gene Warfield, an American ex-special forces soldier who had lived on Okinawa for 17 years" - in Okinawa, surely?
  • "Over the next three days of testimony, V. N. repeatedly stated that Brown was innocent and that she wanted to withdraw her complaint. She stated that any contact between her and Brown on the night in question was consensual. V. N. stated" - stated, stated, stated! You've had what, a month to fix these problems?
    • I played with this a little bit to try to make it less repetitive. Not sure that I succeeded, however! Let me know if there are any other synonyms for "stated" that you can think of :) Dana boomer (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ironholds (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm going to try to take over the work on this article, since it is very close to saving. I've responded to the above concerns. Please let me know if there is further work to be done. Dana boomer (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Short paragraphs in lede, including two-sentence-long-paragraph, this should probably be expanded, or merged. References subsection should be retooled, to conform better with WP:LAYOUT - ie instead of so many separate subsection, should just have one stand-alone subsection for Notes, and one other one for References. -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Far better; thanks, Dana. I've got no more problems to report. Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:04, 28 September 2010 [3].

Everton F.C.

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: SenorKristobbal, all listed projects: spoken Wikipedia, Football, England, Merseyside

Firstly, the article has unsourced parts tagged by others and some unsourced paragraphs

  • Undue weight on recent seasons, when nothing special has happened, and more successful 1960s and early years are not mentioned in much detail
  • Heavy reliance on primary sources when many 3rd party refs are available for a major club's history
  • Toffeeweb while looking reasonable for an amateur grassroots site is not preferred under the WP:WIAFA of high-quality RS vis a vis history texts
  • Other non-RS include footballeconomy.com, bluekipper, etc
  • Some refs are not consistently formatted, eg italics in newspapers
  • list of famous fans is undue weight. Most players with even a handful of games have more impact than some pop star who attends matches, and this can be verified per weight in newspapers

YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have never understood the need to have world cup players. They aren't particularly notable for Everton, some players may have only played a few games for Everton, then played 1 group game in the World Cup finals. How does that make them a notable former player when compared to hall of famers?
  • Apart from that, the work done already seems to have alleviated the majority of yellowmonkey's concerns. I think a couple more of the toffeeweb refs could be replaced but the majority of the primary ones are neccessary ones in my opinion: links to supporters clubs can't really be anything but primary. I agree that the four primary sources used in the history section could be replaced bu third party book refs, but I don't doubt their factual accuracy, nor the accuracy of the article. Woody (talk) 11:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Agree with above-raised concerns about sourcing, as there appears to be some unsourced chunks throughout, and wholly unreferenced paragraphs in a few places. Also, some concerns about short-paragraphs and one-sentence-long-paragraphs. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criteria of concern are sourcing, undue weight YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:18, 27 September 2010 [4].

PlayStation 3

[edit]
Notified: Thingg, Gatoatigrado, WikiProject PlayStation, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Blu-ray

Review commentary

[edit]

As the first FAR for PlayStation 3 since its promotion, I am nominating this featured article for review because this article is overrun with "dead link" or "dated link" templates, which lists this article in a total of 11 hidden categories with 7 bare links (ex: a link that's [1]). Another concern is that some sections like "Operating Systems" are starting to fail Featured article criteria 1(a). My last concern is that there are too many pictures on the article that appear solely decorative. Secret Saturdays (talk to me) 00:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Mostly due to it being a current-gen video game console, the article is hopelessly unstable. IMO this article fails 1e, but I will take a closer look into the article and see what other shortcomings it has. –MuZemike 00:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other issues off the bat:

  • Dabs – there are two dabs that need to be fixed [5].
  • Deadlinks – I count 10 deadlinks in the article's references as well as a whole slew of links being HTTP 301 that should be fixed (especially if any 301s redirect elsewhere).

–MuZemike 01:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several very, very short paragraphs (1-2 sentences) abound, so a copy edit is in order. Also a lot of one-sentence subsections, and I tagged a completely unreferenced section. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:LEADCITE issues - several references in the lead either need to be removed/moved as the body should cover all aspects of the lead. --Teancum (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second this, just want to point out we haven't exactly been enforcing this across the board until somewhat recently. So, hopefully the people who were originally working on it or others can take care of it, it isn't too rough. Ryan Norton 13:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just thought I'd dig in on this: While I do agree that the sourcing here can be considered excessive, know that, so far, we have yet to see a discussion whose outcome actually prohibits redundant sources in the lead. Prime Blue (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here's the latest discussion - although despite that FAC always tend to be a bit ahead of the curve. The fact is that the vast, vast (95%?) majority of leads in current passing FAs have no inline cites and ones that do generally get an oppose for it. One reason is that generally if you have to cite something in the lead you are putting something in the lead that isn't in the article or isn't elaborated enough on in the article. Such is life. Ryan Norton 23:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment regarding the issues:
  • There are six dead links in the article:
Fixed
Removed, duplicate reference
Fixed
Fixed
Not dead any longer, it seems
  • and also note these images:
I reduced the resolution of those images to 400px in length.KiasuKiasiMan 16:59, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed dead links marked above; one remains. --PresN 00:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lede/intro is too short, this should be expanded quite a bit more, in order to function, per WP:LEAD, as an adequate stand-alone summary of the entire article's contents. I am noticing short-paragraphs throughout, as well as one-sentence-long-paragraphs and ultra-short-subsections. These should be merged, or expanded upon a bit more. -- Cirt (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criteria of concern include prose, images, sourcing and stability. Dana boomer (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:18, 27 September 2010 [6].

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: The Filmaker, WikiProject Star Wars, WikiProject Films

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's a three year old FA, and it has several issues, notably citation needed and cleanup tags, promintently in the Reception section, and some of the references could use some cleanup. The Taerkasten (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reviewing the article and its FAC page, I do not believe that the article was properly scrutinized at the time. The references used here are underwhelming and mostly online-based. A film of this age and prominence will not have all its coverage online; much of it will be found in publications such as periodicals, books, and academic articles. The Empire Strikes Back is particularly lacking in critical analysis. This, for example, identifies chapters that specifically analyze the film (and not just Star Wars in general). Similarly, the film's mythology is explored here. The article may also benefit from the release of this making-of book. These are the biggest issues with the article, not taking into consideration the current structure and content, such as "Production" being a wall of text that would benefit from subsections. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some dubious references, such as this IMDb one [7], a website called Fast Rewind [8], YouTube, [9] among others. The lack of analytical coverage is surprising, given the depth and influence of the Star Wars saga, and this problem is apparent in some of the other film articles as well. --The Taerkasten (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film's writing, specifically Brackett's first draft (which was leaked online a few months ago), could be discussed more. This book probably goes into detail on that and the making of the film in general (it's already referenced for Episode IV). Cliff smith talk 16:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments regarding the issues:
  • There's a small chunks of mess starting with 1981 Academy Awards and "Golden Screen Award in Germany" in the "Reception" section which appears to be unreferenced.
  • There are also four dead links in the article:
I've fixed most of the links, but there's a lot more to be done in this article.--The Taerkasten (talk) 12:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Lede/intro is way too short, per WP:LEAD, this should be expanded significantly in order to function as an adequate stand-alone summary of the entire article's contents. Cast could use some work, in order to comply with WP:MOSFILM. Cinematic and literary allusions is definitely way too short. Lots of issues with Reception subsection. Some short paragraphs throughout article should be expanded, or merged. Soundtrack section has zero Reception info. Other media has unsourced info - again, also lack of Reception info there as well. -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern include sourcing, comprehensiveness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per review by Taerkasten, Erik, Cliff smith and Cirt, including my review, with FA criteria concerns. No effort has been done since the review has started. There are still sourcing problems throughout the article. Until the article is improved, I can't support keeping it. JJ98 (Talk) 03:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist because the article does not meet FA criteria of comprehensiveness. It may fail the other criteria as well, but the focus on online sources and no inclusion of in-depth publications' coverage is problematic. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:07, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Erik. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove – Lead is inadequate, there is quite a bit of unreferenced content, a few of the cites seem somewhat dodgy (for example, 18 is what appears to be a personal website), and the reception section is listy and lacking much actual critical reception. Throw in the other problems that have been mentioned and this clearly isn't FA material now. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:18, 27 September 2010 [14].

Bangladesh

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Shmitra, User talk:Ragib, User talk:Dejo, User talk:Elockid, User talk:TheGreenEditor, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries, Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Bangladesh-related topics.

FA from 2006, with 1c issues throughout. Significant amount of unsourced and uncited content in the article, whole paragraphs, subsections, etc. Concerns about comprehensiveness: lots of small subsections, very short paragraphs, and one-sentence-long-paragraphs. Concerns about WP:RS failure, one example includes Banglapedia as a source. 25 or so images used in the article, could use an image review. Also could do with a bit of general copyediting throughout. -- Cirt (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I am going to do an image review and remove unnecessary images right now. --Ragib (talk) 05:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed redundant and extra images from most of the sections, reducing the number of images (including maps) down to 13. Hope this takes care of Cirt's concern about images. Cirt is definitely correct about the previous status ... 25 images is too much for an article. Hope the current number (which includes maps) is ok. --Ragib (talk) 05:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed three there. The rest can be fixed I presume. Need help. Aditya(talk • contribs) 07:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I will try to replace the Banglapedia refs with references to original sources of info. --Ragib (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just my two cents: let's not be too hasty about converting those references, unless there is really a superior alternative. Yes, an encyclopedia is generally considered a tertiary source. But tertiary sources are appropriate for summary information as opposed to detail. Plus many of the articles in Banglapedia represent original research and thus arguably qualify as secondary. Furthermore I defy you to name a source that is absolutely free from controversy of one kind or another. The decorated nytimes is not without stain, for example. The complaints against Banglapedia linked above have major sourcing problems of their own -- being both tertiary and opinion. Banglapedia, with 5000 pages, is an unparalleled source of info written mostly by serious scholars. It is not the last word, especially on sensitive issues like the independence war, but I believe it has a place as a reference here. The article gained featured status in the first place with these very references in place, so I would urge people to focus on the other more pressing issues. Currently only 6 out of 84 references are from Banglapedia and none of them are sensitive issues at all (eg, jute, dance, film). Dejo (talk)
  • I have organized the Sports section and removed some out of scope detail. Dejo (talk)
I'll do a copyedit tonight to address these issues. Others are also welcome to look for these problems. --Ragib (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have fixed the issue of single sentence paragraphs and short paragraphs, by merging them according to logical cohesion. --Ragib (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that more information should be included in this article. After the fall of Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in 1975 a senior Awami League leader Khondekar Mustaq Ahmed became President of Republic and promulgated martial law all over Bangladesh. He formed a cabinet with right wing awami leaders and kept the parliament alive. He sought the support of the members of the parliament but they refused to cooperate Kh Mustaq. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divine Poet (talk • contribs)

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern include sourcing, prose and images YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 02:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cirt for your concern. It would be greatly helpful if you or someone else could be a little more specific. If I am not wrong, all the specific concerns have been addressed so far. Aditya(talk • contribs) 01:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From my observations of FAR, thinking of it as a process where specific concerns are stated to be addressed individually point-by-point is not the best way to look at it. That's a road to frustration. In most cases what the reviewers here are looking for, although they seem to be reluctant to say so outright, is a major overhaul. Maybe you can ask the delist voters on a scale from 1 to 100 how far from a support they are to get a better idea of how much more work they think is needed and compare that to how much effort you are willing to exert to attempt to keep the article as a FA. Lambanog (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Sourcing concerns still remain, for an article purportedly of FA quality. Banglapedia remains cited in the article, at least 5 times. Would be a good idea for a previously-uninvolved-image-editor to come by and do an image review check. -- Cirt (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okies. All Banglapedia cites have been replaced with other book cites. Independent image editors have been requested to take a look at the article. Anything else? I am too close to the subject to make judgments, but I am close enough to follow instructions. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 14:17, 13 September 2010 [15].

Fermi paradox

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: User:Marskell, WikiProject Astronomy

This article was FA in 2004, demoted in 2006 and re-promoted the same year. Now, I am putting Fermi Paradox on FAR again do to failure of 1c. The reason is due to {{Citation needed}} tags and unreferenced sections (Ex: "Life is periodically destroyed by naturally occurring events" and "We are the first to have radio technology"). GamerPro64 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'We are the first to have radio' was a duplicate of an earlier (referenced) argument - I removed it. LouScheffer (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Added references for 'periodically destroyed'. LouScheffer (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see way too many problems, but here are just a few:
  • "[E]ven if travel is hard, if life is common, why don't we detect their radio transmissions? (Note that the term "Great Silence" is often used synonymously with "Fermi paradox", as in the Brin paper which apparently coins the term.)" — OR right there in the intro. There should be no reason to use "note that x," it's stating the obvious.
    I agree, and removed this, also since Great Silence and Fermi Paradox are not the same. LouScheffer (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is unclear which version of the paradox is stronger." (in Basis section) — Move this up into the last paragraph; it shouldn't be a standalone.
    I disagree - this is a case where combining does not make sense. Attaching it to the previous paragraph results in a wild jump in topic in the last sentence. It could be moved it up to the part where it states the paradox can be stated in two ways, but then the note makes no sense since it compares the two ways, which have not yet been discussed. So in this case I think the stand-alone sentence is the best alternative. Perhaps someone else has a better idea for how to re-write? LouScheffer (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same with "Frank Drake himself has commented that the Drake equation is unlikely to settle the Fermi paradox; instead it is just a way of 'organizing our ignorance' on the subject." (in the Drake Equation header)
    Agree, fixed this one. LouScheffer (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole article reads like an essay, with passages such as "As human beings do not possess interstellar travel capability, such searches are being remotely carried out at great distances and rely on analysis of very subtle evidence. This limits possible discoveries to civilizations which alter their environment in a detectable way, or produce effects that are observable at a distance, such as radio emissions. It is very unlikely that non-technological civilizations will be detectable from Earth in the near future."
  • "The other way astronomy might settle the Fermi paradox is through a search specifically dedicated to finding evidence of life. These are discussed below." — again, stating the obvious. No need to say "these are discussed below."
    OK, removed. LouScheffer (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repeated use of first person, such as "so the odds we exist at such a moment are low."
    'We' here is short for 'the human race', and a first-person reference in form only. I think it reads better as 'we', but have no problem with replacing it if others think we should. LouScheffer (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the footnotes explaining the equations should be made into separate footnotes so that they aren't combined with the references.
  • All Setifaq.org links are dead.
    Fixed. Materialscientist (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a reliable source?
    It is the official website of the project, they cite many RS documents inside. Materialscientist (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poorly formatted references throughout. Very few credits to author, date or access date.
    Went though and reformatted/added authors/dates/accessdates where possible. Work is needed on text and adding a few refs, which I hope will be done by someone else :). Materialscientist (talk) 10:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article made my head hurt trying to decipher some parts. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TenPoundHammer. It's User:Marskell. Unfortunately my password has been scrambled.
Many, many people have worked on this article and I think it provides an incredible archive of the topic for future reference. Bringing it back to FA standard is another thing, however. I will try to work on it but it may take a couple of months rather than the usual two weeks. There's a book I've got to find that can tidy up the page nicely. User:Timothymarskell
Hi Marskell! As long as work is progressing and there are interested editors, the review will stay open as long as necessary. The goal here is to improve articles and bring them back to FA status, rather than delisting them out of hand. Dana boomer (talk) 15:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought this through and I believe the best thing for this article is that it lose FA status at this point. It needs be shortened and better directed.
I'll happily participate with other editors if any wish to work on it under the FAR spotlight. I do think, however, that a FAR collaboration may cause the article to expand and become more unmanageable than it is now. Timothymarskell (talk) 09:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern include sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FFA, already listed at FFA, only needs to be moved if delisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand this is your objection, which I sympathize with (though I wish people would be more specific about *which* stuff is wanting references). But I was asking Ten Pound Hammer about their objections. LouScheffer (talk) 16:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it isn't *my* objection. As a FAR moderator I have to segment the article and list the issues that were put on the agenda but that is not more than moderating paperwork and not to be taken as an endorsement of the complaints YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 01:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I've gotten my hands on the book that I think can bring this back to status but the page itself will take some time. Have we ever had an article thrice go through FA successfully? It would be interesting to try on this later. Timothymarskell (talk) 08:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as FA This is a very difficult topic, with tentacles into almost all branches of science, and many speculative explanations, all roughly equally valid according to the meager facts available. While the article can surely be improved, it can't be much shorter without dropping seriously discussed alternatives, and cannot be much longer without exceeding the mandate of an encyclopedia article. It's already perhaps the best article-length summary of the Fermi paradox so far (though I'd be happy to see other candidates) so we should fix what can be fixed (references in particular) and keep it as FA. LouScheffer (talk) 06:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, agree with FA criteria concern identified above by YellowMonkey (talk · contribs) of sourcing, unsourced chunks throughout article, multiple issues unaddressed. -- Cirt (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:00, 13 September 2010 [16].

Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Ambuj.Saxena, India noticeboard, Universities WP

This is a 2006 FAR that has not been reviewed since it's promotion. The problems here are quite similar to those found in the Indian Institutes of Technology article, currently at FARC. Large unsourced sections, including statistics and opinion and several dead links, leaving other areas effectively unsourced are major problems. Poor prose, poorly updated statistics and multiple dab links are also issues. Dana boomer (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Section by section analysis:
History
  • Quotation shouldn't be in curly quote thingies.
Admissions and Academics
  • First paragraph is kinda short. Can it be integrated?
  • LAOTSE and 5 year integrated Master of Science are redlinked. Are either important enough for articles?
Sponsored research
  • Ministry of Information Technology is redlinked. Is it important enough for an article?
Institutes and departments
  • One sentence section, no sources. Also uses "recently established" which is a vague term.
Festivals
  • "Breathe" links to a dab page.
  • Should Led Zeppelica be linked?
  • Use of "etc." is a copout. There should be no reason to use "etc." in article text.
  • Last two paragraphs should be combined.
Student organizations
  • Wow, this is a mess. Paragraphs are all bunched up; third-party links are within the text; reads almost like a copyvio. At the least, words like "has been instrumental in the establishment…" should be avoided.
Alumni
  • This is where the article really comes apart. From ad-like tone such as "maintained a warm rapport with its alumni" to a barrage of several short

sections and improperly formatted refs (period, followed by footnote, followed by comma — what the heck?!), it neds a total rewrite.

References
  • Many references are missing author credits. Several more are formatted as bare URLs.

The content is mostly there, but it would need a much tighter copy-edit, removal of weasel words and ad-like prose, better referencing and a complete overhaul of everything from "Student Organizations" downward. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPH, I'm not exactly sure why you're asking for references in some of the areas you are. Perhaps you could explain further? Especially areas like the administration section. Remember that WP:WIAFA doesn't call for everything to be sourced, just that which is appropriate, and links to WP:When to cite, which says that quotations, exceptional claims, contentious BLP info, and "Opinions, data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work" need to be referenced. I honestly don't see what in the unreferenced parts of the administration section fall into these categories. I would be more inclined to challenge areas such as the last paragraph of the Festivals section, which includes statistics ("3000 teams") or the section on Entrepreneurship Cell, which includes what I would consider to be exceptional claims, ("E-Cell has been instrumental in the establishment..."). Asking for everything to be referenced is not part of the FA criteria, and when experienced editors do it it provides a bad example for newer editors/reviewers. Dana boomer (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn the citation requests for now and will work on [citation needed]ing what I think need [citation needed]ing. Also, one thing I didn't catch last time is this clunky paragraph: "The senate controls and approves the curriculum, courses, examinations and results, and appoints committees to look into specific academic matters. The teaching, training and research activities of the institute are periodically reviewed by the senate to maintain educational standards. The director of IIT Kharagpur is the ex officio chairman of the senate." Three sentences in a row beginning with "the" = bad. I also raised some issues on the Alumni section here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GrapedApe's review
  • External links in the infobox should be removed.
  • I also don't think the "Deputy Director" is really worth having in the infobox
  • The rankings in the lead should be moved to the main body of the article.

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern include sourcing, prose and neutrality YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:00, 13 September 2010 [17].

November (film)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Extraordinary Machine, WikiProject Films, American cinema task force

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are nine dead links, including 1c issues. This article was promoted to FA status in 2005 and it hasn't been reviewed since. JJ98 (talk) 04:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Paragraphs 5 and 6 of "Promotion and reception" (starting at "Marc Mohan of the Oregonian") are entirely unsourced. The Oregonian review seems to be down at the bottom as a link, when it should ideally be a footnote.
  • I think the article uses direct quotes way too often. IMO, more of these should be changed to be summaries of the quotes (e.g. , something like "while Joanne Bealy said it was 'a Mulholland Drive/David Lynch copycat ... even at 88 minutes, it was too long for me'."-->"while Joanne Bealy thought that it was derivative of Mulholland Drive and that it felt too long.")
  • There's a huge clump of references at the bottom that aren't being used as footnotes; more than half of them are dead, and this one points to a login screen. The few that still work should be moved upward into inline references to eliminate this full page worth of linkspam that clutters up the bottom of the article.
  • Oslo International Film Festival is redlinked and cited only to that festival's website. Is the sentence about it even necessary?

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • To be honest, I haven't really looked at this article since I worked on it in 2005... understandably, standards have changed since then. Unfortunately, I myself don't have the time to address these concerns so I have no objections to move it to the FARC stage. Perhaps, one day, it will be FA quality once again. Extraordinary Machine (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern include sourcing YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 02:00, 13 September 2010 [18].

Max Weber

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Piotrus - most edits and original nominator for featured status, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sociology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Politics and government, WT:WikiProject Philosophy, WT:WikiProject Germany, WT:WikiProject Politics, WT:WikiProject Business

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently fails criteria 1(c), it has insufficient inline citations. It has quite a few citation needed tags and specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases. I looked at the version that was promoted which has a lot of deleted pictures and 10 fewer citations so going back to that version isn't the best way forward. Tom B (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I found:
  • Foremost concern is the Critical Responses to Weber section. Contains at least one [dubious] tag and is almost entirely lacking in sources, leading to a great amount of OR; also has a one-sentence.
  • [Citation needed] tags in "As a critic of socialism" header.
  • Prose is also very choppy. "The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism" has many short paragraphs, and the paragraph beginning "Chinese civilization had no religious prophecy" is unsourced.
  • Does the Achievements section need the ginormous quote boxes?
  • Several [fact] tags and a [weasel-inline] in the biography section.
  • External links section may have spam. I whacked out a handful of the links, but I'm not certain on the rest.
  • At least two references contain bare URLs or otherwise improper formatting.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comments. I think this article should be put thru a plagiarism checker. From the first section after the lead: 'At the age of fourteen, he wrote letters containing references to Homer, Virgil, Cicero, and Livy, and he had an extended knowledge of Goethe, Spinoza, Kant, and Schopenhauer before he began university studies.' Almost word-for-word from a 1977 book [19] 'For the next eight years of his life, interrupted only by a term at the University of Göttingen and short periods of further military training, Weber stayed at his parents' house; first as a student, later as a junior barrister, and finally as a dozent/professor at the University of Berlin.' Almost word-for-word from a 1977 book. [20] I don't have access to a good plag. check tool. But if it shows up in the first section, it may well be present in other parts of the article too. Novickas (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, it looks like it might be from this and the following 2 edits from January 2005: [21]. I removed the additions from the article [22] Tom B (talk) 23:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for fixing it. I'm still a little concerned there might be more, but maybe someone with access to a checker will go over it.
Another comment. The article states he died of Spanish flu; this is not cited but does show up as a snippet in a Google book search. [23] On the other hand another reliable looking source says it was a cold that turned into pneumonia. [24]. Could someone reconcile these somehow? Novickas (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sad to say delist. I was one of the authors of the old, old FA, but the article has not kept up with our modern standards - and I don't have the time or will to update it. As things stand, it is not fully comprehensive (I've just added links to some of his works...), it can use better organization (some things, like his Protestant Ethics theory were discussed in three separate places), it has unreferenced content... PS. If we identified the source of the plagiarised info, I'd suggest rewriting it and referencing it with the source instead of just removing. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are copyright, neutrality, weasel words, prose, sourcing, original research, comprehensiveness, structure. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:34, 8 September 2010 [25].

Silverpit crater

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: WikiProject Geology, author retired

The article fails 1c because there are lot of statistics, theories, and conjectures that are not cited YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this falls into section 1c, which deals with having references where they are needed. As the section you mention is discussing various hypotheses, they need to be sourced and attributed. Dana boomer (talk) 13:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note these issues:
  1. The lead section has only three citations.
  2. This section "Discovery" has three citations.
  3. The "Orgin" section has two citations.
  4. The "Evidence in favour of impact origin" section has no citations. This falls into section 1c.
  5. The "Evidence for alternative interpretations" section has five citations.
  6. The "Structure" section has three citations, but not enough to improve it.
  7. The "The impact" section has only one citation.
  8. This section "Age" has only four citations.
Overall, this article may not meet the featured article status because of lack of improvement. JJ98 (talk) 05:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jj98, please note that counting citations is not the point of the FAR, or of any process on WP. The section "Discovery" (and others you mentioned above) may be completely sourced - it depends on if all of the information in each paragraph is sourceable to the reference at the end of the paragraph. To check this, you would need to access the source and check to see if the information was indeed included. Per WP:Lead, lead sections do not need references, although they may have them if the main editor(s) so wish. A more important concern would be to check if the lead is a fair and balanced summary of the article that includes no information which is not expanded upon in the body. While we appreciate your contributions here, Jj98, it may be useful for you to watch a few candidacies at WP:FAC (as there is more activity there) to see the sorts of issues that are legitimately counted upon, rather than just counting references. Dana boomer (talk) 12:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing and uptodatedness YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 00:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


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

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 01:15, 7 September 2010 [26].

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Wikiproject Novels, WikiProject BBC, WikiProject Comedy

I am nominating this featured article for review because it appears to be lacking a significant number of citations, don't think it is up to FA quality any more. Also, lots of trivia without citations, Sadads (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:DYKCHECK indicates that the current prose is 5735 characters (7613 words) "readable prose size" however at FA it was Prose size (text only): 75995 characters (12694 words) "readable prose size". Although the number of references has remained at 47...it seems that some of the content may have been removed?Smallman12q (talk) 23:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: note these audio issues:
  1. File:Reg Nullify.ogg - 112 kbps is not low resolution.
  2. File:Hitch Hikers Theme Original Records Version.ogg - 117 kbps is not low resolution. --JJ98 (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll take a look:
Prose
  • Stray one-sentence paragraph in intro: "The title is the name of a fictional, eccentric, electronic travel guide, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, prominently featured in the series."
  • Plot section's only four lines. I don't know much about this work, but I'm pretty sure the plot can be explained far more elaborately even with the individual plot breakdowns further down.
  • Third paragraph of "Background" is unsourced.
  • Four paragraphs in "Original radio series" are unsourced.
  • "Novels" has only one reference, and OR statement in "Eoin Colfer, who wrote the sixth book in the Hitchhiker's series in 2008-09, used this latter concept but apparently none of the plot ideas from "The Salmon of Doubt".
  • A section on "Analytical works" was unsourced and entirely redlinked, so I excised it.
  • "Related stories" has multiple short paragraphs.
  • Entire "Other Hitchhiker's-related books" section is unsourced.
  • "Radio Series three to five" contains no references after the first paragraph.
  • "LP Album adaptations" has no sources among the first three paragraphs.
  • "Many science fiction fans and radio listeners outside the United Kingdom were first exposed to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy in one of two ways: shortwave radio broadcasts of the original radio series, or by Douglas Adams being "Guest of Honour" at the 1979 World Science Fiction Convention, Seacon, held in Brighton, England, UK. " — Unsourced.
  • Overall, a huge lack of citation throughout.
References
  • This, an open wiki, is fine as an external link, but not an inline reference.
  • The references use "ibid." which the MoS frowns upon.
  • Is this a reliable source?
  • Is this a reliable source?
  • Most of the online references are not formatted properly; they lack author info, publisher, access date, etc.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criterion of concern are sourcing and copyright YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:33, 20 August 2010 (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/September_2010&oldid=388017126"