Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/to June 8 2006

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Active reviews

[edit]

Breastfeeding

[edit]
Featured status: As at 05:26, 13 October 2004
Difference: To 19:32, 28 July 2005

Unable to determine the original promoted version (apparently prior to October 2004).

  • Unexplained technical language used throughout
  • Poor formatting (--, "ibid", etc)
  • Poor writing ("Breastfeeding may hurt some women. Sometimes this is related to an incorrect technique, but it usually eases over time.", "After World War II Western medicine was taken to Japan and the women began giving birth in hospitals, where the baby was usually taken to the nursery and fed formula.")
  • Lead lacks mention of controversies surrounding breastfeeding, and any mention of declining breastfeeding rates in the face of encouragement from governments etc
  • Poorly and haphasardly referenced
  • Seems to have a strong bias towards breastfeeding, whereas bottle feeding is a choice made by many.

In short: this article would never survive an FA nomination today. See the talk page for more examples. Stevage 08:44, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one that got it to FA status. Since then I've given up battling with people coming along and changing it quite drastically. It is now quite different to how it was when it was accepted as an FA, and the quality drop is quite obvious. I considered FARCing it myself. violet/riga (t) 21:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, what a pity. So how does one get an actual review to take place? Stevage 09:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Best thing to do is to escalate this to WP:FARC. violet/riga (t) 15:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hinduism

[edit]

[1] - this is the closest I could find to the promoted version. The present version needs a lot of work. Rama's Arrow 23:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As pointed out by Rama's Arrow, there are several issues with this article.
    • There appears to be an excessive number of images with questionable copyright tags. Many of the illustrations are taken from ISKON's Bhagvad Gita, and claimed as fair use.
    • The article has no in-line citations. References are limited.
    • The article's length is 76k. Many of the sections are written in summary style. A glaring exception is Core Concepts. Needless to say, rewriting this in summary style is going to be tricky. AreJay 00:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, I made quite a few changes on the main article. Not sure how much you guys will like - please refer the history for explanations on each major change. Mostly, I added a lot of references for figures and also journal article references for criticism section. I also used the version posted here by Rama's Arrow as a guideline to take out things that I felt were not needed to be in the current version. (Blacksun 09:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

LSD

[edit]

Promoted version and diff Major changes The lead needs work, as it seems to jump around without a real narrative thread, and it's not clear what apply just to the US and what doesn't. Overall, it looks pretty good - I actually expected worse. Some of the paragraphs and sections are a bit skimpy though, and inline citations are needed, along with a references section. As long as there's no references, I support making this an article of concern. Tuf-Kat 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the hyperlinks currently distributed throughout the text were consolidated into a proper References section, it would be considerably better. I agree on the lead (though that shouldn't be too hard to fix up), and I agree on the suggested course of action. Anville 15:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also supporting making this an article of concern. Mostly due to the "psycological" section, which I believe is still not quite there regarding npov. Another problem with the article is that it does not explain satisfactorily why LSD was banned, it seems it was just a matter of right-wing moralists. Zxmaster
    • A write-up on the reasons for the ban will undoubtedly be controversial. Better route would be to find and transcribe highlights from the relevant 1966 hearings of Congress. Gyan 23:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice idea, Gyan. Generally speaking, while this article still has its trouble spots, it's much better than it was at the beginning of February. Anville 12:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Platypus

[edit]

Here's the diff and here's the promoted version. Many changes, article appears to have been basically rewritten and expanded significantly. Lead could be longer, and the second paragraph could probably be expanded and definitely needs a citation. Still, an excellent article. I can only suggest inline citations. I support passing this review. Tuf-Kat 03:00, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose passing the article, I'm unsure why the recent FARC passed given the objections (5/2). The article is not comprehensive and the references are doubtful. The article wouldn't pass FAC, which is what we should be measuring these articles against. --nixie 03:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kylie Minogue

[edit]

Here's the promoted version, and here's the diff. I was contacted on my talk page because of a concern about too many images and a general creep of fannish tone since the article was promoted, ergo I decided to start a review. I agree that there are too many images, only two of which are free, but I don't know enough about the topic to have an informed opinion about which ones should go. Definitely the two free pics need to stay, and one of them ought to be the first pic in the article if possible. There seems to have been a fannish tilt developing, see the diff for examples (e.g. "The album was a moderate success" became "The album was a success, selling two million copies worldwide", while the rather crufty tidbit " following a duet with the Pet Shop Boys' on their Nightlife album" was added, the paragraph beginning "The Showgirl - The Greatest Hits Tour was announced in early 2005" appears to be new and needs work, or outright removal) Tuf-Kat 20:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Music Project criteria
Lead: 4 (free pic)
Comprehensiveness: 3, 4 (don't see much in the way of negative reviews, of which I imagine there are plenty out there, also a section of musical style and influences might be nice)
Sales: Looks good, though consider adding chart data from more countries
Pictures: 2 (removal of some fair use pics being discussed, any that remain need a rationale specific to their use on this article)
Audio: Looks good overall, though consider working them into the body of the article and/or providing more informative captions (e.g. "Song" from Album is an example of a darker and more depressing tone, and is representative of Minogue's style in Year)
References: 4 (print sources that aren't biographies would be good, also the external links ought to be inline citations)
Discography: 1, 2, 3, 4 (as noted, more countries might be nice, needs a summary style list at the main page)
Format/Style: 2, 3 (not clear why that book is "further reading", consider trimming external links, style generally okay, needs something under "Recording and performing career")

I was the person who asked TUF-KAT to look at this article, (and thank you very much for doing so. I'm glad to receive your comments and feedback and will think about how to address your points.) With regards to the images, I do feel qualified to comment on which ones are relevant and which ones are not, and have added comments to Talk:Kylie Minogue. I propose trimming them down from a ridiculous 17 to a more realistic 8, which is roughly where it was when it became featured. I've given reasons on the talk page. The only thing I'm a little perplexed by is the comment "don't see much in the way of negative reviews". With regards to her albums, she attracts a lot of negative comment, and the article contains an appropriate mix of positive/negative comments. Probably about 60/40 which I think is about the right mix. With regards to her live work, she seems to be regarded as something of an expert in the field. ie a lot of critics are adamant that she can't sing, dance or write music but as an entertainer she's ahead of the pack and puts on quite a show. Even so, there are some negative comments although the ratio there is about 80/20. (Once again, I think it's consistent with her reviews). I'll check further though. The other points raised are great - but I'll wait for other comments before making any radical edits. Thanks Rossrs 01:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know there are a couple band articles with integrated sound clips, but I can't find any right now. See blues, American popular music and music of Nigeria for some examples -- American popular music does a particularly good job of it, if I do say so myself.
  • Perhaps there's more negative reviews than appeared at first glance... I think this speaks to the importance of a musical style/influences/critical reception section(s).
  • I put some thoughts on the talk page about the images, more or less in agreement with you.
  • Tuf-Kat 06:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked at some music articles and have an idea of how to integrate the samples into the article ,so I'll work on this . The musical style/influences etc section - I'll have to think of how to approach this, but I think the way the article is structured chronologically with the critical comments being discussed as they occurred, works ok for this article. But of course I'd think that, as I wrote a lot of it ;-), so now I realize that what is clear to me, is perhaps only clear to me because I'm "close" to the article. I'm concerned that starting a new section for these comments is going to make the flow disjointed and create the effect of rehashing. I'm not sure. I can definitely see though that a "Performing and recording career" and "Critical comments" section would conform to Wikipedia style. I've read through the comments on the talk page and we seem to agree on most points, so I feel I'm on the right track. thanks again Rossrs 13:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE : User:Getcrunk has removed the excess images as per the talk page and reinstated an abbreviated version of the discography. I have integrated the sound samples into the article, plus I have reduced the number of samples. Bearing in mind User:TUF-KAT's comments about adding extra countries for chart info I have added indicative countries to represent other regions - not necessarily to indicate strength of sales or profitability but to demonstrate her chart performance in these regions, which is more a demonstration of her place as a pop cultural figure. Added Germany (Western Europe), Slovenia (Eastern Europe), Hong Kong (Asia), Israel (Middle East) and South Africa (Africa). I would add something for South America too, but for the fact that it's only her last 4 or 5 records that have actually charted there. Rossrs 09:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: make sure the captions for the sound samples are consistent in tense (I prefer present, I think), and either make them complete sentences or remove the periods at the end. Otherwise, great job on that! Tuf-Kat 06:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • thanks. I'll try to fix them. The tense thing is a bit difficult because some of the comments are past "was the first hit blah blah" and some present "is a dance song blah blah", but point taken, it's gramatically correct but stylistically incorrect. Rossrs 09:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I've finished. I've rewritten the captions for the sound files, have completely redone the references as per m:Cite/Cite.php and have replaced a lot of dead links with live links. Have trimmed some of the text done, and rewritten some sections. I think it's once again deserving of its featured article status. Rossrs 09:11, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montréal-Mirabel International Airport

[edit]

This was the promoted version and here's the diff. There are POV issues. The article is currently tagged with neutrality in dispute. There have been edits done to resolve the POV issues. Nevertheless, the neutrality tag is still present on the article. Pentawing 05:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through the article again recently, and it appears that much of the POV issues have been resolved. Unless someone can see a major problem with the article, I suggest that this article pass the review. PentawingTalk 06:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Severe acute respiratory syndrome

[edit]

I think it's good to review stuff that was Really Big News for a time. March, 2004 promotion and diff. I note that the "Spread of SARS" map breaks up the text in an ugly way. There's also a lot of very short paragraphs that should be merged. Most importantly, it needs to have a separate "external links" and "references" section, preferably with inline citations. I suggest passing the review, as the article has improved significantly, but designating it an article of concern until there's a references section. Tuf-Kat 09:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has been moved to Severe acute respiratory syndrome. It badly needs a fact-check and proper footnote and reference sections. The tables and boxes need to be formatted to fit the screen properly (doesn't work on my screen settings). Finally, it just needs a good clean-up (especially the "Clinical information" and "Political and economic reaction" sections.) --maclean25 21:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oxyrhynchus

[edit]

No references section, a few paranthetical pointers to presumably source documents, but it isn't clear what these are or how to verify them (e.g. 3rd century AD; number 655)

Michel Foucault

[edit]
  • One image, unverified. →Raul654 20:29, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
  • The best thing I could find was this book cover [2] is has a decent pic and is a good size, usable as fair use.--nixie 11:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's a book cover, are you sure you've got the right to reproduce it here? Buffyg 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Only as fair use. --nixie 00:26, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • And since the article isn't about the book, we can't rightly claim fair use. Gmaxwell 19:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, no, that's not true. →Raul654 22:11, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Since you've made no argument to consider, I am left only to criticize your judgment on these matters. Lets not forget who uploaded Image:Morissette_-_Ironic.ogg and insisted that it was public domain. Gmaxwell 23:37, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Please show me where it says in title 17 that fair use of a given work only applies to criticisms/summaries of that work. Hint - it doesn't at all. It does say that it is acceptable "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" - any and all of which might cover this article. →Raul654 23:44, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Fair use is fine for all of those activities, but only when the activity is related to the work in question. These uses are not a free pass to copy, if it were the case why would schools spend any money at all on educational materials, and why would newspapers pay such high prices for the use of AP photographs. Fair use is intended to protect public discourse and the expansion of knowledge, it does this by allowing access to unique and important works where there could be little acceptable replacement when copyright would otherwise allow the copyright holder to deny such access. As such, it is almost always the case that fair use needs to be directly related to the specific work whos copyright we are infringing. This same reasoning is why it is not permissible to take a microphone manufacturers product images to make a point on pressure transducers. Gmaxwell 00:15, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • "Fair use is fine for all of those activities, but only when the activity is related to the work in question." - would you care to cite the place on that page where it says this? I see no mention of it. →Raul654 00:19, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Do you have westlaw access? Almost every case on the use of copyrighted material in satire is decided on this aspect of fair use. Again, complex analysis of the law isn't needed here, if your simplistic decoding of the rules were true no school or news agency would ever need to pay for copyrighted works... which is clearly not the case. Gmaxwell 01:33, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • This is complete lunacy. If fair use were to be interpretted that way, which is incredibly narrower than anyone would think, it stands to reason that there would be something *actually written into the law* that says that. Some kind of limiting clause, like "for purposes such as criticism ..." except where the use is outside the scope of the original work. So, please cite something more substantive than 'IANAL and the law doesn't really say this but here's how I think should is interpreted.' →Raul654 01:47, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't know what more to say but you are completely wrong. The position you are advocating would make any use of copyrighted material in wikipedia into fair use, a view which is consistent with your other dealings with copyright, but a view we can clearly reject as false. You've still failed to answer my simplified argument on educational use. As far as citations, see "Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.", "Ringgold v. Black Entertainment Television, Inc.", "Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Penguin Books USA, Inc.". A core consideration for fair use is Is the use of the work transformative?, that is Are we parodying, criticizing, or otherwise commenting on the copyrighted work. If we are not, it is much less likely that our use is fair use. Gmaxwell 02:30, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • The image has been added to the article. Stop cluttering this page. If you want to debate copyright policy, do it at Template:Bookcover or some related page, please. --brian0918™ 4 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)
  • Interestingly, my father (who got his PhD in Philosophy from Fribourg and has a lot of connections to the European academic scene in the field) may get me a free (as in GFDL) photo of Foucault. I just hope he finds one of reasonable quality. More on this in a week or so. Phils 4 July 2005 19:52 (UTC)
  • Perhaps some Polish Wikipedian could find a photo from his brief stay at Warsaw University in 1958. If it was published without a clear copyright notice, then Template:PD-Poland would apply.--Pharos 11:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Miles Davis

[edit]
  • Has two (rather low quality) pictures - a fair use and a noncommerical-wikipedia-only image. It's crying out for something a bit better. (If peeing you're pants is cool, I'm Miles Davis - Billy Madison) →Raul654 05:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Will this do? I'll have to check for availability. 24.254.92.184 23:26, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • that was an unsigned me. Jobe6 23:27, August 27, 2005 (UTC)
There is a sculpture of Miles Davis in Montreux. I have a photo of it but it's so poor you can't even make out the facial features. violet/riga (t) 10:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Velázquez

[edit]

"To Madrid (early period)" is nearly empty.

Race

[edit]

"The Social Interpretation of Physical Variation", "Case studies in the social construction of race" and "20th- and 21st-Century debates over race" are empty sections, not all references used in the writing of the article, see also too long, sections devoted to US and Brazil, but not others

W. Mark Felt

[edit]

Has no free images. Considering that he held a prominent position at the FBI, it is odd that no U.S. government-produced images of him are readily available, at least online. Maybe someone in D.C. would care to pay a visit to the FBI Reading Room? I'm sure it would be an educationally rewarding experience...--Pharos 11:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/to_June_8_2006&oldid=1223712367"