Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2016

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

Kept status

edit

Removed status

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

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:04, 28 April 2016 (UTC) [1].

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

edit
Notified: Anomie, WikiProject Video games

Review section

edit

This article's status currently states that this article is a featured article; however, there happen to be a lot of errors, most of which are unverifiable claims, tagged by [citation needed] and [unreliable source?] tags. I have not (yet) noticed any dead links, but this article has a lot of problems, so I am hoping that we could delist this article and leave it like that until we manage to complement it once again. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Gamingforfun, looks like this nom missed the step of discussing problems on the talk page first. Thus, I'm going to put this on hold to allow for this to happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted: The talk page discussion has concluded that "romhacking.net", which is used in the article as a source, is self-published by the main editor of the article and that it therefore probably does not qualify as a reliable source. DrKay (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like a baby-with-the-bathwater situation to delist a FA on the basis that a single source is unreliable. Looking at the information it was referencing, I'm not convinced that I needed to know that level of detail about the technical specifications of the SNES. Could we just comment that stuff out until a more reliable source is found, if ever? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we've taken the wrong tack here. It's not that the romhacking.net link needs to be replaced but what the hell is going on in the "Technical specifications" section? It is a romp through jargon that is totally unexplained and unhelpful to the general reader. None of our other console FAs have anywhere near that amount of superfluous technical detail—no wonder we're having trouble sourcing it to a mainstream source. The goal of the section should be understanding the hardware in the context of its time, not listing every spec—that's for another (specialist) website and outside our scope. Indeed, the section has only collected more detail since 2007. Trim it back, I say. This is not "brilliant prose" as is. czar 05:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Technical details have been purged entirely along with the unreliable Romhacking reference. This information already exists at Super Nintendo Entertainment System technical specifications anyways, apparently in exact duplicate. There are 3 new citation needed tags that were added when @Czar removed N-Sider. I am looking for replacement sources now. After that, all tags will have been addressed. -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All unreliable, citation needed and deadlink tags have been repaired/addressed. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as all issues have been addressed. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What needs to be done for this to close? The major issues brought up, various tagging (Unreliable, citation needed and deadlink) in the article related to sourcing, have all been addressed. -- ferret (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the changes. Declarations of "Close" can help the co-ordinators determine that commentators are happy for the review to be archived. There is one remaining link to romhacking (regarding translations); is that being retained? DrKay (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Removed it. I thought all of the romhacking refs were all tagged and didn't think to search for romhacking directly *silly* -- ferret (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What are your thoughts on the article as it stands now? Do you have concerns that are yet to be addressed? @Gamingforfun365 and Czar: Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Didn't get the ping.) My specific concerns have been addressed but there's still a fair amount of cleanup to be done. I don't have the time for a full review so I'm not opposing on this, but: (1) the lede is a mess—it's not a full summary of the article (and if it is, the article is missing a whole lot of detail), (2) specifically, one half of the lede is about the product's name! It needs to be pared down, footnoted, moved to another section. The lede is for introducing how the console is commonly known, not a catalog of how it is spelled in non-English speaking regions. See the Genesis article for comparison. (3) Many sentences are unsourced—those are simple fixes. (4) The emulation section has too much individual detail and not enough overview about how they were developed and used as a whole, which were most popular and why, etc. (5) The legacy section needs much, much more on how the console and its properties affected later industry prospects, how people continue to be influenced by the console, etc. It's essentially proseline as is ("X said it's the top Y"). That stuff doesn't matter and can be grouped together ("journalists from X, Z said it was among the best consoles")—we care about the broad arc of the console's influence. That many people called it the best is not nearly as important as the specific influence (with nuance) it had on people and the industry. czar 19:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include organization/coverage and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2016 (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) 9:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC) [2].

Bette Davis

edit
Notified: Rossrs, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Film/American cinema task force, WikiProject Lowell, Massachusetts

Review section

edit

Per Talk:Bette Davis#Featured Article?, the article was last reviewed nearly ten years ago and needs more sourcing to remain up to featured article standard. DrKay (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does. I don't have the needed resources to patch it up, but someone would have to do lots of work to bring this up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As it stands, right now, it'd fail the Good Article criteria. Miyagawa (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
The main issue raised above is the article's sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Demote. An article I wish to work on but cannot due to the unavailability of the needed resources. Needs quite a lot of work. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2016 (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) 3:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC) [3].

Fairy tale

edit
Notified: Goldfritha, AtticusX, User_talk:DavidOaks, WIkiprojects: Novels, Literature, Children's literature

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, the article has descended from Featured article quality. In particular, the comprehensiveness of the articles is much lower than our standard for such a broad scope article: only two academic approaches being highlighted, one of which is almost entirely unreferenced, and verging on OR (or at least appears to be). I am also worried about the contemporary literature section: it only deals with two genres, and doesn't do so with much sophistication. Adaptation of fairy tales is quite heavily explored in academia, especially with the recent surge of television adaption work like Grimm and Once Upon A Time. Moreover, that section in particular, is very poorly written and organized. I really don't like demoting articles, but this appears to be one long overdue... it needs the attention of an expert, who really understands the field (and how it has changed since 2007!), Sadads (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sadads, welcome to FAR. It looks like you've missed the first step of discussing the issue on the talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for highlighting the process. However, there has been no serious discussion on the talk page for years, and the article proper hasn't received any substantial edits other than vandalism reversion. There does not appear to be a community to notify via the talk. I escalated, with the assumption that no-one would see this as just a talk page discussion, Sadads (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I think a deal of work is needed, possibly too much for talk page discussion - structurally it is now poorly laid out, with similar material either repeated or far apart - e.g. the Terminology section repeats material from Definition and History of the genre - its material should be split and merged to reduce and consolidate. The Cross-cultural transmission concerns origins so should be moved chronologically up the article. Association with children section is a bit all over the place - Disney material appears in two sections. Modern material should be organized into new representations of old material and new fairy tales. The motifs and the Interpretations sections should be further up the article as they are critical to the plots as it were. Also, I am a little surprised the article passed FAC with so many opposes. And then there is comprehensiveness - e.g. African/Asian material, synthesis into American culture (e.g Uncle Remus stories) - relations to myths etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review phase include referencing, comprehensiveness, and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/April_2016&oldid=717501755"