Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2012

< 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 removed by Dana boomer 20:13, 31 December 2012 [1].

South Side, Chicago

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: User talk:TonyTheTiger, WP:CHICAGO

I am nominating this featured article for review because on Aug 29 I posted on the talk of concerns. No one responded in that thread. One user has made 3 edits improving technical issues. THe article has about 10-12 maintenance tags still today. In the spring when it was TFA, it hit the main page with 12 tags. This is not what an FA should be. User:TonyTheTiger notified. PumpkinSky talk 15:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since the WP:TFAR, I have been meaning to address a lot of the tags. I have not gotten around to it. Thanks for your concern.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TTT is make a good effort at fixing the issues even though it's only been a few days.PumpkinSky talk 22:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Has someone said something about the prose?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:16, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so but it still has maintenance tags. PumpkinSky talk 16:24, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It has two remaining citation needed tags. Is that all?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a weasel-word tag (by whom?) in the pop culture section (which is where I took the mention of prose from), and almost a dozen dead-link tags. Dana boomer (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. The dead link tags. I did not notice those. I was really wondering why this was FARed in the first place. Those deadlinks make a big difference. I have some work to do.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All the dead links fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:04, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Eliminated POV content alleviating the by whom tag.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a cite needed tag in the lead. I think that's all that's left.PumpkinSky talk 09:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I notified TTT on his talkpage of this a couple days ago.PumpkinSky talk 01:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. At this point we're mainly just waiting on more reviewers to either say "keep" or identify more actionable issues. FAR is (like most of the other review processes) unfortunately a bit short on reviewers. Dana boomer (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be looking forward to changing my vote!  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 01:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work so far.  Kitchen Roll  (Exchange words) 00:13, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Random, incomplete spot check by SandyGeorgia;

I saw some iffy sourcing while I was in there ... I'll ping Ealdgyth for a source check. I couldn't get beyond the first paragraph on prose (the entire article should be copyedited by an independent editor)-- samples only:

The South Side is a major part of the city of Chicago, which is located in Cook County, Illinois, United States. Much of it has evolved from the city's incorporation of independent townships, such as Hyde Park Township which voted along with several other townships to be annexed in the June 29, 1889 elections.<ref name=A>{{cite web | url = http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/53.html | title = Annexation|year=2005|work=The Electronic Encyclopedia of Chicago|publisher=Chicago Historical Society | accessdate = September 8, 2008 | last = Cain | first = Louis P. }}</ref> Regions of the city, referred to as sides, historically have been divided by the Chicago River and its branches.<ref name="Frommers">{{cite web | url = http://www.frommers.com/destinations/chicago/0006020014.html | title = City Layout | accessdate = October 28, 2007 |year=2007 |publisher= Frommers.com|archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20071121133115/http://www.frommers.com/destinations/chicago/0006020014.html |archivedate = November 21, 2007|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name="Nobleman">{{cite book| url = http://books.google.com/?id=sQb5ZTPUykEC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=south+north+west+divides+sides+chicago | title = Chicago | accessdate = October 28, 2007 |year=2005 |page=7 |publisher=Gareth Stevens, Inc. |first=Marc Tyler |last=Nobleman|isbn=978-0-8368-5196-0 }}</ref>

  1. Major? An overused iff-defined term, no idea what it means here.
  2. Evolved ??
  3. Do townships vote?
  4. If regions were divided "historically", why are they no longer-- did the river move to St. Louis or something? I have no idea what that sentence is trying to say or intending to mean.
Skip down to the third paragraph for a sample:

The South Side boasts a broad array of cultural and social offerings, such as professional sports teams, landmark buildings, nationally renowned museums, elite educational institutions, world class medical institutions and major parts of the city's elaborate parks system. The South Side is serviced by bus and 'L' train via the Chicago Transit Authority and a number of Metra lines.[12] In addition, it has several interstate and national highways to serve vehicular traffic.[13]

  1. Here we see that "major" again. Always an overused word, never clear.
  2. Elaborate citation?
  3. In addition means also which is just about always redundant, and is here.
Skipping further down the page:

The current McCormick Place Convention Center is the largest convention center in the United States, and the third largest in the world.[80] Previously, the South Side hosted conventions at the Chicago Coliseum and the International Amphitheatre.[6] The Ford City Mall and the surrounding shopping district includes several big-box retailers.

  1. Current? Largest needs an as of date, so does third largest.
  2. Previously? Previous to what? Through what year?
  3. The mall has big stores-- why do we care? Uncited because ... why is it even there? Of course malls in big cities have big stores.
If the lead has issues, the rest of the article is likely to. Please locate an independent copyeditor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Request has been posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#South_Side.2C_Chicago.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Observations by Chick Bowen
I've been doing a bit of minor copy-editing toward the top of the artice; I'll try to go through the rest in the next couple of days. I took the liberty of removing the "citation needed" tag in the "Athletics" section, since the tag was on the statement that seven teams used to be in the area and the seven are listed in the ensuing paragraphs (I took out an unnecessary paragraph break to try to make that clear). Since I haven't had a chance to get to know the article well, I've only been dealing with obvious things; I certainly haven't tried to address everything Sandy says above. However, my general advice would be to shorten it. There's a tendency to belabor points, and some of the citation problems are about extremely minor observations that could easily just be removed. A good example is the "Boundaries/Subdivisions" section, which goes on forever and never actually says why any of it matters (it hints at racial, class, and gentrification issues but doesn't make them clear). I feel like someone who knows the material better could pick out what really matters in there and cut the whole section down by half. Chick Bowen 17:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I share your concern, and agree with your proposal. But, neither do I think we should still be addressing basic prose issues three months in to a FAR. It's one thing to keep a lengthy FAR open when work is clearly ongoing and many editors are at work, but quite another to hope someone from the GOCE will do a copyedit, when to my knowledge, they don't typically have the resources to copyedit to the level required by FA or to correct the deficiencies here. Unless something happens soon here, I'll be declaring a Delist-- this FAR has already gone on for three months, the article still has substantial issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be enough of an effort to remedy the situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised at the quick response regarding the copyedit issues. Regarding the fact that the copyedit was not requested for three months, I think it is a bit fair to make the request that I find a copyeditor after three months and then complain that a copyedit has not been addressed for three months. If a willing copyeditor has arrived, why should we delist upon his arrival. That also makes little sense to me and find it unfair to delist promptly after help arrives. I admit that WP:CHICAGO has left me on an island in terms of addressing this FARC, but now that help has arrived, it should not be a signal to delist.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the guild; I just happened by. If you could find somebody else to look it over, I think that would be good. Chick Bowen 20:06, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts. I have a request in at the guild. I don't know how to solicit anyone else. I appreciate whatever help you can provide.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One difficult problem that affects the entire article is the issue of defining the South Side. The article admits that there are different opinions on the boundaries. In one section, the article even seems to suggest that the Southwest Side is somehow separate from the South Side. ("Adding to the confusion are the neighborhoods which are also classified as being part of the Southwest side such as McKinley Park, Brighton Park, Archer Heights and Garfield Ridge.") With such a shaky foundation, it's hard to say if the later sections in the article are accurate and complete. What, exactly, is the scope of the article? (I don't think this is an insurmountable problem, but it would take some time and effort to figure things out.) Zagalejo^^^ 03:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also remember raising the issue of close-paraphrasing at the original FAC discussion. (Specifically, some phrases were very close to the Encyclopedia of Chicago entry.) That's something important to keep in mind. Zagalejo^^^ 03:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of this writing, I haven't found any additional issues of close-paraphrasing, but I won't make a guarantee of anything. (In the process, I did notice that this - a Barnes and Noble page for a Books LLC title - was recently added as a reference. That book is probably just a compilation of Wikipedia articles (though I know many replacement references are available). Zagalejo^^^ 04:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by MarchOrDie I had a quick look and confirm that the writing is pretty ropey. It really needs a top-to-bottom copyedit. I share the concern about the sourcing and I dislike the slightly random "In popular culture section". If this has really been sitting for such a long time without being improved, maybe it does need to be delisted. It certainly doesn't meet the criteria at present. --MarchOrDie (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
MarchOrDie's one edit has been the only edit in the week since I last posted. We keep FARCs open when work is progressing; work is not progressing. I will revisit in a few more days, and will likely enter a Delist if significant work isn't underway by then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that the source issue mentioned above was sports-related, so I found a replacement that should be suitable. The wording of the source was originally a little close to the article, but given that the source wasn't in the article before, it's probably a coincidence. I noticed a few bugs in the reference formatting, but I haven't read enough of the article to offer an informed opinion on it. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, a month since notice of copyedit needs, insufficient progress, and "nowadays" ? WP:MOSDATE#Precise language. It is one thing to leave an article for months at FAR when there is diligent work and consistent progress shown; neither is the case here. FAR was never intended to be an indefinite means of making sure a star isn't removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 27 December 2012 (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 Nikkimaria 18:01, 28 December 2012 [3].

Storm botnet

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: WP Computer Security, only main editor has been inactive for four years

I am nominating this featured article for review because I notice an out of date information tag.. that hasn't been removed in 2 years. I wanted to know about this botnet today, and all I got was this article with old information. My remedy would be to add the outdated information to fix this. I also suspect style problems, as the candidation was back in 2008, when FA articles were not as good. Cbrittain10 (talk|contribs) 01:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I posted a notice of work needed over a month ago, and no work has been done since then. The article is significantly out of date, which is the major issue, as well as the more minor issue of several dead link tags. Cbrittain, can you please make the appropriate notifications to major contributors and interested projects, as is required in the FAR nomination instructions? Dana boomer (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It's definitely out-dated. • Jesse V.(talk) 21:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criteria mentioned as issues in the review section include comprehensiveness and references. Dana boomer (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – The article appears to be 4–5 years out of date, as the tag at the top of the page indicates. Unfortunately, I don't think this meets the criteria anymore. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per above. No one appears to be trying. JJ98 (Talk) 03:48, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I've done some work on improving the lead up to date, and will continue to improve the rest of the article. The article is fairly out of date, though, and I agree that in its current state, it doesn't deserve to be a featured article. Hopefully, with some work, it can improve enough to regain featured status, but it needs some fundamental improvement until then. (X! · talk)  · @740  ·  16:46, 24 December 2012 (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/December_2012&oldid=531283521"