Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2015

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC) [1].

Rwanda

edit
Notified: Amakuru, Lemurbaby, BanyanTree, WikiProject Rwanda, WikiProject Countries

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it currently falls short of being comprehensive and well-researched. Parts of the article are rather dated. For example, the data on religion is from the 2002 census, not the more recent 2012 census, and much of the data in the economy, education and health sections is from the late 2000s. There are some questionable statements, such as "It is not clear who funded the next batch of 100,000 XO-XS laptops nor the additional laptops leading to the 400,000 XO-XS laptops", which is sourced to a wiki site. The section Millennium Development Goal 6 lacks context, with no explanation of what this MDG is. There is a general need to update the article, which quite a few relatively old "as of" statements present. I have personally rewritten the sport section, and have tried to encourage other editors to help with improving the article, but not much progress has been made. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An inconsistency: the introduction states that "Rwandans are composed of three ethnic groups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa", whereas the demographics section states that "the population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Cordless Larry: there's a general problem here, because it is quite a hotly disputed topic in sources as to what the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa groups actually are. In some sources, Banyarwanda are regarded as one ethnic group, sharing a language and culture, with Hutu and Tutsi being social classifications, while in other sources the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa are themselves regarded as separate ethnicities. The text tries to explain this issue, and I've changed the lead to match what's in the Demographics section. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be a pain, but I still think this part needs work. The lede states "The Rwandan population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda, although within this group there are three subgroups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. The Twa are a forest-dwelling pygmy people descended from Rwanda's earliest inhabitants. Scholars disagree on the origins of and differences between the Hutu and Tutsi; some believe differences are derived from former social castes, while others view them as being ethnicities or tribes". The scholars who consider Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups can't consider that the Rwandan population is drawn from just one ethnic group. I think we need more of a sense that there is disagreement between scholars who think there is one ethnic group, and those who think there are multiple ethnic groups (both in the introduction and the demographics section). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, Cordless Larry. I think part of the difficulty here is that the term "ethnic group" is not clearly defined. In the UK we tend to talk of an "Anglo Saxon" ethnicity, but that is of course itself a hybrid of various different peoples, not just Angles and Saxons, but some native and other peoples as well. The main source I used in this section is Mamdani's book "When Victims Become Killers", which looks at some of the arguments in the matter but doesn't really give a definitive answer. One thing he says is "If we understand an ethnic group to mean a cultural group, comprising those who speak a common language, then the Banyarwanda must be considered East Africa's largest ethnic group". So he's saying it doesn't matter what their origins are, as long as they share language and culture, then they're a single ethnic group. I've just edited the article and replaced "ethnic and linguistic" with "cultural and linguistic" to make this more clear, and I've removed the bit saying Tutsi and Hutu may be ethnicities, to more explicitly say that those scholars on that side of the fence believe they come from separate origins, but without treading the minefield of whether that means they're separate ethnicities or not. Let me know what else I can do to make this clear. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Amakuru. I think the new text works better than the old, and while there's more that could be said, I think this is about right for a main country article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Education and health

edit

The main focus for my efforts this weekend is going to be bringing the health section into line. I would like some feedback on one thing though - at the time of featuring, this as the version of the article: [2]. Then, education and health were in one paragraph (which I had modeled on a similar paragraph over at Cameroon, an earlier FA). The education part has not changed much, apart from the addition of some over detailed analysis of laptops. The health section, however, has been hived off into a separate section, and largely filled with non encylopedic and over detailed information.

My question is whether it makes sense to fold these two back into one paragraph, with just a summary of the details of each. The thing to bear in mind is that this is strictly a summary article. Country articles can never hope to go into very much detail on any particular topic, which is why we have child articles Education in Rwanda and Health in Rwanda to provide much more detail on that. In fact, the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates does not suggest including any detail about education and health at all. Personally I would favour the approach of updating the paragraphs from the FA version, to reflect up to date information, but keeping the two subjects in one short section, as before. What think you?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a few of the country featured articles do have health and education sections, often as sub-sections of demographics. Do they naturally belong together in one section? I'm not sure they do, personally. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've now rewritten the health section, it gives a general overview, with citations and some relevant statistics, but without going beyond two paragraphs. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Amakuru, that now looks much better. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sport sub-section

edit

Amakuru's post above reminded me that I meant to mention that the sport sub-section that I wrote is currently quite long. There is perhaps a need to create Sport in Rwanda, to move the content of the sport sub-section there, and to summarise it for the Rwanda article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought of that myself a while ago. That's a very good idea.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Things that need updating

edit

Lead

  • Confirm relgion figures. - Already done.
  • Check females in government posistions fact - Done.

History

  • Last paragraph updated for recent developments - Done.

Politics and government

  • Mention the two term limit and current proposals to remove it - Done.
  • Update with recent sources for criticism of constitution - Done.
  • Update numbers of deputies with more recent election, including facts about female majorty - Done.
  • Check on latest status of courts (in particular gacaca) - Done.
  • Update facts and figures on corruption - Done.
  • UPdate cites on the RPF dominance - Done.
  • Update relations with France and Francophonie - Done.
  • Update relations with Uganda and Congo - Done.

Administrative divisions No changes needed

Geography

  • Make sure still 149th largest country (given new countries that have come into place) - Yes it is.
  • Make sure climate figures are up to date - Yes.

Economy

  • Update GDP figure - Done.
  • Update USD exchange rate - Done.
  • Update plans for EA shilling - Done.
  • Update farming figures, and GDP contribution - Done.
  • Update crops - Done.
  • Update industrial sector figures and products - Done.
  • Update tourism figures - Done.
  • Update media and communications - Done.

Infrastructure

  • Update water figures - Water is up to date.
  • Update electricity figures - Electricity up to date.
  • Update transport

Demographics

  • Make sure basic figures and densities are up to date - Done.
  • UPdate faith figures - Done.
  • CHeck languages - Done.

Culture

  • Check national holidays - Done.

Cuisine

  • Check beers - Done.

Education

  • Check and update - Up to date.

General

  • Go through all references, check for deadlinks and format correctly.

@Cordless Larry: now that the sport and health has been dealt with, the above is a list of things I'd like to check and update now, based on a read through of the article just now. If you can think of anything else, please let me know. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work, Amakuru. I'm incredibly busy off-Wikipedia at the moment, but that looks like a good list. If I get some time, I'll help out making the checks you identify. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've not looked at this for a week or two, but it's still on my to-do list and I hope to get back to the tidy up very soon... please keep open for now!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked for more recent tourism figures yesterday, but could only find official statistics to 2011, though more recent figures have featured in reports such as this, so they must exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also found this potential source for beers. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the number of public holidays from 11 to 12, but the source also lists Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Are these full public holidays too? If so, it should be 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant law suggests that they are official holidays, so I will update to 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Cordless Larry. I have no idea why I looked at the new source and thought there were still eleven. I must have counted very badly!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cordless Larry and Amakuru: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been able to commit much time to this, but Amakuru has been chipping away at it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sorry it's taking so long, (I've been very busy in real life), but as Cordless Larry says, I have been doing it little by little over the past few weeks. If it's OK I'd like to keep it open until I can polish off the remaining items on the list above, and then we can see where we are. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Phew, finally finished checking and updating the refs, so I've now finished my list of things to do. @Cordless Larry: do you see anything else that needs doing? Assuming not, my vote is as for DrKay, Close without FARC. I believe with the work we've done, this is now back to FA standard. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The work you've done would be much more accurate, Amakuru. I haven't had time for a thorough read through, but a skim read suggests that all is well. My only concern is with consistency and linking in the sources section. Take the Guardian articles, for instance. Some have London set as the place of publication, some don't, and there are two links to The Guardian, neither of them on the first instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:21, 25 December 2015 (UTC) [3].

Georg Forster

edit
Notified: Kusma, WP Libraries, WP Germany, WP Plants, WP Journalism, WP Birds
URFA nom.

Review section

edit

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standard; it has uncited text and some MOS issues, as mentioned on talk in April 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe in the future you could ping the appropriate projects, rather than just putting a comment on the talk page and hoping someone might notice? We didn't know there was a problem until you pinged us today with news of the review. :P Will see what I can do. MeegsC (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thrilled to see people descending on the article for improvements, even though the talk page notice was ignored for more than two weeks, indicating that we had another older unwatched FA. Meegs, your suggestion is impractical for many reasons, which we could take up at WT:FAR (so as not to muck up this page) if you are interested. Please keep in mind that one of the main objectives of FAR is to improve articles, and being here is not a "punishment". Also, I hope you've noted from the FAR instructions that we can KEEP without FARC, which is an outcome that delights most of us here ;) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit busy IRL these days, and do not have much wikitime to dedicate to this right now, especially not without a bit more detail on what is wrong. As I haven't kept track of everything that happened at MOS: could you point me to the major issues that you see? Also, not every sentence is followed by an inline citation, but if you could tell me where you would expect additional citations I am happy to go hunting through my Forster biographies. Sadly, my current university library doesn't seem to have a copy of Saine's biography, but I'll see what I can do. —Kusma (t·c) 13:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes-- happy to see people willing to work here! I will start a list, not yet comprehensive, and add to it as issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your list. I'll try to improve the messiness. Fortunately, there actually are page numbers in most citations to Saine's biography, but they are visible only in the wikitext, not in the displayed result. I do not recall why this is the case and whether they used to be displayed when the article passed FA. On the whole, the article has been quite stable since it became a FA, but I certainly agree it no longer looks like the best we can do. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • spaced WP:EMDASHes ... the article should use either unspaced WP:EMDASHes or spaced WP:ENDASHes.
  • What is the order of the Works section? Alpha, chrono?
  • Book sources need page nos.
  • Citations do not have a consistent style (as but one example, look at the many different ways author names are rendered)
  • Citations are incomplete or incorrently written. All sources need a publisher, all websources need an accessdate, and author and date should be supplied whenever available, also ...
    • [2], English translation at australiaonthemap.org.au (archived link, 19 July 2008) needs to be cleaned up to a correct citation.
  • Check image captions (for example, The Pinnacle of liberty, A satire by James Gillray)
  • Italics should not be used here, and I'm wondering if this can be reversed (that is, put the English version, with a footnote to the original ???) ("The freedom of the press finally reigns within these walls where the printing press was invented.) See WP:NONENG. That is one sentence: I don't think it needs a pull quote, but Maralia may know better.
  • There's sort of a mess everywhere in terms of WP:ITALICS in relation to words as words, translations, quotes, etc:
    • called "Freunde der Freiheit und Gleichheit" ("Friends of Freedom and Equality")
  • Avoid WP:OVERLINK on common terms known to most English speakers and not needed for understanding of this article (samples, Latin, England, philosophy, there is more) and link on first occurrence.

This is not a complete list, but is enough to get started. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

  • Fixed all dead links, captions and a few overlinks.
  • Improved dash-usage (opted for spaced en-dash), but this will need another look (especially in refs).
  • WP:ITALICS, "page numbers and other ref details", and "sorting of works" in a meaningful way is above my paygrade.
  • I could try to transform references into cite-templates - if nobody is objecting against that citation style. Only a minority of references use cite-templates currently. GermanJoe (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Back from the dead (marking exams and other business meaning no wikitime at all), back to normal not-enough wikitime. Will report on progress as it happens, hopefully during July. —Kusma (t·c) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am having difficulties with the "Works" section, it is a completely random mess in my opinion. I am uncertain how to best approach it between OR and copyvio concerns. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just remove the works section then? FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would anybody object if it is gone? —Kusma (t·c) 18:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe I am saying that, but the list should stay imo. Granted, it is a bit messy and borderline-useless for most average readers, but someone interested in in-depth research about Forster may find the information useful. I trimmed a few entries with no conceivable immediate usage and sorted the list. GermanJoe (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It does look a lot better (thank you!) and does not compare too poorly to some other Works section in FA-class biographies. Something like Charles Darwin bibliography, while desirable, should not be necessary here. —Kusma (t·c) 14:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have cleaned up some of the more obvious problems with citations, switched to "surname, given name" format, and removed the optional publisher locations. Unfortunately several of the references include non-standard information and additional remarks, where I have no real clue how to improve them - or if it's even necessary. And I lack all of the older sources to add eventually missing details. Another look on the reference progress and additional advice would be great. I hope, we can give old articles a bit of leeway :), but can clean up some more if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

I have moved this here to clarify who thinks what about whether this article is kept or removed. So please comment here if you think it now meets FA criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The notes are still a bit of a mess, with lots of problems in formatting and consistency. I'll start going through them as I have time, and then I'll do a read-through of the prose for any other problems. I'm hoping we don't have problems with missing page numbers from inaccessible sources. --Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2015 (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 delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC) [4].

The Illuminatus! Trilogy

edit
Notified: WP Books, WP Novels, WP Sci-Fi. Main author and nominator inactive since 2009
WP:URFA nom

Review section

edit

Criteria of concern are prose and reliability. On prose, there are many single-sentence paragraphs. On reliability, there are dead links, fansites, and unsourced sentences, including "joke typical of the trilogy", "new lease of life to flagging sales", "they suggest closely resembles the face of Weishaupt", "authors are well aware that it also provides an excuse for mere titillation", "books espouse the use of mind-altering substances to achieve higher states of consciousness", "trademark of Wilson's writing", and "Interest in Lovecraft reached new heights in 1975". It is not clear whether the quote from Leary (sourced to the trilogy's blurb) is a real quote or one made up by the trilogy's authors. DrKay (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

Issues remain as above: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 6 December 2015 (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) 2:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC) [5].

Walter Model

edit
Notified: Hongooi, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military history

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because as noted on the talk page last year it is tagged for citation in many places, some of which contain peacock and weasel words such as "his audacity and improvisational skills (and the tactical ineptness of the Russians) had brought him rich rewards", "he felt great displeasure towards officers bearing the red trouser-stripe", "meteoric rise" and "His stubbornness, energy and ruthlessness were more qualities that Hitler found admirable, and Model's blunt and direct manner of speaking also made an impression". These examples are also typical of some of the prose employed in the article, which is not dispassionate or idiomatic, such as "he gave the U.S. 12th Army Group a bloodied nose". In places, the prose is also overcomplicated, such as "The statement that he was no strategist can be agreed to because the conditions for that existed for no general in the Third Reich". DrKay (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a quick comment, the article notes that Model expected to be prosecuted for very large scale war crimes following the war, but his involvement in these is never discussed. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

Issues remain as above: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 6 December 2015 (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) 2:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC) [6].

Second Malaysia Plan

edit
Notified: Johnleemk, Nakon, Borisblue, WikiProject Malaysia
WP:URFA nom

Review section

edit

There are some unsourced statements such as "Due to this wide disparity ... improving the economic status of the Malays" and "new conundrum was therefore considered". The article is heavily reliant on a single source that was written in 1977, calling into question whether the criterion 1c ("thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature") is met. The phrase "It was also alleged by some" should attribute the allegations to specific persons or organizations. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

Issues remain as above: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 6 December 2015 (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) 2:09, 25 December 2015 (UTC) [7].

Belarusian Republican Youth Union

edit
Notified: Zscout370, WikiProject Belarus, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Socialism
WP:URFA nom

Review section

edit

There is an update tag on one section, and when I tried to address it I couldn't verify the article content. The dead links and age of the material also indicate that the article needs updating on a broader scale. The latest information in the article is from 2006, which is almost ten years ago. DrKay (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

Issues remain as above: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 6 December 2015 (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) 2:10, 25 December 2015 (UTC) [8].

Arthur Percival

edit
Notified: Singaporean wikipedians' noticeboard, WikiProject Malaysia, WikiProject Military history. Main author and nominator inactive since 2013
WP:URFA nom

Review section

edit

Several paragraphs and sentences are unattributed [I've marked two but there are others], some of which contain potentially controversial statements, including "difficulties with his subordinates", "Bennett was full of confidence, but faced a mixed reaction", "Percival threw away potential advantages", "restrained rather than self-serving", and "Unusual for a British lieutenant-general". DrKay (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

Issues remain as above: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 6 December 2015 (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) 2:17, 25 December 2015 (UTC) [9].

Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)

edit
Notified: WikiProject Hip hop, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject Reggae, WikiProject Songs

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not up to today's FA standards. Meant to put it up for review earlier after leaving commentary on the talk page, but somehow forgot until now. Anyway, this is how it currently compares against the FA criteria:

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • No major problems, but could be better. For example, I feel that "Lisa Haines of BBC Music referred to the song as" could be something like "Lisa Haines of BBC Music called the song" or "Lisa Haines of BBC Music described to the song as", and "Ben Wener told Stefani that the song was disingenuous and 'absurd'" would probably be better as "Ben Wener criticized the song as disingenuous and 'absurd'".
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Almost. The music video section doesn't contain any reviews, and it feels incomplete to just list live performances without any commentary or detail other than the names of events.
  • 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate
  • Absolutely not. The "live performances", "use in visual media", and "track listings" sections are completely uncited. That alone would automatically fail the GA criteria if nominated today. There are also some dead links, and I'm not sure if "Rebel Waltz" (one of the dead links) or "Neumu" are reliable. ATRL is a forum and definitely not reliable, and neither is Jason Shawhan's About.com review per WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources/About.com Critics Table. Video director and theme also need references. Not sure why "Above deck Stefani, the Harajuku Girls, Eve, and more pirates dance on the deck and rigging. Stefani is also seen dancing with the Harajuku Girls in a treasure trove, often carrying a sword, and swinging from an anchor. When the girls dunk the toy ship in a fish tank, the galleon engages in cannon fire, causing Stefani and the pirates to fall all over the ship, and Stefani and the Harajuku Girls are soon shipwrecked." is unreferenced when other music video bits are cited. Since its reception and composition seem to rely heavily on album reviews, more reviews dedicated specifically to the song would be helpful.
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • Looks good.
  • 1.e. stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process
  • Seems OK.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • No. It fails to take into account the music video, genres, and what critics said about the song. It also doesn't name any of the nations where it charted in the top ten.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • As far as I can tell, there are no problems here.
  • 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)
  • Not exactly. There are a few bare URL's, and some references contain the publishing companies for works (a practice that became largely deprecated this past January) while others don't. "The" is not part of the title for Orange County Register, "Top40-Charts.com" should read simply Top40-Charts, and "top40web.nl" should just be "Top 40 Web".
  • 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • No excess detail detected.

The edition that passed for FA in June 2007 wasn't exactly ideal and is not something I would've supported if reviewing at the time, but to be fair, the criteria was less demanding back then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Criteria of concern are 1b and 1c: comprehensiveness and verifiability, and 2a and 2c: lead and consistent citations. Note that two of the unsourced sections have been removed. DrKay (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist while no longer an automatic fail since there's only one unsourced section, there overall hasn't really been any effort to bring this up to FA standards based on my concerns listed above. Snuggums (talk / edits) 16:48, 6 December 2015 (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) 2:20, 25 December 2015 (UTC) [10].

Peru

edit
Notified: Victor12, Materialscientist, Peru Wikiproject

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because...the article no longer meets the standards.

  1. The history has become too long and with focus on random areas (such as Inca worship and Fujimori inflation statistics).
  2. Citations are missing from several parts of the article. For example, foreign relations and military sections.
  3. Too much focus is placed on unimportant topics, such as water supply and sanitation, making for a terrible structure.
  4. The reference formats are too inconsistent.
  5. Demographic statistics are of dubious neutrality, especially when considering the complex racial structure of the country.
  6. Too many images, causing excessive text sandwiching.
  7. The article is wordy as a whole and does not follow WP:Summary guidelines.

These are just a few of the many problems in the article. Unfortunately, it no longer meets the criteria for FA status.--MarshalN20 Talk 04:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you have followed step 1 of the FAR process (raising issues directly on the talk page and giving editors a chance to respond). --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Laser! Good to see you again. I made a comment on several of these same issues back in July 2014 ([11]), these include: the references, the use of images, the increasing use of text contrary to summary guidelines. None of these points were addressed at the time, despite promises by an editor working in the article to do so, and the article has fallen under further disarray. Victor12, the editor who had the most extensive knowledge of the topic, as well as being the article's original FA nominator, seems to have stopped editing Wikipedia (except for a few, minor and sporadic edits)—at this time, nobody is addressing other important points raised in the talk page ([12] and [13]).
I'd volunteer to work on the article and fix it, but have no time at present (in addition to being tied to an AN/I issue that is taking away what is left of my free time in WP). The article's FA status may be giving the wrong impression to potential editors who can help it. Best.--MarshalN20 Talk 12:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

Moved here as no action for one week since DrKay's comment above. Article's length as such is 36 kb readable prose, which is within generally accepted article size limits. Outstanding concerns are five dead links, and unreferenced segments. Image rationalisation may be needed as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist. Unsourced statements include, but are no means limited to, "resistance was suppressed when the Spaniards annihilated [the Incas]", "the church came to play an important role in the acculturation of the natives", "massive native depopulation", and "reduced the power, prominence and importance of Lima". Entire paragraphs have no sources, or are sourced to "discover-peru.org" and "allempires.com", which do not appear to meet the criterion for high-quality reliable sources. Potentially non-neutral statements without counter-balancing comments include "people were forcefully converted", "the church employed the Inquisition, making use of torture", "marred by atrocities", "symbols of the human rights violations", and comparing "free and fair" elections with "tainted" ones without providing a source. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2015 (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) 1:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC) [14].

Tamils

edit

Also note: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tamil people/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tamil people

Notified: Vadakkan, Sundar, Subramanian, Wikiproject India, Wikiproject Dravidian civilizations, Wikiproject Tamil civilization

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review. The article has been a prime candidate for FAR since 2010 and at that time Dana boomer and I had some discussion on getting this here. However, I didn't follow through on time. We've had posts about some of the problems on the talk page: Nov 2010, Oct 2013, Talk:Tamils#Featured Article Review. The major issues include (a)quality of sources used within the article, (b)image use -- while copyright vios are a regular concern, the random use of images without context is also a problem (c)Undue weight to certain aspects, including synthesis of information from external sources, (d) some copyvios have been inserted into the article and have stayed in for a while (a deeper check is still needed). I have also started a deeper source evaluation here; hoping it would be ready by the time we go to FARC. —SpacemanSpiff 07:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was hoping this would get some comments. Personally I don't think this is an easy fix, the history is complex and over the years a lot of unsourced content has been dropped in front of references. There's a lot of OR and POV stuff that's being edit warred over even during this review.—SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. Sourcing, stability and copyright problems. A couple of years ago, I tried to fix up Azerbaijanis and eventually gave up after a large amount of work because it proved to be a wasteful time sink. This article appears to be suffering in a similar way, and I doubt it will be possible to fix it through this process. DrKay (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

I note recent editing by blocked users. The articles's size and broadness/complexity means it needs a detailed FARC to come though with its star intact. Concerns are fidelity to sourcing, stability and risk/presence of copyvios. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but that's only one part of the whole mess. If you see this revert of mine (since reinserted) you'll notice how some of the POV nonsense is taking over the article:
    • "The Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka reflected some elements of Tamil martial traditions which included worship of fallen heroes (Maaveerar Naal) and practice of martial suicide. They carried a Suicide pill around their neck to escape the captivity and torture."
    • "A remarkable feature besides to their willingness to sacrifice is, that they were well organized and disciplined. It was forbidden for the rebels to consume tobaccos, alcohols, drugs and to have sexual relationship."
  • It is really unfortunate as this is a subject that has significant scholarly study, but over the past three to four years the article has become a place to promote fringe perspectives and most editors who've been interested in maintaining this article have simply given up. —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements from February 2011; dead external links from August 2015; apparently unsourced weasel words, such as "what is considered to be folk Hinduism"; mixture of American and British spelling; inclusion of material in the lead that is not found in the article body. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vensatry: Any update here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Sorry for the delay in getting back. I don't think I'll be able to repair this article in the given time frame. —Vensatry (Talk) 08:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I will close it shortly with outstanding issues of deadlinks, unformatted references, more worryingly POV issues that need to be investigated but most of all lack of activity. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 29 December 2015 (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_2015&oldid=697220612"