Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/December 2020

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

Kept

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) 6:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC) [1].

Battle of Blenheim

edit
Notified: Andrew Gray, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Bavaria, WikiProject France, WikiProject European history, WikiProject History, talk page notice 2020-11-09

I am nominating this featured article for review because two weeks ago, serious issues with the FA criteria were identified by RetiredDuke on the talk page. They were never addressed so here we are. (t · c) buidhe 02:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks to address some pretty minor issues is hardly enough time. I had already listed the article to be looked at by a couple of Milhist members in the thread immediately above yours. This is an over-enthusiastic nomination given the issues addressed are far from serious. In summary, they are some missing citations (much of this material can just be deleted as it was uncited when added and added little to the subject), and some pretty minor prose issues with flowery language. You would be better off using the limited number of FAR noms you are allowed to nominate more seriously deficient articles. I will have a look at rectifying the issues shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion on prose: Like many articles on (and off) Wikipedia, the word "however" is overused. Use it only where needed to show contrast, and not as just another conjunction. And where contrast is clear without it, leave it off. Consider using "but", or recasting the sentence to use "although". Eric Corbett has some good advice and links here and here.
I agree that the other issues are not major. Kablammo (talk) 20:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the however's. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the book that many of the uncited passages came from and have addressed all bar one of the citation needed tags - Dumelow (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to remove some of the text which I couldn't source but I have now addressed the last one - Dumelow (talk) 14:52, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your help here, Dumelow! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to get part of the last CN tagged bit in the Initial Maneuvers section cited, but the source I have access to discussing Blenheim is a short chapter in a larger 1960s book about "Great Military Battles", so I was unable to cite the rest of that statement due to lack of detail in my source. Hog Farm Bacon 17:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarise where we are at, there is one remaining "citation needed" tag, and the image licensing has been checked by Nikkimaria (details on the talk page), and there are a few images that need licensing fixed or the images removed. I will have a look at these two issues in the next day or so unless someone else gets in ahead of me. Once they are fixed, I think this article is satisfactory. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are Harvref errors, there is dreadful MOS:SANDWICH everywhere with an unbearable navigational template full of redlinks taking up most of the top of the article and contributing to clutter, and why was this removed?

  • The famous Lake poet Robert Southey scathingly criticised the Battle of Blenheim in his anti-war poem After Blenheim, but later praised the victory as "the greatest victory which had ever done honour to British arms".[100]

This seems an undue focus on MILHIST, leaving off a well-known poem about the futility of war that referenced Blenheim. Please reduce the images, or better arrange them, and convert the template full of red links taking over the article to a foooter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've autocollapsed the campaignbox to reduce its intrusiveness. I agree it is overly long and should ideally be broken down into shorter boxes by period or location - Dumelow (talk) 08:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will someone please reinstate some sort of legacy section with the poem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia - Are the harvref errors from most of the references being as ref tags, but a handful being sfns? I'm willing to convert the sfns over to ref tags if that'll fix anything. Hog Farm Bacon 01:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm famously useless with harvrefs, but I believe (?) they are sources that were removed, no longer used? Sample:
  • Chandler, David G. (1964). "Blenheim, 1704". In Falls, Cyril (ed.). Great Military Battles. New York City: MacMillan. pp. 30–41. OCLC 221501112. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFChandler1964. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the source I just added to cite the note I could. Pointing a no-target error, since I added it as a ref tag inline citation, which is the prevailing style. So I think there's one of two things that'll have to be done. Either the ref tags will all need to be converted to sfns, or the {{Cite book}} templates will need to be done as typed-in text, without templates. Both will entail some work, not sure which one's preferable. Hog Farm Bacon 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The HarvRef errors are at Chandler 1964, Chrisholm 1911, Faulkner 2008, Webb 2013.
  • If what I think is going on is going on, the best way to handle this will be to switch everything to sfns and {{Cite book}}. It'll take a few minutes, and it'll flag more errors before it all gets done. I'm pretty sure Chisholm 1911 will take an additional fix, but we'll see. Gonna try to work on this. Hog Farm Bacon 01:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so I've been going through, and have run into a couple problems. This produces a number of footnotes that it's not clear if they're sourced or not. Additionally, I ran into the text On 14 May, Tallard brought 10,000 reinforcements and vast supplies and munitions through the difficult terrain, whilst outmanoeuvring Johann Karl von Thüngen, the Imperial general who sought to block his path.[1]. Since the footnote is to Falkner, but the accompanying text makes it clear that Falkner doesn't back up the 10,000 figure, I'm not sure what to do with this, as I can't tell what source the main info is coming from. I'll just leave this as is, which means that it will likely continue to flag a harverror, but there's no way around that one without someone figuring out where than 10,000 figure comes from. Hog Farm Bacon 01:59, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the 10,000 figure. The most recent source that I could find that stated 10,000 was published in 1909 - Dumelow (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SandyGeorgia - How many harverrors are flashing now? I've done my task, except for two points where I lacked enough information to create an sfn. Chisholm and another source weren't used, so they've been removed. This also uncovered a problem with notes either only vaguely sourced or unsourced. Hog Farm Bacon 03:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Falkner: Blenheim 1704, p. 20. Falkner gives a total of 8,000
I've removed one image (Tallard) as overly cluttered and another (the diorama) for having iffy licensing (per Nikkimaria's analysis on the talk page), and moved some stuff around, addressing all of the SANDWICH issues that appear on my system except for the long campaignbox. I can't guarantee that it looks good on other systems, and the removal of Tallard might cause some pushback, so we'll see where this goes. Hog Farm Bacon 01:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked three devices (desktop, laptop, iPad), and except for that absurd mess of redlinks taking up the entire top of the article, images are OK now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are also three of the footnotes that are just unsourced notes. FN1 is just geographic stuff that's probably self-proving (distances and stuff), but FN2 and FN7 need either removed or cited. Hog Farm Bacon 01:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly removed FN7 as an over-long description for a thing that's wikilinked anyway. Hog Farm Bacon 01:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten/cited some problematic footnotes. One I couldn't help with that needs attention is footnote b about Blindheim lying in the principality of Palatinate-Neuburg - Dumelow (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted these with teh proper quote template - Dumelow (talk) 08:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am concerned, if someone has access to Churchill's Marlborough and can cite the three or four notes that mention different figures, this is now completely fine. I would be happy to delete the Churchill notes if no-one has a copy to hand. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had to use an older edition but I have added page numbers for the Churchill notes (and also for Lynn) - Dumelow (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone confirm to me if that nice caterpillar quote is from the Winston Churchill or from Winston Churchill (Cavalier)? It now links to the first. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the former, I've switched the citation to the direct source (Churchill's Marlborough His Life And Times) - Dumelow (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I figured it would be, but wanted to be sure. Is that Mr. Bothmer in the text, Hans Caspar von Bothmer? RetiredDuke (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Friedrich Johann von Bothmer [da], I've added interwiki links for him and Cuno Josua von Bülow [de] - Dumelow (talk) 18:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. That was just me keeping up with all the secondary players. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2020 (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

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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC) [2].

Istanbul

edit
Notified: Tariqabjotu, WikiProject Turkey, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Greece, WikiProject Ottoman Empire, WikiProject Asia

Review section

edit
I am nominating this featured article for review because I posted on the tp more than 2 weeks ago:

The article needs substantial work to meet the FA criteria: better referencing (including citing the uncited content, as well as improving the quality of refs so that promotional claims are cited to independent sources), updating many sections that are out of date.

In fact the article was seriously out of date when it was run at TFA just under 2 years ago. No one responded. (t · c) buidhe 04:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm a new-ish editor who's interested in helping to preserve the featured article status. Are the out-of-date sections marked accordingly? I'm only seeing the header for the economy and demographics portion. Can you give an example of refs that you would consider promotional? Thanks! Portugal1337 (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Welcome, Portugal1337, thanks for your efforts! The economy and demographic sections are the worst in terms of being out of date. I know only a limited amount about the topic, so it's hard for me to tell if other sections such as Media or Public Services also may have changed from 2007/2008. The main issue with promotional claims are things like, "Turkish Offshore Racing Club also hosts major yacht races, such as the annual Naval Forces Trophy", sourced to their website. I suspect this information is not WP:DUE/the TORC is not sufficiently important to merit a mention on this major article. I flagged some issues with [citation needed] [better source needed] [needs update] [non-primary source needed] and [undue weight? – discuss]. (t · c) buidhe 09:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the fast response -- I have already identified sources to be able to update the economy section. Demographics seems to be much harder. Do you know what kind of time frame I would have to make the relevant changes? I have a lot of free time this week and hope to dedicate some time to the article. I will post updates here Portugal1337 (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal1337 The article was promoted with 10,000 words of prose (long), but is now at 12. Once a Geography article sprawls like that, it just becomes harder to maintain. I recommend tighter use of summary style so you won't be right back here in two years, as editors chunk it one of everything. (Note that Edge cities was not in the promoted version.)
I don't want to overwhelm with a list yet, but for now, there are urgent MOS:SANDWICH issues everywhere, as editors have chunked in too many images. It is unlikely that most of those images passed an image review, and reducing them considerably would help.
Once you are through more of the basics, I'll look in again. There are still considerable other issues, like incomplete and incorrectly formatted citations. To get this one over the hump, it would help to have an editor familiar with FA standards on board; is anyone else helping you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worthwhile to email User:Tariqabjotu, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Economics section of the article and have moved on to demographics & religious groups section, which seems to be in much worse shape. I'd appreciate your feedback on the Economics section so that I make fewer mistakes in other sections. Thanks for the support so far! Portugal1337 (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks so much for your edits! There's been a definite improvement. I don't really know much about location articles but here's some thoughts:
  • Phrasing such as Istanbul is the business center of Turkey, or international gateway should generally be avoided because they don't really have a concrete meaning and come across as promotional.
  • "Istanbul is an increasingly popular tourist destination" is an issue for another reason: it's likely to become dated (I'm guessing its popularity among tourists did not increase between 2019 and 2020, for instance). Also, you would need a source which explicitly states that it is increasing, rather than just data from two years with the second being higher. I removed this wording.
  • Historical dictionary of Turkey is a good source to use, but ideally you would include the pages cited as well as the author of the entry on Istanbul if credited separately. (t · c) buidhe 12:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the feedback! Sorry for being late in replying, I moved out of my apartment in NYC and it was 10 days of pure chaos. I have updated the following sections:

  • Religious and ethnic groups,
  • demographics,
  • architecture

Two sections were almost rewritten from scratch

  • Climate,
  • Geography

I am working on the following sections:

  • History – in the process of adding a lot of social history of city; The current section only talks about the broad contours of Ottoman history, and is not very city-focused.
  • Politics and administration – I am thinking about merging the two sections
  • Toponymy
  • History to add the following archeological discoveries:
    • 8,000 years old canoe oar, the earliest ever found, again, 8,000 years old.
    • A thousand human footprints (barefoot, leather shoes, and possibly wooden clogs) from 8,000 years ago have survived.
    • Discovery of wooden coffin dating to 6000 BC


  • I will go work on updating the citations with page numbers.

Portugal1337 (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update by Portugal1337: I am currently unable to make additions because my account has been "banned indefinitely," and because editing the article requires "confirmed status." I have appealed the ban but was unsuccessful. The response to my appeal ranged from the outrageous, like requiring me to submit explanations for an accusation with no accompanying evidence or explanation, to the absurd, like concluding—based on the information disclosed to me, solely based on the accusation—that my account is a sock puppet, to the dumbfounding, like criticizing me for copyright violations without ever mentioning them beforehand. Reading the response and the accompanying unappetizing solipsistic subtext to my appeal “you haven't even mentioned the copyright violations,” I almost passed out with empathetic shame on the responder’s behalf. Maybe this episode was no more bizarre than the election in 1800 where Jefferson accused Adams of being a hermaphrodite and Adams responded by spreading rumors that Jefferson died. It is still out there. Puppetportugal1337 (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You did insert copyrighted material into Istanbul here, for instance. Taken from erenow.net/ancient/pompeii-the-life-of-a-roman-town/8.php here. And intentionally changed the sentence from Roman to Ottoman. From most elaborate and sophisticated pieces of architecture in the Roman world to Ottoman. We seem to have a problem here. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Diannaa: re User:Puppetportugal1337, @FAC coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oopsie ... sorry FAC coords ... @FAR coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, promotional claims, copyright and potential datedness. DrKay (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just so we're clear on status here: are the copyright concerns solely about material added during this review, or is there other material of potential concern? If the former, has all of that material now been removed? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The copyrighted material was removed by Diannaa, it was added during this review. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article is still far from featured standard. We have refs 173 and 174 that are literal photos serving as refs (they were added 2 days ago). The "eleventh-largest economy among the world's urban areas in 2018" claim is not in the source provided (added 2 weeks ago). So we are seeing bad edits creeping in during this review, all the while stuff like the citation needed tags still hasn't been taken care of. While trying to spotcheck some recent additions like the "34 active synagogues" claim added here, I found out that Historical dictionary of Turkey was actually written by three people instead of one. There are also no hits for Hemdat or 34 synagogues on that book. So I don't have confidence in the edits that have been made recently. There's no one keeping a close eye on the article, editors just come and go adding images and changing stuff as they please. RetiredDuke (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2020 (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) 8:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC) [3].

Westgate-on-Sea

edit
Notified: Epbr123, WP Kent, WP Cities, WP UK geography, notified 2020-11-5

Review section

edit

This one is not particularly close, despite being a recent TFA. Questionable web sources, books without page numbers, but the largest issue is out of date. Newest thing in history in 2001. Demographics is missing the most recent census. Economy: 2001. Politics has one statement post-2007. This is so horrendously out of date that it is not close to FA standards. If the article can be brought up to date, the lesser issues shouldn't be too hard to fix, but there's about a decade's worth of new material that needs added. Hog Farm Bacon 06:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2020 (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) 8:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC) [4].

European Commission

edit
Notified: JLogan, WP European Union, WP Politics, notice

Review section

edit

While this doesn't look terrible from a casual glance, this has definite issues the closer I look at this. Some of these aren't quite glaring, so I'll take more space to enumerate them here than I'd normally like.

  • The Delors Commission section is mostly a single quote
  • I suspect that Barroso Commission section may be undue weight
  • Juncker Commission may be too little weight
  • The commission sections don't have a clear chronological flow of when each one ends, IMO
  • Bits of outdated material and statistics throughout.
  • Some of the criticism stuff, like the IT bit, is rather vague.
  • Initiatives seems to just be cherry-picking two of them, it seems like the Commission has probably done more than two initiatives.

Looks to me like this needs significant work. Hog Farm Bacon 05:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naypta, pinging you in the off chance you would be interested in saving this article. It would be a shame if it gets demoted. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include weighting and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2020 (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) 8:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC) [5].

Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Miami

edit
Notified: NancyHeise, Student7, WP Florida, WP Miami, WP Catholicism, WP Christianity, talk page 2020-11-10

Review section

edit

This is a 2007 promotion that has not been maintained to standard. Issues detailed on talk [6] include considerable dated information, possible POV because of omission of sexual scandals, some MOS cleanup needed, and inconsistent citations. Independently, the FAC Coord who promoted this article (ahem-- moi-- possibly my first promotion) appears to have misread the FAC, as there were not three supports (I did not promote articles on two supports). For that reason, I won't be entering a declaration and ask that others shephard this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - no engagement, significant issues. Hog Farm Bacon 05:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Prose isn't engaging or of a professional standard, e.g. "university of St. Thomas University in Miami. St. Thomas University", "[seminaries] serve priestly formation needs", and "Located in Hialeah, Florida, is a Diocesan seminary where the seminarians once ordained, will be at the disposal of the Archbishop for internal or missionary assignments." Lists of statistics are piled together into overlong sentences with a repetitive structure in the Catholic Health Services section. Single link to the article on the abuse scandal in the See also section is a weakness; it should be linked in the text. Occasional padding or promotional tone, e.g. "The archdiocese uses several types of media to fulfill its evangelization efforts". DrKay (talk) 15:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist not comprehensive (t · c) buidhe 15:12, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2020 (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) 2:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC) [7].

Karnataka

edit
Notified: KNM, Aviator423, Girth Summit, WikiProject India, Indian states, Talk page notification from April

Review section

edit

This article was promoted in 2007 and has never been reviewed since. The article has a substantial number of unsourced statements, and a breakdown of the lack of references in the first 2 sections can be found in the article's talk page. There are many more throughout the article, though. Problems spotted:

  • Uncited information, in practically every section of the article;
  • Dated information (just examples):
  • some statistics from 2002, 2007;
  • "the state government intends to invest ₹700 million ... in a "Silk City" "" - this is sourced to two news pieces from 2009... is there a follow-up?
  • "Shimoga, Hassana and Bijapur airports are being built and are expected to be operational soon." - what does "soon" mean in this context?
  • The Climate section has a number of tables that a) do not add much to the article, since it's raw data; b) should be converted into text instead (if rainfall is that important that needs 3 different tables, there's something to be said about it in text); c) are duplicated from the respective sub-articles;
  • Ditto for the subdivisions, the whole section is unsourced with big tables that do not offer much;
  • References need clean-up; there's duplicated refs (The Hindu), inadequate formatting (Archived copy as title), bare urls, etc;
  • Puffery (X, Y and Z "are famous private universities in Karnataka.", this place "has of the rarest and unique collections of flora and fauna.").

Article does not meet the FA criteria. RetiredDuke (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've boldly removed all of those tables on climate and provided some concise information on climate change to the article. I cannot find the temperature records in scientific sources, and am insufficiently familiar with Indian newspapers to know which ones I can cite. Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion moved to talk page with a reminder to avoid personalization and WP:FOC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If FA status is going to have any sort of continued meaning whatsoever, it's important to make sure that articles claiming that status meet this criteria. This one doesn't by a mile. Hog Farm Bacon 16:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is not FA, and not even GA standard Delist - This article is definitely not an FA by any means. Infact, this article isn't even of WP:GA quality. There are plenty of unsourced statements throughout this article. A small sample of it was highlighted in April for 1 or 2 sections, but overall this article lacks citations for plenty of statements. The Education, Media, Sports and Tourism sections are Listy and a sea of blue links. The Flora and fauna section is also a big list, instead of descriptive and narrative prose. They lack suitable prose and content for an FA. Duplicate links (MOS:DUPLINKS) are common in the article and are too long to even get mentioned here. Copyediting and prose are not of FA quality either. There are statements in the article that exaggerate information - for example, "Karnataka also has a special place in the world", "Karnataka occupies a special place in the history of Indian radio" and many more.
"Recently Karnataka has emerged as a center of health care tourism." - It's an example of WP:RECENTISM.
There are many statements having Original Research (WP:OR). Some of them are "The state is projected to warm about 2.0 °C (4 °F) by 2030. The monsoon is set to provide less rainfall."
Another example of Original Research - "Bangalore Karaga, celebrated in the heart of Bangalore, is the second most important festival celebrated in Karnataka." - Statement does not exist in the mentioned source.
I suggest Delisting Karnataka from WP:FA as soon as possible.
Aviator423 (talk) 12:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delist are not declared in this stage of the process (per instructions above); the statemetns about climate are supported by the following source. Femke Nijsse (talk) 10:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2020 (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) 2:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC) [8].

East End of London

edit
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject London, Wikipedia:WikiProject England, Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it no longer meets Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are unsourced paragraphs, unsourced statements, unattributed quotes, weasel words without attribution, a section consisting largely of quotes, inconsistent citation styles and short, stubby paragraphs that do not meet the prose criterion. DrKay (talk) 15:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've got some more sourcing concerns as well. At least one blog is cited, the books cited frequently lack specific page numbers, etc. This idea of the East End as lying beyond the pale of respectability was also emphasised by Jack London when he visited London in 1902, is possible WP:OR, as it's just cited to the specific book by London itself, so the editor is probably interpreting that into the article. One footnote is really just an unsourced inflation value of currency, and most of the books cited lack publishers. In addition to the many instance of uncited prose, this needs very substantial sourcing work. Hog Farm Bacon 05:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the statements below may have violated the NPOV guidelines:
    • Bizarre events occurred when the River Lea burned with an eerie blue flame, caused by a hit on a gin factory at Three Mills, and the Thames itself burnt fiercely when Tate & Lyle's Silvertown sugar refinery was hit. ("fiercely" seems redundant)
    • They advocated focusing on the causes of poverty and the radical notion of poverty being involuntary, rather than the result of innate indolence. ("radical" seems redundant)
    • Great numbers, of East Londoners, perhaps 100,000, turned out to oppose them and there were three-way clashes between the Fascists, their East End opponents and the Police. (can be reworded to avoid "Great numbers" and just state the numbers)

These statement issues have been identified through an AI that can automatically identify statements having minor POV issues and missing citations. It is meant to ease the review burden for Featured Articles. If such predictions are relevant, we appreciate more feedback here to help evaluate our AI and make it robust to aid in article reviews. More details can be found on the research page. Sumit (talk) 05:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is "radical" redundant? Radicalism was a specific political movement; "the radical notion of poverty being involuntary" contrasts with the conservative belief that the poor were to blame for their own poverty.

Ditto with "great numbers"; just stating the number doesn't make it clear that in relation to the population at the time this was a significant proportion (nowadays, 100,000 people at a London event wouldn't be particular significant). It seems to me like you're looking for what you consider weasel words, without bothering to check if they're appropriate in context. ‑ Iridescent 06:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Iridescent. These are good notes. I'm working with Sumit.iitp on this AI. Would you be interested in helping us test and refine this AI? Any suggestions for articles/categories you would be interested in seeing us test against?
This AI is trained using editor behavior from Wikipedia. In this case, the AI is telling us that editors tend to change sentences that look like this and include "POV" or "NPOV" in their edit summaries. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 18:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi EpochFail, this sounds like a cool project, but I'm not sure at this point that it is easing review burden here. I'm going to pull Sumit's post back from archive at WT:FAR for some more discussion. In the meantime, can I suggest you update the research page to reflect that the study is no longer solely observational? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria.   Done and thanks for pulling back the thread. I'm interested in learning more about the review burden here and what might help. A lot of the machine learning work I've done in the past is focused on reducing review burden (see mw:ORES and the editquality models for counter-vandalism and draftquality models for new page review). I think that, with the methods | and I are working on, we stand a chance of helping with FAR burden but I'm not familiar with the bottlenecks in the process we can target. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 12:45, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I actually agree with the suggestions. "Fiercely" is redundant. It would be better to state the population of London rather than use the vague phrase "great numbers". If Radical refers to a specific political movement, it should be capitalized, otherwise removed as confusing. (t · c) buidhe 22:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:Iridescent, Nikkimaria and User:Buidhe for the valuable feedback here. I have posted my responses on the main discussion thread. Sumit (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, no engagement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2020 (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) 2:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC) [9].

Nikki and Paulo

edit
Notified: Thedemonhog, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Fictional characters, talk page notice
@Sceptre:, a frequent co-nom, not notified. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article is quite far from meeting current day featured article criteria. The sourcing specifically is a very low quality, including nine citations to other Wikipedia articles in a citation to a blog. The original nominator is semi-retired. Maybe this article can qualify for the one week FAR and FARC. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • including nine citations to other Wikipedia articles is specious. These are convenience linking the Wikipedia article; the actual citation is the episode itself. (We've had that discussion in the past year or two.) No comment on the validity of the other concerns. --Izno (talk) 13:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Today I learned. Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just poor form, and should not be done. We don't cite Wikipedia in sources. If a plot summary is referring to additional detail in another Wikipedia article, that should be done via Wikilinking to those articles, or via hatnotes in those sections (further information at, etc.). It's also done deceptively, in a way that makes it look like ABC is being cited, not Wikipedia. Also mentioning that the FAC appears to have had considerable drive-by support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While we are here, similar problems seem to exist in every one of the Lost FAs listed for thedemonhog at WP:WBFAN, including marginal sources as well as Wikipedia listed under references. Unless someone is willing to take on improving all of them, perhaps the lot should be submitted to FAR. @Ealdgyth: for a modern take on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Martin Keamy, for example. In other cases, even when Ealdgyth questioned sources, such as Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Other Woman, reviewers ignored the query. By the end of 2008, and the last FAC in this series, reviewers started paying more attention. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Meet Kevin Johnson. Depending on the outcome of this FAC, there are nine more that may need FAR. And Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lost (season 4). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If a plot summary is referring to additional detail in another Wikipedia article, that should be done via Wikilinking to those articles, or via hatnotes in those sections (further information at, etc.). It's also done deceptively, in a way that makes it look like ABC is being cited, not Wikipedia. Did you misinterpret my comment or miss it somehow? The reason it looks like ABC is being cited is because ABC is being cited, not Wikipedia. As I said, it is a convenience link only. It is equivalent to something like 'Malcolm Gladwell (2005). Blink. Back Bay. pp. 1–320. ISBN 0-316-17232-4.' (not that I would cite Blink being popular psychology...).
    That aside, the Duke has said below they are being used for interpretative/subjective statements rather than for basic plot (for which they are allowed on Wikipedia in general), which is a no-no. --Izno (talk) 18:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I understand what we are each saying, but let's check:
    renders as:
    That is not a citation or sourced to ABC: it is entirely made up of Wikilinks. Not how we do it. No source material in that citation. IF you're saying it is sourced in the other article, well, that doesn't work ... it should be sourced here. And as the person who passed some of these FACs, it is not apparent to me that I knew these fake citations were happening. But then fourteen years back is a long time for me to remember ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not how we do it. Then either you, or FA, or both, are out of touch with the rest of the wiki. We are not citing the wikilinks, we are providing them for ease of access for the user to go and look at those articles (for w/e reason). To take my previous example, if I had wikilinked Malcolm Gladwell, would you believe that I was citing the wiki article about Gladwell? I did wikilink Blink; do you believe I was citing Blink or the article about Blink?
    IF you're saying it is sourced in the other article, well, that doesn't work I am definitely not saying that, and I agree that would be concerning (and I routinely remove such citations, though there is also an inline tag template for the less-bold editor; see also this search which may take 30-60 seconds to load, where the intent between citing a Wikipedia article and citing the work/author is not obvious; I'll let you ponder why there are so many :). To put my earlier comment another way, an editor intending to cite the article about Blink (for whatever reason) rather than Blink itself (as above), would instead make a citation that looks like this: 'Footlessmouse; WikiCleanerBot; 2606:6000:6c88:1800:111e:b66f:dc6c:dfd3; Blockandtackle42; et al. (12 October 2020). "Malcolm Gladwell". Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation.{{cite encyclopedia}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)' (or provide no authors probably just due to practicality). --Izno (talk) 19:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are using the Blink example, I am using the Expose sample that I listed, which is not a citation. Perhaps we are still not understanding each other, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument for Featured articles, and these have sources that are not, but are masquerading as if they are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To use your example directly, yes, that is a citation to the episode "Exposé" in the show Lost published by ABC on March 28, 2007 as episode 14 in season 3. That helps me find where the information "Ted has a red hat." is and is accordingly a citation (if that a. needed citation, and b. was the fact we were citing). Citing the Wikipedia article about Exposé would be something like "Exposé" (18 November 2020). Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation., or in longer form the article "Exposé" as published 18 November 2020 in Wikipedia by the Wikimedia Foundation.
    Whether it is a reasonable citation for some information or another is a separate concern and I've already admitted that its use here per Duke below is undesirable, regardless of your apparent incorrect understanding of how citations can and will have wikilinks.
    That said, I'm done arguing with you about what is entirely a sidepoint in the discussion of whether to delist this article as featured, and will move along accordingly. If I haven't been sufficiently clear regarding what I'm saying (this post being the fourth time), I don't know what to say. --Izno (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikilinks are not the problem; it's non-citations masquerading as sources. But I, too, will move on here ... obviously, this issue troubles me considerably as I cannot recall being aware this was going on in the few of these that were promoted by me, and I relied on source checkers to make sure reliable sources were used. So since I have a pony in this race, I probably won't be entering a Keep or Delist declaration, other than to observe that depending on what is decided here, we might submit the whole batch to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I think there are weak sources here. For a FA at least. For instance:

Then there's the issue that this article was promoted as an article on Paulo only. Now it's an article on two characters. Which is a problem because if you look at the "Casting" section, almost all of it is about Santoro, Paulo's actor. There are 2 sentences about Nikki's actress. (There's also the issue that this version about two characters has not been "FA-approved". Nowadays, if a significant merge was suggested at FAC, I imagine the nomination would be withdrawn, with the article being re-nominated after the merge.)
I also note that, despite using Wikipedia articles only as convenience linking, there's some speculation and opinion present in the article, taken from the episodes themselves:

  • "Paulo either resents or is indifferent toward..."
  • "does not try to improve his status in the survivors' hierarchy"

I was not aware of convenience linking to Wikipedia itself (I did not read that discussion), but I think that the only way that primary sourcing (ie. the episodes themselves) should be used in a FA about fictional characters, is on the plot/appearences sections. Here they're being mostly used on the "characteristics" section, which is subjective, in my view. Anyway, most of this is just my opinion, I'm happy to discuss it. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious doubts about the use of some of the primary sourcing to draw conclusions about the characteristics. For instance, "Paulo either resents or is indifferent toward the often heroic actions of some of the survivors, spending much of his time golfing" is backed up to a single episode. This is phrased as to refer to his entire appearance in the series, but one episode isn't a good source to state that he's constantly golfing, unless it's directly said in the episode "Paulo spends all his time golfing." There are several other instances where a single episode is used to draw overarching conclusions about the character. To the list of iffy sources above can also be added BuddyTV, which looks rather questionable to me. And surely a better source exists than Zap2It, as well. Hog Farm Bacon 00:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2020 (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) 2:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC) [10].

Gilwell Park

edit
Notified: Orcalols, WP England, WP Scouting, 6 November 2020

Review section

edit

Per RetiredDuke's unanswered talk page comments about two weeks ago, this 2006 promotion is no longer up to par. Rogers is cited about 30 times with the same 40-odd pages page range, this appears to be just about the entire book based on an Amazon search. There is significant uncited text. There are one or two other books cited without a page range (the two Rogers books cited may actually be the same thing). I'm doubting that Pine Tree Web is particularly reliable, and Wood Badge.org may not be a high-quality RS. Personally, I find the extremely heavy reliance on Scouting Association-published materials a bit worrisome, since the organization runs this as a camp. We need some more independent sources for FA. Personally, I consider statements such as Ferryman Field is a split-level field located to the North of the site, suitable for 'back to basics' camping due to its wooded nature and distance from facilities to be flirting with promotionalism by stating what type of groups something is suitable for, especially since this is cited to the Scouts Association. Outdated statements throughout, such as Gilwell Park provides The Scout Association with over £1,000,000 a year through conference fees, accommodation fees, and sales of materials which is cited to a 2005 source. The statement of The site can accommodate events up to 10,000 people, and regularly does so at Scouting events throughout the year. in the lead does not appear to be mentioned in the body. In my opinion, this needs significant work to be brought back up to FA status. I did not notify the original FAC nominator as they are retired and their user talk page is admin-protected, so I cannot edit it. Hog Farm Bacon 03:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me start by saying that I, Bduke, am no relation or even known to RetiredDuke. I agree with the above criticism, but I want to point out that Gilwell Park is the centre of Scout Leader training in the world. People come from all over the world to attend Leader Training Courses there. A Wood Badge, which leader training gives you from a course there, is valued all over the world. The article does not reflect this. Gilwell Park is used by local scouts from London and scouts from across the UK, but the real importance of Gilwell Park is that it is the world centre of leader training. If it does not reflect this important role, it certainly is not a good article. --Bduke (talk) 09:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2020 (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) 6:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC) [12].

El Hatillo Municipality

edit
Notified: WP Venezuela, WP Cities, talk page nom 2020-11-02

Review section

edit
I am sadly nominating this 2007 featured article for review because its main editor, Enano275 has been gone since 2007 and the article has not been maintained current. I helped Enano bring the article to FA status and am the only other significant editor, other than Tony1, who did some copyediting at my request.
I suggest we can fast track this nomination, and recommend one week FAR and one week FARC, just in case someone does decide to take it on. The article is actually in much worse shape than is suggested by just looking at it, because post-Maduro Venezuela is not even remotely the same country it was in 2006, and the article would need a complete rewrite to reflect current reality. To my knowledge, there are no Venezuelan editors likely to undertake such a complete revamping. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jamez42, Wilfredor, and ReyHahn: in case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I was reading the article and I could not contain my bittersweet laugh, unfortunately the article is very far from the reality of the municipality. I tried to correct a few things, but it looks like a hoax tourist brochure. Wilfredor (talk) 21:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So much change in only 15 years :/. But we would need to cite your accurate changes to reliable sources, which are hard to come by with press restrictions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is an almost impossible task. In Venezuela there are no free or independent media to the regime because everything goes through the review of the dictatorship. Some newspapers have been taken from their owners by the government, but keeping the same name to confuse the population. If you control the media then the truth does not come out, even within the same country people do not find out what is happening in a neighboring city due to the avalanche of false information on social and formal media. Some media begin to tell the truth but then they change and begin to soften their content very slowly and the population does not perceive it. In Wikipedia in Spanish we have a very difficult job because there is practically no negative reference to the regime, while there are hundreds of pseudo-informative pages telling the "right" history. Finally, I have no problem with reverting my changes until someday sources are found, for now the article will still look like a joke Wilfredor (talk) 05:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to be the one to revert the uncited truth in this particular article ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had already reversed myself :p Wilfredor (talk) 17:40, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know a whole lot about Venezuela, but statement in the lead that "The municipality receives a part of its income from tourism, an activity that is promoted by the government" cited to a 2004 source is instantly a red flag for me, as tourism in Venezuela has taken some big hits since 2004. Hog Farm Bacon 18:11, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to agree. I'd be willing to help improve it, but I don't have the time nor expertise on El Hatillo to do the bulk work. A few months ago I tried to clean up the article on Caracas, the capital, and to say finding reliable recent sources is hard is an understatement. Kingsif (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section largely concern currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2020 (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) 6:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC) [13].

Wonderbra

edit
Notified: Mattnad, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Fashion, WikiProject Brands, talk page 2020-11-10

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are parts of the article that is unsourced. Another issue I have with it is that it stops at 2006 but I believe that the article is outdated due to there being a fourteen year gap. GamerPro64 20:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I'd say this is a good candidate to be moved through the FAR process quickly if no one is willing to work on it. There is lots of uncited text and a brief search shows that the brand has continued to evolve and release products through current times. The article is quite out-of-date and well out of compliance with FA standards. --Laser brain (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2020 (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) 6:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC) [14].

Rova of Antananarivo

edit
Notified: Lemurbaby, WikiProject Architecture, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Madagascar, WikiProject Cities

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been flagged as needing update on reconstruction since 2018. The article structure is also duplicative covering some things twice in the history section and separate "Destruction" and "Reconstruction" sections. (t · c) buidhe 02:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2020 (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) 2:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC) [15].

Cell nucleus

edit
Notified: Opabinia regalis, WikiProject Biology, WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest in the template. More than six months ago, Graham Beards stated on the talk:

the standard of referencing for this article is not of that expected for a Featured Article. It has been over thirteen years since it was promoted and since then FA requirements have become far more stringent in this regard. Is there an editor prepared to update the citations? There are whole paragraphs that have no supporting citations.

Sadly, these issues have not been fixed in the interim. (t · c) buidhe 22:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a start, I have marked the journal citations as either "Review" or "Primary" (based on the PubMed "publication type" classification) by adding a |department=Review/Primary parameter to all the {{cite journal}} templates. It appears that the only paragraphs that are without supporting citations are in the lead and a few short introductory sections whereas the subordinate subsections all contain cites. Boghog (talk) 11:56, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have also deleted an obscure section on the "Fougaro System" that was only supported by primary sources. There may be a few more like this that could/should be removed. Boghog (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your tagging, but I don't think that all the information in the article is sourced. I've added "citation needed" tags (17 of them) wherever the source of information is not obvious. (t · c) buidhe 00:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"   Fixed, all citation needed tags have been replaced with cites to appropriate secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC) Thanks to Hanif Al Husaini for fixing many of these. Boghog (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section largely centre on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it. Most are easy to fix. Boghog (talk) 20:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC) Replaced all but one citation needed tags with relevant secondary sources. For the last citation needed tag, deleted associated text since I could not find any reliable source to support that statement. Boghog (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! DrKay (talk) 07:57, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an extreme MOS:SANDWICH problem everywhere. I suspect that attention to wikilinking is needed, but the topic is too dense for me to follow. Ajpolino would you be able to give this a quick glance to see if there are significant issues relative to WP:WIAFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry to say that in my opinion the article needs some serious work to meet the FA criteria. A few issues jump out as I read through the article:
    • Well-written - The prose is not engaging (and I love molecular biology!). It needs a serious copyedit. The fact that SandyGeorgia – regular editor of medicine articles – can't follow parts of the article suggests it could stand to be clarified. There are several places where factoids of varying levels of detail have crept in. The prose needs to be ironed out so they don't startle the reader.
    • Comprehensive - I'm by no means a nucleus expert, but it seems a few things are missing or could be tweaked to make the article comprehensive:
      • The "History" section should be expanded to include post-19th century material.
      • Several sections seem overly human-focused (I'm looking at the beginning of "Structures" now).
      • In Structures>Chromosomes maybe we could replace some of euchromatin/heterochromatin material with a more detailed description of chromosome structure?
      • It seems we have a lot more on the structure of the nucleus than the function of the nucleus. I'm not sure if the balance should be corrected by having less structure information, or more function information. I'm guessing the latter.
      • Here I'll show my biases since I'm a unicellular-eukaryotes guy, but could we spare a few more words for multinucleated eukaryotic cells? It's pretty common across eukaryotes. For instance ciliates typically have a quiescent germ nucleus and an actively transcribed expression nucleus.
    • Focused - on the flipside of the above, some material seems to have crept in that is probably better explained elsewhere (sometimes just in other parts of the article, sometimes in other articles). Examples include the small paragraph on lupus in Structure>Chromosomes, the level of detail on ribosome assembly in Structure>Nucleolus, and more. Also a huge amount of space is devoted to the 7 least important structures in the nucleus (the "Other nuclear bodies" subsection). I'm sure we can come up with a more concise way to describe these structures and their importance.
    • References - Could use an update. The most cited reference is the 5th edition (2004) of Harvey Lodish's Molecular Cell Biology. I have a PDF of the 6th edition (2008) that I'm happy to share, but I can reach out my tentacles and see if anyone has the current version (a quick Google suggest we're already on the 8th edition, out since 2016! My how time flies) and would be willing to share. I do have a more recent PDF of Bruce Alberts' competing Molecular Biology of the Cell, 6th edition (2015), which may still be the current version. Happy to share that as well. Otherwise, we'll just have to do some scraping for recent reviews et al. I've not kept up with broad literature on the nucleus, so I don't really have a head-up over anyone else.
The above isn't an exhaustive list, just first impressions. But I think this article needs more than just a dusting-off to meet the modern FA criteria. The good news is that there's tons of literature on the nucleus and it's an interesting topic. I think if a few of us have a bit of time to put in, we should be able to get this article shined up in no time. Boghog if you're interested, we can post at WT:MOLBIO and see if anyone else is willing to help out? I'm a bit swamped in real life at the moment, but I can certainly put some time into this article over the next couple of weeks. Ajpolino (talk) 05:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ajpolino for your detailed review. I have asked WT:MOLBIO for additional volunteers to help. I will also work to update citations to the 5th edition (2004) of Lodish with the most recent editions of Alberts (2015)[1] and Lodish (2016).[2] My time is also limited, but I will see what I can do to address some of the other issue that you have raised. Boghog (talk) 10:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a more recent cell biology textbook by Bruce Alberts, Essential Cell Biology, 5th ed. (2019).[3] Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hanif Al Husaini: Apologies for not pinging you above. I didn't check the page history before posting. I believe the Essential Cell Biology series are shorter introductory textbooks, where the Molecular Biology of the Cell series are hefty more detailed books. Certainly both could be useful here. Boghog, any chance you have a PDF of the more recent Lodish book you'd be willing to share? It'd be nice to see how both are covering the nucleus. Ajpolino (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hanif Al Husaini fixing ping, I typo'd it above. Ajpolino (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Nevermind, I accidentally found it at some link of questionable legality (on academia.edu, which I hadn't previously heard of). The file I got seems to be safe. So if anyone would like it for this project let me know. Ajpolino (talk) 18:04, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Morgan D, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P (2015). Molecular Biology of the Cell (Sixth ed.). New York, NY: Garland Science. ISBN 978-0-8153-4524-4.
  2. ^ Lodish HF, Berk A, Kaiser C, Krieger M, Bretscher A, Ploegh H, Amon A, Martin KC, Darnell JE (2016). Molecular Cell Biology (Eighth ed.). New York: W.H. Freeman. ISBN 978-1-4641-8339-3.
  3. ^ Alberts B, Hopkin K, Johnson AD, Morgan D, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P (2019). Essential Cell Biology (Fifth ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 9780393680362.
  • Delist (for now). I agree with Boghog's assessment (no expertise here though). Small additional comment: the second sentence has a word that may be too difficult for the lede (including osteoclasts..).
Boghog, Ajpolino any updates? Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah sadly, just the usual – too much on the to-do list; not enough time on Wikipedia. I'd still like to work on this, but I can't promise a timeline. I suppose we've passed the "two to three weeks" suggested in the instructions, but a few more weeks would be much appreciated. If December comes, and BH and I still haven't gotten to most of this, I'm ok with the FARC moving along without us (of course, we can improve the article after de-listing; but FARC provides some nice motivation). Sorry to be the sticks in FARC's spokes! Ajpolino (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great it's still on the to-do list . I'm patient with important articles like this. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:32, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajpolino, Boghog, and Femkemilene: we've left articles here for multiple months if there is some inclination there will be progress. Happy to leave this here till the New Year if folks feel they may have time in December to work on it. Otherwise folks can vote and we can archive or whatever Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I think it'll be a while (months + ) before I can make time to work on this. I'm ok with this being delisted. If we can put together some time and interest in improving it later, we'll bring it back to FAC. Thank you Femkemilene and Casliber for your patience. Sorry to come back empty-handed. Ajpolino (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, unfortunate, but hope that Ajpolino will bring it back to FAC when he has time to devote to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I missed this when it was nominated because I wasn't active at the time - in the last few weeks I've had a little more time for Wikipedia but not enough for a big article like this. I agree with the criticisms above about dated material and sources and unbalanced coverage (replication gets one scanty paragraph shorter than the one on clastosomes??). I think it's time to delist this. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2020 (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) 2:54, 27 December 2020 (UTC) [16].

When God Writes Your Love Story

edit
Notified: Neelix, Sadads, ජපස, Iridescent, WP Books, WP Christianity, WP Literature, WP Sex, WP US, talk page notices back to 2013, including 2020-06-26

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the concerns about sourcing and POV continuously raised on talk since 2013, unresolved after the 2013 FAR was launched out of process. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Back in 2013, I guess, WP was more concerned with process than it was with quality. This is a terrible article and I stand by my assessment that I outlined then. Nothing has changed. jps (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I already said my piece on the talkpage. I don't have an issue with the 2013 FAR being closed—that rule against people immediately submitting new FAs to FAR existed for a reason, owing to a particular long-term abuse case who had exactly that as one of her preferred tactics for trying to bait editors into fighting each other—but this never met the FA criteria. Given that the only two editors who've ever shown an interest are both themselves long-gone long-term abuse cases, it's unlikely anyone is going to make an effort to improve this. ‑ Iridescent 18:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's nice to see the mucky-mucks stand up for process, I guess. I just miss the WP:IAR standard that could have been invoked to say, "hold on a second, maybe the nominator is making points that are not all about a rule we invented to deal with a completely unrelated problem." But, cha, better late than never. jps (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John M Wolfson
  • This seems to have been subject to some WikiDrama back in 2013. For the record, I agree that the "3-6 month rule" exists for a reason and likewise have no problem with the old FAR being closed out of process. That said, I'll see what I can look at in the actual article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2020 (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) 2:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC) [17].

Music of the Lesser Antilles

edit
Notified: TUF-KAT, WP Caribbean, WP Trinidad and Tobago, WP African diaspora, 2020-11-01

Review section

edit

The nominator of this 2006 promotion has not edited for over a decade, and this article has not been maintained to standards. See this list from 2020-11-01; I can provide more if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

The sourcing is pretty dodgy, as well.

  • Unconvinced that the website for Paradise Inn Curriacou is a high-quality RS.
  • From a quick spot check, the claim "The leading figure in the promotion of the Cadence-lypso was the Dominican group Exile One" is not supported by the source, which only states that it (as well as another group) were popular Dominican bands from the genre.
  • Kizombalove.com is probably not RS
  • Ditto with funkyorgan.
  • Formatting issues abound
  • It looks like there's a lot of accretion of text into previously cited spots that probably aren't supported by the sources.
Other comments
  • A lot of this article is incomprehensible to a non-expert. Like SandyGeorgia, I was unable to figure out what kadans is from this article.
  • Honestly, some of the Exile One details seem kinda spammy.
  • In general, there's a lot of claims of what bands are popular, but they all seem to be rather promotional.
Sound clips
  • I have doubts that WP:NFCC really is okay with having four audio clips as minimal use, but I'm not an expert in this area. A copyright expert would be needed to look at this. However, I have checked the two audio clips in the British Antilles section, and both are too long. I got the song lengths off of Amazon, and if those song lengths are correct, both clips exceed the maximum length from the chart at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Music samples. Both are under 5:00 in length it seems, so the 30 second clips are too long. Didn't check the other two audio files.

Yeah, so this is nowhere close. Hog Farm Bacon 05:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2020 (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) 2:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC) [18].

Chew Valley

edit
Notified: Rodw, WP Somerset, WP UK geography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject England, 2020-11-21

Review section

edit

There's uncited text throughout, including material in the lead not verified in the body. Some of the statistics and information in the article may be outdated. There is extremely little material about the economy as well, that topic should probably be expanded. Original nominator has stated they don't have all of the sources needed to fix this. Hog Farm Bacon 05:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the original main author of this article and nominator for FA (about 15 years ago) I agree it no longer meets the FA criteria and I don't have the time or resources to bring it up to scratch.— Rod talk 08:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your past contributions are most appreciated, Rodw. Unless someone offers to pick this up, perhaps it should be a one-week FAR, one-week FARC candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - in the interests of workability and zero work being done, am closing this after ten instead of fourteen days. Let's keep FAR focussed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 30 December 2020 (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_2020&oldid=997120338"