Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2017

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept

edit

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) 1:03, 25 February 2017 (UTC) [1].

Indonesia

edit

Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox

Review commentary

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because......unfortunately, this article has slipped from featured quality over the past decade. Last review back in 2008 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indonesia/archive1

Dead sources
Ref formatting all over.
Many one or two sentence paragraphs.
Duplicate reference and cite errors.
Sections with few refs. (like Architecture)
Odd image placement with text sandwiching.
Huge icons. Done Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Different styles of English.
Out dated info from 2006.

......list goes on....... Lots to fix.....needs a big overhaul ...Not even GA level at this point in my view. --Moxy (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This is the version from the 2008 FAR. It is a thorough yet concise appraisal of the subject. The current version is filled with boosterism, and has bloated to more than twice the size. Ditching the current article and working on the 2008 version instead may be the most efficient way to bring the article back up to par. CMD (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would worry that might replace up to date material with out of date material. It would be easy to compare the two versions and move down the article and relegate material to daughter articles or remove it. The article stands at 71 kb of prose, which is significantly larger than the 50 kb prose we recommend maximum article size at. I'd normally insist that discussion have taken place on the talk page first but the size and breadth of the article mean that coming to FAR is inevitable and anyway FAR is probably the best place for a thorough overhaul (that is needed) to be properly assessed and reviewed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting just dumping the 2008 one back into the live version, but that working from that base and updating that may produce a quicker and better result than working from the current article and trying to trim down on the excesses in prose and tone. Sorry for the confusion. CMD (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Chris will want to see this, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: no, my bad. I should have realised that was what you meant. Still, we agree on that pathway anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have copied the 2008 version to User:Chipmunkdavis/Indonesia (minus interwikis and category application), which is easier to look at than a page in history. It's there as a reference or as a draft page. I don't have time to work on it myself at the moment, but others can feel free to do what they want on that page. I don't know how long this stays open before the process moves to delisting, but it would be nice to save what was one of the best country articles. CMD (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Issues raised in the review section include coverage, referencing, and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:12, 4 February 2017 (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) 1:47, 9 February 2017 (UTC) [7].

Exoplanet

edit
Notified: JorisvS, Drbogdan, PlanetStar, ‎Astredita,‎ Kevin Nelson, WikiProject Astronomy

Review section

edit

This article no longer appears to meet criteria 1, 2b, 2c or 4 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are several very short sections and paragraphs consisting of single sentences; some sections are merely lists of individual miscellanea. The table of contents is too extensive, and the citations are not formatted consistently. For an article that should be written in summary style, it is over-long with too many individual specific examples that should be summarized to give a more general picture. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article about the now major astronomy topic deserves it once we address these issues, like expanding short sections and summarizing it. PlanetStar 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PlanetStar: Please note that "keep" and "delist" are only used in FARC (removal candidates) and not here in FAR (review). As noted above, "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them." From a quick glance, it does in fact look like it's much too long. If it can be condensed adequately without removing anything essential, I think it has a good chance at staying featured. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Relativistic beaming – Relativistic beaming measures the observed flux from the star due to its motion. The brightness of the star changes as the planet moves closer or further away from its host star." Is this name correct? I thought relativistic beaming was for matter moving at near light speed. It might be better to use 'Doppler beaming' unless this use of 'Relativistic' can be confirmed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both terms are used, as well as others. The effect is very small even for close-in planets. The description in the article is poor, though. Lithopsian (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay yes, I found one instance that used the term in the context of a planet,[8] compared to many using "doppler beaming". Praemonitus (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More generally - I see that some work has started to improve the article, but I'm struggling to see how it will be brought back to FA level. As DrKay describes, the problems go far beyond simply being too long. I guess give it a little time and see how it goes. Lithopsian (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As a suggestion, the planet article tree can (and does) cover many of these topics. This article should focus on aspects specific to exoplanets: a high level discovery history plus the various detection methods, observation techniques, and nomenclature. Elements of the article that are highly dynamic, such as new discoveries, should be spun off to a child article, leaving just a summary here. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graeme Bartlett
edit

There are quite a few minor issues to fix

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lithopsian
edit

The lead is, apart from being rather long, almost impossible to read because it is crammed full of inline citations. My understanding is that an FA should comprehensively address all the points that are summarised in the lead, making citations in the lead entirely unnecessary. If that were done here, the lead would be a lot more manageable and appear shorter even without having fewer words. Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to do this, but I hope someone else does (so page watchers know I don't plan on doing everything).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  17:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is too long. Citations don't make it hard to read in the final text. But the sentences in parenthesis make it hard to read. If we can turn these into flowing text it will be clearer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Fixed(?) Graeme Bartlett's suggestion by incorporating the longer parantheticals into the surrounding text. The remaining parantheticals are now only 2 words each.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least until Fdfexoex reverted it. And JorisvS fixed it. Thanks :) (didn't see that until later)   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More generally, the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article. It most definitely is not that. Praemonitus (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
N
edit

Artistic views should be removed, and the intro should have one of the actual pictures of an imaged exoplanet. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Multiple concerns were raised in the review section; moving here so we can establish consensus on what issues remain and where this stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments by Dudley
edit
  • The article has a number of unreferenced statements:
  • Notes a to d.
  • Nomenclature section.
  • Last sentence of History of detection section.
  • The last sentences in the second and third paragraphs of Confirmed discoveries section.
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph, and the last clause in the final paragraph, of the Planet-hosting stars section.
  • Last sentence of Moons section.
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) 1:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC) [10].

ToeJam & Earl

edit
Notified: Bridies, WikiProject Video games

Review comments

edit

This article no longer meets 1a, 1b, 2b and 2c of the FA criteria. I can see that it has unfortunately slumped over the past few years as a lot of it is also out of date. I'll list some of the more glaring issues in broad strokes: the lead does not summarise the article, the reception section has overquoting issues and is not comprehensive enough, there is an inconsistent use of "Genesis" and "Mega Drive", and the majority of the prose is choppy. Also, some references are unformatted and unreliable. The article has deteriorated since 2009 and seems shy from meeting the GA criteria in its current state. I'll alert the original author, Bridies, but he's sadly retired. JAGUAR  12:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. Like czar, I think the most glaring issue here is the lack of cohesiveness in the reception section. It also isn't anywhere near comprehensive enough as I could find almost a dozen scans just through a cursory search. JAGUAR  12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for the ping guys. I think the blunt end of what I have to say is that I doubt I'll help bring it back up to FA standard, if it's even possible; if there were a bullet-point list of things to "fix" I might be tempted, but on the other hand, I don't want to contribute to the site (other than fixing typos etc.), on principle. I think much of the mess in the reception section seems to have simply been caused by someone smacking the enter button and turning each sentence into a paragraph. I considered a big roll-back revert but it appears infeasible. Ditto the inconsistent citation style seems largely (the kickstarter stuff now being removed) the result of someone changing refs (and/or new ones) to template-d ones (instead of using the simpler, no-templates, style that was in place before; I checked the FAC and, yes, this is still how new refs should be added). With the prose issues and "over-quoting issues" I am tempted, if you will forgive me, to simply raise my middle fingers. I vaguely recall there being complaints about my use of directs quotes (and I liked to do so, because the style of reception section otherwise advocated, e.g. here, as in "Reviewers XYZ said the graphics were good. ABC said they were very good." and so on, is coma-inducing, and part of the reason no one actually reads Wiki articles beyond the lead. In my humble opinion.) Anyway. The prose went through copy-edits (previously, there may have been many more quotes!) by at least one guy with a load of FAs and a load of FA copy-edits (and from what I gathered from my talk page interactions with him, professional writing and editing experience - as I now also have). Although I've seen his FACs take a bashing on prose too, I think. TLDR: The FAC prose requirements are a hugely subjective moving target which I no longer take very seriously; but most of the prose passed FAC as-is (just with less treatment of the enter button). The really big issue I see above is the assertion that the reception section is not comprehensive, and that many more scans are easily available. I'm pretty certain this was not the case when I wrote the thing in what, 2009? But I can well believe that there could be now. I think they would be for someone else to add, though. A last quick note on the review summaries being short: I think reviews from the early '90s, at least the ones I saw, were simply themselves very short, and certainly on substance. Cheers, bridies (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Good to see bridies again, although the circumstances could be better. I felt compelled to reply here because I was the "one guy with a load of FAs and a load of FA copy-edits" mentioned above. The article's prose is clinical and stripped down, to be sure, but there are many valid ways to write a Wikipedia article. This sort of strictly-business staccato has been my preference for years. And, although I've run into my share of prose trouble at FAC, I don't recall a single objection over that style—not even from Tony1. The article's prose may very well have actual flaws (I copyedited it around 7 years ago), but style preference is not an actionable objection. Also, at a glance, the lead seems to summarize the article fairly well, and I see absolutely zero unreliable sources in the citations. (Perhaps these two things have changed since the FAR started.) Finally, per WP:CITEVAR, template-free citations are fine as long as they're applied consistently. Template-free cites were always bridies' go-to, if memory serves. Looking at the featured version, no templates were used—which means that the templates now in the article were added later, by editors apparently unaware of CITEVAR. Barring a few small carry-overs, I see no reason not to revert the page to the 2009 version and call this FAR done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also read through the 2009 version, and I'd say it looks alright, but simply reverting back to that version isn't enough. The reception section seems like a mashup of random comments from reviews. I understand that older games didn't get extensive reviews like they do nowadays, but it seems like there's no direction. Also, certain retrospective articles would need to be included, like The Verge and GameSetWatch. I think that if someone is willing to put the time into fixing up the 2009 version, which is in better shape than the current version in my opinion, then I think we can close this FAR. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a pretty easy rescue job. I'd do it myself but work has me tied up until mid-January, and probably later. Any Good Samaritans interested in the chance to save an FA? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can probably make an attempt. Not until 1st Jan at the earliest, though, for the same end-of-year reasons as probably everyone else. bridies (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will be quite busy myself until January at the earliest, but I'll be happy to help. To summarise I think the reception section could also do with a mention of its GameRankings aggregation and more cohesive prose, which seems to be the more glaring issue. JAGUAR  17:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, MOS, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2017 (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) 6:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC) [11].

Judy Garland

edit
Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Women,

Review comments

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't meet today's FA standards. Dr. Blofeld previously started two threads about how the article wasn't up to par, and I can't say these have really been fulfilled. Details to follow. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what I find when comparing this article to the FA criteria:

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • Could be better. As an example, "Emmy nominated" should be hyphenated (if mentioning noms at all), "Film appearances became fewer" reads rather awkwardly, and I'm not sure about the tone of "hit on a winning formula". There are also lots of rather short paragraphs which make the text look choppy.
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Certainly not. It doesn't talk about her genres of music or any studio albums she recorded, and the "legacy" section says nothing about her impact/influence on society or the music and/or film industries.
  • 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
Fixed all dead links but the Google News link about an article in St. Petersburg Times. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • This needs work. "Notable" in "Other notable roles" is a POV description. Same with "memorable" in "her most memorable role", "attractive" and "dowdy" in "the attractive leading lady, rather than the dowdy girl next door", "notably" in "Most notably, she performed" and "disastrous" in "A 1964 tour of Australia was largely disastrous". "Tremendous" in "a tremendous critical success" is borderline puffery.
  • 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
  • This is absolutely A-OK.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • No. I don't really see the need for mentioning Mickey Rooney here, and there's nothing on her musical works except for Judy at Carnegie Hall. Not even her song "Over the Rainbow" is mentioned. As for accolades, it's best to just include what she won to avoid over-focusing on awards, and have any mere nominations instead be included within article body.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • Seems fine to me.
  • 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)
  • One bare link, and url names shouldn't be listed when work titles are already included
Fixed all bare URLs, and which one is the listed URL name? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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
  • Maybe. I'm not sure if "Her daughter Liza Minnelli made her film debut at the age of two and a half at the end of the film" is necessary. Not so sure this needs to go into detail about nominations she lost when there are other accolades she won.

This clearly is going to take some work to salvage, and the promoted version doesn't look much better even if FA standards weren't so strict back in 2008 when it passed FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC comments

edit
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/February_2017&oldid=767422849"