Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2024

< 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) 5:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC) [1].

Sex Pistols

edit
Notified: DocKino (DCGeist sock), Ceoil, Ss112, WP bio, WP Rock music, WP Punk music, WP London, formally noticed on January 27, but concerns were raised much earlier

An old brilliant prose entry last formally reviewed in 2006. Ceoil expressed concerns about "excitable language and bloat"; there's certainly tone issues here, with language such as "got frisky with", and the article talk page is littered with concerns about the tone. At over 11,000 words, the article also needs to be closely examined for summary style issues; I imagine that fixing some of the tone issues will go a long ways on that front. Hog Farm Talk 00:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hog, at a first glance it seems doable, but jeez it seems like 2006 all over again (one of my first introductions to wiki review processes), except then it was too short, now its too long :) The sources are still 90% high quality with no major gaps in sourcing or coverage. The writing is fine (both grammatically and re clarity), and it hasn't bloated or suffered much prose-line since the 2010 Geist re-write. The major issue is obviously, as you say, tone; but that's more trimming than heavy lifting. Extensive spot checks of refs would also be needed, though from scanning in last half hour am seeing few doubtful claims (as an obsessive since 1985-86). Will update in a few weeks after chipping away. Ceoil (talk) 22:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, have all the cited book sources. Most of the heavy work here will be on standardising the ref formats, esp if somebody turns up and ask for 13 digit isbns, and everything is snf (neither of which I care about). Ceoil (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I, for one, don't see either of those things being necessary. Have always preferred to use the isbn in the print book, instead of some new ISBN 13 that may or may not actually be associated with the original volume. Personally a fan of sfns, but it would be a truly massive nightmare to try to convert over to those here. Hog Farm Talk 22:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It possible to check the book edition via snippet view, but have most of the book sources still from the 2006 FAR. Phew re snf - I like it too, but such an effort to convert would make the overall task not worthwile. Ceoil (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil and Hog Farm: Re. The Pistols, I have no sources at all, but re. refs, I've had a go at transferring to {{snf}}, including a separate notes section. I chose one of the most common sources (Savage), and it's not as bad as it seems. (All now self-reverted of course.) He takes up ~half the refs, so although it'll be a job of work, the bulk shouldn't take too long; the rest will be polishing (aligning editions with with ISBNs etc., as noted above). What think ye? SN54129 16:28, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SN54129:, I mean that would be great...but hope you know what you are letting yourself in for! On the + side, this will take around 3 months anyway. Thanks if you decide so, and can help. Ceoil (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to thank Ceoil for inviting me to help. I'll see if the resulting trims flow well for a read, and do my own business here as well. Carlinal (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlinal: per WP:REF, While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough information to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed. SN54129 12:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have fixed (by removing unused) the harv errors, and implemented MOS:ELLIPSES. Have started to trim, although its not so much that there is too much coverage as too many words. ps SN, will help re "subject expert" for documentaries etc, and can address the recently (and correctly) added cn tags. Ceoil (talk) 15:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Ceoil, I admit I was thinking of you when I said that!  :) SN54129 15:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • ps to Sandy, re Geist et al, Hog mentions in the nom above that a reason for the nom was my concerns re the music journalist tone of the page...this has mostly been removed. I'm not too concerned re accuracy, v. familar with the sources and nothing have seen so far in the page gives worry our sounds dubious. Ceoil (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thx, Ceoil-- glad you are on the job! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, we (ie SN) are almost done on standardising the citations style/ switching to snf, and most of the excitable prose has been removed, and the article has been trimmed where the detail has been excessive. Not yet ready to sign off, as need another cold read thorough and resulting fixes; think that's about 3 weeks away - given conflicting priorities. When I am ready, would be most appreciative if User:SandyGeorgia was to give a run though for further improvements. Thanks for patience as always. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil, as soon as I'm able, but life is crazy, so re-ping me if necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't done any reading yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have done some cutting based on your feedback, although although Reid, Jamie (June 2004) comes from a major protagonist, don't have the book, so gone; although it should give confidence as to the page's integrity. Re "commentary", its the dvd bonus from Temple's "The Filth And The Fury" film, which is, a reliable source (although I intensely dislike his presentation of the pistol's post Lyndon's exit). Mulling and thinking about this....i really don't want to subscribe to the website to listen to his revisitionalist, self serving, bullshit. Ceoil (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Very new to Wikipedia so my apologies if this is out of place for me to say but I was wondering why you consider Temple's commentary tracks on the Filth and the Fury to be self serving and revisitionalist as you put it? If that's what you are referring to. Theotherdavis (talk) 06:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ref issues being worked through on talk[2]. Ceoil (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record I gave up on this. I sorted all the refs (cept for a couple which I had to leave for our in-house expert!), and would've given them a tidy up at the end. But despite knowing here that I was going to convert to sfn, a load of citebanditry has been going on, there's a shedload of harv-error messages thrown up, so what's the point: on 15 Jul 1902, the Leckhampton Stalwarts led a march of 2,000 people to Leckhampton Hill, where they tore down a cottage built by the new quarry owner that blocked a right of way and filled in a pit where working people held a fair every Easter. SN54129 10:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no harv error messages ?
    And yes, you indicated you were going to convert to sfn, but the earlier samples indicated converting books to sfn, not the websources. When I started checking through the websources for reliability, the picture changed. We've got some dubious sources, and publishers are not authors; converting websources to sfn when most of them have no author requires convoluted templates, which I've been working on, but I suggest moving those back to citation templates once the full information on each and reliability issues are worked out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing on talk, work ongoing: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SN, tearing down cottages is my fault; I asked you to sort all the refs, am now finding some of them are not so reliable. That's on me. BUT progess is being made on talk. Thank you very much for the hours put in, but sorry man, I fked up. Ceoil (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we'll get there ... slowly but surely. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm

Finally able to start on this ...

  • "After managing and promoting the New York Dolls, McLaren returned to London in May 1975 and began to take more of an interest in the Strand." - any hope for a citation for this?
  • "McLaren made several calls to Hell, who also turned down the invitation" - who is Hell? With no context this sounds like a The Devil Went Down to Georgia situation
  • Link for John Lydon at the beginning of the Lydon joins section?

More comments to come later. Hog Farm Talk 00:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and welcome back for a bit. All done to here. Ceoil (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They soon played other important venues, notably debuting at Oxford Street's 100 Club on 30 March" - I'm assuming this is referring to the Pistols, but the immediate context could apply to the Buzzcocks as well
  • "Three days later, the band were in Manchester to tape what was their first television appearance, for Tony Wilson's So It Goes." - possible to source this?
  • "and the interview effectively ended his career' - this is sourced to a source from the same month as the interview, so we'll need a later source for this
    Recent sourced added Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For a view that Vicious was a more competent bass player than his reputation would have it.[134] " - this is probably better off relegated to a footnote or converted into a full sentence
    Removed Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Oslo, Lydon was photographed making the Nazi salute while wearing a sweater with a swastika.[unreliable source] " - ?
    Cut this Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In January 1978, the Pistols began a US tour, which was eventually limited to America's Deep South." - but later we're told that they played in San Francisco, which is very much not the Deep South.
  • " Now[when?] a resident of Los Angeles" - needs clarified for when this occurred.

Good work here, Ceoil. Please let me know when you're ready for me to take another look at this - real life has been hectic for me lately but hopefully I can find time a little quicker than I have with this first review. Hog Farm Talk 21:16, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil: - please let me know when you're ready for me to take another look. It looks like the Deep South concern is still outstanding but the rest have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 00:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as always Hog. I'm still deep into triming the page; it had been written in an almost cartoonish hagiography (and not the real thing it was; still cutting that out - the band were a lot more direct and real in the early 80s (from when I remember from then as a Sid Vicious clone). Ceoil (talk) 11:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed on talk, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil I've got a couple of stragglers on talk. Do we really need Coon and Reid? They are duplicate citations anyway. And a couple of prose things there, after which I'll read through a final time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to now hand it over to voters, and - pushing my look pinging SandyGeorgia and Hog Farm. Ceoil (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will get on it this week. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to take a look this coming week. Hog Farm Talk 00:49, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lyrics of their May 1977 single "God Save the Queen" described the monarchy as a "fascist regime"" - quote only found in lead; recommend adding to the body of the article if significant enough to warrant mention in lead
  • "Temple, then a film student McLaren had employed to create a comprehensive audiovisual record of the band," - this is the first reference to Temple - should their first name be noted as well?
  • "Vicious was arrested after hurling a glass at shattered and blinded a girl in one eye " - something seems to have gone wrong here, either with spelling or grammar
  • " On 24 February 2006, the Sex Pistols—the four original members plus Vicious—were inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, although they refused to attend the ceremony, calling the museum "a piss stain" - but then "In November 2006, the Sex Pistols were inducted to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame,[224] but band rejected the honour." - so the dates don't agree and were the inducted and refused to attend, or did they refuse induction outright?

Looks fine otherwise. Hog Farm Talk 01:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, addressed now Ceoil (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can close w/o FARC. Hog Farm Talk 04:09, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129:, this is close to wrapping up; a read-through from you would be awesome, as you were such a big part of the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 9:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC) [4].

Ernest Shackleton

edit
Notified: Lazulilasher, Brianboulton (deceased), WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject Antarctica, WikiProject United Kingdom, WikiProject British Overseas Territories, WikiProject Ireland, 2023-11-11

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because of several concerns. I notified this article because Shackleton's 150th birthday is Feb 15 and was thinking of nominating this for TFA. However, I noticed many unreferenced passages in the article and a "Further reading" section with sources that might be incorporated into the article. During the ensuing discussion, Victoriaearle and SandyGeorgia mentioned that there was COI disruption in the article several years ago, and they are unsure if the current version still has some of that COI influence. I am bringing this here to see if editors are willing to fix up the article and get it ready for TFA. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article is currently tentatively scheduled for TFA on 15 February. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Sourcing. We need to move this along before the 15th February. DrKay (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I chanced across this FA a few days ago and started making a few improvements (mainly source fixes and a bit of copyediting) before I even realised it was up for FARC and TFA nom. I wasn't involved in any previous reviews and not aware of any COI. I am concerned that ref.137 is defunct: "Shackleton, Sir Ernest Henry of 14 Milnethorpe-road, Eastbourne, knight". probatesearchservice.gov. UK Government. 1922. Retrieved 8 August 2019. Other than that, it's looking good to me, and pending a bit more checking and copyediting on my part, I would be happy to keep this article's featured status and sincerely hope it makes it to main page on 15th Feb. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 10:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do, but there's a noticeable lack of any other editors showing interest in this. Wouldn't it require more than just one editor (me) wanting to keep it, for it not to be delisted? Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: This is my take on things right now:
  • It seems sensible to absorb the "Further reading" list into the "General bibliography" as most of the books are used as sources, and having a very short further reading section just looks a bit scrappy,
  • The entire Crew section is unsourced. I can probably remedy this using the existing sources (Lansing's book has a full list of the Endurance crew on first page) and rework it accordingly.
  • The lead states that "he died heavily in debt" and there is further mention of the debts he left behind at end of Public hero section. Without any sources to verify, this contentious material should be removed, and I suspect that might be the aforementioned COI disruption.
  • The sentence about his will/debt/estate at end of Final expedition and death section should also be removed as it's unsourced and the given probatesearchservice.gov source has rotted (as I already mentioned above in green).
  • There are one or two unsourced quotations in the body, which I can try checking or just remove. I don't have access to most of the books cited so it's difficult for me to check all the referencing, but some I can inspect via Google Books if preview facility is enabled.
  • The Awards and decorations list at the end is also unsourced. Is that a problem? Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TFA coordinators This review needs to be cleared before TFA on Thursday. Rodney Baggins (talk) 08:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order to comply with what policy or guideline? The changes look fine to me and it remains on track to be the TFA for the 15th, bar anyone providing new information as to why it shouldn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I was just concerned that the article says "Currently undergoing review of its featured status." at the top, which might not look great for a TFA. I've been working my butt off trying to get this FARC cleared in time, but User:Z1720 seems to have gone off radar, so I appealed to you just in case. Regards, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm closing this as a keep after 1 month with no delists and Rodney Baggins and Gog the Mild both commenting that the article has improved since nomination. DrKay (talk) 09:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted

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

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 6:53, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [5].

IFK Göteborg

edit
Notified: Johan Elisson, Mattias321, WP Football, WP Sweden, noticed September 2023

Review section

edit

A 2005 promotion last formally reviewed in 2007, this article has not been properly kept up to date. Several large list-like sections are not properly cited, and post-2007 events are underrepresented in the history section, including multiple wins of the Svenska Cupen. Some work is needed here, and it will presumably involve editors who can read Swedish, which I cannot. Hog Farm Talk 20:05, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, needs updating. Hog Farm Talk 00:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC issues have not been addressed yet. Z1720 (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC as per others. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2024 (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) 6:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [6].

George Moore (novelist)

edit
Notified: Ww2censor, Filiocht, Ceoil, DrKay, WikiProject Biography/Arts and entertainment, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Novels, 2023-08-18

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the article has numerous uncited statements, including two paragraphs in the "Controversy in England" section. There's also numerous sources that were added to the article in July by an IP that are not used as inline citations and the article is missing sections that analyses his work, writing style, and/or legacy. Z1720 (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Share Z1720's concerns - the article has degraded. No intrest in working on this, have happier priorities, and if no meanwhile improvements would vote delist. Ceoil (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2024 (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) 7:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC) [7].

Trapped in the Closet (South Park)

edit
Notified: WikiProject Animation/South Park task force, WikiProject Television, Szmenderowiecki

Review section

edit

Nominating for FAR per notes on the talk page, primarily comprehensiveness and organization; minor issues are with referencing and images. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 00:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most obvious issues to me are:
  • Lead is too long, especially the second paragraph
  • Plot summary exceeds 400 words (MOS:TVPLOT)
  • Excessively long quotes
  • Legacy section is mostly sourced to primary sources and could be cut (aside from Emmys part)
Basically all stuff that was already noted. I'll try to shorten the lead and plot section but the controversies probably need a more thorough pruning. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the images. I amended the rationale for the infobox, and I believe that the second image (the ad in Variety) is salvageable under WP:NFC#CS, because there is sourced commentary about the image (note the text says it was interpreted as a sneaky allusion to Mel Gibson, instead of being the congratulations that Variety intended that ad to be.
I agree that the third image isn't worthy of inclusion because it's simply illustrative, so I removed it.
I cannot comment on proper organisation or comprehensiveness because I'm not too familiar with the subject of the article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2024 (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/February_2024&oldid=1208601582"