Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January 2013

Kept status

Removed status

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:21, 12 January 2013 [1].

Autostereogram

Review commentary

Notified: Hyacinth, Psychology WikiProject

This is a 2006 FA. I am nominating it for review because it has multiple tags, walls of uncited text, and there has been no response to talk page queries dating back more than a year. Fred Hsu (talk · contribs) has not been active since 2009. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Burn it per criterion 1a, 1c, and 3: many one sentence paragraphs, tons of uncited text, and there are way too many images. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, move to FARC, etc. per above. Multiple criterion — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase; Featured article review (FAR) is for determining if an article needs to move to the Feature Article Removal Candidate (FARC) phase, where Keep or Delist are declared. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a drive-by comment, the number of images seems excessive, even allowing for the topic of this article. A smaller number of well chosen images would be much superior to the current over supply (which also gives the article a rather 'cluttered' feel). The large chunks of unreferenced text also pretty much automatically rule this out as a FA. I agree that this should go to a FARC. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Concerns raised in the review section include prose, sourcing, and images. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, no progress, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, move to FARC, etc. per above. Multiple criterion — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs). JJ98 (Talk) 18:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, major issues. Sasata (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:21, 12 January 2013 [2].

Derry City F.C.

Review commentary

Notified: Danny Invincible, WikiProject Football, WikiProject Ireland, WikiProject Northern Ireland

This is a June 2007 promotion that shows signs of being outdated in several aspects. I pointed out many concerns on the article's talk page, which I'll repeat here:

The current squad, current staff, and managers sections all have tags indicating that there are few or no references verifying the content. This is a failure of FA criteria by itself.
In Records, the first sentence is also tagged as needing a source.
There are some other sections that could use additional citations, in particular the Colours and crests section. Most of the second half of that section appears to be uncited.
Some prose and style issues crop up here and there. For example, there are two "however"s in the first four sentences of the lead, which is hardly great writing. I also see a missing period following "with the FAI allowing it to the First Division" in Modern highs and lows, and back-to-back paragraphs at the end of this section consist of a flowery sports media-style addition in improper present tense, and a badly formatted in-text quote.
A potentially dated statement from July 2007 is in the article. This might not be a problem, but is worth investigating.
Many non-free images in the article, which is problematic. The programme and single cover definitely should be removed, at a minimum.

I posted on the talk page more than a month ago and no improvements have been made to the article. Unfortunately, if the article stays in its present condition, I don't think it belongs among our best articles any more as the FA criteria do not appear to be met. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I gave help and advice to the FA nominator while he was developing the article. While it met 2007 FA standards, 2012 standards are significantly higher. This and the atrophy that has occurred in the intervening time mean it is a long way from where it needs to be. It is several years since the nominator last edited, which I guess leaves me as about as suitable a candidate to work on it as we have. While I could fix up the minor things, this needs access to offline sources to be saved. They aren't books that I could order from my local library, and its not something I'd be willing to buy books for. So unless Danny Invincible returns, the chances of this being saved are slim. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, three weeks, no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Concerns raised in the review section include sourcing, prose/MOS issues, and potential image problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, no progress, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist – Some copy-editing has been done in the lead, but none of the tags have been dealt with and most of the issues I pointed out are still present. Had some referencing work been done, I'd have been more than happy to chip in and clean up other aspects of the article. Unfortunately, that hasn't happened. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:05, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, no longer meets FA criteria. Sasata (talk) 20:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The article was removed by Dana boomer 13:21, 12 January 2013 [3].

London congestion charge

Review commentary

Notified: Regan123, WikiProject UK Roads, WikiProject Urban studies and planning, WikiProject London Transport, WikiProject London

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are numerous issues:

Several sentences lacking sources.
Numerous short (one sentence, even) paragraphs
Numerous short (one paragraph, even) sections
Too many sections
The Preparing for the Western Extension section looks a lot like WP:PROSELINE
Numerous dead links
Lead is too short (per WP:LEADLENGTH this should have three to four paragraphs)

These are only general comments, from a very brief look at the article. This currently fails FA criteria 1a, 1c, 2a, and 2b. Further investigation may reveal more problems. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this was a FA, was demoted, and then repromoted. I'd have to agree the organization is a bit funky. --Rs chen 7754 23:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, just so no one else wastes the 10 minutes I did trying to figure out why there is only listed above one FAC and three FARs for a re-promoted article, the first FA was from the Refreshing Brilliant Prose era (apparently Maralia and I didn't reconstruct that page from diffs when I was building article histories, as I did on some others) and the excess FAR is a link back to the archive# system when we enacted it. In other words, it looks wrong but all the pieces are in article milestones). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Crisco's comments, and also have the following comments on the basis of a skim read:

The lead doesn't discuss how the scheme has performed
While the overall quality of the prose isn't outright bad (and is pretty good in the first parts of the 'history' section), it could do with a fair bit of polish.
"TfL can and does suspend the congestion charge either in a small local area to cope with incidents and if directed to do so by a police officer." - this is pretty vague (I presume that individual police officers can't decide to suspend the charge as this states if read literally, but requests to do so are made through the police chain of command)
The single-sentence para which starts with "Entry authorisation and penalties cannot be issued to non-UK numberplates" is hard to follow (and unreferenced) and should be merged into a full para
"the results of the consultation on the Western Extension were published which showed that a substantial majority of respondents did not want the extension" - who these respondents were should be identified
The 'Preparing for the Western Extension' section seems to have a bit of an axe to grind against the extension, and is something of a mess with lots of stubby paragraphs
The article has a fair amount of over-linking
The financial figures in the 'Income and costs' section are four or five years out of date
While it's not a huge deal, I think that the 'history' section should come before the 'Present scheme' section Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too agree with Crisco's comments. Even a brief read reveals multiple serious problems with the prose. It certainly fails on 1a, and there may be other problems as well. ~~Rewrite or delist.~~ --MarchOrDie (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAR instructions; declarations to Delist or Keep are not entered in the FAR phase, rather the FARC phase, so please be sure to revisit if the nomination moves to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, one month, almost no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above and lack of effort at saving the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist, move to FARC, whatever is the next step at getting this article demoted. --Rs chen 7754 01:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, pls see the instructions. Keep or Delist are declared if/when the article moves to Featured Article Removal Candidates (FARC) phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, style and organization, and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delist, no progress, no one working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist stale. --Rs chen 7754 20:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist per above and lack of effort at saving the article. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist -mainly due to lack of work on improving article - choppy paras and small lead stand out on first inspection. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delist Per the above Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.