Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January 2015

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

Kept status

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

The article was kept by DrKiernan (talk) 12:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Gas metal arc welding

edit
Notified: Spangineer, WP Metalworking
URFA nomination
Talk page notification 2011

This is a 2005 FA whose major contributor is no longer editing. There is uncited text, citation needed tags, and red harv ref errors. It doesn't look like it should be too hard to clean up, if anyone speaks welding. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know nothing about the subject but have fixed the harv errors at least. Hopefully someone more knowledge can address the cn tags and uncited text! Ruby 2010/2013 19:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added citations that were originally implied in the text (several paragraphs came from one source). There are still two citation needed tags; one of them is on the simple introductory sentence to the equipment section (where there is a subsection for each item mentioned) and another is for a few sentences at the end of the Globular section that apparently I didn't reference originally. Not sure how to address the first; the second can be handled by removing the text if I can't quickly find a source. Spangineerws (háblame) 15:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a couple sources to address one citation needed tag. The last one, I would personally just remove, since it's a topic sentence that is clearly meant as a lead-in for the following sections, but I'll leave that for others to decide. If it needs to be reworked that's fine. Spangineerws (háblame) 02:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spangineer, if you can finish the citations, I think this can be closed without a FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:22, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC to keep the process on track; three weeks in, citation needs still. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:15, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This looks saveable so I'm giving it a go (which means I am recused on this one). I addressed the remaining {{cn}} tags by rewriting the last paragraph of the Development section and adding cites to a couple of new sources. See anything else that needs work, SandyGeorgia? Maralia (talk) 05:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria 00:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sparrow

edit
Notified: Alientraveller, RadioKirk, PNW Raven, Obi-WanKenobi-2005, Bignole, Tbhotch, Technobabble1, WikiProject Disney

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

  • For criterion 1a, it has multiple run-on sentences and other prose issues. It may be solved by GOCE copyediting.
  • For 1b, some of the sections, like Tie-ins, are too short and do not cover its topic comprehensively. I personally cannot propose any solutions.
  • For 1c, there is a rather major lacking in references. As above, I cannot solve the problem myself.
  • For 4, the section on appearances is very large, while other sections, such as Tie-ins, are very short. The appearance section could be cut, but then the article will become quite short for an FA.

I hope that the article can be improved to current FA standard. Thank you.Forbidden User (talk) 17:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The information in Tie-ins shouldn't be difficult to source. As for Characterization, it's quite a long section (my background is in video games, and I'd be laughed out of FAC if I nominated an article with this level of cruft), so the unsourced information could easily just be snipped. Tezero (talk) 03:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was apparently forced to FA, refering to the FAC.Forbidden User (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure? Looks like it just had lots of supports; criteria were looser back then. Tezero (talk) 06:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only serious voice (which picks a lot of prose issue, and brings up the verifiability problem) was overwhelmed by people who sounded like WP:ILIKEIT...Forbidden User (talk) 07:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I will fix this myself. Feel free to close.Forbidden User (talk) 17:45, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment: Forbidden User , how is this going? It looks like there's still a referencing tag on one section. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Concerns raised in the review section mainly deal with coverage and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rescue attempt goes awry and Barbossa maroons Jack and Elizabeth on the same island was left on before. - pronoun left out - think it's a "he" but not sure as I forgot the plot....
One section needing sources - otherwise looks in ok shape and can be kept I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've cleared the remaining tags. I believe this article meets criteria 1a, 1d, 1e, 2a, 2c and 4.
  • On 1b and 1c: in brief, the article appears to include all the pertinent available information about the character from reliable, third-party sources (since there are not very many). There are two points of concern: (1) aspects of the character from the non-film primary sources, i.e. the back-story in books and comics and games, etc., are not described. This does not seem to be a case where these tie-ins are considered "non-canon" by fans, and therefore excluded. However, since all of the back-story is from primary sources, there is a valid argument that it is all irrelevant and non-notable. (2) There might be some extra mileage from sources such as Queer Buccaneers: (de)constructing Boundaries in the Pirates of the Caribbean Film Series by Heike Steinhoff and The Handbook of Gender, Sex and Media by Karen Ross (Chapter 18: Why doesn't your compass work?), but the suspicions of movie executives that the character was too gay and the fetishistic aspects of the pirate-ship dynamic are touched on in the article, if only briefly. These brief mentions could just as easily be argued to be sufficient.
  • On 2b, yes, the tie-ins section is the difficult one. The article doesn't seem comprehensive without it and yet it is the weakest in terms of sourcing and notability. It doesn't fit seemlessly into the whole. On balance, I don't think we can do without it and I don't think it will fit better anywhere else. So, I guess it will have to remain.
  • On 3, I have some vague disquiet about using 2 fair-use images when there are images at commons, but again there are valid counter-arguments: the image of the main character should be the canonical, official image of the original character not a derivative; and the image of the character before its full development is informative of the production process. It is not entirely clear whether a sand sculpture, as a work of art, can be copyrighted. If it can be, and it was, then freedom of panorama does not apply and the photograph would be a photograph of a copyrighted work and hence not free. However, the sand sculpture is already a derivative of Disney's copyright and is clearly a transitory and impermanent creation. On balance, I think any claim of copyright is likely to be considered absurd and essentially unenforceable. So, there are insufficient grounds for removing or changing any of the images. They appear to meet criterion 3.
  • Essentially, I don't much like this article but all of the above concerns are arguable niggles. There is nothing I can point at clearly and say it does not meet the criteria on that point. I fear my concerns might be desperate excuses that are really based on prejudice against a pop culture article rather than based on the featured article criteria. Consequently, if forced to make a declaration, I will have to stomach a keep. DrKiernan (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I have the stomach for the keep yet; the prose is just tortured and bounces all over the place. A good independent ce is needed; maybe Curly Turkey or Miniapolis would take on an independent copyedit. On the MOS trivials, a WP:PUNC review is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have Tezero and Forbidden User revisited? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator, Forbidden User, hasn't edited since September. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ha, Curly Turkey to the rescue! Perhaps Zziccardi could also lend a hand and bring this one over the hump. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get your hopes up yet! I've gotten down to the "Characters" section and am having a bit of trouble figuring out what the text is trying to say. I've "seen" all the movies over my kids' shoulders, but I've never actually sat through one, so it's not always clear to me how I can reword things without potentially distorting the meaning. I have no idea what "This acts as part of Will Turner's arc" is supposed to mean, for instance. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha. Well, I couldn't make heads or tails of what most of the article was trying to say, and thought there was a secret key ... as in, maybe I shoulda seen the movie :) But your edits are improvements! You may come to wish I hadn't discovered the Power of the Pingie Thingie! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I loved to be loved. Another one I can't figure out is "he wore contacts that acted as sunglasses". The source is a video I son't have access to. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if someone can clarify "Sparrow has several gold teeth, two of which belong to Depp, although they were applied during filming." Is this supposed to mean that the two Depp actually owns are also removable? I don't know anything about gold teeth—I assumed they were shoved into the sockets of the replaced teeth...? Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have now, heh. Okay, I will vote...
keep...
but would prefer the first paragraph of Tie-ins be bolstered with citations if at all possible. There are also some passages I'd rather see written differently, e.g. "This acts as part of Will Turner's arc, in which Sparrow tells him a pirate can be a good man, like his father" (whose?), "At World's End was meant to return it tonally to a character piece" (return what?), but IMO nothing worth removing FA status over. Tezero (talk) 21:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will enter a begrudging Keep because the glaring issues have been addressed, and no one has entered further commentary after three weeks. But, I suspect this article will be back at FAR soon, unless Curly Turkey, who did most of the prose cleanup, keeps it watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just one last thing: empty the lead of ref's per WP:LEAD. But the same content must stay sourced in the body of the article. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned at WP:LEAD, there is no "exception to citation requirements specific to leads", and there is no need here to "empty the lead of refs". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think Kailash was referring to WP:LEADCITE, which indicates that citations are generally not used in lead sections. Anyway, this article doesn't look too bad now, so I'm going to say keep. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was also referring to WP:LEADCITE (a subsection of LEAD), and there is still no reason to delete the refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria 01:15, 12 January 2015.

Selena

edit
Notified: Secret, WikiProject Mexico, WikiProject United States, WikiProject Musicians WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject R&B and Soul Music, WikiProject Latin music

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails multiple FA criteria, and there are unaddressed {{context}}, {{leadtooshort}}, and {{Missing information}} tags from October 2014. The edition that passed for FA wasn't perfect either, but I will grant that the criteria was less demanding back when it was promoted back in July 2006. Right now, here is how it compares against the FA criteria:

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • Could use a copyedit. Here are examples of phrasing that could be more professional:
  • "Selena's stardom got a big boost"
  • "Selena and her band received yet more accolades in 1994"
  • "The song got to number one"
  • "These demonstrations of community involvement won her loyalty from her fan base"
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Not at all. As indicated by the {{Missing information}} and {{context}} tags, and my comment here, this article is lacking a significant amount of detail. Specifically, there is nothing on her artistry—musical style, themes, influences, critical commentary (not counting the listing among "100 Coolest Americans in History" or Howard Stern's commentary on her when she died), etc.—and does not give much of her life outside her career
  • 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
  • Not quite. I'm not convinced "NewsTaco" is a reliable source. Additionally, some of its content is harder to verify as there are 3 HARVref errors, several dead links, and the following statements are missing citations:
  • "Over the next three years, not under a recording contract, she released six more albums"
  • "Selena scheduled her English album for release in the summer of 1995."
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • No. Its primary focus is her impact and commercial success, doesn't focus enough on other aspects. This is something I might expect from a fansite, not an encyclopedia.
  • 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
  • Yes. The article has had no substantial revisions lately. No. An edit war (although it came from disruption) lead to the article being fully protected.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • No. As indicated by the {{leadtooshort}} tag, this doesn't have enough information to fully summarize the article.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • Doesn't seem too bad.
  • 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)
  • No. It is inconsistent with the inclusion/exclusion of publishers, some are missing accessdates. I also see instances of malformatted references: "E! Online", "CBSNews.com", "AllMusic.com", "ABC Good Morning America", "BMG" "New York Times" "Billboard magazine", "chicagotribune.com", and incorrect use/absence of italics on "E! Online", "Televisa", and Corpus Christi Caller-Times.
  • 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.
  • Yes. Both images used are relevant, have suitable captions, and are appropriately licensed.
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • In addition to the amount of detail this goes into about her successes, I'm skeptical about including things like "Her father bought all of the original copies" or "Selena visited local schools to talk to students about the importance of education".

With the above being said, this would take considerable work to even meet GA criteria in its current condition. I doubt it can be salvaged. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Even though I'm no longer active on Wikipedia, I wouldn't mind working on this article with someone who is willing to work together. I also added a thread seeking editors several weeks ago. Best, .jonatalk 19:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Snuggums on this. There have been tags at the top of the article's page since October and very little has changed since then. Some have said that they are prepared to help others, but others have not come forward. Time to move on. EddieHugh (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the article talk page, I don't think we can get there from here. Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sandy, move to FARC. This is miles away right now with no clear path forward. --Laser brain (talk) 13:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Concerns raised on prose, comprehensiveness, reliability, neutrality, structure and formatting. Article is currently full-protected, indicating stability issues. DrKiernan (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2014 (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 User:Nikkimaria 15:03, 6 January 2015 [1].

2nd Canadian Infantry Division

edit
Notified: User:Cam, WikiProject Military history, Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
Thank you, DrKiernan, for doing the notifications! I was just coming to do that ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review section

edit

Featured Article 2nd Canadian Infantry Division was merged (apparently after little discussion) with 2nd Canadian Division on 30 May 2013, and as a result fails on 2c at the very least. Discussion initiated on article talk page last year to either undo the merge or validate it and improve the current article has produced no consensus and the result remains well below FA standard. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, you may have a typo above (30 May 2013 ??)

I was having a hard time keeping up with the discussion of this article over at WT:FAC, and am just now seeing the links and discussion. I find this May 27, 2013 version, with indication of a merge on May 30, 2013. The version of May 27 does not look to me like an automatic demotion, I am not seeing a clear 2c deficiency, meaning the revert merge may have been incorrect and should be reverted (merging away a Featured Article should not happen outside of FAR).

More troubling is that I have yet to find any discussion of the original merge (where is it?). I don't see one on the original article talk page, and the merge discussion on the target page is from a different article (Talk:2nd_Canadian_Division#Merger proposal), and the discussion of the merge on that same page of this article is inconclusive. Unless someone can come up with something else, it looks like either a) the merge should be reverted, or b) we should get MilHist folks to evaluate whether May 27, 2013 version, just before the merge, is demotable.

If it's clearly and seriously deficient, I can understand dispensing with the bookkeeping of a FAR (considering a year and a half has elapsed) and demoting, but unless I'm missing something, that seems to be a bad precedent (demoting an article because of a faulty merge).

Whatever more knowledgeable MilHist folks think is fine, but if the FAR is to proceed, the listing needs to be reinstated at WP:FA and re-added to the tally; if the article is to be speedily demoted, that would be a first ... no problem, but as of now, this article is not listed at FA, so just to keep the books in sync before month-end, we have to go with either/or. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You see my dilemma, Sandy. This was why I initiated discussion with MilHist on whether the merge was reasonable or not. There was no consensus on that so I think we'd be better off demoting this. BTW, thought I just copied and pasted the merge date, corrected now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where you got the merge date, I think, is because an IP added that date well after the fact to the talk page.[2] Where is the original merge discussion? Seriously, someone just merged away an FA and no one noticed. Kinda troubling, the whole thing, but it does look like the original article may not have been comprehensive (look at the World War I section on the new article, was it WWI or not??), so perhaps demotion is best. The main question here is, do we run a regular FAR, or speedy demote? You all know best, but take care with setting precedent. Nikkimaria, if you decide to run the FAR, then this article has to relisted at WP:FA and re-added to the tally. If you decide to speedy demote, it has already been removed from FA, but not sure if it has been list at WP:FFA ... just to keep the books straight before month-end tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, the next step would depend on whether this is going to stay merged. If it is, I would go for a procedural, immediate demotion. If it's going to be unmerged, we should conduct a full FAR. Alternatively, we could unmerge and then conduct a new merge discussion, either through the normal processes or as an FAR itself (compare Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Meteorological_history_of_Tropical_Storm_Allison/archive1). In the interim, I've reinstated the FA listing, just until we've figured this out. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria. Does the tally at FA need to be incremented, then? Still catching the plot, but I think we had the numbers in sync. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:33, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you're right, fixed now. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I think that this needs a FAR as I can see inadequate sourcing (the Order of Battle, forex) and rather cursory coverage of the division's role in various battles. At 22K, the pre-merge article isn't overly large and, to my mind, the decisive vote for any merge is how the Canadian Army itself treats the history of the(se) division(s). If it treats them as two iterations of the same unit then we merge, if not then they're separate articles. As the Canadians haven't raised a division-sized unit since WW2 we'd probably need to see how they treat the history of the various infantry brigades that have been in service.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(another ec) This needs to be sorted by knowledgeable MilHist folks ... here is what the FAC nominator said on the FAC.

It is of no relation to the 2nd Canadian Division. In WWI, they didn't specify division type, whereas in WWII the 1st Canadian Army fielded both infantry and armour divisions. As for the divisional artillery and such, there was no specified organization for each division in the early days of the war; they simply relied on an overarching corps artillery and engineers that were not attached to the actual division. Hope that answers your question. Cam (Chat) 06:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noting Sandy's comments above, this article is clearly not of featured status. In the event that the World War I and World War II units of this name are considered separate by historians, military lineage experts, etc, the article is fundamentally mistaken. If the units are the same, the coverage of the division's World War I service is woefully inadequate. The "Present day" section is also obviously not even close to the standard required for FAs. Overall, I agree with Nikkimaria's view that the article should be delisted immediately if it remains in its current form. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D, are you looking at the current article (which was a merge without discussion) or the old article (which is FA)? This is the FA that was merged with no discussion, to the new mess. Based on the comment from Cam, the original nominator, and this comment from an IP on talk, it looks like it may have been sound as a stand-alone article and the merge was incorrect (as well as undiscussed).

Considering that, I suggest we post-haste Revert merge and redirect, then proceed with FAR to evaluate soundness of the original article. I am concerned that people are looking at the new article, rather than the FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, perhaps the solution is to take the article back to its pre-merged state and rename it something like "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II" or something similar. That would mean that regardless of whether the claimed lineage is correct of not (there seems to be a lack of authoritive sourcing on this), the article would still be comprehensive and therefore most likely FA-worthy. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me, but I defer to those more knowledgeable on MilHist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, I was commenting on the article as it currently stands. Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is as I feared :) The merge to that article was based on zero discussion that I found, so could you have a look at the FA (that is the diff above of the FA before it was merged out of existence [3])? Both the original nominator and the IP give reasoning for a stand-alone article, although AustralianRupert's suggestion might also work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stale discussion, and some comments based on a misunderstanding of which article we are reviewing. So, unless someone disagrees, I shall revert the undiscussed merge, so that this discussion and the WP:FA page are not pointing at a mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverted merge and redirect: [4] Could we please now get MilHist opinions on the FA before us? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've taken a look through the article and had a few concerns about referencing and formatting. I've rectified what I could with these edits: [5]. I added a couple of refs to all I could find, but unfortunately they didn't always provide the full details (maybe someone has a book that covers these?). Where this is the case, I have noted in my edit summaries (mainly the table and the comment about the 12th Panzer Div). I am also slightly concerned about wording similarities between the article and this source: [6]. The Earwig tool is also concerned: [7] Although it could be a false positive (I'm not sure): the proper nouns of units/people etc. might be setting it off. Finally, I still believe that it would be optimal to rename this article to "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during the Second World War" or "2nd Canadian Infantry Division during World War II" (which ever variation is considered most common to Canadians). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • G'day, I did a bit more digging and I'm not sure whether this is a case of backwards copy or not. From what I can tell this was the Wikipedia article when it achieved Good Article status in August 2008: [8]. Web Archive appears to indicate that the Canadiansoldiers.com page came into existence in 2011 [9] (at least that is when it first "captured" the website). Is there any way of telling definitively which came first? Sorry, I think I've muddied the waters a bit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • From my digging in archive.org, pretty sure they copied us. AustralianRupert is this source helpful in replacing canadiansoldiers.com? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • G'day, Sandy, thanks for that. I've downloaded a couple of the sources there and managed to add a couple of refs, but there are still a few areas that need references (after I removed the canadiansoldiers web citation). I found that some of the information is partially covered by the Stacey refs, but not totally, so I didn't add the reference in these places. I'm sorry, but I've spent about two hours on this today and I can't devote any more time to it now (in the middle of moving house and then going on Christmas holidays). Equally I don't have the subject matter knowledge. I'm sorry, but this may need to be demoted. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. It's been two weeks. On the issue of similarities, compare for example:

In 1941, the Toronto Scottish Regiment was transferred from the 1st Division to become the machine-gun battalion of the 2nd Division. Around the same time, the 8th Reconnaissance Regiment (14th Canadian Hussars) was raised from 2nd Division personnel supplemented by reinforcements from Canada...
When the division was not engaged in coastal-defence duties or unit training, formation-level training took the form of increasingly larger exercises. Exercise Waterloo, conducted from 14–16 June 1941, was the largest in the United Kingdom to date, with I Canadian Corps counter-attacking an imagined German sea and air landing. Exercise Bumper, held from 29 September to 3 October, was larger still, involving 250,000 men. These exercises tended to concentrate on traffic control, communications, and logistical concerns, and were of little practical value to the infantry.
On 30 December 1941, the Calgary Highlanders introduced "battle drill" to the division. This new type of training emphasized small unit tactics as well as "hardening" training through use of live ammunition, slaughterhouse visits, and obstacle courses, and was adopted throughout Commonwealth forces stationed in Britain.

— Article

In 1941, the Toronto Scottish Regiment were moved from the 1st Canadian Division to become the Machine Gun battalion of the Second Division. As well, the 8th Reconnaissance Regiment (14th Canadian Hussars) was created from 2nd Division personnel and reinforcements from Canada...
When the division was not engaged in coastal defence duties or unit training, formation level training took the form of increasingly larger exercises. Exercise WATERLOO conducted 14-16 June 1941 would be the largest in the United Kingdom to date, with I Canadian Corps counter-attacking an imagined German sea and air landing. Exercise BUMPER from 29 September 1941 to 3 October 1941 was larger than WATERLOO, involving 250,000 men. These exercises tended to concentrate on traffic control, communications and logistical concerns and were of little practical value to the infantry.
On 30 December 1941, the Calgary Highlanders introduced "Battle Drill" to the Division. This new type of training emphasized small unit tactics as well as "hardening" training through use of live ammunition, slaughterhouse visits, and obstacle courses, and was adopted throughout the Army.

— Source given in the article: canadiansoldiers.com/organization/fieldforces/casf/2nddivision.htm
DrKiernan (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DrKiernanON the canadiansolders.com issue (raised by Australian Rupert), as far as I can tell, that's a backwards copy (we need to remove that source, which was inadvertently introduced by Rupert before he realized it was a Wikipedia mirror). Canadiansoldiers.com was archived at archive.org well before 2011, but that particular page does not show up til 2011, so likely they copied us. If you poke around in archive.org for the general page of canadiansoldiers.com, you find no indication of that specific page being there before 2011-- so, they copied us. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I already looked at archive.org before I posted above. But canadiansoldiers.com is very sniffy about wikipedia: [10], so they do not seem likely to copy us; and they expressly claim copyright: [11]. DrKiernan (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More than two weeks-- Move to FARC. Regardless what is determined about canadiansoldiers.com (what makes that a reliable source?), this article needs to be !voted in or out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Once the issue of the merge was resolved, concerns raised in the review section mostly centred on coverage and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2014 (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 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Military career of Hugo Chávez

edit
Notified: Saravask, WP Venezuela, WP MilHist
URFA nomination
Talk page notification four years ago.

Review section

edit

This article was a 2006 promotion, and it has remain relatively unchanged in the eight years since then. It was written before Chavez rose to "prominence", and although well written and well cited, is now out of date. Many new sources have been written since 2006. See, for example,

See also the unsigned commentary at User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page#2006. The article needs an update to comply with 1b and 1c, and potentially 1d.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, two weeks, no action whatsoever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:05, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC – Without even reading the article in detail, I noticed an obvious 1b deficiency that Dweller caught in his comments. The lead mentions a 1992 coup attempt led by Chavez, which clearly is a significant topic in his military career. The body, however, ends before the coup, giving the impression that coverage isn't meant to be provided in this article. Criterion 1b requires comprehensiveness, and I can't imagine that an article on a person's military career that overlooks a significant campaign led by that person can possibly meet this standard. Barring some type of article renaming, this issue by itself causes the article to not meet the modern FA criteria. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:06, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Concerns raised in the review section on comprehensiveness and scope, and reliance on older literature. DrKiernan (talk) 15:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by User:Nikkimaria 19:40, 21 January 2015 [12].

Marine shrimp farming

edit
Notified: Lupo, Epipelagic, Stemonitis, WP Agriculture, WP Fisheries and Fishing
URFA nom
Talk page notification 2012

Review section

edit

This is a 2005 FA that has not been maintained. There is considerable uncited text, the article (data) is outdated, and there are numerous MOS issues to be addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. This doesn't even meet modern Good Article standards. HalfGig talk 03:21, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depressing to delist, as it's a decent little article but I agree at present that it lacks sourcing. There may have been a 2009 update of data, that factor not enough by itself to mandeate delisting. Looks like several editors have been pinged about this, and I added one more person who might have an interest. Let's give it the usual time to run, maybe someone will take a whack at improving it. If not, oh well, but if there is work started, I would be glad to see this article brought up to snuff. Montanabw(talk) 00:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC, two weeks, nothing happening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Concerns raised in the review section largely centered on sourcing and datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single edit since listed at FAR, but I will wait a week before declaring Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/January_2015&oldid=644845444"