Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/July 2020

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC) [1].

2005 Atlantic hurricane season

edit
Notified: WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it no longer meets the criteria of what a featured article is, especially in this project. The standards have significantly increased over the years and this article has sadly not kept up with the times. @JavaHurricane: posted about the article not meeting the standards on January 13 and there have been no comments so I am coming here. My main issues:

  • A citation needed tag for an entire paragraph
  • This is by far the largest issue... The article by far is not comprehensive in its coverage of storms. I understand this was literally the most active Atlantic season on record in terms of storms, but one sentence for a storm is not acceptable. Many smaller storms have virtually no information on them. Even the larger ones dont have enough. Not to mention there isn't much meteorology for individual storms. There is a list of storms for this season, but I dont see why it is needed considering the shape the main article is in at this point. If Pacific typhoon articles can contain even more storms, this should be able to have all the season's content. The storm sections need to be completely overhauled to conform to today's format. NoahTalk 04:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Noah! Another thing that I think should be done is that the lead and summary should be completely rewritten as the current versions are not up to the mark. A lot of the information is irrelevant or hyped up. Also, for the time being, the FA List-classification for the list of storms should be removed as that list is in a worse state. -- JavaHurricane 05:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson
This is just for the lead.

  • Per MOS:LEAD, a lead paragraph should generally have no more than four paragraphs, and I fail to see how this should be an exception\
  • the U.S. states of Florida and Louisiana were each struck twice by major hurricanes; Cuba, the Bahamas, Haiti, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, and Tamaulipas were each struck once and brushed by at least one more is an example of inconsistent use of "the U.S. states..."; why is it used the first time but not the second, and shouldn't Tamaulipas be referred to as "the Mexican state of Tamaulipas", for consistency?
  • The 2005 season was the first to observe more tropical storms and cyclones in the Atlantic than in the West Pacific; on average, the latter experiences 26 tropical storms per year while the Atlantic only averages 12. This event was repeated in the 2010 season; however, the 2010 typhoon season broke the record for the fewest storms observed in a single year, while the 2005 typhoon season featured near-average activity. None of this is cited, nor is it brought up in the body.
  • The season officially began on June 1, 2005, and lasted until November 30, although it effectively persisted into January 2006 due to continued storm activity. While one could argue that the body backs up the last part of this with Zeta, none of the other stuff is cited. Perhaps every hurricane season officially begins on June 1 and/or ends on November 30, but this should be explicitly mentioned and cited.
  • The records section references a part of the body which is inadequately cited and fleshed out, IMO.

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying: the proposal is to merge the contents of four non-Featured articles into this Featured article. This means the (new) content in this Featured article would need to be reviewed to see if it still meets FAC standards, if the merge happens.
Conversely, the implication above is that this article is not currently at standard unless the merge happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Yes... that would be our job here. We would provide featured article reviews to fix issues and ensure that it meets FA at the end of this process. NoahTalk 17:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse the plan of merging the season list article, statistics, and the two minor storm articles, while making sure that the article would still be up to featured article standards. There is currently a draft article, which I realize now is going to be a giant history merge, so much so that I'd suggest a redirect rather than doing a history merge once it is done, and leave the notice on the 2005 talk page. Still, that is where the users plan on incorporating the changes, given that the article is featured, and so is the list article). See Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bookkeeping mechanism for the featured list which will go away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it needs something to link to on the article milestones. That's why the FLRC is needed, even if just for bookkeeping. NoahTalk 14:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support merger of the four aforementioned articles (storm list, statistics, Franklin, Philippe). Storm sections in the draft article need to be fleshed out more, particularly Maria, Nate, Philippe (merger should help for this one), Vince, Alpha, and Beta. I suppose most of the records from the statistics article will go into the seasonal summary or the storm sections themselves? Or maybe some could be moved over exclusively to List of Atlantic hurricane records instead to avoid bloating the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would additionally like to propose the merge of the 2005 Azores subtropical storm article into the new draft article. What content exists on this system is largely trivial and could effectively be covered in the individual section on the main page. In accordance with the aforementioned pages both here and on Hurricanehink's talk page, I do not see that this article has kept with the increased project standards of today. Cooper 23:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closing with no consensus to merge due to lack of participation in the last 8 days. NoahTalk 20:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise when all is merged, and ready for review from others here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: Please feel free to redirect the storm articles as soon you finish merging their contents. I removed the GA status from the articles as soon as we agreed to merge them since they were auto-negated by that consensus. NoahTalk 20:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), a few editors and I have worked together to redo the 2005 article, making sure every item is cited, all of the refs are working, and the article isn't too in depth for anything that already has an article, while also not giving undue weight to any one aspect. I believe the new article has achieved a good balance. And so, I'd like to submit this version of the article for FA review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If all of you hurricane editors are now satisfied, I will look it over as soon as I can ... within the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that any major changes in size to the infoboxes should go through the project first as they would impact all of the project season articles. However, what could be done and needs to be done is too really look at what systems really need to be spun off into their own articles. For example: I feel that Delta needs more MH within its section while SS 22, Epilson and Zeta dont need articles as those articles seem very very bloated.Jason Rees (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait. What? I thought you just merged everything to there with agreement-- now we're talking about spinning stuff out again? Is my review premature ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I am only one editor but I personally feel that the whole process has been rushed and that the articles for Maria, Nate, 2005 Azores subtropical storm, Delta, Epilson, Zeta seem very bloated and are only marginally notable. Is the fact that a subtropical storm existed for 24 hours over open water really worth an article? Personally, I don't think so and I would propose a merger of those articles to the season article if it was worth it. I also feel that the sections need to be expanded out further especially the seasonal forecasts section which failed to mention any of the forecasts by Tropical Storm Risk until I started to add them in the other day. As a result, I would suggest that the article is downgraded until such a time that it properly meets the featured article criteria.Jason Rees (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand. I thought I was reviewing an article that everyone agreed upon and was stable. You are saying there is more that should be merged here. OK, I will hold off on reviewing what is there now for compliance with WIAFA, as I don't want to get inbetween hurricanes :0 I will unwatch for now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: I hate to say it... I agree with Jason on this one. After looking at this article and comparing it with similar seasons, this article is still not comprehensive enough to be FA quality. NoahTalk 23:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis not for me to disagree the hurricane editors! You might all decide, then, to ask the coords to Move to FARC for !voting Keep or Delist. If it's a Keep, I'll continue to work on it :0 Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hurricane Noah
  • There is inconsistency in formatting for authors from the National Hurricane Center. Some have middle initials while others do not. Some are last, first while others just list the name in author format. NoahTalk 01:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, best I can tell, we do not have consensus here among the hurricane editors, even after lots of work and discussion. Almost six weeks in, move to FARC to see where everyone stands and if this is salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My personal view is that it is salvageable which is why I am trying to help edit it when time allows and that it should look something like 1997-98 SPAC, 2011 AHS or 1995-96 SPAC. However, I need my fellow hurricane editors to stop talking about the US Election and provide opinons on wiki to help improve it. Otherwise I may look at AFD'ing a few articles.Jason Rees (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised include coverage/comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rees (talk · contribs) noted comprehensiveness issues in the article, so I'd appreciate if he (or someone else) could point out where info is lacking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make people aware, I am planning to respond to this and all the offline taunts and comments I have seen in when I get five minutes either later today or tomorrow [Thursday].Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rees

As I have noted above I believe that the article does not do an adequate job of telling the story of the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. This is because I feel that the sections do not tell the story of the systems, as they lack in several areas and have far too much whitespace. There is also too much of a reliance on sub-articles, which I feel should be merged into the article to help tell the story of the season, in order to make the article more comprehensive. I have been told offline that I'm bonkers for thinking that we should be telling the story of the season and that the article should be larger, however, I disagree as the readable prose size is only around 50 KB and the page size is barely half of what an average Pacific typhoon season with more systems is. As a result, I have decided to go through each of the sections and record my concerns for others to discuss:
  • The lead is meant to be a summary of the whole of the article, however, it currently isn't and could do with a paragraph or so on the seasonal forecasts.
  • The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, with 31 tropical or subtropical cyclones - add monitored?
  • As a lay reader I would wonder whose National Hurricane Center named the systems. Fiji's, Papua New Guinea? Japan's?
  • a record 7 hurricanes were major hurricanes -> a record 7 hurricanes were classified as major hurricanes. I would also remove the which are a Category 3 or higher on the Saffir-Simpson scale" as i feel that a link to SSHWS would suffice.
  • I rewrote the seasonal forecasts section the other day, but I would not be surprised if it needs a copyedit.
  • The seasonal summary section has an interesting format that I like but needs several tweaks - for starters, I felt like the timeline image was too crowded, so i have broken it up a bit. I also don't see the point in having a gap in Lee and Gamma dates which i believe indicates that it weakened below tropical cyclone intensity when the average reader would just see a gap with no obvious explanation. I would also like to see the links removed per WP:Overlink, since they are not needed imo.
  • The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active on record. - You say that it was the most active but don't specify if it was the most active TC season on record around the world or what.
  • ACE is, broadly speaking, a measure of the power of the hurricane multiplied by the length of time it existed, so storms that last a long time, as well as particularly strong hurricanes, have high ACEs. - I don't think we really need to define what ACE is within the main prose, bearing in mind that its mentioned twice and linked once in seasonal forecasts.
  • The second paragraph of the seasonal summary is pretty much unsourced. If I am to believe that the details all came from Reference 13, I would be very concerned that the AMS seasonal summary had not been used for stuff like that. In fact, that makes me wonder if we couldn't add some details in from Meteo France's seasonal summary or Cuba's seasonal summuary rather than just relying on NOAA ones.
  • Activity continued late in the season, with a record 10 storms forming in the last three months of the year. -> not true 11 storms formed.
Thanks for the review Jason. Responding to your points one by one. First, whitespace isn't inherently a problem. Because the article has so many storms, I think it's right that it leans on the sub-articles, and I disagree about the mergers. I added forecasts, added "recorded" (not "monitored"), specified NHC's role, disagreed about not clarifying about C3+ for major hurricanes, copyedited seasonal forecasts (and removed the monthly forecasts in favor of the whole season). As for the season summary, good call w/ Lee and Gamma, but I disagree with the linking (since it's useful to point to the storm article when we get the chance). Agreed about ACE. As for Ref 13, yep, the info comes from the Climate Prediction Center, which is a good resource. Is there anything missing from what's written that is in MF or Cuba's summary, or any other comprehensive issues? You're right about there being 11 storms in the last three months of the year, good catch, thanks for the feedback. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to let people here know, due to the current crisis, the UK Government now considers me a key worker and I am trying to work all the hours I can within reason. As a result, I may not be able to respond as quickly as I may like to comments coming in here (Yes Hink im looking at you :P). Anyway, while I agree that a season article can have some whitespace in the article, this season does not currently have the right balance which is evidenced above by Sandy, suggesting that we look at reducing the size of the infoboxes above (Which isnt happening without a broader discussion on what the season articles should include). However, we will cross this bridge as we come to it by possibly expanding or tweaking the sections, where needed to present the information better.Jason Rees (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jason, for the sake of the FARC, do you think that the article needs to be removed as a featured article? Surely, it's only minor tweaks at this point, which wouldn't affect the stability of the article. The biggest change in its stability was when the List article was merged. So keep in mind the FA criteria when you're discussing expansions. That said, thank you for being a key worker in these weird times, and thank you for your review! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still going

edit

Is this FAR still continuing? It's been nearly 2 months since last discussion... 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 11:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly @Nikkimaria, SandyGeorgia, and Hurricanehink: I still feel that the merger of these FA's was rushed and that more details need to be added to the sections to tell the story of the season better. I look at Bret for example and see that it had minimal impact on Mexico and wonder if it shouldn't be merged into the season after we have plenty of seasons that have more storms than 2005 AHS. Similar reasoning/thoughts apply to the Azore subtropical storm and Zeta. I also feel that the seasonal summaries from Meteo France and Cuba that I linked above should have been added to in order to prove that the article has been well researched in more than just English. However, it has become clearer that the project and I have different ideas over the way the season should be laid out, as a result, I feel that it would be better for to recuse myself from the review.Jason Rees (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have given up, as I don't know what to say about this one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia:, for what it's worth, we discussed merging the Azores storm and Zeta. There was no agreement to merge the former, and opposition to move the latter. I appreciate Jason's views on the articles and his edits. I hope we can find a resolution to the review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 22:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. This is very confusing— how on earth do y'all straighten this? ~ AC5230 talk 00:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ask @FAR coordinators: . Maybe with no consensus to delete, they default to Keep ... I dunno. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the moment, there is no consensus of any articles we collectively want to merge into 2005. Jason mentioned Bret, the Azores storm, and Zeta, as well as other articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Fails criterion 2 in the first section and attempts to address the issue are reverted[2]. I see little point in reviewing the rest of the article when it fails in the first few lines. DrKay (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you DrKay, I wasn't aware of that rule about the font size, and I don't think the user who reverted you did either. I brought up on the tropical cyclone WikiProject talk page, reminding users not to use the <small> in the infobox, and I'm going through other season articles to make sure we don't use it. I hope you can assume good faith with these actions and continue your review, as I believe the article is still up to featured article standards. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hurricanehink and DrKay: The manual of style is actually kinda wrong/contradicts itself... specifically mentions Outside article text, different font sizes are routinely used in navigation templates and infoboxes, tables (especially in larger ones), and some other contexts where alternatives are not available. This makes it seem like the smaller font size is okay when another part of the MOS says not to do it. NoahTalk 21:38, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I know my vote may not count as much since I'm still a new(ish) user, but I believe that the merging-of-Zeta proposal was closed prematurely. Just because it's the most active season, does it really need to have 25 (or is it 26?) articles for the storms? Answer: No. Pleased to be in this FAR, 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 10:08, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there aren't 25-26 articles to begin with and even if there were, it'd make a certain amount of sense precisely because it was the most active season on record and has so many sections, hence the urge for spinoffs. And I think it's out of line to call for a removal of an FA just because you want an article merged. YE Pacific Hurricane 13:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the article itself, from the talk page on March because no one replied to this then outside of the merging bit, I'll re-post. "In regards to what Hink wrote on Sunday, I don't like how there's not a single sentence in Katrina's section about the botched US response and the criticism they received. In general, this reminds me of Hurricane Andrew prior to FAC in that sense that many of the sections read as if it was an average system. There's nothing in the article (outside of mentioning Katrina was the second costliest system on record in the seasonal summary of all places) that resemble statements like "X was the worst storm to hit Y since Z". There's also not as much "X homes were damaged and Y were destroyed, leaving Z homeless." type of stuff as I would like either. I'm not as concerned about "telling the story" (because I think the article does a decent job of that as I am about not covering impact adequately tbh. Also Noah, the 2017 AHS is 150kb and that includes just 18 systems, so a 2005 equivalent would be approaching 200kb. That's insane." YE Pacific Hurricane 13:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually @Yellow Evan: I don't think it's insane to expect 2005 AHS to be approaching 150-200kb, especially since some of our more well developed WPAC and SPAC articles are above 100kb and approach 200kb.Jason Rees (talk) 18:44, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't anywhere near 200kb. As of yesterday's season summary revision, it's only 134kb. 🐔Chicdat ChickenDatabase 10:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right but the calls for expansion to that size and the notion that several articles should be absorbed into it would bring that closer to such territory (regardless if one thinks such mergers are good ideas). Although in addition to what I wrote above, CB has a valid point regarding the seasonal summary. YE Pacific Hurricane 03:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist — page falls short of standards set by other season articles that are GAs. Storm sections lack sufficient content and the season summary doesn't really cover the appropriate synoptic information that would be expected for a season this prolific. The section is almost exclusively about damage. There are likely journal articles covering the relevant meteorological info. As of this comment, the article is only at 47 kB by prose size which leaves ample room for expansion. It still needs extensive work to reach FA-level imo. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 02:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Main concerns addressed so striking delist but some additional work is needed. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 20:16, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - I struck my previous stance on the article which was only a razor-thin keep at best. I re-reviewed the entire thing in much more detail and looked at some of the opinions of other editors. In addition, I checked over numerous other articles of similar activity in the Atlantic and they have outdone 2005 at GA level. Given this is still lacking in the storm sections as well as what CB mentioned above, I have to say delist. NoahTalk 19:51, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given GC and Hink seem to be addressing the concerns raised, I think this is quite premature. YE Pacific Hurricane 20:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Main issues I see
edit

@Hurricanehink and 12george1:

  • Dennis and Emily should have some aftermath
  • Environmental impact/oil spills should be mentioned for Katrina
  • Criticism of the govt response and outside help should be summarized as well
  • Aftermath needs added for Rita, Wilma, and Stan
  • Citation overkill in a few spots
  • I think we should mention economic costs and take them into the total for the storm as they are quite an important part. If a business is closed for weeks because of the physical damage from the storm, those losses should be counted. NoahTalk 01:58, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing is adding the aftermath for the most impactful storms. NoahTalk 01:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added more about the environment, criticism, and international aid for Katrina. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck items that have been addressed. NoahTalk 12:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added aftermath for Wilma. What did you have in mind for citation overkill? ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: Any area with >5 citations on a sentence. NoahTalk 14:23, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that citation overkill is much of an issue, and I believe they're warranted in the article considering how much they're covering. Also, Dennis and Emily weren't terribly impactful storms in any one area, so I think it might be excessive going into the aftermath. As for the economic costs, that's not normally the basis for which we usually discuss storm damage. If a business was closed for a few weeks, then that damage is already going to be included in the physical/structural damage, which is how the NHC calculates storm damage. They don't include the indirect/business/tourism-related losses. Also, Wilma has aftermath. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Rees, Hurricane Noah, and John M Wolfson: What issues remain outstanding from your perspective? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My issues have been addressed. NoahTalk 16:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I still see many DUPLINKs and 2005 values not having their inflated values given, but I'm busy with other things on Wikipedia at the moment so won't have the time or will to look much further, so if consensus develops to keep don't let me get in the way. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@John M Wolfson:, I just removed all of the duplicate links I could find. Thanks for pointing that out. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 season is still linked twice in the "Storm names" section, but other than that good job. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Missed that one! Thanks for catching that John M Wolfson. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC) [3].

Battle of Moscow

edit
Notified: Grafikm fr, Russia WT:MILHIST WT:GERMANY, 2020-01-28 talk page notification

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was highlighted for deficiencies, such as "considerable amounts of uncited text", back in January 2020 and these issues have not been resolved. buidhe 01:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sourcing is clearly not of FA standard:

  • It includes large numbers of references to memoirs of some of the generals involved (Guderian and Zhukov), which are primary sources - Guderian's memoirs are also regarded as unreliable by modern historians, and I doubt Zhukov's Soviet-era memoirs are also of a reasonable standard. All of these references need to be replaced, with the corresponding text reviewed for accuracy.
  • Some of the citations are odd - for instance "Glantz, chapter 6, sub-ch. "Viaz'ma and Briansk", pp. 74 ff."
  • What work the references to 'Clark' are is unclear as it's not listed in the source's section. I suspect that these are references to Alan Clark's book Barbarossa: The Russian-German Conflict, 1941–1945 which is now considered outdated at best.
  • Less seriously, there's also inconsistency in how the citations are formatted, etc. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article has not kept up with the times as can be seen here: "Featured article review needed". The issues are too extensive to be able to fix them quickly. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I concur, this is not up to current FA standard.

  • There are some citation required tags although these may be easily fixed. However, there are potentially other unsourced statements that are untagged but should be. For example, Reinhardt is listed in the infobox as a commander on the German side but never mentioned in the text and thus this fact is uncited. Much of the rest of the article is going to need to be factchecked.
  • The sources themselves are quite a mixed bag and how some of them are used is concerning. Examples include Zhukov and Guderian as sources for some quite sweeping statements rather than being limited solely to expressing their personal (ex posto) analysis, subject to qualification RE Guderian's unreliable memoirs. A TV documentary is a source - it seems bizarre that this is necessary give the amount of print literature on the subject.
  • The article also seems to lack content with no distinct explanation of an order of battle so units and generals pop up at random often with little context. For example, it is never explicitly stated that Bock was commander of Army Group Centre.

The amount of work that will be required to resolve all the issues will be a significant undertaking. Zawed (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC) [4].

Photon

edit
Notified: WillowW, Physics, article talk 2020-02-21

Review section

edit

This article obtained FA over thirteen years ago. Since then the standards for citations in Featured Articles have improved. The article is now found wanting in this regard. There are substantial sections that are not supported by citations and dated citations for others. There has been no response to a notice I place on the articles Talk Page. Graham Beards (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Had a quick look at the references. The photon is an elementary particle, it doesn't change over time, so naturally many references are about the initial discovery of things - they are decades old and perfectly fine. Similarly, many things can be found in text books, and several textbooks are used as references for whole sections. One could repeat the same reference for every paragraph but that wouldn't improve the article quality. Overall the article isn't controversial in any way, so a direct citation for every single statement shouldn't be necessary. In some cases it could be useful to give specific pages. --mfb (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which sections aren't supported by citations? I see plenty of refs for everything. I also don't see what's outdated either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have indicated where I think more citations are expected in a Featured Article, using the "[citation needed]" template. Graham Beards (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the vast majority of those. That stuff is common knowledge widely available in the further reading sections, or directly supported by the nearby references (same/previous sentence). I have left a few things that actually need citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not enough to retain FA status. These days we expect most statements to be directly supported by reliable sources. At the very least, there should be a citation at the end of every paragraph. Graham Beards (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to convince a majority of people that "That process is the reverse of "annihilation to one photon [i.e. e+e−→γ]" allowed in the electric field of an atomic nucleus." is a thing that needs a citation to begin with, given that literally the sentence before you have a citation for pair production [i.e. γ→e+e−]. If I write James is a Canadian.[ref] That is James is a citizen from Canada., the second part doesn't need a ref. It's an explanation/contextualization of what you already cited. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, the citation is in the wrong place. Graham Beards (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This complaint is a classic case of Wikipedia's Little blue number disease. Guidelines do not require that every sentence has an inline citation and there's no good reason that FA should require it either. For facts in scientific articles that are generally accepted and found in multiple undergraduate textbooks, then a general reference is just fine. Asking for more is useless makework; it won't improve the article one bit. SpinningSpark 09:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prose problems. For example, editorializing: "correct", "correctly", "actually". Inconsistent spelling: flavour (B) (American: flavor), behavior (A) and behaviour (B), recognize/ization (A), but modelling (B) (American: modeling). Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings, headings should not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). DrKay (talk) 09:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Correct/Correclty/Actually are hardly editorializing. Those concern the accuracy of scientific claim. Claiming the Earth is a cube is obviously incorrect. That's not editorializing. "It was believe X, when actually Y is the case" is likewise not editorializing when this reflects the reality/the sources. For the rest, it should be trivial enough to fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:53, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
British/AM variant fixed. See also recognize in BrEng. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whew. (Disclaimer: I was a physics undergrad until the department chair went all sexist, and I switched to math.) Problems right off the bat here, from the first paragraph of the lead. There are MANY ways to describe a photon that are digestible to the average lay reader who is not a scientist, and this is not it. What we have in the first paragraph of the lead does not bode well for the rest of the article:

Then, Exhibit ... exhibit ... twice in first sentence of next para. Graham's citation concerns, adding to indigestible prose throughout the lead = not a good sign. The organization of the Table of contents is also bewildering.
"Recent research" section begins with "most research ... " ... cited to 2006, which is not very recent.
"Further reading" either needs pruning, or those sources need to be used.
"See also" link farm. FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, and in theory, links worked in to the article.

SO, all-in-all, work is needed here, and the article has been at FAR for three weeks, with only these edits. I wonder if ComplexRational could be enticed to weigh in (their Island of stability has a very digestible lead for a more complex topic). This is looking like a Move to FARC, unless someone takes it on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should adhere to the guidance in WP:MTAU that we should write one level down (WP:ONEDOWN). Given that this is a topic in quantum field theory, which is typically physics graduate-level material, the lead does this quite well. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We must also keep in mind that photons are described in more basic ways; they are even a common focus of books, documentaries, and presentations aimed at laypeople who have not necessarily studied physics in college. Since this is not exactly an obscure topic (unlike some other parts of quantum mechanics), I think writing for a secondary-school audience (barring the technical description and formulas if necessary) would be more appropriate. FWIW, I first encountered the term in a documentary when I was ~12 and only dabbling into algebra and basic astronomy, so at least parts of this article (perhaps an introduction to the subject, something I'd recommend in principle but will detail after I do a more thorough read-through) should take that into consideration. ComplexRational (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the ping, I'll take a look and post here what I can. At first glance, though, I see that I will need to wrap my head around some things. ComplexRational (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I got. So far, I only examined a few paragraphs in a few sections, and I'm with SandyGeorgia that this isn't very reader-friendly and there is considerable room for improvement.
  • § Physical properties, ¶1: this is a lot to digest for a reader unfamiliar with physics jargon. The links are helpful, but I think we need at least two or three simpler, descriptive sentences for every sentence in the current paragraph.
    • and is a stable particle – make sure the simplest, correct definition is understood, namely that it cannot decay into simpler particles.
    • In vacuum, a photon has two possible polarization states. – now we're talking specifically about vacuums, and a layperson might think this is related to polarity in optics or chemistry, which it's not.
    • We now go into even more specifics, without fully explaining the most basic properties. And we assume that 4D vectors, light cones, and spin quantum numbers are understood. So I'd suggest detailing this in a separate paragraph, making sure that these very abstract concepts are digestible to at least someone with decent secondary-school education and/or amateur interest in the subject.
    • I'm all for wikilinks, but one's need to click on two each sentence to understand the terminology makes a read-through very difficult.
  • § Einstein's light quantum: seems undersourced, and cramming a lot of information into few sentences. The part on Stokes' law is not reader-friendly because we do not know who Stokes is, and the article on Stokes' law (which readers would naturally search) describes an apparently unrelated concept in fluid dynamics.
  • I'd propose an introduction briefly summarizing the standard model (mentioned at the bottom of a later section), basic quantum mechanics leading into wave-particle duality (fundamental when explaining wave mechanics in an article supposedly about a particle—building on § Wave–particle duality and uncertainty principles, which already is a bit more digestible but could be fleshed out), and momentum and spin-quantum number (more physics). Some of the material from Introduction to quantum mechanics#Photons: the quantization of light could be very useful here.
  • I'm open to ideas to write an introduction, somewhat mirroring Superheavy element/Short introduction (which we introduced in those articles to provide additional broad context), but this will need time. Maybe I could try, but I can't promise anything too big right now (especially if nobody else takes this on), so we might have to let this go through FARC; this problem doesn't seem contained to the examples I mentioned above. ComplexRational (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Unsourced statements, some of which contain weasel words or superlatives. Prose and style problems remain unresolved, including words to watch, writing in the second person, inappropriate tone, redundancy, and borderline instructional language. DrKay (talk) 11:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Revised 19:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Justified concerns have not been addressed. Graham Beards (talk) 11:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep prose and style issues have been addressed or are invalid. There is no 'second person writing' anywhere in the article. There remains 2-3 citation needed tags, but that's not enough to delist. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am more concerned about the statements (above) from ComplexRationale than I am with the missing citations; the article needs work, and no one has undertaken that work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, citations are often easy enough to find (for textbook material, the only difficulty lies in choosing one textbook out of many). A more serious concern is that the organization of the article seems below par. The section "Wave–particle duality and uncertainty principles" is trying to argue two or three different things and does none of them well. It's also just bad history. Heisenberg's thought experiment about the gamma-ray microscope does not illustrate the uncertainty principle, for example — the meaning of the   and   that are handwavily introduced there are not actually the uncertainties invoked in the famous principle. (Which, incidentally, was not first codified by Heisenberg, but by Kennard, Pauli and Weyl.) XOR'easter (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. I can't honestly say that I'd want to show this article off as an example of the best Wikipedia can do, but getting rid of the worst of the accumulated cruft was easier than I anticipated. Exactly how much still needs fixing is hard for me to evaluate at the moment. I may have to step away for a day or two and approach it with fresher eyes in order to make further progress. XOR'easter (talk) 15:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The specific problems raised above seem to have been fixed. Some of the later sections (particularly "Quantum field theory") might benefit from condensation. XOR'easter (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I rechecked what the introduction looked like when the article was originally promoted to FA. The second paragraph was much shorter, with a more intro-appropriate level of detail, so I tried shortening it. I think I'm now fairly happy with how the article starts, at least. XOR'easter (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
XOR'easter, many citations on a FAR page cause a transclusion limits problem; see this discussion. Would you mind either removing the citations from your copy of the lead, or even better, remove the whole copy of the old lead and trust us to click on the link to see the lead? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ComplexRational: Have the subsequent changes to the article addressed your concerns? @XOR'easter: Do you remain neutral? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to say delist, reluctantly, but not for the reasons originally raised. The later sections of the article, starting with "Hadronic properties", are not very well organized, being a miscellany without a clear sense of why those topics are the important parts of the subject to survey. XOR'easter (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC) [5].

History of the board game Monopoly

edit
Notified: JohnDBuell, WikiProject Board and table games, June 14 talk notification

Review section

edit

This article was promoted in 2006 and I do not believe this article meets the current FA criteria. Some paragraphs are uncited, as well as there being some questionable sources being used. Not entirely sure if this article is well-researched enough either as I wonder how thorough the page is on the history of the board game. GamerPro64 23:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's been quite a while since I've had a look, but can you be really specific? What is something, for example, that seems to need a better citation, and why? Just looking to contribute here. --JohnDBuell (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks saveable to me. There are only a few unsourced sentences, which should be referenced or removed. As for unreliable sources, the only ones jumping out at me are https://twitter.com/MonopolyDoc/status/641197353060462592 and a youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=816-cDquzYs by what appears to be a non-RS publisher. I am not sure if about.com is considered reliable. Perhaps @GamerPro64: could elaborate on their concerns? buidhe 00:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Would a Hasbro press release through BusinessWire be acceptable for the former? As to the latter, I'm not really sure why a gameplay video is there. I haven't been an active, daily editor in a *really* long time, so I'm not entirely sure which websites are directly acceptable as sources, and which ones require extra vetting. --JohnDBuell (talk) 01:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of specifics. The "Monopoly (game show)" section is unsourced. Two paragraphs for the 1990s marketing is unsourced. The 2000s section also has unsourced information in its section. The fourth paragraph for "Localizations, licenses, and spin-offs" is unsourced. As well as the last part in "Legal status".

As well I also question the reliability of "monopolycollector.com". Theres also a link to Amazon on there, along with press releases being used to source information. If there appears to be third-party sources for the information given that would be much better. GamerPro64 15:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are just some of the things I found:

Article
  1. First off, shouldn't the page be called "History of Monopoly (game)" since the main article is Monopoly (game)?
  2. A lot of the content in the lead is not reiterated elsewhere in the article, such as the paragraph beginning "By the 1970s, the idea that the game had been created..." I think that whole section should just be taken out since the lead is kind of top-heavy as it is.
  3. "Georgist" doesn't need to be linked twice in the first paragraph. I'd say remove "Georgist" from before "Lizzie Magie" since it sounds like a name as written.
  4. "FAO Schwarz" should be linked the first time it's mentioned, not paragraphs later.
  5. "However, this story has come under recent scrutiny and is being disputed" -- recent as of when? Quantify this sentence.
  6. I would combine "Marketing within the United States in the 1930s" and "Parker Brothers' marketing 1940s-1960s".
  7. The article is very sparse toward the middle. Very little on the game in the 1950s-1980s, and then bigger sections on the 1990s and 2000s.
  8. "See the Monopoly tournaments below" -- discouraged to use "Below" in articles
  9. "The entire "Monopoly (game show)" section is unsourced.
  10. 1990s is just a bunch of paragraphs in a row beginning with "In 199x, blah blah blah happened. In 199y, blah blah blah happened." Copy edit this for tightness and lack of repetition.
  11. "In 2009's championship edition..." -- unsourced
  12. "Also in 2009, Monopoly "theme packs" entered the retail market..." -- unsourced
  13. The "2010s" section also has a lot of issues with "In 201x, blah blah blah happened. In 201y, blah blah blah happened." Please fix.
  14. Several unsourced sentences in "Monopoly tournaments 1973-2021".
  15. " Ralph Anspach argued against this during an on-air conversation..." argued against what? Doesn't seem clear to me.
  16. "Various patents have existed on the game of Monopoly and its predecessors..." unsourced
  17. I spotted an improper use of second person that I removed. I also saw a couple typos ("Mariott") and improper comma usage. Page overall needs a massive copyedit.
References
  1. Reference 2 "A U.S. Patent was granted..." -- improperly formatted and leads to a Typepad blog which is clearly not an RS
  2. Reference 4 "Monopoly instructions from a 1999 edition" -- improperly formatted
  3. Reference 13 "Speed die edition page at about.com" -- about.com no longer exists, page redirects
  4. Reference 14 "Monopoly standard edition" -- amazon.com link, shouldn't be included
  5. Reference 19 "Landlordsgame.info" appears to be a fan site and the ref is not properly formatted
  6. Reference 20 Orbanes is not a complete reference
  7. Reference 21 "Brer Fox an' Brer Rabbit" a photograph is not a source on its own

I could go through every reference but this is just a start. There are tons and tons of ill-formatted, unusable, and/or unreliable sources to fansites, blogs, and photographs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC – I just took a quick look at the page to see what shape it was in, and removed the self-reference mentioned above. While it's not the worst article I've ever seen at FAR, it fails to meet the FA criteria in multiple ways, as has already been described. I'm lacking the available sourcing to make the 1950s–1980s section comprehensive, so I doubt I'll be able to save this one. Hopefully someone will be able to do the work required, since it's an interesting article on a game I've enjoyed playing in the past. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per above. If I found that many issues in just a cursory, non-comprehensive glance, then clearly the article is so far from FA standards that it would take a miracle to get it back up to speed. I move to invoke WP:IAR per the precedent at Wikipedia:Featured article review/ROT13/archive2, which has to be the worst article I've ever seen pass through FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - Seems really clear this article is not going to be fixed with all of its issues. GamerPro64 13:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC) [6].

DNA repair

edit
Notified: PrometheusOne, Opabinia regalis, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology

Review section

edit

This 2004 promotion was last reviewed in 2006 and has large swaths of uncited text, sandwiching of images, bolded text where it shouldn't, lots of lists, and was flagged by Graham Beards in February, but no progress made. The article has tripled in prose size since its last review, so most of the prose is unvetted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this goes back a long time - I think this was the first time I crossed paths with a "featured" anything! The article is definitely a bit out of date, and has accumulated a lot of cruft.
  • Big uncited blocks of often confusing text - especially the "mutation" section. The "Medicine and DNA repair modulation" section is totally uncited, obviously bad for a section on human health, though the content looks accurate as far as I'm aware. The cancer section is also poor. "Nuclear versus mitochondrial" has no citations and I'm not sure about the quality of the content - there are enough important differences that mitochondrial DNA repair could probably be its own subarticle.
  • Crufty sections - see especially "translesion synthesis". A lot of the really fine molecular details in the "Global response" and "cancer" sections should be moved to daughter articles.
  • Seems like some kind of strange content split happened at some point: the oddly titled DNA damage (naturally occurring) article has some overlapping content, and the plain title DNA damage redirects to DNA repair (which is hardly about... non-naturally occurring damage).
  • Dated content - should cover CRISPR-Cas9 at least a little, the "technology" section barely counts and isn't a good title. A bunch of primary research from the 90s is cited, fine if those are foundational papers in the field but that doesn't seem to be the way most of them are used. (I don't know the field well enough to recognize if this is a sourcing or a writing issue without more research.) Olaparib and other PARP inhibitors have a legitimately interesting mechanism, but covering them and not mentioning cisplatin seems strange.
  • Some content gaps/due weight issues. No mention of the effect of the host DNA damage response on viral replication (or vice versa). Either this or the DNA damage article should mention somatic variation and accumulated mutations, there have been some really interesting single-cell sequencing studies on this. Most references to "prokaryotes" are really just talking about bacteria (and mostly just E. coli); archaea are less well-characterized but not totally unknown (eg https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29741625/). Not convinced the caloric restriction content needs so much space in a top-level article; the molecular observations are from model organisms.
  • Images look dated and structures of important components aren't represented. A lot of the individual proteins and protein complexes here have structures in the PDB - not the most important issue but once the cruft is cleaned it would make sense to make some nicer, more modern-looking images of the key proteins.
I haven't really been around in the last few months and am really busy IRL, so I don't expect to have the time to fix these issues, but hopefully that's a starting point. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Great points by Opabinia above. In addition:
  • Up-to-dateness: The only sections to have been added / significantly updated in the last 10 years have been "Single-strand damage", "Initial steps", "DNA damage checkpoints" (per whocolor). A quick histogram of citation years indicates cited references are skewed towards either 2005/6 or 2012/13 (somewhat in line with the main editing periods). These aren't in and of itself problems, but suggests that sections may be getting quite out of date. Much of the mechanisms of damage causation haven't changed much, but there's plenty of research on sensing and repair processes, therapeutic relevance, etc still coming out. A few reviews worth checking:
  • Powell, Simon N.; Bindra, Ranjit S. (2009-09-02). "Targeting the DNA damage response for cancer therapy". DNA Repair. 8 (9): 1153–1165. doi:10.1016/j.dnarep.2009.04.011. ISSN 1568-7864. PMID 19501553.
  • Roos, Wynand P.; Kaina, Bernd (2013). "DNA damage-induced cell death: From specific DNA lesions to the DNA damage response and apoptosis". Cancer Letters. 332 (2): 237–248. doi:10.1016/j.canlet.2012.01.007. ISSN 0304-3835. PMID 22261329.
  • Mouw, Kent W.; Goldberg, Michael S.; Konstantinopoulos, Panagiotis A.; D'Andrea, Alan D. (2017-06-19). "DNA Damage and Repair Biomarkers of Immunotherapy Response". Cancer Discovery. 7 (7): 675–693. doi:10.1158/2159-8290.cd-17-0226. ISSN 2159-8274. PMC 5659200. PMID 28630051.
  • O’Connor, Mark (2015). "Targeting the DNA Damage Response in Cancer". Molecular Cell. 60 (4): 547–560. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2015.10.040. PMID 26590714.
  • Nimeth, Barbara Anna; Riegler, Stefan; Kalyna, Maria (2020-02-19). "Alternative Splicing and DNA Damage Response in Plants". Frontiers in Plant Science. 11: 91. doi:10.3389/fpls.2020.00091. ISSN 1664-462X. PMC 7042379. PMID 32140165.
  • The response and repair sections are still often unclear when they're talking about different organisms.
  • The chart images sadly PNGs so can't be easily edited. The c:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop may be able to help out in converting them to vectors for subsequent updating.
  • The application section might benefit from mentioning deliberate mutagenesis in Mutation_breeding and in driving viruses to Error_catastrophe.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Headbomb's script is highlighting most of those sources as unreliable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Molecular Cell is unreliable? That has to be a mistake. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Headbomb: to have a look at what the script is doing above, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:UPSD#Limitations, third bullet in the nutshell section. See also this fix (which won't work everywhere, but will work here). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing, prose, and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 4:35, 4 July 2020 (UTC) [7].

Huntington's disease

edit
Notified: Garrondo, Leevanjackson, WikiProject Medicine, WikiProject Disability

Review section

edit

No one has responded to the talk page comment by SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs) back on 23 January:

This is a 2009 promotion, with most of the principle authors and WP:FAC nominator long gone. Most of the article is cited to 2007 sources, and there is considerable updating needed. There are almost no new sources used in the article, and several issues raised on this talk page that haven't been addressed. Some new reviews are:

Due to these concerns I have brought it to FAR. buidhe 22:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Temporarily delayed, restarted now, see talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This FAR discussion has now restarted. buidhe 08:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is that the original authors are not editing anymore. To bring this article up to date would be a mammoth task, unless of course we could entice the same editors to return to it (as they would remember the sources used in 2009 and whether there has been progress). I will contact one of them off wiki. Apart from that I am unsure whether we currently have editors with neurology credentials... JFW | T@lk 19:38, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/July_2020&oldid=969465025"