Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 2013

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | archive

Kept status

edit

Abyssinia, Henry

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 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]


Notified: Hotstreets, WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject Television

As of right now, this article is not only the oldest article based on an episode that is FA status, but it is the first one to reach that status. However the article has not aged well after its promotion. One main issue that can be seen is its lack of information. One example to this is the "Production" section as it seems a little empty as it only mentions the famous ending of the episode and nothing else. Compared to other episode articles, (Ex: No Rest for the Wicked (Supernatural)), its pretty much in poor quality. GamerPro64 21:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro, could you be a little more specific in your concerns? I've had a quick look through the article, and the sources that are currently there look good. I then looked through Google Scholar/Books/Web, and didn't see anything that would provide information beyond what is currently in the article. Now, I'm not a TV/film buff, and don't usually edit in these areas, so I could be missing something, but do you have sources that you think should be used to expand the article? If there is no further information out there, it would seem that the article is currently a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Dana boomer (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No I don't have any sources that can be used to expand the article. Mainly I thought that as a whole it was missing important stuff an episode article should have like its writing or the filming. Like for example, if there was ever an article on the last episode of St. Elsewhere. The episode to this day has one of the most famous endings to a series in TV history. And if the article only talked about its ending or anything related to its ending and neglect anything else important to mention in the "Production" section and was promoted to FA status. Would it eventually lose its status when it lacks comprehension? I mean to me that's what I thought the problem to the article was. GamerPro64 18:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done another search for sources, and can't find any, especially regarding production of the episode other than the final scenes. If the sources aren't out there, I don't think we can ask people to create information from thin air. Overall, I think the article is in fairly good shape (although improvements are always possible to any article), and without further HQRS being found, I fail to see how we can delist it from FA status just because we think there should be more sources to use, rather than there actually being more sources to use. Dana boomer (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. If you want to close this you can. Probably wasn't the right choice to put up for a review. GamerPro64 21:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry, should have been more clear. I'm commenting as an editor, not a delegate. I'd like to get some further thoughts, if there are other interested editors, and I'm not going to close/move this, since I've expressed a definite opinion! Dana boomer (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2013 (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 Dana boomer (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Cameroon

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Countries, Africa

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks in-line citations in a many parts of the article (lots of unaddressed "citation needed" tags), thus failing criteria 1c. All the primary contributors and the FAC nominator have retired. I will still leave notifications for the wikiprojects involved in this article. I brought up issue at the article's talk page, but got no response for weeks.FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section focus mainly on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Delist and as Rschen says, would quickfail a GA review due to the honking great {{refimprove}} at the top of the article, mostly relating to a lack of verifiable information about the country's economy and infrastructure. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've added additional citations; anyone have thoughts on further improvements needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! The lack of citations was my primary concern. I didn't find other issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm happy to strike my delist, though to preserve FA quality, I'd prefer a subject expert to check the suitability of the sources to ensure they're of a good quality. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you happen to know of any subject experts? The few I would think of are inactive. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well my most prominent memory of Cameroon is of them giving England a hard time in the 1990 World Cup, but on a more constructive note, the British Library have a dedicated department for African Studies, and Wikimedia UK have a dedicated Wikipedian in residence there who would be able to ask. See here. That's got to be worth a punt. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – There are currently two dead links from the Cameroon Tribune. I haven't read the rest of the article in detail yet, but on the surface it appears that a lot of good work has been done and I'd be inclined to support keeping this at FA. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that Nikkimaria has now fixed them.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – The level of sourcing looks to be much improved over where it was at the start of the FLRC FAR, and most of the writing looked good to me when I went through it. I fixed a few things here and there, but overall I'm satisfied that this again meets the FA criteria after Nikki's work. It's a good example for writing a country article, which is a difficult type of page to do well. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and query - apologies I totally missed this one going up for FAR, and I've always taken an interest in this as I used it as a framework for my own work on Rwanda. Out of interest, with the struck delists above is this now tending towards being a keep? If there are still outstanding issues then I could probably do some work to address them within the next few weeks.
    I imagine most of the sourcing issues were due to "drift" rather than anything inherently wrong with the article. As noted above, the active writer of this article left some years ago so stuff will have crept in unnoticed over the years. We could do worse than go back to the version that was featured in 2007 as I don't think FAC standards have changed so much since then that it wouldn't pass today. And on a subject like this, the amount of "new stuff" needed for the intervening six years is unlikely to be huge. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Amakuru! With the struck delists above, it does look like this is tending towards being kept - we're mainly waiting on more reviewers/reviewers to return to amend their delist votes. Nikkimaria had done some great work in bringing the article back up to standard. If there is other work that you see that needs to be done, though, I hope you will feel free to make edits yourself or leave comments here. Dana boomer (talk) 12:31, 6 June 2013 (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 User:Dana boomer 15:36, 2 June 2013 [1].

Representative peer

edit
Notified: WP Politics, WP Ireland, and WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. The main contributor is long gone.

Review commentary

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has multiple tags, is a 2004 promotion last reviewed in 2007, and notice of the citation situation was given over a year ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yikes:
    • The Erskine May citation is 404 and appears to be a personal website.
    • What makes The Peerage a reliable source?
    • What makes this a reliable source?
    • At least one reference is a bare URL.
    • Reference 28 points to a list of search results, instead of the content it is supposed to point to.
    • Huge number of dead references that need updating.
    • As mentioned, lots of unsourced content from September 2011.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm doing some work on the current citations fixing those I can and trying to find replacements for others. After that I may try to address the missing citation tags. The Erskine May book is on Google books, The peerage has been used all over wikipedia for peerage information and appears to be reliable. The scottishhistory seems to be a complete copy of an official treaty; perhaps I can find the original. ww2censor (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Issues raised in the review section mostly concerned citations and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've had food poisoning and no internet for several days, so bear with me. However if anyone else can assist please do as I didn't know the topic before this. ww2censor (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are still 6 tags left out of the original 13 for which I have been unable to find citations though I have inproved several other citations that were questioned. While I expect the tagged statements are valid perhaps someone else can find source for them or possibly copyedit those sentences. I've pretty much done all I can to rescue this one. ww2censor (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok and good work Ww2, I'll take over and have been reading up anyway. Just to say two that the article isn't very well written, to say the least, and needs a brush from start to finish. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciated Ceoil though I am not the one to copyedit or rewrite it. You are far better at that than I. ww2censor (talk) 23:37, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Famous last words Ww ;) Can you keep an eye pls. We have worked well in the past, I would appreciate if you tended at least. Ceoil (talk) 23:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unforced image per WP:IMGSIZE. I'm now down to 3 cn tags left. ww2censor (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are things going here? Ww2censor, it appears that you and Ceoil have done some very good work on this article. There are a few (I think I saw three?) fact tags still left, and works appears to have stalled. Are we at the point that we can start pinging in reviewers to look over the article? Dana boomer (talk) 12:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably yes, because, as I wrote last month I was down to 3 tags for which I could not find citations and maybe, in that case, the statements should be removed. I don't really know if they are verifiable, I just can't verify them. Your advise will be happily take but at this stage i've done my best. ww2censor (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One last citation left. ww2censor (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Supplied. Choess (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2013 (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 (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

The Apprentice (UK TV series)

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Fritzpoll, UkPaolo, D'Ranged 1, Tomintoul, WP British TV - Shows Taskforce, WP BBC, WP Television - Reality TV Taskforce, WP The Apprentice UK, WP London

This is a 2007 FAC that has not kept up with changing standards, and which has not been consistently updated and sourced with regards to the latest seasons. Specifics:

  • Significantly under-referenced. Many paragraphs partially or completely missing references, leaving statistics, opinions, etc. unreferenced.
  • Fifteen deadlinks, see Toolserver report for details, leaving even more information unverifiable.
  • Significant discrepancies in the amount of space given to the various seasons in the Series section/subsections. Some seasons get multiple paragraphs, while others only get a couple of sentences.
  • No updates to the Series Nine subsection since early 2012, despite the fact that I think it's due to begin airing shortly and there's already a tenth season in the works.
  • Subsequent activity of winning candidates section - Why are all of the micro-subsections needed? This could easily be turned into a couple of paragraphs of prose that flow much better than these one sentence blurbs. Also, Series Six should be updated with the results of English's lawsuit, Series Seven needs to be better sourced and Series Eight needs to be added.
  • References need to be checked to make sure they include all necessary information - on just a quick look I see web refs that are missing publishers, access dates, and even one that is a bare url.
  • Clarification needed tag in Series Seven section.

Only minor edits in response to a Nov. 2012 notice of a potential FAR. I haven't done a thorough check of prose, reference reliability or images, due to the large amount of work needed on referencing and structure. Dana boomer (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Concerns raised in the FAR section include referencing, weight and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 22 May 2013 (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 (talk) 16:39, 13 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Kingdom of Makuria

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: SimonP, 4shizzal, Llywrch, Mark Dingemanse, Africa WP, Ancient Egypt WP, Egypt WP, Former countries WP, Christianity WP

This is a 2005 FA that has not been reviewed since. It is severely under-referenced, with multiple paragraphs and at least one section completely lacking references. There has been a "references needed" banner on the article since January 2012, and a talk page post in September 2012 received no response. In the existing references, there are some formatting inconsistencies and a couple of book references missing pages. There appears to be a mix of list-defined references and references with the full information given in-line, resulting in a "notes" section and a "references" section that both include in-line references. I would be interested to know if there is more recent scholarship on this topic, as the majority of the references range from the 1960s to the 1990s, with very little from the past decade. Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would vote to remove this article from FA. The problems in this article are legion and it does not meet the high-standard of the FA criteria. How did this pass so many years ago? The paucity of footnotes seems to strike me as odd. There is a significant amount of information in a paragraph with one footnote at the end--a very dubious practice in my book, especially when a reader seeks specific information and sourcing, other paragraphs unsourced. Sentences like: (1) One report has a Nubian army sacking Cairo in the 8th century to defend the Christians, but this is probably apocryphal that are begging for further explanation (whose report? why apocryphal? etc.), others that are grammatically incorrect (2) Little is known about government below the king--Little what? Little is an adjective, not a noun and English is not a null-subject language. The writing is lackluster and fraught with errors. There's just too much to complain about this article and there's far too much work to be done that won't be done in the near future. Therefore, I support its removal.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. I know it's early yet, but I don't think the article has much chance of being improved to FA standard. Although I disagree with ColonelHenry about "little is known" ("little", used in this way, is listed in Webster's dictionary as a noun, and the online Oxford dictionary, in both British and American versions, lists this same usage, calling it a determiner), his broader points are valid. So the article fails on referencing, prose, and comprehensiveness. Only a few editors are at all active on the ancient Egypt project these days, and I doubt any of them are very knowledgeable about this period and place. I'm certainly not. The editors you contacted may be able to make improvements, but one is apparently retired and the others edit only sporadically, so I doubt these issues can be fully addressed. A. Parrot (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy move to FARC. If this article can be improved to FA standards, it won't look anything like it does now. Key sections lack referencing entirely (Language has zero refs, Decline only one despite quite a bit of historical discussion). The lead mentions the baqt treaty and the Makurian "Golden Age", but neither term is used anywhere in the body. And the references are a train wreck. At least two incompatible referencing formats are in use – see the numbered entries in the References section followed by the bullet-point list. There are journal sources without volume, issue, and/or page information (see Note 22 and the 3rd Shinnie reference). There are missing ISBNs, and missing page numbers for chapter references throughout. There's no consistency about the use of publisher locations for print works (or, at least once, even the use of a publisher at all – the Kropacek reference). Numbered reference 1 appears to provide a link to content online (especially with the inclusion of a retrieval date), but it actually links to a Google Books page that only permits snippet-view searches; the implication is that the citing editor did not refer to the actual source at all. Numbered reference 3 is a bare URL, linking to a dubiously-reliable source reprinting a 1954 pamphlet without evidence of a license to do so. I also believe there are image licensing problems. File:East-Hem 700ad new.jpg is on Commons as CC-BY-SA 3.0, as is the map it is cropped from, but I'm not certain that licensing template is valid as it doesn't match the licensing information at the source site, which includes terms incompatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license: "2. If you alter the maps, you must get my permission, and 3. Any use of these maps for projects that are not free or open-source (including books, games, etc.) must have my permission and may have to pay for usage." I don't know what the FA standards were in 2005, but I don't believe that could even survive GAC today. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate comment - As per the instructions at the top of the FAR page, each phase (FAR and FARC), generally last at least two weeks. This is to allow time for anyone who is interested in fixing the article to declare their intentions, begin work, etc. If nothing happens during that two weeks, fine, the article can be moved to FARC and delisted without further ado. However, we try to err on the side of giving people more time to improve the article, rather than less. Dana boomer (talk) 10:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing, comprehensiveness and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2013 (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/June_2013&oldid=566488046"