Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 2013

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept status

edit

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 removed by User:Dana boomer 16:31, 14 May 2013 [1].

M62 motorway

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Sceptre, UK Roads WikiProject, Highways WikiProject

This article, which passed FAC in 2007 and had a minimal FAR in 2009, no longer meets the FA criteria, specifically:

  • (1c) 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 Many self-published sources are cited, and there are many dead links. Some high-quality sources are missing, as noted by Ritchie333 on the talk page.
  • (2a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections - the lead does not discuss some of the sections of the article.
  • (2b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents - there is an overabundance of headings and some very short subsections.
  • (2c) consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes ([1]) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)—see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended. There are a lot of citations missing dates and page numbers and other important information.
  • The junction lists table is not compliant with MOS:DTT, specifically regarding scoping and alignment, and Services violates MOS in regards to italics.
  • (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. File:Map of the M62 motorway.svg and File:Map of the M62 motorway - section.svg do not note their sources.

I have raised many of these concerns at the talk page and they have not been addressed in two weeks, so I am nominating here. Rschen7754 19:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments—

  • Research: in short, any reference to Chris's British Road Directory needs to be removed, full stop. That's a self-published source, and unless someone is going to explain how one of the exceptions in policy may apply, it's not acceptable for use here. Ditto the Pathetic Motorways website and SABRE (the Society for All-British Roads Enthusiasts). Fan websites have traditionally not been accorded the "reliable source" label by Wikipedia, let alone the "high-quality reliable source" label required of Featured Articles.
  • Article structure:
    • The Construction section is properly part of the history of the road. The existing short History section should then be a "Before construction" subsection, and the "Development after opening" section should be made the final subsection of "History". The Incidents section should also be moved into "History" as appropriate.
    • The "High traffic levels" would fit better with the "Route" section as a "Route description" as it describes attributes along the route of the road. Also, the junction list in most American/Canadian/etc highway articles is its own section rather than being a subsection of the Route description. A similar change here would help to make this article consistent with the rest of the high-quality roadway articles globally.
    • Addenda looks like a fancy term for a Trivia section, but with that name, it looks odd tacked into the middle of the article. (An addendum to me is more properly at the end of an article.) I would move it down to the end of the article, and perhaps rename it to "In popular culture" instead.
    • These simple changes would help the 2b concerns.
  • Citation formatting: there is quite the variation in formatting choices in use. Publication names the New Statesman are in roman type instead of italics, and website names (as distinct from the website publisher) are similarly not in italics. Chris's British Road Directory is the name of a website and should appear in italics. The publisher, in that case, is Chris Marshall or "Self-published". These are easy fixes, but the lack of attention to detail in what is supposed to be "our finest work" is not reassuring.
  • The media issues should also be easy to rectify by supplying sources for the files.

As for the lead, I have not read the full article, but I will take the nominator's concerns there on good faith. The other MOS issues need to be corrected as well. In short, I agree with the nomination here. The article needs to be repaired in the formatting department to justify retention of the FA label. If that was all that was needed, I would volunteer my time and assistance to help, but the research issues give me greater concern. At this time, I won't spend energy polishing an article back to modern expectations and requirements of a FA only to have half or more of the article gutted over source issues. Imzadi 1979 → 21:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this has already passed a FAR once - why is that?
SABRE's actual name is the "Society of British and Irish Road Enthusiasts". I would not accept personal opinion from anyone there on discussion forums (and indeed have recommended removal and replacement of sources in other articles), with the exception of transcriptions of OS and other commercially published maps as sources, and have done so myself (eg: see references in A4018 road, for which I cannot find any other source). This appears to have broad consensus from editors; in June 2011, Imzadi1979 said to me "SABRE-hosted maps published by the government though, they can be used. A good editor would add a courtesy link to the online version of the map, like I did with the ODOT maps on U.S. Route 223 since they are online." (see User talk:Ritchie333/Archive 1) Regarding Chris Marshall's work, I recently covered this in this discussion, noting that his research had been considered diligent and trustworthy enough to be used for a book published by a notable journalist in a commercially published book, and for him to appear as a sound piece on the radio and television. Therefore, I think we can clarify this under the criteria in WP:SPS that states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Remember, this is a subject of minority interest, so will not attract attention from major news outlets. It's a matter of common sense - a comment about the "New Deal for Motorways" cancelling major road schemes when Labour came to power in the 1997 election is not particularly contentious.
In any case, the above is a moot point. My concern is that more concrete government or newspaper sources, which we would require, are not currently forthcoming, without which this cannot be a featured article. I don't have the time to go and get the relevant sources at present. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It passed FAR once because that FAR was not properly filed.
"SABRE-hosted maps published by the government though, they can be used. A good editor would add a courtesy link to the online version of the map, like I did with the ODOT maps on U.S. Route 223 since they are online." does not back up what you are saying. Scans of other sources hosted by a third party and self-published sources are two different things. Emphasis on published by the government - that does NOT mean self-published source. --Rschen7754 20:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you clarify your point of view please? Don't just say "because policy said so", because I've already given my view of why it does not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:04, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've just explained why "This appears to have broad consensus from editors" is false - because I can take the same government-produced maps and host it on rschen7754.com and they would still be accepted, so the quality of the SABRE site is irrelevant for that. I've looked at the CBRD "in the media" page, and all I've found is passing references in articles about "who the heck are these people who study roads?" That does not qualify under our SPS guidelines for making it acceptable. In regards to "noting that his research had been considered diligent and trustworthy enough to be used for a book published by a notable journalist in a commercially published book, and for him to appear as a sound piece on the radio and television." - what book? what sound piece? The burden of proof is on the person who wants to prove that such a source is reliable. --Rschen7754 09:12, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. That means you've got to go out and find better sources. Are you prepared to do this? No, you're not, you're going to take it to FARC. In future, I would pick your friends and colleagues a bit more carefully - Chris M and friends could have created about 20 road FAs, or at least helped you write them, now if you'd supported them, but instead you've slagged them off. Nice move. Please don't write a ten line screed about how you're right and I'm wrong - I'm not interested. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC nobody seems interested in putting in the effort to fix this. --Rschen7754 09:13, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I was going to try to stay out of this, but I can't in good conscience now. This FAR has not even been open for 48 hours, and we're already having a call to take it to FARC?! That's borderline WP:POINTy and definitely in violation of WP:DBAD. Now, if we were two weeks into this FAR and no changes have taken place or no effort has been put forward, I'd have no problem with moving to FARC. But not after two days. Ritchie added and then removed a comment about having commitments in real life and I think we should respect that. That should not be confused with an unwillingness to fix this article. –Fredddie™ 17:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But coupled with the 2 week warning on the talkpage, I don't think so. Also from the top: "Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list." --Rschen7754 19:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Have to agree with Fredddie on this one. 48 hours, no matter where it was brought to is too small. We haven't had much of community non-roads talking anyway. Mitch32(The man most unlikely to drive 25 before 24.) 00:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I still disagree. Look at the FAR two spots below - it didn't even make 24 hours before its FARC voting. Furthermore, considering that due to the sourcing issues this article may need a complete rewrite, I don't think this is premature. --Rschen7754 00:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. Article maintainer seems more interested in lashing out and arguing to keep the status quo than to actually bring the article up to present-day FAC standards. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:31, 28 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]
    • Understood. I'm skeptical that anyone will be willing to take on the task (we barely got Kansas Turnpike dealt with in the US and it's in better shape than this one is!) and so that's why I !voted from the getgo. But if someone does show interest, I will strike my vote. --Rschen7754 10:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC for reasons already stated elsewhere. I know how to fix this but probably won't have time for at least several months - certainly not until I've got through the todo list on my user page at present. I share Scott5114's disappointment that editors seem to be spending more time squabbling about junction boxes and causing untold drama on DRN than finding sources and improving articles. For the record, two book sources specifically citing and acknowledging CBRD include On Roads and Carscapes: The Motor Car, Architecture, and Landscape in England. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC - Lack of interest in upgrading this article to meet current FA standards. Dough4872 01:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC because nobody seems to care about fixing this article. TCN7JM 01:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing, images and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 14:38, 10 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.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by User:Dana boomer 16:31, 14 May 2013 [2].

Hey Ya!

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: WikiProject Songs, WikiProject Hip Hop

I highlighted some concerns on the article's talk page about two weeks ago and some issues were fixed the same day. No other work was done, so I just made a copyedit myself. However, some of the writing is still confusing, and some parts of the article still lack sourcing (track listings/formats). And a few dead links need to be taken care of. Also, I don't know what makes "Rock on the Net" a reliable source with no editorial policy given. Till 10:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the Rock on the Net point. I found the writing okay, but the article still feels a little incomplete research wise. Farrtj (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
FA criteria mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 12:41, 15 March 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.
  1. ^ Smith 2007, p. 1.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/May_2013&oldid=558017435"