Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/May 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) 6:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC) [1].

Chagas disease

edit
Notified: WT:MED, WT:WP Brazil, WT:WP Argentina and WT:WP Venezuela

Review section

edit

This FA is a 2005 promotion that has not been kept up to date. The original nominator, Redux is not currently active and has not edited the article since 2005. The top contributor, DO11.10 has not edited it since 2011. The second contributor, Doc James has not made any significant edits recently.[2] A list of updates needed was posted a month ago; significant portions of the article are out of date, and there is uncited text. A number of the sources used are quite old, dating to when the article passed FAC in 2005. (see WP:MEDRS). Hopefully the WT:MED notification will result in getting this article cited, updated, and cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kingsif

Note that I am involved in the current WikiCup, but come here from a notice posted to WP Venezuela as a relevant article.

It may not be an area I know a lot about, but when I read the article after seeing the FAR notice I saw that it is quite short and leaves me wanting for details, though it seems to be a disease about which a lot is known. This may be an issue with accurately expanding on detail, particularly in the latter sections, which have noticeably not been updated in at least 2 years. This seems to be the first issue I can find, before going into medical aspects. A good improvement should probably begin with expansion. I’ll hopefully come back with some MOS for medical articles comments. Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Doc James

No concerns with the FA status being removed if that is what people wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Graham Beards

So WP:WikiProject_Medicine are officially abandoning their FAs now? I know more about the parasite than the disease so without input from the said project, I would not feel fully competent helping here. Graham Beards (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like, between us, we could update this article, and are competent to do so, but I'm wondering if the effort is worth it, considering WP:MED does appear to be abandoning its FAs. I am increasingly feeling like I am the only editor left who is watching over and maintaining quite a few of the medical FAs, and I can't keep up. There appears to be little concern that almost all of the FAs (and probably GAs as well) are outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I have the time and energy right now to hopefully bring one article up to featured status (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]), and after that I hope to keep another at featured status (dengue fever). While I do have a wish list of of other articles I'd like to massively improve, I agree with you Sandy, I think we have a severe labor shortage when it comes to this task. If somehow expediting the delisting of some medical featured articles and good articles (perhaps by invoking Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) more accurately represents our content and helps us know which articles we should keep an eye on to maintain their *actual* quality (and also makes you feel better about this task), I would support it. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. I've long thought that a careful eye towards this issue was deserved. If there's something you'd like some help with (like suggesting I review a featured article to research and see if I think it should be delisted), feel free to ask. Currently though I do want my primary focus to remain on updating the good article DVT, which needs more attention in the treatment, pathophysiology, prevention, and history sections in particular. But yes, I do want the medical articles that are marked as featured or good to be accurately designated. Biosthmors (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to hear someone else is watching and concerned :) Thanks, Biosthmors. Considering the shape of WP:MED's FAs, I shudder to think of the quality of the GAs, but I rarely involve myself at GA, since they amount to little more than one editor's opinion so that assessment isn't very meaningful. (Same applies to B-class.) As to helping on the FAs, I can only nominate one every two weeks, four max on the page at a time. What would be helpful in speeding things up, considering it is evident no one plans to work on them, is for others to nominate per the FAR instructions any FA that has already been notified on talk. Those are found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility comments from RexxS
I've added alt text to the handful of images that were lacking it. Unfortunately, the Template:IPA-pt applies the <small>...</small> tag to the words "Portuguese pronunciation" inside the infobox, which breaches MOS:TEXTSIZE. I'll amend the template in the near future to allow a size parameter, which can then be set to 100% for use in infoboxes. Summary is below. --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the text size problem in the template by adding a |size= parameter and using it in the article. --RexxS (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accessibility review
Topic Comments MoS link
Text Size: The infobox text "Portuguese pronunciation" is below 85% of the basic font size. No text is less than 85% of the basic font size. MOS:FONTSIZE
Colour
  • Information: No information is given by colour alone. The coloured map is well explained in the nearby text.
  • Contrast: All text meets WCAG AAA standard.
 MOS:COLOUR
Tables No tables are used. MOS:DTAB
Images
  • Alt text: All images have descriptive alt text.
  • No fixed size: No images have fixed size, so can benefit from scaling via users' preferences.
 MOS:ACCIM

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How do you deal with close paraphrasing in medical FAs? I notice the article is over-reliant on a couple sources, in particular ref 1, 2, 5, 7, 15, 17, 23, 51 (WHO & Lancet + journal articles). I appreciate that this is different from, say, a MILHIST article, where there is more room for stylistic variation. Eisfbnore (会話) 16:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the "over-reliant on a couple of sources", take care to check if a) those are in fact the best sources available, and b) other viewpoints or sources are not excluded. It is not unusual to find a high quality source like Lancet used to cite a lot of medical content, since MEDRS prefers the most recent, most high quality sources. (I personally do not consider WHO to be in that category, feel it is overused in multiple medical FAs and could be replaced in many cases, but do not know if that is the situation here.) Is WHO public domain (I am not sure)? And then, double check if your interpretation of close paraphrasing is taking into account that, for many medical concepts, there just aren't other ways to vary the wording, and there is a lot of standard wording that can't be avoided. And finally, if you have a specific concern, raise it now at article talk, as there are good and diligent editors hard at work there. @SpicyMilkBoy and Ajpolino: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re. over-reliance on certain sources, note that the number of citations per source is inflated because the lead is fully cited and each sentence in the body ends with a citation even when consecutive sentences are cited to the same source, e.g. Also common in chronic Chagas disease is damage to the digestive system, particularly enlargement of the esophagus or colon, affecting 10–21% of people.[2] Those with enlarged esophagus often experience pain (odynophagia) or trouble swallowing (dysphagia), acid reflux, cough, and weight loss.[2] Individuals with enlarged colon often experience constipation, which can lead to severe blockage of the intestine or its blood supply.[2] Up to 10% of chronically infected individuals develop nerve damage that can result in numbness and altered reflexes or movement.[2] I find this makes the text and ref list a bit cluttered but I haven't changed it because of WP:CITEVAR concerns.
As Sandy points out, there are only so many ways to paraphrase a statistic or a list of symptoms without introducing inaccuracies, but feel free to to point out any examples of close paraphrasing here or on the talk page so they can be discussed. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both, those are very satisfying answers. I don't have a specific concern, since I haven't done any spotchecks. I'm not familiar with MED articles, hence my original question. I fully understand that these type of articles are more technical and give less leeway for original phrasing. Cheers! Eisfbnore (会話) 18:50, 20 April 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.

Removed

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) 5:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC) [3].

Katyn massacre

edit
Notified: Piotr, Volunteer Marek, Poland WikiProject, Soviet Union WikiProject, Death WikiProject, Russia WikiProject, Military History Project, talk page notification 2020-04-15

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review due to concerns with close paraphrasing. I have identified a few examples of this on the article talk page, and I suspect there might be more that can be found upon a closer review. I'd also like to point out that I took part in a FAR of this article a while back (almost ten years ago), the atmosphere of which I have no intention to recreate. Even though many of the issues pointed out then were indeed valid (ref. formats, image cluttering, lack of HQRS, MoS, etc.), the discussion degenerated to a very hostile and very heated argument. It also lasted waaaaay to long; let's keep it a bit more focused and constructive this time, please. Eisfbnore (会話) 07:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the main issue raised is close paraphrasing, in other words, something that can be solved by copyediting, I'll ping User:Nihil novi, who has a great record of copyediting many articles related to Polish history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also very concerned by the sourcing. I'm not convinced that it meets "well researched" criterion. Among the issues that I'm seeing:
    • Dubious sources, such as news websites which aren't necessarily reliable for history. We should not be citing Rzeczpospolita or "britishmilitaryhistory.co.uk" and even warbirdforum.com (!) for historical facts.
    • Article would benefit from basing the memory section on scholarly sources, of which there are no lack eg [4][5][6][7]
    • The article ought to be based on Cienciala and Sandford from the further reading section, and other scholarly secondary sources. Right now it's a patchwork. Furthermore, a lot of the sources cited are only tangentially about the Katyn massacre. The article would really benefit from sourcing directly from the experts who are specifically researching and writing about the subject.
    • Inconsistent and careless ref formatting
    • I'm also seeing what looks like original research: "The Katyn massacre was beneficial to Nazi Germany, which used it to discredit the Soviet Union." is cited to Goebbels' diary
  • I think the article would need substantial work to be saved. In fact, I think it would take a lot of work just to pass GA. buidhe 19:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John M Wolfson

  • Earwig's tool gives a 57.9% confidence here of plagiarism from the CIA here (there's a 97% chance of violation from timenote.info, but it's them that copied from us, as indicated at the bottom of the page). The CIA's non-classified work is in the public domain if I'm not mistaken, but the affected areas are plagiarized and should still be attributed.
  • There's also quite a bit of Further Reading. FAs generally don't have those sections because Further Reading sources should ideally be incoprorated into the article as a source, and looking through that section there are quite a few sources that should be consulted, including some more of Sanford and any of Allen Paul's work.
– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus



FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include paraphrasing and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:27, 16 May 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) 2:28, 16 May 2020 (UTC) [9].

Attachment theory

edit
Notified: User:Fainites, User:TazSanches, User:Outriggr, User:Jean Mercer, User:ANMonte, User:Rjwilmsi, User:Kind Tennis Fan, Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology, Wikipedia:WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement, Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics

Review section

edit

SandyGeorgia wrote on the talk page in January:

This article passed WP:FAC ten years ago, and is no longer in compliance with WP:WIAFA. The lead, in particular, does not comply with WP:LEAD (see the version that passed FAC). The article is over-quoted, and the TOC is no longer focused. There is a good deal of uncited text. A consistent citation style is not used.

I skimmed the article but didn't read in depth. Since January, it looks like the lede has been reverted to the FAC version, and conscientious editors have improved some citations. There are still some uncited paragraphs, which I've tagged, and one "citation needed" tag from February. Citation style is still inconsistent; sometimes the source is named in parentheses, and sometimes it's named in a footnote. There are also NPOV concerns being raised by a tag in the Criticism section. The TOC does not look bad to me, though perhaps there are specific ideas for improvement? I agree there are too many quotations, including the full first paragraph of the "Attachment patterns" section, occasionally in "Disorganized/disoriented attachment", "Later patterns and the dynamic-maturational model", and "Child care policies". -- Beland (talk) 00:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, darn it, Fainites has not edited since 2013, so it would seem to be rude to email them. And I don't know anyone else who can take this on. Sad. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two weeks have elapsed, there has been no further engagement; Boghog is there any chance that you would be able to bring this over the line? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is way out of my area of expertise. Fixing citation format is easy. I will see if I can tract down appropriate secondary sources for the unsourced paragraphs adjusting the text as neccessary. I will also try to convert the long quotations to paraphrased equivalents. Boghog (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include organization and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:25, 11 April 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) 6:31, 9 May 2020 (UTC) [10].

Nottingham Panthers

edit
Notified: Palmiped, EIHLfan, Kim Williams, WP NOttinghamshire, WP Ice Hockey and article talk 2020-01-28

Review section

edit

This is a 2008 promotion whose FAC nominator, Kim Williams has not edited Wikipedia for over three years, and that has had citation needed tags since 2016. The Records and statistics section is stubby and in need of updating. A MOS review is also needed-- I will detail those issues if someone engages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

  • 1st ref has only title: "The Nottingham announces Panthers sponsorship"
  • Another incomplete reference: "Game Night Programme vs Basingstoke Bison, 2 April 2006"
  • Close paraphrasing:

Article: "During the close season of 1960 the British National League collapsed and the Nottingham Panthers were disbanded. Ice hockey would not return to Nottingham for the next two decades" Source: "That would be the last title win of the original Panthers with the league disbanding at the close of the 1960 season. Panthers hockey wouldn’t be seen in the city again for another two decades."

Not too bad, some effort has been put into rephrasing, but I fear that the end of the sentence is too similar.
  • Article says the new building of the National Ice Centre cost £40 million to construct, yet source says £36. The remaining £4 are allocated by the EU, not for the building, but for development of the square in front of the centre. The source also doesn't mention John Laing plc.

I may take a second look, if I feel inclined. Eisfbnore (会話) 03:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC – The article has a bunch of unsourced content, which requires better access to relevant sources than I (or most other editors) have. I tried doing some work on this one a while back, but there was too much that I couldn't cite, and without someone who can properly source that material, I fear the chances of saving this article aren't great. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 25 April 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/May_2020&oldid=959780491"