Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 2016

< 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) 2:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC) [1].

Fighting in ice hockey

edit
Notified: Mus Musculus, WikiProject Ice Hockey

I am nominating this featured article for review because I don't think this article meet the criteria anymore, like User:DrKiernan point out at the talk page more than 18 months ago, major source problems still not addressed, and there's several paragraphs with no footnotes at all, two [citation needed] didn't get any attention. --Jarodalien (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – I'll have a look at the article over the weekend, with the aim of improving it. At a minimum, I'll make sure that the blacklisted sources disappear for good. Although I don't remember doing so, I took the Hockeyfights link out of the References section last year, but I missed the fact that the two tables in the body use it. Replacing them will be my highest priority, along with adding references. It looks like the other two sources mentioned on the talk page have already been removed from the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see Giants2008 has been working on it - ping me when you feel waht you've done should by rights save it from FAR. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone here wants to see how progress is going, please feel free to do so. I'd still like to incorporate some of those "Notable" fights into the history section when I get a chance. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: About "Notable fights and brawls", do we had a standard for events that "notable" enough to be here?--Jarodalien (talk) 12:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, no. I think the original editor just included some well-known fights that could be sourced from the references they had. Of course, this isn't optimal because such sections can easily turn into content farms, and I've been trying to move the more interesting content into the main history section while removing the less notable brawls. I'll continue to prune what is left of that section. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarodalien and Giants2008: Any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:15, 3 September 2016 (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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:23, 16 November 2016 (UTC) [2].

Batman

edit
Notified: DrRC, WikiProject Comics, WikiProject Fictional characters, Atvica, Darth Knight, Cartoon Boy, NeoBatfreak, Modemac

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, for the past year or so, the article has been heavily edited by a number of users, which is highly unusual for an article of Featured Status. Many of these are far from minor edits, even going as far as to change the entire structure of parts of the article (take these edits, for instance). I've also noticed that a lot of new information has been added, with entire paragraphs and sections now lacking any sort of citation. An example of this is the Skills and abilities section, which includes four paragraphs of detailed, specific information without a citation in sight. Then there's the fact that the citation style of the article is largely inconsistent. At this point, I will be very surprised if this article still meets Featured Article criteria. DarkKnight2149 19:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your nomination for review. The "Abilities" section as a whole is certainly lacking citations. Also, the "Fictional character biography" section should perhaps be given its own article so the subsections can appropriately be expanded upon. DrRC (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the problems already listed, parts of the article need to be rewritten for clarity. For example,
" Bob Kane noted that, as a result, DC was "planning to kill Batman off altogether".[48] In response to this, editor Julius Schwartz was assigned to the Batman titles. He presided over drastic changes..."
I'm assuming Schwartz was assigned by DC heads, not Kane. If they were planning to kill him, why did Schwartz try to revive the character with a "new look" instead? How is his assignment "in response" to the plan to kill Batman? I'm not disputing the citations, but the text seems to imply a narrative that isn't supported by the sources. Kane's quote, while nice, doesn't seem to fit with what actually followed. At the least, significant material is missing (Only certain people wanted Batman dead, not all of DC? Schwartz bucked orders?). At worst, it's elevating on overstatement on Kane's part to mischaracterize DC's position.
And this sentence:
"While the work of O'Neil and Adams was popular with fans, the acclaim did little to improve declining sales; the same held true with a similarly acclaimed run by writer Steve Englehart and penciler Marshall Rogers in Detective Comics #471–476 (August 1977 – April 1978), which went on to influence the 1989 movie Batman and be adapted for Batman: The Animated Series, which debuted in 1992."
I'm not sure why all of this is one sentence. I'm not convinced Englehart and Rogers need to be mentioned in a paragraph about O'Neil and Adams. I'd certain their five issue run's influence on the Batman '89 and TAS doesn't belong in a paragraph about O'Neil and Adams. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Argento Surfer (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FAR is warranted for sure. The lack of citations is indeed worrisome. As a general rule of thumb, every paragraph should end with at least one in-text citation. I also see really short paragraphs which are discouraged per WP:Manual of Style/Layout#Paragraphs. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:46, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include prose and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist unless the above can be resolved. Not at all FA quality. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:58, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I raised concerns about this article on its talk page long ago, and nothing's been done about its quite extensive issues. This isn't a fixer-upper---this article needs some in-depth care. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - this wouldn't even pass a GAN in its current state, sadly. Perhaps this is an example that shows why FAs should have greater protection than other articles, otherwise they can see their quality reduced dramatically by subsequent edits. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I completely agree with Midnightblueowl. Something should be put in place to protect featured articles and GA articles. That especially goes for those pertaining to popular subject matters, like Batman. Batman is a popular character, so a lot of people are going to edit it whether it needs it or not (of course, for a while now, it has needed it). That can be dangerous to the quality of the articles, and I believe that that is what happened over time.
If this article is delisted (and it most likely will be), I think we should identify the problems and come up with a plan to get the article back up to standards. DarkKnight2149 22:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the situation could be rectified if we simply reverted the whole page back to the status that it was at when it gained FA status to start with? Midnightblueowl (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we did that, then the article probably wouldn't be up-to-date because of all of the events that have transpired in recent memory (such as the casting of Ben Affleck, ETC). DarkKnight2149 23:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@The ed17: As mentioned above, the problem with simply reverting the article to an older version is that the article would then be completely outdated, given how prolific the character is in various forms of media and everything that has transpired since then. DarkKnight2149 05:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, right. Need to read the whole page. :-) Never mind me. It might be a better place for you all to begin work on fixing the article, but you'll be the best judges of that. Cheers, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier versions of the article really aren't any better. It was promoted to FA in 2003: this is what a FAC review looked like in 2003, and here's what the article looked like when it was promoted. The article suffers from bloat (77kb of readable prose), cruft, lack of focus and balance, and recentism. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realise it was promoted that far back. Looking at that revision, I'm sure everyone will agree that reverting it to an earlier version is now certainly out-of-the-question. DarkKnight2149 05:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely out of the question indeed. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2016 (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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC) [3].

Backmasking

edit
Notified: Audacity, SandyGeorgia, Tony1, Chensiyuan (original participants in the FAC that are still active), WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject The Beatles

Review section

edit

I've pretty much said everything I need to at Talk:Backmasking#FA_problems already; suffice to say I don't think this article is anywhere close to the current FA standards and I don't have sufficient source material to make a crack at it myself. There has been little response at the article or the talk page, other than a minor agreement we should come here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit

Moved to here. No real activity in the 3 weeks it has been listed at FARC and month before that on article talk. lack of inline sourcing is major concern noted, plus reliableness of some sources used. Will delist if no activity in the next two weeks. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:42, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not used to the FARC process, but I'd say Delist. The lead is way too small (three really small lines for a decent sized article), occasional lack of citations, and at some points it just seems like the article is listing off backmasking instances in albums, without any real commentary on its use. While it's certainly an interesting article for FA, it just isn't up to standard. Famous Hobo (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: it is important to give your updated opinion so updated comments are encouraged. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:38, 20 November 2016 (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/November_2016&oldid=765386157"