Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 2017

< 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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:22, 26 November 2017 (UTC) [1].

Casablanca (film)

edit
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it contains unreferenced content and the structure seems problematic - some sections could be merged ("Rumors", "Errors and inaccuracies", both sound like renamed trivia sections), while the expected 'significance and impact' section is entirely missing. Further, while prose quality is not my forte, I detect editorializing (ex. "Particularly notable is the "duel of the songs" between Strasser and Laszlo at Rick's cafe" - particularly notable according to whom?), and 'Quotations' section seems like a wikiquote-artifact. There are also expected minor problems with inconsistent citation styles and at least two books donn't cite page range (Eco (1986) and Eco (1994)). Last week I reported those problems to Talk:Casablanca_(film)#Not_up_to_modern_FA_standards, pinging editors who are still active and who formerly participated at FA-related discussions for this article. Since nobody even so much as replied there, I am forced to escalate to here, since it seems unlikely anyone is interested in fixing those problems. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include structure, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017*** (UTC)
  • Keep. The complaints above don't appear to be that bad or are already fixed. "Structure" in particular is a stylistic preference usually; there's lots of way to construct a good article. Referencing is the biggest reason to potentially strike FA status, and it doesn't seem that the article is particularly below par for its references. SnowFire (talk) 23:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My comment to your objections (see 'Talk' for Casablanca):

Let me respond to your points in order. 1) Thank you for the citations. You're right - as good Wikipedians we must cite reliable sources WP:RS; 2) I changed 'notable' to 'memorable' to conform to the description in the citation; 3) Those quotes are significant in view of the fact that they are on the AFI list of 100 most memorable film quotations, as cited in the article; only Casablanca has six quotations on the list; 4) The 'Rumors' heading has been changed to 'Anecdotes and Inaccuracies' to conform to your objection to the heading title; however, the 'trivia' that you object to has been a lasting legacy of this most important film; 5) The 'impact and significance' section that you say is missing is described in the sections 'Lasting Influence', 'Influence on Later Works' and 'Interpretation' sections. These sections (5.2, 5.3 & 6) are in order.

There has been much commentary about the film throughout the more than seven decades since its production. For clarity, precision, succinctness and readability I, for one, believe it is necessary to subdivide these discussions. After all, Casablanca is a movie which has greatly influenced the cinema ever since its release. And the haphazard way in which the screenplay was written makes it that much more remarkable. In fact, I think I'll see it again (for the 112th time - lol). American In Brazil (talk) 22:43, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 4:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC) [2].

Western Front (World War I)

edit
Notified: WikiProject Military history; nominator and main editor retired

WP:URFA nom

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been 11 years since its promotion, and it is currently tagged as needing citation. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I concur
  • The Schlieffen Plan section is obsolete.
  • The use of Mustard gas has it that it was fired in the first gas shells, rather than it was fired in gas shells for the first time on 10 July at Nieuport. Operation Strandfest  Done
  • Most of the battle sections are too big now that so many more have decent articles.
  • The consequences section lacks nuance.
  • The prose is too bitty in places with paragraphs of inconsistent length.
  • Some of the pics, maps, etc could do with moving to avoid cluttering.

I don't think that it's a bad article but perhaps needs a spring-clean to take in later accounts and analyses. Keith-264 (talk) 20:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I note that it lacks a 'Prelude' to put this in context. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:01, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I missed that. Why are the footnotes and references mixed together? Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)  Done[reply]
I left a note with User talk:Woogie10w about the casualties statistics citations and references.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Added Woogie's table and citations, changed most non sfn to sfn as there was a mixture of citations styles. Changed some citations from web and newspapers to books. Keith-264 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The review isn't attracting much attention and the easy bits are done, I wonder if the review is going to get much further? Keith-264 (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, I've tried to tidy it up a little, and added some refs where I could find things in my (sadly limited) home library. Unfortunately, there are still quite a few citation needed tags. These are my edits: [3] I probably can't help much more, sorry. Please feel free to adjust as desired. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
thank you. We are indeed trying to find proper sourcing auntieruth (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm somewhat reluctant to support delisting at this stage, the article falls well short of modern FA standards - it's really a GA. For a modern FA, I'd expect to see thematic discussions of important aspects of this campaign, and not just a high level summary of the fighting. For instance, there should be substantial coverage of the living standards the troops endured and how they were deployed (eg, the rotation of units in and out of the front line), changes in tactics, the impact on civilians, the massive logistical efforts, the post-war remediation of the ruined towns and farmland (which is still continuing, with farmers regularly finding unexplored ordinance) and how the campaign has been commemorated at remembered. There's a vast literature on all of these topics which can be drawn on. This would be a risky choice for an 11 November TFA given it's not really an example of Wikipedia at it's best - it's really Wikipedia at an adequate level at present. Nick-D (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nick's points seem fair in hindsight (and are in stark contrast to the lack of intellectual rigor put into my own comment below). I still feel that its probably "good enough" that delisting would be too extreme, but can agree that there are other aspects of the topic that would need to be covered were this article to go through an FA review today. (TLDR = I am impaled on fence). Anotherclown (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ok, @Auntieruth55: and @AustralianRupert: (and whoever else is working on this), I can see some recent activity and am happy to keep open while it's being worked on. Agree it is a broad/important article that'd be good to keep featured if possible. I'll nag again in a fortnight. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the technical shortcomings have been resolved but the content leaves much to be desired. I'd fail it on B2. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought about this a bit, and agree with Keith. I don't think that criterion 1b is met as the article doesn't cover a range of key topics related to its subject. 1c is also not met as it does not provide a sufficiently through review of the literature on the topic. That said, the efforts by multiple editors to improve the article have been impressive. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay Nick-D and Keith-264, can you specify what material you think is missing or underrepresented? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comments above. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Schleffen Plan section is all wrong, the Entente was France, Russia and Britain, not every state at war with the Central Powers, there's a gap between the Marne and 1st Ypres, Verdun 1916 was an attrition attack to prepare the way for an attempt at a decisive battle, not a substitute for one, the Somme 1916 is Anglocentric, the Nivelle Offensive began well with the British attack at Arras and the French part inflicted huge casualties on the Germans; although there was no French breakthrough, the 2nd Battle of the Aisne captured more ground than any earlier offensive. The French mutinies coincided with Joffre's plan that the British would conduct a summer offensive in Flanders while the French army had a rest, so the significance of the mutinies can be overstated. Revising the prose and adding citations to this article is only the start.Keith-264 (talk) 11:04, 29 September 2017 (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) 3:25, 26 November 2017 (UTC) [5].

Firefly (TV series)

edit
Notified: TenTonParasol, Finnusertop, Fnlayson, AlexTheWhovian, Jclemens, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Science Fiction

Review section

edit

More than ten years after the article was promoted to Featured Article status, I think now is the time to re-evaluate the quality of this article. Several years ago, the List of Firefly episodes was merged into this article. Currently, the episode summaries are not comprehensive, and I expect most readers to look through the whole episode list. However, the series itself lasted just one season, yet it achieved the cult status. It even spanned the film Serenity. Also, there has been additional content over the years, such as "Media franchise". The sources should be re-evaluated, including dead links. While there have been edits, most of them this year were just housekeeping cleanups. The issues were discussed at the article talk page early this year, and they should be re-discussed here. Therefore, I hope people interested can improve this article. --George Ho (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, those who promoted the article and contributed to the article at the time of the 2006 nomination may be inactive at this time, so I notified ones who recently contributed to the article instead. I also notified two WikiProjects, including semi-active one. George Ho (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The available literature needs to be reviewed and incorporated. I have found some that look like they could be of interest, but I don't doubt that there's more out there.
  • Amy-Chinn, Dee (June 2006). "'Tis Pity She's A Whore: Feminist prostitution in Joss Whedon's Firefly?". Feminist Media Studies. 6 (2): 175–189. doi:10.1080/14680770600645143.
  • Canavan, Gerry (January 2011). "Fighting a war you've already lost: Zombies and Zombis in Firefly/Serenity and Dollhouse". Science Fiction Film & Television. 4 (2): 173–203. doi:10.3828/sfftv.2011.12.
  • Erisman, Fred (2006). "Stagecoach in Space: The Legacy of Firefly". Extrapolation. 47 (2): 249–258. ISSN 0014-5483 – via ProQuest.
  • Granade, S. Andrew (December 2011). ""So Here's Us, On the Raggedy Edge": Exoticism and Identification in Joss Whedon's Firefly". Popular Music and Society. 34 (5): 621–637. doi:10.1080/03007766.2010.537858.
  • Hill, Matthew B. (2009). ""I Am a Leaf on the Wind": Cultural Trauma and Mobility in Joss Whedon's Firefly". Extrapolation. 50 (3): 484–511. ISSN 0014-5483 – via ProQuest.
  • Wilcox, Rhonda; Cochran, Tanya R.; Masson, Cynthea; Lavery, David, eds. (2014). Reading Joss Whedon. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. ISBN 9780815652830. - at least three chapters in this book discuss Firefly.
Surveying the literature would help the article to meet the requirement for comprehensiveness that is expected of Wikipedia's best work. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Comments in the review section mostly concerned sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have access to some of them. I'll get around and look at them, hopefully soon. Is there any other issues with the article as it stands? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The episode list still has incomprehensive episode summaries, TenTonParasol. I recently reorganized pop culture references of Firefly and separated them into separate section "In popular culture". I think that "Cult status" subheader... is renaming it necessary? Also, besides the title card, three more non-free images are used. Is merging Firefly (franchise) into the article possible? I'm uncertain about the franchise's notability. The series lasted just one season, yet there's a franchise page. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To comment on the fair use images, I personally am not well-versed in images, but I definitely believe the one with the horse in synopsis can definitely go. Frontier environment is not a thing that particularly needs to be illustrated. The marketing image at the bottom and the Serenity image may have cases because they're specifically commented on in the article. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 15:11, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded a few episode summaries further after the comprehension done by TenTolParasol, to whom I thank. I also tagged File:Fireflyserenityhorses.jpg with PROD and then added the "deletable-image caption". --George Ho (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jclemens:, if you're referring to the sources I found above, maybe WP:LIBRARY might help. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist – After all of this time, the episodes summaries have been beefed up, but I don't see much work done on the other issues that have been raised. In particular, the referencing is still problematic; this is especially apparent in Production staff, where most of the content is uncited. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:13, 23 November 2017 (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_2017&oldid=812182999"