Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October 2018

< 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) 2:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC) [1].

Elvis Presley

edit
Top six editors blocked or no longer active. Notified WP Rock music, ‎WP Las Vegas, ‎ WP Mississippi, ‎ WP American music,‎ WP Tennessee, WP Pop music, ‎ WP Elvis Presley, ‎ WP Musicians

Review section

edit

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive4. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • (partial, limited) image review There are no obvious issues with the images currently in the article, but about half of them are claimed as PD-US under "pre-1963/1977, no copyright renewal". Given the previous image review was performed by one of the socks, the absence of a renewal cannot be presumed accurate and should be audited by someone qualified (which is not me, sorry).
    The one that potentially raises some red flags for me is File:Girls Girls Girls Poster B.jpg. The upload is in sufficiently low resolution to preclude reading the (1960) copyright notice that is present on the original, almost as if it was intended to pass a fair use check (that it wouldn't need if it was really PD), but the given source for the image has a much higher resolution version available here (where the copyright notice is legible, including the names of the physical persons holding the copyright). The image was also uploaded by one of the socks.
    Again, I didn't find any obvious problems, but once good faith can no longer be presumed, there're enough red flags to suggest thorough checking. --Xover (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment: This is one I'm not concerned about. It has a lot of (independent) eyes on it, disputes are readily discussed on the Talk page, and there is ongoing effort to keep the sourcing of high quality and stop the never-ending scope creep and trivia creep. Over time some undesirable passages have snuck in but DCGeist actually undertook a cleanup effort in early January. Despite the socking issues, he did a fine job. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Right, so that means you think it still meets or nearly meets FA criteria? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to dig a bit more before I make a declaration. Between the socking and Xover's evidence that there may have been deliberate copyios, I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with assuming good faith about anything this guy did. --Laser brain (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I read through this article a while back; I wasn't in "reviewer mode" but I certainly didn't think "who on earth thinks this is an FA", so I can't imagine there's that much wrong with it. Your best bet is to ping 7&6=thirteen as he's good at fixing Elvis-related articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I did not promote this article, but I did archive it once, so have asked at WT:FAR whether people think I should recuse from review. As with all of DCGeist's articles, the WP:SIZE issue is a concern for me, and I never saw any reason he was excused from a perfectly doable compliance with WP:SIZE. This article is HUGE, and unnecessarily so. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think you need to recuse. I recall you voicing your size concerns and they are still present. Every time someone finds an eggplant that looks like Elvis they want to add a paragraph to the article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Laser brain on this comment and the others. The article gets a lot of careful attention from reliable editors, so I think it merits its FA status, but it errs on the side of inclusion (though the "eggplant Elvis" crowd would beg to differ). Contributors tend to be fans, and they sometimes lose sight of the appropriate scope of an encyclopedic biographical article. I would vote that it be edited for length, but not demoted. Pstoller (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have concerns with the comprehensiveness criteria (1b) of WP:Featured article criteria: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. From a glance, this article doesn't even mention many of his film roles within article prose after Wild Country, which is a glaring omission when he starred tons of movies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article includes a complete filmography plus a link to a second article, Elvis Presley on film and television. Even that much is arguably redundant. It is neither necessary nor productive for a biographical article to discuss details of every film in which a primarily musical artist appeared, especially when those films are formulaic and held in low critical esteem. One may as well ask why every song Presley recorded is not discussed. The answer is, it's not necessary in order to say the article "neglects no major facts or details." Pstoller (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we have to go into all of the production bits or casting process, but the films at the very least should be mentioned by name, especially when their soundtracks spawned hits for him. As for music, I'd say the same with album titles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I repeat: All the films are mentioned by name at the bottom of the article in a complete filmography. This is in addition to a link to a separate article devoted entirely to Presley's films and TV appearances that also lists all the film titles. There are likewise separate articles for Presley's complete singles discography, complete album discography, hit albums only with chart information, and all songs recorded by Presley, in addition to the partial single and album discographies in the present article. The reason there are separate articles is that, without them, this article would be too long. Thus, adding that information back into this article would be counterproductive. Pstoller (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simply mentioning them in a filmography section isn't enough if they're not cited anywhere in the page. It otherwise looks like one is using WP:CIRCULAR referencing by trying to use another Wikipedia page as a source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, the other Wikipedia page is not employed as a source: it's a separate article devoted to detail on a subsidiary subject, just as the discographies are. External sources provide the information in both articles. So, it is not at all WP:CIRCULAR, nor does it look like it. Second, if listing all the film titles within the article is not sufficient, then what would be? Again, these films are widely regarded—critically, popularly, and historically—as being without significant individual merit, either as cinema or as examples of Presley's artistry. The article text thus deals with them categorically. That is the the appropriate framework. Otherwise, an already overlong article would become considerably longer still by expanding on the creative nadir of Presley's career. An article, even a feature article, cannot go into detail on every aspect of its subject's work or life, but at best provides a comprehensive overview. To gain a decent understanding of Presley's cultural significance or personal character, it is entirely unnecessary to call out Kid Galahad, Harum Scarum, or Change of Habit. In fact, to manage this article (which, without counting filmography, selected discographies, or notes, is already pushing 100kB) per WP:SIZE, WP:SPLITTING, and WP:CONTENTFORKING, I would recommend deleting the included filmography, as it's entirely redundant with the linked filmography article. Each of those films in turn has its own article, just as all the albums issued during his lifetime and over half the songs contained therein do. All that information and more may belong on Wikipedia—but not in this article. Pstoller (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Moving to get a better sense of current status for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only one fascinated that this has been open for nearly three months and I'm just the first to comment? dannymusiceditor oops 16:28, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is very little interest in the FAR process any more. If the original nominator isn't around for whatever reason, these usually drag out for a few months and then end up being delisted. --Laser brain (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever, then. The only opinion I have is that it's mighty long and some of the article should definitely be pruned. dannymusiceditor oops 00:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyMusicEditor:, that's long been a concern for this article and it's come up a lot. There are lots of sub-articles we could move content into if you have any specific suggestions. --Laser brain (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed those tags, as the quotations are included in the cited source pages. I'm not sure what was requested there, but I think it's standard practice that if a quotation is given without "Roger said..." that it's from the cited source. --Laser brain (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (second) Media review. One fair use image replaced[2]. One image deleted[3]. No obvious problems found with the other files. DrKay (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Source review and spotcheck of about half-a-dozen footnotes (just over 1% of the total) found no problems. At 18,000 words, it is on the long side, but prose is fine. DrKay (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears solid. WP:LENGTH is a concern but it is difficult to see where the article treats any issue with verbosity or provides coverage of any niche issues. Seems like there is just a lot to discuss, but it grips the reader well. I checked a handful of facts and a couple of references. There are 7 unused sources, most of which have become unused since c. 2015. But it looks like some passages have been spun off from the main article; eg the discography was moved to a stand-alone list. AGK ■ 10:15, 7 October 2018 (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) 2:41, 25 October 2018 (UTC) [4].

Elaine Paige

edit
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Theatre, Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's History

Review section

edit

The first thing I noticed is that the article has a ridiculous amount of sourcing issues. Nearly all of the present sources are Wayback Machine links, and most of the ones that aren't are either dead or have issues:

  • Source 4, "Elaine Page, star of the stage", is an incomplete reference.
  • Source 13, itv.com, is broken.
  • Source 16, Desert Sun, is dead.
  • Source 26, Living North, is dead.
  • Source 37, What's on Stage, is a promotional site that sells tickets and therefore not a RS.
  • Source 44 is Amazon, which is not a RS.
  • Source 54 is broken and redirects to another article.
  • Source 85, Wrexham Evening Leader, is also dead.
  • Source 94, Stage Whispers, is an incomplete ref and does not appear to be a RS (no evidence of editorial oversight or reputability).

Sourcing is the main issue, but I've noticed a few other problems too:

  • The infobox is incomplete. Are there any citations for musical genre? Associated acts? {{Infobox person}} might be more appropriate since she's known for more than just being a musician.
  • [citation needed] tag in "Early career" section.
  • The 2014-present section is almost entirely composed of "In 20xx, blah blah blah happened. In 20xx, blah blah blah happened." It also seems a lot less detailed than the pre-2014 section.
  • The sentences beginning "In May 2015 Paige was part of VE Day 70: A Party to Remember..." and "She is a Vice-President of The Children's Trust..." are entirely unsourced.
  • Entire section "TV Roles" is tagged as unreferenced
  • The discography is improperly formatted. Compare Jessica Simpson discography for an example of a properly formatted discography. In addition, none of the uncharted singles is properly sourced. Finally, did she chart anywhere else besides the UK?
  • "Other albums and guest appearances", "Videos and DVDs", and "Curated albums" are entirely unsourced.

The page has clearly been neglected since its FA 10 years ago, and most of the prominent editors of it have long since vanished. There has also been no relevant activity on the talk page since 2014 other than bot notifications of broken links.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright, normally we'd want some form of disucssion on the talk page before coming here, but that said, the good thing about FAR is that there is a more formal platform to check off everything as being done. In which case I'll leave it here. @TenPoundHammer: if you can find any of the dead links elsewhere that'd be great too to get this one off to a good start. Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Yeah, I figured the talk page would be a moot point since again, almost no one's even looked at it in four years. I tagged every other dead link I found in the article and nuked the Amazon citation, but the other issues still stand at present. I also find it concerning that nearly every single source in the article is a Wayback link. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:52, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Most of the comments in the review section concerned sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2018 (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) 2:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC) [5].

Scene7

edit
Notified: Gary, Chisme, Dank, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Software

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, after much discussion across the years, it has been pared down (changing significantly the content that was once promoted to featurement) and concerns of WP:NPOV have been raised. Leefeni de Karik (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scene7 was swallowed by Adobe in 2007, eleven years ago. It has not been heard from since. The article as it stands now IMHO is about right considering the import and significance of the company. If anybody can fill out what happened in the last eleven years, I'm in favor of rewriting the article. But otherwise there is no point in beating a dead horse. Chisme (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: I think that the rampant changing of the article is a point worth addressing, but I'm not sure if FAR is the right venue for it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:12, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Interesting history here, as Chisme removed quite a bit of content in 2015 amidst requests for restraint from Bencherlite, Mike Christie, and DrKay. The principal reasons given were that it was "too long", had "too much detail" or "fluff" and that it was longer than Adobe Systems. Personally I'm not persuaded that these reasons are valid or that any meaningful examples were given. Nevertheless, the changes were made, and many months later Leefeni de Karik nominated it for FAR without further notice or discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the article no longer meets 1b, and should be reverted to its pre-reduction state and this nomination closed. --Laser brain (talk) 10:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I think I lost this from my watchlist in a general purge a while ago. Looking at the talk page I see no evidence that those objecting to the cuts, including myself, ever reached a consensus that Chisme was correct. I've reverted it to just before the cuts, and I think it should stay there until a talk page consensus is reached on what to do next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously at 20,000 words the article is bloated and too long. See article size. I'm a bit miffed that people who have only a passing interest in this article feel free to reverse my edits. I did consider them carefully and there is a consensus on the Talk page that the article is too long. The objections are about where, not whether, to start cutting. I note the article has nothing to say about Scene7's activity in the past ten years. Twenty thousand words on Scene7's first ten years and nothing on its second ten? That ought to tell you how ill-conceived this article is. Rather than making wholesale pooh-pooh objections I'd appreciate it if editors besides me made attempts to improve this article. Respectfully, Chisme (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's 1879 words. DrKay (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC. With no updates for the last 10 years and no appetite for expansion, the article is not comprehensive because it's missing half its history. DrKay (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that it was acquired in 2007, the company itself presumably can't have any further history. The brand still exists within Adobe, though it's apparently going away -- see this page, which says "Adobe Dynamic media classic (formerly Scene7)". Should the article continue with the story of the brand within Adobe? Or would that more naturally be part of the article on Adobe? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is written in the present tense and doesn't explain what happened after the acquisition. If it is a subsidiary, then it still exists. If it was merged entirely, then it doesn't and the article should reflect that. DrKay (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's fair. I don't agree with Chisme that there was consensus on the talk page for cuts, but the article does need to be kept up to date. The problem is that the article is too short, not too long -- though correcting the problem might require only a few sentences, depending on what actually happened after the acquisition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We should still move to FARC to keep the process going, but I'm willing to look up some source and get the article up to date. --Laser brain (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove this article? Maybe our discussion should be about removing this article. Here is a list of companies that Adobe, Inc. acquired. Of the 46 companies on the list, 19 have Wikipedia articles. What makes Scene7 remarkable enough to be among the 19? What makes Scene7 remarkable enough to be in an encyclopedia? I'm at a loss to know. Scene7 is remarkable only because -- inexplicably, mysteriously -- it was chosen once upon a time as Wikipedia's featured article of the day. Take away that distinction, judge Scene7 on its own merits, and Scene7 doesn't belong. The encyclopedia that everyone can edit is not meant to be a company directory, notwithstanding efforts by PR agents and in-house publicists. Chisme (talk) 18:41, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not a decision we can make here; you'd have to take this to AfD if you think that's the right way to go. I doubt it would be deleted -- it seems to pass the GNG. I agree that the fact it was once the featured article of the day is not relevant; if it deserves to be deleted then it should go. If you do nominate it, this FAR can stay on hold until that decision is made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include currency and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2018 (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/October_2018&oldid=865621828"