Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Raise issues at article Talk:

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. 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.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. For articles on the Unreviewed Featured Articles list, no more than three nominations per week and twelve per month.
  2. For all other articles, one nomination at a time per nominator, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Save page".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews

Cortana (Halo)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it falls considerably short of FA standards, and personally I wouldn't pass it through GA in its current condition. I raised issue regarding it at WikiProject Video games and the two people who replied there both expressed concerns about the article. The original FA nominator, David Fuchs, has also been made aware of the listing via a discussion on the article's talk page. A commentator at Project video games raised concerns was about the plot length. I think the article has too many fictional in-universe details. For example, why do we need to know that Master Chief wears 'MJOLNIR battle armor', and what does MJOLNIR even mean? There's a lot of details about Cortana's appearance in the first novel; why aren't subsequent appearances given the same level of detail? Cortana appears to play a minor role in Halo: Ghosts of Onyx, but this isn't mentioned at all. There's a lot of literature set in the Halo universe, and I'm not convinced this article summarises all her appearances in them adequately. In the 'Character design' there's very little on the characters initial design. Several things are introduced in the article without any background information; her voice actress appears out of nowhere (how did she land the job?). What is '343 Industries'? Who are the Forerunners? I'm most concerned about the reception section though. It begins with the characters reception from the third game, rather than initial reception, and there's no coverage of the character from academic sources/journals even though plenty of these sources exist. There's an embarrassing quote farm with poor prose that focuses heavily on the character's sex appeal (Examples: "Part of Cortana's appeal has lain in her good looks ... [she is] the sixth most "disturbingly sexual game character"). There are several sources that fall considerably short of a 'high-quality' standard. There's a fair amount of inconsistency in reference formatting and even several bare URLs and a couple unreferenced sentences. The article was passed in 2008 when I can only presume standards were lower; I'd argue by today's standards it fails on FA criteria 1a, 1b and 1c. Freikorp (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure how to square your concerns about plot length when you're asking for more descriptions of minor appearances. As for your comments about coverage and references, perhaps you could link these plentiful sources? Otherwise the comment is less than helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I mentioned somebody else had concerns about plot length just to give an indication on what others have said; my concerns about under-detail are entirely confined to the 'In other media' section.
  • This thesis comments on Cortana's technically nude appearance: [1]
  • This academic source comments on both Master Chief and Cortana's lack of sexuality: [2]
  • This one comments on Cortana's dialogue and emotional support: [3]
  • This thesis gives a very brief comment on her body type in comparison to other female video game characters [4]
  • This thesis comments on Cortana's personality, dialogue and flirtation with Master Chief: [5]
  • This thesis talks about Cortana's physical appearance and her relationship with Master Chief: [6]
  • This thesis questions why Cortana's appearance is sexualised and comments on the gender stereotyping between Cortana and Master Chief. It cites Cortana as an example of a character "drawn and designed to appeal to heteronormative standards of beauty, even when it does not make sense within the context of the game ... as a computer program Cortana could have taken any form but the game elected to make her adhere to the heteronormative ideal of an attractive, shapely woman. The interviews suggest this may be because of the lack of female representation behind the scenes and the lack of support and encouragement for women to join in the industry." [7]
  • Here's an interesting source about Cortana's nudity: [8] Anita Sarkeesian cites the source and the issue in one of her articles: [9]. Here's another quote from Sarkeesian about Cortana: [10]
I'm sure you can find more. If you don't have access to any of those sources I can email them to you. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I'll look a bit more into the authors, but none of those theses strike me as reliable sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Chandralekha (1948 film)

Notified: Ssven2, Numerounovedant. Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Article alerts

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been substantially reworked after one abundantly used source, which was later discovered to be a non-RS, was removed. Now I want to re-evaluate the article and see that it is still FA-worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Could you please notify some relevant WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've notified two users as seen above. I doubt if the users will respond to my request at the Indian cinema task force since they rarely respond to messages. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Close without FARC: I have given a good look at the article and it still does seem to meet the standards for FA. Only one query: The critical reception can be improved by describing what the critics say in our own words instead of simply stating "xx said xx". Otherwise, I can't find much fault with the article.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ssven2, thank you for your comments. I'll be travelling from tomorrow till 14 Sept, so I hope someone will respond to further comments in my place. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Sven. I have amended the bold title as we do not usually declare keep or remove in the review stage. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Close without FARC: I think there should not have been an FARC in first place. The article is very much of FA-standard and I think it deserves that bronze star.Krish | Talk 08:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vedant–Hey Kailash, I am sorry it took me so long to get here, but now that I've gone through the article, I do have some concerns.

  • The Critical response, as rightly pointed out by Ssven2 can use a lot of paraphrasing because as it stands now it's just one long direct quote after the other, especially in the first paragraph. The second fares a little better in this aspect, but again, the way the sentences have been frames is repetitive. The section could use some copy-edits.
  • Although I am not sure if there any rule regarding the references being placed at the end of the sentence, I prefer it that way. When put in he middle of a sentence it really breaks the flow for, but that could just be me. Also, when two or more references are being used in a sentence make sure that they are placed in a chronological order.
  • I'll offer some very minor c.e. for the relatively trivial issues.

Also, here i go appreciating the sheer magnitude of one of your articles again. It's amazing how you're able to dig up the resources and come up with such comprehensive articles one after the other. All the refs. looks good, great work. Let me know if you any queries regarding my concerns, and then I can probably come up with a declaration. Good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 06:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

Hurricane Mitch

Notified: Hurricanehink, Titoxd, WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest, and as such most heavily decayed and neglected FAs of the Tropical Cyclone project. This one has been a contendor under discussion by the project for years now – it's time to finally cut the knot. The article simply does not reflect the mounts of literature and data available, while much of the information it does contain is unverifiable, as mentioned by SandyGeorgia back in 2015. More specific subsections that need attention:

  • Lead - A bit sparse for the deadliest modern hurricane ever. Should more adequately reflect the severity and destruction of the storm.
  • Preparations - This section does not properly cover the scope of this storm; a Category 5 stalling and approaching Central America is bound to create more upheaval and media attention than is currently reflected. Moreover, a bit of discussion and context would be helpful: If there were preparations and evacuations, why the high number of deaths, still? Did local authorities fail to anticipate the unprecedented severity of this storm or did residents not heed the warnings? I am sure there have been studies on this.
  • Impact - The only country that has been covered reasonably well is Honduras, and that one has a subarticle. There are no Spanish language sources for a predominantly Latin American phenomenon, nor are there links to journal articles or important books on the storm.
  • Aftermath - Same as above. No mention of the homeless, no real context given to the scope of the devastation, no sense of global response sketched, and the discussion of the recovery phase is lacking. A quick search on Google Scholar reveals a plethora of journal articles mentioning its effects on numerous areas, from ecology to psychology, while a scan of Google Books gives numerous high-quality, important accounts of the storm, its impact, and its implications.

Overall, then, my biggest issues are with 1 b. comprehensive and 1 c. well-researched, due to the omission of crucial book, journal and Spanish-language sources and insufficient verifiability of the sources currently used. Auree 09:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section focused on coverage, both in terms of content and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Houston

Notified: Example user, WikiProject Houston, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Texas

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

  • There are statements failing verification from citations. Please see section on History, and section on Crime, as two examples.
  • There is much outdated material. Some material could be replaced with new data; other material should be retained and supplemented with new data. Another editor placed a request to update the Transportation section in 2016, but there has been little change since last year.
  • There is unsourced material in the History section.
  • {{{1}}}The History section is not comprehensive. There is a main article History of Houston, but this has been largely unsourced for years. I recommend as a part of improving the Houston article to improve its context within Wikipedia relative to several important Houston-related articles. This would allow the main article to be comprehensive, but offering greater detail indirectly through links to related articles.
  • Some parts of the article have become a Christmas tree, with Houston's appearance on various rankings. Could these be updated or culled? Some segments reads like spare parts thrown together. Sometimes people just have a little factoid to post, and that is their contribution. Editing these segments to better unify the narrative would help.

These are several categories of issues with the Houston article, and this I compiled from a fairly cursory reading. As I continue to check citations, this list could grow.

However, I hope this is not too negative. There must have been a great effort and good work by many various editors to bring this article to FA back in 2007. This is more than ten years later and it appears that the article needs a comprehensive effort. For those Houstonians who are are still cleaning up after Harvey, or helping others doing the same, there could be nothing more important. But not everyone interested in improving the Houston article currently lives in the region. Thank you for reading, Oldsanfelipe (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Total area and land area The citation from 2009 cites a land area of a bit over 599 miles while the text reads 667 miles, which is given elsewhere as the total area.

  • Has the total area and land area increased since 2009?
  • What is the correct source for these figures?
  • Geography nerds: what is the correct denominator for population density: land area or total area? (Since people don't usually live on the water.)

In any case, the article and the citation disagree.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead section has old links Some citations link to articles from 2010, 2011, and 2012. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Land purchase, founding of Houston A statement in the History section is incorrect:

  • The sale of land from the Parrotts to the Allens did not occur on August 30. It was August 26, 1836
  • August 30, 1836 is the date that the Allen brothers first advertised their land scheme.
  • The Parrotts did not sell 1.5 leagues (6,642 acres) to the Allens. They sold a half league (2,214 acres).
  • The Parrotts did not sell land to the Allens in consideration of over $9,000. They sold it for $5,000.
  • Two days prior, on August 24, 1836, the Allens did buy one league (4,428 acres) for $4,428 from the estate of John Austin's brother. There is no indication that the Allens had plans for developing this land. This is difficult to source (original research) because this ended up being a convoluted transaction, and many writers try to simplify the story by combining the two transactions. Sometimes writers combined the two transactions incorrectly.

Second, when Houstonians claim that the city was founded August 30, 1836, the significance of this date is the famous advertisement that the Allen placed. For some reason, people attempt to attach other events to this date.

Sports: claim fails verification "It is the only MLB team to have won pennants in both modern leagues." The Astros just won their first AL pennant last month, but the sentence is followed by a citation to a web site last retrieved in 2013. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: area Perhaps there is are editors who have already vetted these numbers and who are still on Wikipedia. I know it is tempting for other editors to change one of the numbers in a way that renders the other number correct. Confession: A few years ago, I think I changed a total population number without changing the density number, for example. I apologize to those who were trying to keep the page in good order. In any case, these current numbers are inconsistent:

Area

• City      667 sq mi (1,625.2 km2)   (I have seen 599.6 elsewhere.)
• Land   639.1 sq mi (1,642.1 km2)
• Water 667 sq mi (1,625.2 km2)   (I have seen 27-ish elsewhere.)
• Metro 10,062 sq mi (26,060 km2)

Once these correct numbers are reintroduced, I would agree to monitor them for unhelpful edits. Oldsanfelipe (talk) 10:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Geography statement fails verification
Houston#Geography:

"The Piney Woods are north of Houston. Most of Houston is located on the gulf coastal plain, and its vegetation is classified as temperate grassland and forest. Much of the city was built on forested land, marshes, swamp, or prairie which resembles the Deep South, and are all still visible in surrounding areas. The flatness of the local terrain, when combined with urban sprawl, has made flooding a recurring problem for the city."

Here is the archived link from the citation.

If I have read this correctly, this links to dry paper on the modeling of measurement of storm events, without any characterization of regional features or analysis of flooding. I agree with some of the statements, but this is not what the linked source talks about.Oldsanfelipe (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get some more opinions on the state of this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Blyth, Northumberland

Notified: Dbam, WikiProject United Kingdom

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because the demographics and education sections need updating. Some unreferenced additions noted. Not too much work but not none either, and enough to warrant a formal review. I placed a request months ago with no response. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

No action - issues remain outstanding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Summer of '42

Notified: WikiProject Film, WikiProject United States

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it poses major problems primarily with regard to citation, sources, coverage, and prose which is far from the professional writing standard expected of FAs. The plot section—which has 914 words—is well over the 700 word required per WP:FILMPLOT, and isn't exactly well-written as there are some excessive scene-by-scene breakdowns, especially the opening paragraph. (Who in the world begins a plot summary with 'The film opens'?). The reception section is rather underdeveloped since it includes not a single review from critics (not even a report from Rotten Tomatoes!) which could back its claim of a "critically-acclaimed" production, and its theatrical run is not adequately reported. Finally, the sequels, soundtrack, and cultural impact sections have some unsourced statements, and two coverage are missing: a theme/analysis section, given the film's intriguing subject matter, and a home media section for its VHS, DVD, Blu-ray releases. I don't find this article's FA status particularly appetizing for these reasons and it's really unfortunate. Slightlymad 15:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Well, someone kindly added a Rotten Tomatoes review. Still needs trimming of plot and buffing of reception section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne

Notified: Raul654, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Science Fiction

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of its sourcing issues, using questionable sources such as "2404", "Quandary", "Game Chronicles", "BonusStage", "GameOver Online", "Jolt Online Gaming UK", "ICGames", "ToTheGame", "GameBoomers" and any other sites I missed that isn't part of the Reliable Sources list for gaming articles. Another issue I have is the prose throughout. For example, starting the "Gameplay" section with "The main focus of Voyage is puzzle-solving." shows how dated the standards were when this was promoted. GamerPro64 03:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Holy moly

    We're not journalists. But, we are looking for a few writers to join us! The benefits? You get to be press and get the occasional free game. Sorry, we all volunteer. But, dang, we have fun.
    — https://web.archive.org/web/20070615143314/http://www.gamersinfo.net:80/content/aboutUs.php

    Agreed that the article needs to be rebuilt from trustworthy sources, noteworthy reviews czar 06:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section primarily concerned sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist - There hasn't been any work done to fix the issues I've brought up. GamerPro64 15:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Mount Tambora

Notified: ONUnicorn, Meursault2004, JarrahTree, Materialscientist, GeoWriter, Anthony Appleyard, WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Volcanoes

Review section

First time I am doing this. I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't seem to meet 1a and 1c of the FA criteria anymore; there is a large amount of unsourced material and choppy paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus:, let me take a look at your comments and improve the article. We will discuss this on the talk page of the article further. Tisquesusa (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section focused on sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

West Bengal

Notified: Dwaipayanc, Noticeboard for India-related topics

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is suffused with unsourced weasel words like "prominent", "prefer", "major", "well-known", "rare", "finest", "dominated", etc. and requires extensive copyediting. On just a quick scan, I can see spaces missing after punctuation, use of ampersands in flowing text, and short stubby paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I'll try to check/address the issues mentioned here. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Hello! Thanks for bringing this article to FARC. I was the nominator of FAC of this article, and thereafter did try to maintain its quality, of course with the help of other editors. However, the article has been neglected for quite a while now. It will be excellent if this FARC process is continued beyond May 15 (I am hoping for some free time in real life after that date). With the help of other editors, we can surely save this FA! Thanks, --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    Comments This page does need some work but here are a few suggestions:
  • "91 million inhabitants"... as of when?
  • "making it similar in size to Serbia" is this a good comparison? Wouldn't it be better to compare it to other states in India?
  • " has borders with five Indian states" should be "borders five Indian states"
  • "West Bengal is the sixth-largest contributor" ... largest contributing state?
  • "It is noted for its cultural activities and the presence of cultural and educational institutions"... I don't know what this means specifically.
  • "stalwarts in literature"... I'm not sure that is the correct use of that word.
  • "to scores of musicians, film-makers and artists"... can't this be said for any state? What makes this state unique in this respect?
  • "playing association football besides cricket, the national favourite sport." This sentence is needlessly passive and can be rewritten to be more readable.
  • That's just my comments on the lead, have not had time to delve into the article itself. Mattximus (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @Dwaipayanc: It's now after May 15 - where are we at with addressing the concerns that have been raised? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Hi! Unfortunately I am very busy in real life and short of time for addressing the concerns. Still I am trying... I have covered only the history part. However I am not up to date with copy edit benchmarks, so there are problems even after I go through sections. Please let us have some more time. I'll try to get more people involved. Thanks a lot. --Dwaipayan (talk) 03:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I am interested in trying .Even though I am a relative newbie after all West Bengal is my 'matribhoomi' .I will certainly try my best. Please give at least a month or two to do the work FORCE RADICAL (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: Copyediting has been started in the article. --Dwaipayan (talk) 17:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Update 2 Copyediting is complete. Thanks,--Dwaipayan (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This article still has several 'citation needed' comments and unreferenced sentences. I would support delisting unless these problems are dealt with shortly. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a pretty good article close to FA, but even a quick glance shows that it needs some fine editing first. For example the historic population table is good, but there is no reference to 2011 census in the box. What does "serial" mean in the districts section, and rank of what? All of India? These little things need to be clarified. Mattximus (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Titodutta and Dwaipayanc: Are you able to address the issues raised by Dudley and Mattximus? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I logged in after several weeks. The concerns raised are of course addressable. Copy edit was a difficult problem, and now has been addressed. However, I need some more time. I promise I will try my best to address the issues as soon as possible. Please allow some more time. Thanks.--Dwaipayan (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Sourcing problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. The review has been open for seven months and the article still has many unreferenced statements and a few citation neededs. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist Concur with Dudley Miles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements since June 2016. DrKay (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist - There are sections in this article that are severely undersourced, such as Medieval and early modern periods (1 source that doesn't cover the whole section) and the majority of the cultural subsections. The Literature section is basically a namecheck of a number of "well known" writers without expanding on their merits or contributions (why mention these writers and not others?), making that entire section a WP:SEAOFBLUE. Still a lot of weird, unreferenced sentences in this article, such as "The variety of fruits and vegetables that Bengal has to offer is incredible", "includes hilsa preparations, a favourite among Bengalis" and " It is the gateway to the revolution of European education". The article has currently 11 citation needed tags; I'd wager it is missing a few more. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment-Give me until the end of December, I was recently busy with my own work and forgot to follow this page.For now you can add the remaining [citation needed] tags which you all wager are needed — comment added by Force Radical (talkcontribs) 02:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Partly Done-Existing citation needs were filled up, awaiting more from the reveiwers. Pinging Dudley Miles Sturmvogel 66 DrKay RetiredDuke Nikkimaria-{Please add [citation needed] tags wherever applicable in the article and I will try and fill them up}. Also noting that this being an indian topic finding sources for some statements may be more difficult than for other similar articles — comment added by Force Radical (talkcontribs) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Mangalore

Review section

I've been gone more than 5 years, and wasn't around to check the vandalism and edits. I shall be keeping an eye on certain sensitive articles from now on. I just want to clarify. Does this article still satisfy FA criteria, or should it be delisted? Do let me know what issues are there, and I'll do my best to make necessary corrections. Thanks! Liberal Humanist (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  • This article is not FA, but it should not require too much work to bring it up to standard.
  • The lead is not satisfactory. It should be an unreferenced summary of the referenced content of the main text, not a collection of referenced statements. It is also short for the size of article, missing such basic facts as population.
  • There is some 'recentism', that is comments which are or will become out of date - e.g. "Recently, a committee of experts constituted by the Tulu Sahitya Academy..." Also "The process of making Mangalore City Corporation into ‘Greater Mangalore’ has almost begun..." There are other examples and you need to go through the article deleting recentism.
  • The names of city officials are better omitted or given as at a specified date. I think there is also too much detail about the companies in the city. It seems a bit like advertising and is probably already out of date.
  • The details on civic government are skimpy. What are the responsibilities of the city and state levels?
  • The figure of 13.7% for the birth rate must be wrong. the highest in the world is Niger at 4.5%.
  • The article could do with a good map. The schematic one of tourist places is not much help.
  • I am not clear what is meant by saying that the city is on the backwaters of rivers. Is it on cut-off arms of the rivers? Does the city connect to river traffic?
  • "adding to its cosmopolitan look and appeal" Advertising language like this should be avoided.
  • "Cruise ships from Europe, North America and UAE arrive at New Mangalore Port to promote tourism around Mangalore." "promote" is the wrong word here.
  • "Mangalore experiences scheduled and unscheduled power cuts, especially during the summer, due to excess consumption demands." Why not inadequate supply?
  • "Potable water to the city is supplied by Mangalore City Corporation." Is this supplied to all residents?
  • I think comments about parks, golf courses etc belong in the tourism section, not utilities.
  • I think the main fault is extensive recentism. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: I have made all the changes you've suggested to the Mangalore article, except the following:

  • The schematic map has not been changed (Point number 7)
  • Responsibility of the civic government at city and state levels (Point number 5)

I request you to please retain Mangalore as a Featured Article.
D7G1FV49C (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Apologies for the delay in replying. I have been away on holiday and busy since I got back, but I hope to get to get to it in the next fortnight. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  • The 'Civic administration' section is still unsatisfactory. Saying that the city corporation is "in charge of the civic and infrastructural assets of the city" is vague. There should be a sentence or two specifying the responsibilities of city and state level governments. The next paragraph covers elections to the Lok Sabha before revision, then covers the regional level, then goes back to the revision. This is confusing. However, these points are minor, and I now support the retention of the article as FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

@Liberal Humanist: Are you able to work on addressing the issues raised? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include recentism, organization/coverage and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. Just taking the first two paragraphs, the population figure is over-precise and should be replaced with a ballpark figure not an exact number that is bound to change and looks faintly ridiculous. In the second paragraph, virtually every sentence begins "Mangalore...", which is over-repetitive, boring and unimaginative. The comments in the review section have not been addressed satisfactorily and if the large number of recent IP edits is anything to go by, the article isn't actively policed by a subject expert who can weed out poor edits or integrate valuable edits sensitively. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Assata Shakur

Notified: User talk:Savidan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

While it is obviously the product of a great deal of work, I found a number of areas where it did not live up to FA standards. It seems likely that there are more problems, as I didn't look very hard.

1) Accusing a BLP of perjury in wikipedia's voice, with flimsy sourcing. 2) Sourcing information to assatashakur.org and then repeating it in wikipedia's voice. 3) SYNTHing "police authorities" and "prosecution" - may seem small but should have been picked up.

More detail on talk. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

"Shakur dropped out of Cathedral High School[ambiguous] to get a job and live on her own but later earned a General Educational Development (GED) with her aunt's help.[12] Before dropping out of high school, she attended a segregated school in New York, which she discusses in her autobiography. As the only black student or one of a few in her classes, Shakur said that the integrated school system was poorly set up, and that teachers seemed surprised when she answered a question in class, as if not expecting black people to be intelligent and engaged."
This sounds as if the high school was "integrated" but "mostly white", not "segregated".
FIXED NPalgan2 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
What she learned of history was sugar coated, because students were taught a version that ignored the oppression suffered by people of color, especially in the United States. As a child she performed in a play about George Washington's birthday, and said that she was to repeatedly sing “George Washington never told a lie.” In her autobiography she later wrote: “I didn’t know what a fool they had made out of me until i grew up and started to read real history” (Pg 33).
POV phrasing, wrong citation format.
FIXED NPalgan2 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Shakur attended Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC), when she was introduced to the Golden Drums and then th
What were the golden drums?
FIXED, just avoid mentioning them as the name not important.
" Their relationship was damaged by Louis’s marriage ideals, including a wife to properly cook and clean. "
This article may have been "well-written... [with prose that is] engaging and of a professional standard", but that is not the case today. Needs a thorough rewrite
"That same year Chesimard changed her name to Assata Olugbala Shakur". The NYTimes referred to her right until her escape as Chesimard, so I assume that she did not change it legally - at least not until she reached Cuba? Article should clarify ambiguity.
https://books.google.com/books?id=QPUVBAAAQBAJ This book was published in 2015 (after the article was raised to FA) but got good reviews in NYTimes, Chicago Tribune, etc and should be included as a source (compared to the many pro-Shakur ones)
One of the biggest questions of the article: did the jury convict AS of personally firing the shots that killed Shakur or was she deemed jointly responsible because she was in a car with other BLA members with guns? This is really something the article should answer. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
OK, the nyt noted that the jury convicted her of taking the cop's pistol, so maybe they convicted her of shooting him? on the other hand the police claimed she shot zayd, but the article says that conviction was thrown out when the supreme court of NJ narrowed the application of the law, so it looks like the jury DIDNT say she personally shot Zayd. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I feel that I have cleared up most of the remaining problems; the article could do with some more trimming of extraneous details per WP:NOTNEWS. The major reamining problem is sourcing:

  • 7 times: Riley, Lisa (March 26, 2008). "Assata Shakur". The Langston University Gazette.
  • 4 times Churchill and Vander Wall, 2002
  • Paul Wolf's word doc on COINTELPRO
  • 14 times Kirsta, Alix (May 29, 1999), "A black and white case – Investigation – Joanne Chesimard". The Times.
  • 6 times Williams, Evelyn A. (June 25, 2005). "Statement of Facts in the New Jersey trial of Assata Shakur". The Talking Drum Collective.

Riley is not an RS, just an undergraduate newspaper from a disreputable university. Churchill was fired by Colorado for acadmic misconduct, so a better source needed. I have read Kirsta's article, she doesn't seem to have reread the trial transcript or anything, mostly just parrots AS's supporters claims uncritically. Deserves some weight but citing 14 times is over the top. Wolf is not RS. Williams is AS's aunt and lawyer. Should not be used for statements in wikipedia's voice.

The overall problem with this article is the problem mentioned by Burrough - most of the stuff on AS is either skimpy press clippings from the 1970s or nonRS advocacy from AS's supporters who recycle the same claims endlessly. Unfortunately Burrough's book does not rectify this in his brief mentions of AS. Trying to write a FA on AS with the lack of good sourcing is an uphill battle. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get some additional opinions on the status of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Delist. The problems with POV sourcing outlined above are far too great for retention as FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Keep Listed In my view the potential issues are not to great that you could not fix them quite easily, and since POV is always subjective, I don't think we should rush to delist. We are looking at some content that is poorly sourced, because the authors to said sources are in some way or other considered unreliable by NPalgan2. We should at least attempt to either replace the sources or remove the content. POV content can be removed from an article without impacting its overall quality and by extension, not delisting it. Dysklyver 23:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

If you think it can be done "quite easily", perhaps give it a try? NPalgan2 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
@NPalgan2: I can see you've been editing the article since you listed the problems above. Do you feel you're making significant headway and have enough enthusiasm to keep going? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
The article is much better now. Some of the sourcing still needs to be improved, the other main issue is that, according to FA criteria, the article is supposed to be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places", but, as I said, the sources available do not answer some basic, important questions. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes. I can see that the Days of Rage book has quite a bit about her in it (even material such as her family's nickname for her, among other things). So just to clarify, when you say "sources available" you mean sources already used by the article and not sources available overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Actually, having given the article a readthrough and thought it over, I think that it's now of (or near) FA level. I've removed Riley as a source. Wolf is cited for one fact, Vander Wall and Churchill is cited for tangential uncontroversial points (so probably it doesn't matter that Churchill was later dismissed for academic fabrication). Williams (AS's lawyer and a SPS) is cited for a few points but probably a R2ndaryS has the same info or the points could be dropped. However, the article has changed a lot since I started editing it, and it's not the same article that was promoted in 2008. It should probably be checked again. My interest has waned in this article, but I could be somewhat involved in the process. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I think the best thing is if a couple of impartial people look it over for prose and balance then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review&oldid=815705672"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_review
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia:Featured article review"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA