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

Mount Tambora

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

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)

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)

West Bengal

Notified: Dwaipayanc, Noticeboard for India-related topics

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)

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.


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)

@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)

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 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. 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)

Firefly (TV series)

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

Review section

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)

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)

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. -- (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

FARC section

Comments in the review section mostly concerned sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I have no access to any of these sources. Does anyone have a recommended way of seeking Wikipedians who might? The relevant Wikiprojects all seem inactive. Jclemens (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)

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

Casablanca (film)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film

Review section

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)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include structure, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017*** (UTC)
  • Keep. FARC section open for nearly two months with no substantive delist comments. DrKay (talk) 19:56, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
    • What kind of lame bureaucratic rationale is that? I listed, in details, the problems. If nobody refutes my comments, the default should be delist. -Your logic is like saying 'despite one user reporting blatant hoax/vandalism, since nobody else cared to comment, we will keep it'. -Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:48, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Being rude weakens your argument. The unreferenced content was removed or cited. The structure was changed. "Particularly notable" was removed. There is insufficient justification for a delist. DrKay (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
        • I see some of the issues were addressed, through nobody has ever mentioned doing on talk (nor here, obviously). Well, if there will be no other comments, I guess we can put it on backburner for another few years. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:35, 29 July 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)

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)

Western Front (World War I)

Notified: WikiProject Military history; nominator and main editor retired


Review section

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)

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)

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

Ha! I missed that. Why are the footnotes and references mixed together? Keith-264 (talk) 15:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC) Done
I left a note with User talk:Woogie10w about the casualties statistics citations and references.Keith-264 (talk) 09:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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: [1] I probably can't help much more, sorry. Please feel free to adjust as desired. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:16, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
thank you. We are indeed trying to find proper sourcing auntieruth (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. Thank you for the work done so far; still tagged as needing citation. DrKay (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep I think we have the sources to fix referencing, and we'll get someone else to deal with prose. auntieruth (talk) 19:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
  • Delist. It seems basically a good article but the review has been open for nearly six months and there are still far too many 'citations needed's. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
    Looks OK now apart from the external links. The fourth one 'Information and multimedia' I get in in an eastern? alphabet. The last one goes to the publication details - presumably it is supposed to go to a page? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:39, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    G'day, Dudley, I have simply removed the Information and Multimedia link as I couldn't work out what had happened. I have converted the other link to a Further reading entry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Keep. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment. I just asked (one last time) for help at WT:MIL. I'm not sure what we're going to run on 11 November this year and next; this is the only top-level WWI FA we've got. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Dank: G'day, I think I've rectified the remaining "citation needed" tags now. These are my edits: [2]. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks again (and again and again), AR. - Dank (push to talk) 15:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep - article now appears to be appropriately sourced, with all "citation needed" tags addressed. Anotherclown (talk) 05:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Keith-264 and Nick-D: Are you satisfied with the changes made, or are there remaining issues to address? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Please see my comments above. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
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)

Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
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