Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 "Publish changes".
  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 "Publish changes".
  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 "Publish changes".
  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 XTools), 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

Elaine Paige

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

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)

  • 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)

Werner Mölders

Notified: K.e.coffman, MisterBee1966, Nigel Ish, LargelyRecyclable, Ian Rose, Cinderella157, Kierzek, Anotherclown, Bishonen, Assayer, Doug Weller, AustralianRupert, Creuzbourg, Sturmvogel 66, Iazyges, Parsecboy, Lineagegeek, TomStar81, Peacemaker67, Jayen466, Jake Wartenberg, WikiProject Military history, WikiProject European history, WikiProject Aviation, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Biography

This article was promoted in 2009 and has not been under formal review since then. In 2017, a major content dispute (1c, stability) arose regarding the level of detail (4, length) and quality of sourcing (1c, well-researched, and possibly 1d, neutral). Some editors, particularly K.e.coffman, were concerned that the article relied too much on questionable far-right and fringe militaria sources. A dispute also arose as to whether the word "Luftwaffe" should be italicized (potentially 1a). Recently, the article was restored to the pre-2017 status quo by MisterBee1966, adding more than 20,000 bytes to the article (to give an idea of the magnitude of the content dispute). There is an ongoing ArbCom case including several of the editors involved in the content dispute, with Arbcom members expressing support for overall bans or topic bans for some of the editors.

This case was brought to my attention by Nigel Ish, who described the content dispute as "severe and irreconsilable" (sic), and supported the article's delisting. For these reasons, I think that the article should be scrutinized to see if it meets 2018 FA criteria, and if not, if it can be brought up to meet that criteria. Catrìona (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I note that my name has been mentioned above, in that I originally raised concerns about the stability of the article owing to the ongoing removal and replacement of material. I will make no comments on the case owing to the ongoing Arbcom proceedings and the resultant litigious atmosphere where Arbcom have clearly interfered in a content dispute, which has resulted in a situation where further comment or editing on some topics is not safe.Nigel Ish (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments I have some suggestions for where sources could be re-checked, or the article further improved:

  • " He the first fighter pilot to amass 100 aerial victories in World War II" - given the over-claiming which was common (and unavoidable) in World War II, this isn't credible as it presents all of his claims as proven. He was the first to have claimed this, but it's almost certain that he wouldn't have actually destroyed all 100 aircraft he claimed. What do post-war assessments say?
  • There were fairly strict rules for confirming claims, requiring witnesses etc, and he had another ten unconfirmed claims. A quick Google Books search indicates that Spick (2011) [1] and Kaplan (2007) [2] also credit him with being the first to 100. I don't think this is particularly exceptional. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks, that helps. The wording here (and elsewhere in the article) could be improved though: it says that he "claimed" kills, which is different to them being "confirmed". From memory, discussions at WT:MILHIST and similar have generally concluded that we should focus on confirmed numbers, and present them as such (e.g., to minimise use of the term and concept "claimed"). Nick-D (talk) 11:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I think one of the issues is that pilots would make a claim after returning, but confirmation in a pilot's logbook might not happen until later, perhaps from ground troops or a shot down wingman. I think it is ok to list them as claims in the narrative then clarify the total number of confirmed victories in the dedicated table. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Why did Mölders continue to focus on flying combat sorties after being appointed to what looks to have been a key command role in 1941? (at a time when the German invasion of the USSR was failing). How do historians interpret this?: it would seem that he effectively ignored his duties. From memory, some historians note that the Luftwaffe's poor performance in the second half of the war was partly due to the lackadaisical attitude of some of the combat commanders who were appointed to command and coordination roles: many preferred to fly combat sorties when they should have been doing staff work.
  • "He was a devoutly religious individual who demanded that all Allied aviators captured by those under his command be treated civilly, and often would invite captured pilots to dine with him" - did his units actually capture many airmen? (it seems hard to see how they would have). Also, did this courtesy extend to Soviet pilots?
  • "the British intelligence agency dropped flyers over Germany " - the British had several intelligence agencies by this time, so this should be made more specific
  • This is the same faked letter mentioned in the next two paragraphs, and I have combined them. Could you please read over it to see if it flows properly? Kges1901 (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
  • "As of 24 June 2005, it is the central attraction at the Navy Museum in Wilhelmshaven" - this should be updated
  • The para starting with "Evidence also demonstrates Mölders' propensity to value friendships over political expediency." needs to be re-worked. It goes into detail about Mölders assisting a Jewish family, but then concludes by stating that the MGFA regards the story as unlikely: this undercuts both the claim made in the first sentence, and the account which is the para's focus.
  • Regarding the Jewish/Mischlinge story, I personally think that it should be reduced to much shorter statement such as, "Mölders' brother claimed that he had helped a friend from school, who had some Jewish ancestry, but the MGFA ruled this assertion "highly speculative," and did not investigate further." Intermarried Jews were protected from deportation, as were German Mishlinge, some of whom even served in the Wehrmacht.[3] "Families with an Aryan husband and baptized children were part of the category classified as “privileged mixed marriages”: they received better rations and the Jewish wife did not have to wear the yellow Star of David."[4]—Mölders had nothing to do with that. Only towards the end of the war were they targeted for deportation, but then only to the less hellish camps such as Theresienstadt or to labor battalions, and the chances of survival were much better.[5] Catrìona (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that Catrìona: I agree. The mechanisms of the Holocaust for German Jews could be surprisingly bureaucratic, with Jews in certain circumstances having a degree of protection due to various regulations. The intermarriage regulations were among the most important. War veterans also had a degree of protection: both factors acted to save Victor Klemperer's life, for instance. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Commemoration and reversal of honours" section would benefit from placing the removal of honours in the context of the much broader re-evaluation of Germany's wartime history which has taken place since the 1980s. Most modern Germans are not keen to honour heroes of the Nazi war effort, and the modern German military has also been at pains to distance itself from them. As such, Mölders and the people associated with the Condor Legion have not been singled out: this has formed part of a broad effort (from what I've seen in visits to Germany, only military personnel who have unequivocal links with the resistance and weren't involved in war crimes are officially honoured).
  • More broadly, the discussion of Mölders' attitudes towards the Nazi Government is difficult to follow, and uses weasel words at times. It seems that he wasn't enthusiastic about the Nazis and passively resisted the worst of the Government's actions, but didn't outright resist them (a very common approach among Germans, not least due to the brutal methods the regime used against those who explicitly opposed it). The article at times seems to be trying to inflate the extent of his resistance, despite noting that the MGFA takes a fairly dim view of the topic. It would be better to call a spade a spade.
  • The article needlessly includes the German language names for things such as medals which translate directly into English: this doesn't seem helpful for readers. Nick-D (talk) 02:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
    • G'day Nick, I've trimmed some of that. Feel free to trim some more as necessary. I think the ranks and unit names need to stay in German, as that is generally how they appear in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
    • By the way, in regards to concerns about intricate detail or similar, I'd suggest comparing this article to FAs on Allied fighter aces. These also go into detail on the men and their personality. Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Which fighter ace bios? For WWII Allied FAs, I've only found Caesar Hull, Peter Jeffrey, and Dick Cresswell. There are also some WWI fighter ace FAs (Richard Williams, Thomas Baker, George Jones) and a WWII bomber pilot (William Brill). All of these, with the possible exception of Hull, have very little about their personal lives and focus on their careers and notability. The fighter pilot politicians (John McCain, Ian Smith) don't make a good comparison because their personality/personal life is more relevant to their politics than their military careers. Pat Pattle is a GA and says almost nothing about his personality, despite some details being sourcible to QS material relating to him. Johnnie Johnson, also a GA, has considerable information on his background but I would argue that's not comparable because it influenced his military career by not allowing him to join the RAF earlier.
I think it's important to distinguish between personal details of Allied fighter pilots, and those offered for Mölders. What the sources are trying to argue, and the article ends up insinuating, is that Mölders was ideologically opposed to the same regime that he was fighting for—a pattern in German WWII bios as many people want to be able to admire these people without connecting them to National Socialism or the crimes of the Nazi regime. Extraordinary claims deserve extraordinary proof and extra scrutiny. Catrìona (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As an extra comment, I just read through the 'In propaganda' section, and it's a bit confusing: the narrative of how the leaflet was developed is unclear. It also carries the implication that Nazis couldn't be Catholics (or vice-versa?), which was far from the case. Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing

Given this has been raised as an issue, I thought I'd start a section to discuss the sourcing.

There are several issues that have been raised on the talk page and they form the justification for the article tagging. These seem to me to be of three types. The first issue is the claim that some of the sources are weak and/or dated, in particular Obermaier & Held (1996), but also Obermaier (1989, but apparently it is actually older). The second is an issue of a possibly questionable source, Prien (1997) with issues raised about the publisher. The third issue is the lack of use of the biography (what is the title?) by Kurt Bratz (2008) and a few articles on the reversal of honours, in other words a failure to use more recent scholarship, albeit most of it is in German and may not be accessible to many editors on en WP. Anything else? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks (I was searching on the wrong spelling of the surname), according to Worldcat, there are no copies of this book in Australian libraries, so I won't be able to help with this one. Perhaps the next step is to look at reviews of the book to see what is highlighted as being unique to this book? That might help to narrow down a request for a chapter or two on WP:RX. There are some reviews listed on the talk page, so I'll request them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Weak and/or dated sources

I think this depends on what is being sourced from them. If we are talking about exceptional claims about something like Mölders' alleged anti-Nazism, then these are probably not suitable, particularly if they are contradicted by recent scholarship. However, if they are being used for mundane matters of what type of aircraft Mölders shot down on a particular day, that is another matter, and I don't see a problem. The latter type of material is not likely to be updated by recent scholarship. On the other hand, if recent scholarship has uncovered information about Mölders that had not previously come to light, then recent scholarship should be preferred over older works on those matters. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Questionable source

This revolves around the fact that Prien is published by Schiffer, and a claim that Schiffer is questionable because they "have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest". It isn't clear to me that a case has been made that Schiffer meets this criteria. Sure, they publish "popular history", but what evidence is there that they have published factually incorrect material or have no meaningful editorial oversight, for example? Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Schiffer has always struck me as a mixed bag. Some of the works they publish are very good (including some re-prints of excellent works initially published elsewhere), while others are very bad. My impression is that the firm doesn't exercise strong editorial oversight, though it's not at the bottom of the heap: there appear to be at least some editors and other publishing professionals involved, though I suspect that fact-checking is not rigorous (for instance, its books are professionally typeset, illustrated and printed which is uncommon for essentially self-published works). Where books have been initially published by a more rigorous publisher and/or the author has a good track record as a historian this doesn't matter. A useful check for works which don't meet these criteria is to see if reputable historians have referenced them. Nick-D (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I was actually thinking of Stackpole! I'm less familiar with Schiffer. Nick-D (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I have a Schiffer book about one of the Muslim SS divisions. It is thoroughly footnoted, has a good bibliography, is professionally typeset and illustrated and has no typos or grammatical problems I can recall. It won an award from Rutger's University, and also covers not only the military aspects, but also the political and social basis of the division, as well as war crimes. But specifically regarding Prien, here are reviews of two of his volumes published in Air Power History [6]. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I should have added that Schiffer's website says they have a dedicated group of military history editors, and Prien is published by other publishing houses, Struve-Druck and Rogge Verlag. On the basis of that, the two reviews, and the lack of any evidence that Schiffer has "a poor reputation for checking the facts, lacks meaningful editorial oversight, or has an apparent conflict of interest", I consider that Prien isn't questionable and is a reliable source for the material it is being used for. This material only relates to the naming of JG 53, an accident he had, his receipt of the Iron Cross Second Class, and the formation of III./JG 53, none of which requires an exceptional source. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Recent scholarship

Articles should always be updated to include the most recent scholarship, and this article should be no exception. An issue for this review may be the accessibility of such sources, if they are in German. My German isn't great and is focussed on land warfare technical terminology rather than aviation stuff, but I can try. Assistance is likely to be needed from Assayer and others with German language skills, and access to the sources may be difficult as well for those whose library access is mainly English-speaking. I certainly can try to get access to the articles via WP:RX and can ask for help if I find I'm out of my depth with the German. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

For a start, I've requested the article by Klaus Schmider, "German Military Tradition and the Expert Opinion on Werner Mölders: Opening a Dialogue among Scholars", which appears from the abstract to be quite critical of the work of the MGFA in providing the rationale for the de-naming of Jagdgeschwader (Fighter Wing) 74 Mölders. Here is the abstract.[7] Once I've secured a copy I'll start adding material from it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:58, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
Just an update: I've also requested Bernd Lemke, "Moral Micrology vs. Subsumption: A methodical perspective on the "Mölders Case"," in: Global War Studies, Vol. 7 (2010), Nr. 1, pp. 123-134 for balance. Once I've received these two I will seek to add to/modify the "Commemoration and reversal of honours" section, which appears to be the most critical section needing updated scholarship. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Other
  • If I may, the photo under the "Eastern front" subsection is a portrait of Mölders with the caption "Oberst Werner Mölders - 101 official victories in World War II". This seems hagiographic and, as it stands, out of place. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Rudolf Vrba

Notified: SlimVirgin, Jewish history, Judaism, Germany, Slovakia, Hungary, European history, Biography

This article was promoted in 2006, when the standards were not applied as rigorously as they are now, and has never been under review. I am nominating this article for FAR because I believe that it does not meet several of the FA criteria:

  • 1b (comprehensive): missing Vrba’s role in warning Fredy Hirsch about the impending liquidation of much of the Theresienstadt family camp (cs; de; it) on 8 March 1944, and the subsequent warning included in the Vrba-Wetzler report about the probable fate of the rest of the family camp, which sparked diplomatic protests from the Czechoslovak government-in-exile. Also missing Vrba’s role in the historiography of the 1942 deportations from Slovakia (not well covered on Wikipedia, but see Bratislava Working Group—he accused the Slovak Jewish leaders of not warning Jews)
  • 1c (well-researched): much of the article is sourced to primary sources, even where secondary sources for the information exist. Large sections of the article are sourced to Vrba's memoirs, his CV, and an autobiographical account by George Klein.
  • 1d (neutral): the article gives a misleading impression of the deportations from Hungary in 1944 and the potential for Hungarian Jews to avoid deportation, by highlighting an unrepresentative anecdote (Klein) in excessive detail. Sometimes inaccurate statements are not contrasted with the actual figures; according to the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum and most historians, about 75% of deported Hungarian Jews were gassed on arrival at Auschwitz, not 90% as stated in the article.
  • 2c (citations): a few citations are not in the appropriate format or are missing page numbers. Page ranges for some citations are too long for optimal verifiablility. Some page ranges on this article are as wide as 10 pages or more, while I have seen comments on recent FACs that suggest that page ranges should be kept to two pages for FAs.
  • 4 (length): some irrelevant details are included; most of these sourced to Vrba or other primary sources.

For more detail, see the list I made on the talk page. I first raised these issues on the talk page about two weeks ago, but so far have only attracted the attention of the main contributor of the article, SlimVirgin, who has disagreed with some of the fixes that I tried to implement. I hope that nominating it here will draw in uninvolved editors who can help address these issues. Catrìona (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@WP:FAR coordinators: Recommend that this be moved to FARC because it has been two weeks and no improvements have been made. Thanks! Catrìona (talk) 13:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

We need more eyes on this - I am pinging those who commented at the FAC - @Jayjg, Briangotts, SandyGeorgia, MPerel, Jfdwolff, Outriggr, Tony1, Ambuj.Saxena, and Humus sapiens: - to see if we can get some more opinions on weighting, and issues raised above. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

It's a pity, but I don't think this can escape being demoted, if no one's willing to fix it. (Is there a wikiproject that could be pinged?) Just random samples: "at this stage it is only an introduction to a system that will be more fully explained in Section 4." ... no ref. "George Klein fled rather than board a train after reading the Vrba–Wetzler report." ... ambiguous caption. Tony (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
@Tony1: Thanks for looking at the article. I already pinged the relevant wikiprojects as listed above. Catrìona (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep. Beyond my previous quick scan through, I've now had time to read the article properly. I think it's excellent. If there's fixing to do, it's minor; did it really need to be brought to this forum? Tony (talk) 09:01, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
As I said in my comments, it's frankly not comprehensive. I guess some of the other points I made are arguable, but it's clear that the article is missing important information. Did you read through the detailed comments that I left on the talk page? Catrìona (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Keep. I agree with Tony. There are a couple of unreferenced paragraphs, but in my completely unexpert view overall it is well up to FA standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Scene7

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

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)

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)
  •  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)
  • 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)
    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)

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.

Antioxidant

Notified: WT:MCB and WT:PHARM

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it objectively fails WP:FACR criteria 1b (comprehensiveness), 2a (lead section), and 2c (consistent citations).

  • Issues with 1b: There's poor coverage of synthetic antioxidants in the article's Antioxidant#Drug candidates section, which lacks context. Notable plant-derived antioxidants are completely missing from this page (e.g., Quercetin, among many others in this topic's navbox {{Antioxidants}} and which are mentioned in general-purpose reviews like PMID 20716905). Mention of a class of dietary antioxidants (polyphenols) is, however, scattered throughout the article. There is a "Further information" link to articles about dietary antioxidants (Antioxidant effect of polyphenols and natural phenols and List of antioxidants in food) under Antioxidant#Levels in food, but this is a very brief section which contains no information on plant-derived antioxidants. Some antioxidant biomolecules are entirely omitted (e.g., melatonin). Thus, the article does not currently comply with criterion 1b because these are highly notable subtopics within the scope of "antioxidants" that are not covered or even alluded to (e.g., via passing mention) in the article.
    • By far the most significant omission in this article is the lack of coverage of the transcription factor Nrf2, the master regulator of cellular antioxidant responses.[1][2]
  • Issues with 2a: The lead is very short for an article this size and inadequately summarizes several parts of the body. As an example, the 4th paragraph is a 1-sentence long summary of an entire level 2 section.
  • Issues with 2c: The citation formatting is inconsistent. This is the least significant problem with the FA criteria and is easily fixed. I mention it only because it needs to be fixed along with the 2 other issues above.

I attempted to address some of these issues on the article's talk page at Talk:Antioxidant, but was met with opposition. That said, at least one other editor (Jytdog) has indicated that they think this article no longer meets the criteria. In order to start resolving the issues this article has with the criteria, the lead needs to be rewritten to adequately summarize and be consistent with the body, the body needs to be significantly expanded (including the creation of an entirely new level 2 section) to include the subtopics mentioned above (plant-based and synthetic antioxidants) that are missing but well within this article's scope, and the citation formatting needs to be fixed. Seppi333 (Insert ) 22:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Re 2c: I fixed the date formats in this edit; however, in the current revision (Special:Permalink/849739302), page formatting is inconsistent in the journal refs (some are truncated like 123–6, some list the full page range like 123–126), some of the web references are missing publication/update dates which are listed on the cited webpage (e.g., ref numbers: 2 and 189), and some (e.g., ref number 2) are missing publishers. Seppi333 (Insert ) 02:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Aguilar TA, Navarro BC, Pérez JA (December 2016). "Endogenous Antioxidants: A Review of their Role in Oxidative Stress". A Master Regulator of Oxidative Stress - The Transcription Factor Nrf2. InTechOpen. doi:10.5772/62743. ISBN 9789535128380. Retrieved 15 July 2018. 
  2. ^ Vomund S, Schäfer A, Parnham MJ, Brüne B, von Knethen A (December 2017). "Nrf2, the Master Regulator of Anti-Oxidative Responses". International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 18 (12). doi:10.3390/ijms18122772. PMC 5751370Freely accessible. PMID 29261130. 

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include coverage and citation formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Levels in food section is not up to FA quality. Vague statements about cooked versus raw, then dismisses ORAC (correctly) as flawed because it is an in vitro assessment, but goes on to name and reference other in vitro methods. I have refrained from working on the article because of COI (consultant to dietary supplement companies that market products with antioxidant claims), but in my opinion this article no longer qualifies as FA, given progress in the science literature. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. Confusing and self-contradictory. The lead says supplements of beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E have no effect on mortality rate or cancer risk, while the Adverse effects section describes studies showing an increased mortality and increase in lung-cancer rates. DrKay (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

AC/DC

Notified: WikiProject Rock Music, WikiProject Heavy Metal

Review section

This article was promoted through FAC in 2007, and was FAR'd in the same year but kept. Looking at it now, I see lots of reasons to be concerned that this article does not meet FA standards. Its primary author that made it through FAC, User:No-Bullet, has been inactive for quite some time. I am concerned that this article fails WP:WIAFA 1a and 1c: there are several areas where the prose is what I would call unprofessional including short paragraphs and structure issues, as well as plenty of paragraphs that don't end in a citation, a bright red flag to anyone reviewing the article. Red Phoenix talk 16:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

As a gut feeling, if this article was at B-class or lower now, I think it would take a significant amount of work to get it to GA, let alone anything else. The group's history is extensive but line-up changes (until recently) have been few and far between so there is a risk of falling into a pattern of "in 1983 they did this .... in 1985 they did that .... in 1988 they did the other" which gets monotonous after a while. It really needs a subject expert who knows what sources should take priority in the article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include prose and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, I notice there has been some work on this - @Red Phoenix and Ritchie333:, I hope you'll keep an eye on the progress and comment on when it meets or approaches FA criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I will definitely keep an eye on the situation here. I am glad to see there has been some progress in edits in the last week and am hopeful the involved editors can turn this article around. Red Phoenix talk 14:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • After only glancing at the articles, it seems there are a lot of statements without citations (as has been brought up above), and if this can't be fixed, I guess it needs to be demoted. FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced statements include "By the middle of 1974, the band had built up a strong live reputation", "they frequently played at the Hard Rock", "some people thought it was the title track", "Young gained notoriety for mooning", "the band were at the peak of their popularity", "returned...to rebuild their finances", "gained invaluable experience", "this has been challenged more recently". DrKay (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. I just can't see any possible way that this article could meet criteria 1c in any way soon. The first two citations I looked at in the body are links to a copyright violation of a television documentary which has now been removed, so I haven't a clue whether the entire paragraph is factually accurate or relevant. The books in "further reading" are a good start, but they need to be brought in as actual references against the main prose. We've long passed the days when you could put in a vague hand wave to a book source and say "it's all referenced in there, more or less". I've got no issue with the editing that's going on, but I think it's going to need a serious pouring over the book sources before it's going to be even close to GA let alone anything else, as I said above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist for now, although I will still keep my eyes out for changes and will be willing to reverse my !vote if the issues can be fixed. I won't say it's not absolutely going to happen just because I've been that kind of editor myself who can gut and repair an article in a week's time (yes, with a thorough review of sources), but despite the improvements I haven't seen anyone go quite that deep yet into this article, and it's in desperate need of that. If someone picks that up, I'd be happy to reconsider. Red Phoenix talk 12:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
I know from first hand experience you can, Red Phoenix; and I will concur that if an AC/DC expert turns up tomorrow and does a whirlwind blitz through the article in the next week, I'll strike my view to delist as well. I just can't see it happening, though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Film noir

Notified: WP Film

Review section

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Film noir/archive1. 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)

  • Incidentally, a high score at Earwig's Copyvio Detector appears to be due to the listing of same refs etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I did the image review 8 years ago; it's mostly the same, but 3 fair-use music samples have been added. They're all pretty short, but frankly having 3 seems excessive, I'd cut to 1. --PresN 01:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Size also a concern for me. Look at the copyvio tool, the main element driving it up seemed to be film titles. Removed two of the audio files. Article has been heavily edited since promotion, and since the first retirement. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've read through both the promoted version of the article and that which exists today, and I don't see any major red flags in the differences between them. In fact, in some ways today's article is better; the prose has been tightened up in places, and there have been a couple of layout improvements. On the copyvio front, like Ceoil I don't see any issues; the Berkeley page similarities are down to article titles and film titles, while the other high % match appears to have cribbed from our article for a couple of sentences. Of some small concern is the slight bloat in size from the promoted version. Some of this is well-cited, and I'm not bothered so much by kB count (it's very large, but not precedent-setting), but by the occasional insertion of detail that is not cited, appears to not have fresh citation to go along with it (to all intents an purposes looking like it's cited to whichever one was there for the existing material), or has resulted in content where even with a new citation it's now unclear what's referencing what. The current last paragraph of 1980s and 1990s] is a good (bad) example of the latter two issues; without access to the original sources, it will be difficult to wrangle this into shape. I also share some of the concerns that were brought up by several people during the original FAC, most especially by Moni, regarding the structure. These concerns were brushed aside by one or more socks and consensus seemingly reached, but the problem remains. Long story short, the Identifying characteristics section does not work at all where it is now bolted onto the end. This should be tied to Problems of definition somewhere closer to the top to aid those readers unfamiliar with the subject. However, I don't know if this can be done without significant rewrites elsewhere to ensure context is kept. As Moni put it, "Primary components to Film noir appear at the end of the article, following an extensive and interesting discussion of film history. This creates a chasm of prose that gives readers no connection to what they are trying to grasp: film noir is difficult to define; this is its history; these are films considered noir; these are the characteristics of noir. It would be much clearer to arrange the article as: film noir is difficult to define; these are the characteristics of noir; this is its history; these are films considered noir, so readers can understand why films are considered to be within the noir genre." She wasn't the only editor to point out that on such a large subject it would make more sense to to "[start] with the basic and [get] more cognitively complex". What does everyone else think on this point? Steve T • C 23:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Steve, yes and my gut feeling about the socking, born by many years of experience, related and not related, is that Geist was too involved, arrogant and proud of his contributions to have made deliberate mistakes on sourcing. It just doesn't scan. I have already mentioned my concerns on focus and length. Its your area of interest, so if editorializing is needed, you would probably be the man for the job and as such you might go for it. ps, we all miss Moni. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
You may be right about the sourcing; digging through the history, I was set to use this diff as an example of added content to multiple sections with no cite, but it turns out that DCG went back later to add the necessary (e.g.). After another read through, I think this needs less of a rescue job than did Tenebrae. To begin with, I'm going to put each section through a better diff checker than Wikipedia's, see where we might have problems with uncited or unwanted additions. That might take some time, but after that I'll have a better idea of whether we need to alter the structure and if we do, what might need to be rewritten to accommodate that. Steve T • C 21:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I read through this today and I agree with previous comments that the article organization is not ideal. It seems that Steve has not been active since April so I don't know where this leaves us. I believe DCG was a breed of FA writer who didn't want to compromise their vision for anyone, and used socks to help ram it through. It's a good article but not as good as it could be. --Laser brain (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I haven't been able to work on this recently; work commitments have left me with very little free time these last 6 weeks. As far as the quality of the article stands, I've been through every section diff-by-diff, and have removed those unwanted and uncited additions that have crept in over the years, along with some other minor clean-up. However, this is still fundamentally the same article that passed the original FAC. It is a good article, and doesn't exactly bring shame to the gold star, but the organisational problems still exist and whichever way I imagine it, no natural structure presents itself. I had a mind to bring Identifying Characteristics to after the Background section, but that doesn't quite work either, owing to the section's reliance on examples that span several decades, which I think would then sit oddly with the strictly chronological nature of the subsequent sections. What do you think? Steve T • C 19:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get more input on organization and related issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Default keep. I'm not enthusiastic but the only problem identified is that the source review was inadequate (as it was done by the puppet). Most of the sources are offline, so unless someone can demonstrate that the sources do not support the article content, there is no reason to delist. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
  • @Laser brain: what or how would you reorganize? Is it within stylistic bounds or is it really suboptimal? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
@Casliber: At this point I think it's subjective. If no one has the bandwidth to propose an alternate organization, I wouldn't hold up the FAR on my comment. --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Elvis Presley

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

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)

  • (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)
  • 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)
Right, so that means you think it still meets or nearly meets FA criteria? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
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)


  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)

FARC section

Moving to get a better sense of current status for this article. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
  • Delist. Tagged for attribution since March 2018. DrKay (talk) 10:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • (second) Media review. One fair use image replaced[8]. One image nominated for discussion[9]. No obvious problems found with the other files. DrKay (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sound film

Notified: WT Film, no active significant contributors

Review section

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its previous FAR. 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)

  • Note: this is a 2006 promotion, with scant support-- should receive a full review. It was reviewed in 2010, but that review was also influenced by socking. I see no image review. I did not promote this FA, and will be participating in the review, particular concerns about WP:SIZE and lack of WP:SUMMARY. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Size is not bothersome-- I don't see anything that would be better summarized to a separate article.

  • Since 1934, with the sole exception of 1952, India has been among the top three movie-producing countries in the world every single year.
    • Robertson (2001), pp. 16–17; "Analysis of the UIS International Survey on Feature Film Statistics" (PDF). UNESCO Institute for Statistics. May 5, 2009. Retrieved December 13, 2009. 

Source is dead link. Info is dated (a 2001 source). Prose. How about,

  • Between 1934 and 2001, with the exception of 1952, India was among the top three movie-producing countries in the world.

In fact, that sentence does not seem to be about sound film at all, but without access to the source, hard to know.

Several dead links, that might be found in archive.org, but it is not cooperating for me today, so I tagged them.

There is only one section (Early steps) in the History section, so why does it need a heading?

Hard to know which source applies to which person (verification requires sorting through three books):

  • While the introduction of sound led to a boom in the motion picture industry, it had an adverse effect on the employability of a host of Hollywood actors of the time. Suddenly those without stage experience were regarded as suspect by the studios; as suggested above, those whose heavy accents or otherwise discordant voices had previously been concealed were particularly at risk. The career of major silent star Norma Talmadge effectively came to an end in this way. The celebrated German actor Emil Jannings returned to Europe. Moviegoers found John Gilbert's voice an awkward match with his swashbuckling persona, and his star also faded.
    • REF: Crafton (1997), pp. 480, 498, 501–9; Thomson (1998), pp. 732–33, 285–87; Wlaschin (1979), pp. 34, 22, 20.

But because the page numbers aren't in order (???), one can guess that 32, 22 and 20 refers to Talmadge, Jannings and Gilbert?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concerned sourcing, although review of other criteria is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. No-one working on it. Comments in the review section are not addressed. DrKay (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2018 (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)
this one should be ok with some light copy editing and a few cites. Will report back before year end. Ceoil (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Any update on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Delayed but not forgotten. Will give update in 1 week. Thanks for patience. Ceoil (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Ping? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:38, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Delist if changes are not made. 2nd para of the lead is overwrought given the article length. Plus, there are 1a issues right off the bat:

"The 1815 eruption was the largest volcanic eruption in recorded history"
"After a large magma chamber inside the mountain filled over the course of several decades"
Food crops "failing" is awkward
"Heavy volcanic ash falls were observed as far away as" > "Heavy volcanic ash fell as far away as" - this suggested change might be subjective as I'm not a geologist, but it seems to retain its meaning.
"1816 became known as..." kinda flabby. How about "1816 is called...." or thereabouts.
Lots of mentions of "the 1815 eruption" - you can probably axe the date from most. It's assumed by the reader.

Hopefully the article is given a facelift per above. —Deckiller (t-c-l) 16:30, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Delist. Verifiability: unsourced statements tagged since September 2017. Prose, structure and comprehensiveness: stubby paragraphs and a single sentence section. DrKay (talk) 08:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I personally wonder if we should roll the article back to the 2006 version as a first step; it is more comprehensive and has no stubby paragraphs. Of course some uncited statements, broken citations and disambiguations would need fixing, but that can be done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Rollback to featured version - seems that this is mainly a case of someone compromising the featured status of the article. Kirbanzo (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Rolled back to featured version and fixed the most obvious problems. Next step is to fix the uncited material, after that updating, and then someone with better FA criteria 1x skills needs to check over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    Fixed part of the uncited material. I note that the article paraphrases https://web.archive.org/web/20071024202358/http://www.vsi.esdm.go.id/volcanoes/tambora/geology.html and https://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=264040 rather closely at times; anyone willing to rewrite these parts? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
    Got almost all issues with sourcing fixed, save for A volcanic eruption as large as the Tambora 1815 eruption would cause a catastrophic devastation with more fatalities. Therefore volcanic activity in Indonesia is continuously monitored, including that of Mount Tambora which I can't find a source for. Help? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ceoil, Deckiller, DrKay, and Kirbanzo: Can you give an update given the rollback? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
    Postscriptum: I've looked for updates but it doesn't seem like there was a lot of new research and information between now and 2006 on the volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The rollback was the right thing to do. I am keep now on this. Great work from Jo-Jo Eumerus. Ceoil (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Delist unless and until the many prose issues are sorted out, needs a lot more than "light copyediting". Eric Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

"Two nearest cities are Dompu and Bima" Does that mean that Dompu and Bima are two of several nearest cities, or is there a missing "The" at the beginning of the sentence?
Added "The" Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"The end of this route is the southern part of the caldera ...reachable by means of a hiking track." This sentence purports to be describing the first of two routes, so where does the hiking track fit in?
Based on the source, after the paved road ends, one has to continue on a hiking track to reach the caldera. I don't know how to word that. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"The existence of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57 ka BP." That's very unidiomatic. Better would be something like "Tambora is estimated to have been created in about 57 ka BP", or even "... to have come into existence ..." at a push.
"... Using radiocarbon dating technique ..."
Fixed to "Radiocarbon dating has established..." Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
"... at depths between 1.5–4.5 km ..." Should be something like "at depths between 1.5 and 4.5 km" or "at depths of 1.5–4.5 km".
Fixed Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Have you looked at the rest of the article as well? Eric Corbett 15:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The staccato style of short sentences does not flow very well, hardly "engaging". Corbett 11:33, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Eric is raising general problems with the article, and using specif, non exhaustive, examples to illustrate. He tends to be right about these things. To summaries, and as a list to work through, these are,
  • Lack of clarity in some areas leading to ambiguity
  • Staccato writing style - short sentences and over puncation
  • General MOS issues (which I see are largely fixed since he posted) Ceoil (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Would like to see this cited - "Since 1972, a commercial logging company operated in the area, posing a threat to the rain forest." Ceoil (talk) 16:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Checked against source used as reference, it seems to hold up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks; will duplicate the ref after the statement.
    1816 was the second-coldest year in the northern hemisphere since 1400, after 1601 (following the 1600 Huaynaputina eruption in Peru).[4] - Cant parse this. Ceoil (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    It says that 1816 was the year with the second-coldest northern hemisphere temperatures after 1400. With the coldest year being 1601, the year after the Huaynaputina eruption. I don't know how to reword this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    I dont either, so have cut mention of 1601 altogether, and this was rather garbled and confusing. I don't think the current version lacks impact. Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Aand I just noticed that the article does not mention the 1257 Samalas eruption. Argh. Added it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    Txs, reworded this a bit. Is it ok in the monitoring sect to make the statement "There has been no significant increase in seismic activity since the 1880 eruption" read that the recient findings indicate that...can be directly attributed to the Directorate of Volcanology and Geological Hazard Mitigation. Atm, its unclear and part of of a series of run on sentences that may be seen as non sequiturs. Ceoil (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think it is since there have been episodes of increased earthquake and steaming activity. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this article is mis-titled; its hardly a geographic survey of Mount Tambora per say, I notice deficiencies in coverage of e.g. its bird (weakly covered) and animal (not at all) population not to mind human habitation, or its general history, political governance, and so forth. And there is very little on theories of its early tectonic formation. Would "Volcanic activity of Mount Tambora" be better. Ceoil (talk) 22:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Otherwise have c/e'd, mostly trying to remove ambiguity and improving flow. Ceoil (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
See, to me it looks like there is enough coverage of that material (a paragraph mainly dedicated to birds, for example). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist per Sisyphus, who knows mountains. Outriggr (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC) Comment. A lot of work has been done in the last month by a number of us. I think the article is close to a Keep, but like Ceoil I wonder about its comprehensiveness (though not to the extent that he does--e.g. "political governance"...). To that end I have left a question at Wikiproject Geology. The sentence with "caused by exsolution a high pressure magma fluid" is missing a preposition, presumably, but Id' prefer someone with more geo knowledge fix that. Outriggr (talk) 03:25, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    Im fine now on prose, I think we have collectively worked through each of the issues raised by Eric in a clam and sedated manner, though I recognise no good deed goes unturned, and our heads could be kicked in at any moment by gremlins from north or south. However I dont so much share your concerns about breath of sources, hard ass as I am; Jo-Jo is grandfathering this re sources, has been impressive when taken to task, and I am inclined to take with good faith. I know this is double voting and said this before, but am keep also, per Ouriggr. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  • delist For such a major topic the content is very small. I would expect at least double the amount of content. A lot of work to look that information up and write about it is needed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
    The reason why the "content is very small" is because most of it is supposed to be on 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora. The volcano itself is not well known outside of the 1815 eruption. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
This has stalled after Graeme's comment, but Jo-Jo Eumerus gives sound reasoning, and would like to reiterate my Keep vote. Ceoil (talk) 14:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Delist

  • There are still a number of statements which are unreferenced.
  • The lead refers twice to the 1815 eruption as if it has already been mentioned before describing it.
  • "archaeologists discovered the remains of a civilization destroyed and buried by the 1815 eruption. Known as the "Pompeii of the East"" This is grotesque exaggeration in the lead. The main text describes the excavation of one ordinary local house which seems to have been compared with Pompeii by the lead excavator purely because is was deeply buried and then described as a lost civilisation by the press.
  • The lead is an awkward mix of referenced and unreferenced statements.
  • "Tambora is located 340 kilometres (210 mi) north of the Java Trench system and as the neighbouring volcanoes Mount Rinjani on Lombok and Sangeang Api on Sumbawa, situated 150 to 190 kilometres (93 to 118 mi) above the active north-dipping Benioff zone." This is ungrammatical. "as" what?
  • "The convergence rate is 7.8 centimetres (3.1 in) per year." What is the convergence rate? (Presumably the speed at which the Australia plate is moving towards the Asia plate but this should be explained.)
  • "The formation of Tambora is estimated to have begun around 57,000 years before present (BP),[4] while a 2012 study reports an argon age of 43 ka for the first pre-caldera lava flows.[14] The formation of Tambora drained a large magma chamber pre-existing under the mountain." I do not understand this. I do not have access to the source, but it appears to say that 57,000 years ago an upwelling of magma increased the height of the mountain. So how is this the formation of Tambora rather than one episode in its history? Also BP and ka are mixed in one sentence.
  • I have not continued reviewing beyond here as it seems clear to me that the article is well below FA standard. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright - I closed this but neglected to see that (finally) some work is going into it. I'll leave it open for a bit. @Tisquesusa: can you please alert reviewers when you're ready for folks to take a look? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Outriggr: I have to clarify the scale - what I meant was (in reply to this) is that for many many FARs...nothing much happens. I have been very happy that stuff has happened here overall. Apologies if it didn't come over that way. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:13, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delist. I think Dudley's comments are fair, and they've not been addressed. DrKay (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review&oldid=855789393"
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