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

Casablanca (film)

Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Film

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)

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)

Briarcliff Manor, New York

Notified: M

The main editor has an admitted COI, self-mitigated by "Citing yourself", placing the burden of proof on the reviewer. Two issues here; the afore mentioned COI, which I am uncomfortable with prima facie.

Second, many of the sources presented here do not seem to pass the RS test; Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Caltone Color Graphics Inc, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch, American FactFinder, etc. Ceoil (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

You did not meet the requisite attempt to resolve this on the article talk page. Your first paragraph lacks clear wording and explanations and thus I can't decode it. As for sources, see the article talk. This discussion should happen there per WP:FAR, until disputes completely fail to be resolved. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I gave you two weeks in a charitable view (current FAC), two months in a less charitable view (last FAC), on a remarkably similar, Briarcliff related, topic. I have been stonewalled especially in the last two weeks, with an utter lack of concern for sources on your behalf, which you have defend via mis-characterisation and beligerance. That tells me three things:

  • (1) You don't have a leg to stand here on substance
  • (2) Your earlier nominations need further examination
  • (3) Your attitude is not helpful to the FAC process Ceoil (talk) 05:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I had a significant amount of patience for you as well, which eventually drained out. I feel like many of your recent complaints are griefing, and I don't understand how you think multiple reviewers supporting an FA could possibly warrant a significant look or overhaul. And your attitudes haven't been helpful to these processes either. Once you or others seriously present problems with my sources, I can address specific questions, complaints, or issues. But generally listing a number of sources and saying "Why should I trust this?" doesn't help. Please present specific issues. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:14, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Please answear the basic questions rather than deflect via personalised tangents. This is about criteria and standards. My specific issues are clear enough, in almost bullet format. Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Caltone Color Graphics Inc, Village of Briarcliff Manor, Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch, American FactFinder. Ceoil (talk) 05:53, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll state again, I can address specific questions, complaints, or issues. But generally listing a number of sources and saying "Why should I trust this?" doesn't help. Please present specific issues. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Fine, whatever. As per your current FAC.

What makes these reliable sources

  • Briarcliff Manor Centennial Committee
  • Village of Briarcliff Manor
  • Caltone Color Graphics Inc
  • Village of Briarcliff Manor
  • Pleasantville-Briarcliff Manor Patch
  • American FactFinder.
I hope this third time (on this page) is clear enough for your particular brain. Now please, address. Ceoil (talk) 06:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that you don't understand, or want to ignore even the basics of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. Also you are citing your own lack of diligence in the past[1][2] in an article that barely scraped through, as reason why we should all just forget Verification now. That's concentric; I don't believe for a second that you are not behind many of these sources. Ceoil (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
As an additional point; the Briarcliff articles are puffed up with triviality that no one but a local paper writer could give a damn about; opening times, parking rights, civil servant numbers on a Wednesday, anti-virus update schedules, etc...nonsense that has been fought tooth and nail over here. Many vastly better local history articles are out there; and typically the weakest editors always cry 'but that other rubbish page got through, so why cant I'. This is about both that "because", and because you cant go off and write factoids in a 12 page local rag and then use it for an FAC, all shucks. Ceoil (talk) 10:42, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Ignoring all of your baseless personal attacks that largely make no sense, you should know that WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Within the context that I use any source, I find the sources to be appropriate. That is why, for a third time, DON'T just bullet which sources you aren't sure you can trust. You have to be smart about your issues with this. Read about the first basic things about FactFinder and you'd feel silly putting it up there. Read which sources I use to support which information and you'll better understand. Read the prior FACs, where people question some of those sources and I already gave them sufficient answers. I'm not wasting time doing all that explaining over again, especially if you don't give me serious questions about an individual source and why it should or shouldn't be used over another source in that particular context. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, the onus is on you. But its out of our hands now. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Citation needed. If you have actual concerns to be serious with this FA Review, you'd pose specific relevant questions here. I'm under no obligation, and it would be far more difficult to generally answer when you could just give specific inquiries, if you have any. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Here is your citation [3]. Does that make sense? Ceoil (talk) 21:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Nominator is also the undisclosed author of a significant number of the sources. Ceoil (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
  • There is a trainwreck of personal interactions gone wrong here that I do not understand, but I don't think there is any evidence at all that Ɱ wrote the cited sources. Ɱ has a passionate interest in local history, clearly, as most of us are passionate on something or other, and it's true passion sometimes misguides article writers, but it's also clear Ɱ's interest in these types of articles is genuine, not a COI. Maybe both parties should consider giving a break to the remarkably rapid-fire edits and replies of today, and give it some breathing space before returning to the topic.--Pharos (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello, I am a member of Wikimedia New York City. WMNYC is not an organization with any authority, but as a community group, sometimes the organization does try to mediate tense situations. I have messaged both Ceoil and Ɱ. Both users agreed to a voluntary interaction ban, which means that each of these two users should halt their conversation. I will talk to both users and help resolve the situation. If for whatever reason anyone wishes to have another mediator, then I can help find one at WMNYC or elsewhere on wiki.
This discussion has included criticism of the article, which is good, and personal questioning about conflict of interest, which is also good. As a mediator I cannot sort all of these things, but I can say that the Briarcliff Library among others in Westchester county has hosted regional Wikimedia events. COI is a complicated issue, but in the traditional understanding of the concept as a financial relationship, there is no COI in this case. No organization in the area pays Ɱ or anyone else to do wiki, nor is any organization publishing content from Ɱ or anyone else for citing to Wikipedia.
I think that Ceoil is justified in questioning whether sources are reliable, as this is part of the review process. Talking through the questioned sources would be helpful. For example, one of the cited sources is a book published by "Caltone Color Graphics Inc", which by its name seems like a vanity publisher. Acknowledging anything unorthodox about the listed sources would be a good way to invite other reviewers to advance the conversation. ::In the FAR process it is customary to try to address all issues which anyone raises. Even through the tension I still would like to see every concern addressed. In the end I would like for for other reviewers to see Ceoil's questions matched with answers that make sense and leave other disagreements aside. If anyone wants to talk to me about either posting questions or answers in a friendly way, then post to my talk page or email me, but otherwise please M and Ceoil pause on communicating directly to each other. Thanks. M, can you take the next step and talk through sources which you recognize as lower quality? Perhaps post this on the article's talk page outside the context of this review, and for anyone who might check the talk page at any time in the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Wait, am I missing something here? Did the nominator create this FAR on the 8th, then add on the FARC section themselves the following day? That's, uh... not how this works. Pinging @WP:FAR coordinators: . --PresN 14:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ceoil: I've removed the header and your delist declaration for now - we usually give much more than a day before moving to declarations. For this first stage let's focus on actionable comments relative to the FA criteria, on all sides. Note in particular that reliability of sourcing is a valid thing to be evaluated, but personal attitudes are not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok Nikki. I have given a commitment to disengage, which is really for the best (thank you Blue Rasberry for stepping in, and I agree with, or accept, everything you said above); this all got personalised real fast, on both sides, and will go with whatever is decided here for this article, provided there is diligence, and adequate response. Ceoil (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi just letting people know I have been away, and have been mostly away from computers, which will likely continue to be until the 24th. I'll be able to give a complete response then. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Per Bluerasberry's thoughts, please see Talk:Briarcliff Manor, New York#Sources for answers about the contested sources. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 01:27, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Frank Zappa

Notified: Frank Zappa

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believe it subverts several points in the criteria for featured articles (and because an attempt to address these issues was swiftly reverted)

  • Inappropriate structure Similar articles like Paul McCartney and Brian Wilson follow a logical structure which applies a division between "Biographical" and "Analytical" content. The bulk of the first sections ("Biographical") focuses on specific biographical detail, going from childhood to major career developments. The next sections ("Analytical") elaborate on the subject's personal beliefs, music style, legacy, etc. which are more general and apply to the subject's output, philosophy, and historical standing, not really the events of the subject's life.
Not only does Frank Zappa clutter these two aspects together in a very unfocused "oh by the way" fashion, it does so in spite of two already-existing "Personal views" and "Musical style" sections. Here are several excerpts that should be moved out to those sections:
  • (Religious views)

    Zappa recalled his parents being "pretty religious" and trying to make him go to Catholic school despite his resentment. He felt disgust towards organized religion (Christianity in particular) because he believed that it promoted ignorance and anti-intellectualism.

  • (Musical ethos)

    Zappa grew up influenced by avant-garde composers such as Varèse, Igor Stravinsky, and Anton Webern; 1950's blues artists Guitar Slim, Johnny Guitar Watson, and B.B. King;[22] R&B and doo-wop groups (particularly local pachuco groups); and modern jazz. His own heterogeneous ethnic background, and the diverse social and cultural mix in and around greater Los Angeles, were crucial in the formation of Zappa as a practitioner of underground music and of his later distrustful and openly critical attitude towards "mainstream" social, political and musical movements. He frequently lampooned musical fads like psychedelia, rock opera and disco. Television also exerted a strong influence, as demonstrated by quotations from show themes and advertising jingles found in his later works. ... Examples are "Plastic People" and "Brown Shoes Don't Make It", which contained lyrics critical of the hypocrisy and conformity of American society, but also of the counterculture of the 1960s. ... Nasal imagery and references appear in his music and lyrics, as well as in the collage album covers created by his long-time collaborator Cal Schenkel. ... [he] later acknowledged two of his music teachers on the sleeve of the 1966 album Freak Out! ...

Among reliable sources, there is so much detail regarding the themes, motifs, and idiosyncrasies of Zappa's work and philosophy that it would not be out of the question to have a separate article devoted to it, a la Musicianship of Brian Wilson. Although I'm not sure such action has to be taken, it should definitely be considered somewhere down the line.
  • Inconsistent citations Article has a mixture of {{cite book}}, {{sfn}} and manual harv cites, which I believe should all be converted to {{sfn}}, per its superior functionality.
  • Improperly placed non-free media Too many arbitrary sound clips with unclear significance.
  • Length of section headers The way it assigns yearly periods within yearly periods is overkill. "1973–75: Top 10 album" should be simplified to "Top 10 album", or better yet, "Apostrophe (')", the name of that top 10 album.

Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:32, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@DVdm, Ilovetopaint, Herostratus, Mrmoustache14, Friginator, Doc2234, A13ean, BenStein69, Kingflurkel, and The Gnome: Pinging members of the WikiProject and active users of the article's talk page. The FAR coordinators would appreciate more opinions on whether the article meets the featured article criteria. It would be useful for users to either declare "Move to FARC" if the article does not meet the criteria in their opinion or "Close without FARC" if it does, with a brief comment explaining their declaration. Many thanks, DrKay (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Kalidas (film)

Notified: Ssven2

I am nominating this featured article for review because even though it passed FAC, two of the books used extensively in the article (those by G. Dhananjayan) were later revealed to be mirror publications (although the Kalidas chapter in them did not copy from us). Still I chose to play safe by removing the two books, resulting in the article being largely reworked, and now it will need to go through a FAR to check whether it is still FA worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Comment

I have been through the last version with the tainted sources, and it seems that all the information that was being referenced using the books has either been reworked or has been furnished with newer and more reliable sources. I have been through every word of the Madras Musings source that has been (majorly) used to replace the old sources, and can say with complete assurance that it substantiates every piece of information that it needs to. Will go through the entire article as a whole again, but this is impressive work so far. It's not an easy job to look up sources for an Indian multi-lingual lost film, but Kailash here does remarkably well and I commend him for that. NumerounovedantTalk 20:11, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Close without FARC -- I've been going though the sourcing since the last one hour. Given the film's period and availability, i find this article remarkable even now. Despite the removal of Dhananjayan's books, the article still is comprehensive and focused. I reiterate that my decision is purely unbiased and is to the best of my knowledge. I add that i don't have any issues with the nominators which could influence me to take this decision. ** Pavan Jandhyala ** 14:48, 8 April 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.

Western Front (World War I)

Notified: WikiProject Military history; nominator and main editor retired

WP:URFA nom

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)

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)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review&oldid=777080607"
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