Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October 2015

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept status

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC) [1].[reply]

The Wiggles

[edit]
Notified: User:ANTONIOROCKS, User:AngusWOOF, User:Mitch Ames

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because this is a 2008 promotion from the Unreviewed Featured Articles list. It was actually my very first FAC, and my inexperience as an editor was apparent. Shortly before it appeared on URFA list, I decided that it needed a major overhaul. To that end, I checked every source for dead links and for utilization, I improved the prose, and updated it (which was needed after two iterations of the group since the article passed to FA). I think that it can easily pass an FAR, but it needs to be checked and like all articles, could always use further feedback. I'm not notifying any projects about this FAR, since none was really involved with its improvement or upkeep through the years. This article has been TFA, but way back in 2008, shortly after it was passed. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the lead for the moment, I'm confused by the tenses used. The group is still active, but the lead says that the early members "continued" to have input. If they still continue to have input, then "continue" should be used. If they no longer have input, then an end date ought to be specified. I have changed some of the past tenses used in the lead to reflect that the group is still active. Are these changes appropriate? For example, do they still perform to a million people a year on average? If not, then the statement needs to be changed back to the past tense and qualified by "at their peak" or a date range or similar. Also, the lead says they had a large dance troupe "in their later years" but if the group is still going, what is meant by later years—recent years or years up to the departure of Page, Cook and Fatt? Thanks, DrKay (talk) 12:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Figureskatingfan: could you please respond to my comments on the lead? Thanks. DrKay (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just started a new job, so things have been a little busy with me. I used the word "continued" because I wanted to keep the tenses consistent. I think that for grammar's sake, it shouldn't be changed, although I could say "continued into 2015". If I do that, though, we'd have to keep updating it every year, which is tenuous. I'm fine with your tense changes; yes, the million people is an average (some years more, most years less), so I'm fine with your changes. I moved the word "later" to earlier in the sentence, and then simply removed "in their later years". I could also replace "later" with "eventually" if you like. Thanks for the feedback. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]

Moving it here so points can be looked at in detail. Looks like there has been some work on it (a good thing!). Main issue raised by DrKay is prose, though one would have to wonder about weighting and whether the current members warrant a bit more of a mention in the lead...or not. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There really isn't that much to mention, since the new members joined so recently. I did, though, add their names as replacements for the original members in the lead's first paragraph. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan: do you feel happy with the article and satisfied that it is within criteria? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Casliber: yes I'm happy with this article's current version and I'm satisfied regarding its criteria. Thanks. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 01:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 8:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC) [2].

Empires: Dawn of the Modern World

[edit]
Notified: Clyde Miller, WikiProject Video games

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of it not being up to snuff in terms of standards for Featured Article. Throughout its page it uses references considered unreliable for video game articles (i.e Armchair Empire). Also the prose should be reworked, with sentences like "Empires‍ '​ multiplayer component, powered by GameSpy, is freely available to any player who has an updated version of the game. Though as of 2007, this game is no longer supported by GameSpy for online play." as its both poor and outdated. Overall not something I should have the bronze star on it in its current state. GamerPro64 22:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time has not been kind to this article. Yep, at the very least the whole thing needs a through scrub and the lede is way too short for FA status. – czar 22:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The lead does not summarize most of the content and the Reception section could probably be reworked. Anarchyte 04:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]

Standing concerns over reliability of sourcing and comprehensiveness. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@GamerPro64: and @Esquivalience: can you please offer an opinion on the improvements? cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys - will ping the others who've commented above and if we have a consensus I'll close it up. ...hey @Czar:, @Anarchyte: and @DrKay:...who do y'all feel about this article now? Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work on the cleanup, though I think the gameplay should be better described in the lede for FA status. (And the gameplay section presumes that the reader knows what real-time strategy genre gameplay entails.) Still nothing I feel strongly enough to hold up the train. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 21:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Thanks. But are you saying that the changes need to be made before the nomination closes, or that they aren't relevant enough to hold up the closure? I assumed the latter, but the nom is still open, so I don't know. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a passing observation that I don't believe the lede/gameplay would hold up at a new FAC discussion, but I don't feel strongly enough to advocate for a delist. czar 02:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 12:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC) [3].[reply]

Eagle Scout (Boy Scouts of America)

[edit]
Gadget850 is retiring; Notified: WikiProject Scouting
WP:URFA nom

Review section

[edit]

Per talk page notification: uncited text, and prose/style issues, including repetitive headings, short sections and too short lead. DrKay (talk) 16:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Concerns raised in the review section focused on referencing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Bfpage |leave a message  15:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article was proposed to be deleted in July. My first response was less than a month ago. I have done some confirmation of the references and done some refining of the prose. I have contacted other editors who have contributed to the article in the past and notified them that the article is under review. It is fairly long and will take more time. The reasons cited for delisting the article are mentioned above and are based upon the comments of Nikkimaria. My concern is that POV issues may arise and that those who 'don't like' the topic may begin to add to the list of issues. The Boy Scouts in general are are controversial group of topics, though the editing history on this article appears to be stable. I would like to leave a message on the talk page of the Project Scouting letting interested project members know that the article is undergoing review. Is that appropriate?
  Bfpage |leave a message  09:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I left a message at the WikiProject in July, but it does no harm to leave another. DrKay (talk) 09:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the editing history there at least two of us who have made 52 edits since the review was initiated. In addition, the guidelines describing the FAR process strongly encourages those nominating the FA article for review to aid in its improvement. This has not happened yet.
  Bfpage |leave a message  09:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, I don't follow. This is the FA review process.....realistically this will be kept open as long as there is active work going on to improve it, which in the past has spanned months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bfpage: I have re-read your post. As FAR delegate I can't really keep/remove candidates if I have edited them heavily, so I won't be doing that. If no-one else is interested in working on it, I will delist it and it can be improved later and renominated at FAC. All the FA star is convey current status. I understand if folks are too busy or not enthused enough. I'll give it a week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination appears to be stalled: the issues I identified in the opening statement remain. DrKay (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber 02:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Motörhead

[edit]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rock music, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metal

Review section

[edit]

This article passed FAC over 7 years ago, with support arguments extending no further than "great job, almost every sentence is referenced" and the principal contributor, Bubba hotep has retired. While that's not in itself a reason to send an article to FAR, it's usually indicative that, unless somebody else with a good knowledge of the band is on hand to caretake things, the article will naturally deteriorate by well meaning but sub-FA quality edits. And that's where we are now. Unfortunately I'm just not enough of an expert on the band and have no good sources to improve it back up to FA level, so the only real option is to send it here and hope somebody else comes foward. Like Rush (band), I'm not holding my breath though. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, comparing today's FA standards to then's, they seem like different universes. I'll read the article these days and correct what I can. I believe Lewismaster would be interested in helping as well.--Retrohead (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article is messy, largely unreferenced, too lenghty for Joe Petagno's art, too short on musical style and influences and I think too bloody detailed on dating every tour and TV appearance. Moreover, many references are off-line and should be accurately verified. It's a long work which should be made for many FA articles (Metallica's article is in a similar shape, for example.) I can do something in my spare time, but I don't have all the books for such a work. Lewismaster (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As Ozzy is a well known fan of Motörhead, maybe Drmies can help? I've started trimming out some recentism (2010 onwards is particularly bad) but it's like Sisyphus pushing his rock up a hill, if I'm honest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. It was on the front page not too long ago, I thought--but "not too long ago" for me could have been in the 1990s. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: it was on the main page in 2009 apparently... not too long ago, then, compared with the age of the universe anyway :)  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—spotchecks not done.

  • Italicization of the names of online publications is inconsistent. Either they all should be italicized or none of them.
  • Italicization of the names of magazine is inconsistent. Either they all should be italicized or none of them.
  • According to Checklinks, there are quite a few problematic links, some of which are dead, while others yield connection errors.
I managed to fix three links, but I can't find the links from Motorhead's website, and can't figure out why and how the author combined all those links in ref 30, all of which are dead.
  • Representation of the names of online publications is largely inconsistent. One example includes the capitalization of "m" in "Allmusic"/"AllMusic" and another is whether we cite the Motorhead website as "imotorhead.com" or "Motorhead official website".
  • Wikilinking of works and publishers is inconsistent. Either link only in first occurrence, never, or always.
  • FN 4 includes a quotation from the source, while other AllMusic references do not. We need consistency.
Done.
  • FN 6 is surely "Ace Records" and not just "Ace".
Done.
  • White Line Fever should be in the bibliography, not in further reading, since it is referenced.
Done.
  • Names of films and albums need to be italicized in the reference titles always.
  • FN 14 is missing information (eg. work or publisher, date of publication) and a period/full stop, and the archive link does not work.
  • FN 15: this needs to be moved to the bibliography with specific citations with page numbers in the footnotes. And is FN 17 citing this book?
  • Some refs are missing information: FN 16 is missing a retrieval date, for example, and FN 81 is missing the work or publisher.
  • Regardless of whether it is a reliable source, Blabbermouth.net is certainly not a high quality reliable source. I have similar reservations about Rock on the Net, Playlouder, Internet Movie Database, Eil.com, Lincolnshire Bombers' news forum, Spinner, Amplified.tv, Classic rock revisited, Ear Candy Magazine, bandcamp.com and Ultimate Guitar Archive.
Wikipedian Penguin, I agree that Blabbermouth is not the best option for FAs, but it is a website whose information is cited by Billboard, Loudwire, Rolling Stone, and others. So far, I haven't noticed a false information on Blabbermouth.
  • FN 68, 74: avoid SHOUTING in references.
Done.
  • FN 80 needs to be more specific, with authors, titles, publishers, page numbers, etc.
Done.
  • FN 84 uses the ISO date format, inconsistent with the other footnotes.
  • Why is all of the Peter Buckley reference in italics?
  • Evidently, there is no single citation format used for the entire article. This is an important aspect of maintaining FA standards.
  • "Motörhead are typically classified as heavy metal, and their fusion of punk rock into the genre helped to pioneer speed metal and thrash metal."—this is (supposedly) already sourced in the body of the article, so it does not need to be sourced in the lead.
Done.
  • Several pieces of information in the biography are uncited, like this one, "On 19 October, having played 10 gigs, they became the supporting act to Blue Öyster Cult at the Hammersmith Odeon," and this, "In 1996, the band began touring the States in early January and played thirty venues up to 15 February; a seven-date tour of Europe in June and July was followed by two engagements in South America during August." The article needs to be thoroughly checked for similar unsourced statements before it can have any hope of passing FAR. Making a comprehensive list would be exhausting.
Partially done.

I don't want to jump the gun, but there may be more to do than can be done within the timeframe of this FAR. Still, let's see what others, including those involved with this article, think. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. I'll be doing the source corrections in the following two weeks. I'll strike the notes I'm done with, if that's ok.--Retrohead (talk) 15:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your taking this on, Retrohead. I would prefer striking them on my own to verify the edits, so if you could reply to my comments instead, that would be terrific. Would you prefer if we moved this to the FAR's talk page to keep the main FAR page tidy? The Wikipedian Penguin 15:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with whatever suits you.--Retrohead (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Retrohead and Wikipedian Penguin: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrohead has done some points, but the refs are still far from meeting FA standards. I'll wait for his input. The Wikipedian Penguin 14:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I give up. There's a great amount of work that needs to be done (not just the references) which requires more knowledge on the topic. I can't say I fully understand the author's modus operandi on the refs. I believe it is better to start writing the article from scratch rather than trying to fix it. It will save me more time and nerves.--Retrohead (talk) 18:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I began to rewrite the Music style section, which is missing much info and full of copyvios. It will take some time to be completed, so I support Retrohead's idea. Lewismaster (talk) 07:33, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going to have to go to a delist vote. Lewismaster If you are sure there are copyvios in the current article, they should be addressed ASAP either by removing them or copyediting so they are no longer close paraphrasing, and that should be done ASAP. Elsewhere, it seems the article sees regular traffic from well meaning but misguided IPs who end up making it worse. :-( Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, besides being decidedly incomplete, more than half of the the section is made of lengthy citations from different sources taken on the web. Some citations are not indicated as such ('Motörhead, Lemmy states, have more in common aesthetically with The Damned than Black Sabbath, and nothing whatsoever in common with Judas Priest') and some others are not referenced ('The NME stated that their brief solos were just long enough "... to open another bottle of beer"). I'm not completely sure if this is just bad writing or an infringement of Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Maybe you could take a look at it. Lewismaster (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So are we doing FARC? I agree that this article needs an overhaul that is beyond the scope of this discussion. The Wikipedian Penguin 23:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Concerns raised in the review section included copyright and sourcing. DrKiernan (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per everything I've said above. I don't like doing this but the original FA review would raise suspicion for a GA review these days, the original editors' work is confusing, we think there might be copyvios but aren't sure, and all the time we're battling against IPs who don't care about the FA criteria. It's a net loss, I'm afraid. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - The article is focused on the band's history going into minutiae and excessive detail, but overlooks and ignore other encyclopedic content like music style, influences and legacy. It appears unbalanced toward band members' opinions against critics and writers. It has a lenghty section about cover art, which should not be here but in the artist Joe Petagno's article or in the articles of each album. Said sections rely heavily on citations from copyrighted material of other websites and lack references. I would not have the article promoted to GA with all these unresolved issues! Lewismaster (talk) 06:49, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist—as supported by the several issues I've enumerated above, in addition to copyright violations and issues with balance in coverage. This article will need a rewrite from top to bottom before it can be reconsidered for FA status. The Wikipedian Penguin 15:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist article should've never passed FAC in the first place.—indopug (talk) 15:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist not well referenced enough, and the "Supporters" section is completely unnecessary Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/October_2015&oldid=687907763"
pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy