Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2016

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:52, 30 November 2016 [1].

Fast inverse square root

[edit]
Nominator(s): — Esquivalience (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article focuses on the fast inverse square root, an algorithm that estimates the reciprocal of the square root of a rational number, used to scale vectors to unit length. Although on the short side at 1,800 words, this article nonetheless gives complete coverage of the algorithm and gives useful context, while maintaining excellent prose and with good images. Note that this is a drive-by nomination, although I'm willing to resolve all concerns raised. — Esquivalience (talk) 01:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've glanced at parts of the article and I'm spotting issues as early as the second sentence. Here's a couple of problems:
The algorithm was probably developed at Silicon Graphics in the early 1990s — I don't think it's a good idea to open the article with a statement that shows clear uncertainty and only provide one citation.
Silicon Graphics is mentioned twice in the lead, however nowhere else in the article. 3dfx Interactive is also mentioned in the lead and nowhere else. The lead should introduce and summarise the article's contents, but here it contains information that is not found elsewhere.
The article mentions Quake III on multiple occasions, but never explains what Quake III even is. At the very least the reader should be told that Quake III is a computer game that makes use of 3D graphics so they better understand why fast inverse square root was implemented in it.
Who are John Carmack, Terje Mathisen, Gary Tarolli and the other people name dropped in the article? The article assumes that the reader knows them all, their professions and significance to the article topic. It's never even made clear that Carmack worked on Quake III which I assume is the link between him and fast inverse square root.
The explanation of a normalized vector in the Motivation section is bad. Why isn't defined as being the vector before stating the Euclidean norm of it?
-- The1337gamer (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice article. I have corrected the problems with the references and links. I note that the other points raised above have been addressed. Newton-Raphson is a tool we often reach for when we need a function approximated, as we learn about it in high school. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intro needs to explain how does the algorithm work, perhaps with a simple example. Nergaal (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It says that it is an implementation of Newton's method. A worked example is in the article, but too long for the lead. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked at this a few times both before and after the nom and see a number of issues. I won't be able to go in depth, but hopefully can shine some light. First, we need an in-depth check of the math, especially since it occupies most of the article. Second, there are many paragraphs without any sourcing at all... Third, perhaps the biggest issue, is the lack of a "legacy" section or something that deals with the cultural impact. My understanding, particularly with the FPS genre, was that this calculation led to graphics breakthroughs—but if it did, or if I wanted to know its impact on the genre, there's nothing on it. Fourth, and perhaps most pertinent for FA, is that the article is filled with jargon. This is somewhat to be expected due to the niche material, but we are still a generalist encyclopedia and this article still shows its roots (and the roots of early Wikipedia) in that it focuses more on the calculation's math than its surrounding history. If written for a general audience as an encyclopedia article (with "brilliant prose"), I would expect a more generous tone tailored for an audience with a New York Times reading level, and much more weight on the analysis and cultural impact of the calculation than included as present. czar 21:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The math is really basic, and should be comprehensible to anyone with a high school education. Since Newton-Raphson is on the high school syllabus! Which is why people tend to reach for it when they have a problem, and this is a good example of how that is done. As far as I can tell, the article is fully referenced by the standards of a mathematical article, my understanding being that calculations do not require referencing; so can we be more specific about what additional referencing we want, so that it can be added? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Calculus is not required as part of a high school math education. Source work in FAC has always been on the nom, unless someone is reporting that there is no analysis of the cultural impact of the calculation czar 16:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your point about the cultural impact (if any) is taken. But I am not willing to accept that mathematical articles are barred from FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to accept that mathematical articles are barred from FAC.

Yeah, didn't imply anything even close to that czar 19:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think Czar's critique is right on the money. I'd love to see more math and computer science FAs, and I'll be happy to help copyedit and proofread them. In part because we almost never see math FAs on the Main Page these days, I'd be embarrassed to see this one, and I don't want our readers to get the wrong idea. We can do better; we often do better. - Dank (push to talk) 20:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment -- I've seen no edits to the article or this nom by the nominator for well over a month, so will be archiving shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2016 (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 nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2016 [2].

Charles Kanaʻina

[edit]
Nominator(s): Mark Miller (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a central figure of the old Kingdom of Hawaii, father of King William Charles Lunalilo and husband of Kaahumanu III. Charles Kanaʻina was a part of the Kamehameha Dynasty and the nobility of Hawaii, once owning much of the Iolani Palace grounds, where his son was born. He left a legacy as one of the largest landowners in Hawaii. His probate documents have added greatly to Hawaiian genealogy with the personal genealogies of much of the surviving royal family, submitted by the families themselves.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the petition
I have the larger digital image. It requires stitching together but can be reproduced in a larger scale.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done--Mark Miller (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Working on this. Had to find the original file.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kanaina_(PP-97-12-002).jpg: if the photographer is unknown, how do you know they died over 100 years ago?
We know it was not James J. Williamson as the image predates his buying of the Dickson's Photography studio that was responsible for portraits of the royal family. Menzies Dickson died in 1891 and is attributed to this and the following image photographed when Lunalilo became king in 1873; File:Lunalilo (PP-98-15-018).jpg.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To demonstrate that it was the Dickson's studio, here are the full images from this photography session;File:Kanaina (PP-97-12-001).jpg and an image known to be photographed by Menzies Dickson of Princes Lydia Domimis;File:Liliuokalani, photograph by Menzies Dickson (PP-98-10-013).jpg. They are seated in the same chair. Historically we know these images were taken in his studio. That much is well documented. Here is an image of that entire chair in front of Queen Emma; File:Queen Emma of Hawaii, photograph by Menzies Dickson (PPWD-15-2-036).jpg.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just double checked US copyright and I believe (could be wrong) that the copyright for the image is the life of the author plus 70 years. If it is 100 years this image is still in public domain as this author died 125 years ago. The other photographer of the royal family died 90 years ago.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Attribution made to Menzies Dickson and a US PD tag added.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kaahumanu_with_servant.jpg: what is the lithographer's date of death?
Louis Choris died in 1828. This was printed in Voyage Pittoresque Autour du Monde, Paris in 1822.
 Done Added publishing date and source (no convenience link at the moment) and double checked to make sure author birth and death date was present as artist.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Prince_Lunalilo_(PP-98-15-015).jpg: source link is broken, needs US PD tag
 Done Someone else had done both on October 6, 2016.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Hartwell petition is part of The Kingdom of Hawaii government documents because the case was heard before the Kingdom Supreme Court and this is actually the court decision to agree to the petititon form from the Court used to make the petition request. While it is a probate case, it was a public case at the time and all documentation was available and reprinted in newspapers and in "Reports of Decisions made by the Kingdom of Hawaii Supreme Court". The actual image of the Courts decision on the petition request was first published, to my knowledge, when the digital collection first went online but is in the public domain as part of US State and Federal government documents. The text of the image (probably badly titled) was first published the same year the document was made: 1877, in both English and Hawaiian language newspapers. I will take a look at the Commons page to update the lack of a convenience link but the true source is the Hawaii State Archives (ironically once the Kana'ina Building now moved to the Kekāuluohi building, on land the couple owned).--Mark Miller (talk) 03:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I have checked about every route to cover bases and it seems that Hartwell died over the 70 years required for non-published works for his handwriting, if such copyright was accurate, but he was working for the Crown which is apart of the government so that point might be moot anyway. The documents age, ownership by the US government today by recognized copyright law as well as other factors makes this public domain today.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are excellent concerns that do require attention. Thank you User:Nikkimaria. While I have replied to some of these concerns, it is 10:30pm my time (California) and late. I will take action on the images by tomorrow evening,if not sooner.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Break

[edit]

Notes from image review appear to be accomplished.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:51, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

I have User:Ucucha/HarvErrors script on my .js It shows me errors that editors without that script don't see. The first thing that jumped out at me were

  • Ref 20 (Judd 1975) says "Harv error: link from #CITEREFJudd1975 doesn't point to any citation."
  • Ref 30 (Sheldon 1877) says "Harv error: link from #CITEREFSheldon1877 doesn't point to any citation."
  • Freycinet, Kelly, Louis Claude Desaulses de, Marion (1978) says "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFFreycinet.2C_Kelly1978"
  • Sheldon, H.L. (1897) says "Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFSheldon1897."

Thought you might like to know. If you don't see those error messages, you can if you put the HarvErrors script on your .js Haven't look at the entire article, or any other sourcing at the moment. — Maile (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added. See them now. I will look at this.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done fixed.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie

[edit]

Oppose. I think there are too many issues with the prose for promotion at the moment. Below is a list of some issues; in addition I thiink the prose is a little wooden throughout. I'll finish the review and revisit once these points are addressed -- I stopped reviewing at the "Lunalilo Trust" section.

 Done
  • "She was also Married to Kamehameha II": any reason for the capital M?
 Done Corrected.
  • "in a sacred neighborhood in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii": given that the geographical context is clearly Hawaii, I'd say you certainly don't need "Hawaii" here, and I'd suggest cutting Oahu too, and linking Honolulu instead.
 Done
  • "The compound would eventually become the official Royal Residence of the Hawaiian Royal Family when Kekūanāoa would build Hale Aliʻi in the center of the families estates as a gift to his daughter Victoria Kamāmalu. The site would become the Iolani Palace and Palace Walk." Tenses are a bit tortured here, and I think technically inaccurate; to my ear it should be "when Kekūanāoa built Hale Aliʻi". I'm not clear what the second sentence means; the compound is the site? So the Iolani Palace and Palace Walk are the Royal Residence? If so, how about "The compound would eventually become the the Iolani Palace (the official Royal Residence of the Hawaiian Royal Family) and Palace Walk when Kekūanāoa built Hale Aliʻi in the center of the families estates as a gift to his daughter Victoria Kamāmalu"?
 Done Yes, exactly. I don't know why that was'nt edited in that manner to begin with.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "living there from Kamehameha II up to Kalakaua": why give this in reigns rather than dates? To someone unfamiliar with the history this isn't very informative.
 Done I changed it to; "living there through five monarchs, from the 1820s to 1877". I feel the number of rulers to come and go while he lived there has EV. Hope that works.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Having died intestate, probate hearings proceeded for 5 years": needs rephrasing; the probate hearings didn't die intestate.
 Done That now reads;

"Having not re-written his will, which left everything to his son who had predeceased, Kanaʻina died intestate. Probate hearings proceeded for 5 years. On final adjudication his property was auctioned with the proceeds going to several of Kanaʻina's cousins including Ruth Keelikōlani and Bernice Pauahi Bishop."

--Mark Miller (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Final adjudication went to several of Kanaʻina's cousins": suggest "On final adjudication his property went to several of Kanaʻina's cousins" assuming that's what is meant.
 Done See above.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The third of five children to [Eia] Ka-makakaualii (father)": not sure what the bracketed "[Eia]" is telling us.
 Done That is how the source had the name. We can easily lose the brackets.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence is a bit awkward because of the need to put "father" and "mother" in parentheses as the names are not familiar enough to most eyes for the gender to be obvious. How about recasting as: "Charles Kanaʻina Eia was born about May 4, 1798 at Napoʻopoʻo, Hawaiʻi. Kanaʻina was the third of five children: his father, [Eia] Ka-makakaualii, was the son of Makakaualii II and Kapalaoa, and his mother, Kauwā Palila, was a daughter of Moana Wahine and Palila Nohomualani. Eia and Kauwā's other four children were named Naʻea, Iʻahuʻula, Kahele and Kaikumoku."?
 Done--Mark Miller (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the lineage section takes us quite a long way back. Do we really need this in a biographical article about him? Perhaps just mention any particularly famous ancestors, and the line through which the descent comes.
Lunalilo was the last Kamehameha monarch and is much like being a direct descendant of the Plantagenet line in England. Let me see if this can be edited for brevity in the manner you suggest.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In Hawaiian history, particularly with the aliʻi, genealogy is extremely important and you will see it mentioned in this particular manner in almost every source due to the manner in which these figures actually fought over genealogy issues that is historically documented and became something of a long standing issue. I think this requires context similar to how it is done at the article for Liliuokalani. let me see if I can copy edit this better.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggesting glossing heiau inline.
  • "In July 1844 Kekūanāoa began building a large home here as a gift to his daughter Victoria Kamāmalu. Instead, Kamehameha III would buy the estate and use as his Royal Residence after moving the capitol of the kingdom to Honolulu. It would become the Iolani Palace." Suggest "large home there" rather than "here". Also, why "Instead"? Did "Kekūanāoa" fail to complete building the home? If so, I'd make that clearer.
  • 'he was granted the style (manner of address) of "His Highness"': I'd make this "the title of" and link title to style (manner of address).
  • "He was considered the grandnephew of Kamehameha I, and second cousin to King Kamehameha V, King Kamehameha IV, and Princess Victoria Kamāmalu, through his mother, Kekāuluohi, who was the cousin of Elizabeth Kīnaʻu (later called Kaʻahumanu II)." Why do we need all this genealogical information? Can we just say "He was Kamehameha' I's grandnephew, and was declared eligible to succeed ..."?
Context issue again and also needs expansion. Genealogy is an important part of Hawaiian culture. Because of this, the very question of Lunalilo's fitness to rule was brought into question by other family members (Kamehameha IV and his brother Kamehameha V, who disliked Lunalilo) and a part of it was whether of not he was directly descended from Kamehameha I. He was but the information on this page was just added and needs further mention. Lunalilo publically stated that he was not a grandson of Kamehameha (he was a 3x great grandson) but the grandnephew. The issue relates to Kanaina in several ways as his paternal line leads to Kamehameha and his maternal line leads to Kamehameha's brother but she was also a wife of that monarch. Also Lunalilo had his mothers remains removed from the Royal Tomb and moved and deposited at sea, then wrote his will to have a crypt built for himself and his father over the disrespect he felt he and his mother had recieved. Here is where I think the article needs a bit of an expansion. I also have some great shots of the Lunalo Crypt where he and Kanaina are buried, new photos from this past summer in high resolution.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sent to the Chief's Children's School (later called the Royal School) when it was founded": can we include the year?
  • "When Kanaʻina died, the court appointed nine trustees, six of which would take part in the militia that overthrew the monarchy and also take part in the new provisional government." There's no mention before this in the article of a military overthrow of the monarchy; more context is needed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark, it looks like you've edited the article since the above comments were posted but could you respond to them here so we all know where we're at? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the extensive notes. I will respond shortly.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just reading through the notes I see can see you are an immense help to the article, whether it makes FA or not. Many of the issues your raise are things I have begun to see. Thanks for giving me a bullet list to work from.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! If this doesn't pass, or if you're too busy to work on it at the moment, I'd be happy to work with you on the talk page after FAC if you like. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck the points you've addressed; leave a note here when you're ready for me to look at the other points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll continue on.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment

[edit]

I don't doubt this can make FA at some stage but as it's been open almost two months and there's still clearly quite some way to go, I'm going to archive and ask that the improvements continue outside the FAC process. After that (or two weeks from now, whichever is longer) you can renominate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2016 (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 nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2016 [3].

Thomas Bailey Marquis

[edit]
Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 11:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an ethnographer and historian of the American Plains Indians who provided valuable and unrepeatable first-hand account material of the period. Largely ignored in his own time, and for half a century afterwards, the value of Marquis' writings were eventually recognised by historians. He did what no one else at the time was doing, recording events as told by the Native Americans themselves. SpinningSpark 11:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Thomas_B._Marquis.png: suggest instead using {{non-free biog-pic}}, and should explicitly identify the copyright holder
  • Same with File:Marquis_1916.png, but I'm not sure we can justify both
  • File:Cheyenne_Indian_Man.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Wooden_Leg_1913.jpg
  • File:Thomas_Leforge_with_Thomas_Marquis_from_Memoirs.jpg is tagged as lacking author info, includes both a fair-use rationale and a PD tag, and is missing date of first publication
  • File:James_Willard_Schultz_and_Lone_Wolf_(Hart_Merriam_Schultz)_in_1884.jpg: who held copyright on the original image? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marquis images
@Nikkimaria: On the images from The Cheyennes of Montana there are no credits in the book for the photographs. Should I assume that copyright is owned by the book publishers, or that the copyright owner is unknown? I have given an explicit rationale for using the second image of Marquis ("because it shows the subject of this article as a young man in a section describing his early years.") Why is that not a sufficient reason? The rest of the images were not uploaded by me and I will have to research the issues. SpinningSpark 18:19, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a general copyright notice in the book? With regards to the fair-use issue: yes, I had seen that, but I don't agree it's a strong enough rationale to outweigh the 3a issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the bit that says don't use multiple non-free images "if one item can convey equivalent significant information". Come on, I doubt that you could have identified the two images as even being the same person if you had not read the article. Much of Marquis' notability stems from his activities as a young man, thus an image of him in his youth is appropriate. It's not as if I put in a baby picture. SpinningSpark 20:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If his notability mostly stems from his activity as a young man, then use that image in the lead to identify him. I simply don't see particular value in having both. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to leave a drive-by comment about the use of multiple non-free images, so I'm glad to see that the issue has already been raised. The fact that the subject looks fairly different in both photos is really not a good reason to use two, unless his appearance is significant in some way (I could understand it for a model, say, or certain actors). To put it another way, NFCC#8 matters in addition to NFCC#3. To be frank, I'm not at all sure about the use of non-free images at all, given that we have (what is claimed to be) a free image of the article subject further down the article. While this may not be the best image for identification purposes, we have to be ready and willing to compromise in favour of free content. Given the dates, I would imagine that there is free content to be found. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wooden Leg
I don't know when the image was first published but I don't think that is relevant. It is the work of the Bureau of American Ethnology and therefore public domain because it is the work of a Federal Government employee in pursuance of his duties rather than PD because of age. See here SpinningSpark 23:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Marquis and Leforge
Memoirs of a White Crow Indian, from which the image was taken, was first published in 1928 (and we only know for certain that the photo was in the 1974 edition) so on the face of it, the PD claim is dubious. SpinningSpark 23:50, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, I would like to withdraw the nomination. SpinningSpark 23:50, 19 November 2016 (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 nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2016 [4].

Game of Thrones

[edit]
Nominator(s): AffeL (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the hugely popular HBO show Game of Thrones. The article has passed for Good Article(that I nominated) not so long ago and have also had a Peer Review not long after that. At the time of the Peer review the article was copy edited by an admin when I nominated it for Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors. I believe that this article deserve the Feature statues as it is very well written. AffeL (talk) 21:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Way too much detail, poor sourcing and a lack of readability.

  • Lead: third paragraph is mainly an orgy of award names. Really, the focus should be on what makes the show unique and great—what's skipped over ever so briefly in the first two sentences of that paragraph.
  • There is no plot synopsis of the show!
  • The Background section is weirdly inadequate; combined with the lack of a plot synopsis this article seems to offer no way for somebody who's never seen the show to figure out what it's about.
  • Cast and characters begins, "Game of Thrones has an ensemble cast estimated as the largest on television", and then seems to individually name a large number of said cast and the characters they play. The result is an unreadable sea-of-blue links.
  • Many of the fifteen Production subsections are short and stubby, featuring little more information than names of the crew and the awards they won. Chief culprits are the likes of Make up, which names a couple of people, but lacks any information whatsoever about the actual make-up work on the show!
  • This above point is basically true of the article as a whole—way too many details (names of cast, crew and awards, of viewership statistics and aggregated critics' ratings) but very little description and analysis.
  • Awards and nominations: another sea of blue, this one featuring the word outstanding 30 times.
  • Sources: not a single book has been referred, not even obvious ones. I also think scholarly works that analyse the GRRM books should be checked; they might have a chapter or two on the HBO series. On the other hand, references to quasi-tabloids like Entertainment Weekly and The Hollywood Reporter abound (in their dozens).
  • Reference formatting: when you include archived links in the ref, there's no need of the retrieved date. Having three dates in every ref is overwrought and silly, and makes the References section look unnecessarily bloated.

This is what this article looked like just before the nominator made their first edit to it. Like any other article of similar popularity, it's a hodgepodge; information had just been tacked on by many, many driveby editors. The problem is, the article is basically still the same as that version. Bringing an article to FAC means a dedicated editor (or group of editors) rewrites the article from the top down keeping in mind coherence, readability, and comprehensiveness, while using the best scholarly sources available. Until that is done here, this article doesn't belong at FAC.—indopug (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments from Jim

[edit]

I wouldn't normally review an article on this topic since I have no expertise in this area and don't even watch the series, but I'm commenting because you've asked me to. I appreciate the effort needed to bring an article here, and I can see you have made considerable strides towards improvement. I'm not going to oppose, but I share some of indopug's concerns about listiness and the lack of high quality sources. There are also glaring infelicities like an article title in block capitals. For now, I'm going to see what you have to say to the previous reviewer before I go through in detail. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note: There appears to be considerable work to be done on this article before it is ready for FAC, so I am archiving the nomination. @AffeL: I suggest taking a look at our mentoring program at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC before renomination so you have a smoother experience with this process. --Laser brain (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2016 (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_candidates/Archived_nominations/November_2016&oldid=752387978"