Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/November 2020

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 Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 November 2020 [1].

Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women

[edit]
Nominator(s): Edwininlondon (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About a year ago 22 women kicked a ball around on a field in London. This short article describes what happened. I have not been able to find images of the match with the right rights, but what is there now is at least relevant. I'm looking forward to your comments. Edwininlondon (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Oppose by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I think whilst this is a decent article it falls quite short of our criteria for Featured articles. There is some unsourced information, but mostly it is missing much of an overview and background for the match, and is a little casual in prose. There's a few MOS issues, as well as things such as authors for newspapers not being credited.

The article's lede uses some jargon terms like "involements" and "consolation goal", and the rest of the article relies on the information from the lede, rather than cite the information there.

I think this is a bit too much information required to be fixed within a FAC process. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you open to setting a deadline, say Sunday, and then judge progress? In my previous successful FACs I have always been responsive. My last nomination had fundamental issues with sourcing, so I retracted the nomination instantly, but here I believe I can improve the article with your guidance swiftly enough. For this football match I misjudged the amount of background material needed, but surely this is not too hard to fix, with plenty of sources available.
Would you mind pointing out the unsourced info? I fail to see it at the moment. I've added the missing names of authors of newspaper articles, where possible. I've removed jargon from the lead. I shall address MOS:NUM shortly. Under your guidance I believe it can be done, but of course, I shall retract if you disagree.Edwininlondon (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that we require a significant amount more to be written. I'm happy to objectively review a piece which has flaws, in an attempt to get it to FAC quality, but in this case there are paragraphs of work to be added. As Harrias said, you should be able to read the article without including the lede, and it make sense. Then, the info in the lede needs to be directly cited in the body. There's a few bullet pointed items such as rules and "records", which should be written in prose. There's also some MOS:FLAG issues, and the lede image caption need work. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I hereby retract the nomination and will go through peer review first. Thank you for your guidance. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FAC coordinators: nominator has withdrawn, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose by Harrias

[edit]

I concur with Lee Vilenski, the article assumes a lot of knowledge. When I review at FA, I read the body of the article before reading the lead; so in this case, I have started with "Arsenal finished the previous season season as league champions, while Bristol City had finished in sixth place." There is no indication of which league the article is talking about, nor that it is talking about the ladies teams. There is also no time-frame set: when is "the previous season"? The next sentence addresses part of this issue, but it is the wrong way around to present information. There are some MOS:NUM issues regarding comparable numbers ("..one point behind leaders Chelsea and level with Manchester City on 18 points.." should be "one point" and "eighteen points".) The prose in general is a little sub-par for FA, ("..with the home team emerging..", "..played his team in a 3-4-3 formation..", "..both teams were without injured players on their squad and could play to their full strength.". I would recommend withdrawing this and going through a peer review to seek further input and improvements; FAC isn't the venue for that. Harrias (he/him) • talk 17:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a typical article name for a match? I agree that the article should be withdrawn and submitted to WP:PR, where the issues can be worked through will less time pressure. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is for a non-cup final. See Hereford United 2–1 Newcastle United and Sutton United 2–1 Coventry City (1989). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A more similar aeticle would be Southampton F.C. 0–9 Leicester City F.C. due to it being notable for the amount of goals scored. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:25, 23 November 2020 (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) 5 November 2020 [2].

Hemothorax

[edit]
Nominator(s): 4thfile4thrank (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this article for a featured article because it meets all the requirements. It is stable, has solid prose, is totally free of any puffery, and is comprehensive, covering most is not all of what reliable sources contain. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 16:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4thfile4thrank, I think we can probably get this to Featured status eventually, but I suggest that a faster route to the bronze star might be to follow the steps and advice outlined at my essay (targeted at medical articles) at User:SandyGeorgia/Achieving excellence through featured content. Getting a pre-review from other medical editors would have been most helpful (see the work currently underway at Talk:Buruli ulcer as well as the work mentioned in my essay at complete blood count and dementia with Lewy bodies).
Perhaps Axl can let us know if they think we can bring this to FA standard within the course of a FAC, or if withdrawal for more work at article talk would be a faster route. I see numerous citation cleanup needs, as well as MOS issues, but Axl can opine better on the content and comprehensivity. I also see prose issues, and have some sourcing concerns. My suggestion is that working this off-FAC may be a less frustrating experience for all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ajpolino, Spicy, Colin, Graham Beards, and Casliber: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Memdmarti: (our endometriosis expert who should also have a look). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Commenting because I was pinged. I am sick in bed, and hopped up on cold medication, and not in a good position to do a full review, but I can see several issues just on a cursory look at the article. Are emsworld.com, fpnotebook.com, symptoma.com, rn.com MEDRS sources (let alone high-quality MEDRS sources)? StatPearls articles are used pretty heavily, these have been discussed on WT:MED a few times (search the archives) and the general feeling is that they may be ok for basic information but they are not great sources overall. Several sources are from the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s (see WP:MEDDATE); older sources can be ok for uncontroversial info that has not changed much over the years, but the number of old sources here is concerning. There are some instances where citations are missing at the end of paragraphs.
On comprehensiveness - the epidemiology section only provides statistics for the US; I'm sure hemothorax occurs in other countries as well. Is there anything on history? Who was the first to describe hemothorax, how has treatment and diagnosis changed over the years, etc... There are several places in the article where technical terms should be explained or replaced with simpler alternatives (no lay reader is going to know what "fulminant" means)... some other prose issues. This is a good start, but I agree with Sandy that it will need substantial work to reach FA status, which would best be done outside the FAC process. There are plenty of medical editors with FA experience who would be willing to work with you on this. Spicy (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: I don't see any sources showing the info. In rare diseases like thins, not all the info in the world is available. 4thfile4thrank {talk} :? 18:59, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the easily fixed technical matters:
  • The images need considerable cleanup to address MOS:SANDWICH and MOS:CAPTIONS
  • "Additional images" is not a section per WP:LAYOUT ... those should be provided via a commons cat
  • There is not a consistent citation style. Per WP:CITEVAR, the article had established the Diberri/Boghog format, but several other styles have been introduced.
  • Many of the sources are (as Spicy mentioned) not at FA standard ... it is OK to occasionally use StatPearls for very basic info, but it is used a lot here, along with other odd websites.
  • Books and journal articles don't need accessdates.
  • The See also section needs attention. FAs should be comprehensive, meaning it is rare for there to be articles mentioned in See also that aren't already worked in to the body of the artile, explaining the relationship.
  • One-sentence, stubby sections are best avoided.
  • See WP:CITATION OVERKILL, and potentially surgery in the form of a thoracotomy or video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) to prevent further bleeding.[7][19][12][8][25]
  • Citations should be placed in ascending order ... by aortic rupture are often fatal.[8][4]
  • Some attention to Wikilinking is needed.
  • I will hold off on prose commentary because it makes little sense to work on prose while there are sourcing concerns. This is just a small list of easy things to address. The Boghog/Diberri tool for formatting citations from a PMID is here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment - This isn't ready. Work needs to be performed on sourcing, formatting, and fleshing it out or organizing stubby sections. Please get feedback outside of FAC (possibly at Peer Review) and you may renominate in a minimum of two weeks. --Laser brain (talk) 19:47, 5 November 2020 (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) 3 November 2020 [3].

Mongol invasions of Vietnam

[edit]
Nominator(s): Laska666 (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Mongol invasions of Vietnam against the kingdoms of Dai Viet and Champa. Laska666 (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Laska666; you have a fine start, but have you read the instructions at WP:FAC? An article cannot be listed at both FAC and GAN at the same time. This article has a ways to go to meet FA standards. I suggest you withdraw the nomination, wait for the GAN, and have a look at my general advice here, including the other recommended links. The simplest thing you might address is MOS:SANDWICH. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would also oppose this nomination, but as SG says, it can't be hosted here and at GAN. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 04:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- per above, I'm going to close this and recommend continuing with the GAN and, after that, trying a Peer Review before renominating at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 3 November 2020 (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_2020&oldid=990286386"