Wikipedia:Featured article review/The Wiggles/archive1

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

Notified: User:ANTONIOROCKS, User:AngusWOOF, User:Mitch Ames

Review section

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

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]

Keep. Thanks for keeping the article up-to-date. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, 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) 01:27, 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.