Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2012

Kept status

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 Dana boomer 18:50, 16 August 2012 [1].

---

Right whale

Review commentary

Notified: Pcb21, WP:MAMMALS, WP:ARCTIC

I am nominating this featured article for review because... I don't believe it is featured quality. I left concerns at Talk:Right whale#FA concerns over six months ago, and little to no work has been done on the article. As to the criteria, 1(c) and 2(c) are failed. There are also entire paragraphs that go without a reference. Albacore (talk) 01:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

---

My observations:

• The sections are short and blunt, not going into the detail I'd expect of a FA. More for description, anatomy, etc.
• Life History is also short and choppy. The second half of it is completely unsourced
• Ecology is also in choppy sections. Predation is only one line long.
• Range and habitat is unsourced.
• Southern — southern what? This ection also lacks sources.
• Whale Watching is also unsourced.
• Fishing Gear is unsourced.
• NOAA speed limit seems like it should be a table, not a bullet list.
• Many sources are bare URLs or not formatted into citation templates.
• What makes Enchanted Learning a reliable source?
• The content about the explanation for the name (paragraph beginning "A popular explanation…") — that should be in the article itself, not the intro. Intros are supposed to summarize an article, not present facts present nowhere else.
• I corrected the spelling of Norra Vånga.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

---

FARC commentary

Concerns in the review section focused on referencing, comprehensiveness, prose and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 12:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delist per all my observations. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• Delist. Unsourced material, choppy one- and two-sentence paragraphs, material presented in list form that should be in paragraphs, incomplete citations, and unreliable sources, to name a few problems. The Ecology section in particular is a giant mess. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
• Delist article as it stands. Needs alot of referencing. I am sure there are several sections which could be comprehensively referenced and enlarged. Prose needs work in places too. I'd love to get stuck into it but am really busy currently. I think the effort needed is too substantial to warrant an extended time at FARC, unless something major happens in the next week or so. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:43, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
• Leaning towards Delist, as I agree that this article has eroded substantially:

• The lead section has done an incredible job of capturing and expanding upon the majority of the least important points in the article.
• I'm one of those few people that find taxonomy fascinating, but this article has developed a frustrating and confusing split personality over the debate on whether to include or exclude the Bowhead whale (Balaena mysticetus), formerly known as the Greenland right whale, in the "right whale club". This article is about the Eubalaena genus. Period. To wit:

• The page for the genus Eubalaena is a redirect to right whale, the page in question.
• The genus Balaena has its own page, as does the species bowhead whale.
• The article includes statements like, "Genetic evidence appears to have settled a long-standing question about whether to include the largest, the Arctic-dwelling bowhead whale, with the rest. All four are included in the taxonomic family Balaenidae, and all four are generally referred to as right whales." (citation needed emphasis added).
• A little further down, it says, A future review will likely place all four species in one genus. Little genetic evidence supports the historic two-genera view. (citation needed emphasis added).
• It turns out that the source that was provided for the above reference is outdated, and the current version of that same resource says the opposite:

"Within the suborder, 14 species are now generally recognized. Although Rice believed that all right whales belong with the bowhead in the genus Balaena, recent genetic analysis have recognized three separate right whale species, in the genus Eubalaena: in the North Atlantic (E. glacialis); in the North Atlantic (E. japonica); and in the Southern Hemisphere (E. australis)."

and,

"The study by Churchill (2007) now has provided the evidence to conclude that the three living right whale species do comprise a phylogenetic lineage distinct from the bowhead and are rightly classified into a separate genus." (emphasis added)

• At present, three major global authorities (IWC, CMS and IUCN) still accept the Southern, North Atlantic, and North Pacific as the three species of right whales, also referred to collectively as the "black" right whales, and they all continue to keep the bowhead in its own genus. The IUCN goes a step further, saying, "The taxonomy is not in doubt" on their bowhead whale assessment page.

• However, I'd prefer to Keep...I know I'm entering this fray in the 11th hour, but I'd like to attempt to rescue the page over the next few days. I don't think it's insurmountable, but unless anyone objects, I intend to be bold and merciless with cuts and expansion. There is some good, referenced material in the three right whale articles that can be brought over to this page, and I have a wealth of information to flesh out those one-sentence, unreferenced sections. I will post the above on the talk page of Right whale as well.
• If, on the other hand, the decision to delist has already been made, then I will take a more leisurely approach... Thoughts?

RW Notes

Groll†ech (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even think to check the Integrated Taxonomic Information System, at http://www.itis.gov.

This taxonometric database is the result of a partnership of federal agencies formed to satisfy their mutual needs for scientifically credible taxonomic information. They too concur, so I will make the changes.

Groll†ech (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

• Comment This FAR has been dormant almost a month. Has anything significant changed? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I've put a great deal of work into an updated article on which I was working offline, and I was getting close to posting it when I had a computer crash a couple weeks ago... you'll notice my contributions fell off a cliff at that time. I'm still a day or two away from from getting the results of the data recovery effort. I'd completely understand if you need to close out the FAR, in which case we'll work to bring it back up through FAC. As I've never done either before, I assume the level of difficulty is the same for passing an FAR as it is to pass an FAC? Grollτech (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no pressing need to close the FAR -I will have a look too in the next few days. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:07, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

sigh - needs alot of work. Grolltech, if you have the energy to prioritise and really get stuck into this, I'll help, but it'd be a tall order. If you don't have the time or inclination, it is no big deal to let it slide and lose its shiny star now. It can easily be worked on later. The main thing required is enthusiasm - I can help crossing all the 't's and dotting the 'i's - as well as fetching references, copyediting etc....Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• If the work is that daunting, wouldn't it be better just to let it be delisted instead of running yourselves ragged trying to keep it FA-class? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Is there still time? I might be able to find the needed cites and fix the lede within one or two days. LittleJerry (talk) 18:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the needed citations and did some paragraph merging. All that's needed is the lede expansion. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Lede expansion now done. I think all the concerns have been addressed. LittleJerry (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

With the new improvements, I say Keep. LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• I still see a few unsourced statements. Might want to go over it a little more and make sure everything's sourced. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep, my concerns have been addressed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 09:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think LittleJerry has steered it into Keep territory. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

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 Nikkimaria 15:48, 9 August 2012 [2].

---

4 Minutes (Madonna song)

Notified: JKW111, Ericorbit, Legolas2186, Madonna WP, Song WP, Electronic music WP, R&B and Soul Music WP, Malawi WP

I am nominating this featured article for review because in February of this year, it was found that User:Legolas2186 had performed a significant number of source falsifications and copyright violations. This article was one of his that was featured (the other was Madonna (entertainer), already delisted), and when checked, was found to have major problems with sourcing. The initial list of issues can be found at Talk:4 Minutes (Madonna song)#Partial source audit, and includes numerous instances of copyright violation, close paraphrasing and failed verification in the first five sources alone. Nothing has been done to correct these problems, and so, now that the Madonna FAR has finished, this article is the next to be brought here. Dana boomer (talk) 21:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

After the experience at the FAR for Madonna (entertainer), I lost any remaining confidence that the articles expanded by Legolas were easily salvageable as GAs or FAs. This article about a song has too many problems with copyvio, too-close paraphrasing, and failed verification. It should be delisted without any more drama. Binksternet (talk) 20:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me read the article, check the references and correct any copyvio and falsification in it. It may take me some days considering its lenght. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 22:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In that case I think the FAR process should be slowed to allow time for repairs and rewriting. Binksternet (talk) 22:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. I removed the paraphrasing and changed it to quotes, removed unnecessary/unsourced/false information, original research, replace dead links, and a basic copyedit. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I reworked the recording studio lingo bits, for instance clipping, plugins, outboard gear and audio compression were misrepresented. I noticed that the Sound On Sound source did not carry a quote saying that Castellon employed "an eighth-note delay from a PCM42 to give their voice some space". This supposed quote truncates and combines two sentences, and it only applies to Madonna, not "their" vocals (Madonna and Timberlake). Also, the SOS source did not contain the quoted phrase "help [him to] achieve the beat level". I corrected some misspellings. I noticed that there is inconsistency in the way ellipses are treated. There is inconsistency in the way that initial capital letters are treated in quoted sentences, that is, whether they are put in lower case and bracketed, or left in upper case. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - It looks like quite a bit of work has been done here. Can we get some opinions on whether this can be kept without a FARC or whether it should be moved? Dana boomer (talk) 13:11, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Looks okay to me: keep. Binksternet (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
• Seconded. The sources have all been cleaned up, and it looks like Binksternet et al. have done enough work to remove the falsifications from Legolas2186. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Tbhotch did most of the heavy lifting, saving the article. Binksternet (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Then Tbhotch et al. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:07, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep - It seems that the article has been through an edit overhaul, however for my opinion regarding its assessment (points out to the R&B assess), I need to read it entirely, but the question is, why is it receiving an R&B FAC (along general FAC) if there is no real R&B or Soul information on the actual article? It is styled as Dance-Pop and Hip-Hop, so it is correctly tagged as an Electronic song, and nowhere near having any actual information which define it as a R&B or Soul song, so unless some reference provides a background (influence or song's sub-genre), I'll remove its r&b assesment. I firmly believe this article is within Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hip_hop scope. Best regards Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 03:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

    I removed the WP. I don't know why it was added. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.

• This discussion has been stale for the last several weeks. I think the consensus is that it should be kept. Can we close this now? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:35, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I get the same sense as you do. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

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 removed by Dana boomer 21:26, 12 August 2012 [3].

---

Operation Wrath of God

Review commentary

Notified: User:Reenem, WT:ISRAEL, WT:PALESTINE

I raised concerns on the talk page a week ago. WikiProjects Palestine and Israel were notified of my talk page post, but no changes have neen made to the article since.

• The prose is very choppy, with lots of one- and two-sentence paragraphs.
• Nearly half of the "Operations" section is "On [date], [event]". This sentence structure is repeated ad nauseam and begging for a copy edit.
• Entire third paragraph of "Attempted assassination of Golda Meir in Rome" is unsourced.
• Sports Illustrated is tagged as an unreliable source, but I don't see how it is unreliable.
• "the cited resource was decommissioned in 2008 and TKB records were later adopted by START. However a search of the available records (via http://www.start.umd.edu/start/) failed to uncover the originally cited material." — major WP:V issue, suggest outright removing the source then.
• Black September Response seems short and has a one-sentence paragraph. Could this be combined somewhere else?
• The "Notes" section has three dead links, all of which are bare URLs.

The article was FA nearly six years ago, and as usual, it hasn't been checked to make sure it still meets standards. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Move to FARC – The nine tags that I count in the article highlight issues that cause a failure of modern FA criteria. The copy-edit tag brings up a classic case of proseline, the numerous dead links are also troublesome, and the unreliable source tag for SI is debateable. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:09, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned as at issue in the review section include prose and references. Dana boomer (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delist, none of my concerns above have been addressed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delist per TenPoundHammer's comments. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delist – The tag saying that Sports Illustrated was unreliable has been removed, but the remaining issues are still unaddressed. Unfortunately, I don't believe this meets FA requirements any more. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

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 removed by Dana boomer 21:26, 12 August 2012 [4].

---

Millennium '73

Review commentary

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is clear no one is maintaining it and it has fallen into a serious state of disrepair: there are 32 ref errors in the article staring at us in bold and 3 dead links. Note only 2 edits have been made this year, one by a bot. Wiki community needs to pay better attention to it's FAs. Amador Valley High School got to the main page a few days ago with 19, yes, 19 dead links. This is embarrassing. I will notify WP:Houston and WP:Prem Rawat, and user Momento. He's the only major editor still active. Will Beback alone accounted for over half the edits but he's been banned. He and Momento together account for over 90% of the edits. The talk page has 3-4 edits in two years, with the 2 edits this year to the article it's clear this one is not being maintained.PumpkinSky talk 02:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey PS. I understand your concerns, but you've skipped over the talk-page step, so I'm going to put this nom on hold for a bit. If after a week you're right and no one's watching, feel free to bring it back. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I see you put a note there already. We'll wait.PumpkinSky talk 11:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Relisting. While Momento did comment on the talk page of the article, he essentially said fixing it is beyond him and the article was a compromise between two warring factions, which raises a red flag to me. Not one single edit to improve it has been made.PumpkinSky talk 10:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

What a mess. The referencing is just full of issues:

• Permanent link to Millennium '73

fn#	link	issue
#4	And It Is Divine 1973	doesn't point to any citation
#20	Messer 1976	doesn't point to any citation
#23	Goldsmith 1974	doesn't point to any citation
#34	Rose 1973	doesn't point to any citation
#53	Boyle 1985	doesn't point to any citation
#57	National Park Service 2008	doesn't point to any citation
#65	Rose 1973	doesn't point to any citation
#68	TVTV 1974	doesn't point to any citation
#82	Gray 1973	doesn't point to any citation
#82	Foss & Larkin 1978	doesn't point to any citation
#83	Newsweek 1973	doesn't point to any citation
#91	Chryssides 1999	doesn't point to any citation
#109	Foss & Larkin 1978	doesn't point to any citation
#117	Elwood 1993	doesn't point to any citation
#120	Foss & Larkin 1978	doesn't point to any citation
#123	Frazier 1975	doesn't point to any citation
#129	Messer 1976	doesn't point to any citation
#139	McKean 1996	doesn't point to any citation
#140	DUO staff 2000	doesn't point to any citation

Reference	issue
Boyle, Deirdre (Fall 1985)	There is no link pointing to this citation
Eck, Diana L.	There is no link pointing to this citation
Ellwood, Robert S. (1993)	There is no link pointing to this citation
Espo, David (November 26, 1976)	There is no link pointing to this citation
Foss, Daniel A.; Larkin, Ralph W. (Summer, 1978)	There is no link pointing to this citation
Frazier, Deborah (March 1974)	There is no link pointing to this citation
Goldsmith, Paul (Summer 1974)	There is no link pointing to this citation
Levine, Richard (March 14, 1974)	There is no link pointing to this citation
Mangalwadi, Vishal; Hoeksema, Kurt (1992)	There is no link pointing to this citation
Melton, J. Gordon, Project Director (1993)	There is no link pointing to this citation
Messer, Jeanne. (1976)	There is no link pointing to this citation
National Park Service	There is no link pointing to this citation
Newsweek staff (November 19, 1973)	There is no link pointing to this citation
Ponte, Lowell (November 21, 1973)	There is no link pointing to this citation
Rose, Frank (September–October 1973)	There is no link pointing to this citation
Syracuse Post-Standard staff (March 10, 1973)	There is no link pointing to this citation
United Press International (November 25, 1978)	There is no link pointing to this citation

This seems exactly the state that the article passed FAC in. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - on closer look some (most?) of those reference issues can be solved, when using consistant parameters for last(author) and year. For example "Boyle, Deirdre (Fall 1985)" is apparently meant to link to "Boyle, 1985", but the Harv-template can't make the connection, when the parameters are not 100% identical. If the "date"-parameter is used and doesn't work, adding "year" aswell is worth a try. Most "no citation" bugs refer to a similar "no link" situation and can be solved with one fix (see Template:HARV for more information). I fixed "Boyle 1985" as quick example. Are those broken harv-links the only issue? GermanJoe (talk) 11:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed some more myself. However i couldn't find "Chryssides 1999" and "McKean 1996" and have yet to understand why "DUO" won't link correctly. Also some references are still written in raw text and need reformatting as citation-template or similar. GermanJoe (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Chryssides 1999" and "McKean 1996" are the last 2 links with no existing reference, the remaining few references without link can either be removed easily or moved to "External Links", depending on the information in those references. Someone more experienced with the article content and its sources should check those. (Disclaimer: some of the refs have some very awkward formatting, but atleast they work somehow.) A complete ref-cleanup would be nice, but i am not that crazy to spend several more hours on it. GermanJoe (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The above mechanics seem to have been addressed. "Chryssides 1999" and "McKean 1996" are simply undefined and I've noted that by stubbing them in the references section with {{full}}; the details are missing. FWIW, this article would benefit by shifting to using {{sfn}}, which would clear out a lot of the needless ref markup. Glancing below, it seems there are further concerns. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Last 2 sources found cross-searching other Wiki-articles. GermanJoe (talk) 13:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is this really FAR-worthy? The only problem seems to be a couple broken references. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 15:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• It clearly fails 2c "consistent citations", especially the "consistent" part. A few broken links should not be the end of the world, but the whole citation formatting and parameter usage is all over the place (date and page formats, parameters misused for various special content, punctuation, varying citation formats, ...).
• 1d "without bias" seems to be a minor issue too. Example: "Organizers billed the festival as the most significant event in human history which would usher in a thousand years of peace.". It's far too prominent in the first lead para (like any other hyped promotion activity). Other phrases throughout the article are also slightly too positive, some of the events are written more from a visitor's perspective, instead of a neutral observer.
• Criterion 4 "Length" - someone not attached to that event could certainly find a few unnecessary details.

All points are fixable, and only 2c is really critical as a clear fail and needs the attention of an experienced editor for citation formatting. GermanJoe (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

1d and 4 are probably the result of warring factions duking it out. 2c is just plain embarrasing we can't have "wiki's best" with openly visible multiple broken links. There is more and more of that lately. Yes, the should be FAR'd unless someone is willing to put the time in to fix all three areas. So far no one stepped forward, only talk so far. PumpkinSky talk 19:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Efforts have been made, mostly by GermanJoe, but significant issues remain.PumpkinSky talk 21:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - It looks like quite a bit of work has been done here. Can we get some opinions on whether this can be kept without a FARC or whether it should be moved? Dana boomer (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Move to FARC - the more i read the article, the more it fails criterion 4 (aside from the already mentioned problems): "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." (emphasis mine). I am sure, editors added information in good faith to get the article as detailed as possible and to compromise between the different edit-warring factions. But a lot of this information is either too detailed, some reporter's "opinion" or "observation" or a quote with little relevance from some organizer or the guru. Some examples among others:

• "Organizers billed the festival as the most significant event in human history which would usher in a thousand years of peace." - promotional statement, not lead material (atleast not first para).
• "...(one Berkeley newspaper had the headline "Rennie Unites Left – Against Him")..." - trivia
• "One reporter for the Village Voice who traveled in the tour wrote that they had little press coverage and poor attendance [but showed obvious energy, and that the tour itself went remarkably smoothly with expressions of love among the members]." - second half is trivia ("expressions of love among the members" - seriously? I am a bit afraid to ask for more details here.).
• "Fifteen hundred festival volunteers stayed at a former Coca Cola plant, renamed the "Peace Plant" for the occasion, where they slept on folded blankets over the concrete floor. Another thousand stayed at the Rainbow Inn motel." - why is that notable? It's not that uncommon for large events, that supporters sleep whereever possible (or not at all).
• "Another noted that the workers seemed to be "model human beings, ..."" - a reporter's unqualified opinion, he just watched them for a few hours and is already able to judge their character? The same goes for the negative characterisation of the security staff. It's ok to mention 1-2 notable incidents as facts, it's not appropriate to use some observer's unfounded theories about their mental state or social conditioning.
• Welcome statement: "[It's really fantastic and really beautiful to see you here, the Millennium program will start tomorrow and it'll really be fantastic, it'll be incredible ... ]and soon people will get together and finally understand who is God. ... There's so much trouble in the world, Watergate is not only in America, it exists everywhere." - the first part has no notable content (It's great and will start tomorrow), the second part could be paraphrased as his intentions for the event.
• Usage of quotations and signboard messages should be re-checked. Even it they are reliable sourced, they also need to be relevant for the article topic and noteworthy in a summary style article. If that content can be paraphrased without loss of meaning, paraphrasing is preferred (WP:QUOTEFARM). I still don't see, how the signboard messages are relevant. Even if they were important, the article should establish that context and not simply list them. GermanJoe (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Move to FARC - per GJoe; this simply wouldn't pass a modern day FAC. PumpkinSky talk 20:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned as at issue in the review section include references, neutrality and length. Dana boomer (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delist per the problems uncovered by GermanJoe. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delist per the problems uncovered by GermanJoe. PumpkinSky talk 01:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delist per the problems listed. I believe, the article has some good content and seems mostly well researched. But its open issues (NPOV, focus, citations) put it below todays FA standard. GermanJoe (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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 removed by Dana boomer 21:26, 12 August 2012 [5].

---

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima

Review commentary

Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because a week ago I posted concerns on the talk page the only improvement since then was an image formatting edit. Two editors did respond. One said it was not up to 2012 FA standards and the other essentially agreed and was appalled at the condition it was in. The statement I posted was "There are several issues here in regards to maintaining FA standards, for example: some refs are missing parameters, one is Angelfire, and there are 9 citation needed tags." It seems safe to say this article has been in steady decline and is not being actively maintained. I am about to notify Raul654 (who nom'd it for FA), WP:MILHIST/Japan/Photography. No other editor has over 27 edits to the article. It's a shame no one actively maintains such an important article, but we can't have articles in this state stay FA.PumpkinSky talk 10:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That Angelfire link was in the article version that passed FAC; added here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Not that it makes it a reliable source. Anything hosted on Angelfire is certainly unreliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I know. I named the ref; see Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima#cite note-Angelfire is a joke-17. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Huge sourcing problems.

• One citation was a .gif image which seemed completely unnecessary — the image is devoid of context and can't really be "sourced".
• Another citation (this one) is a personal website on bellsouth.net, which should probably be removed. It does not look reliable at all.
  • Likewise the site on Angelfire. Unreliable.
• What makes manythings.org a reliable source?
• What makes montney.com a reliable source? (This also seems like a circular reference, since it includes a link back to Wikipedia.)
• What makes mediaShop a reliable source? This seems to be a commercial site selling a product, which is not acceptable as a reference.
  • Likewise JamesBradley.com.
  • Likewise AllPosters.com.
• What makes 1847usa.com a reliable source?
• What makes Ground Zero Spirit a reliable source?
• This is a personal site on Tripod and should be removed.
• Several [citation needed] tags and [cite this quote].

I'd clean up the refs myself, but this article uses a bizarro referencing style I've never seen on any other article. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

• ETA: I've removed some of the more egregiously bad sources, such as the Tripod and Angelfire sites. There was also a link to a user submitted lyrics database. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:11, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• I've also tagged a few more sources whose notability I'm not sure of. Furthermore, the images need fixing as right now, far too many of them are bunched up on the right and pushing down into the references. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

• Tripod came back. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• This article seems rather short given the huge amount which has been written on this famous photo
• I really doubt that the war bond drive rose "$26.3 billion". According to this paper by the Congressional Research Service Report the entire US war effort cost $296 billion in then-year dollars, so it's hugely unlikely that a single bond drive would have been able to cover 1/10th of the cost of the war. I suspect that someone has replaced 'million' with 'billion'
  • You are flatly wrong. Our article on Series E bond says that 55% of the costs of the war ($100 billion for FY 1945) were paid for with war bonds. There's no way to get that much money with only five war bond drives unless the drives were pulling in tens of billions of dollars. Raul654 (talk) 12:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• The structure of the article is confusing - the material about the photo and the material about the men who were photographed is mixed up
  • It's rather hard to separate the history of the photograph itself from the history of the events and people involved. Which means that in this case, it makes for a lousy structure. Raul654 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• "It took de Weldon and hundreds of his assistants" - the source refers only to an unspecified number of "experienced artisans". It's very unlikely that 'hundreds' of people worked on this sculpture (which is large, but not hugely so)
• "used it as an emergency landing strip for damaged bombers, saving many American lives." - this is controversial as several historians argue that the number of lives lost in capturing the island was far more than the number of aircrew saved (especially as many of the B-29s which landed probably could have made it back to the Mariana Islands if they'd had to)
  • Except the article does not make that argument (that more lives were saved by capturing the island than were lost taking it). It does say that 30,000 people made emergency landings there. Had the island not been there, a significant number of them would have crashed into the pacific and drowned. That is not controversial at all. Raul654 (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I think that the current wording implies that the benefits outweighed the costs, especially as the heavy casualties among the landing force don't appear to be noted at present. If you're interested in the debate on this battle (which I agree isn't hugely relevant to the topic of the article), this journal article is worth reading for the case against the operation. Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I disagree that it implies what you say it implies. I think you're reading your own conclusions into that sentence. The point remains, though, that what is written in the article is not controversial in the least. Raul654 (talk) 13:12, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
        • I'm hesitant to weigh in here at all, this FAR is more charged than it needs to be, but Nick knows a lot more about WWII than most people, and I think he's got it right yet again ... it's not worth de-featuring the article over this one thing, but saying only something positive and nothing negative about the strategic value within the lead and first section is going to leave readers who only get that far with a false impression. More to the point, the fix is simple, because we don't care much (for the purposes of this article) what the battle actually accomplished, only what the public at the time believed it accomplished, and the American public was certain that this was a great victory. Of course, nearly everything the public believed during the war was wrong (see Paul Fussell and others), but that's how big wars go. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
          • I made the simplest edit that has a chance of keeping everyone happy; I removed "saving many American lives". We could do something more complicated, talking about American perceptions of what the battle accomplished, but if so, that might work better in another paragraph. My gut feeling is to keep that controversy safely quarantined over at Battle of Iwo Jima. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• "The Americans found themselves under fire from Japanese troops but were able to quickly eliminate the threat, with the only casualty being Lowery's camera." - if the 'threat' to the Americans was eliminated, this obviously means that there were Japanese casualties.
  • Trivially fixed by changing "the" to "their" Raul654 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
• As noted above, the sourcing is highly deficient. Even if there were no other issues with the article, this alone would be enough for the article to be rated at less than B class. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This went to FARC more quickly than I expected. As some further comments/suggestions:

• The lead doesn't cover the fates of some of the men in the photograph or the controversy over whether the photo was staged which are described later in the article
• "the relatively quick fall of the Philippines" - the liberation of the Philippines actually took much longer than expected, and had not been completed by the end of the war. For some reason this links to the Battle of the Philippine Sea rather than the Philippines Campaign (1944–1945)
• "The Americans, after capturing the island, deprived the Japanese of their early warning system" - this wording is too strong as the Japanese early warning system wasn't limited to the facilities on Iwo Jima, though its loss was a major blow
  • I double checked some sources. There were some other rather obscure Japanese early warning facilities (Rota in the Marianas, for example). I've tweaked that sentence. Raul654 (talk) 14:43, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• ..."and used it as an emergency landing strip for damaged bombers" - P-51 aircraft were also based on the island to escort the B-29s and (later) conduct offensive missions of their own
• "it was a matter of honor for the Japanese to prevent its capture" - while true, that's a bit simplistic. The Japanese also reinforced the island in late 1944/early 1945 in recognition of its strategic importance. The Japanese also considered it a 'matter of honor' to fight to the death for all terrain from which they couldn't retreat given that they'd been indoctrinated to not surrender, so this shouldn't be over-emphasized
  • That statement is not simplistic, and your comparison is inaccurate. As is already stated in the article, unlike the other islands where the Japanese had previously fought to the last man, Iwo Jima was part of Japanese home soil. So yes, there was greater honor attached to defending Iwo Jima than there had been at Tarawa or Guadalcanal or Saipan or Palau. Raul654 (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• The statement that Flags of Our Fathers is "a definitive book on the flag-raising and its participants" is referenced to the book itself; an independent source is needed for this (though I'm sure it's correct) Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria identified as problematic in the review section include sourcing, coverage and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Prose is good enough for a "Keep", per standard disclaimer. These are my edits. (The toolserver may not show the most recent edits.) There's one WP:DATED tag to deal with. A great story, well-told; if the sourcing can be dealt with, it's clearly among our best work. - Dank (push to talk) 16:01, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I've asked for help with the sourcing at WT:MIL#Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. - Dank (push to talk) 18:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Remove, de-FA, we don't keep an FA just because of prose. Certainly not when it's still got multiple citation needed tags and unreliable source tags. PumpkinSky talk 21:44, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delist due to sourcing issues. We don't keep on the condition that they might be fixed. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
  • My mistake guys, I thought my standard disclaimer made it clear that I was supporting on prose only; it didn't, but it does now. - Dank (push to talk) 17:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
    • So you're saying you think it's okay for a FA to be slathered in [citation needed] tags? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
      • He obviously isn't. Nick-D (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
        • Then why did he say "keep but oh yeah, we still need to work on the sources"? That's now how FARC goes. You either "keep" because the work has been done or "delist" because it hasn't; you don't "keep" on hopes that the work might be done. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
          • He actually said "Keep, at least on prose" and then noted problems with the sourcing, which is obviously a conditional 'keep'. I'm pretty sure that the closing delegate is smart enough to figure out what that means. I'm not sure what you're hoping to achieve by hectoring Dank to be honest. Nick-D (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delist Regretfully, and respectfully, but it doesn't meet the criteria at present, most clearly through the sourcing issues. Needs more TLC than I expect will be done at present, but it can be brought back if people work to improve it. But for now, it shouldn't be a FA.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• Delist as above. Obviously no one is stepping up to address the issues brought forward, so this article should not be called out as one of our best because it simply isn't. If anyone cares to fix the article, then it can go through a new FA review to see how things fare. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

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 removed by Dana boomer 21:26, 12 August 2012 [6].

---

Read my lips: no new taxes

Review commentary

Notified: User:SimonP, User:Chavando, the article George H. W. Bush, User:Pburka, User:Tpbradbury, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Conservatism

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel it now at a level far below Featured Article status. Since it was nominated in 2005 it has been overwhelmed by poorly-written trivial information in the 'popular culture' section and I feel that the article in its current form is not comparable to the article that was nominated seven years ago. As well as the trivial information that has crept in, as mentioned, I think the main concern is the amount of unsourced or poorly sourced information; there are very noticeably over 20 CN tags in this relatively short article and the amount has recently increased, rather than decreased. Concerns about the poor standard have been raised several times - e.g. twice since November 2011 - but the only major edits since that time have been to add more CA tags and no real attempts to improve the article have been made.

I think frankly this article is an embarrassment to FA status because of its poor quality. I would suggest that improvements could be made, but they should not be made whilst this article is FA status (I should note that if any major improvements took place then the article would no longer be stable and static). I suggest that the article should be delisted as a Featured Article unless drastic measures are taken very, very soon. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 17:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

• Besides the many [citation needed] tags, there are a few issues: What makes this or this a reliable source? I removed a far more egregious unreliable source in the form of a lyrics database. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have removed those sources you brought up because they're not reliable. That's more unsourced content on this featured article. -- Peter ^{Talk page} 14:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Agreed, it's noticeably below the modern-day standard. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Featured article criteria mentioned as problematic in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Dana boomer (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delist, nothing has improved in the article except the removal of a couple dubious sources. There are still unsourced segments, and I think the last two sections are too short to stand on their own. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we need a second opinion or is there a set time period then the article is delisted? -- Peter ^{Talk page} 20:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.