Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2020

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC) [1].

Macintosh Classic

[edit]
Notified: Wackymacs , WikiProject Computing

Review section

[edit]

FAR notice was given by Sandy Georgia on 23 January, stating that "This 2008 FA promotion has numerous areas not in compliance with WP:WIAFA, including uncited text, WP:MOS issues, and possible breach of WP:NOTPRICE". Since there have not been efforts to bring the article up to FA criteria, I am nominating it for FAR. buidhe 05:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Poole 1990 & Carlton 1997 check out fine, backs up content, cleverly paraphrased
  • ref 24 (Developer Technical Publications. Apple Computer. 1990) is dead, both urls
  • ref 1: "(1999). MacWorld Mac Secrets" checks out fine.

The article relies rather heavily on offline sources (news articles) which I am not able to consult. Eisfbnore (会話) 14:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think NOTPRICE is an issue, as the fact that it sold for under $1000 was notable and remarked upon. I didn't spot much that was obviously unreferenced. That said, the article does feel thin given the amount of research and scholarship out there about the Mac in general. It also has a bunch of material pretty much only in the lead that needs to be addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • David, you would know the industry sources here better than I (and I haven't yet revisited closely, my notification is three months old), but the reason I said "possible breach of NOTPRICE" is that I am uncertain which of those sources might be product reviews (versus mainstream sources). NOTPRICE says, "Encyclopedic significance may be indicated if mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention." If someone is going to take on improvements here, they would need to look at that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the direct references are indeed to product reviews, but the context of the subject itself is that it was a commodity personal computer. I think it's innately an important part of its coverage to include the price, especially given its relative historicity in the personal computer line. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see ... it's likely then that some of what is sourced to product reviews would also be mentioned in the other mainstream sources-- something to look at should anyone take on improvements here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe could you please update? I am not seeing serious outstanding issues, and think we should have a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know enough about hardware to know if the article is OK or not. I am not seeing any glaring issues that I can highlight at the moment. (t · c) buidhe 19:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Coords: I tagged the talk page for examination, but I did not nominate to FAR. No one yet has really provided a good reason for the FAR. I suggest that, in the absence of such, a procedural close might be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eisfbnore and David Fuchs: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 11 July 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 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 via FACBot (talk) 8:08, 1 August 2020 (UTC) [2].

Robert Garran

[edit]
Notified: Stephen Bain, Australia noticeboard, WP Bio, WP Politics, WP Law, talk page notice 2020-02-10

This is a 2007 promotion whose original nominator is hardly active any more. I noticed the talk page over two months ago, but nothing has happened. There is quite a bit of uncited text, a MOS review is needed (I noticed WP:PUNC, MOS:CAPTIONS and WP:DASH, MOS:ALLCAPS), and there are incomplete citations (missing publisher, etc.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm happy to help tidy up this article. I think I have fixed the issues with ALLCAPS, en dash and tidied up the citations - I didn't see any without a publisher, but let me know if there are any I have missed. I'm new to this process & so not sure what is meant by the disambiguation link to MOS#Captions - I presume it is meant to be MOS:CAPTIONS, but I am still not clear on what needs to be fixed - I noticed the first image had no alt text which I have fixed. I've still to go through the uncited text, including the large use of his memoirs and punctuation issues. --Find bruce (talk) 05:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SG review
  • There is a 2007 Spoken wikipedia in the External links; is it still remotely accurate, and should it be moved to talk?
  • Why is the Canberra University link in External links? It adds nothing; presumably that University has its own article.
  • This article is enormously sourced to self; it is hard to see how it can retain FA status without a significant sourcing upgrade.
  • Off-topic ... "The art deco building is ... "
  • Tons of uncited, including direct quotes and entire paragraph in Retirement, and entire paragraph in Public service.

Find bruce this article needs significant citation work, and too much is cited to Garran himself. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed feedback SandyGeorgia both here and in the article. I will work through those & see what else I can do to bring it up to current standards. --Find bruce (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Find bruce, can you give us an update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the interest Nikkimaria. I have been able to clear most of the citation needed points helpfully added by SandyGeorgia, but that is just a start as there are still substantial parts that are either unsourced or cited to Garran. My access to sources is restricted to online ATM - it looks like I will be able to see what books I can access to in the next week or 2 so should be able to make better progress. I will need more feedback on meeting the SA standards - is 2 weeks an appropriate target to get the article to a position where I am ready for that feedback? --Find bruce (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a fair bit of progress. There is one sentence that failed verification and may need to be re-written. I am still trying to find 3 citations that are noted. While there are still some self sources, these appear to me to be consistent with WP:SELFSOURCE, being either about Garran or identified as direct quotes by Garran about other people. The exception is one identified as better source needed which concerns Garran's work on the Debt Conversion Agreement. While there are sources as to his involvement, if I can't find a source for the extent of his involvement, I will need to rephrase. I am unsure of the position regarding the 2007 spoken wikipedia - the article has been stable since 2007, with the exception of the work I have now done through this review. Now would be a good time to give me feedback on what additional work is required. --Find bruce (talk) 00:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will look in tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article now has multiple harv ref errors, and mixed citation style. I don't do Harv Refs; someone else needs to pitch in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a harv ref pointing to Irving 2006, but no Irving 2006. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Parker for example is in references, but nothing points at it, because all of Parker was moved in. What is the citation style? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SandyGeorgia I have deleted Parker as a separate source as there is no page number to refer to, hence no need for shortened footnotes. Irving 2006 should have been 2001. Correcting these 2 has removed the hidden category "Harv and Sfn no-target errors". I thought I was using Citation Style 1, but didn't realise Citation was CS2 so I have changed those to Cite Book or Cite Web, so should be all CS1. --Find bruce (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both Whitlams and Zines are also returning Harv ref errors ... more tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And some of the citations are pointing at his publication list ... I do not use Harv refs and do not know how to fix all of this, but ‘tis a mess :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Sandy - I'm trying hard not to be obtuse, but I am not seeing the Harv ref errors. I am happy to do the work to fix them, if you help me with your expertise on what needs to be fixed. Is there somewhere specific I should be looking? For the ones you have identified, I think I will be able to sort those out
  • Zines is a 12 page pdf, so I will go through each reference to source it to a specific page.
  • The Whiltams are a bigger problem - for me to fix that is - as it seems I have not used them as a reference. I will either use them or delete them.
  • The publication list is currently formatted as references. I will change that to be a list of title & year with a reference at the end which should clear up any errors associated with that.
Thanks again for your help. --Find bruce (talk) 08:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please ping me when I should look in again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry SandyGeorgia, I believe I have fixed the errors you have referred to. There remains 2 citations needed, but to do so I need to get access to a physical copy of Garran's book Prosper the Commonwealth (I am not aware of any source online) & that is proving problematic. --Find bruce (talk) 10:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, given Find bruce's subsequent edits, do you still feel FARC is appropriate? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria:, FARC not needed, and I am good to close it now ... the one remaining cite to self is not all that controversial. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 28 July 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.

Removed

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 0:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC) [3].

Battle of Austerlitz

[edit]
Notified: UberCryxic, Austria WT:MILHIST

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was highlighed as not meeting the FA criteria more than 4 months ago[4] and there have not been significant improvements since. buidhe 02:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Vami_IV

The recurring lack of citations in this article is unacceptable. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)——Serial #[reply]

I'm dealing with the citations: they are the least insurmountable of the problems this article has. ——Serial # 15:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Any update on that? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC, SN did a bit of citation work, no other improvement here, there is still uncited text, inconsistent citations, and some of those listed as citations are unsourced footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Err yeah, sorry about that, I've got a lot of the sources (or others, sometimes, in their place), but I haven't looked at the napoleonic period for ages and had totally forgotten that Paul I of Russia had a mania about round hats, so his police would tear people's round hats off their heads and burn the offending items in the street. Thousands were arrested. And doesn't that just have to be an article...?! ——Serial # 17:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Sentences 2 and 4 of Paragraph 1 should be combined and reduced. "In what is widely regarded as the greatest victory achieved by Napoleon" should be mixed into Sentence 5.
  • (Pausing here to come back to the lead after reviewing WP:MILHIST material for their standards and reviewing the rest of the article).
Comment

The lead image is very high quality and high encyclopedic value. It could be a featured picture. (t · c) buidhe 05:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues in the review section largely concern sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 11 July 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 8:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC) [5].

Aikido

[edit]
Notified: PRehse, article talk 2020-03-14, WP Martial arts, WP Japan

Review section

[edit]

This is a 2007 promotion that is in need of a tuneup. There is considerable uncited text and un underdeveloped lead. In terms of MOS, there is incorrect use of bolding throughout, WP:BADITALICS (of foreign language proper nouns), and MOS:SANDWICH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and style. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:46, 25 July 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 4:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC) [6].

Chicago Board of Trade Building

[edit]
Notified: TonyTheTiger, WikiProject Skyscrapers, WikiProject Chicago, Article talk June 10, 2020

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because this is a promotion from 2007 and does not meet the current criteria. I put a notice on its talkpage a couple of weeks ago and no work has been done on it since then except for some minor tweaks by me. (In all fairness I overstated the amount of time between the talkpage notice and FAR process, but I ultimately think that it is immaterial to this review.)

Here are some issues:

  • There are too many LEADCITEs, much in common with other late-2000s FA promotions; they are not forbidden but are suboptimal practice, especially when the facts are not controversial. More seriously, some of the facts thereby cited are not mentioned in the body.
    • This seems to be 2 issues. 1.) The LEAD contains a lot of citations; 2.) The LEAD contains a lot of facts that are not summaries of content in the main body, but rather are uniquely stated in the LEAD. I don't really know how the 2nd of these two concerns ever got past FAC1 13 years ago. I think properly placing content in the main body will eliminate the need for citations in the LEAD. I'll take a stab at this.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Early locations" section is inadequately cited; there is but one citation, which is not located at the end of the paragraph.
  • Ditto to the first paragraph of the "Artwork" section, and the completely-uncited second paragraph of the "Trading floor" section.
  • The "Surroundings" section is of dubious value to include; its last paragraph is further completely uncited.
  • The "Awards and honors" section is a list that ought to be prose.
  • The "Gallery" section does not pass WP:GALLERY, in my opinion
  • The prose and layout overall read like a travel guide rather than an encyclopedia article.

This is ultimately a piece of work to bring back to modern FA standards; hopefully someone dedicated from the Skyscraper and/or Chicago projects is willing to put in the effort. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to FARC SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC this doesn't seem as insurmountable as it did when this started, but I don't know enough about the building and its sourcing to do a definitive rescue. I would be remiss if I didn't tag a couple prominent skyscraper-Wikipedians: @Epicgenius, MelbourneStar, and CookieMonster755: to see if they could help with this, but no worries if they can't. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC (Note: I was pinged here). I think this is fixable, but at its current state, it would not be promoted to FA if the FAC were held today. This article is pretty disorganized. Just on a cursory search I found a single sentence paragraph, a sentence needing a citation, and a "Later history" section that includes both a "recent history" subsection and non-history information (e.g. surroundings). A FARC can probably fix these issues. epicgenius (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 11 July 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 review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 2:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC) [7].

Witold Pilecki

[edit]
Notified: Piotrus, WikiProject Poland, WT:MILHIST
BUidhe, why are not all WikiProjects listed on talk notified? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Review section

[edit]
I am nominating this featured article for review because of the comment Eisfbnore left in May:

careless and inconsistent ref formatting, with both shortened footnotes and long ones intertwined. It relies rather heavily on a single web page, which I can't access, owing to its lack of proper sertificate for privacy. Is it a HQRS? And is our copy sufficiently paraphrased? We need better sourcing than what we've got here: IMDb and Publicystyka Antysocjalistycznego Mazowsza are not HQRS. We also have a See also farm and an EL farm. It is also not particularly well written with repetitive lines like […]he was not breaking any laws. He pleaded guilty to the other charges. He was sentenced to death on 15 May with three of his comrades, and he was executed and noun + -ing, -ing, -ing He was also a vigorous advocate of rural development, founding an agricultural cooperative, heading the local fire brigade and also serving as chairman of a local milk-processing plant built in the district

These issues have yet be addressed, so here we are. (t · c) buidhe 17:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:24, 8 August 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_review/archive/August_2020&oldid=975356161"