Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January 2011

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

January 2011

[edit]

Kept status

[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 Dana boomer 18:29, 15 January 2011 [1].

King Vulture

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Rufous-crowned Sparrow, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds

I think this article fails 1a, 1c and 1d:

  • Second paragrpah under "fossil record and evolution" is unsourced. Third paragraph is also undersourced.
  • First paragraph of "Bartram's Painted Vulture" section is unsourced.
  • "Some argue" used twice in Diet header.
  • What makes Arthur Grosset's website a reliable source?
  • What makes WhoZoo.org a reliable source?
  • What makes this EurekaWebs.com archive a reliable source?
  • Or Bird-Stamps.org?
  • "Be that as it may, the fossil record, though scant, supports the theory that the ancestral King Vultures and South American Condors separated at least some 5 mya." — "Be that as it may" isn't needed, and rest is weaselwordy.
  • Links to dab pages: Avian and dihedral.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:21, 6 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I see no discussion at Talk:King Vulture, and I don't feel like doing the work of 1) moving this to article talk, 2) removing this FAR from WP:FAR, 3) removing the FAR template from article talk, and 4) closing this FAR. Ten Pound Hammer, would you please read the WP:FAR instructions and do that work? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the WP:FAR instructions; raise these issues first on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this is enough for a FAR to be warranted. What's more, no one would ever answer on the talk page, as it's almost completely untouched since 2009. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This FAR can just be put on hold until the required post has been made. Start a discussion on the article talk page about the possibility of FAR, wait a week or so; if no one says anything, re-transclude the FAR. Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(groan) lousy timing but then again I suppose there is no "good" timing. OK, will take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Regarding talk page activity, many talk pages of more esoteric subjects (such as most species etc.) are often very quiet with no posts for months if not years on end. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: transcluded anew on 14 November 2010. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed the dablinks; I don't think the article is very complete, and the section on the bird's evolution aren't very good. I'll probably do a few more small things, which might get rid of a lot of sourcing problems etc. —innotata 22:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with TenPoundHammer, there are issues in this article:
  • The sentence "The Kern Vulture would then seem to" contains a weasel word.
  • Some of the unsourced statements and paragraphs like "Bartram to be a King Vulture and therefore fleshed out the details as he saw fit." and "Bartram's notes if the "Painted Vulture" is accepted as a Sarcoramphus." is unreferenced. JJ98 (Talk) 05:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there are some tags there. I was trying to concentrate on some of the core biological stuff first, but will get there soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Nothing has happened here in almost a month, so moving to FARC to hopefully jump start things. Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"doesn't look like "almost none" to me - please stop exaggerating and strike out the ones that no longer apply. I agree there is still work to be done but some of the material is hard to access, plus I have been helping elsewhere - lion is a somewhat bigger job. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are stamps and pretty patently obviously what they are. Yes I'd like a stronger source but given the mundaneness of the subject matter I think it is better in than out. It has been ^T*&%# hard finding some sources, but has resulted in improvement of the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All removed now. Found some other bits and pieces but can't get the bits in question. Reliable sources have proven difficult for this one, and interestingly some tertiary ones used in the interim have been incorrect. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1 is the most concerning, number 2 can be debated, while number 3 is of least concern. Jappalang (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first edit of the Belrlin Zoo head shot had {{GFDL-self}} tag (I checked it as I am an admin). While scouring some books I just stumbled over a map. Will chase. It is in Raptors of the World p. 315. Now sourced and linked. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Monte verde shot is not a particularly high quality one, and we have another photo of a vulture in forest, so I have let it slide. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image concerns have been resolved. Jappalang (talk) 15:26, 15 January 2011 (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 Dana boomer 14:39, 13 January 2011 [2].

Welding

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Spangineer, User talk:Wizard191‎, User talk:Old Moonraker, User talk:RobertG, User talk:APL, User talk:MrOllie, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Metalworking‎.

FA from 2005, FA criteria concerns, including 1c, and referencing issues. After bringing up the issue at the article's talk page, the original FAC nominator was amenable to the article being nominated for FAR. Total of (11) images used in the article, these could use an image review check. Might help to have the lede/intro expanded a bit more, to more fully function as a standalone summary of the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD. There are a few short paragraphs and overly short subsections. Overall, the main issue is referencing throughout. -- Cirt (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this version from 2005. At that point, all text was referenced by the note that followed it, even if that note did not appear until the end of the paragraph or subsequent paragraph. Since then, obviously, many changes have been made, some of which were not referenced. Please recommend an approach for handling this. --Spangineerws (háblame) 20:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the problem areas could be tagged with {{fact}} tags, and that might make it more apparent where issues need to be addressed. -- Cirt (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters for the sake of FAR, but there're an awful lot of red links in this article. Someone should go through and see if any of them have the potential. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 19:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken care of a couple of the short subsections. Please clarify what you think is missing from the lead. --Spangineerws (háblame) 17:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criteria of concern discussed in the review section include referencing, image, and lead issues. Dana boomer (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still one small sub-section (Arc) that appears to lack citations, but the article has been improved since I last it. I don't feel comfortable !voting keep since I haven't read through it, but enough has been done to convince me to strike above. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 01:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm willing to work on this if someone will take the time to give constructive criticism. For example, would a revert to the 2005 version be satisfactory? As I said before, every word was at that point referenced. Or a revert to 2005 plus addition of everything added since then that was directly referenced? I'm open to discussion, but I've got better things to do with my time than acquire and re-read half a dozen welding textbooks to attempt to find references for every statement in this article. If that's what is necessary, let the "one-line delists" keep coming; I'll be working elsewhere. --Spangineerws (háblame) 20:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have stated I would be willing to note problem areas with {{fact}} tags, if that would not be objected to by individuals vested in the article's quality. -- Cirt (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, go ahead; that would be helpful. --Spangineerws (háblame) 16:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thank you, will do so. ;) -- Cirt (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made changes that I felt warranted the removal of all the {{fact}} tags that Cirt added to the "Process" section of the article. If similar changes were made throughout the article, would this be satisfactory? --Spangineerws (háblame) 17:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -- Cirt (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So images with dead links should be removed from the article, even though they were part of the article when it was first featured, and were uploaded by an administrator? I can try to find the new urls, but it seems silly to defeature something based on an external website changing its image urls. --Spangineerws (háblame) 19:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per featured article criteria 3, images in FAs must all be properly and verifiably licensed. So, these need to be fixed or replaced before the article can be kept. You are always welcome to get a second opinion, of course: User:Jappalang and User:Elcobbola are two of the image experts often seen around FAC. Also, just because an image has been in a FA since it was featured doesn't always mean it had the correct licensing at that point - checks of image licensing have waxed and waned as various image experts have been more or less active at FAC. Dana boomer (talk) 22:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; I forgot the distinction between "this can go in an FA" and "this doesn't need to be deleted". I'll see what I can do... --Spangineerws (háblame) 23:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All four images addressed: two removed, two replaced. --Spangineerws (háblame) 22:01, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wording addressed as well; I scanned the rest of the article but didn't notice too many other similar issues. --Spangineerws (háblame) 22:14, 6 January 2011 (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 status

[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 removed by Dana boomer 18:29, 15 January 2011 [3].

Salsa music

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: TUF-KAT, WikiProject Latin America, WikiProject Cuba, WikiProject Puerto Rico

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the failure of 1c. In the lead, the article is tagged with a {{Original research}} tag. Also, I see unreferenced parts all over the article. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the FAR section include original research and referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The OR tag needs to be fixed and/or removed and the same done for any unreferenced information the IP added that has not already been taken care of. FARs are not closed as successful on articles that still have major cleanup banners. Please feel free to ping the editors commenting above if they do not reply here within a couple of days. Dana boomer (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't planning on working on the article. I was making a general comment on the information that a nominator should be required to provide when opening a FAR. Joelito (talk) 20:43, 13 January 2011 (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 removed by Dana boomer 17:10, 1 January 2011 [4].

Halloween (1978 film)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Film WikiProject, Horror WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because it hasn't been reviewed since its nomination, and its one of the older FAs.--The Taerkasten (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding the references are inconsistent, especially in terms of formatting, I think all need to use one of the relevant citation templates, e.g. {{cite web}} {{cite book}} {{cite news}} {{cite journal}}, among others. Also there should be less references to IMDb, as it's common knowledge they are of questionable reliability. And several references have broken external links, [5]. The television rights section is tagged with needing references, and I also believe the influences section can be expanded. The Taerkasten (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with what Taerkasten said. In addition, the tone in some parts are questionable. This is in the Home video release section: "While this Blu-ray version is restored and an improvement over previous DVD editions, many people prefer the 2003 two-disc Divimax 25th Anniversary edition over the 2007 Blu-ray due to the fact that there are many more bonus features on the Divimax DVD."
This in the Music section: "Another major reason for the success of Halloween is the moody musical score, particularly the main theme. Lacking a symphonic soundtrack, the film's score consists of a piano melody played in a 5/4 meter composed by director John Carpenter." The only source listed is this dead link. The tracklists are unfinished (no composers listed or the length of each track). That's all for now. —Mike Allen 01:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have an issue with the use of HalloweenMovies.com being used a source, because in some cases its citation is not a reflection of what the website is presenting. To be more clear, the website is an official website which I believe is supported by the Akkads, or someone, but I've found (especially in the other Halloween FAs) that it is being used to cite material that it isn't actually verifying. I feel like a lot of the information needs to be checked against its sources because I feel that there is probably a lot of unsourced info that is sandwiched between citations in an effort to pretend to be cited.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:53, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 15:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delist - None of the concerns have been addressed.--TÆRkast (Communicate) 17:03, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delist - I'm not sure how many active editors for this page there are, so I'm fearful that none of the corrections will be made. Sadly, it is likely that this will be the fate of Halloween II and Halloween III, as they share the same problems.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – Per the many concerns raised above, which seem to still be present in the article. The section tag for lack of references, and several uncited bits scattered throughout, remain. That by itself is a failure of criteria, and the concerns over whether the references back up the content is also concerning. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Delist - I'm sad to see this one go but I'm afraid I'll have to agree as the statements above have not been taken care of. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:20, 21 December 2010 (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 removed by Dana boomer 17:10, 1 January 2011 [6].

Herbig–Haro object

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Worldtraveller, WT:WikiProject Astronomy, WT:WikiProject Physics

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently needs more inline citations e.g. the 'Proper motions and variability' section doesn't have any. I left a note on the article's talkpage and have improved the article through some minor cleanup over the last year. It doesn't look like there's an existing community of editors working on this article at the moment. Tom B (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are any of those actually significant issues? The article seems to have a decent number of citations, some of which seem to be overviews of the area (e.g. 2 and 3 in the current numbering). There were no "citation needed"s in the article when you first posted this, although I see that a few requests for citations have been added since, but neither of these seem to be actual challenges to the validity of the material. The requirement for FA is only to have inline citations "where appropriate". Djr32 (talk) 10:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for responding Djr. Yes the requirement is to have inline citations where appropriate: Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_is_needed. This states, "anything likely to incur a reasonable challenge should be sourced to avoid disputes and to aid readers (see WP:BURDEN). In practice, this means most such statements are backed by an inline citation," including "close paraphrasing...statistics, and "statements based on someone's scientific work". The last example - scientific work - covers nearly all of the statements in Herbig, e.g. "Spectroscopic observations of HH objects show they are moving away from the source stars at speeds of 100 to 1000 km/s." or "These observations have also allowed estimates of the distances of some HH objects via the expansion parallax method." or "The eruption of jets from the parent stars occurs in pulses rather than as a steady stream." etc Tom B (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Surely that means that we should give appropriate credit for new information, rather than (as you seem to be interpreting it) to apply a considerably tougher requirement w.r.t. non-contentious facts to scientific articles than to all other topics? Djr32 (talk) 14:48, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
hi Djr, the criteria says, "data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work", that isn't an interpretation; "for new information" is an interpretation. If a fact is non-contentious amongst scientists then it wouldn't be a considerably tough requirement to find a source for it. Tom B (talk) 15:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realised I never followed this one up - sorry, it's been a busy few weeks! Just to be clear, the only thing that the FA criteria says is that a FA must have inline citations where appropriate. The "When to cite" essay you mention is an interpretation of policy, it is not itself a policy. My point isn't whether it would be difficult to find a source that supports this fact or that fact, but rather that the criteria should be consistent between science articles and other fields. Djr32 (talk) 21:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
However, the FA criteria link directly to WP:When to cite to determine when citations are appropriate, and so the quote given by TomB above ("data and statistics, and statements based on someone's scientific work") is what needs to be followed when determining what should be referenced in a featured article. Dana boomer (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
The main featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section was referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2010 (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 removed by Raul654 06:50, 3 January 2011 [7].

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 Raul654 (talk) 06:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]


History of the Philippines

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Wtmitchell, Gubernatoria, TheCoffee, WP Tambayan Philippines, WP Southeast Asia

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

  • Quite a few little spots that need references, because they are potentially controversial or include statistics or extraordinary claims. For example, the last sentence of the Administration of Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957) subsection, the last sentence of the first paragraph of the Martial law section and the last two sentences of the second paragraph of the Fourth Republic section. These are just examples, there are quite a few other unsourced spots.
  • There are several unreliable source tags that need to be addressed or the references removed.
  • What makes ref #16 (Cembrano, Margarita R) a reliable ref? It appears to be a self-published geocities website
  • What makes ref #22 (The Kingdom of Namayan and Maytime Fiesta in Sta. Ana of new Manila) a reliable source? It is a self-published blog.
  • What makes ref #51 (Tomas L) a reliable source. It appears to be a self-published geocities website.
  • Ref #29 (明史) should indicate what language it is in. Also, what makes it reliable?
  • The lead is huge. Even for an article of this length, four paragraphs is plenty, per WP:LEAD.
  • The "Upcoming Administration section" needs to be either renamed and expanded or combined with the previous one. A section header and orphaned link tell the reader nothing.
  • The reference formatting needs work. Many web refs are missing publishers, authors and access dates.
  • A couple of book refs are missing page numbers. A few have their long ref format in the notes section, rather than the references section.
  • Mix of British and American spellings (both recognize and recognise, for example)
  • One dead link and one dab page
  • Lots of really short paragraphs. These should be combined where possible in order to make the article flow better. Lots of short sections too, especially towards the end of the article. Could some of these be combined in order to let the article flow and shorten the TOC?
  • Further information templates should not be in the middle of the section as they are in the Administration of Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992) section.

I have tried to put the most important issues towards the top of the list. Dana boomer (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criteria of concern include referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2010 (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 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/January_2011&oldid=416681998"