Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January 2012

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kept status

[edit]

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 23:26, 19 January 2012 [1].

Sylvia (ballet)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Melongrower, Dance, Classical music

Article was promoted in 2005. A FAR notice was given December 2010 and I made a second one in November 2011. There were promises of future work but nothing has been done so far.

  • 1a Article is full of praiseworthy comments, weasel wording, editorializing and bullet lists that should be in prose. Here are some examples:
  • Sylvia, ou la nymphe de Diane, as it was originally titled, was the first ballet to be shown at the newly constructed Opera Garnier and it did so with extravagance. This approach proved at times excessive. The lavish scenery of Jules Chéret was poorly lit, detracting from the quality of the production. The costumes designed by Lacoste were well appreciated, however. In the end it was Delibes' score which saved the production. Without such highly esteemed music, the ballet would have soon drifted into obscurity[citation needed]
  • Sylvia is generally considered a classical ballet.[by whom?] It features a nondescript mythical setting and a late nineteenth-century score, both of which give it an old-fashioned feel. In many ways, however, it was quite revolutionary for its time. The score was and still is recognized for its greatness. Delibes' work is certainly the best appreciated aspect of the ballet for its innovation, creativity, and maturity. Frederick Ashton's choreography complements the music very well in this respect, staying true to the spirit of the original production while incorporating modern techniques and adding his own unique touch.[editorializing][citation needed]
  • 1c There are citation needed tags which I placed by request. Article information seems to stop in 2005; there is an update needed tag. There are dead links to sources and sources that need page numbers.
  • 1d The praiseworthy prose and the lack of opposite opinion fails neutrality. Isn't there some reviewer at some time that didn't like Sylvia?
  • These are the three major issues with the article; the rest is minor and not worth a mention at this point. Brad (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although I continue to be troubled by FARs brought with vague and incomplete rationales (we can't automatically assume something fails neutrality without having done a literature search, so that rationale isn't entirely fair and FARs shouldn't be brought without good reason), this article has been on my needs-a-FAR radar for years. I also doubt that it's comprehensive (a search needs to be done by someone with access to a university library), but more concretely, here's just one example of the troubling prose:

  • Rehearsals for Sylvia begin on August 15, 1875, with only the first third of the music intact. Throughout the rehearsal period the score was under constant revision by Delibes, often with the "aid" of Mérante and Rita Sangalli who would each dance a lead rôle. This development of the score was a grueling process of many revisions and restarts.
    • "First third intact"? what the heck does that mean? First third written?
    • Throughout ... under constant ... redundant puffery, and really, isn't that typical?
    • Grueling process with revisions and restarts ... how is that different from the development of most ballets?
  • It reads like high school level prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory read confirms the rationale of User:SandyGeorgia and show without equivocation that this article, if at one time properly an FA, has fallen into disrepair so as to no longer meet the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by My76Strat (talk • contribs)

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criteria brought up in the review section include referencing, prose and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2012 (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 23:26, 19 January 2012 [2].

Sunset Boulevard (film)

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Top four editors by edit count: Coder Dan, Ian Rose, Gwen Gale and Rossrs. Projects: Film and United States.

Article was promoted in 2005 and has suffered from deterioration and trivia additions. Talk page notice was given in December 2010. It is no longer up to the current FA criteria.

  • 1a Other than some weasel words in the lede all looks well.
  • 1c There are multiple citation needed and dead link tags. There are also multiple paragraphs without citations. The unreferenced "Television" section is all trivia. Direct quotes need citations.
  • 2a The lede needs more detail and filling out. Article length would warrant three good sized paragraphs.
  • 2b Structure needs revisiting. There are a lot of sections and or subsections that should be eliminated.
  • 2c The most pressing problem here is the lack of page numbers from the sources.
  • 3 Will review if and when serious work begins. Brad (talk) 05:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is ghastly. One longish section is only partially sourced, and the relevant footnote reads Based on liner notes to Boulevard! demo recording CD release, by Richard Stapley, Tim J Hutton and Steven M Warner. Is this a commercially released CD of a demo, or a demo CD, or what? If it's the former, how was it released? And who wrote the notes? Etc etc. And that's just one section. ¶ OTOH some of the objections seem lamebrained too. Consider this: According to The New York Times, published on March 14, 2010, Norma Talmadge was "the obvious if unacknowledged source of Norma Desmond, the grotesque, predatory silent movie queen of [...] 'Sunset Boulevard'", further describing it as a malignant misrepresentation of Talmadge.[citation needed] Er, hello? Citation already (if incompletely) provided ("The New York Times, published on March 14, 2010"). -- Hoary (talk) 06:29, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the article is ghastly does not warrant unthinking additions of yet more warning flags. Consider this edit: the claim that the film is widely regarded as a classic does not need sourcing in the lead when it's already amply backed up in a section below titled "Stature". Yes, splatter the article with as many warning flags as are merited, but no more. -- Hoary (talk) 06:47, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know what else is necessary to back up the claim that It is widely accepted as a classic. Anyone who thinks that this should instead be reworded is of course free to reword it. -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have been one of the "top four contributors" to the article once upon a time but my last halfway meaningful contribution there was over three years ago and truth be told, though I think back in those days it might have been on the fleeting edge of FA, no more. Since then, I've only ever watched it for vandalism and rot has come to roost in a big way. Not FA. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think I've ever been a contributor. The obvious fate of this article would be to have its FA status removed and for it to rest comfortably amid WP mediocrity. However, this seems a pity, given that the film is excellent and that by contrast such so many FA subjects are forgettable pap. I'm not going to restore the article to featurable status but I'm willing to be one among a team that does this. -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Progress report 1: The article is almost as much of a mess as it was when the objections above were (rightly) raised three days ago or so, but at least it no longer seems to have any dead links. (And I didn't simply remove the links; I fixed them.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include sourcing, prose and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 16:14, 9 December 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 19:01, 11 January 2012 [3].

Fauna of Australia

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
User:PDH has over 500 edits to article but has not edited at all since 2007. There are no other editors that have over 40 edits to article within the past year. Notified only project listed on article: Australian Wikipedians' notice board.

Article was promoted in 2005 and a FAR notice issued in 2009. It is still not up to current standards.

  • 1c I've counted over 60 citation needed tags in place but there are even more areas not tagged that lack citations. One main source used in this article is Egerton's Encyclopedia of Australian wildlife and citing an encyclopedia article with another encyclopedia is poor practice and not considered a "high-quality" source.
  • MoS WP:LINK, WP:SEEALSO and MOS:Images should be adhered to. Obviously the 1c trouble is the major factor here. There isn't much reason at this point to review further. Brad (talk) 05:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the tags are definitely warranted, but just from a glance over there are one or two that might be a bit zealous for a summary article. Apart from that, alot of the statements about a particular species should be sourced in their own articles, so they should be fairly easy to bring over. The linking is a bit excessive also: links to things like Northern Territory, etc, aren't really helpful to the reader. Nightw 06:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Issues raised in the FAR section include sourcing and MOS compliance. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Since nomination there have only been vandalism reverts. Nothing is going on otherwise. Brad (talk) 21:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist reluctantly - A couple of years ago I did some bits and pieces, but realised this article needs a concerted effort. Yes there are alot of tags but what surprised me was how much information has changed even since the production of some tertiary sources which were used for it. See some discussion at Talk:Fauna_of_Australia#Mammals_of_Australia and here. Sorry but I don't have the time for this one presently, and looks like no-one else does either. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist reluctantly, I've been working on just addressing the citation need tags and many are zealous but there are as many which are valid. Even if I could address all the necessary tags in the next week the prose would need work as would some of the images along with the overall layout. It needs more work than can be achieved in a short time frame, its been hanging aournd for too long time to close this. Gnangarra 10:47, 11 January 2012 (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 21:24, 6 January 2012 [4].

Sargon of Akkad

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Briangotts, Til Eulenspiegel, Dbachmann, Dougweller, WikiProject Ancient Near East, WikiProject Iraq

FA since 2007. I am nominating this featured article for review because it fails criteria 1b, 1c, 2a, 2b, 2c and 3 (see here for details). After I placed the talk page note I did some significant work on the refs and deleted some really blatant nonsense, but there was no follow-up by other editors. However, in terms of editing and especially content this article is still far from FA-status.Zoeperkoe (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At first glance, some bits look a bit odd. Nicholas Postgate's name is spelt incorrectly in the bibliography for a start; some volumes like Barton are referenced, but not in the bibliography; the style on the bibliography is rather out of kilter. Some information mentioned in the lead (e.g. the archaeology of the capital) doesn't seem to be mentioned in the main, etc. Needs a bit of TLC. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, MOS, sourcing, and media. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 22 December 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 21:24, 6 January 2012 [5].

Rosa Parks

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Top five editors by edit count: Speedoflight, BanyanTree, Shanes, Jmabel, Ohnoitsjamie. Projects: United States, Women's History, Biography, Alabama, Politics, African diaspora

Soon after Parks died in 2005 this article was assembled and passed FAC probably in order to have TFA on 1 December 2005. In 2008 and 2009 there were calls to bring the article to current FA standards. Some effort was put in; there are various threads on the talk page where work was being discussed. Still, this article is far from current standards.

  • 1a Prose suffers from what I can determine to be editors inserting information but not taking into consideration continuity of the article. Several passages lack proper introduction and explanations.
  • 1c Source quality is acceptable but there are many paragraphs that lack citations. There are open maintenance tags such as {{cn}} and dead links.
  • 2a The lede contains statements that are either not in the article body or are not backed up in the article body with citations. One example is Parks' action was not the first of its kind to impact the civil rights issue, and there had been others, and etc which is not covered in the body. The lede should be reworked after the body is properly arranged and cited.
  • 2c Some of the sources are missing publishers and retrieved on dates.
  • 3 Review will be done once Mos Images is followed.
  • MoS MOS:IMAGES and associated policies are very problematic. WP:EXT should be enforced on the external links. WP:SEEALSO should be enforced. Brad (talk) 03:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that's better though it's the least of the article's problems. Brad (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have some specific examples, rather than a WP:IDONTLIKEIT kind of thing? It's an important article and I would very much like to help and improve it. Volunteer Marek  06:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is we? When you read and or scroll through the article can you not notice which paragraphs are lacking citations? Do you not see the maintenance tags already there? You do this on purpose right? Brad (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you, knock it off. Marek, I see nothing in Brad's comments that is IDONTLIKEIT, and he points out several specifics and examples. Brad, asking condescending/semi-insulting questions helps nothing, and reviewers are expected to (nicely) provide examples when asked. However, I would also like to point out that it is not looked favorably upon when only the examples are fixed and nothing else... Dana boomer (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put about four hours into this, myself, mostly on references (and, as remarked above, on the placement of pictures). I don't see any sign that anyone else is working on it. I'm glad to be helping here, but not willing to work on this all on my own. - Jmabel | Talk 06:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do some work on it, but the article really DOES need a lot of citations. Volunteer Marek  20:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad: do you think that the passages that need references are all marked as such (with tags in the text)? Or are there considerable other things that you think need references (in which case please tag them in the text sooner rather than later in the process, so people know what goal they are chasing). - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also: you say that "Prose suffers from what I can determine to be editors inserting information but not taking into consideration continuity of the article," but as far as I can see you provide not one tangible example. Examples would be useful (or, of course, fixing this yourself would be useful, since it's an editorial concern, not one requiring research). - Jmabel | Talk 06:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the areas that need citations are marked, as it would be a futile exercise at this point. There are paragraphs after paragraphs with no citations. The Montgomery buses: law and prevailing customs section only has one citation in the entire section; Death and funeral only three. The total number of citations in this article is about 50-55 when it should likely have two or three times that many.
The prose problems are most apparent in the Later years section where it falls into a chronological listing of events marked by "in xxxx" and "on xxxx" etc. The same goes for the Awards and honors section where closer to the bottom it has been filled with trivial mentions of Parks and again resorts to the "in xxxx" and "on xxxx" etc.
More importantly I believe the article avoids further research on Parks. It mentions some disagreements she had with King but offers no further analysis or reasons why. The article relies on a lot of news stories instead of books written about Parks or the Civil Rights movement specifically. As I said in my original assessment the article was promoted in 2005 when standards for FA's were not as advanced as they are now. Seemingly the article was thrown together in a rushed fashion in order to make a December 1 main page appearance. Older FA's need constant maintenance in order to keep up with current standards and that has not been the case here. Brad (talk) 09:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I actually agree with Brad here. The article does need a good bit of work to get to FA status, beginning with citations. Note also that there is quite a number of "sources" out there which duplicate the article text, though best as I can tell they seem to be copies of our article rather than vice-versa. Volunteer Marek  08:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to note that the version that passed FAC contains some of the information that I pointed out as missing. Brad (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Concerns raised in the FAR include prose, sourcing, comprehensiveness, and image use. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist The article primarily suffers from 1c and 1b problems and no effort seems to be underway to correct them. However, a lot of cleanup work was done to the article and it's much more presentable than it was a month ago. Jmabel deserves the credit for that at least. Brad (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article has been at FARC for a while... Can we please get some comments from the editors commenting above (or any other interested parties) on whether work is still ongoing or whether the article should be kept or delisted? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Brad. At least 6 large paragraphs without any citation, plus quite a few others with minimal citation. It has been nominated for two months without any major efforts made to address this problem. --Artoasis (talk) 09:37, 4 January 2012 (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/January_2012&oldid=474400343"