Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January 2018

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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 0:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC) [1].

Chandralekha (1948 film)

[edit]
Notified: Ssven2, Numerounovedant. Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Article alerts

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been substantially reworked after one abundantly used source, which was later discovered to be a non-RS, was removed. Now I want to re-evaluate the article and see that it is still FA-worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kailash29792: Could you please notify some relevant WikiProjects? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified two users as seen above. I doubt if the users will respond to my request at the Indian cinema task force since they rarely respond to messages. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Close without FARC: I have given a good look at the article and it still does seem to meet the standards for FA. Only one query: The critical reception can be improved by describing what the critics say in our own words instead of simply stating "xx said xx". Otherwise, I can't find much fault with the article.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ssven2, thank you for your comments. I'll be travelling from tomorrow till 14 Sept, so I hope someone will respond to further comments in my place. --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Sven. I have amended the bold title as we do not usually declare keep or remove in the review stage. DrKay (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vedant–Hey Kailash, I am sorry it took me so long to get here, but now that I've gone through the article, I do have some concerns.

  • The Critical response, as rightly pointed out by Ssven2 can use a lot of paraphrasing because as it stands now it's just one long direct quote after the other, especially in the first paragraph. The second fares a little better in this aspect, but again, the way the sentences have been frames is repetitive. The section could use some copy-edits.
  • Although I am not sure if there any rule regarding the references being placed at the end of the sentence, I prefer it that way. When put in he middle of a sentence it really breaks the flow for, but that could just be me. Also, when two or more references are being used in a sentence make sure that they are placed in a chronological order.
  • I'll offer some very minor c.e. for the relatively trivial issues.

Also, here i go appreciating the sheer magnitude of one of your articles again. It's amazing how you're able to dig up the resources and come up with such comprehensive articles one after the other. All the refs. looks good, great work. Let me know if you any queries regarding my concerns, and then I can probably come up with a declaration. Good luck. NumerounovedantTalk 06:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I request that this FAR be closed, with the decision to keep the article as FA. All the reviewers have voted in favour of keeping it as a FA. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Delisted

[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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:29, 1 January 2018 (UTC) [2].

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne

[edit]
Notified: Raul654, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Science Fiction

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because of its sourcing issues, using questionable sources such as "2404", "Quandary", "Game Chronicles", "BonusStage", "GameOver Online", "Jolt Online Gaming UK", "ICGames", "ToTheGame", "GameBoomers" and any other sites I missed that isn't part of the Reliable Sources list for gaming articles. Another issue I have is the prose throughout. For example, starting the "Gameplay" section with "The main focus of Voyage is puzzle-solving." shows how dated the standards were when this was promoted. GamerPro64 03:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Holy moly

    We're not journalists. But, we are looking for a few writers to join us! The benefits? You get to be press and get the occasional free game. Sorry, we all volunteer. But, dang, we have fun.
    — https://web.archive.org/web/20070615143314/http://www.gamersinfo.net:80/content/aboutUs.php

    Agreed that the article needs to be rebuilt from trustworthy sources, noteworthy reviews czar 06:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section primarily concerned sourcing and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2017 (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) 13:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC) [3].[reply]


West Bengal

[edit]
Notified: Dwaipayanc, Noticeboard for India-related topics

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is suffused with unsourced weasel words like "prominent", "prefer", "major", "well-known", "rare", "finest", "dominated", etc. and requires extensive copyediting. On just a quick scan, I can see spaces missing after punctuation, use of ampersands in flowing text, and short stubby paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll try to check/address the issues mentioned here. Regards. --Tito Dutta (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello! Thanks for bringing this article to FARC. I was the nominator of FAC of this article, and thereafter did try to maintain its quality, of course with the help of other editors. However, the article has been neglected for quite a while now. It will be excellent if this FARC process is continued beyond May 15 (I am hoping for some free time in real life after that date). With the help of other editors, we can surely save this FA! Thanks, --Dwaipayan (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Comments This page does need some work but here are a few suggestions:
  • "91 million inhabitants"... as of when?
  • "making it similar in size to Serbia" is this a good comparison? Wouldn't it be better to compare it to other states in India?
  • " has borders with five Indian states" should be "borders five Indian states"
  • "West Bengal is the sixth-largest contributor" ... largest contributing state?
  • "It is noted for its cultural activities and the presence of cultural and educational institutions"... I don't know what this means specifically.
  • "stalwarts in literature"... I'm not sure that is the correct use of that word.
  • "to scores of musicians, film-makers and artists"... can't this be said for any state? What makes this state unique in this respect?
  • "playing association football besides cricket, the national favourite sport." This sentence is needlessly passive and can be rewritten to be more readable.
It's a pretty good article close to FA, but even a quick glance shows that it needs some fine editing first. For example the historic population table is good, but there is no reference to 2011 census in the box. What does "serial" mean in the districts section, and rank of what? All of India? These little things need to be clarified. Mattximus (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Sourcing problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. The review has been open for seven months and the article still has many unreferenced statements and a few citation neededs. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Concur with Dudley Miles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Tagged for unsourced statements since June 2016. DrKay (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - There are sections in this article that are severely undersourced, such as Medieval and early modern periods (1 source that doesn't cover the whole section) and the majority of the cultural subsections. The Literature section is basically a namecheck of a number of "well known" writers without expanding on their merits or contributions (why mention these writers and not others?), making that entire section a WP:SEAOFBLUE. Still a lot of weird, unreferenced sentences in this article, such as "The variety of fruits and vegetables that Bengal has to offer is incredible", "includes hilsa preparations, a favourite among Bengalis" and " It is the gateway to the revolution of European education". The article has currently 11 citation needed tags; I'd wager it is missing a few more. RetiredDuke (talk) 15:22, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment-Give me until the end of December, I was recently busy with my own work and forgot to follow this page.For now you can add the remaining [citation needed] tags which you all wager are needed — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 02:05, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partly Done-Existing citation needs were filled up, awaiting more from the reveiwers. Pinging Dudley Miles Sturmvogel 66 DrKay RetiredDuke Nikkimaria-{Please add [citation needed] tags wherever applicable in the article and I will try and fill them up}. Also noting that this being an indian topic finding sources for some statements may be more difficult than for other similar articles — comment added by Force Radical (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 December 2017 (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) 3:20, 1 January 2018 (UTC) [4].

Mangalore

[edit]

Review section

[edit]

I've been gone more than 5 years, and wasn't around to check the vandalism and edits. I shall be keeping an eye on certain sensitive articles from now on. I just want to clarify. Does this article still satisfy FA criteria, or should it be delisted? Do let me know what issues are there, and I'll do my best to make necessary corrections. Thanks! Liberal Humanist (talk) 10:42, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This article is not FA, but it should not require too much work to bring it up to standard.
  • The lead is not satisfactory. It should be an unreferenced summary of the referenced content of the main text, not a collection of referenced statements. It is also short for the size of article, missing such basic facts as population.
  • There is some 'recentism', that is comments which are or will become out of date - e.g. "Recently, a committee of experts constituted by the Tulu Sahitya Academy..." Also "The process of making Mangalore City Corporation into ‘Greater Mangalore’ has almost begun..." There are other examples and you need to go through the article deleting recentism.
  • The names of city officials are better omitted or given as at a specified date. I think there is also too much detail about the companies in the city. It seems a bit like advertising and is probably already out of date.
  • The details on civic government are skimpy. What are the responsibilities of the city and state levels?
  • The figure of 13.7% for the birth rate must be wrong. the highest in the world is Niger at 4.5%.
  • The article could do with a good map. The schematic one of tourist places is not much help.
  • I am not clear what is meant by saying that the city is on the backwaters of rivers. Is it on cut-off arms of the rivers? Does the city connect to river traffic?
  • "adding to its cosmopolitan look and appeal" Advertising language like this should be avoided.
  • "Cruise ships from Europe, North America and UAE arrive at New Mangalore Port to promote tourism around Mangalore." "promote" is the wrong word here.
  • "Mangalore experiences scheduled and unscheduled power cuts, especially during the summer, due to excess consumption demands." Why not inadequate supply?
  • "Potable water to the city is supplied by Mangalore City Corporation." Is this supplied to all residents?
  • I think comments about parks, golf courses etc belong in the tourism section, not utilities.
  • I think the main fault is extensive recentism. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles: I have made all the changes you've suggested to the Mangalore article, except the following:

  • The schematic map has not been changed (Point number 7)
  • Responsibility of the civic government at city and state levels (Point number 5)

I request you to please retain Mangalore as a Featured Article.
D7G1FV49C (talk) 15:47, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 'Civic administration' section is still unsatisfactory. Saying that the city corporation is "in charge of the civic and infrastructural assets of the city" is vague. There should be a sentence or two specifying the responsibilities of city and state level governments. The next paragraph covers elections to the Lok Sabha before revision, then covers the regional level, then goes back to the revision. This is confusing. However, these points are minor, and I now support the retention of the article as FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Liberal Humanist: Are you able to work on addressing the issues raised? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:42, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include recentism, organization/coverage and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Just taking the first two paragraphs, the population figure is over-precise and should be replaced with a ballpark figure not an exact number that is bound to change and looks faintly ridiculous. In the second paragraph, virtually every sentence begins "Mangalore...", which is over-repetitive, boring and unimaginative. The comments in the review section have not been addressed satisfactorily and if the large number of recent IP edits is anything to go by, the article isn't actively policed by a subject expert who can weed out poor edits or integrate valuable edits sensitively. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, as the items raised have not been adequately addressed. The article needs more detail and needs to be updated from the time submitted to FAC (There are statements beginning with things like "Today..." that are from years ago). The first statement I spot-checked for accuracy ("Today, the Mangalore region is a nationally known higher education hub with a flourishing service sector, particularly in medical services, a small but growing IT regional hub, and a booming real estate and banking industry.") seems to be plagiarized from the source provided, so it's likely that further spot-checking will be needed. --Laser brain (talk) 16:56, 20 December 2017 (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) 3:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC) [5].

Assata Shakur

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Savidan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because:

While it is obviously the product of a great deal of work, I found a number of areas where it did not live up to FA standards. It seems likely that there are more problems, as I didn't look very hard.

1) Accusing a BLP of perjury in wikipedia's voice, with flimsy sourcing. 2) Sourcing information to assatashakur.org and then repeating it in wikipedia's voice. 3) SYNTHing "police authorities" and "prosecution" - may seem small but should have been picked up.

More detail on talk. NPalgan2 (talk) 22:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Shakur dropped out of Cathedral High School[ambiguous] to get a job and live on her own but later earned a General Educational Development (GED) with her aunt's help.[12] Before dropping out of high school, she attended a segregated school in New York, which she discusses in her autobiography. As the only black student or one of a few in her classes, Shakur said that the integrated school system was poorly set up, and that teachers seemed surprised when she answered a question in class, as if not expecting black people to be intelligent and engaged."
This sounds as if the high school was "integrated" but "mostly white", not "segregated".
FIXED NPalgan2 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What she learned of history was sugar coated, because students were taught a version that ignored the oppression suffered by people of color, especially in the United States. As a child she performed in a play about George Washington's birthday, and said that she was to repeatedly sing “George Washington never told a lie.” In her autobiography she later wrote: “I didn’t know what a fool they had made out of me until i grew up and started to read real history” (Pg 33).
POV phrasing, wrong citation format.
FIXED NPalgan2 (talk) 23:44, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shakur attended Borough of Manhattan Community College (BMCC), when she was introduced to the Golden Drums and then th
What were the golden drums?
FIXED, just avoid mentioning them as the name not important.
" Their relationship was damaged by Louis’s marriage ideals, including a wife to properly cook and clean. "
This article may have been "well-written... [with prose that is] engaging and of a professional standard", but that is not the case today. Needs a thorough rewrite
"That same year Chesimard changed her name to Assata Olugbala Shakur". The NYTimes referred to her right until her escape as Chesimard, so I assume that she did not change it legally - at least not until she reached Cuba? Article should clarify ambiguity.
https://books.google.com/books?id=QPUVBAAAQBAJ This book was published in 2015 (after the article was raised to FA) but got good reviews in NYTimes, Chicago Tribune, etc and should be included as a source (compared to the many pro-Shakur ones)
One of the biggest questions of the article: did the jury convict AS of personally firing the shots that killed Shakur or was she deemed jointly responsible because she was in a car with other BLA members with guns? This is really something the article should answer. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the nyt noted that the jury convicted her of taking the cop's pistol, so maybe they convicted her of shooting him? on the other hand the police claimed she shot zayd, but the article says that conviction was thrown out when the supreme court of NJ narrowed the application of the law, so it looks like the jury DIDNT say she personally shot Zayd. NPalgan2 (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that I have cleared up most of the remaining problems; the article could do with some more trimming of extraneous details per WP:NOTNEWS. The major reamining problem is sourcing:

  • 7 times: Riley, Lisa (March 26, 2008). "Assata Shakur". The Langston University Gazette.
  • 4 times Churchill and Vander Wall, 2002
  • Paul Wolf's word doc on COINTELPRO
  • 14 times Kirsta, Alix (May 29, 1999), "A black and white case – Investigation – Joanne Chesimard". The Times.
  • 6 times Williams, Evelyn A. (June 25, 2005). "Statement of Facts in the New Jersey trial of Assata Shakur". The Talking Drum Collective.

Riley is not an RS, just an undergraduate newspaper from a disreputable university. Churchill was fired by Colorado for acadmic misconduct, so a better source needed. I have read Kirsta's article, she doesn't seem to have reread the trial transcript or anything, mostly just parrots AS's supporters claims uncritically. Deserves some weight but citing 14 times is over the top. Wolf is not RS. Williams is AS's aunt and lawyer. Should not be used for statements in wikipedia's voice.

The overall problem with this article is the problem mentioned by Burrough - most of the stuff on AS is either skimpy press clippings from the 1970s or nonRS advocacy from AS's supporters who recycle the same claims endlessly. Unfortunately Burrough's book does not rectify this in his brief mentions of AS. Trying to write a FA on AS with the lack of good sourcing is an uphill battle. NPalgan2 (talk) 21:28, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]
Moving to get some additional opinions on the status of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The problems with POV sourcing outlined above are far too great for retention as FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:14, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Listed In my view the potential issues are not to great that you could not fix them quite easily, and since POV is always subjective, I don't think we should rush to delist. We are looking at some content that is poorly sourced, because the authors to said sources are in some way or other considered unreliable by NPalgan2. We should at least attempt to either replace the sources or remove the content. POV content can be removed from an article without impacting its overall quality and by extension, not delisting it. Dysklyver 23:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it can be done "quite easily", perhaps give it a try? NPalgan2 (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NPalgan2: I can see you've been editing the article since you listed the problems above. Do you feel you're making significant headway and have enough enthusiasm to keep going? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article is much better now. Some of the sourcing still needs to be improved, the other main issue is that, according to FA criteria, the article is supposed to be "comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places", but, as I said, the sources available do not answer some basic, important questions. NPalgan2 (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes. I can see that the Days of Rage book has quite a bit about her in it (even material such as her family's nickname for her, among other things). So just to clarify, when you say "sources available" you mean sources already used by the article and not sources available overall. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:58, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having given the article a readthrough and thought it over, I think that it's now of (or near) FA level. I've removed Riley as a source. Wolf is cited for one fact, Vander Wall and Churchill is cited for tangential uncontroversial points (so probably it doesn't matter that Churchill was later dismissed for academic fabrication). Williams (AS's lawyer and a SPS) is cited for a few points but probably a R2ndaryS has the same info or the points could be dropped. However, the article has changed a lot since I started editing it, and it's not the same article that was promoted in 2008. It should probably be checked again. My interest has waned in this article, but I could be somewhat involved in the process. NPalgan2 (talk) 02:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think the best thing is if a couple of impartial people look it over for prose and balance then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:37, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. The sources used to write this article strike me as poor overall and bordering on fringe. A library search reveals a substantial body of peer-reviewed scholarship about the subject that should be reviewed and used to revise the article. --Laser brain (talk) 11:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delist – There appears to be some proseline in the last section from additions, and I spotted some of the sourcing issues that have been raised before. At least one reference (number 201) is to a Wikipedia page, which is an obvious no-no, and in general this seems heavily weighted towards 1970s newspaper stories and the like. This would be okay if they were reliable and the best sources available, but if Laser is correct about the existence of stronger sources, and I assume he is, this doesn't meet FA criterion 1c. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:24, 26 December 2017 (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_2018&oldid=819979761"