Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/January 2020

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 delisted by DrKay via FACBot (talk) 1:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC) [1].

Tropical Depression Ten (2005)

[edit]
@Juliancolton and Jason Rees:

This is a procedural FAR, to keep the bookkeeping right, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tropical Depression Ten (2005). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premature. (And if it's merged, it's an automatic delist anyway.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:32, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD has closed with consensus to merge, so... in what order is this to be done? Delist and then get on with redirecting, or the other way around? It should not take very long to condense the useful info and stick it in the parent article. – Juliancolton | Talk 16:17, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the order matters … you can proceed with merging, and the delisting info is recorded by bot on the talk page after the Coords archive this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FAR coordinators: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton in case I forget to check that the articlemilestones are correct in this unusual case after the bot goes through, please ping me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: OK, will do. Thank you! Merge/redirect have been carried out. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:51, 21 January 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) 2:58, 23 January 2020 (UTC) [2].

Folding@home

[edit]

Review section

[edit]
Notified: Jesse V., Six WikiProjects

Nominating this article because of the update tag the article has in its "Patterns of participation" section. Also nominating because of unsourced material in the article. GamerPro64 17:16, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question How does the section update tag figure into the FAC? I don't see "out of date" as one of the criteria. Do featured articles in general have expiry dates? Thanks, --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the section needs updating, then it would mean that the article does not meet Criteria 1 of the Featured Article criteria, as it would not be comprehensive or well-researched. GamerPro64 19:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for your explanation. The update tag was placed, without explanation, by a controversial user, FAMASFREENODE, who was blocked after just 208 edits. I would be inclined to remove such a tag as FUD that is unhelpful for improving the article. I suppose every FA goes out of date the moment an RS with new content is published on the subject, but without a substantial, concrete criticism, it is hard to address the problem short of a full literature review. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:54, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include some sentences requiring citations Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is of significant academic interest with major implications for medical research into Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, and many forms of cancer, among other diseases. According to whom? Unless someone can explain the puffery and significant sourcing to self, I will be a Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
" This kind of claim cannot be cited to self! Folding@home is one of the world's fastest computing systems, with a speed of approximately 98.7petaFLOPS
And there is no indication sourcing was reviewed when this passed FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cited to a 2012 source: Since its launch on 1 October 2000, the Pande Lab has produced 212 scientific research papers as a direct result of Folding@home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cited to a 2011 source: Preventing Aβ aggregation is a promising method to developing therapeutic drugs for Alzheimer's disease, according to Drs. Naeem and Fazili in a literature review article. Pure and outdated puffery. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All cited to eight-year-old sources, and more. This article actually reeks of paid editing. In December 2008, Folding@home found several small drug candidates which appear to inhibit the toxicity of Aβ aggregates.[53] In 2010, in close cooperation with the Center for Protein Folding Machinery, these drug leads began to be tested on biological tissue.[32] In 2011, Folding@home completed simulations of several mutations of Aβ that appear to stabilize the aggregate formation, which could aid in the development of therapeutic drug therapies for the disease and greatly assist with experimental nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy studies of Aβ oligomers.[50][54] Later that year, Folding@home began simulations of various Aβ fragments to determine how various natural enzymes affect the structure and folding of Aβ. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar has scores of recent journal articles that aren't included; in fact, there is almost NO recent content in this article (that is, since 2016). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The nominators, Jesse V. and Johnnaylor haven't touched the article for more than five years.[3] It may not have been outdated then, but it is now. It doesn't look like it was adequately sourced even when it passed FAC. The version that passed FAC also relied a lot on non-independent sources.[4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guess when you put it that way, this article is worse than I previously declared. GamerPro64 00:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the dreadful sourcing: almost all to them, their members, or their founder. Puffery everywhere. Unsourced claims everywhere. Why did this pass FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That just makes its promotion even more dubious and shameful. GamerPro64 00:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look and the excellent concrete criticisms! Worse than I realized and fixing the problems is going to be more than I can handle currently. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:07, 20 January 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) 2:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC) [5].

Lead(II) nitrate

[edit]
Notified: Wimvandorst, WikiProject Chemicals

Review section

[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was recently shortened by someone qualified to do so, but hasn't been reviewed since the major changes. I am particularly concerned by the shortness of the lead, whether the shortened article is now comprehensive, and the prose structure of short, stubby paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 11:50, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The call for review is appropriate: the vandalism to the article is very much. The primary problem pointed out (too short lede) is already addressed, since re-instating the original 2008 is still fully correct now. But other parts of the article have been butchered as well, with an overall undue shortness. I'll give it a copy-edit to re-instate the original text, incorporating the genuine additions/improvements by a few hundred editors in the last 11 years. Wim van Dorst (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • I'm just starting this review, but one of the questions I had was what language "plumb dulcis" is? I presume it's Latin, but the Classical Latin for "sweet lead" is "plumbum dulce". I know that seems somewhat minor, but it's what I picked up on. I'll see what else I can review at my earliest convenience. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some minor vandalism reverts were easy. However, the major change is by dr Gans, of UoLeeds who is certainly knowledgeable enough about the topic. I asked on his talk page to comment on his major wikipedia changes, and am awaiting elucidation. We can always boldly revert to the version of early September 2019, but I rather co-operate on improvement. Wim van Dorst (talk) 13:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Although dr Gans is qualified as a inorganic chemist, the editing he does is merely deleting what he deems to be not pertaining to the primary content of the Lead(II) nitrate article. It means that information, targeted to non-scientifically trained readers, is deleted by him. My view is that this article should also cater to readers without a PhD in chemistry, and thus have more general information about aquaeous chemistry of the salt (which is special), and references to its historic use as pigments. How do other editors see this? Wim van Dorst (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • In my opinion, this article is now less accessible to a non-expert. The edits, while in good faith, have left the article in a state where it no longer serves Wikipedia's audience and is more appropriate for a college chemistry student. I don't know if the answer is to restore the September 2019 and inspect the proposed changes individually, but that would be a start. --Laser brain (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support Laser brain suggestion of reverting to the August or early September version. 20:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC).
  • @DrKay and John M Wolfson: Do you also concur with LB's suggestion? If so, if that were implemented, what additional work would be needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support reversion to the September 2019 version; on first order it at least looks better with its longer structure and infobox images. Going off it there are still several statements that are uncited, which gives me pause. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:04, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wimvandorst, DrKay, Petergans, John M Wolfson, and Laser brain: Per this discussion I've restored the September 2019 version; please discuss what changes are required from that point. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:05, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal structure [111] plane
The wholesale reversion is unacceptable, as it re-introduces material which actually does need to be deleted. I limit my comments here to the infobox: the picture of a white powder is unverifiable; The structure of the nitrate ion is misleading as the ion has 3-fold symmetry (what is shown is one canonical form of a resonance hybrid of 3 structures); the correct structure (at the right here) is shown in the picture in the section Structure so the other structures in the infobox are also redundant. My only other comment at this time is that the table of solubility belongs on a data page rather than being in a main article.
My wholesale edit was based on the principle that content has to be verifiable and non-trivial. I suggest reversion to my last edit and a discussion of possible amendments/reversions to that version on the article talk page. Petergans (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC) Petergans (talk) 11:14, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see some edits I can make to the references and some other formatting; nothing major, but can I be pinged when a version to edit is decided on? Kees08 (Talk) 21:40, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and formatting. Some sentences require citations. Main problem is stalemate on preferred version. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 2 January 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/January_2020&oldid=937128828"