Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/June 2018

Kept

Removed

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) 1:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC) [1].

Halo: Combat Evolved

Notified: JimmyBlackwing, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Halo

Review section

I am nominating this article for FAR because I do not believe it meets the featured article criteria anymore. It was promoted way back in 2006, when the standards were far lower (this is what an FAC looked like back then).

Problems I notice are:

It's not "professionally written" (1a) (these examples aren't the only ones, either):
- For one thing, the lead is structured kind of weirdly—"it was released as a launch title for the Xbox gaming system on November 15, 2001, and is considered the platform's "killer app" is the second sentence of the first paragraph.
- The gameplay section is poorly worded: "As a first-person shooter, the gameplay of Halo: Combat Evolved is fundamentally similar to that of its peers". How can a video game have peers? Also, the phrase "FPS" is repeatedly used with no context given as to what this means.
Fixed It was worded quite strangely at times and kept on talking about how funny it was to see aliens get killed by plasma; I fixed it, hopefully it isn't as awkward.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 15:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The reception section follows the ill-fated "A said B" list of facts format, rather than an overview of the critical reception (WP:RECEPTION).
It's not comprehensive (1b):
- The development section barely even talks about how Bungie made the game and is more like a schedule of major announcements about the game. One big question: why did Bungie change it to an FPS?
It's not well-researched (1c):
- There are many questionable sources, such as "The Adrenaline Vault" (which is explicitly listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S) and "Xbox Kombo".
Fixed The unreliable sources and their associated content has been removed.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 14:47, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Mass amounts of text are unsourced. This is a big problem.

JOE BRO 64 19:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was an inadequate delay (24 hours) between the nominator raising concerns on the article's talk page and nominating it here. Per WP:FAR, "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." This includes the initial concern-raising stage. The nomination should be closed until the proper procedure has been observed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We can give this stage twice the length in time if you want. :) --Izno (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever way works for the FAR coordinators. Sad as it is to see this article nominated here, Halo doesn't grab me like it did 12 years ago as a research subject—I don't plan to mount a rescue operation here. I will say that the prose quality seems to have been deteriorated by drive-by edits over the years, so I might rescue a few paragraphs of the old text from previous versions. Beyond that, we'll just cross our fingers that others at WPVG are interested in saving it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to leave it sitting here for longer given the speed of the notification. Given you know the article and subject well @JimmyBlackwing: it'd be great if you could just double check the additions anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can do. Halo's development in particular is a really, really big subject (probably article-worthy in itself), so I don't envy anyone who wants to write a 2018-quality version of that section! We'll see if someone makes an attempt. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it.💵Money💵emoji💵^Talk 02:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include prose, comprehensiveness, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delist. Aside from Money Emoji's edits, barely any of my points have been resolved. Prose is still somewhat subpar, entire paragraphs are still unsourced, the development section still remains unexpanded, and the reception section is still just A said B. JOE BRO 64 20:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delist for now. I can't put the time needed to fix the article right now, so it's ok if it gets delisted. I'll get it to GA, then I might renominate it for FA when I have the time💸Money💸emoji💸^💴 21:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 8 June 2018 (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) 1:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC) [2].

Swedish language

Notified: Peter Isotalo, WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Sweden

Review section

The article was promoted in 2005 and hasn't been properly reviewed since then. (The 2007 review was aborted.) It's been tagged for citation for over 3 years and there was very little response to the verifiability concern raised on the talk page then. DrKay (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't many tags, actually. ~~I'll see about some refs for them.~~ Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a dozen refs, and removed a few bits of uncited text, so it's now tag-free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea how the whole FA stuff works, but I would expect from an article about a major language a little bit more content about the syntax. This article very briefly touches upon some aspects, but given the enormous amount of literature on the topic, I think this is far from adequate. – Uanfala (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article covers grammar (including syntax), and is linked to a subsidiary article on Swedish grammar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point was that the coverage of syntax in either of the two articles is rudimentary at best. – Uanfala (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I would like to bring the article up to snuff, so I'll try my best to address any concerns.

I would like to aim for a reasonable level of detail. Can you provide some bullet points on some of the most essential facts that you believe should be added to the article text?

Peter ^Isotalo 17:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there don't appear to be any decent Swedish grammars easily accessible in my library, so I'll have to go by my first impressions from reading the section in the article – some of the following may not be relevant. For example, there is a mention of reflexive pronouns with a hint that they might be unusual. But why are they unusual? How different are they from neighbouring languages or from English? Given how important anaphora is in Chomskyan syntax, there's bound to have been research out there that has uncovered interesting aspects of the way the reflexives work in Swedish. There are two sentences about word order, but this almost certainly glosses over a more complex picture. At the very least, some examples would have been needed at least to show how SVO differs from V2 order. How are questions formed? How are relative clauses constructed? How does the grammar of the spoken language differ from the written standard?

These are all things I would expect to see in a top-quality article about a language. But I won't go far as predicating the FA status on them. If anyone is interested in syntax and they are willing to expand the article tha would be great. But it's better not to have any content than have content contributed by someone without a background in syntax solely for the sake of passing FA review. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications. I've started working on this, but I feel a bit rusty, so the going might be a bit slow. I'll be sandboxing the content here User:Peter Isotalo/Swedish rather than trying to screw up the article with too many minor edits.

Do you have any examples of other language FAs that you believe contain good descriptions of unique, unusual or fairly specific traits? It might prove very useful inspiration.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peter Isotalo: Any update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No progress on my end. I was overly optimistic in my hopes to get back to editing. I'll have to pass on this review. Sorry for the inconvenience.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest writing a full grammar section based on the chapter on Swedish by Erik Andersson in Auwera and König's "The Germanic Languages" - that is a very useful little grammar sketch that has all the main elements for a sketch of the language. I would do it similar to what I have done in the articles on English and Danish - which have sections that also cover basic syntax.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
also I would suggest cleaning up the references to have a harvard bibliography, with citations using harvrefs and then a separate note section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have this as pdf and can send it. Ahlgren, J., Holmes, P., & Serin, G. (2006). Colloquial Swedish: the complete course for beginners. Routledge. And I have ordered Holmes' two grammars from the library.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include coverage and sourcing. 16:50, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Delist. I'm sorry, I appreciate that a lot of work has gone into this, but I just fact-checked three sentences in the Geographical distribution section (because I had access to the three sources for those sentences) and none of the sentences appeared to be supported by the sources.[3] A score of 0 out of 3 doesn't give me confidence in the rest of the article. DrKay (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm agree with you. --QuQuqquu99 (talk) 13:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: failing verification is pretty serious, and there has been little activity for 2 months so am closing this as delist.
Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.