Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 2013

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 User:Nikkimaria 21:26, 16 November 2013 [1].

Our Friends in the North

[edit]
Notified: Angmering, WikiProject BBC, Television, British TV/Shows, North East England

I am nominating this featured article for review because its failure to maintain the FA criteria. One major issue it has is its lack of citations it has. One example of this being the "Production and broadcast" having paragraphs with no references in them. Another issue is its use of images as, besides the one for the title screen, they are all pictures from scenes in the show. More variety on the lines of using pictures of the actors, like this, would be better. GamerPro64 21:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, I've been waiting for it for a while as it's a very old FA now. But it's a great love of mine, so I'll do my best to try and work it up to standard. I agree the images probably don't survive on this day and age's Wikipedia, though. Angmering (talk) 06:04, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just a new note to say I have begun work on improving the article - hopefully you will have seen significant improvement by the end of the weekend. Angmering (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have been having a good go at this over the past couple of days - any thoughts on how it's looking so far? Angmering (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The images used in the article are better than the ones before. I didn't really check the prose on the article so maybe someone should look into that. GamerPro64 23:54, 2 September 2013 (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 User:Nikkimaria 21:34, 16 November 2013 [2].

Sylvanus Morley

[edit]
Notified: CoyoteMan31, WP Archaeology, WT MILHIST, WP Mesoamerica, WP Mexico, WP Biography/Science and academia

Review commentary

[edit]

I'll copy here a portion of my talk page notification, several months ago:

"This article needs a major re-vamp to be kept at FA status. It has not kept up to standards, and needs substantial work, especially with regard to adding and improving references. There are many paragraphs and at least one section that completely lack references, with unreferenced information that includes opinion and potentially controversial information. There has been a references needed banner on the article for over a year, without response."

There has been no response to this post. This article is significantly lacking in references, and is not up to FA standards. Dana boomer (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree. There are large sections without references (e.g. "Influences on other scholars", and key bits of his espionage work (which needs to be impeccably cited) is similarly uncited. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition to the problems with sourcing, the structure of the article may need some work. While it's generally OK, the "The "other" Sylvanus G. Morley" section is a bit unusual for a FA, and I'm not a fan of the "Result summary" and "Summation" sections - this material should be integrated into discussions of his legacy and modern reputation. The "Espionage work" section should also explain why Morley decided to act as a spy and whether he was paid for this work, and any influence it had on US Government policy and his career. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These seem unreasonable demands, which may well not be covered in RS. One might think that simple patriotism would explain "why Morley decided to act as a spy". Observation of on the ground activity in Mesoamerica is more likely to feed into naval and military intelligence assessments than "US Government policy". Coverage of the "other" Sylvanus G. Morley may be unusual in an FA, but most FA subjects don't suffer from lifelong confusion with a cousin of the same name. I don't agree with the comments on the structure either. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that much of this is covered in the Harris and Sadler biography of Morley, which is not actually used at all as a source in this article (it is referenced as a "recent investigation" once, and a quote from the book is used, but referenced to a review of the book). The biography appears to focus extensively on his espionage activities, and would probably cover a good deal of the information that Nick-D is requesting. The article itself says that the information he gathered "was of keen interest to the U.S. Government." - perhaps this needs to be adjusted to specify which branch of the government. The Brunhouse biography, currently used only 4x as a ref, may also be a good source of information, although it is older and appears to be focused more on his archeological work. Although the section on the cousin is unusual in FAs (or really, any class of article), I would suggest that in this article it is necessary, since it is is a very unusual situation. Two cousins, with the same name, the same profession, at the same school, at the same time? The section obviously needs to be better sourced, though. Dana boomer (talk) 17:09, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They don't seem "unreasonable demands" at all to me - Morley's motivations for limiting his academic work for several years (which obviously also involved risks to his personal security and reputation) to become a hugely productive spy and the results of his apparently large output seem highly relevant, and is the kind of topic routinely covered in works on people who spent periods working as an intelligence officer. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the notification list for some reason but I have no opinion one way or the other as to whether this article should be featured or not. I believe it WAS featured several years ago. The author of most of this article is CJLL Wright (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CJLL_Wright), who has not been active on Wikipedia for more than a year, at least under this name. He may still be around and would be worth contacting. My own research into Morley is focused only on his relationship to Chichen Itza and those sections are as accurate as far as my knowledge goes. CoyoteMan31 (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I notified you because you were the contributor with the second-highest number of contributions to the article and the highest contributing editor who was still active. This article is currently featured; this review is to discuss whether it should retain that classification. While I don't doubt you that the sections on Chichen Itza are accurate, they are under-sourced for a FA-level article. Do you have any time to/interest in working on improving the citations for this section? Your obvious interest in the subject would be helpful! Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand now. My opinion hasn't changed one way or another. The article is probably the best ever written about Morley and serves its purpose. It's up to folks like you I guess to decide about whether it should be featured or not. Sadly I have zero time to work on it. Good luck! CoyoteMan31 (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Issues raised in the review section include referencing and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:04, 14 October 2013 (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 User:Dana boomer 12:50, 6 November 2013 [3].

History of Tamil Nadu

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Venu62; automatically listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Tamil civilization/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject Tamil Nadu/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts

I am nominating this featured article for review because...the article has been rated FA in November 2006 and I find a lot of issues in the article.

Lead
  • Firstly, the article claims that "Tamil Nadu has been in continous habitation from 15,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE" but the source provided does not support the claim.
  • The following sentence is poorly organised and incoherent.

The region of Tamil Nadu in modern India has been under continuous human habitation since prehistoric Madras from 15,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE as its old existence controversy after mass destruction the land is reduced both in geographical and people.

  • The lead comprises of three paragraphs but has only one citation.
  • Overall, the text in the lead is poor. The phrase "History of Tamil Nadu" has been unnecessarily bolded in the third paragraph
Rest of the article
  • "Age of empires", "Maratha influence" and "British government control" and "Independence struggle and" appear to be bad choices for section headings. There was a Thanjavur Maratha kingdom which ruled over Thanjavur. Nizam is used in the plural - there was, indeed, a Nizam who ruled over Hyderabad in present-day Andhra Pradesh but he never tried to extend his dominions into Tamil Nadu and it is doubtful if there was any part of Tamil Nadu which was included in his kingdom. As far as nawabs are concerned, there was only one particular Nawab who ruled in Tamil Nadu - the Nawab of the Carnatic, later known as Prince of Arcot.
  • The sub-section "End of company rule" is completely unsourced.
  • The Maratha invasions of Tamil Nad are mentioned in the section "Maratha influence" as well as the second paragraph in "Rule of Nizams and Nawabs".
  • I am not sure is newsreporter.in, facts-about-india.com, fathom.com and omniglot.com can be considered reliable sources.

Overall, the text is poor. The article needs a complete rewrite, otherwise, I don't think it is worthy enough to remain an FA.-RaviMy Tea Kadai 05:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment - Transcluded by User:Dwaipayanc at 18:14, 13 September 2013. Ravichandar, please notify interested projects and major contributors. Has any of the above changed since last April? Dana boomer (talk) 18:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing, prose and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Sadly, I don't think there's any way to salvage FA status at this point. Resolving all the problems here would fail the article on stability grounds. It simply has not kept pace with the tightening of FA criteria. The references alone are a mess: many aren't reliable, formatting is beyond inconsistent, there's even at least a couple bare URLs. Pair that with some dubious prose and even unreferenced passages, and this article needs to be stripped down and rebuilt before it would satisfy current FA criteria. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Insufficient density of citations - numerous unreferenced paragraph - quickfail criteria for a new nomination.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. No improvement since nomination. Does not fulfill FA criteria, as outline above by other users.--Dwaipayan (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2013 (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 User:Dana boomer 12:50, 6 November 2013 [4].

History of Puerto Rico

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: User talk:Joelr31, User talk:Marine 69-71, User talk:Rjensen, User talk:Mercy11, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Puerto Rico, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Caribbean

This article was promoted to FA back in 2006. Looking through this article reveals a major lack of citations throughout essentially the entire article. I have tried to discuss this issue with other editors on the talk page in recent months, but nobody seems willing to commit to the major task of adding the large amount of necessary citations. This article needs major work to qualify for today’s FA standards. Note: This is the first FAR I have nominated so please bear with me as I am new to this process. Thanks. --Philpill691 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I don't think I will find time to work on this. Also, I feel that trivia has been added to the article which does not enhance the content. Joelito (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have started looking at this article and working on sourcing the material in it. So far I've found a few issues with regards to data not supported by the sources that I have consulted (mostly books written by scholars on the subject) so I need to do some research to see if I can find any supporting materials. I have also found content that is somewhat speculative as well as inaccurate. This content will also need rewriting as well as sourcing. I'm afraid the work needed is extensive and it's going to take some time to get through it, especially since I am fairly new to editing here. I hope that those of you who have collaborated in this article or are members of the WikiProject Puerto Rico will at least be willing to review what I'm doing or help clarify things I may have questions about even if you cannot dedicate a lot of time to the cause. Nancystodd (talk) 04:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nancy, I'm willing to verify your work. Please shoot me an email since I don't check Wikipedia often. Joelito (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 12:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. There's an awful lot of material here that's just not referenced. The article also feels incomplete, with the political history stopping essentially in the 1960s and economic history fragmentary after 1945 (and especially so after the 1970s). There are also prose concerns, especially in the modern economic history section (with tense problems up to and including issues with "recently"). I suspect a dedicated editor with broad access to appropriate sources could clean this up much more easily than, for example, History of Tamil Nadu. But this has been at FAR since July with little input, and at FARC since August 23 with no previous comment at all, so I don't think that editor is forthcoming. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Insufficient density of citations - numerous unreferenced paragraph - quickfail criteria for a new nomination. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:33, 24 October 2013 (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/November_2013&oldid=586950463"