Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October 2014

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. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agatha Christie: And Then There Were None

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Paaerduag, Wuzh, WikiProject Video Games, WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors

I am nominating this featured article for review after auditing the article and raising several issues at the talk page. The major glaring problem is with the prose, which is full of awkward, dense and redundant syntax. The Gameplay section is poorly organised and difficult for non-players to follow, because many game mechanics aren't explained clearly and the section wanders off into irrelevant development facts that are in the wrong section. The plot is unsourced and disproportionately long. The reception section is too brief and and poorly organised. There are dead links and inconsistent date formatting. The lead is broken up into five choppy paragraphs when it should be ~3. CR4ZE (t • c) 14:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can't formally tack down a Delist vote yet, but I agree that this page doesn't come close to FA-compliant. Tezero (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This page is currently being edited by the GOCE. Let's see how that goes and then reassess the article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:25, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'd prefer copyediting to be done last, but okay. Tezero (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's in very bad shape, but it doesn't seem irredeemable. Sourcing has a ton of bad links that need archiving, as well as a few dodgy outlets that could be replaced, but none of that would require a major rewrite. Given the massive GOCE copyedit going on right now, I think this article might have a chance. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The GOCE c/e is done and that has improved the article in some areas, but I think the issues that I raised still stand. CR4ZE (t • c) 06:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Concerns raised in the review section deal primarily with the prose, organization/coverage, and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist article is underreferenced (my main concern is "Setting and characters" subsection), and plot is bloated. I also agree there could be more detail on reception. This article would automatically fail a GAN in its current state for its "unreferenced section" tag. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, as per nomination. The article in its current state would barely pass a GAN, let alone a FAC Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 09:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist My chief concern is not that reliably sourced information is missing from the article, but that there is not enough good information out there to construct an article worthy of FA. Notably, there is very little content in the article linking the video game to the book, or describing its relationship in the larger context of text adventures and mid-2000s gaming, as one would expect from a work of art. Much of what a reader would expect from an FA is missing here. Shii (tock) 21:53, 29 September 2014 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2014 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Manila Blue Line

[edit]

Review commentary

[edit]
Notified: Sky Harbor, WikiProject Trains

I am nominating this featured article for review because it does not currently meet criteria, especially regarding referencing. This article has been a featured article since 2006 and was featured on the main page. However, 7 years later I do not feel as if this article meets the current criteria. It has several unreferenced sections (ex. Station facilities, amenities, and services) and/or poorly referenced sections (ex. Fares and Ticketing) and I'd like to hear what the community thinks. I am pinging the original nominator, Sky Harbor to get his/her opinion too. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 21:36, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D I agree that this article no longer meets the FA criteria, and would need quite a lot of work to regain this status. My comments are:

  • The first sentence is really confusing: is this article about one line of a system, or the entire system? (which is what the title of the article indicates it should cover). This confusion carries across into the body of the article, and it's not really clear what's going on.
  • Referencing is clearly sub-standard and well below B-class standard, much less that which is expected in an FA
  • The history section is much too short
  • The tables of first and last services violate WP:NOTTIMETABLE
  • The value of the table of "Incidents and accidents" seems questionable given that many of the incidents described are pretty minor and the kind of thing which routinely effect major public transport systems (eg, outages due to random accidents and suicide attempts) Nick-D (talk) 03:03, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I will be away the next 3 days without great internet, so I may not be able to participate for a few days. Anyway, I agree with Nick-D and it's sad to see such long-term FA's be left behind with the ever increasing standards. It may be a longshot, byt someone ought to make a featured article retention team, a group of editors whose goal is to make sure that older FA's aren't left unmaintained. Thanks for the comments thus far. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not FA quality - Disorganised, poorly laid out, full of irrelevant information (e.g. train schedules), contradictory (e.g. said to be a safe system, but immediately lists a whole load of incidents!). At best a "B" on the quality scale, as it would fail GA review. Bhtpbank (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agreed. There are entire sections without references. For example "Station facilities, amenities, and services", with two subsections, hasn't even a single reference. Not even GA-class. Epicgenius (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, everybody, and happy holidays. I was informed of this nomination, and allow me to clarify a few things before we work to address this article.

  • First, the MRT system is composed of only one line, so it would be natural that the line and the system are construed to be one and the same thing.
  • How is the history section too "short"? The system is only fifteen years old, and any history before then is already covered in the Manila Light Rail Transit System article (an unfortunate symptom of the urban planning situation in the Philippines), so I don't think there's any more that can be added short of an intensive search for offline materials regarding the project.

This will be a good starting point to bring this article back to FA quality, and I will be glad to answer your questions as best as I can. --Sky Harbor (talk) 08:42, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can try, SkyHarbor. But it needs a ton of work for it to be back to FA status. What about sections that are completely unreferenced? It fails #1c on WP:WIAFA, the biggest, most important criteria of all. Sorry, but its not FA status, let alone GA status. It is likely B or C class. You can make improvements, but it will likely get delisted as a FA, since there is so much work to be done. It will take a lot for it to be a FA once more. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 18:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's see. The impossible can be done, can't it? ;)
In the meantime, I'm beginning to compile a list of sources which can be used for the article, and let's see where we can go from there. However, I would also like to see some effort coming from those who participated in this review to help the article out, since you're also concerned about article quality, rather than just talking about the demerits of the article in question. --Sky Harbor (talk) 05:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I started work on the history section, and work will continue as more sources as found. I also hope to begin sourcing the station amenities section in the next day or so: my progress right now is dependent on how much school work I have to do (as I am doing this while keeping my graduation, which is in two months, in mind). --Sky Harbor (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sky Harbor, how is the work going? Any update? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi, Nikkimaria. I've been swamped with finals (which are next week), so I've been unable to do significant work on the article. However, I have around 30 tabs open on one of my browser windows, largely covering history and fare increases (I'm trying to figure out when exactly the MRT decided to lower fares from P40 to P15, to no avail). I intend to continue work on the article after my exams through March, as I will have nothing else to do save waiting for graduation at the end of next month. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • UPDATE: I've begun working on the article again, first with fixing references and doing some work in the plans section. Depending on the reliability of the sources (and whether or not I will have to rely on offline copies of newspaper articles to complete them), I hope to finish work on fixing all the references by the week should things go well. --Sky Harbor (talk) 09:14, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

[edit]
Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include prose, referencing, comprehensiveness and MOS compliance. While some work was completed during the review phase, progress appears to have stalled over the last few weeks. Dana boomer (talk) 20:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sportsguy17, User:Nick-D, User:Bhtpbank, User:Epicgenius, User:Sky_Harbor - Does anyone have any updated comments on the article? It looks like there has been quite a bit of work during the FAR process, but it would be nice to get some thoughts on what still needs to be done, or if the article is ready to be kept. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 13:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still see several unreferenced sections. The stations and rolling stock sections are very poorly sourced or have no sources whatever, so it fails criterion #1c and #1a isn't fully met either. That must be addressed in order for this to remain a FA. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 13:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "Operating Schedule" section is unreferenced as well, and I am wondering whether it falls under WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove that section, and whatever salvageable data from it can be merged into the network section. That section was quite problematic, if you ask me, especially given the MRT's 'experiments' with longer operating hours. --Sky Harbor (talk) 00:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sportsguy17, User:Nick-D, User:Bhtpbank, User:Epicgenius, User:Sky_Harbor, further thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No concerns, as far as I can see. Of course, one may need to look over it yet again, as there may be some more errors that still stand. Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "stations, facilities, and amenities" section still has no sources, so as far as I'm concerned, this still is yet to meet FA status. I haven't gotten to look over all of the sections, but that section alone gives me reason to have lingering concerns. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 19:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That section now has one source, thanks, and I'm adding sources in as I find them. In that case, I had to dig through the LRT's citations. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist mainly because the article lacks references and has that disturbing "needs additional citations for verification" template, which shouldn't be present at featured articles.--Retrohead (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per Retrohead. Also, there are some short paragraphs, the lead doesn't adequately summarize the article (very little about History and Plans), and two citations are unformatted. This could theoretically be fixed before this FARC goes through, in which case please ping me, but as it stands I'm not comfortable with this remaining an FA, as much hard work went into it years ago. Tezero (talk) 22:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Greetings from 30,000 feet! I'm currently taking advantage of a long flight to work on this, so allow me to give some updates, which may be of particular interest to Tezero, but others I think would like to keep track of progress as well. I started rewriting the safety and security section, merging some paragraphs and updating information. I also began sourcing statements that need sources, particularly in the station layout section. Contingent on how my computer keeps up (and/or my phone), I may be able to work on the lead as well tonight. (And as always, again, I would really appreciate you guys getting your hands dirty as well. Thanks.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Nikkimaria and Sky Harbor, I think that nine months were more than enough for the issues to be addressed. It is really bewildering how an article with this obvious lack of sources can still be an FA. Two editors opined that the article doesn't fulfill the criteria in the review commentary, and two more have declared the article to be demoted in the FARC. The page has serious flaws: linking words like "mass media" and "public holiday", bad organization, inconsistent cite formatting, and occasional prose issues. I'd like the topic to be featured, but the progress is advancing too slowly, and mostly ineffective.--Retrohead (talk) 08:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Retrohead. I understand your frustration at the length of time this review has been open. Generally our goal is to retain FAs if possible, and to that end we often allow extra time when there is someone who is or who has indicated he/she will be working to address concerns raised. If you would like the topic to be featured, as you indicate, you are of course welcome to jump in and help to increase the pace of progress.
  • That being said, Sky Harbor, if the problems remain serious it may be more productive to delist the article now and allow you as much time as you need to improve it and return to FAC. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It depends on what you mean by "serious". Most of the action points have already been addressed, and the only significant things left standing are fixing some remaining references (holdovers from 2006, when the article was first written) and a copy-edit. These are things that I hope to do in the next few days. However, to reiterate my point and to address Retrohead's "concerns", please enlighten me and prove to me that FAR is not a talk shop for Wikipedians who have nothing better to do but to criticize other people's work by actually doing some work to get this moving forward. What on Earth happened to WP:BOLD? Have we really regressed that far from ten years ago? --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sky Harbor, referencing and clear wording are perhaps two of the three most important qualities for an FA, the third being completeness. The article still does have a ways to go. And while I agree that, within reason, fixing problems is more important than pointing them out, people who are most familiar with the topic - not us - will be best able to represent the sources available and find appropriate new ones. Tezero (talk) 04:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I understand that you would like people who are knowledgeable about the topic to take the lead with editing articles, there is only so much that i can do. :\ You said it yourself, Tezero: clear wording is an important part of being an FA, and I'm under the impression that the people participating in this discussion certainly have the arms (and the time) to contribute to improving the prose. So far, I see none of that. What kind of confidence can I expect to get from this process if you expect people to do the work all by themselves, without any reasonable expectation that those who like the point out those very problems will actually contribute to making them better in the first place? --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist very underreferenced article, fails 1c Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the last set of references to the new referencing format, and I'm replacing dead links. What other statements needs references, so I can address them accordingly? --Sky Harbor (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Try to plant a citation at the end of each paragraph. That being said, some statements are more important than others. Like this: "During the construction of the first line of the Manila Light Rail Transit System in the early 1980s, Electrowatt Engineering Services of Zürich designed a comprehensive plan for metro service in Metro Manila. The plan—still used as the basis for planning new metro lines—consisted of a 150-kilometer (93 mi) network of rapid transit lines spanning all major corridors within 20 years, including a line on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue, the region's busiest road corridor." Says who? This is all very specific information that, if you'll pardon my French, could've been pulled out of someone's ass. For things like what stations are near each other, as seen in the first section, citations are perhaps less necessary because the reader can easily verify that with a map, but I would still prefer including them. Tezero (talk) 05:05, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment: there has been some great work put into this article over the course of this review. However, given the length of time this has been open and the amount of work still to be done, I'm going to go ahead and close this now. I would encourage editors to continue improving the article outside of the review process. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2014 (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/October_2014&oldid=632973135"