Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAR)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Reviewing featured articles
Shortcuts

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles (FAs) that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

1. Raise issues at the article's talk page

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Concerned editors should give article watchers 5–7 days to respond to concerns. During this step, articles are not yet listed on this page (but they can be added to Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given).

2. Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators—Nikkimaria, Casliber, and DrKay—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

3. Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

The FAR and FARC stages typically last two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page by any nominator is limited as follows:

  1. No more than one nomination every two weeks.
  2. No more than four nominations on the page at one time, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Publish changes".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Publish changes".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Publish changes".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews[edit]

Photon[edit]

Notified: WillowW, Physics, article talk 2020-02-21

This article obtained FA over thirteen years ago. Since then the standards for citations in Featured Articles have improved. The article is now found wanting in this regard. There are substantial sections that are not supported by citations and dated citations for others. There has been no response to a notice I place on the articles Talk Page. Graham Beards (talk) 12:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Had a quick look at the references. The photon is an elementary particle, it doesn't change over time, so naturally many references are about the initial discovery of things - they are decades old and perfectly fine. Similarly, many things can be found in text books, and several textbooks are used as references for whole sections. One could repeat the same reference for every paragraph but that wouldn't improve the article quality. Overall the article isn't controversial in any way, so a direct citation for every single statement shouldn't be necessary. In some cases it could be useful to give specific pages. --mfb (talk) 07:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Which sections aren't supported by citations? I see plenty of refs for everything. I also don't see what's outdated either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I have indicated where I think more citations are expected in a Featured Article, using the "[citation needed]" template. Graham Beards (talk) 20:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the vast majority of those. That stuff is common knowledge widely available in the further reading sections, or directly supported by the nearby references (same/previous sentence). I have left a few things that actually need citations. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
That's not enough to retain FA status. These days we expect most statements to be directly supported by reliable sources. At the very least, there should be a citation at the end of every paragraph. Graham Beards (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
You'll have to convince a majority of people that "That process is the reverse of "annihilation to one photon [i.e. e+e−→γ]" allowed in the electric field of an atomic nucleus." is a thing that needs a citation to begin with, given that literally the sentence before you have a citation for pair production [i.e. γ→e+e−]. If I write James is a Canadian.[ref] That is James is a citizen from Canada., the second part doesn't need a ref. It's an explanation/contextualization of what you already cited. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
So, the citation is in the wrong place. Graham Beards (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Poetry[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Poetry
Note on closing—already listed at WP:FFA as re-promoted; if demoted, does not get added to tally, rather moved.

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has unsourced statements, statements needing verification, single sentence paragraphs and vague or ambiguous times. It has been tagged for expansion for 6 months. DrKay (talk) 11:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

  • This is a very important topic, but on the other hand it is currently very, very far from FA standard. I agree with the recent comment on the talk page by EmilyReNew that the history section is particularly unsatisfactory. buidhe 16:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
I dispute this nomination. Some doofus walks off the street in August, adds a "Subjects" section and an expansion tag, and we are to FAR it? The logical response is to remove the random addition which I have just done. As for the other issues, sure they are there, but they are easily fixed. I looked at some of them with inline tags, and there are many sources that can be cited for those statements. As for EmilyReNew's post, she says, Biblical Poetry is not represented? Does she mean Psalms, Proverbs and Job? I never heard anyone compare those in poetic achievement to Gilgamesh, Rig Veda, Mahabharata, Illiad, Odyssey, Aeneid, The Divine Comedy, Canterbury Tales, Faerie Queen, Paradise Lost, ... Where is Step 1: Raise issues at the article's talk page? Has Dr Kay made any attempt to improve the article him/her-self? There are some easy fixes anyone can make. Please remove this from FAR. Please first post on the talk page, and give the regulars there and others a month or thereabout to improve the article. I mean seriously we can't make these unilateral single-person judgments without attempting to discuss transparently and in some detail why we think the article does not meet the FA criteria. The article passed FAR in 2011. It is not even ten years. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
To the contrary, I think proponents of keeping the article as a FA should make a case as to why it meets the criteria as interpreted in 2020. Default state of an article is not to be an FA. buidhe 03:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
The article is an FA. Its every state is FA right now. Someone comes traipsing on the talk page and pronounces that it is not. Well, they have to tell me why, especially when they haven't lifted their pinky to figure out where that expansion tag came from. Then you come along and pronounce your agreement with a talk page post. Well, tell me what history, or are you too bemoaning the absence of Biblical Poetry? Which Bible and which poetry? Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, Wycliffe, Tyndale, KJV, Quaker, RSV, ... Psalms, Proverbs, Job, like I've already asked? You guys have to do better than that, or do you have an inspector's badge certified by the Poet Laureate? We are all abiding by WP's rules. The rules are cited when an article enters FA-land; they need to be cited, when it is being pushed out. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:46, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
If the default state is not to be an FA, i.e. every FA is presumed not to be an FA until and unless proven otherwise, then why would FAR be needed? What meaning would delist have when something is not on the list? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Please keep process discussions on FAR talk, so we can focus on improvements needed on this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Right, I can see both sides - Buidhe and DrKay are correct in that Featured Articles have to fulfil criteria, and if there is a lack of consensus then they are defeatured. But that does not mean ZAP - defeatured, that means there is time given to review the article systematically to see if issues have arisen, which is where we are now. I note that the last FAR was in 2011, which is a fair while ago. It is a broad subject so let's just look at it neutrally and go from there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok comments - the article has 47kb of prose so some (slight) wiggle room for enlargement. Surely we can expand a bit on the first two sentences in History section - like some explanation underpinning the assumptions of the first two sentences. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Issues
  • There are numerous maintenance tags, that have been there for almost a year. This 2006 FA has never had a serious review. Practically no one showed up for the 2007 review, and the review it got in 2011 was quite abbreviated. Attention to this article should then be as thorough as it would be at FAC.
Prose
  • There is vague, unattributed writing throughout, sample: Some scholars believe that the art of poetry may predate literacy.[9][10] Others, however, suggest that poetry did not necessarily predate writing.
  • There is a problem throughout with terms related to time ... recently, later, etc ... that need clarification.
  • Overuse of however should be reviewed.
  • There are throwaway sentences that could be better phrased, samples:
    • The types and use of differing rhyming schemes are discussed further in the main article.
    • See the article on line breaks for information about the division between lines.
    • Additional forms of poetry may be found in the discussions of the poetry of particular cultures or periods and in the glossary.
  • In fact, there are entire unsourced paragraphs which aren't adding much. Could we not do a better job at not bouncing the reader around all over the Wikipedia?
Sourcing
  • There are entire unsourced paragraphs and list of who's who and who is important or known for certain styles or factors that need some sort of citation or attribution as in "according to whom". Notable poets of certain styles according to whom? There should be ample textbooks for attributing these opinions.
Comprehensive

As indicated by a student editor on talk, the article does mention Biblical poetry but that is not covered in history; considering the number of universities that offer courses on same, sourcing something for History should not be difficult.

MOS
  • There are too many images, they are sandwiching text, and their captions are inadequate. Considering how old this FA is, once they are pruned, the images should probably be reviewed as they would at FAC, and alt text checked.
  • On layout, hatnotes in sections should go before images.
  • MOS:LQ review needed.
  • A hyphen used where there should be a dash, check throughout.

That's enough for a start. For all the defense this article has gotten it was a weak 2006 promotion, promoted over several Opposes, never seriously reviewed since, and IMO has never been an example of Wikipedia's best work. User:Nihil novi has been active recently at the article and should have been pinged. I suggest that unless someone is willing to seriously rework this article, it is not likely to retain its star. I don't know why DrKay brought it to FAR without notifying talk, but it is abundantly clear that a talk notification would not have yielded the needed improvements. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, SandyGeorgia This is a much better critique. An editor with knowledge or interest can work with it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:21, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Anyone reworking the article should probably take a look at Britannica's poetry page, written by Howard Nemerov, twice poet laureate of the US. Before they make significant mention of Biblical poetry, which is about the Hebrew Bible, they should add something about the English Bible (KJV, that is) which has had a profound effect on English literature both poetry (Milton, ...) and prose (Bunyan, ...). Nemerov alludes to this too. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
And please don't neglect translations of the Bible into languages other than English, which translations have likewise influenced their respective languages! Nihil novi (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
Off-topic poetry
That's a wise remark. @Nihil novi: Why don't you fix the article? You have the knowledge, the wisdom, and a long record of edits
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
What shadow Falls? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:59, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
A beautifully phrased sentiment! A quotation, or your own words?
I'll be content to mostly kibitz, and defer to those with more systematic knowledge of the subject.
Nihil novi (talk) 05:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
No, its Eliot's The Hollow Men, with a twist, for making my point. I memorized it in middle school, along with Eliot's Preludes, Portia's "Quality of Mercy," Mark Antony's "Oh What a fall there was my countrymen," and "Friends, Romans and Countrymen," (speaking of which, it is the Ides of March today,) Brutus's "There is a tide in the affairs of men," long passages from Gray's Elegy, Shelly's Ode to the West Wind, Tennyson's Unwatched the garden bough shall sway, Hardy's Darkling Thrush, Masefield's Sea Fever, ... and lord knows what else. They mostly stay subliminal until "a fresh association blow"s (Tennyson). All this is off-topic, of course, but consider them traditional examples that the eventual restorer of this page might want to keep in mind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

War of the League of Cambrai[edit]

Notified: User talk:Kirill Lokshin, MILHIST

I am nominating this featured article, nominated by Kirill Lokshin in 2005, for review because notification was made more than a month ago on the talk page of some issues with the article, especially missing citations, and no one has stepped up to fix them. It's not in as bad shape as many FAs from that era, so I'm hoping it can be rescued. buidhe 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe, I do not see a notification at User talk:Kirill Lokshin; people can have pings disabled, and Kirill is an active editor, so should be notified using the subst notification in the FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
What is the point of this comment? It would be easier to place the template yourself. buidhe 15:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
To make sure you (and others) know how to do it in the future. FAR has been moribund for so long that folks don't know the procedure. It's important to use the notification template because newcomers here don't always read the instructions. Also, in some cases, there are dozens of notifications to be done, and it's not easier for another editor to do them (although we should be able to check that they have been done). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this is within Cplakidas's area of expertise, based on past nominations? FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've addressed the {{fact}} tags, and have gone through the rest of the text and added citations throughout. Please let me know if there are any other concerns with the article, and I'll be happy to address them. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hooray! I will go through tomorrow or the next day, Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

History of the City of Burnside[edit]

Notified: WP Australia notice board

This is a 2006 promotion whose main editor, Beneaththelandslide has not edited for ten years. It's second-highest editor, YellowMonkey (former FAR delegate) is also gone. Since the FAR needed notification on 28 January, there have been minor cleanup attempts, but the article still has uncited text, MOS cleanup needs, and Buidhe's comments on talk need to be looked into. If someone could take an interest in this article, it should be an easy FAR save; the work needed here does not seem insurmountable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I have advocated for trimming and merging the article to City of Burnside based on its short length and lack of independent RS. (Other users agreed with me on the merge). I disagree that it can be rescued under today's FA standards. buidhe 14:50, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I would not oppose a merger with City of Burnside. That said, I'll see what I can do with copyediting. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I still disagree with merging, particularly strongly if perfectly good history content is pruned to do so. The Drover's Wife (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I am unsure here, and suggest that Casliber might provide guidance. There are four books listed in the sources. Only one of them has an ISBN, but all four are listed as being available through the National Library of Australia. But the publishers on all of them are the City or the Club, so not independent, and readers outside of Australia cannot verify text. So, yes, we seem to have very few independent reliable sources here. Need an opinion from both Cas and Ealdgyth on whether we can salvage this as an FA. On the history of a city, do we care if all sources are from that city, and cannot be obtained by readers outside of Australia? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The article is also using a 2006 archived version of the City's website, when we have an updated version. Frankly, I'd almost rather de-feature this than try to fix it, when we have no current active editor to help sort all of this out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:10, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I've got access to three of the four sources (not the golf club) if I'm willing to head across town to the specialist history library. It largely depends on how severe people think the problems with this are - it's not worth the time if it's not salvagable, and I'm not a great lover of long-form writing so I might need a bit more guidance than usual if I did. I would note that any decision that the sorts of arrangements where a municipality funds a historian to write a local history and then publishes the book are "not independent" and not usable in FAs effectively means that virtually any history on this or similar geographic place could never be taken to FA due to a lack of publisher interest. (For example, the history of anywhere in the entire region I'm from or it overall would be in exactly the same sourcing situation as this article.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I feel much better knowing that we can verify something to a source, then, if needed; if that is the case, then, I don't believe a merge is warranted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I disagree that local history sources can't be used. All sourcing requirements are guidelines and WP:MED is alot stricter than other areas. To satisfy comprehensiveness there are many occasions we have to resort to primary sources in more esoteric areas, and a large number of fairly uncontroversial facts about a local district's history are not extreme enough to absolutely necessitate secondary sourcing 100% of the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Good enough for me; so unless we can cite the uncited portions to the City's website, we have to rely on Drover to cite the uncited. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:23, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Could you perhaps run over the article with CN tags for anywhere that needs a cite in your opinion? (I don't know if the way I would do things usually meets FA standards and if I'm going to head across town I'd like to only do it once). Most of the "establishment of district councils" section actually probably doesn't need book sources (I'm the one who wrote most of our SA council articles) so I might try and fix that up a bit right now. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I went through. We will need to get a consistent citation style when you are done, but this looks doable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Ugh. I just had a crack at sourcing some of the district councils section and I think this article has bigger problems than I thought: I sourced one paragraph and found three minor errors of fact and one claim that's dubious (the original gazetted boundaries are more complex than the article suggests and as I'm not a local I can't really tell how far out they are). I expect the rest of the article is a bit better given the book sourcing but I don't know that I'm interested enough to through with that fine-toothed a comb: I don't think this is a case of merely double-checking the existing sources and filling in a few gaps. We have much better digitised sources than we did in 2006 (all legislation, all gazettals, an early Adelaide newspaper covering the area) and I'm concerned that enough liberties and assumptions were taken in their absence to make fixing this to FA standard a difficult job. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I also went through and found some dubious sourcing. We have several choices at this point, since articles stay in the FAR phase for two weeks. We can fix it ourselves, or we can hope someone shows up who will. If not, it moves to FARC in two weeks. I am always willing to do cleanup, if someone else can do the text and sourcing-- otherwise … let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

MissingNo.[edit]

Notified: Kung Fu Man, WikiProject Video Games, WikiProject Pokémon

I am nominating this featured article for review because the information that was contained on this page when it was submitted for featured article status was not substantially correct and was in part based on information that did not appear in cited sources, and attempts to improve it since in a way that adds content (as opposed to simply removing incorrect content) have failed due to a lack of reliable sources that could be used to correct it and a lack of any indication that new ones will appear in the future. That is, it is not comprehensive and cannot be. Blah2 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Reading the talk page for MissingNo. this seems like content dispute issue, which has not been through standard dispute resolution channels; FAR should not be used for DR. --Masem (t) 20:10, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Unless I'm misreading what Blah2 means, I interpret it as they are saying the article cannot be made comprehensive due to a lack of reliable sources. So that would be a good reason for FAR. --Laser brain (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Between this and the talk page, the issue appears to be that there's "facts" about MissingNo that "gamers" know about, but not at all documented in any type of RS. We can't add information that's not from RS, even if its presumed its correct information. So thus the question is if the article remains comprehensive without these, and I'm not seeing major gaps for what I'd expect of a character article to contain, even for a character as unusual as this. --Masem (t) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • That's exactly it: common 'gamer knowledge' is that the entries that spawn MissingNo. were taken up by actual Pokemon in the beta version of the game, but the sources that are often cited for that information are wikis like Bulbapedia or require WP:OR. The Yellow 'version' of this glitch is also at times brought up by other editors, but outside of the name and role as an error handler if the game tries to spawn a pokemon that isn't there requires a completely different method with completely different results and isn't covered in notable sources, making it fall somewhat outside of the scope of this article. Am I about right Blah2?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think part of it is more that the article used to go into more detail when it became featured, but I later discovered that wasn't actually in the sources that were supposed to contain it, and I am assuming the existence of that detail contributed to the article receiving featured status. Personally I don't believe that there is even original research to back up the idea that we can know what was in the MissingNo. slots and I am not concerned with that at all. Blah2 (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • But it actually hasn't shrunk in size Blah. Additional sources can be added to give more bulk (it went to FA almost ten years ago, and sources like the below mentioned Ars Technica article exist), but I'm not quite seeing why you seem to have a bias against it being FA on the current grounds.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
If this article is moved out of FA, then it can become a GAN. Still, article talk page says: 
"The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
The Mythos and Meaning Behind Pokemon's Most Famous Glitch"
Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞 23:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC) (modified 23:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC))
Keep from Lee Vilenski

Be aware, I may claim participation credits towards the Wikicup. Or maybe not? Who knows.

There's a few things here. I'd say there is a lack of inline citations in some key areas, there is a real lack of the lede on this item.

Specific issues
  • Citation 18 - "[PRE REVIEW]: Missingno: a missing data visualization suite". Journal of Open Source Software. January 26, 2018. Retrieved September 8, 2019. Though I don't see a citation necessary as the name was derived from a pokemon glitch" - was this a joke by someone? Is this item even something that we should be citing?
  • Quite a few of the refs use "staff" as an author - should we be using this in place of no known author?

Additional comments to come. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

See the FAR instructions; pages are not segmented, and Keep/Delist are not declared in the FAR phase. Perhaps you meant to suggest this FAR should be closed without a FARC. (And without a subhead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - conflict with Masem - I hadn't read the talk page for this one. I'd suggest there is at least some benefits to looking at specific issues (content dispute notwithstanding) on an FAR. However, quite happy to have this close if it's a consensus. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Removed Citation 18 and that whole line, looks like it got snuck in between edits and really has no relevance to anything. As for the others it was my understanding during the FAN that Staff was acceptable if the source website/publication was considered reliable but no writer was directly attributed to the article? As for the lead length I remember that was a point of recurring discussion during the FAN where just exactly what to include given the size of the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Realistically, if we don't have an author, we should leave it blank. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
It's been my understanding through several FAC's that leaving it blank entirely is frowned upon, and in the cases of some templates will cause it to show an error instead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "Encountering MissingNo. causes graphical errors and increases the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128" could we expand this? Something about "MissingNo. causes graphical and gameplay changes. When encountering MissingNo. in Red and Blue, graphical anomalies occur as well as an increase in the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Attempted to work some of that in, and expand some of the sentences out with information added through the years.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Any reasons for the citations in the lede? Surely we can put this information in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:38, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Outside of the lede, the actual games this appears in isn't mention at all! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It was at one point, I think with subequent edits over the years it got accidentally removed when people kept trying to cite wikis as evidence of its presence in Pokemon Yellow, even though that glitch is related only by name and is non-notable in terms of sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • A little surprised there is no info on other glitches in the series, or even other glitched Pokémon etc. [1], [2] etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Because they don't fall into the scope of the article, and don't have a lot of notability in outside sources or even the same cultural examination/impact. It would be like an article on the Minus World talking about screenwarp glitches for Super Mario Bros.: they're related to one another, but one has cultural impact over the other.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I think the above fixes/comments are enough for me to support remaining at FA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Could someone who knows what this is saying please disentangle it?

Encountering MissingNo. causes graphical anomalies and gameplay changes, specifically increasing the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128. The latter effect resulted in the glitch's coverage by strategy guides and game magazines, though with words of caution about the former.

Latter= gameplay changes? Former = graphical anomalies? Even if the sentences are re-cast, I have no idea what the lead is saying, and the lead should be digestible to non-gamers. The promoted version was only slightly better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, better, now what is a "sixth item"? It is mention in the lead but never defined.
Is this still true? (It needs an "as of" date.) "Despite Nintendo's statements on the glitch, it has not been removed from re-releases of the games, such as on their virtual console service.[6]"
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Attempted to address the issues mentioned, bear with me I'm dealing with a bit of a flu right now so not 100%.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Take your time, get better, there is no rush at FAR. I still need to understand in the lead what the glitch is— what a sixth item is, what it means for it to be increased. The only part I get is 128 is a power of 2, so a likely programming error, but is that explained? Maybe Ealdgyth can lend some clarity here. That there is some very unusual, uncorrected glitch in this game is all I am getting as a non-gamer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
I see Kung Fu Man is back in the saddle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Laser brain, Ealdgyth, Lee Vilenski, and Blah2: could others please evaluate the progress here? I still don't know what it means for an item value to increase, but I guess that's a non-gamer speaking. Can this be closed without FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm just not sure how to word that effect any more directly: the quantity of the item in the sixth slot of their inventory is increased by 128.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I am hoping someone else can make that understandable to non-gamers and we can close this FAR without a FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe say that the item slots are like storage? GamerPro64 02:28, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Apologies for the intrusion, but if there is confusion on the "item slot" phrasing, then maybe a link to Inventory (videogames) may be helpful to clear it up at least a little? Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • That does help but we should be better than a link, and explain that to dummies like me, and also explain what it means for an item value to increase by 128. How does the "value" work in the playing of the game? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Worked that in (didn't even know we had that article) and value is now quantity. How's that?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Does that mean that whatever is the sixth item in their inventory, after the glitch, they have at least 129 of the same item ? That is, they get more good stuff to play with? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, now that's explained, and fixed, I think we can Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

2005 Atlantic hurricane season[edit]

Notified:WikiProject Tropical cyclones

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it no longer meets the criteria of what a featured article is, especially in this project. The standards have significantly increased over the years and this article has sadly not kept up with the times. @JavaHurricane: posted about the article not meeting the standards on January 13 and there have been no comments so I am coming here. My main issues:

  • A citation needed tag for an entire paragraph
  • This is by far the largest issue... The article by far is not comprehensive in its coverage of storms. I understand this was literally the most active Atlantic season on record in terms of storms, but one sentence for a storm is not acceptable. Many smaller storms have virtually no information on them. Even the larger ones dont have enough. Not to mention there isn't much meteorology for individual storms. There is a list of storms for this season, but I dont see why it is needed considering the shape the main article is in at this point. If Pacific typhoon articles can contain even more storms, this should be able to have all the season's content. The storm sections need to be completely overhauled to conform to today's format. NoahTalk 04:34, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Noah! Another thing that I think should be done is that the lead and summary should be completely rewritten as the current versions are not up to the mark. A lot of the information is irrelevant or hyped up. Also, for the time being, the FA List-classification for the list of storms should be removed as that list is in a worse state. -- JavaHurricane 05:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

John M Wolfson
This is just for the lead.

  • Per MOS:LEAD, a lead paragraph should generally have no more than four paragraphs, and I fail to see how this should be an exception\
  • the U.S. states of Florida and Louisiana were each struck twice by major hurricanes; Cuba, the Bahamas, Haiti, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama, and Tamaulipas were each struck once and brushed by at least one more is an example of inconsistent use of "the U.S. states..."; why is it used the first time but not the second, and shouldn't Tamaulipas be referred to as "the Mexican state of Tamaulipas", for consistency?
  • The 2005 season was the first to observe more tropical storms and cyclones in the Atlantic than in the West Pacific; on average, the latter experiences 26 tropical storms per year while the Atlantic only averages 12. This event was repeated in the 2010 season; however, the 2010 typhoon season broke the record for the fewest storms observed in a single year, while the 2005 typhoon season featured near-average activity. None of this is cited, nor is it brought up in the body.
  • The season officially began on June 1, 2005, and lasted until November 30, although it effectively persisted into January 2006 due to continued storm activity. While one could argue that the body backs up the last part of this with Zeta, none of the other stuff is cited. Perhaps every hurricane season officially begins on June 1 and/or ends on November 30, but this should be explicitly mentioned and cited.
  • The records section references a part of the body which is inadequately cited and fleshed out, IMO.

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Before you all waste your time, see my conversation with Hink here. YE Pacific Hurricane 06:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I would probably support a merger of the various articles per Yellow Evan's talk page. However, this may or may not be the right place for that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:13, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is the place for that. If content from an FA is merged, the FA goes away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Duly noted, support merger. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Support merger of all four articles. NoahTalk 17:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Hurricane Noah, what four articles? FAR deals with Featured articles. If there are other Featured articles, a FAR needs to be opened on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Clarifying: the proposal is to merge the contents of four non-Featured articles into this Featured article. This means the (new) content in this Featured article would need to be reviewed to see if it still meets FAC standards, if the merge happens.

Conversely, the implication above is that this article is not currently at standard unless the merge happens. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Yes... that would be our job here. We would provide featured article reviews to fix issues and ensure that it meets FA at the end of this process. NoahTalk 17:48, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I endorse the plan of merging the season list article, statistics, and the two minor storm articles, while making sure that the article would still be up to featured article standards. There is currently a draft article, which I realize now is going to be a giant history merge, so much so that I'd suggest a redirect rather than doing a history merge once it is done, and leave the notice on the 2005 talk page. Still, that is where the users plan on incorporating the changes, given that the article is featured, and so is the list article). See Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season/archive1. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Why is an FLRC necessary when there is a consensus for a merge? I don't recall one taking place with similar mergers in the past. YE Pacific Hurricane 04:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Bookkeeping mechanism for the featured list which will go away. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I guess it needs something to link to on the article milestones. That's why the FLRC is needed, even if just for bookkeeping. NoahTalk 14:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Support merger of the four aforementioned articles (storm list, statistics, Franklin, Philippe). Storm sections in the draft article need to be fleshed out more, particularly Maria, Nate, Philippe (merger should help for this one), Vince, Alpha, and Beta. I suppose most of the records from the statistics article will go into the seasonal summary or the storm sections themselves? Or maybe some could be moved over exclusively to List of Atlantic hurricane records instead to avoid bloating the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

  • This FAR is approaching the two-week mark; any progress on the Merger proposal? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • User:12george1 and I are working on the new version of the article in a draft article. Franklin's content has been merged in. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Closing with consensus to merge since there is unanimous support after two weeks. NoahTalk 21:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
I would additionally like to propose the merge of the 2005 Azores subtropical storm article into the new draft article. What content exists on this system is largely trivial and could effectively be covered in the individual section on the main page. In accordance with the aforementioned pages both here and on Hurricanehink's talk page, I do not see that this article has kept with the increased project standards of today. Cooper 23:15, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
Closing with no consensus to merge due to lack of participation in the last 8 days. NoahTalk 20:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please advise when all is merged, and ready for review from others here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Please feel free to redirect the storm articles as soon you finish merging their contents. I removed the GA status from the articles as soon as we agreed to merge them since they were auto-negated by that consensus. NoahTalk 20:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), a few editors and I have worked together to redo the 2005 article, making sure every item is cited, all of the refs are working, and the article isn't too in depth for anything that already has an article, while also not giving undue weight to any one aspect. I believe the new article has achieved a good balance. And so, I'd like to submit this version of the article for FA review. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

If all of you hurricane editors are now satisfied, I will look it over as soon as I can ... within the next few days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Is the Spoken article link at the bottom of the page still valid, or is outdated? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to fiddle with the gazillions of infoboxes (make them somewhat smaller ?) so that the article does not have all of the large amounts of white space? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I feel that any major changes in size to the infoboxes should go through the project first as they would impact all of the project season articles. However, what could be done and needs to be done is too really look at what systems really need to be spun off into their own articles. For example: I feel that Delta needs more MH within its section while SS 22, Epilson and Zeta dont need articles as those articles seem very very bloated.Jason Rees (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Wait. What? I thought you just merged everything to there with agreement-- now we're talking about spinning stuff out again? Is my review premature ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I am only one editor but I personally feel that the whole process has been rushed and that the articles for Maria, Nate, 2005 Azores subtropical storm, Delta, Epilson, Zeta seem very bloated and are only marginally notable. Is the fact that a subtropical storm existed for 24 hours over open water really worth an article? Personally, I don't think so and I would propose a merger of those articles to the season article if it was worth it. I also feel that the sections need to be expanded out further especially the seasonal forecasts section which failed to mention any of the forecasts by Tropical Storm Risk until I started to add them in the other day. As a result, I would suggest that the article is downgraded until such a time that it properly meets the featured article criteria.Jason Rees (talk) 01:02, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
OK, I understand. I thought I was reviewing an article that everyone agreed upon and was stable. You are saying there is more that should be merged here. OK, I will hold off on reviewing what is there now for compliance with WIAFA, as I don't want to get inbetween hurricanes :0 I will unwatch for now. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: I hate to say it... I agree with Jason on this one. After looking at this article and comparing it with similar seasons, this article is still not comprehensive enough to be FA quality. NoahTalk 23:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
'Tis not for me to disagree the hurricane editors! You might all decide, then, to ask the coords to Move to FARC for !voting Keep or Delist. If it's a Keep, I'll continue to work on it :0 Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Could we have User:Graham87 look at the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season#Systems section. My impression years ago was that we had to have the "Main" hatnotes before the image/infobox, but that may have changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
    • @SandyGeorgia: The relevant part of the Manual of Style seems to agree with you, but it doesn't matter from an accessibility perspective. Graham87 02:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Thanks to Graham; if this is the case, then I believe we should leave the images/infoboxes in each section before the hatnote, as that helps with the big white space problem. As long as it does not impact accessibility, I feel it OK to IAR on MOS here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Hurricane Noah
  • There is inconsistency in formatting for authors from the National Hurricane Center. Some have middle initials while others do not. Some are last, first while others just list the name in author format. NoahTalk 01:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I noticed it mostly w Jack (John) Beven, which I changed to be consistent with other authors from the NHC. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "Four of the season's storms became a Category 5 hurricane, the highest on the scale." Needs another word such as classification. NoahTalk 01:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • "The season's strongest hurricane, Wilma, became the most intense Atlantic hurricane on record, recorded by barometric pressure." minor issue here. NoahTalk 01:00, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I may have introduced one of those ... sorry! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, best I can tell, we do not have consensus here among the hurricane editors, even after lots of work and discussion. Almost six weeks in, move to FARC to see where everyone stands and if this is salvageable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • My personal view is that it is salvageable which is why I am trying to help edit it when time allows and that it should look something like 1997-98 SPAC, 2011 AHS or 1995-96 SPAC. However, I need my fellow hurricane editors to stop talking about the US Election and provide opinons on wiki to help improve it. Otherwise I may look at AFD'ing a few articles.Jason Rees (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised include coverage/comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Jason Rees (talk · contribs) noted comprehensiveness issues in the article, so I'd appreciate if he (or someone else) could point out where info is lacking. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Just to make people aware, I am planning to respond to this and all the offline taunts and comments I have seen in when I get five minutes either later today or tomorrow [Thursday].Jason Rees (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Boshin War[edit]

Notified: Per Honor et Gloria, Monocrat, Enkyo2, Victuallers, Ernstkohl, Curly Turkey, WP Japan, WP MILHIST

Review section[edit]

This article has a long-standing lack of citations for significant portions. -- Beland (talk) 19:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Month-old talk page notification got no bites: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist under Wikipedia: V for lack of citations. It would take a lot of work to fix this, and the original nominator from back in 2006 has long since retired. ErinRC (talk) 21:56, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • ErinRC, please have a close look at the instructions at WP:FAR regarding the purpose of the first phase of FAR; Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: I'm seeing a contradiction in the FAR guidelines here. It does indeed say what you cite it as saying, but immediately below it also makes the apparently contradictory statement that The featured article removal coordinators [...] determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage. I am not sure if there is a substantial difference, from the point of view of finding consensus in community discussions, between saying "I think this would take an inordinate amount of work to bring up to FA standard, and the only reason it is currently listed is because it was originally nominated back in the bad old days when we had no standards" and saying "Delist I think this would take an inordinate amount of work to bring up to FA standard, and the only reason it is currently listed is because it was originally nominated back in the bad old days when we had no standards". Is it possible the guideline you are quoting was written to apply to reviews of more recent FAs, where the notable gap between the standards of 2006 and the standards of 2020 is not also in play? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • The spirit of the thing is that, during FAR, we specify the problems and hope someone will address them. A Your "delist" in the FAR phase won't get the article delisted. Keep can happen without moving to FARC, but Delist cannot happen until/unless the article moves to FARC. In other words, unless the article is improved, you have one has to come back during the FARC phase to enter a Delist. No need to ping me, I have the FAR watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, I was asking a hypothetical about an apparent contradiction in the instructions; I'm not the same editor who already cast a "delist" !vote. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:31, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't see a contradiction, but perhaps that could be taken up at WT:FAR rather than here. FAR is for listing things to be improved: one can say, "I don't think this article can be improved during a FAR", and then come back during FARC to !vote "Delist", if the article moves to FARC. (If you want, you can move this whole thing, my responses included, to WT:FAR.) Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, no significant improvement, no one has engaged. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section mostly relate to sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: Well, I missed those. I don't have time to review every notice given for every FAR. This just happened to come across my radar. I still think time should be given to allow every paragraph to be referenced. The descriptions above of the article's "long-standing lack of citations for significant portions" is inaccurate at best. There are only eight paragraphs that don't have citations, and most of those that do have multiple citations used. That's really not all that many to fix. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: Please don't make ridiculous claims about me without foundation. Nothing in my request on the MilHist talk page or on Talk:Boshin War was in any way incorrect. I already acknowledged my error here, so following me around and making false claims regarding the veracity of my requests is simply harassment. We're all in this together, and I'm working to fix the issues raised here. Thanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:34, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Have a nice day. (PS, I have this page watchlisted, as all FAR pages-- please stop pinging me.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Chagas disease[edit]

Notified: WT:MED, WT:WP Brazil, WT:WP Argentina and WT:WP Venezuela

Review section[edit]

This FA is a 2005 promotion that has not been kept up to date. The original nominator, Redux is not currently active and has not edited the article since 2005. The top contributor, DO11.10 has not edited it since 2011. The second contributor, Doc James has not made any significant edits recently.[4] A list of updates needed was posted a month ago; significant portions of the article are out of date, and there is uncited text. A number of the sources used are quite old, dating to when the article passed FAC in 2005. (see WP:MEDRS). Hopefully the WT:MED notification will result in getting this article cited, updated, and cleaned up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Kingsif

Note that I am involved in the current WikiCup, but come here from a notice posted to WP Venezuela as a relevant article.

It may not be an area I know a lot about, but when I read the article after seeing the FAR notice I saw that it is quite short and leaves me wanting for details, though it seems to be a disease about which a lot is known. This may be an issue with accurately expanding on detail, particularly in the latter sections, which have noticeably not been updated in at least 2 years. This seems to be the first issue I can find, before going into medical aspects. A good improvement should probably begin with expansion. I’ll hopefully come back with some MOS for medical articles comments. Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Doc James

No concerns with the FA status being removed if that is what people wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Graham Beards

So WP:WikiProject_Medicine are officially abandoning their FAs now? I know more about the parasite than the disease so without input from the said project, I would not feel fully competent helping here. Graham Beards (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I feel like, between us, we could update this article, and are competent to do so, but I'm wondering if the effort is worth it, considering WP:MED does appear to be abandoning its FAs. I am increasingly feeling like I am the only editor left who is watching over and maintaining quite a few of the medical FAs, and I can't keep up. There appears to be little concern that almost all of the FAs (and probably GAs as well) are outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I have the time and energy right now to hopefully bring one article up to featured status (deep vein thrombosis [DVT]), and after that I hope to keep another at featured status (dengue fever). While I do have a wish list of of other articles I'd like to massively improve, I agree with you Sandy, I think we have a severe labor shortage when it comes to this task. If somehow expediting the delisting of some medical featured articles and good articles (perhaps by invoking Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) more accurately represents our content and helps us know which articles we should keep an eye on to maintain their *actual* quality (and also makes you feel better about this task), I would support it. Thank you for your leadership on this issue. I've long thought that a careful eye towards this issue was deserved. If there's something you'd like some help with (like suggesting I review a featured article to research and see if I think it should be delisted), feel free to ask. Currently though I do want my primary focus to remain on updating the good article DVT, which needs more attention in the treatment, pathophysiology, prevention, and history sections in particular. But yes, I do want the medical articles that are marked as featured or good to be accurately designated. Biosthmors (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Happy to hear someone else is watching and concerned :) Thanks, Biosthmors. Considering the shape of WP:MED's FAs, I shudder to think of the quality of the GAs, but I rarely involve myself at GA, since they amount to little more than one editor's opinion so that assessment isn't very meaningful. (Same applies to B-class.) As to helping on the FAs, I can only nominate one every two weeks, four max on the page at a time. What would be helpful in speeding things up, considering it is evident no one plans to work on them, is for others to nominate per the FAR instructions any FA that has already been notified on talk. Those are found at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • There is now a third editor, actively updating the article to the most recent high-quality secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The Adventures of Tintin[edit]

Notified: User:Prhartcom, WikiProject Belgium, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Comics

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been tagged for unsourced statements for over 2 years, and has paragraphs of uncited text. The prose includes short, stubby paragraphs and concerns about the reliability of sources were raised on the talk page over 3 and a half years ago. DrKay (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Barkeep49

I would agree with the concerns expressed by DrKay. While I might be able to do some work on fixing the prose, I will not be able to do the work necessary to really address the issues with text citation and agree it falls below our FA standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If someone is actively working to retain/restore status, time is always given; please keep this page posted on your progress. (See the FAR instructions, FARs are not segmented, and it is assumed that work will proceed on article talk, with updates to here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Two weeks and no evidence of progress or anyone working here: diff since nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced paragraphs. Single sentence paragraphs. DrKay (talk) 20:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist for the same reasons highlighted by DrKay. This is not an FA quality article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist: I agree with the reasons highlighted above. I would also like to add that the article still uses an unreliable source (MobyGames) so that takes away from the FA quality too. Aoba47 (talk) 19:56, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

CM Punk[edit]

Notified: Article talk 2020-01-28, WP Chicago, ‎WP Mixed martial arts, WP Professional wrestling, ‎WP Bio/Sports and games, User:Prefall

Review section[edit]

This FA was promoted in 2007, and the original writer has been gone for more than a decade. The article has fallen out of FA standards. There are numerous maintenance categories, a convoluted TOC, and a MOS review is needed. There are also queries on talk indicating the article is outdated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

The preferred way of going about this, of course, would have been to inform the relevant project of your concerns before nominating it. I see that there was a note on the article talk page, but notifying the project would be a much more effective way to reach people. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
See the WP:FAR instructions. More significantly, GaryColemanFan, are you aware of anyone willing and able to work on the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the wikilink. I've read the page before. Now, it's up to you whether or not you want to just do the bare minimum. Well, like Brian, for example, has 37 pieces of flair. And a terrific smile. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, the TOC could easily be fixed by {{TOC|3}}. I'm not sure I understand the concerns that the original writer being inactive, that's quite common, no? Without reading through the talk page, could we get a small summary of exactly what MOS issues there are? From what I see: I'd like to remove citations from lede and infobox, per WP:INFOBOXCITE (can be sourced in professional wrestling persona section), as well as clean up the tagged [citation needed] note & potentially unreliable source. Other than that - the article needs some better paragraphing, and going through with a comb for duplinks. I don't think that would take all that long to do though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are willing to do all the other updates, I will go through and fix MOS issues once you're done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment – I once saw that there was a talk page message listing a bunch of issues with the article, so when I noticed this pop up on the list of articles with FAR-related talk page notices, I went over to see what I could do. There were a few prose bugs that I was able to fix, but a good number of the past comments went completely over my head. You really need to know more about wrestling than I do to bring an article like this to the highest level possible, so I doubt I can help much. However, I am rooting for the article to receive the attention it needs to retain FA status. I'd suggest trying to resolve the tagged issues first, as most of the tags relate to an unreliable source, which is a no-no for an FA. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

*Delist to Good Article - CM Punk is well known as wrestler and lot hyped wrestling fans like to edit this page due to big user base leaving issues on the page. Indeed it has failed WP:FACRITERIA. Regice2020 (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Regice2020 please see the WP:FAR instructions. Keep or Delist are not declared during the FAR phase, which is where issues needing correction are identified and the article is hopefully improved. If the article is not improved, it moves to the FARC phase, where Keep or Delist is declared. Also, we don't re-assign GA status; that is a separate process. If an article is delisted FA, projects must reassess status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - It's unclear what needs to be done. There are a few "unreliable source" tags--almost all of these are used to cite unnecessary details. For example, if it can't be proven with a reliable source that he defended a title against Shad Gaspard, the article wouldn't suffer at all with the mention of Gaspard removed. There are edit requests on the talk page, but this the requested inclusions tend to be trivial or unreferenced (a list of famous friends, etc.). In the original post here, there is a reference to "numerous maintenance categories"--is this still an issue? If so, what categories? I see no problem with the ToC, so clarification would be appreciated here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for working on this GaryColemanFan. Almost an entire section is cited to an unreliable source, so that will need to be resolved. Perhaps, if no reliable source covered that issue, it is UNDUE; you might know better. Separately, I will look at the article overall and give a more comprehensive answer after sorting the next problem.
    Giants2008 mentions seeing a long list of problems with the article, which I went looking for in archives. I am unsure if he is referring to a previous FAR, which ARGGGH ... was deleted out of process rather than archived by the FAR Coords. Can the @WP:FAC coordinators: please use their adminly tools to resurrect whatever was deleted here, and post it to the talk page of this FAR so the rest of us can see it? Giants2008, is that what you were referring to, or is there something else we should be looking at? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • The thread that I saw was on the article's talk page, not on an FAR page, although it may actually be from the deleted FAR. It can be found here, if you're interested. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, same thing I found, but that discussion links to an old FAR that was deleted. Perhaps some admin will tell us if there is other content in the deleted FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
    @SandyGeorgia: I've restored the previous FAR to Wikipedia:Featured article review/CM Punk/archive0 as this review is occupying its previous title. There is content that may be of value. HTH --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

On the TOC, here is my attempt at removing extraneous wording and consolidating section, but as Giants2008 mentions, one really needs to understand professional wresting (and its manual of style, if there is one) to adequately address this. Are Post-retirement appearances all Professional wrestling, or are some Mixed martial arts? Same question for Persona. Should Mixed martial arts record be moved to that section? Championships and accomplishments is a list that might be better presented in table format, and the uninitiated don't know how those divide among Professional wresting and Mixed martial arts, so that might be added to the table. (Separately, way too many images crammed in to the Championships section, which don't add much to the article.) Please feel free to do/undo anything I've done on the TOC, as this was just my first stab. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I have a vague memory of an improperly formed FAR that went nowhere, so that list might be everything. I can work through some of it, although I don't watch wrestling, so I can't be much help outside of grammatical fixes. If the unreliable source you are referring to is WWFOldSchool (the one tagged as unreliable), most of it could go. I think two of the points may be worth keeping with a different source (although some of the remaining information would need to be trimmed--for example, I'm sure we could find a source for losing the tag team belts, but not for losing the tag team belts while injured). As for the persona section, I won't bore you with my ranting, but I think any fixes would be best handled by someone who doesn't view the section as a clunky, dense, trivial, reader-hostile eyesore. Thanks for the clarification. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
That's a problem for many of us; I can't tell what is trivia relative to what is important in this topic area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
I can try. I'm not familiar with the FA process and English isn't my first language. But I can try some thing. For example, I removed Hardcore holly and Matt Striker 2007 feuds. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Also, I would like to make the article more user-friendly to no-wrestling fans. Remove some in-universe stuff, for example. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
I find it hard to understand what changes you are making because you don't use edit summaries. This makes it difficult to follow the article's progress. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

A week later, no answers on my TOC queries, unreliable sources and maintenance tags still present, no recent edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Move to FARC, no change (except one typo fixing etc. by Iri). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include coverage/organization, sourcing, and MOS. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist. Tagged as lacking reliable references for over a year. DrKay (talk) 16:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment - The unreliable references in question (wwfoldschool.com) have now all been removed. GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
      • Holding, it will be several days before I am able to have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
GaryColemanFan if you are able (or know anyone else who can) to deal with my TOC questions above, and to get someone to cite this:
  • Continuing to espouse his straight-edge philosophy, Punk began to present himself as a cult-like savior to the crowd, growing the hair on his head, face and chest in an allusion to Jesus.[citation needed]
I can re-read the whole thing in a few days and see how we're doing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
I removed the uncited claim, as the article reads fine without it. As for the TOC, I have no concerns with your version. GaryColemanFan (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, GaryColemanFan these are my outstanding TOC and other questions (they cannot be resolved by someone who does not know wresting):
  • "Are Post-retirement appearances all Professional wrestling, or are some Mixed martial arts? Same question for Persona. Should Mixed martial arts record be moved to that section? Championships and accomplishments is a list that might be better presented in table format, and the uninitiated don't know how those divide among Professional wresting and Mixed martial arts, so that might be added to the table. (Separately, way too many images crammed in to the Championships section, which don't add much to the article.)"
If those can be resolved, I can do a complete read through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the post-retirement appearances are all in professional wrestling. The championship list is in keeping with other professional wrestling articles. I don't love the idea of a table. All of the championships are from professional wrestling--none come from mixed martial arts. I have very little to do with images, but I'm sure removing some wouldn't hurt much. As for the persona section, I have no opinion that would be constructive in this discussion. I guess I could quickly say that I hate the very existence of "persona" sections in wrestling articles, but I don't think this is the place for debates about the section as a whole within the professional wrestling project. I don't know how much this all helps, but I hope it cleared up a bit. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
@GaryColemanFan:, I moved sections so that Professional Wrestling vs. Mixed Martial Arts stayed together, cut two images per excess images causing text sandwiching, and slightly juggled the placement of other images. Please have a look if that is OK, so far, next I will read the whole article to see where we are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with it, but the WP:PW editors sometimes get very concerned about consistency. I am less concerned about consistency (although, if I can be honest, I don't know that all of these changes are related to FA standards). I would guess that the page is watched by a bunch of WP:PW editors, and they haven't expressed concern about any changes, so I'm not going to press the issue. GaryColemanFan (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
I saw the edits and I have 0 problems with MMA and Wrestling titles and record being separated in two different sections. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

HHH Pedrigree with this series of edits, you have added text to the lead (which should be a summary of text that is already in the body of the article); the new text is not written to FA prose standards, contains bare URLs, and uses sources that I am unsure are reliable. If editors are actively moving the article AWAY from the Featured article standards while it is under review, it will not be productive to continue to evaluate whether the article can retain featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. As I said, English isn't my first language, so it's hard sometimes to write. I used the template for the sources, but I would apprecitate if somebody improver my text. it's just a small part, since Punk is credited as the first independent wrestler to have succes in WWE and he open the doors for others (Daniel Bryan, Seth Rollins...) --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Are those reliable sources? The lead is a summary of the most important points in the body of the aricle; is that information in the body of the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
PWTorch and The Observer are reliable sources. 411Mania is limited, but it's mostly used in articles as opinion. I think the text can be included in the charactr section, but start a reception/legacy would be more appropiate. Other wrestlers has a similar section. If you have any problem, we can just delete it, but I think it's usefull. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Primarily two major concerns among wrestling (biography) articles in general I see: the line between reality and kayfabe is often blurred, sometimes incomprehensible, and the excessive, often unnecessary, fighting soap opera. This page is no exception, although the latter concern is relatively small. IW. (talk) 23:37, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

L. Ron Hubbard[edit]

Notified: User talk:MartinPoulter

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because it lacks inline citations (and those that it has are questionable with regard to reliability). It is suffers from weasel words and the prose is sub-standard for a contemporary FA. There were several unstruck valid opposes at the FAC. Graham Beards (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you need to be much more specific about your concerns:
  • What citations do you think are missing?
  • Which do you think are unreliable?
  • What are the weasel words?
  • Which prose do you think is unsatisfactory?
Without more specificity, I'm afraid there's not much for others to go on. Prioryman (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I think a review's a good idea given the age of the article, but it needs to be focused and specific. Prioryman (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I have indicated using the {{fact}} where I think additional citations are needed. With regard to the citations, (which are inconsistently formatted) what makes this, for example, a reliable source; [5]? There are also single sentence paragraphs and the prose flows badly in places. Graham Beards (talk) 14:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I see from the article history that it's had a lot of piecemeal edits over the years, so it's no wonder it's a bit choppy. I'm happy to have a go at fixing the problems you've highlighted; in particular I should be able to supply the citations you suggest.
Regarding the source you mention, I note that it's from a veteran journalist and author who has a particular expertise on Scientology (and his own Wikipedia article). Per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." Ortega certainly counts on both criteria (two books and multiple news articles). Prioryman (talk) 17:11, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Prioryman. I agree with your comments regarding Ortega - I had not heard of him before. The citations are the main issue IMHO, but the prose does need some attention. Graham Beards (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll have a look at the prose too. I have some skills in that regard. :-) I probably won't be able to do it before the weekend though, due to other commitments. Prioryman (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
You are too modest. :-) There is no rush; this isn't FAC. Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! I've fixed all but one of the citation issues. The next step is to review the prose and see where improvements can be made. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd encourage a hard look at the sources used here. I was put in a position, as Graham Beards mentioned, of promoting over valid opposition because the editor who commented on sources basically disappeared and didn't participate in the discourse. As far as I can tell, the other opposition was over article size, which personally I don't care that much about. Most of the guidance written here about article size is based on research that's both 10+ years old and was of questionable validity even when it was current. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • As I mentioned to Graham above, I would encourage you to be specific about which sources you see as being problematic, as it becomes a bit of a guessing game otherwise. Prioryman (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't. I'm encouraging specifics from anyone criticizing the sources. --Laser brain (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The problematic sources are listed at the FAC, with good reasoning provided.
From the FAC
  • Russell Miller's biography is a book-length treatment of the article's subject by a reputable investigative journalist, sourced to literally hundreds of end-notes. Reviews have praised it again and again for meticulous research. Frenschkowski's review that you cite (and which is cited and linked in the article) calls it "The most important critical biography of Hubbard". Yes, Frenschkowski raises concerns about specific statements in the book: let's discuss those specifics. Miller doubted the existence of "Snake" Thompson and his connection with Freud. Frenschkowski says that Miller was wrong, and that Snake's reality is backed up by additional documents. The article takes Frenschkowksi's position.

We need to look at specific text cited to these sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it's about time to deal with Frenschkowski. His criticism of Miller is brief, vague and wrong. Frenschkowski states two specific points of criticism. The first is that Hubbard's assertions about his military career "have been much nearer to the truth than Miller is trying to show". That is quite wrong. I spent a year going through Hubbard's records to write a book on his military career, checked them with other material that Frenschkowski didn't have (because it hadn't been published then), and found not only that Miller had got it right but that he had actually understated the degree to which Hubbard made a mess of his military career. Frenschkowski is a theologian, not a military historian, and has no expertise in that area. He cannot be relied on as an authority on military history.
The other criticism that Frenschkowski states is that "Scientology has also been able to verify Hubbard's statements about "Comander [sic] Thompson". Yet Miller does not dispute Hubbard's statements. He only states (on page 25 of my 1987 edition) that "the Commander remains an enigma. He cannot be identified from US Navy records, nor can his relationship with Freud be established. Doctor Kurt Eissler, one of the world's leading authorities on Freud, says he has no knowledge of any correspondence or contact of any kind between Freud and Thompson." Miller states the limits of his knowledge; he doesn't anywhere reject the existence of Thompson. Subsequent researchers found more evidence of Thompson, who is discussed over 3 pages in Larry Wright's Going Clear. That's a perfect example of researchers building on each other's work – Miller identified a gap in knowledge that Wright was able to fill.
And that is it. Frenschkowski states no further criticisms of Miller's accuracy, nor does any other non-Scientologist publication that I'm aware of criticise Miller on the points that Frenschkowski raises. From my point of view, this is a very inadequate basis to imply that Miller's entire work is unreliable and needs to be reviewed. By the way, I contacted Frenschkowski during my research for my book to ask him: "I have been unable to find anything in [Hubbard's records] that contradicts Miller's assertions. Could you possibly clarify which records you refer to in your essay?". He declined to respond. If he is not interested in defending his own work I don't see why it is worth your while to do so.
I also have no idea what "our Mikael Rothstein source points in the Death and Legacy section the problems with that" is supposed to mean; it's unintelligible. Can you please clarify? Prioryman (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Is any progress happening here? I see no edits.

There is still a citation needed tag, the Daily Mail (deprecated) is used as a source, and there are duplicate citations (... unaccredited degree mill called Sequoia University.[165][166][165]) Why does a direct quote need three citations (The idea may not have been new; Hubbard has been quoted as telling a science fiction convention in 1948: "Writing for a penny a word is ridiculous. If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion."[140][172][173]) A good amount of the excessive size could be minimized by dealing with the excessive quoting throughout the article. There is an excess of images that add little to the article. Overuse of however abounds. In the lead, "1952, Hubbard lost the rights to Dianetics in bankruptcy proceedings, and he subsequently founded Scientology." What is that subsequently about; how are the two related? Several issues of problematic "subsequently" (sample, "he was arrested in San Luis Obispo, California, and subsequently pleaded guilty" ... unlike he would plead guilty before he was arrested). The article is tediously overquoted (the red hair, green eyes quote from Parsons gives a sample of the level of unnecessary quoted detail throughout) and does not appropriately use summary style to the many sub-articles available, which could be used to reduce the tedious detail. As an example, since there is a sub-article on his military career, why do we need to know in this article when a ship was commissioned? WP:DASHes need attention, as does WP:OVERLINKing (miscarriage as one sample, New York City, World War I, it goes on). Poor writing exemplified in the first paragraph, which tells us in the first sentence that he was the founder of Scientology and two sentences later that he subsequently (ugh) founded scientology. Here is the clean TOC at promotion, for contrast with the rambling long section names now. The same diff shows the deterioration in the lead.

If anyone is working on this article, they should get busy, and we should ask Ealdgyth to look at the sources, and Mike Christie to perhaps weigh in on the magazine sections. If not, move to FARC; this has already been here six weeks, and it's in rather bad shape. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:28, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The section that covers the material I'm knowledgeable about is this one. I've had a look through and fixed one minor error, and added a couple of links. A couple of comments about that section:
  • I'd cut 'Science fiction newsletter Xignals reported that Hubbard wrote "over 100,000 words a month" during his peak. Martin Gardner asserted that his writing "[wa]s done at lightning speed."'; I don't know Xignals but doubt it's a reliable source for this, and Gardner's comment won't be from first hand knowledge, but taken from other sources. Both are from encyclopedia.com, which I'm not familiar with -- is it an RS? SFE3, which is an RS, has an article on Hubbard which mentions that his writing of this era was "composed with delirious speed"; that would be a better source if we want to reinsert a mention.
  • I'm not sure about the assertion, cited to Stableford, that Hubbard was taken under Campbell's wing; Stableford is a respectable source, and I wouldn't oppose at FAC over something like this, but Hubbard's success as a writer predates his involvement with Campbell, and per SFE3 he was not one of the writers who, under Campbell, helped redefine sf's conventions in the late 1930s and early 1940s. It would be worth looking at other sources to see if Stableford's comment is a minority view. For contrast, there's no question that some writers (Isaac Asimov for example) benefited very much from Campbell's tutelage; I haven't heard that Hubbard was one of them.
  • The source given for Buckskin Brigades doesn't support it being Hubbard's first novel; our article on the book has other sources that might work.
  • The point about Hubbard being short of money is made twice, at different points in the section; one refers to Maryland and the other to Washington, but both refer to 1936 so it would make sense to combine the two points.
  • The last two sentences seem disconnected and look as though they were dropped in without attempting to integrate them.
Generally the material in this section matches what I know about this part of Hubbard's career. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Move to FARC, zero edits since comments on 15 February from Mike Christie and me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No change from my comments a week ago. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section mostly centred around sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Delist. Unsourced statements from January 2020. DrKay (talk) 09:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome[edit]

Notified: WP MED. The main contributors are User:Eubulides, who has been gone for 10 years, and SandyGeorgia. Talk page notification 2020-01-16

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because its main contributor, User:Eubulides, left Wikipedia ten years ago and the article has not been updated significantly since. I am the second contributor, but my contributions were mostly keeping the citations, MOS issues, etc clean, and I have not significantly contributed for more than five years. I have no interest in continuing to maintain the article. No one else has taken on this article, and it is now considerably out of date. I have listed numerous reviews on the talk page that should have been incorporated long ago, and there are many more. The problems with datedness can be seen everywhere, but the Epidemiology section provides the best example. Perusing the few samples of new reviews I listed on talk gives an idea of the amount of update needed. The majority of the article is cited to sources well over ten years old, as no one has kept the article updated since Eubulides left. The talk page notification resulted in zero edits, and zero talk response. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

  • Delist per nom. Research on this condition is ongoing meaning that a dated article cannot satisfy comprehensiveness requirement. I am also surprised by how short it is. Although summary style is used, some sections could stand to go into more detail. buidhe 02:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
    Buidhe, please see FAR instructions, Keep or Delist are not declared in the FAR phase, which is for identifying problems and determining if someone is willing/able to work on them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:29, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The condition has been merged into autism spectrum disorder per the APA. Would need to look to see were the ICD are at with things. And update will require a large amount of work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Comments by John M Wolfson

  • I'm surprised at the amount of LEADCITEs. They're certainly not prohibited by any guideline, but modern standard practice in FAs is to not use them.
  • Speaking of citations, there are a couple of paragraphs that end in uncited sentences. I have marked them with CN tags as needed.
  • The "Classification" section might stand to be expanded per DocJames; I'm also not sure it ought to be the first section, but I can go either way with that.
  • The "Causes" and "Mechanism" sections should be merged.

That's all for now. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:53, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Usually I would keep the causes and mechanisms separate. Makes it easier for people to find what they are looking for and maintain due weight. This is an incredibly controversial topic and thus references are even more important. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson:, yes, the lead is overcited, but more importantly, it is choppy and unpleasant to read. Here is the lead as it looked when this article was last reviewed for FA standards.
Causes and Mechanism are two different things; no, they should not be merged.
The bigger concerns here are comprehensive and outdatedness. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
I fixed both of your cn tags. One was an off-topic addition which I removed. The other resulted from paragraphing that chopped one sentence from its source. Both addressed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • It looks like ICD-11 is going to rename Asperger syndrome to "Autism spectrum disorder without disorder of intellectual development and with mild or no impairment of functional language". Nevertheless, this is too cumbersome and "Asperger syndrome" is likely to remain the de facto name.
A number of sources are aging, notably these heavily-cited sources: Asperger syndrome fact sheet (2007), McPartland (2006), Baskin (2006), Woodbury-Smith (2009), Klin (2006) and Foster (2003).
While I suspect that the relevance of these older sources hasn't changed much, the article would really benefit from the scrutiny of an editor interested in Asperger syndrome, to go through it and update the sourcing as much as possible. (I realise that SandyGeorgia has already tried to find a suitable editor.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome, with a daily average of more than 10,000 hits, is among the medicine project's most popular pages, and yet no one at that project appears willing or able to undertake to update this article, which will fall into complete disrepair if it is defeatured. In the almost month since the FAR talk page notice was given, there have been two edits by John M Wolfson, and four edits by Axl; not even a minimum attempt by medicine project members to update.

  • The problems with comprehensiveness and the need for an update are outlined on talk and on this FAR page, and updating the article would actually not be at all difficult, and yet, no one appears willing to take on the work. I am unable and uninterested in continuing to maintain this article, as working on the body of the article with a dreadful lead that does not reflect best practice for Featured articles holds no interest for me. Considering that most readers will not get past the lead, it should be a compelling and well written introduction to the subject; it is not.
    Examining the short, choppy, outdated, and overcited lead:
  • This is a basic definition, unlikely to be challenged, and does not require citation in the lead. The article is written in American English, but the first sentence has British English. Right up front, we should be telling the reader this is a sub-type of ASD. Forcing leads to a specific order (not in compliance with any guideline or policy) forces critical information to a later paragraph in the lead, unnecessarily. Right up front, we should be telling our readers that AS isn't what it once was: now it's a sub-type.
  • Because of the changing status of this diagnosis, it is helpful to cite this text, and yet, the text does not give the reader the information they need to know right up front. AS is a "disorder of uncertain validity", and the source does not characterize AS as "milder", it correctly states that AS "differs from autism primarily in the fact that there is no general delay or retardation in language or in cognitive development". That doesn't make it "milder", just different. Nor does the source say that language development and intelligence are "relatively normal"; it says there is no general delay or retardation. The attempt to shorten this concept has resulted in a loss of accuracy. Rather than using a 2015 source, the text could be more accurately updated to reflect PMID 29167722, which states that effects on cognitive abilities need to be better researched. When recent sources tell us the condition is "characterized by major problems in social and nonverbal communication", the word "milder" seems inappropriate. The word "high functioning" (used in sources) seems better; dumbing down language results in loss of precision. (While I'm on that source, the article does not mention "One of the main problems in diagnosis of autism and AS is the late occurrence of some atypical behavioral and cognitive changes, like impairment of social communication or alteration in occurrence of puberty" and the importance of recognizing this for diagnosis and treatment. Nor does the article mention the high comorbidity with ADHD, or the high rate of schizophrenia among relatives, or the rate of bipolar.) PMID 30736970 states that "cognitive development is not marked by an overall delay but by specific impairments in certain areas such as the executive functions".
  • Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and unusual use of language are common.[3][4] Signs usually begin before two years of age and typically last for a person's entire life.[1]
  • Even with the new categorization of AS, this statement is not in doubt and does not need to be cited.
  • The exact cause of Asperger's is unknown.[1]
  • This is not likely to be challenged, is common fact, and does not need to be cited in the lead. Overcitation of basic factoids results in choppy prose, where these three sentences on cause could be better combined, with one citation.
  • Citing this information is useful, but citations should be updated. We are using a 2006 source to say genetics have not been determined.
  • Should be mentioned early on. "People with these symptoms" refers back to ... what in this paragraph? That AS was removed from DSM is basic fact; not likely to be challenged, does not require citation.
  • There is no single treatment, and the effectiveness of particular interventions is supported by only limited data.[3]
  • Limited data supporting interventions cited to a 2006 source ?
  • Treatment is aimed at lowering obsessive or repetitive routines, and improving communication skills and physical clumsiness.[9] Interventions may include social skills training, cognitive behavioral therapy, physical therapy, speech therapy, parent training, and medications for associated problems, such as mood or anxiety.[9]
  • This is the first time the reader encounters the word obsessive, but it is unlinked, leaving confusion about possible OCD comorbidity versus OC traits; what exactly do we mean here? We are citing all of this to a 2007 source; nothing new since 2007?
  • Most children improve as they grow up, but social and communication difficulties usually persist.[10]
  • We are citing "most improve" to a 2009 source; still true?
  • Some researchers and people on the autism spectrum have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that autism spectrum disorder is a difference rather than a disease that must be treated or cured.[11][12]
  • This is cited to extremely old sources, and what does it have to do with the paragraph it is placed in ?
  • In 2015, Asperger's was estimated to affect 37.2 million people globally.[13]
  • No problem (although I am unsure if this data is current). (Noting here the absence of an WP:NBSP, and that a MOS review is needed throughout.)
  • Autism spectrum disorder affects males more often than females, and females are typically diagnosed at a later age.[14][15]
  • Standard stuff, does not require citation. How much more often, and how much later? It should not be hard to provide a few simple numbers here, using updated sources. (Noting while here that the citation does not use the same style used throughout the article, and that a check for consistent citation style throughout is needed.)
  • Unlikely to be challenged, does not require citation.
  • The modern conception of Asperger syndrome came into existence in 1981 and went through a period of popularization.[17][18][19]
  • Holy overcitation batman. All old sources, and not one of them reflects the current conception of AS, so the term "modern conception" is outdated.
  • Obvious, does not require citation, but needs to be merged with the outdated statement in the previous sentence. Forcing text to conform to specific citations, rather than writing an overall summary of the article, results in this kind of disconnect.
  • Many questions and controversies remain.[10]
  • This statement says absolutely nothing and the reader knows not to what it refers. This is the result of dumbing down and shortening sentences to the point of losing all meaning.
  • Places in the wrong spot, by forcing the lead to conform to a certain flow. This information belongs with the whole sub-type, recategorization of AS as part of ASD spectrum in the first paragraph, and it is not helpful to cite this to a 2006 source.
  • Partly because of this, the percentage of people affected is not firmly established.[3]
  • Dumbed down to the point of meaningless, and cited to a 2006 source.
Sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

References

  1. ^ a b c d e "Autism Spectrum Disorder". National Institute of Mental Health. September 2015. Archived from the original on 12 March 2016. Retrieved 12 March 2016.
  2. ^ "F84.5 Asperger syndrome". World Health Organization. 2015. Archived from the original on 2 November 2015. Retrieved 13 March 2016.
  3. ^ a b c d e McPartland J, Klin A (October 2006). "Asperger's syndrome". Adolescent Medicine Clinics. 17 (3): 771–88, abstract xiii. doi:10.1016/j.admecli.2006.06.010 (inactive 2020-01-24). PMID 17030291.
  4. ^ Baskin JH, Sperber M, Price BH (2006). "Asperger syndrome revisited". Reviews in Neurological Diseases. 3 (1): 1–7. PMID 16596080.
  5. ^ Klauck SM (June 2006). "Genetics of autism spectrum disorder". European Journal of Human Genetics. 14 (6): 714–20. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201610. PMID 16721407.
  6. ^ "Autism Spectrum Disorder". National Institute of Mental Health. Archived from the original on 9 March 2016. Retrieved 12 March 2016.
  7. ^ "Asperger syndrome". Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center (GARD) – an NCATS Program. Retrieved 26 January 2019.
  8. ^ "ICD-11". icd.who.int. Retrieved 12 February 2019.
  9. ^ a b National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) (31 July 2007). "Asperger syndrome fact sheet". Archived from the original on 21 August 2007. Retrieved 24 August 2007. NIH Publication No. 05-5624.
  10. ^ a b Woodbury-Smith MR, Volkmar FR (January 2009). "Asperger syndrome". European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry (Submitted manuscript). 18 (1): 2–11. doi:10.1007/s00787-008-0701-0. PMID 18563474.
  11. ^ Clarke J, van Amerom G (2007). "'Surplus suffering': differences between organizational understandings of Asperger's syndrome and those people who claim the 'disorder'". Disability & Society. 22 (7): 761–76. doi:10.1080/09687590701659618.
  12. ^ Baron-Cohen S (2002). "Is Asperger syndrome necessarily viewed as a disability?". Focus Autism Other Dev Disabl. 17 (3): 186–91. doi:10.1177/10883576020170030801. A preliminary, freely readable draft, with slightly different wording in the quoted text, is in: Baron-Cohen S (2002). "Is Asperger's syndrome necessarily a disability?" (PDF). Cambridge: Autism Research Centre. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 2 December 2008.
  13. ^ Vos T, Allen C, Arora M, Barber RM, Bhutta ZA, Brown A, et al. (GBD 2015 Disease and Injury Incidence and Prevalence Collaborators) (October 2016). "Global, regional, and national incidence, prevalence, and years lived with disability for 310 diseases and injuries, 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015". Lancet. 388 (10053): 1545–602. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(16)31678-6. PMC 5055577. PMID 27733282.
  14. ^ Ferri, Fred F. (2014). Ferri's Clinical Advisor 2015 (E-Book). Elsevier Health Sciences. p. 162. ISBN 9780323084307.
  15. ^ Lai, Meng-Chuan; Baron-Cohen, Simon (November 2015). "Identifying the lost generation of adults with autism spectrum conditions". The Lancet Psychiatry. 2 (11): 1013–27. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(15)00277-1. PMID 26544750.
  16. ^ Frith U (1991). "'Autistic psychopathy' in childhood". Autism and Asperger Syndrome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 37–92. ISBN 978-0-521-38608-1.
  17. ^ Klin A, Pauls D, Schultz R, Volkmar F (April 2005). "Three diagnostic approaches to Asperger syndrome: implications for research". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 35 (2): 221–34. doi:10.1007/s10803-004-2001-y. PMID 15909408.
  18. ^ Wing L (1998). "The history of Asperger syndrome". In Schopler E, Mesibov GB, Kunce LJ (eds.). Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism?. New York: Plenum press. pp. 11–25. ISBN 978-0-306-45746-3. Archived from the original on 13 March 2016.
  19. ^ Woodbury-Smith M, Klin A, Volkmar F (April 2005). "Asperger's syndrome: a comparison of clinical diagnoses and those made according to the ICD-10 and DSM-IV". Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. 35 (2): 235–40. doi:10.1007/s10803-004-2002-x. PMID 15909409.
  20. ^ Baker L (2004). Asperger's Syndrome: Intervening in Schools, Clinics, and Communities. Routledge. p. 44. ISBN 978-1-135-62414-9. Archived from the original on 13 March 2016.
  21. ^ Klin A (May 2006). "[Autism and Asperger syndrome: an overview]". Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria. 28 Suppl 1 (suppl 1): S3–11. doi:10.1590/S1516-44462006000500002. PMID 16791390.

So, overall the article needs an entire update, and the lead needs to be re-written in a logical flow that summarizes the overall well-known concepts. The overcited, outdated narrative in the lead, forced to a certain order that doesn't make sense or flow logically, needs to be reworked. Those who are able to update it are not going to work under conditions that force leads to be written in ways that do not reflect best FA practice. It is very sad that years of work by Eubulides on this article has been lost, as one of WPMED's top-viewed articles has fallen into disrepair. Unless the medicine project undertakes an update, I will !vote to Delist. There is still time to save this star, and I hope someone will undertake the work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Buidhe would you like to revisit now? (BTW, I disagree with you on the length, which I think is just right.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Setting the length aside for now, I think you're otherwise mostly correct in your evaluation of the article. I also think we need a subject matter expert to look at high-functioning autism and see if they should be merged (especially with the removal from the DSM). In other words my delist endorsement still stands. buidhe 16:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Asperger's and HFA are different concepts. Many people are both, but it is possible to have one but not the other. Also, Asperger's was once a formal diagnosis. HFA is an unofficial assessment. It matters for things like planning for the future (people considered LFA are more likely to be institutionalized), but it's not "a medical condition". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
And since recent reviews consider it a subset of HFA or autism, it is still a valid term/article-- the article just needs to reflect ICD and DSM correct usage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

A few days ago I posted directly over on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine about the issues the article is having with keeping its featured status. No takers yet... Shearonink (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review&oldid=945551138"