The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I've taken a look at the images and the duplinks (now mostly sorted) as well as the sources, the latter needs more work on formatting, etc.. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would be happy to help with source formatting—though it is a bit concerning that there aren't more book length surveys used (and the ones that are used and hardly cited). Aza24 (talk) 08:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Aza24: Agreed, now wading through the books and journals cited to format them properly, with a view to using the better ones more than they are at present. I'd like to move across to Harvard formatting at some point. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitchell125 (talk • contribs)
I would warn against moving to harv formatting for an article of broad interest. For climate change, it's been an utter horror, having to explain to new and intermediate (and many experienced) users how their contributions need to change to be compliant with FA criteria and always having to change the formatting into harv. Femke (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Femkemilene, but that's not been my experience with FAR. Once the swap over is made (a large job for one editor, but not too difficult), it shouldn't be too big an issue. Citing the same book with different pages (something I can see being done here to improve the citations) is a lot easier for me, and maybe others, if the harv system is in place and there's a list of Sources in a separate section. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC).[reply]
I'm mostly struggling with shoehorning scientific papers and news articles into the harv style. Books are of course fine :). Femke (talk) 19:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do think harv formatting for the books is a good bare minimum. I get Femke's reservation, but if we do it for the articles we can get a better view of the article's current state. Anything without page numbers might be too messy to use harv fmt for. Aza24 (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In climate change, we put the newspaper in there rather than the author for all news articles cited. Messy and time-consuming. Newish editors get confused. We're now transitioning towards non harvnb for journals and news articles.
That said, the transition to sfn was helpful to get a better sense of sources, and prune less reliable ones out, like Aza said. Femke (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Femkemilene, looking at the structure of the article, the History section mentions terms introduced in the Geography section further down (Antarctic Circle, Transantarctic Mountains, Mount Erebus, Ross Island). What do you think about swapping the two sections around, as is the case with North America and South America? Imo it would make sense. Amitchell125 (talk) 09:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it could work if 'history of exploration' is moved all the way before population. In that way, we have a nice switch between non-human and human.
A unrelated change of structure could be to put 'economy' and 'research' together under a 'human activity' header. That way, we'll get rid of the weird level-2 header of astrophysics. Femke (talk) 09:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prompted by this talkpage post, I had a look at the article and believe it to be deficient in its coverage of the non-mainland areas of Antarctica. Coverage in the geography section is limited to a See also and a brief mention of Ross Island/Mount Erebus, and there is a single mention in Climate of Signy Island. I would not expect a huge amount of space to be devoted to them, but the Geography section should at least be clear that (as with other landmasses discussed as continents) islands are often considered part of the topic in question, and perhaps go into where those islands are (eg. a note on those above and below the 60th parallel). Islands are covered in the Biodiversity, History of Exploration, Population, and Politics, but this comes without a general coverage of the topic at an earlier point. CMD (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CMD, I don't agree with your statement. We have a separate article Antarctic, which covers the continent + surrounding islands. Increasing the coverage of islands here just blurs the line between the two articles. (wanted to flag this up, as I've just deleted the sentence about Signey Island in Climate). Femke (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like a very poor quality fork which should be merged and redirected. We don't exclude Great Britain from the Europe article or Madagascar from the Africa article, the same in terms of comprehensiveness applies to this article. CMD (talk) 09:18, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hold, work underway Thanks everyone for all your endeavours so far and glad you are still improving this very important article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not there yet; a complete read-through is needed. Just glancing in quickly I found basic issues: [2] Please have a look at prose, wikilinking, and paragraph structure. "In the mid-1970s, a coalition of international environmental protection organisations launched a public campaign to pressure governments to prevent mining in Antarctica." And ??? A one-sentence paragraph left hanging. "Overland sightseeing flights operated out of Australia and New Zealand until the Mount Erebus disaster in 1979, which killed all 257 people aboard." Aboard what? I have to click out to find out what Mount Erebus disaster refers to. There is a maintenance tag in the Ice sheet loss section. Prose is not at FA level throughout (although some sections are OK), and attention to flow and paragraph structure is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first child born in the southern polar region was a Norwegian girl, Solveig Gunbjørg Jacobsen, born in Grytviken on 8 October 1913.[note 7] Why a note and not a citation?
Emilio Marcos Palma was the first person born south of the 60th parallel south, the first born on the Antarctic mainland, and the only living human to be the first born on any continent.[179] This is a 1986 source; no as of, no idea if this person is still "the only living human". (I see there was more detail in the pre-FAR version.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Femke, I will hold off, but unless someone is able to bring this over the line (which means a solid copyedit top-to-bottom), we may need a move to FARC. Please let us know, since Amitchell125 seems busy and no one else has stepped up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry my prose and knowledge of the topic aren't good enough to take on this article; take care to keep an eye on GOCE edits, depending on who shows up, as not all of them improve the prose without affecting source-to-text integrity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Sandy here. While the GOCE does good work, a specialist really needs to work on ones like these, or you run the risk of introducing unintentional errors or breaking source-text integrity. Fixing prose isn't something that can be simply fixed by a copyedit a lot of the time. Sourcing and prose need to go hand-in-hand, and if you try to work on prose without being super familiar with the sourcing, it can introduce issues if you're not familiar with the material. Hog FarmTalk14:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another argument to skip GOCE this time is that they have a large backlog. We don't want to hold up the process for two months. Anyway, with my long COVID, I'm trying to avoid doing more difficult things on Wikipedia, so a copy-edit is just about perfect. Femke (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK I'll leave it in the queue for now just in case as you are right they won't pick it up for a while, and you can cancel it (or ask me to) if/whenever you think is the right time to do so. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Going into more detail here. Fixed the [note 7] thingie. I'll try to address some of these later, but don't count on me
The lede is a bit short. It does not mention climate change, the ozone hole, tourism
The 200 mm does not seem repeated in the body / is uncited
The -63 degrees seems not repeated in body
The United States Exploring Expedition is only mentioned in the lede
In 2004, a potentially active underwater volcano was found in the Antarctic Peninsula by American and Canadian researchers -> do we know more?
temperatures there can reach -90 -> this seems to contradict the fact that -89.2 is the lowest temperature measured. Might be true, as satellite measurements don't count for records.. Will need to check source quality
First two sentence of second paragraph lack adequate sourcing
The sentence "there is some evidence ..." is cited to a 2008 source, which is too old for such a statement. I've spent some time finding a newer source, but no success.
The paragraph of ice shelf collapse is too much focussed on the 2000-2010 decade; also, we have another paragraph about ice shelves later on
The loss of mass from Antarctica's ice sheet is partially offset by additional snow falling back onto the continent -> Weird start of sentence. What loss?
East Antarctica, which occupies most of the continent, is dominated by accumulated snow moves flows the sea as ice. -> clarification needed
The ozone hole section doesn't explain why ozone depletion was highest over Antarctica (I think it's some katalytic reaction on atmospheric ice crystals that only form there??)
The first sentence of biodiversity is attributed to a person, not a great start. Study from 2014. Now accepted wisdom?
The snow petrel is one of only three birds that breed exclusively in Antarctica -> I think this source only supports the statement that the snow petrel breeds in Antarctica
Plant growth is restricted to a few weeks in the summer -> failed verification
Update: I'm willing to try and take this over the finish line, but it'll take some time. I'll be on holiday till the end of the month, so bear with me. Femke (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Copy-edit by GOCE done. It was a new editor with a good eye for underlinking, and for unclear/overly technical statements (some of the other aspects needed reverting). I'm still working on improving source quality / checking text-source integrity. I'm going at a glacial pace, and may need another 8 weeks to finish. Femke (talk) 08:22, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Update Almost there. I would like to work a bit more on the research section (why omit all Latin Americans research stations, but include smaller Western stations?). The issues I've been tackling have been quite extensive (as expected from an old article such as this): quite a few factual errors removed, many instances of sources not checking out. As such, I would very much welcome comments from others before I'm comfortable having this FAR closed. User:FunkMonk: do you have time for another look over the biodiversity section? Femke (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this featured article for review because as noted by Sandy Georgia on the talk page a year ago, the article has major issues including lack of citations (18 cn tags), bloating, some use of questionable sources and MOS issues, such as too-short paragraphs and MOS:LEAD. In addition there are some issues of balance that look questionable to me, for example the section on Martian canals is longer than that on exploration of Mars. (t · c) buidhe13:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see work is progressing. The article is jammed up with too many images, poor layout, and MOS:SANDWICH, and I wonder about WP:CITATION OVERKILL. Are all of those statements with three and four citations controversial and do they really need so many sources? Looking at the TOC, it appears that the article could be better organized. There is a section heading to house one map. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The citation needed tags have been fixed, which is a great start. The article still has issues with section imbalance, updating, overcite that are flagged with cleanup tags. The issues raised by Sandy above (eg image overkill) are also still present. (t · c) buidhe10:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the interactive Mars Map section, since the Topographic map seen in that section is also seen in a previous section. I will start with trimming and reducing the number of images.
This article has pretty serious issues throughout and will need sustained attention to bring it to standard. Here’s an example:
The seasonal frosting of areas near the southern ice cap results in the formation of transparent 1-metre-thick slabs of dry ice above the ground. With the arrival of spring, sunlight warms the subsurface and pressure from subliming CO2 builds up under a slab, elevating and ultimately rupturing it. This leads to geyser-like eruptions of CO2 gas mixed with dark basaltic sand or dust. This process is rapid, observed happening in the space of a few days, weeks or months, a rate of change rather unusual in geology – especially for Mars. The gas rushing underneath a slab to the site of a geyser carves a spiderweb-like pattern of radial channels under the ice, the process being the inverted equivalent of an erosion network formed by water draining through a single plughole.[133][134][135][136]
That passage is cited to four 15-year-old sources— probably dating to when the article was featured. If this info about gas and geysers has borne out over time, it should be possible to upgrade the citation to one current source. This problem is throughout the article, and a top-to-bottom rewrite may be needed to save this star. Sources will need serious checking, too, eg: Olympus Mons". mountainprofessor.com. ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thankfully, they only have 102 edits, of which some only consist of blatant MOS:OVERLINK. Will look into that soon - if I find enough issues, I might see about getting a mini CCI started. Hog FarmTalk14:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will ping Moneytrees for advising on the RD1 here - I've been told that revision deletion is not always best for small violations that affect large swaths of page history, and in this case we have a single sentence and would have to delete over 360 revisions. Hog FarmTalk14:54, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Jay I would support merging the "Spacecraft visitation" and "Astronomy on Mars" sections under the "Exploration" top-level heading. This can cover future plans, keeping in mind WP:UNDUE. (t · c) buidhe03:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The entire TOC concerns me per WP:WIAFA 2b, but I am unable to find any WikiProject Astronomy guideline about how to structure a planet article. When you are finished with the rest of the cleanup, The great Jay, I hope that a better rationalization of the overall structure can be considered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should the last paragraph for the martian canals be on the habitability and life section? It doesn’t really mention any observations of canali. Blue Jay (talk) 10:07, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SandyGeorgia: - Update: I've done some work on the sources, replacing dead sources and old sources with new ones, and replaced questionable looking sources with more reliable ones. I'll try my best to address the source problems. Blue Jay (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the work! The excessive amount of images, and the convoluted Table of Contents (WP:WIAFA 2b) are also a concern; the article could probably benefit from a better structure. I haven’t looked at your new sourcing yet, but did see:
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Blast" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "Greek Names of the Planets" is not used in the content (see the help page).
Cite error: A list-defined reference named "theoi" is not used in the content (see the help page).
I've done some work on the exploration and future section, though I'm having a hard time finding any recent sources about Obama's plan to send people to Mars in the 2030's. Blue Jay (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the fifth paragraph to the lead. A careful read of WP:LEAD will show that this trend (seen at FAC) of reducing leads is not supported by WP:LEAD, and there are many more characteristics of a well-written lead than the forced restriction to four paragraphs. I am not saying this lead is well written or complies with lead, but a five-para lead for an article this size is not what ails the lead. Please focus on the substance of what LEAD says, and if doing that requires five paragraphs, please use them! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are WP:proseline issues in Exploration section. I wonder if it is necessary to mention absolutely every exploratory vehicle intended to go to Mars? Or just mention the most important ones while explaining why they're important? (t · c) buidhe00:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Been wondering, should the volcanoes, tectonic sites, and holes sub-subsections be merged as a single subsection? They're all physical features of Mars, after all. Blue Jay (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks in much better shape now. Do you feel satisfied with it Blue Jay? I wonder if it would be possible to ask someone who knows more about planets than I do to look it over. (t · c) buidhe09:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a lot of experience on this kind of thing, so I'd reccommend asking someone else who has an input on this subject. Blue Jay (talk) 11:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, no :( The planet articles were almost all featured last decade, and the WikiProject was strong, but as far as I know, all of the editors responsible for that body of work have moved on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Femke says she is suffering from long covid symptoms but I've left a query for XOR'easter in case they are willing and able to offer assistance. (t · c) buidhe23:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time to do more than a spot-check right now (I've a big rewrite project I need to make serious progress on this weekend), but I gave it a read and also left a reminder at the Astronomy WikiProject. I noticed that the web citations aren't consistently formatted; some use ((cite web)) and some don't. Is that a major deal by FA standards? XOR'easter (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your response, XOR'easter. The citations are an issue, but one that's straightforward to fix. Ideally, before I or someone else puts a lot of effort into citation cleanup, I'd rather know if there are any major content issues. (t · c) buidhe01:06, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the proseline issue for the exploration section is the only one to deal with other than the citations, but I'm not sure. Blue Jay (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To handle the proseline issue, I'd zap everything in the "Exploration" section after the paragraph that begins As of 2021, Mars is host to fourteen functioning spacecraft. There's just too much "a press release happened, so we added it here" to sort out. XOR'easter (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Zapped a few. I'm almost inclined to nuke the whole section from orbit and ask that items only be reincluded if an affirmative case can be made for them. XOR'easter (talk) 22:44, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Throughout the planet articles, the images seem to get out of control. Why are they all necessary? It begins to look like a picture book; can an evaluation be made as to why so many images must be crammed in? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:07, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is the citation style? As one example, sometimes the publisher is NASA, other times Nasa.gov.
What makes space.com a high-quality reliable source?
The German Aerospace Center (DLR) citation goes nowhere.
Second and third sentences of the lead, referred, refers, repetitive; it looks like the second half of the second sentence could be better made part of the third sentence,, with recast wording.
The days and seasons are comparable to those of Earth, because the rotation period as well as the tilt of the rotational axis relative to the ecliptic plane are similar. Mars is the site of Olympus Mons, the largest volcano and highest known mountain on any planet in the Solar System, and of Valles Marineris, one of the largest canyons in the Solar System. The smooth Borealis basin in the Northern Hemisphere covers 40% of the planet and may be a giant impact feature.[20] Mars has two moons, Phobos and Deimos, which are small and irregularly shaped. --> ?? -->
Olympus Mons, the largest volcano and highest known mountain on any Solar System planet, and Valles Marineris, one of the largest canyons in the Solar System, are on Mars. The smooth Borealis basin in the Northern Hemisphere covers 40% of the planet and may be a giant impact feature.[20] Mars has two small and irregularly shaped moons, Phobos and Deimos. The days and seasons on Mars are comparable to those of Earth as the planets have a similar rotation period and tilt of the rotational axis relative to the ecliptic plane.
The latest spacecraft to successfully land on Mars are CNSA's Tianwen-1 lander and Zhurong rover, landed on 14 May 2021. Define CNSA acronym ... land, lander, landed ... find a way to vary the wording, of just truncate --> ?? --> CNSA's Tianwen-1 lander and Zhurong rover landed on Mars on 14 May 2021.
The Zhurong rover was successfully deployed on 22 May 2021, which makes China the second country to successfully deploy a rover on Mars, after the United States.[22] ... successfully deployed, successfully deployed, repetitive. --? --> With Zhurong on 22 May 2021, China became the second country to successfully depoly a rover on Mars. ??
Deadlink removed, some prose edits made. I want to let that sit for a bit and see if anyone is upset with the modifications I made to the lede. More thoughts about/work with the sourcing will hopefully follow when I can eke out the time. XOR'easter (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's modern science for you; collaborations get big. Just be happy we don't have to cite the discovery of the Higgs boson, where the coauthor list clocked in at a cool 24 pages and 5,154 names. I'm not so much a fan of removing the information completely, though; I'd rather just limit the display with display-authors=3 or so. XOR'easter (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I only did one so you could revert me if needed, but I don't know how anyone can edit around all that ... it's impossible to find the text ... but up to you, revert if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:42, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox ... astronomy articles seem to attract too many images. Choices need to be made: with long infoboxes that take up three sections of the article, there's no room to also have a gazillion images that are bunched at the top or causing MOS:SANDWICH. My suggestion would be to lose half of the infobox and half of the images: split the difference. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:28, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being able to look up numerical information quickly is an important use case for astronomy pages. I'd rather lose pictures and keep the infobox; pretty pictures of space things are easy to come by. I'd maybe remove the "Artist's impression of how Mars may have looked four billion years ago", the image that "prompted speculation that some shapes were worm-like fossils" (since they weren't), "Orbits of Phobos and Deimos" (doesn't seem to add much), and the portrait of Galileo (not much reason to single him out among all the people mentioned in that section). XOR'easter (talk) 02:37, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on the citations, starting with the ones that looked the most dubious (defunct random websites from the mid-2000s and such). I've been trying to standardize them as I go along. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox length is pretty extreme; consider that mobile viewers have to scroll through the entire thing before reading all of the lead. I think it would be improved by reducing the amount of information you're trying to convey in that format, to be more concise and accessible. But I'm not going to support delisting on that basis. I will oppose keeping until all the info there is sourced. (t · c) buidhe23:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't there some way to have the infobox be collapsed in mobile view? (If there isn't, shouldn't there be? That limitation must affect a stupendous number of articles.) XOR'easter (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe so. Templates on mobile are often pretty broken - they either mess up the layout or more often don't appear at all. Hog FarmTalk01:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a drag. I've started filling in references for the infobox and checking which of the values are covered by the references already present. I've also posted an inquiry on the article's Talk page and at WikiProject Astronomy for additional eyes. XOR'easter (talk) 02:19, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we need at least one for each section of it (a set of related numbers can all be drawn from a common source). If there's a number which isn't explicitly given in any source but has to be calculated, then including it is probably WP:UNDUE. We don't need to give numbers that nobody has cared about. I had a brief related discussion here. XOR'easter (talk) 02:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an observation, but I've noticed that the Mars Fact Sheet source says that the Longitude of Ascending node is around 49.57854 degrees, while the actual article itself says that its 49.558 degrees. Blue Jay (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably another example of the same issue. I'd just take everything from the Mars Fact Sheet for consistency. It's possible that we picked up some wonky numbers along the way from somebody trying to compute the values for themselves. XOR'easter (talk) 13:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to the rounded-off value of 286.5 degrees, which is consistent with Allen (2000) and the Mars Fact Sheet (336.04084 - 49.57854). XOR'easter (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes "The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must" a high quality RS?
IMO the lead right now doesn't do a great job summarizing the body. It goes from names to "terrestrial planet", mountains on Mars to moons. Should be rewritten in a more coherent order and reflecting the major body sections. (t · c) buidhe09:01, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some rearrangements and moved some excess detail into the body text. I don't dislike the opening paragraph now; explaining the origin of the name early on seems good to me, but perhaps it could be moved to the part of the lede that summarizes the visual appearance and culture stuff. XOR'easter (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if the body text of the article says enough about them to make that necessary, but it's not a bad idea either. XOR'easter (talk) 16:31, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that astronomycafe.net appears to just be one of those faqs, so maybe we could replace it with another source? Blue Jay (talk) 10:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to find a source for the temperature of Mars in kelvin, closest one I could find is the Mars Fact sheet but the minimum and maximum temperature of Mars in Kelvin still remains unsourced. Should we just remove the kelvin section from the infobox altogether? Blue Jay (talk)
Keep listed It took me a while, but I managed to find the time to read through this again, and I think we've wrung it into a state of respectability. The concerns raised in this discussion appear to have been met. XOR'easter (talk) 22:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The reception section goes against all typical modern standards even for Good Articles, such as extensive use of direct quotations, such that I wouldn't even consider it up to modern GA standards. The references also need a total rework to connect them directly to inline citations with page numbers incorporated in them, which suggests to me that the referencing style is very outdated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... This looks like an interesting one. I'll do some work on it now but look at getting some serious edits in during the first week of May. Hopefully I should have addressed the talk page concerns and started really revising it by May 8. I'll add the comments from the talkpage below so that we can keep all the comments related to this review in one place. MSG17 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MSG17 templates are avoided at FAR and FAR for Template limit issues. Also, it's not necessary to transfer the full talk page notice to this page; it is linked above, so I have removed it. You can work on talk and only update issues here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone looking at the first batch of sources I pulled and mostly I think they're just useful for further buttressing claims already in the article (first example of machinima.) There's a bit more that can be pulled out of the Den of Geek article I think, and then I'll go for a deeper trawl through my academic databases. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk19:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and cut a lot of the overused quotes and summarized a bit more of the content; I've also added in a bit from the newer sources I've found. I've got one potential option for more from ILL that'll be here in a few days, but I think for the most part the well of newer coverage is exhausted. MSG17 has done a good job addressing other issues. The article still needs another stiff copyedit (I'll take a stab next week), but I think it's in much better shape than it was before. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk14:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where does the quote end? Wikilink Stanford? Stanford University media curator Henry Lowood wrote that "Diary of a Camper broke with the demo movie as documented gameplay by moving away from the traditional first-person perspective of players.[10]
Not a gamer, so these will be dumb queries ... so ... the lead explains that the Rangers are not characters in the game, rather a clan of players of the game. I think. But then when I hit the Synopsis section, I feel like the Rangers are characters in the game. What are characters in the game called, and is there a way to clarify this for the clueless like me?
The infobox mentions "United Ranger Films", but there is no mention in the text, and it would be helpful to know some of the production process, that is, how these gamers came together to form a company to launch a film. None of the business side is explained.
As to the synopsis, the players are basically playing "themselves" (or their game avatars) in the film, but it's also pretty much irrelevant since the plot is so basic. I went ahead and removed the United Ranger Films bit. There's not really any "business" to the film since it was a bunch of people self-publishing the file on the internet; "United Ranger Films" was just their made-of vanity arm of their already ersatz clan. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk21:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This 2006 promotion, whose original nominator is gone, has some uncited text that will hopefully be easily addressed for a FAR save. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a note mentioning the dispute; if someone has a source for a claim that it was as late as 1916 (the biographies of Barney all seem to say late 1914 or 1915) feel free to add it... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've resolved a few further ((cn)) tags; four of the main sources are available through the Internet Archive's library if anyone else wants to help work on this... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 12:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FAR pages are not usually sub-sectioned until/unless they become extremely long. The fixes needed here are simple enough that discussion could be on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me. I moved it all to the talk page and left a note in its place. 15:36, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
Trying to catch up from the car, iPad editing. I thought I had fixed this, but MOS:SANDWICH is back big time ... either images need to be removed, or they need to be moved or combined to multiple images ... I can't do that from the car. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:LEAD is underdeveloped and not an overview/summary; we go straight from a one-sentence intro para to mid-life, nothing on early life, and is Legacy covered enough? Lead needs expansion ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Returning after a few weeks away, the lead is still underdeveloped, and MOS:SANDWICH is everywhere. I can work no the sandwiching if no one else does, but we need a proper lead before the FAR can close. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. SandyGeorgia fixed up the sandwiching and I'm poking away at the lead. I keep being distracted by shiny new content for the body. As far as I know, we're one good lead rewrite away from most of the major issues being fixed. I'd hold out for a second opinion from SG. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this featured article for review because much of the prose is cited to the subject's autobiography and those citations should be replaced with secondary sources. There is also inconsistent citation formating, short paragraphs and some uncited statements. Z1720 (talk) 15:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think better phrasing of my thoughts above are that if there is a high-quality secondary source that verifies similar information, it should replace an inline citation to Kraft's biography. If Kraft is the only source that can be used for the information, then it should not be replaced. I am concerned that 38 of 88 inline citations in the article are to Kraft's autobiography, including some opinionated statements like, "Not much happened in Gemini or Apollo that didn't either originate with us or with our input." (which is according to Kraft) and "Both astronauts and mission controllers had made the right decisions," (which could be rephrased to "he thought that the astronauts and mission controllers had made the right decisions"). I searched Kraft's name in WP:LIBRARY and found lots of sources about Kraft, particularly sources written around the time of his death in 2019. There are also articles on the Apollo missions that are FAs that might contain high-quality sources that mention Kraft. The concerns primary sources do not negate that there are uncited statements and short paragraphs throughout the article. Z1720 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a pass through the article and removed bare URLs, added citations for everything is cited, tidied up the references, consolidated short paragraphs, and added some additional sources. Hawkeye7(discuss)23:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"He also discovered that wingtip vortices, and not prop-wash, are responsible for most of the wake turbulence in the air that trails flying aircraft. This finding was forgotten and later rediscovered independently" - it may be best for independent sourcing on this
Added an independent source, and the original paper, which is still available from multiple sources, and still frequently cited. I doubt his assertion that it was forgotten; it has been cited in many aircrash investigations, the earliest one I found being in 1957, and the so-called "rediscovery" cites it. Hawkeye7(discuss)20:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A pivotal experience for Kraft was the flight of Mercury-Atlas 5," - source is the Time piece itself; needs a better source for this part
Hawkeye7 - Any thoughts? I'm comfortable with most of what is being sourced to Kraft, but I think there are definitely a few places where a non-Kraft source would be best. Hog FarmTalk06:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not ready to let this one through yet (1a and 1d concerns). I had to make too many prose adjustments,[9] and since my prose is not stellar, that means we need a real prose guru to go through. I'm also not convinced we have given due attention to the Kraft Report or worked in scholarly research. The original nominator has not edited the article since 2007, while journal publications about the effect of the Kraft Report on subsequent disasters continued, and without incorporating that, the article isn't neutral. Our content on the Kraft Report is unchanged from the version that passed FAC in 2007, so a fresh look at the newer scholarly sources might be in order. We should discuss whether all the praise in the lead is balanced by whatever ends up at Christopher C. Kraft Jr.#Consultant about the Kraft Report. It seems like significant controversy. At minimum, we can mention the "controversial" Kraft Report in the lead. Hopefully by the time someone addresses that, Z1720 will be back and can look at the prose; I found a lot of redundancy on only a quick look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7 this sentence isn't working: "The panel's controversial report, known as the Kraft report, recommended that NASA's Space Shuttle operations should be outsourced to a private contractor, and that NASA cut back on the organizational changes intended to improve that were made after the Space Shuttle Challenger accident." Can it be split in two after private contractor, and I can't tell what the second part is aiming for. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:37, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From Organizational Learning at NASA : The Challenger and Columbia Accidents:
McAfee (2006) especially champions joint-authoring tools such as blogs and wikis because "the intranet platform shifts from being the creation of a few to being the constantly updated interlinked work of many". He cites the experience of Wikipedia to suggest that such forums can offer highly reliable information.
I am returning to semi-active editing, so I'm giving this article another look-through. Overall, I think this article is very close to a keep. I made some edits; please review them to ensure that they are appropriate for the article. The images need alt text per MOS:ALT. The infobox mentions the ASME medal and the Roger W. Jones Award for Executive Leadership, but these are not cited in the article body. Likewise, I think there are some awards in the awards section that could go in the infobox. Once these concerns are addressed I'll take another look. Z1720 (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:ALT is an explanatory supplement to a guideline. The specific guideline that requires this is MOS:ACCIM #1. The featured article criteria #2 says featured articles should follow style guidelines, wikilinking to the manual of style, of which MOS:ACCESS (and the ACCIM subsection) are part of. This is also something that has been required of FACs for a while, so I assume that it is required for all featured articles. Z1720 (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alt text has never been required of FACs. Nor has strict MOS conformance. Only those parts of the MOS specifically mentioned are required. MOS:ALT is only an explanatory supplement. It is not part of MOS:ACCESS. Hawkeye7(discuss)03:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are both a little bit right and a little bit wrong. Alt-text and accessibility are part of MOS, and all of MOS is part of the criteria. There was a long period when alt text was most certainly enforced at FAC, but that was when we had multiple editors (no longer with us) who were very well versed in how to write alt text and willing to do it for those of us who weren't. WP:WIAFA clearly states, as it always has, that articles must comply with WP:MOS (not just some parts of MOS, although it highlights three parts with the words including). And alt text is mentioned twice at MOS. But no part of MOS has ever been strictly enforced at FAC, and alt-text enforcement has fallen out of favor simply because ... most of us don't know how to write alt text correctly, and there are few editors who can do it. While it may not be a reason to hold up a FAC or FAR, it is surely something we can do out of thoughtfulness for readers who need it. Worse than the lack of alt text is the way almost NONE of the maps in ANY articles at FAC or FAR comply with MOS:COLOR (note the new images we added during the Great Fire of London FAR to bring it in to compliance) ... we can only ask and hope that editors will be considerate of visually impaired readers, although enforcement of this part of MOS at both FAC and FAR is spotty. Certainly, articles are passing both FAC and FAR today with maps in breach of MOS:COLOR, as an example. Alt text falls into the same category. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I won't fail to support an article's featured status only on alt text, but if some kind soul, who appreciates all the work some of our editors who use screenreaders do in here, should add alt text, it would be most appreciated. If I knew how to write alt text, I'd do it myself; I would never present an article at FAC without alt text. Meanwhile, the prose is still spotty. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's an art form. I have added ALT text. The worst part of MOS:ACCESS in my opinion is the requirements it imposes on tables. Instead of adjusting the table table template, it imposes complex CSS markup requirements that most editors cannot perform. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it's no fun to try to comply with ACCESS, and am so happy when someone else does it for me! But I hold the work up in appreciation for all that Graham87 (who uses a screenreader) does in here, and try to do what I can (which may not be much!). Thanks for doing that, Hawkeye7. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hawkeye7 for adding the ALT text, and for SG for clarifying the very muddy waters of MOS:ALT. I've taken some time away from this article to hopefully bring a fresh perspective to it. I made some copyediting changes, which I encourage others to review and change if desired. My only concern is with the following sentence: "Kraft commented in his autobiography that, with the choice of his name, "some of my life's direction was settled from the start"." I think this is referring to Kraft sharing a name with Christopher Columbus but I'm just guessing here. Can this quote be briefly explained in the article? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The book says:
My father considered his name onerous; it had forced him to survive teasing as a boy and the occasional jibe as an adult. But in that glowing moment, it hit my mother just right. I was only minutes old and now the burden was mine, too. Can a name influence the course of a life? I've had most of a century to ponder that question. I think with a name like Christopher Columbus Kraft Jr. some of my life's direction was settled from the start.
I'm not sure how to incorporate the above quote into the article, so I'll drop this concern unless someone suggests wording. I'm ready to declare keep with the understanding that as more secondary sources become available, the article will try to reduce the number of citations to Kraft's autobiography, where appropriate. Z1720 (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil
Watching from a prose pov, its doable; repetitive and tacked on here and there but now (from the work above) not fatal. Have made trivial edits, and can give another run through tomorrow night. Am leaning keep. Ceoil (talk) 04:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Bio of a sportsperson that has been allowed to fall really out of date. As noted by the RealGM source cited in the article, Clinkscales was still active through the 2019-2020 season, and was even awarded third team all-NBL Canada honors in that last season. Yet there is basically no information for these seasons, and his stats table hasn't even been updated. He's also an assistant coach, rather than a player, now. That source linked for his coaching career beginning also states why his playing career ended. Additionally, there are some smaller sourcing problems sprinkled throughout - "As a junior, Clinkscales regressed statistically" is original research based on interpretation of stat lines, and referring to a couple specific single-game performances as "notable", but sourcing them only to stats-only box scores. The #2 editor in the authorship list has not been notified because their contributions solely consists of a massive IABot run. Hog FarmTalk21:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC, which does not preclude additional work. It's been close to 2 weeks since the article has been edited, and there hasn't been updating besides the addition of the new role as coach. Hog FarmTalk20:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist - while he's been updated as a coach, there's still a large chunk at the end of his playing career that isn't covered properly in the article. Hog FarmTalk14:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not practically gonna be able to work on that - In a bit of a busy spot with work, I have no idea where to even start trying to find sources for Canadian basketball, and I'm trying to find time to work through a project of my own. Hog FarmTalk03:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no idea how to work on basketball content; baseball, yes, but I would not know what best sources are and what content was even relevant. Sportsfan77777, your keep is not based on useful logic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Starting to give this a final review with the hopes of getting it polished up enough to be able to keep. I've been tagging some minor failed verification in the college career section, but it looks like something that should be easily fixable if a log of all his games in a season can be located. Hog FarmTalk14:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: - This is looking much better and shouldn't take much to fix, but I do have a sourcing question. Is D-League Digest (cited in the article) considered a reliable source, or does it need to be removed? Hog FarmTalk15:49, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, it says it's a part of ESPN. But regardless, the author of that article is now the Assistant GM of the Chicago Bulls, and therefore I think would qualify as a recognized expert. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sportsfan77777: - what are your thoughts here now? I've tagged a single failed verification in the 18-19 section, and have made a pass through the career section adding his seasonal gamelog to support a few instances of season-highs, as well removing some editorializing. From what I can see, what is really left here is fixing that one FV instance, updating the lead, fixing some ref formatting, determining if New York Post is appropriate for a BLP FA (WP:RSP is not flattering, and NYP was challenged in the 2016 FAC), and then finding something to ease the transition between the 09/10 and 13/14 seasons. He doesn't seem to have been in pro basketball, but there needs to be some sort of transition. Hog FarmTalk05:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I rewrote the lead to focus more on his NBL Canada career. Besides that, I changed the New York Post statement to say 'hyped as a "prodigy" by the New York Post' instead of 'labelled as a "prodigy" by the New York Post. That way the statement is more about the New York Post itself rather than a statement about Clinkscales' potential. I think this is more in line with the adjacent statements that focus on his national recognition rather than his ability. With regard to the gap, I thought it was covered well enough by what was already written ("with no indication that he joined any other team since his tenure with the BayHawks"). I think that should be just about everything. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 15:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching and couldn't find anything useful for the gap, either. Newspapers.com has nothing for him during the time, and filtering Google results for 2011-2013 is just bringing up the Juvenile Justice Information Exchange (which is apparently related to Kennesaw State University somehow) and then a blog post about him playing 1-on-1 against Jay Williams. I'm okay with accepting Steve Weinman, who holds a high-ranking position with a NBA team, as an acceptable source for basketball topics. That just leaves a run through to check reference formatting I want to do soon, and then determining if New York Post is an acceptable BLP reference for a FA. Any thoughts, Sandy? Hog FarmTalk04:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dunno; having a hard time with that one. On the one hand, it's a BLP, and we should never use a marginal source for a BLP. On the other hand, the information sourced is not sensitive, and NYPost is considered less reliable for NY politics and police; this is sports. We should try to develop a broader consensus on this one. But there are other things in that para I don't like. The NJ.com report never mentions Clinkscales; that sentence is synth-y and either a) should come out, or b) the nj.com citation should move to after the comma (it is citing the college level). And thereafter is an unnecessary additive. I agree with Graham and Tony1 on such unnecessary fillers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oopsie. Re-reading the FAC, I see Giant2008 was in there, and has already opined, as did Nikkimaria and others. So, if we keep the content now, we are only keeping that which passed FAC. I'd still feel better if we had broader consensus, as it is odd that nothing else comes up, even with a newspaper.com search. Maybe if we beg and send flowers or chocolate or something, Ealdgyth will give us a ruling. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hog Farm I am stymied at what declaration to enter here. I am a bit uncomfortable with the NY Post, and that was reinforced when I read Paige Bueckers. High school student with plenty of high school coverage. While Clinkscales was from the media heavy Northeast, and only the NY Post reported on him? No local coverage? Not sure what to do here, and whether the article would be adequate if all of NYPost was deleted. Would a post at RSN be out of order? Or would the result just be obvious ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a fair assessment. The NY Post is his local coverage. I would think local coverage would be acceptable for information about his early life or personal life. Bueckers was also one of the best basketball prospects ever, while Clinkscales was relatively obscure. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 10:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ha ... I was looking for more New Jersey coverage (because of the camp being in Teaneck), but you are correct that he was a New Yorker (and Teaneck is just across the GW bridge from NY). Your argument makes sense. I still wish we could get others to opine on this before we close it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to do either. I keep thinking "there has to be something", but even newspapers.com only brings up this from before 2004 (when his college career began), and all it says is that one publication said he might go to USF (South Florida). My gut is that we shouldn't be using NYPost here, but I seriously cannot find any coverage here for that time period of his life. Even filtering Google search results for 1996 to 2003 is just giving me this, which is only a passing mention of his Atlanta AAU team and doesn't cover anything not already in the article. My only guess is that online sports media may not have been as established in the late '90s/early oughts, but I'm seriously shocked at how little there is here. Hog FarmTalk02:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from SG
jargon ... "including a layup with four seconds left in regulation," ... regulation means what?
It's the standard time of the game (non-overtime). I read the sources and didn't see an indication of overtime, so I've replaced with "four second left in the game". Hog FarmTalk14:58, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Must we have this in the lead? "A 6-foot-1-inch (1.85 m), 185-pound (84 kg) point guard,[1]" ... I recognize that height matters in basketball, but what a lot of formatting to absorb in the second sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the weight, as a scan of several other sports bio FAs, including a couple basketball ones, did not show any with the weight in the lead. Since it's not in the body that I see, I've added the ref into the infobox Hog FarmTalk15:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second para of the lead, jargon, what is a three-star recruit? "Several major college basketball programs showed interest in him as a three-star recruit." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does "He was rated as a three-star recruit, and several major college basketball programs showed interest in him" work better? Hog FarmTalk13:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second paragraph of the lead: all of this needs reworking, and I don't speak basket ball well enough to attempt it:
For his entire college career, Clinkscales had a limited impact as a scorer despite his passing ability, becoming the fifth freshman at DePaul to pass for 100 assists. While most of his statistics stagnated over the years, he led NCAA Division I in assist-to-turnover ratio as a senior.
Something like ????
Clinkscales became the fifth freshman at DePaul to pass for 100 assists. During his college career, he had a limited impact as a scorer. While most of his statistics stagnated over his college years, he led NCAA Division I in assist-to-turnover ratio as a senior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:44, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged "he had a limited impact as a scorer" as original research, as it's evidently Wikipedia-provided interpretation of statistics since this isn't supported in the body. Hog FarmTalk14:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Starting this sentence with "as a professional" is awkward ... "As a professional, Clinkscales was selected in the 2008 NBA Development League Draft by the Erie BayHawks, where he played most of his D-League career. " --> ?? --> His professional career began when Clinkscales was selected ... ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I looked through it again and made some changes. I don't see a whole lot. Keep in mind, except for the parts I added as part of this review, the rest of the article hasn't been edited much since it went through FAC. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With this one having run for three months, hopefully we can push this across the line soon. I kept the official scorebook for my high school team several times, so while I've got a bit of familiarity with basketball its been several years and I'm a bit rusty. Hog FarmTalk13:17, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I keep coming back here, hoping to get this one closed up, but issues persist.
MOS:NUMNOTES calls for consistency in whether digits or spelled out numbers are used within a list, but we have mixes going every which direction here. One style needs to be settled on and used consistently throughout. It is 7 starts and 12 assists, or seven starts and twelve assists, but not seven starts and 12 assists.
I can't decipher why this quote is in the article; what a missing? "The freshman commented, "The best thing I can do is pass. I really don't have to look at them (my team members). I just tell them to be ready."[17]"
I think it is much easier to read split-up. In practice, people might only want to read one specific year or one year at a time (potentially out of order), and those are both harder to do without the sub-sections. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 19:39, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this in the article? The team welcomed incoming freshman, and the reigning Mr. Basketball of Michigan, Wilson Chandler.[24]
I can't tell what this sentence means, and it seems out of place in the flow ? Clinkscales came off the bench to help the team extend their two-point lead with under eight minutes left in regulation to 12 points at the end of the game.
The beginning of the article uses unspaced WP:EMDASHES (in the summer of 1996, Clinkscales—standing 4 ft 8 in (1.42 m)—was noticed); later on, the article uses spaced WP:ENDASHES (with Villanova, as he finished with 11 assists – the most he would record as a senior.) Pick one, check throughout.
Is everything in the lead contained within the article? I couldn't find it all, but haven't gotten through the entire article. The stats are causing me to glaze over.
Date of birth and height are in the lead and nowhere else, while uniform number and weight are in the infobox but nowhere else. From what I've seen, weight generally isn't mention in athlete bio articles, so it can be removed most likely. Hog FarmTalk19:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the dob into the article body and have removed weight from the infobox as it's not all that relevant for basketball and is probably not accurate anymore. Not sure where best to work in height or uniform number. Hog FarmTalk15:24, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I guess with a similar rationale as to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Quatermass and the Pit/archive1. Not our finest FA, but not an embarrassment either. As to the heavy amounts of stats - I haven't been able to find a whole lot that could be used instead, although I'm not familiar with basketball sources and where to find them. He didn't have a flashy career, and his style of play wasn't all that flashy either, so I imagine this is one of those subjects that is by nature going to be stats heavy. Hog FarmTalk17:19, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with notes. I think the article suffers from some "too much detail", especially with the "College career" section, and I would probably summarise this information more effectively. I also think "Professional career" suffers from MOS:OVERSECTION, as sections contain one paragraph, and I would merge some of these sections together (and perhaps remove some overly detailed prose). After conducting some MOS fixes, my thoughts are this article, in its current form wouldn't be bad enough for me to bring it to FAR so I'm OK with closing this as keep. Z1720 (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with an I guess as per Hog Farm. Not a stellar FA, but not something I would bring to FAR. I'd not suggest choosing to re-run this on the mainpage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this featured article for review because there are full sections, as well as multiple sentences, that are uncited. The critical response section is also very disorganised and needs to be trimmed. IMDB and Amazon are also used as references and should probably be replaced. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick general note that I will offer. The article should be restructured to follow MOS:TV's section order, (ie cast and episode info above production), and I would greatly reduce the season summaries per WP:TVPLOT or just remove them entirely since there's already a list of episode and season articles, just leaving the overview table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC The above offers great starting points for improvements, but no significant edits have been made yet. Z1720 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC as noted above, there are issues that need addressed here, and there have not been significant fixes to the article. Hog FarmTalk01:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist minimal engagement. Critical response section is bloated. Further reading section needs to be culled, as noted above. Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
This 2007 promotion needs a bit of a touch-up to continue to meet the FA criteria. As per Sandy's notice, there is uncited text, some dated production statistics, a one-sentence section about environmental impacts that needs additional context, and a lack of discussion about diseases/pests, especially since we have an entire list on that subject. (List of durian diseases and pests). The original FAC nominator has indicated on the talk page that they may not be interested in working this one back up. The #2 editor in the xtools authorship has not been notified because their contributions to the article are mainly just a giant IABot run. Hog FarmTalk17:28, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have no prior history with this article but might be interested in trying to resolve these concerns. But I will also soon be working on The Core Contest, so my attention may be divided between articles for a bit. What is the usual timeline for FARs? DanCherek (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, FARs will be left open as long as work in continuing on the article, but it is generally ideal for their to not be overly long gaps in the article improvement process. The hope, though, is always to save the star when possible. Hog FarmTalk20:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm having trouble trying to focus on more than one major article at a time, and need to prioritize TCC in the short term... no objections to proceeding to FARC if needed. DanCherek (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
Since the 2015 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Jack Sparrow/archive1, this article has been left behind and was never watchlisted by editors or took care the article. The article has been outdated for some time, and there have been no updates or additional content added since the recent lawsuit. There are also several templates in other sections. The reception/cultural impact could be expanded a lot and maybe remove most of the listicles on that section. BloatedBun (talk) 10:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist It looks like this article just needs a little touching up, but as of right now it is definitely does not look like an FA. The lead is fine, but it mentions nothing about his reception. There are also 7 unreliable sources used, which includes Imbd, International Business Times, and goodreads. There is also a post 2013 Newsweek and Allmovie ref as well as a dead link. I also think there are way too many primary sources, but I didnt look into where they are being used. The characters section looks pretty good except for when it is not even talking about the and is talking about the movie such as this On Stranger Tides was first announced on September 28, 2008, during a Disney event at the Kodak Theatre. Verbinski did not return to direct the fourth installment and was replaced by Rob Marshall. The movie uses elements from Tim Powers' novel of the same name, particularly Blackbeard and the Fountain of Youth, but the film is not a straight adaptation of the novel. The fifth film, Dead Men Tell No Tales, was co-directed by Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg. I think the Johhny Depp section is good as well as the make-up and costumes section. The film section seems to be fine. I don't think the stuff like this in characterization needs to be said which compels the admiration of Lieutenant Groves as he concedes: "That's got to be the best pirate I have ever seen". Norrington himself acquiesces to this praise: "So it would seem", in sharp contrast to what he had previously proclaimed: "You are without doubt the worst pirate I have ever heard of"., but that might just be me. The part in characterization where it talks about what Jack was based off and inspired by needs to go in concept and creation. The second paragraph in reception and impact on pop culture looks good, but the first one is just mainly listicles. In other media seems to be fine unless it can really be expanded. That is just my quick overview of the article which has lead me to an unfortunate delist. ― Kaleeb18TalkCaleb12:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist some small edits have been made, but nothing significant and nothing that addresses the identified issues. Z1720 (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this featured article for review because of sourcing/comprehensiveness concerns and other issues. As noted on the talk page, some content lacks citations altogether, and I'm also concerned by the reliance on outdated sources like Philip Schaff and the Catholic Encyclopedia. More significantly, there are a number of books in the further reading section and elsewhere that aren't cited at all: Thunberg 1995, Louth 1996, Nichols 1994, and many, many more. That's a major red flag, and the rather brief article has other serious comprehensiveness issues: it provides only minimal scholarly commentary on Maximus's theology, the debates over biographical facts (stemming from contradictions between the two main sources) are touched on only briefly, and the legacy and reception sections are incomplete. More minor issues include citation formatting, MOS:SANDWICH, and content that appears only in the lead. This is an important article, but I fear it would require a very significant amount of work to bring it back up to standard. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the phrase "Imperial Capital". It is capitalized once, but not the other time. Most readers probably won't know which city it is, so sentences should be worded to indicate that. Also, saying he wrote the "earliest complete biography of Mary, the mother of Jesus" sounds not quite right. Just ending the sentence with "the Virgin Mary" or should be enough. But with, "Mary, the mother of Jesus" the question turns to, Why not "Mary, the Mother of God"? Is the author a heretic? He wasn't a heretic, so the the article should reflect that.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:09, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
I am nominating this featured article for review because the history section is missing events from the late 2000s and 2010s, there are some uncited sections, and some currency concerns. I think there are some parts of this article that are in excellent shape, but this article needs updates. Z1720 (talk) 01:49, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. Largely sourced to primary sources, plus some questionable material from low-quality sources (such as the date of 5000 BCE). DrKay (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
A 2006 promotion last formally reviewed in 2007 that needs significant work to get to modern FA standards. There is significant uncited text, spot checks of a few refs for me found failed verification, and I've noted two instances of borderline close paraphrasing on talk. It's also concerning that the article is largely sourced to websites, mainly from the Michigan government, when U of M has published a couple print books on the subject. Hog FarmTalk17:27, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]