archive, new |
Keeping two |
||
Line 56: | Line 56: | ||
==Kept status== |
==Kept status== |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Killer whale/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sydney Newman/archive1}} |
|||
==Removed status == |
==Removed status == |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia/archive1}} |
{{Wikipedia:Featured article review/Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia/archive1}} |
Revision as of 01:25, 3 April 2010
Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.
See the Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/archive for nominations under the previous FARC process.
Archives
- /to June 8 2006 (previous FAR process)
- /June 2006 (5 kept, 4 removed, combined old and new process)
- /July 2006 (7 kept, 16 removed)
- /August 2006 (11 kept, 21 removed)
- /September 2006 (10 kept, 24 removed)
- /October 2006 (9 kept, 21 removed)
- /November 2006 (5 kept, 30 removed)
- /December 2006 (6 kept, 17 removed)
- /January 2007 (13 kept, 24 removed)
- /February 2007 (11 kept, 18 removed)
- /March 2007 (12 kept, 17 removed)
- /April 2007 (10 kept, 17 removed)
- /May 2007 (11 kept, 23 removed)
- /June 2007 (6 kept, 9 removed)
- /July 2007 (11 kept, 17 removed)
- /August 2007 (10 kept, 14 removed)
- /September 2007 (9 kept, 15 removed)
- /October 2007 (7 kept, 13 removed)
- /November 2007 (7 kept, 12 removed)
- /December 2007 (8 kept, 13 removed)
- /January 2008 (14 kept, 9 removed)
- /February 2008 (11 kept, 10 removed)
- /March 2008 (8 kept, 16 removed)
- /April 2008 (12 kept, 10 removed)
- /May 2008 (4 kept, 16 removed)
- /June 2008 (12 kept, 14 removed)
- /July 2008 (10 kept, 8 removed)
- /August 2008 (9 kept, 12 removed)
- /September 2008 (17 kept, 18 removed)
- /October 2008 (12 kept, 14 removed)
- /November 2008 (4 kept, 8 removed)
- /December 2008 (7 kept, 8 removed)
- /January 2009 (5 kept, 7 removed)
- /February 2009 (6 kept, 6 removed)
- /March 2009 (6 kept, 13 removed)
- /April 2009 (6 kept, 21 removed)
- /May 2009 (6 kept, 14 removed)
- /June 2009 (2 kept, 18 removed)
- /July 2009 (1 kept, 15 removed)
- /August 2009 (10 kept, 26 removed)
- /September 2009 (6 kept, 15 removed)
- /October 2009 (9 kept, 9 removed)
- /November 2009 (3 kept, 8 removed)
- /December 2009 (2 kept, 5 removed)
- /January 2010 (6 kept, 12 removed)
- /February 2010 (1 kept, 5 removed)
- /March 2010 (7 kept, 20 removed)
Kept status
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Dana boomer 01:25, 3 April 2010 [1].
Killer whale
Review commentary
- Notified: Main editor User talk:Clayoquot, nominator User talk:Pcb21, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Canada, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject British Columbia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Washington, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arctic, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cetaceans
I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently lacks inline citations, criteria 1(c). Tom B (talk) 19:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The 3 wp:disambiguation links are okay here. Needs wp:alt text, Tom B (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It has 67 inline citations. It had them before you brought it up here, too (as indicated here). ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi yes, though many paragraphs have none and the vocalisations section has none at all, Tom B (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you need to be more specific in your comments. You indicated that it "lacked inline citations" rather than "some paragraphs lack inline citations". ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi yes, though many paragraphs have none and the vocalisations section has none at all, Tom B (talk) 12:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-comment-comment: This article has been on my watchlist and my things-to-improve list for years, and I'm actually quite glad that it's been brought to FAR because it needs fresh perspectives on what its areas of weakness are and fresh estimates of how much work will be required to make it satisfactory. In case anyone's wondering, I'm not going to be the least bit offended if it gets delisted ;) I'm very interested in seeing others' comments. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - yeah, needs some work. Prose is funny in places and there is some material needing referencing. Taxonomy (as in what it is most closely related to) is missing..anyway, plenty to do. Looks otherwise fairly comprehensive content-wise. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The article goes from strong to very weak the more you scroll down the page, which is really quite dissapointing. 68 references is good, but for an article that's over 65 000 bytes, it's not actually that much, especially for a subject that is pretty well covered in both scientific and general literature. I would also like to see a lot more of the references provided using the {{Citation template}}. The section Whaling seems really short; what exactly distinguishes it from Killer whales and humans and Conservation? — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 19:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not required that references use citation templates, simply that they be formatted consistently. At the moment, the bigger problem is the lack of information in many references - web references lacking publishers, access dates and language notations for non-English references and books missing page numbers. There are also several areas that need more referencing, some of which are already marked by citation needed tags. Also, the reliability of the references needs some attention, in a quick look I saw multiple YouTube videos and a blog being used. Dana boomer (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I mentioned the citation core template was because it encourages users to provide more details than the reference tags alone, and also encourages other users to follow the same format (the copy paste effect). I know it's not mandatory, but it does impact the reference details and the overall stylistic appeal of the article. — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 09:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that the section on whaling is overly short. Whaling was never a serious threat to killer whale conservation as it has been for many other whale species. It is mentioned only very briefly in the books I've seen about killer whales. I don't know how to address the concern about how to distinguish the Whaling section from the "Killer whales and humans section," as the former is a subsection of the latter. Can you state your concerns in a different way? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well the entire Killer whales and humans section looks different from when I posted and looks better balanced out now, previously I couldn't really see the purpose of separating that tiny section on its own. (Though I still think it's not very detailed, and provides information that could be merged into the Conservation section - which btw, I don't understand why it's separate from the Killer whales and humans section ). Looking at the sectionnow, the last two sentences are really out of place; you start off talking about commercial whaling in the mid 20th century, and end abruptly with killer whales helping hunters to whale a century earlier. You might want to say "other whales", or do they help whale themselves? In the lead, what stocks of larger species have been depleted? Is this really the only reason people decided to commercially whale them? What about commercial and subsistence whaling in other cultures, such as Canada[2]? — Io Katai ᵀᵃˡᵏ 09:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment, The following paragraph might come from here.
("Individual Killer Whales can be identified from a good photograph of the animal's dorsal fin and saddle patch, taken when it surfaces. Variations such as nicks, scratches, and tears on the dorsal fin and the pattern of white or grey in the saddle patch are sufficient to distinguish Killer Whales from each other. For the well-studied Killer Whales of the northeast Pacific, catalogues have been published with the photograph and name of each Killer Whale. Photo identification has enabled the local population of Killer Whales to be counted each year rather than estimated and has enabled great insight into Killer Whale lifecycles and social structures.") ceranthor 18:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are much better sources for this information than the document you've linked to, which is a Master's thesis. I'll add refs. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
* Comment: Coverage needs to be expanded regarding the cultural significance of the species in the Pacific Northwest. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: Ref improvement and copyediting is in progress, and I have good sources for expanding taxonomy and cultural significance. I am grateful to reviewers for your constructive comments so far. Please add [citation needed] tags to specific claims needing refs; otherwise I'll aim for a minimum of 1 per paragraph. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Further update: There are no {{fact}} tags left at present, and apart from the "Social structure of resident communities" section, which has four uncited paragraphs, only a few isolated paragraphs lack citations. There's still a lot to do though. -- Avenue (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The following sentence seems overreferenced: "In late 2007, the Killer Whales known as the "southern resident killer whales" were placed on the U.S. Endangered Species list.[6][7][8][9]". Could we prune that down to the best one or two references, or is this a fact that is highly contested? DigitalC (talk) 15:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[Pruned] DigitalC (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
**Followup: Note that that sentence is in the lead, and typically we don't need to put refs in the lead, so long as it is referenced in the body of the text, where it should be. DigitalC (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC) [moved] DigitalC (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:
I am slightly confused over information regarding the endangered status of the Killer whale, which makes me think that it could be more clear. As posted above, the lead states "In late 2007, the Killer Whales known as the "southern resident killer whales" were placed on the U.S. Endangered Species list". The body states "In 2005, the United States government listed the southern resident community as an endangered population under the Endangered Species Act.", which is unreferenced. One of the references in the lead is from 2004...[corrected] DigitalC (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: Also, the lead states "Although the Killer Whale is not considered to be an internationally endangered species", but the body states that the IUCN "[recognizes] that one or more Killer Whale types may actually be separate, endangered species". Are the IUCN not international? DigitalC (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried to clarify it.[3] The lead contained a mixture of statements from before and after the IUCN changed the status from "conservation dependent" to "data deficient", and I can see how the statements could have been seen as contradictory. The message that I'm hoping to communicate is that if you assume killer whales are a single species, they are not endangered. However, as we don't know whether they're a single species or multiple species, we do not have the information to determine whether they are endangered. That is a subtle message. Any help or feedback you can give to make it clearer would be great. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Also, the lead states "Although the Killer Whale is not considered to be an internationally endangered species", but the body states that the IUCN "[recognizes] that one or more Killer Whale types may actually be separate, endangered species". Are the IUCN not international? DigitalC (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Alt text done; thanks.
Please do not capitalize "killer whale" or its common-name alternatives such as "blackfish". Reliable sources rarely capitalize these names nowadays. Also, alt text is mostly present (thanks), but it has some problems. Alt text is missing for File:Orcas and penguins cropped.JPG and File:AT3.jpg. A couple of of the phrases cannot be verified by a non-expert who is looking only at the images, and need to be removed or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT#Verifiability; these are "killer whale skeleton in museum" (it's a skeleton, but a non-expert can't tell that it's of a killer whale, or in a museum), "females" (a non-expert can't tell the sex). Some of the alt text descriptions are too sketchy (e.g., "Killer whale at surface"; please include details to explain to the visually impaired reader what's distinctive about these images). Finally, please omit phrases like "photo of" as per WP:ALT#Phrases to avoid.Eubulides (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Reply:
If[Since] reliable sources rarely capitalize the name, should the page be moved from Killer Whale to Killer whale? DigitalC (talk) 22:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Reply: The page was moved from "Orca" to "Killer Whale" (title case) about a year ago, with the new title being put forward on the grounds that this (with caps) was the common name listed in Wilson and Reeder's Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition (MSW3), and this was an agreed authority for our mammals project. See Talk:Killer_Whale/Should_the_page_be_at_Orca_or_Killer_Whale#Requested_move.) There is also a current discussion at the cetaceans project about capitalisation of all cetecean names (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cetaceans#Capitalisation). Although I would personally prefer it without caps, I don't think the opinions of a few reviewers here should necessarily trump the outcomes of relevant discussions elsewhere. I do think capitalisation in the article should be consistent, and should match whatever title is agreed on. Good points about the alt text. -- Avenue (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply:
It appears that someone is messing around with the article, under feeding there are two references to killer whales eating humans as main prey. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.5.39.83 (talk)
- That was vandalism. It survived an hour and 10 minutes before being reverted. -- Avenue (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Featured article criterion of concern are referencing, incomplete/inconsistently formatted citations, prose YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of progress has been made and a few things still need to be done. I've put a to-do list at Talk:Killer whale. Avenue has done some really painstaking work and I see he/she is still actively working on it. I've been unusually busy lately but I plan to work on the outstanding items this week. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:05, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is progress coming on this? Dana boomer (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost there. The number of inline citations has approximately doubled, all or nearly all references are complete, prose has been improved in many places, and comprehensiveness issues have been addressed. We're just fixing some details now. Shouldn't take much longer :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How is progress coming on this? Dana boomer (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review - all images appear to be okay - many are public domain by virtue of coming from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - though less clear about this one: File:Tysfjord orca 1.jpg and its source. Tom B (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The original uploader of that image, Pcb21, is the person who got this article its FA star in 2004. He claimed to own the image's copyright, and I think that as an administrator he would know what that meant. So unless there is something specific that throws doubt on his claim, I don't see a problem here. -- Avenue (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Tom B (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Plenty of inline cites now and prose is excellent. A very interesting, engaging and fact-packed article. I learned a lot and had fun; what more can be asked of an FA? --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 02:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe all concerns raised in the FAR have been addressed, and we've also made improvements that weren't called for specifically by the FAR reviewers. Terrific work has been done on this article, and teamwork has made it fun! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:57, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. There's always more improvements that can be made, but I think it now meets the criteria. -- Avenue (talk) 08:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not yet I've gone through and fixed some, but there are still hyphens instead of dashes, inconsistency in bracketing the years of pubn, use of p and pp for multiple pages, citation is consistent yet. Also there's overlinking everywhere, puget, BC and WA are linked repeatedly, that stuff needs a check, and some of the short paragraphs have to be restructured properly YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please ping me when YellowMonkey's concerns have been addressed and I will have a look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just a few things I noticed:
- WP:OVERLINK: "ocean", for heaven's sake? Do we need a link to "culture", which isn't specific to non-humans, and is therefore of dictionary function?
- "preferred prey items"—can "items" be dropped?
- "signaled"—this is unclear: researchers using morse code on the open seas?
- That accursed convert template: "from 6–8 metres (20–26 ft)". This is against what MoS says about preceding prepositions, although it's OK for the conversion, I think. "from 6 to 8 metres (20–26 ft)". The whole para needs a look.
- Dorsal fin pic: the caption and the image description page are coy about who took the pic, what research party it was a part of, and what the NOAA is. Tony (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The accursed template in question actually accommodates the "from ... to" format, as this edit proves. It is strictly a matter of how the template is used—though, from the aspect of respecting civility, it may be better to curse the template rather than the editor who (mis)uses it. I agree about keeping the dash in the parenthetical conversion, and the template supports both versions, namely 6 to 8 metres (20 to 26 ft) and 6 to 8 metres (20–26 ft). I wasn't sure about the conversion of the female's weight; it is the same format, but I think the to makes reading easier with the two alternative units. Waltham, The Duke of 18:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the dorsal fin pic, I think if anyone is being coy here, it is the NOAA. I have looked around a bit and can only find it in this gallery, with no information about the photographer or the research party. I have added the NOAA's full name to the image description. -- Avenue (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep
because aquatic beasts are coolper large amount of work done. Minimial issues such as overlink can easily be taken care of without compromising FA quality. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] - Keep over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was kept by Dana boomer 01:25, 3 April 2010 [4].
Sydney Newman
Review commentary
- Notified: Angmering, Josiah Rowe, Bodnotbod, Canadian Wikipedians' notice board
I am nominating this featured article for review because -- despite the high quality of writing -- there are some glaring gaps. Specifically, his notable and controversial role as NFB commissioner, where Newman actively worked to suppress politically sensitive works by French Canadian filmmakers (please see the chapter devoted to him in a book cite at Talk:Sydney_Newman#Missing_info, which offers a good overview). Furthermore, in his roles as head of the NFB, and in positions at the CRTC, CBC and Secretary of State, Newman would have been in a position to shape audiovisual policy: there's no analysis of that. Overall, the article focuses rather dotingly on his role in British TV, while his senior positions in his native Canada are mentioned only briefly; or in the case of his leading and controversial role in political censorship in Quebec, not at all. I believe the article fails to meet criteria 1b, 1c as well as 1d, in that it is obviously not comprehensive, thoroughly researched and has a geographical/culture bias towards his UK work. I have added a more balanced perspective to the article lede and intend to do more work on it in the near future. But I leave it to those with experience in these matters as to whether or not this article should be delisted. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's certainly true that there could be a lot more on his later Canadian career, and we should work to address this. I wrote most of the article, and I must confess that the reason it focuses so much on his British television career is because British television is all I know about, and all the sources I had really covered. But if there are good sources for the later Canadian work, we must certainly make use of them. Angmering (talk) 06:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I explained to Angmering on his Talk page, I'd be glad to help as Canadian film and TV is an area I'm knowledgeable in, but I'm just a little swamped off-wiki right now. I'll do what I can, as soon as I can, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also have a stab at improving it this week, and we'll see how we go! Angmering (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My only concern is relying too much on a ref like Historicist, which is just a blog and may not even be RS. Have you tried a Google book search yet, as I'd suggested? In addition to the Evans cite, which I had added, Newman's role in Canada is documented in other books that have a limited preview on Google such as"Canadian content: culture and the quest for nationhood". Do have a look. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have put one other Google Books cite in there so far. In theory I was hoping to replace / expand the blog refs during the week with more reliable sources, but I thought it was a good start in expanding the text. Angmering (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, missed that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a good go at this over the last couple of days and tried to expand it as best I can. I think the section on his Chairmanship of the NFB is now much more representative, and I have also tried to beef up the section on his earlier Canadian work at the CBC somewhat. I have also updated and added references, and broken up the old "Critical analysis" section, which wasn't really very Wikipedia-like. One thing that does concern me is that I have probably written most of the article in British English, when of course by rights it ought to be in Canadian English, so it will need a Canadian editor to go through and fix any errors of that sort. But I think it is at least coming along? Angmering (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's much better. There's still more to do regarding the political context. I think. I believe Evans makes clear that the problem with On est au coton wasn't just its misrepresentation of management's position on the textile industry but the fact that the film included calls for revolution from two FLQ members?! Obviously, detail should go in the film articles not here, but I do think we need to make clearer that a number of Newman's decisions were justified in his and the board's mind by the highly charged war-like atmosphere of the October Crisis. I wasn't aware that Brault self-released Les Ordes, I DO know that Newman's successor (and assistant commissioner during his tenure) André Lamy played a role in unbanning most or all of these films and I think that ought to be mentioned briefly. I'll try to help moreShawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Lamy's role in the banning and subsequent un-banning of these films is now in the article, as is further mention of why Newman considered these films so controversial and didn't want to release them. I don't know if there's much more than can be added to the NFB section now? Angmering (talk) 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's much better. There's still more to do regarding the political context. I think. I believe Evans makes clear that the problem with On est au coton wasn't just its misrepresentation of management's position on the textile industry but the fact that the film included calls for revolution from two FLQ members?! Obviously, detail should go in the film articles not here, but I do think we need to make clearer that a number of Newman's decisions were justified in his and the board's mind by the highly charged war-like atmosphere of the October Crisis. I wasn't aware that Brault self-released Les Ordes, I DO know that Newman's successor (and assistant commissioner during his tenure) André Lamy played a role in unbanning most or all of these films and I think that ought to be mentioned briefly. I'll try to help moreShawn in Montreal (talk) 21:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've had a good go at this over the last couple of days and tried to expand it as best I can. I think the section on his Chairmanship of the NFB is now much more representative, and I have also tried to beef up the section on his earlier Canadian work at the CBC somewhat. I have also updated and added references, and broken up the old "Critical analysis" section, which wasn't really very Wikipedia-like. One thing that does concern me is that I have probably written most of the article in British English, when of course by rights it ought to be in Canadian English, so it will need a Canadian editor to go through and fix any errors of that sort. But I think it is at least coming along? Angmering (talk) 20:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, missed that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I have put one other Google Books cite in there so far. In theory I was hoping to replace / expand the blog refs during the week with more reliable sources, but I thought it was a good start in expanding the text. Angmering (talk) 21:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My only concern is relying too much on a ref like Historicist, which is just a blog and may not even be RS. Have you tried a Google book search yet, as I'd suggested? In addition to the Evans cite, which I had added, Newman's role in Canada is documented in other books that have a limited preview on Google such as"Canadian content: culture and the quest for nationhood". Do have a look. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll also have a stab at improving it this week, and we'll see how we go! Angmering (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As I explained to Angmering on his Talk page, I'd be glad to help as Canadian film and TV is an area I'm knowledgeable in, but I'm just a little swamped off-wiki right now. I'll do what I can, as soon as I can, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I for one would never have dreamed of taking it to an FA review if it looked like this. I think you've done an outstanding job on this and all the other related articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alt text done; thanks. Please add alt text to the two images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's been a while since I was involved in Featured Articles. What is that, and how do I do it? Angmering (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Sorry, I'm an idiot! You linked to the page which explains all... Angmering (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- This is now done. Angmering (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks
, but I'm afraid that it still needs some work. Alt text should describe the visual appearance of the image, giving information that can be verified simply by looking at the image (see WP:ALT#Verifiability). It typically shouldn't contain dates or context or proper names (see WP:ALT#Proper names) and shouldn't repeat the caption (see WP:ALT#Repetition). Please see WP:ALT#Portraits for advice about that portrait. At first this may all seem like a pain, but it doesn't take much work once you get the hang of it: just pretend you're describing the image over the phone to someone who wants to know what they're missing if they read only the caption and other text. Eubulides (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]- I've had another go - any better? Angmering (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks, much better
, but there are still some phrases that cannot be verified by a non-expert simply by looking at the image, and which need to be reworded or moved to the caption as per WP:ALT#Verifiability. These phrases are "Screen grab from a 1980s film interview", "Speaking to an off-camera interviewer", "digital", "from the mid-2000s", "closed former theatre", and "Northern England". Also, please remove "in a white room with a pot plant in the background" as per WP:ALT#Essence and WP:ALT#Brevity.Eubulides (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, thanks, much better
- I've had another go - any better? Angmering (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks
- This is now done. Angmering (talk) 12:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Image review
- File:Sydneynewman.JPG runs into problems with the notorious WP:NFCC #8. We don't actually need to see a picture of him to understand his life and work, unless you're going to comment on his fashion sense or style. Anyway, as #8 is probably overprescriptive, personally I'm OK with its use here. Stricter reviewers may disagree.
- My understanding (which may be incorrect or outdated) was that for deceased individuals for whom it is reasonable to assume that no free photograph exists, it was acceptable to use a single fair-use image for the purposes of identification. Identification of the subject is generally considered a primary encyclopedic function, isn't it? When there's a possibility of getting a free image (as there is for most living people) it makes sense to exclude non-free images, but I don't understand why that would apply in this case. If "stricter reviewers" do think that this usage is inappropriate, I'd like it if they could explain why. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Other image is fine. DrKiernan (talk) 10:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really criticism, but I feel the article could benefit from a couple more images in the latter half of the article.I know how hard it can be to get the right image, but there ought to be some available of important projects worked on, maybe some images of Newman at different ages? Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 14:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is I can't think of how we could get copyright-free images of Newman from anywhere... There are already possible issues with the single image we have of him, as the above discussion shows. As for important projects he worked on, the same debate over whether fair use would cover it applies, although I suppose it might be possible to get some sort of fair use Doctor Who or NFB images. Angmering (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Featured article criterion of concern are copyright, reliable sources and comprehensiveness. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The commentary/work has died out here, so prodding for more opinions YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars photo poll) 07:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just to say that I am very willing and hopefully able to continue to work on the article. The only reason I haven't done so for the past couple of weeks is simply because nobody had raised any further issues with it in the above review, and those who had raised issues were apparently satisfied that they had been resolved, as you can see. Angmering (talk) 23:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - After reviewing the cur diff from the date of this FAR nomination, I think that the comprehensiveness concerns have been addressed. Other issues appear to have been minor and have been addressed. --mav (Urgent FACs/FARs/PRs) 23:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as original FAR nominator. Yes, as I stated above, a while back, I'm very pleased with the work done. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not ready for keep, the article has numerous MOS issues and needs a MOS tuneup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:48, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit ordinary, but on the "Keep" side, I think.
- The dash, common term and date-link scripts had plenty of work to do. It's still overlinked: work permit, Canadian Government, science fiction, a time machine larger on the inside than the out [all piped?], production assistant,
- Is it in Canadian English? If so, "program". Tony (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Removed status
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Gimmetrow 04:59, 3 April 2010 [5].
Article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia
Review commentary
- Notified: Johnleemk, ... WikiProject Malaysia, ...
I am nominating this featured article for review because in my view it does not meet the criteria for a featured article, and I don't hold out much hope for salvage. It was originally listed in 2006.
Lets look at the article against some general criteria (synthesising the FA criteria).
1. Well-written
The prose is generally long-winded and unwieldy. The opening sentence is 45 words. There are also grammatical errors:
- "In 2005, the issue of the Constitution and its provisions were also brought up by several politicians within the government itself." - Incorrect plural were.
- "While the Gerakan party issued an apology the next day, UMNO announced a counter-procession starting from the head of Selangor state Dato' Harun bin Idris on Jalan Raja Muda." - how can you have a procession (ie a protest march) starting from a person? and is the head of the state the Sultan of Selangor or the state's Chief Minister?
- Incorrect use of hyphens and em dashes.
- Overlinking, eg: "politician Lee Kuan Yew", "Malay tycoons", "Malay middle class and improving Malaysian standards of living"
2. Sourcing
- Entire paragraphs, and many contentious claims, are totally unsourced. A FA article should not have "citation needed" notes scattered throughout. See for example:
- The entire first three paragraphs of the "Controversy" section. This contains many facts and assertions that are totally unsupported by inline citations, and are not a lead-style summary of the subsections that follow.
- "In the end, Lim stated that the Malay press had blown his comments out of proportion and misquoted him." - no citation for this.
- "The social contract is a term used to describe the Constitution's provisions with regard to the different races' privileges—those who defend it and Article 153 often define the social contract as providing the Indians and Chinese with citizenship in exchange for the Malays' special rights or ketuanan Melayu." - no citation
- "The Constitution of Singapore contains an article, Article 152, that names the Malays as "indigenous people" of Singapore and therefore requiring special safeguarding of their rights and privileges as such. However, the article specifies no policies for such safeguarding." - Constitutional interpretation without any sourcing.
- "In particular, it was not entirely clear if Article 153 was predicated on the Malays' economic status at the time, or if it was meant to recognise Bumiputra as a special class of citizens." - again no sourcing for this analysis of Constitutional history.
3. Images
- The image of Khir Toyo is totally gratuitous.
I've focused on a few glaring issues here. The examples I've highlighted are my no means exhaustive; they are a mere selection. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick response to some of the sourcing issues: in academia, you don't cite things which are common knowledge to scholars in your field (you don't need a citation for the fact that the sun is bigger than the earth in physics; actually, you probably don't even need one in any general circumstance). The social contract is easily verifiable -- it has its own article with a ton of citations. What is stated in the article is uncontroversial (see here for example), and in any case, can easily be fixed if you so desire since the social contract article is well-cited in itself. Likewise, Article 152 is easily verifiable, and the article makes no interpretation other than paraphrasing exactly what it says here. Lim's statement is in fact sourced in footnote 44, which though it is not on the Bernama website any longer, can easily be found on Archive.org. The statement on the purpose of Article 153 is supposed to communicate that there are two different points of view on the issue. It can easily be reworded. The picture of Khir Toyo originates from concern when the article was going through FAC that it did not have enough pictures. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't when it comes to pictures in FAs, it seems. Johnleemk | Talk 04:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note about images; in the old days in 2006 and early, FAC was totally different to now, most FACs just had 10 pile-on, one-line supports, quality wasmuch lower, but then often people didn't ask for improvements on proper stuff like better content/prose etc and just did a token thing, on more pictures, looks more entertaining, that kind of thing. Nowadays, no pictures are totally fine and opposes on that basis are being ignored, so no need to be worried about complaints from opposite sides of the fence YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a lot of the statements which lack citations actually do have them; the citations were removed contra to the policy (or at least, it was policy the last time I checked a year or two ago) that even broken links must remain, because there needs to be a record of where the statements were originally cited from. This removal of broken links as supposed non-citations is annoying and unfortunately egregiously common. If you look at a revision of the article from 2006 or 2007, a lot of the [citation needed]'s have perfectly fine citations. Now it's just a question of adding links to archive.org where they are broken, or otherwise finding a replacement source. Simply deleting such citations wholesale and replacing them with {{fact}} is, AFAIK, completely in error. Johnleemk | Talk 04:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Featured article criterion of concern are prose, sourcing, images YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist as nom. None of the concerns have been fixed. I would also add that I find it strange that there is no coverage of this Constitutional provision from a legal perspective. Has article 153 ever been considered by a court? Or by legal academics? --Mkativerata (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist for bloated prose and citation issues. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The article was removed by Gimmetrow 04:59, 3 April 2010 [6].
Chicago Bears
Review commetnary
Found this August 2006 FA at FLC talk, of all places. It was mentioned there how this was a likely candidate for an FAR, and I agree 100% after looking at it. There are major problems regarding references (both lack of them and dead links) and prose, among other things; this gives a good summary of several issues. In addition, the non-free images require a check, as standards are different now than they were in 2006 (or so I'm told), and I see a few sources of questionable reliability. Unfortunately, this is a long way from meeting 2010 FA criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 20:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I endorse this summary, per my comments on the talk page and at FLC. I think it's worth repeating that on top of the technical issues and sourcing, this could do with a copyedit. WFCforLife (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:1924bears.jpg: I'm not quite clear on why this image is public domain. Does the uploader own the original image? DrKiernan (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FARC commentary
- Featured article criterion of concern are prose, sourcing, images YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - No Work done from what I can tell. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist – None of the issues brought up here by myself and the others have been addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist Clearly no one can be arsed to do anything about it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist per issues raised above. In addition, I see WP:ACCESS issues in the table and unsourced POV statements/paragraphs littered throughout the article (e.g. "The Bears dominated the league in the early years"), and the "2004–present: Lovie Smith era" section of the article degenerates into proseline, with no real flow. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.