Serendipodous (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Rick Block (talk | contribs) add hint for how to find original nominator |
||
Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Older FAs are held to the current standards. Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances). |
Older FAs are held to the current standards. Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances). |
||
After nominating, '''consider notifying the relevant parties'''. These include the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the edit history page), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status, and any relevant WikiProjects. Nominators are asked to improve an article that they nominate for review to the best of their ability. |
After nominating, '''consider notifying the relevant parties'''. These include the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the edit history page), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log|featured article log]]), and any relevant WikiProjects. Nominators are asked to improve an article that they nominate for review to the best of their ability. |
||
<span style="font-size:12pt"><b>Nominating an article for FAR</span></b> |
<span style="font-size:12pt"><b>Nominating an article for FAR</span></b> |
Revision as of 20:07, 16 September 2006
Reviewing featured articles
There are two categories in the process: the featured article review (FAR) and featured article removal candidate (FARC) lists. Articles cannot be listed directly as FARCs, and must first undergo a FAR. The ideal outcome of the review period is to have concerns addressed and the review closed without progressing to the FARC list. However, articles will be sent to the removal list if it is necessary to maintain FA standards. Older reviews are stored in the archive. |
Featured article candidates (FAC) Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
|
FARs are intended to facilitate a range of improvements to FAs, from updating and relatively light editing—including the checking of references and their formatting—to addressing more involved issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness and POV. When listing here, a nominator must specify these criteria and may propose remedies. The nomination should last two weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Here, reviewers do not declare "keep" or "remove". If the consensus is that the deficiencies have been addressed, the review is closed; if not, the article is placed on the FARC list. A nomination need not be made with the goal of removal. Minor reviews of articles that are generally up to standard, but may require a copy-edit, are welcome. Older FAs are held to the current standards. Articles that were recently promoted should not be listed here (three months is typically regarded as the minimum interval between promotion and listing here, unless there are extenuating circumstances). After nominating, consider notifying the relevant parties. These include the main contributors to the article (identifiable through the edit history page), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the featured article log), and any relevant WikiProjects. Nominators are asked to improve an article that they nominate for review to the best of their ability. Nominating an article for FAR 1. Place {{FAR}} (upper case) on the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit box. Hit "Save page". 2. From there, click on the "add a comment" link. 3. Place ===[[name of nominated article]]=== at the top of the subpage. 4. Below this title, write your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue. Hit "Save page". 5. Copy {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article}}, hit "Edit" for the "Feature Article Reviews" section, and paste it at the top of the list of nominated articles, filling in the exact name of the nominated article. Hit "Save page". NB If an article has already been through the FAR/C process, use the Move button to rename the previous nomination to an archive. For example, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television → Wikipedia:Featured article review/Television/archive1
Featured article removal candidates (FARCs) Articles are listed as FARCs only after undergoing a review. Reviewers may declare "keep" or "remove", supported by substantive comments that focus on the outstanding deficiencies in relation to the FA criteria. Reviewers who declare "remove" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed. If, after a period of review, the deficiencies have not been addressed and there is no obvious momentum to do so, the FA status is removed. If consensus has emerged that the changes have brought the article back to standard, the review is closed. |
Featured article reviews
Definition of planet
Miles Davis
Pope Pius XII
Telephone exchange
BZFlag
Link (The Legend of Zelda series)
A Day in the Life
Bishōjo game
- Article is no longer a featured article
Review commentary
- Messages left at User talk:Shibboleth, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computer and video games, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Sandy 00:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Does not meet current featured article quality standards, having no inline citations whatsoever. In addition, a large amount of original research is present, as well as strong violation of WP:NPOV on several occasions. While of minor note in comparison, the prose does not reach standards of "compelling, even brilliant." JimmyBlackwing 09:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- Needs inline citations (1. c.), and the "Related Terms" section needs an overhaul (1. a.). The bullet style format creates disjointed prose, so the paragraphs need to be all tied together in a cohesive style. LuciferMorgan 10:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- The "Bishojo games in the West" section is too large for what the article admits is fairly unknown in Western countries. It reflects a slight bias of the creator of the articles. ColourBurst 03:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agree with all you've said. —Nightstallion (?) 10:27, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), original research, prose, and NPOV. Joelito (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. No effort has gone into the article's improvement, with all of the previously-cited problems remaining. JimmyBlackwing 08:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove No inline citations (1. c. violation) and nobody has tackled the "Related Terms" section (1. a. violation). LuciferMorgan 13:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Abraham Lincoln
England expects that every man will do his duty
Joshua A. Norton
- Article is no longer a featured article
Review commentary
- Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Political figures, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. Sandy 00:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
I stumbled across this page by chance and couldn't quite believe it's an FA. Of course, it's one of our older ones.
Although interesting, I'm not sure the prose is brilliant. It degenerates into a list and trivia by the end of the article, including a ridiculous section on the dead Norton posting to Usenet via a spiritual medium! The article is referenced but such a chatty piece really needs inline citations.
A decent enough article, perhaps a GA, but up to modern FA standards? My feeling is no. --kingboyk 15:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'd agree with kingboyk's comments (though the 'perhaps a GA' comment I feel is being generous given the current expected standards for GA's and FA's). The "In popular culture" section is almost a trivia section in disguise, creating disjointed prose which needs to be addressed (1. a.) by tying the paragraphs together so the whole section is properly co-ordinated. This is an example which needs inline citations (1. c.), or otherwise can be considered original research;
- "During the latter years of Norton's reign, he was the subject of considerable rumor and speculation."
- In brief, criteria 1. a. and 1. c. need to be addressed in this article. LuciferMorgan 01:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- Per nominator. Inline citations desperately needed. Section "In popular culture" looks like a loooooong trivia section.--Yannismarou 18:33, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
- The [April, 2004 version of the article] that appeared on the front page was not bad. There has been a lot of change since then, and not all of it positive. Simply editing out the trivia and accumulated cruft would go a long ways towards restoring this article.--Paul 23:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- I've started restoring this article. Trivia has been moved to a daughter article, I'm changing to in-line cites & I've stared editing out some accumulated cruft.--Paul 14:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
A very good ongoing effort, with good progress being made by Paul, but it still needs more citations: shall we move it to FARC now that two weeks have elapsed, or will work be completed soon? FARC would allow at least two more weeks to complete work. Sandy 21:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Without some help, completion isn't going to be soon. I have addressed the "triva" concerns of earlier commentators; existing references were converted to in-line, and a few new references have been added, though more are required. I am planning a trip to the SF Library where (after looking in the catalog) I know I will have access to most of the listed secondary sources. I like the irreverent and informal tone of this article, and will do some prose polishing to return it to its former glory. I hope it can be rescued as a FA. Trips to the library are weekend projects.--Paul 22:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are structure (trivia and lists) (2), and insufficient citations (1c). Marskell 09:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- You should probably look at the article before you summarize the FA concerns. It no longer contains trivia or lists.--Paul 11:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
- A late reply: Paul, I never deduce when moving down what has been taken care of, because that would game the system in favour of my evaluation. I just relist in summary what the nominator said, and the reviewers can then judge for themselves. Marskell 10:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Remove - still lacks inline citations -there's even quotes with no cites --plange 22:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove. Per Plange. And in section "Imperial career" there are too many quotes interrupting the prose. It needs rewriting.--Yannismarou 14:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove per plange and Yannismarou. Sandy 16:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
- Note on closure: Paul did some good work on this, but by his own admission requires more than the available time to get it to standard. A fair bit of work remains. Marskell 10:48, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Sudoku
War elephant
Go (board game)
Poetry of the United States
Featured article removal candidates
- Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning place under Featured Article Review, not here.
Sex Pistols
Ford Mustang
- Article is no longer a featured article
Review commentary
- Messages left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles.
It's been 2 years since the article was given FA status. With the introduction of the current S-197 Mustang, and the addition of information and models that was not included in the original FA nod (I have no idea how it got FA status despite not being "Complete"; The 80's section got a boost via two specialty models for example), I think the article has been severely compromised.
My main concern is the S-197 Section. I went in once to remove obvious fancruft in one part, but I have a lingering suspicion that some of the text might be bordering on possible commercialism (or is outright commercial propaganda) but I cannot put my finger on what is fact and what is just a marketing ploy.--293.xx.xxx.xx 10:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Also, there are no inline citations and the lead is insufficient. Is Image:Mustangunexpected.JPG truly public domain? Pagrashtak 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Don't look at me, i'm more concerned about the content, not the images. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not specifically asking you, I'm listing other concerns about the article. Pagrashtak 19:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- The article is very bad indeed, some sections are badly unwikified and needs cleanup. I would really love this to stay as an FA as it's one of the top cars of all-time but it needs work. I deleted the two not PD images Jaranda wat's sup 22:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- Don't look at me, i'm more concerned about the content, not the images. --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- There are a number of problems, the most important being the lack of reference.
- No references. The 2004 featured version (which I believe was this one based on the talk page) has grown quite a lot. However, the 2004 had two references, and the current version, 3 (with over twice its size) and 5 inline links (which should be transformed into foot notes). The article apparently has no active maintainer (it reached up to 50 external links).
- There are embedded external links in sections like Current third-party tuner versions, which should have wikilinks instead.
- The headings don't sound encyclopedic (From sporty car to sports car, The industry reacts, The Mustang grows up).
- Weasel words, peacock terms (this is because of the lack of references). A search for most returns:
- it was the most successful product launch in automotive history
- it was the single most expensive Mustang option
- the 1967 to 1970 GT-500 are among the most sought-after
- Though the "'Cuda" would grow into one of the most revered muscle cars of all time
- with a small "BOSS 429" decal on each front fender, hinted that most powerful Ford V8 of all time
- It is also worth noting that four of the five years of the Mustang II are on the top-ten list of most-sold Mustangs.
- The original 1969 and 1970 Mustang Mach 1s were (and remain) some of the most popular Mustangs ever
- The most powerful factory-produced Mustang ever is the new Shelby GT500.
- I am sure there are more things, but as it is now, it is failing 1c (lack of references), 1d (neutrality, due lack of references) and 2b (heading style). -- ReyBrujo 23:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
- God, it got FA on THAT?!?! THAT?!?! I'm sorry, but that had to be one of the worst FA nods ever. The references sucked, most of the variants aren't even listed, the article was too "lean" and lacked meat. My Ford Mustang SSP article has more references that that, and info on that model is extremely hard to come by!! --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Back two years ago there weren't (I think) easy-to-use references system, and since most of the information seems to come from the book, I believe it was the best they could do. I don't object the FA status when it got it, but I object the current status. -- ReyBrujo 16:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- God, it got FA on THAT?!?! THAT?!?! I'm sorry, but that had to be one of the worst FA nods ever. The references sucked, most of the variants aren't even listed, the article was too "lean" and lacked meat. My Ford Mustang SSP article has more references that that, and info on that model is extremely hard to come by!! --293.xx.xxx.xx 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Dumb question, but in the S-197 section, aren't press releases written word for word a copyright violation?--293.xx.xxx.xx 18:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove not FA quality, lacks references and much data. --Bob 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Note to all editors: This is not the place to comment to keep or remove the FA status from the article. At this stage the concerns are raised and if they are not addressed within a considerable amount of time (usually 2 weeks) then this is moved to FARC where "votes" are issued to keep or remove the article. Joelito (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Needs inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 22:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Move to FARC: lacking inline citations, and that's not the least of its problems. Sandy 01:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, no one bothered to address a/or help in my concerns in the opening post, so I went in and deleted most of the technical stuff and cruft, and did some reference notes. Also, I tagged the SN-95 section with rewrite tags. It's a start.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are comprehensiveness (1b), commercial POV (1d), and citations (1c). Marskell 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove Lacks sufficient inline citations (1. c.). LuciferMorgan 17:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong remove. No inline citations. 3 listy sections in a row. 1 stubby sub-section. Very poor references.--Yannismarou 14:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong remove. Yikes - three tags at the top of the article, and all that Yannismarou said. Sandy 14:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Comment Two more in the SN-95 section as well.--293.xx.xxx.xx 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
James Bulger
Transit of Venus
Soap bubble
She Loves You
Prince-elector
Heavy metal umlaut
Papal Tiara
Tea
Mary II of England
AC power plugs and sockets
Wikipedia:Featured article review/Omnipotence paradox
Vulgar Latin
Liberal Party (Utah)
Memory Alpha
- Article is no longer a featured article
Review commentary
- Talk messages left at User talk:Jibbajabba and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek. Sandy 20:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
While I understand it must be tough to write an up to date, well referenced article on something as changing as a Wiki, this article has devolved (and wasn't completely FA quality to begin with) IMO. The article has very few references, I saw an inline link with a quick overview, and an entire unsourced section with an OR tag on it. Staxringold talkcontribs 01:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am very wary of any article that uses almost no sources other than those offered by the subject of the article itself. Every reference here is from the Memory Alpha website itself, or from its founder. The only other references are brief mentions in two small local newspapers. This lack of critical sources (not "critical" in the sense of "presenting a negative/opposing view", but "critical" in the sense of examining and reacting to the subject) troubles me. Has Memory Alpha ever been subject to such examination in major mainstream press outlets, or in major science-fiction-fandom publications? Andrew Levine 23:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the OR tag back in April, and the section still hasn't been fixed. This article is really not up to FA level, nor is there much work actively occuring to improve it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Status? One inconsequential edit since nominated, no one is working on this article, severely lacking in citations, and still has OR tag. Move to FARC. Sandy 09:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
FARC commentary
- Suggested FA criteria concerns are insufficent references and possible original research (1c). Marskell 08:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove, per my comments in the review and the extant original research. Andrew Levine 20:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove per my original statement as basically nothing has changed. Few refs, plenty of OR. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove Shane (talk/contrib) 23:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
- Remove Insufficient inline citations, and also the article uses what seems to be original research. LuciferMorgan 08:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)