Reviewing featured articles
This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted. There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute. Raise issues at article Talk:
Featured article review (FAR)
Featured article removal candidate (FARC)
Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list. To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere. Older reviews are stored in the archive. Table of Contents – This page: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks |
Today's featured article (TFA):
Featured article tools:
|
Nominating an article for FAR The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:
Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.
|
Featured article reviews
Venus
- Notified: Saros136, Fotaun, JorisvS, Ckatz, Kheider, Serendipodous, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy
The article has undergone major change since the latest FAR in 2008 (e.g. [1]). It no longer looks like the same article. There are a few issues that pop out to me - there is an over-use of images and not always in the correct context (one example "Pioneer Venus Multiprobe"). Some sections are very brief and refer to secondary articles without a summary that reads well and fits in well on the Venus page itself. The intro is a little brief and could be better written.Anon 09:28, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've placed this review on hold at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Coordination for the moment because I was unable to locate the first phase of the review ("Raise issues at article Talk"). DrKay (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
-
- I've updated the talk page Anon 21:55, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments from Graeme Bartlett
Some of the images have no alt= text.And some images have alt text the same as the caption. Being the same is not useful. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
ref "Nature of the Magnetic Field in the Neighborhood of Venus" is fairly incomplete, and with a typo, correct details are here: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969CosRe...7..675D- I improved this a little before noticing the FAR; it now appears consistent with what's available through the bibcode, though, sadly, it appears online records for the journal only go back to 2000. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 02:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
it would be good to links some more journals, and publishers in the references - on first occurrences may be.I notice some are now linked, but not most.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
dead link for "Venus Close Approaches to Earth as predicted by Solex 11"
dead link for " Numbers generated by Solex"
the "Compare the Planets" references neither of the facts linked to it.
ref "A. Boyle – Venus transit: A last-minute guide – MSNBC" missing information and is a dead link.ref "See Venus in Broad Daylight!" no retrieval date (it is still there though)ref "The Pentagram of Venus" is a blog, and is missing info, cannot tell if this is reliable or not.
- Fixed. The guy has a wiki page, so he's probably reliable. Serendipodous 19:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
ref Fegley, B (2003). Venus (Treatise on Geochemistry ed.). has "ed.", no page number or ISBN.addedref "title". Retrieved 4 January 2015. is missing detail.addedref "РАН: запуск "Венеры-Д" состоится не ранее 2024 года" should have an English translation of the title.(perhaps an English language source is available)ref "Atmospheric Flight on Venus" is a dead link for me and missing inforefs 166-175 look to be web references and miss retrieval dates and other information.ref "The Magellan Venus Explorer's Guide" appears thrice, but the first time has no page number, and the second time has even less info. (there is no ISBN on the book so its absence is a non-issue)found page numbers in the book, linked online version, and made consistent.This article should link to Venus in fiction possibly with a short sentence on the topic. Look at Observations and explorations of Venus#Impact on literature which belongs more here, than in that article.- I've added a prototype. It may need some holes filled. Serendipodous 20:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
- Is it good enough? Please let me know before I spend a day at a library. Serendipodous 10:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think the summary is OK. However we should not be using primary references for the first three documents, secondary references that mention the facts would be more appropriate. Whenever the popular culture section develops in other articles, material only referenced to the work it is in gets the chop, and only if others comment on it, is the mention worth having in Wikipedia. I will add these as an issue down below, so that this one can be resolved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Is it good enough? Please let me know before I spend a day at a library. Serendipodous 10:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've added a prototype. It may need some holes filled. Serendipodous 20:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Nowhere does Venus tell us that it appears as a white star. The colour is a basic fact that should be mentioned.
- "thick clouds" composition does not match what the sources say. The sources also mention aluminium chloride, ferric chloride, and "sulfates", partially hydrated phosphoric anhydride and octasulfur. sulfur dioxide looks to be an atmospheric gas rather than a cloud droplet material. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
"Sky and Telescope" is used where the correct name appears to be "Sky & Telescope"fixed Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)Page is in this category: category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls so there may be an error hidden in there somewhere.
Citation needed for "Venus's opaque clouds prevent observing the Sun from the planet's surface"
- http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=2and http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi?find_body=1&body_group=mb&sstr=229 are two different references that seem to result in the same page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- Use of thinspace, is this OK? (in the info box)
ISBN format dashes or not?
"Calculate/show" should this read "Calculate and show"? The page is called Apparent Disk of Solar System Object.
In one place we say Cassini–Huygens and another Cassini.Since we use British English, should "center" be replaced by "centre" where it is not a proper noun, or title?" Colonization -> Colonisation" color -> colour (three times)"co-orbitals" sounds a bit jargon-like.
fixed Dawsow name error." destabilize -> destabiliseEncyclopædia or Encyclopedia? two different things used for Encyclopædia Britanica. "æ" look right here.Britannica online encyclopedia needs capitalisation anyway - and is not the name the site uses alsofly-by or flyby? (also fly-bys or flybys)Hitran or HITRAN?
Above spelling issues resolved. Serendipodous 10:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The "Lightnings on Venus studied on the basis of Venera 9 and 10 data" reference is actually in Russian. Did anyone actually locate a copy and read it? In any case the journal title ( Kosmicheskie Issledovaniia) and article title would be in Russian, so see if we can get original. Google suggests " Космические Исследования" An English translation is also published with bibcode=1980CosRe..18..325K
Should "false colour image" be "false-colour image"? (with hyphen in adjective)
Three primary references used in the "In fiction" section should be secondary sources instead.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- V.A. Krasnopolskii or V. A. Krasnopolsky — likely the same author with two transliterations.
MESENGER or MESSENGER ?midday seems preferable to mid-dayShould "Planet-C" be "PLANET-C"?
"in false-colour" should not have a hyphen as colour is now the noun, not part of adjective. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have now run this script: http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/view/Peer_reviewer#page:Venus
- It has identified some spelling issues that are not in British spelling:
SterilizationrealizationcivilizationVenera program (should this have "me" on the end?)
Headings that contain the word Venus - "Venus symbol" and "Pentagram of Venus"
- "Pentagram of Venus" is a proper title, and so can't be changed. Serendipodous 12:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
630 nm should have a non-breaking space, and perhaps "nm" should be spelled out as nanometrereferences should not be after a space, eg at "eccentricity = 0.006772" "asc_node = 76.680°" "deep interior than Earth's."
- New dead link :http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1996/96GL01589.shtml for Venusian k 2 tidal Love number from Magellan and PVO tracking data (info) [agu.org]
- dead link for transit of Venus: http://www.transit-of-venus.org.uk/history.htm (domain appears abandoned)
- weasel word "arguably"
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Dunkleosteus77
- The lead is a bit too short for an article of this side. Add a paragraph on space-exploration and/or colonization
- added. Serendipodous 18:50, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- The slow, retrograde rotation is notable and deserves a mention in the lead. Praemonitus (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Added. 09:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)Serendipodous
- The Planned and proposed missions section is basically a list without bullet-points
Keep: I believe this article now meets FA Criteria User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 23:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Nergaal
- Are there any Apohele asteroid-like objects that are considered to be related to Venus? Nergaal (talk) 08:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Sir Anon, Graeme Bartlett, and Dunkleosteus77: Have your concerns been addressed here? @Serendipodous: any response to Nergaal's question? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- There are Venus-crosser asteroids; is that what he's asking? Serendipodous 17:58, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- My main outstanding issue is saying the clouds contain sulfur dioxide, which is not what the sources say. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Which I cannot resolve, because I cannot read the sources. Serendipodous 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Google should be able to give you a loose translation if the source is in another language. Right-click the page and there should be an option to translate it. User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 01:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- There have got to be other, English sources that discuss Venus's clouds. We shouldn't tear our hair out over this particular source. I'll try to look into this in the coming week. A2soup (talk) 04:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
- Which I cannot resolve, because I cannot read the sources. Serendipodous 21:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
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.
Bette Davis
- Notified: Rossrs, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject LGBT studies, WikiProject Film/American cinema task force, WikiProject Lowell, Massachusetts
Review section
Per Talk:Bette Davis#Featured Article?, the article was last reviewed nearly ten years ago and needs more sourcing to remain up to featured article standard. DrKay (talk) 11:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed it does. I don't have the needed resources to patch it up, but someone would have to do lots of work to bring this up to par. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- As it stands, right now, it'd fail the Good Article criteria. Miyagawa (talk) 13:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
FARC section
- The main issue raised above is the article's sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Demote. An article I wish to work on but cannot due to the unavailability of the needed resources. Needs quite a lot of work. ツ FrB.TG (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delist no effort to improve the article after over a month. In addition to subpar referencing, the article is too Oscar-centric in terms of awards (i.e. only other accolade even mentioned in lead is Lifetime Achievement Award), and the neutrality of "Selected filmography" is questionable at best since it cherry-picks film listings based on some unclear (and likely subjective) criteria. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Coonskin (film)
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because is decidedly substandard. It seems to have been pushed through in 2007, with by an editor who is now permanently banned for sockpuppeting. It has changed little since 2008, despite Wikipedia's Featured Article standards improving immensely through that time. Specifically, using the current Featured article criteria, I note that:
- 1b: There is only one paragraph of critical reception, compared to seven paragraphs and four quotes in The Care Bears Movie, which is only a Good Article. This is despite that theoretically there should be much more to write about. The article is very short compared to other film featured articles as well such as The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) and Fritz the Cat (film), other Bakshi works written by that same banned author.
- 1c: There are only 22 sources. Compare this to the 233 citations in The Care Bears Movie, which was prepared for Featured Article status in 2011 but never nominated. Of those sources, six are heavily relied on and cited multiple times. Why is Care Bears 10 times more scholarly and thoughtful? Speaking of that reception paragraph, every single citation is to one source; the original reviews are not cited. There are no citations at all to the cast section.
- 1d: The section on Controversy is not neutral at all: it verges into total approval of Bakshi's views by repeatedly quoting him on how stupid the protesters were, what sellouts they were, how much smarter he is, etc. In one short paragraph alone: "Bakshi asked", "Bakshi stated", "According to Bakshi", "says Bakshi", and "Bakshi states". The subtext of this is that (the articles says) they clearly were wrong and Bakshi was right. This obviously is POV. The black activist perspective is mocked and only gets a buried paragraph to barely speak for itself. The actual reason the activists cared about the movie, e.g. what they took issue with, which should be the whole reason the controversy happened, is never explained, and the impression the article gives is that the boorish thugs of frequent political punching bag Al Sharpton (the only evidence for Sharpton being present is Bakshi's later claims) came from nowhere and nothing on the day of the screening. The author is known to be pro-Bakshi as he had already promoted two of his movies and tried desparately to get the main Ralph Bakshi article promoted to FA nine separate times over two years.
The original Featured Article candidacy, in 2007, barely had any discussion and the few reviewers did not notice these problems then, but they are quite glaring. Over two weeks, there have been no comments on these concerns on the talk page (as already said, the sole active editor is permanently banned). I believe this needs to undergo at least a FAR for these issues to be addressed. --Dagko (talk) 04:07, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Although I was too young to see the film in 1975, I'm old enough to remember the controversy that surrounded its release. I am amazed that Bakshi is virtually the only source cited in the article's "Controversy" section. Quite aside from its FA status, its potentially BLP-violating allegations about Al Sharpton should require reliable secondary sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Move to FARC. Nobody is working on it, and as it stands now, the BLP issues are still very unresolved, and may have to be removed. --Dagko (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- Move to FARC per Dagko. --Laser brain (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
FARC section
- Concerns raised in the review section include sourcing, neutrality, and coverage/comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Super Nintendo Entertainment System
- Notified: Anomie, WikiProject Video games
Review section
This article's status currently states that this article is a featured article; however, there happen to be a lot of errors, most of which are unverifiable claims, tagged by [citation needed] and [unreliable source?] tags. I have not (yet) noticed any dead links, but this article has a lot of problems, so I am hoping that we could delist this article and leave it like that until we manage to complement it once again. Gamingforfun365 (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Comment - You notified yourself on the FAR and not the original nominator? Also, you didn't notify the Video Game Project. GamerPro64 13:44, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I must have rushed what I was doing, and, because this is my first time, I told for myself do something which is a not-to-do. I am sorry, and how do I notify the WikiProject of something? Also, am I in trouble for the clutter?
Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)- See Template:FAR-instructions on how to make an FAR. GamerPro64 23:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I already started doing so even after I had left the page.
Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I already started doing so even after I had left the page.
- See Template:FAR-instructions on how to make an FAR. GamerPro64 23:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- I must have rushed what I was doing, and, because this is my first time, I told for myself do something which is a not-to-do. I am sorry, and how do I notify the WikiProject of something? Also, am I in trouble for the clutter?
- Comment – Following references deadlink: 3, 8, 31, 42, 43, 44, 47, 85. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 23:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty bad, it is.
Gamingforfun365 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC) - Links 8, 42 and 43 repaired with archiveurl. Link 3 already has archiveurl. Link 31 is a print reference. Links 44, 47 and 85 load for me, do not appear to be dead. -- ferret (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- I can also confirm that 44,47 and 85 are working fine.--67.68.163.32 (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Pretty bad, it is.
- Hi Gamingforfun, looks like this nom missed the step of discussing problems on the talk page first. Thus, I'm going to put this on hold to allow for this to happen. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Relisted: The talk page discussion has concluded that "romhacking.net", which is used in the article as a source, is self-published by the main editor of the article and that it therefore probably does not qualify as a reliable source. DrKay (talk) 11:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like a baby-with-the-bathwater situation to delist a FA on the basis that a single source is unreliable. Looking at the information it was referencing, I'm not convinced that I needed to know that level of detail about the technical specifications of the SNES. Could we just comment that stuff out until a more reliable source is found, if ever? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that if the only remaining issue is with a soure covering a relatively minor part of the article it wold make more sense to remove the content than the featured article status.--65.94.253.160 (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Seems like a baby-with-the-bathwater situation to delist a FA on the basis that a single source is unreliable. Looking at the information it was referencing, I'm not convinced that I needed to know that level of detail about the technical specifications of the SNES. Could we just comment that stuff out until a more reliable source is found, if ever? Axem Titanium (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think we've taken the wrong tack here. It's not that the romhacking.net link needs to be replaced but what the hell is going on in the "Technical specifications" section? It is a romp through jargon that is totally unexplained and unhelpful to the general reader. None of our other console FAs have anywhere near that amount of superfluous technical detail—no wonder we're having trouble sourcing it to a mainstream source. The goal of the section should be understanding the hardware in the context of its time, not listing every spec—that's for another (specialist) website and outside our scope. Indeed, the section has only collected more detail since 2007. Trim it back, I say. This is not "brilliant prose" as is. czar 05:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Technical details have been purged entirely along with the unreliable Romhacking reference. This information already exists at Super Nintendo Entertainment System technical specifications anyways, apparently in exact duplicate. There are 3 new citation needed tags that were added when @Czar removed N-Sider. I am looking for replacement sources now. After that, all tags will have been addressed. -- ferret (talk) 15:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
- All unreliable, citation needed and deadlink tags have been repaired/addressed. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
- Keep as all issues have been addressed. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
- Comment What needs to be done for this to close? The major issues brought up, various tagging (Unreliable, citation needed and deadlink) in the article related to sourcing, have all been addressed. -- ferret (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- Close Follow up to my comment above, I believe this can be closed now. -- ferret (talk) 19:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on the article as it stands now? Do you have concerns that are yet to be addressed? @Gamingforfun365 and Czar: Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
- (Didn't get the ping.) My specific concerns have been addressed but there's still a fair amount of cleanup to be done. I don't have the time for a full review so I'm not opposing on this, but: (1) the lede is a mess—it's not a full summary of the article (and if it is, the article is missing a whole lot of detail), (2) specifically, one half of the lede is about the product's name! It needs to be pared down, footnoted, moved to another section. The lede is for introducing how the console is commonly known, not a catalog of how it is spelled in non-English speaking regions. See the Genesis article for comparison. (3) Many sentences are unsourced—those are simple fixes. (4) The emulation section has too much individual detail and not enough overview about how they were developed and used as a whole, which were most popular and why, etc. (5) The legacy section needs much, much more on how the console and its properties affected later industry prospects, how people continue to be influenced by the console, etc. It's essentially proseline as is ("X said it's the top Y"). That stuff doesn't matter and can be grouped together ("journalists from X, Z said it was among the best consoles")—we care about the broad arc of the console's influence. That many people called it the best is not nearly as important as the specific influence (with nuance) it had on people and the industry. czar 19:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review section include organization/coverage and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delist. I had a look through this as I'm pretty knowledgeable about this console, but it needs way more work than meets the eye. Lots of sections need complete rewrites and additional research. --Laser brain (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
- Delist - Per Laser Brain. GamerPro64 15:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Fairy tale
- Notified: Goldfritha, AtticusX, User_talk:DavidOaks, WIkiprojects: Novels, Literature, Children's literature
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because, the article has descended from Featured article quality. In particular, the comprehensiveness of the articles is much lower than our standard for such a broad scope article: only two academic approaches being highlighted, one of which is almost entirely unreferenced, and verging on OR (or at least appears to be). I am also worried about the contemporary literature section: it only deals with two genres, and doesn't do so with much sophistication. Adaptation of fairy tales is quite heavily explored in academia, especially with the recent surge of television adaption work like Grimm and Once Upon A Time. Moreover, that section in particular, is very poorly written and organized. I really don't like demoting articles, but this appears to be one long overdue... it needs the attention of an expert, who really understands the field (and how it has changed since 2007!), Sadads (talk) 13:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Sadads, welcome to FAR. It looks like you've missed the first step of discussing the issue on the talk page? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Nikkimaria: Thanks for highlighting the process. However, there has been no serious discussion on the talk page for years, and the article proper hasn't received any substantial edits other than vandalism reversion. There does not appear to be a community to notify via the talk. I escalated, with the assumption that no-one would see this as just a talk page discussion, Sadads (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comments I think a deal of work is needed, possibly too much for talk page discussion - structurally it is now poorly laid out, with similar material either repeated or far apart - e.g. the Terminology section repeats material from Definition and History of the genre - its material should be split and merged to reduce and consolidate. The Cross-cultural transmission concerns origins so should be moved chronologically up the article. Association with children section is a bit all over the place - Disney material appears in two sections. Modern material should be organized into new representations of old material and new fairy tales. The motifs and the Interpretations sections should be further up the article as they are critical to the plots as it were. Also, I am a little surprised the article passed FAC with so many opposes. And then there is comprehensiveness - e.g. African/Asian material, synthesis into American culture (e.g Uncle Remus stories) - relations to myths etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
FARC section
- Issues raised in the review phase include referencing, comprehensiveness, and structure. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
- Delist. Quite a few major issues and no progress apparent. --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Enceladus
- Notified: Drbogdan, WolfmanSF, JorisvS, Volcanopele, BatteryIncluded, WikiProject Volcanoes, WikiProject Solar System, WikiProject Astronomical objects, WikiProject Astronomy
- WP:URFA nom
I am nominating this featured article for review because it's been tagged for update in the atmosphere section, which is very short. Readers are directed to a sub-article Atmosphere of Enceladus, but it seems to contain all the same information as the main article, and so appears somewhat pointless. In my opinion, the gallery section does not add much to the article, and a link to the commons category should be sufficient. DrKay (talk) 16:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
Review section
- comments from Graeme Bartlett
- I am looking into this. There do not seem to be many more writings on the "atmosphere", and most do not distinguish it from the plumes. I found one thesis modelling the atmosphere, but does a thesis count as a reliable source?
- One topic missing that I see quite a few papers about is the effect of Endeladus on the magnetosphere, but its own and that of Saturn.
- Another is related, the auroral hiss[2].
- referencing improvements required:
The Blondel, Philippe reference needs expanding with links.Satellites of the Outer Planets: Worlds in their own right needs an ISBN."Cracks on Enceladus Open and Close under Saturn's Pull" has author Bill Steigerwald56 and 67 have a bibcode but no doi (needs a check)Taubner R.S.; Leitner J. J.; et al needs some kind of link and et al should be expanded a bit."Ocean Within Enceladus May Harbor Hydrothermal Activity" should have publisher which is astrobiology, but this is a NASA press release, so there is probably a better source."Our Solar System and Beyond is Awash in Water" is also a NASA press release"'Jets' on Saturn Moon Enceladus May Actually Be Giant Walls of Vapor and Ice" needs author= Charles Q. Choi date=6 May 2015 publisher=Space.com"A Hot Start on Enceladus" needs date March 14, 2007"Atmosphere on Enceladus" needs standard format on date."Enceladus Life Finder" needs fixing, internal title is "ENCELADUS LIFE FINDER: THE SEARCH FOR LIFE IN A HABITABLE MOON" authors are J.I. Lunine, J.H. Waite, F. Postberg L. Spilker, and K. Clark, this is part of 46th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2015)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'll see if I can do something about the references tomorrow. As for theses, I'd say they need some external support (in the vein of other sources citing them) to work in and of itself.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 23:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Update, done with a few notes:
- 56 and 67 does not seem to have a doi that I can find.
- The NASA press releases are the sources of the images in question; I've found an article on Nature here about the hydrothermal activity in the ocean.
- I'll see about the auroral hiss and the magnetospheric effects later.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- I have struck the confirmed fixed refs. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Replaced the press releases with that Nature citation too. The atmosphere will have to wait a bit, unfortunately.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Update, done with a few notes:
- Most images are missing alt= text. Please read WP:ALT before adding text though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- More checking word by word: (using tr "][()\t,.:;\"" " "| tr " " "\n" | sort -u )
There is inconsistent date format. Sometimes we have yyyy-mm-dd form, but it is mostly month dd, yyyy. This applies to access dates and publication dates. eg: 2007-04-15 2008-11-27 2011-12-17 2014-04-03 2014-04-04 2014-04-27 2014-12-17 2015-04-09 2015-04-15 2015-05-08 2015-09-17- There are a couple of nonprinting characters in the dimensions in the infobox "513.2 × 502.8 × 496.6" (surrounding the first and second ×) (these are halfwidth spaces, not a serious issue)
Inconsistent ISBN13, we have 978-1-4020-9216-9 978-1-4244-7350-2 and 9783540376835 (the last form is best)Cassini 's has a non printing character before apostrophe(due to use of {{'s}})Caption at internal structure " mantle/yellow and core/red" style should be " mantle (yellow) and core (red)"infobox mean radius uses Earths and Moons - probably should be Earth's and Moon'sE-ring should be E-RingWe have "g/cm³" (2 uses) as well as using superscript 3 g/cm3 (1 use, but I thought MOS said this one).Two uses of wrong spelling: kilometres(It was convert template doing it, spelling mistake avoided by using |sp=usUsing m/s² in info box instead of superfixed 2Abbreviated journal titles like "Orig Life Evol Biosph" should be expanded fully."Saturn׳s" has non-standard apostrophe" —called libration— " uses spaces as well as m-dash (should be no space?)- I suspect " UV–green–near IR images" uses the wrong kind of dash. It is an adjectival form. (actually it appears to use –) (others use / or ,)
- Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:13, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think I got the issues except the inconsistent the dates (MOSUNITS does indicate the superscript standard; probably because it's easier to create that code than to create the superscripted number itself); will need a check on non-printing characters.
- Striking corrected (notice I added more issues after you started work) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Did some more edits to resolve these issues, except for the dash and nonprinting character edits. I didn't find any "kilometres" in the source; I guess a template is causing these issues. Now, for the atmosphere I've to confess that other than using Calabozos and Cerro Azul (Chilean volcano) as templates I've never worked with FAs; is the atmosphere section of Pluto plus the magnetosphere and auroral hiss a good template to follow?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Another inconsistency is the possessive form: Enceladus' versus Enceladus's. I prefer the second, but is that right? Many of the sources use Enceladus' Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
-
- It can be either, but I too prefer the second, because I think it's clearer in written prose. DrKay (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- I personally prefer the first; at least to me it was indicated to be proper grammar. I'll do some other work here in about a week, though.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
- You might like to read MOS:POSS and Apostrophe, especially the section Apostrophe#Possessive apostrophe, particularly sub-section "Basic rule (singular nouns)". It seems that a lot depends upon how the possessive form is pronounced. Corinne (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- It can be either, but I too prefer the second, because I think it's clearer in written prose. DrKay (talk) 09:37, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- Comments from Corinne
1) In this sentence in the lead:
-
- Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging from old, heavily cratered regions to young, tectonically deformed terrains that formed as recently as 100 million years ago, despite its small size.
the phrase "despite its small size", because it comes at the end, sounds like it might apply only to the last clause, so is a little puzzling (if it does apply only to the last clause, I don't understand the connection between small size and relatively recent deformation of terrain). I believe you mean it to apply to the first clause, "Enceladus has a wide range of surface features". If so, I recommend putting the phrase at the beginning of the sentence:
-
- Despite it small size, Enceladus has a wide range of surface features, ranging...
2) The first sentence of the second paragraph of the lead is:
-
- Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until the two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.
You haven't mentioned Voyager spacecraft before this, so saying "the two Voyager spacecraft" assumes that your readers know what they are. I recommend removing "the". You can, and I guess you do, go into more detail about the two spacecraft later, and who's to say there won't be more in the future?
-
- Enceladus was discovered in 1789 by William Herschel, but little was known about it until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby in the early 1980s.
3) The last sentence in the lead is:
-
- Its resonance with Dione excites its orbital eccentricity, which tidal forces damp, resulting in tidal heating of its interior, and offering a possible explanation for the geological activity.
(a) I was confused by the clause, "which tidal forces damp". It is true that "tidal" is an adjective, so "forces" ought to be a noun; however, "damp" is more often an adjective or noun than a verb, so "forces" jumped in as a verb. It took a re-reading to realize that "damp" was the verb to the phrase "tidal forces". To a non-scientist, even one who knows what the verb "to damp" means, the combination of "tidal forces" and "damp" is so unusual that it is hard to comprehend. I'm wondering if another verb could be found other than "damp" to make this more comprehensible for the average reader. Perhaps "suppress", or "counteract"?
(b) Also, for the average reader, the word "tidal" suggests, of course, "tides", which in turn suggests the presence of a large body of water (or other liquid). The previous paragraph mentioned "a subsurface ocean of liquid water", but no connection between the tides and that body of water was made. If the "tidal forces" are related in some way to the subsurface body of water, that connection should be made clear. Since no surface body of water (or liquid) is mentioned here, the reader will look for it later on. In the section "Orbit and rotation", "tidal deformation" is mentioned in the second paragraph, but no body of liquid is mentioned. If these "tidal forces" and "tidal deformation" have nothing to do with a body of liquid, that ought to be made clear, also.
4) The first two sentences in Enceladus#Orbit and rotation are:
-
- Enceladus is one of the major inner satellites of Saturn. It is the fourteenth satellite when ordered by distance from Saturn, and orbits within the densest part of the E Ring, the outermost of Saturn's rings.
I think the wording of the clause "when ordered by distance from Saturn" could be made a little clearer for the average WP reader. "When ordered" sounds like "ordered from a catalog", "ordered in a restaurant". I think it would be clearer if it were worded something like this:
-
- It is the fourteenth satellite in order of distance from Saturn, and it orbits..."
5) In the second paragraph in "Orbit and rotation", can you put the conversion so that distances in miles are given?
– Corinne (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
- 2) Without "the", it suggests that there have been more than two Voyager spacecraft, which is untrue. Any possible futute Voyager 3 would be crystal ball.
-
- I don't agree. Saying just "until two Voyager spacecraft passed nearby" is just introducing the spacecraft since you haven't mentioned them before this. It does not suggest that there were, or will be, more. It is really not good to use the definite article until you have first introduced or mentioned them. Corinne (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- 3) a) I think saying it in the passive does the trick. b) Tidal forces also act on a solid body. The effect is only much stronger if they act on a liquid. For example, solid Mimas has been tidally locked to Saturn; in fact, none of the small regular moons of Saturn are known not to be tidally locked.
- I have copy-edited the article based on several other points. --JorisvS (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Atmosphere section
DrKay's original concern was with the Atmosphere section, which I just removed. I'm not totally sure about it, so see my rationale on the talk page and let me know if you agree. A2soup (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- As we've established, it was not possible to expand the section and I think short sections should be merged into others, which is essentially what has been done here with the material positioned in the Cryovolcanism section. DrKay (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
- Move to FARC. The prose is poor, using an unnecessarily repetitive and unidiomatic style that is also indicative of structural problems in the article. Because relevant material is deliberately excluded, the subject is not placed in its context rendering the topic non-comprehensive and difficult to follow without following links to other articles. Attempts to address these problems are reverted. DrKay (talk) 17:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
-
- If by "relevant material is deliberately excluded", you mean the atmosphere apart from the plumes, I have to disagree. That's more a case of "relevant material is not yet known". No argument on the other points, though. A2soup (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, I mean for example that the article says Enceladus is "sixth-largest", "one of the major inner" and "fourteenth" moon of Saturn, but we are not told how many moons there are or how many of those are "major inner" ones. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- The problem there is that Saturn has a difficult-to-define number of moons. There are spherical moons, but Moons of Saturn gives 62 moons with confirmed orbits, of which 53 are named. Of course, what's a moon or not is ultimately subjective - the rings are made of zillions of "moons", and how can we define when a chunk is big enough to be a moon? Saying Enceladus is "sixth-largest" with no absolute number specified is actually an elegant solution to this problem. I have addressed the other two concerns you raised by given content for "one of the major inner" and removing "fourteenth". Do you have any other prose concerns? A2soup (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- No, I mean for example that the article says Enceladus is "sixth-largest", "one of the major inner" and "fourteenth" moon of Saturn, but we are not told how many moons there are or how many of those are "major inner" ones. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- If by "relevant material is deliberately excluded", you mean the atmosphere apart from the plumes, I have to disagree. That's more a case of "relevant material is not yet known". No argument on the other points, though. A2soup (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Dunkleosteus77
FARC section
The instability leads me to move here. Concerns about prose, which can be difficult to balance between exactness and accessibility in these articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- What "instability" do you mean? There was one recent not-quite-edit-war (both editors made varied changes that ultimately led to improvement, rather than flat reverts). Also, can you point out specifically what prose concerns you? A2soup (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that they are not edit-warring does not mean there is consensus. Prose is a pretty major issue to try and get right and moving it here means we're not closing this as a "keep", that is all. Further work and continue before editors comment on whether the article should retain or lose FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Lack of consensus is not a stability issue if the article text is stable. But I'm more interested in what specifically the prose issues you see are - I would love to try to address them. A2soup (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- @A2soup: Calling DrKay about these prose issues.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Lack of consensus is not a stability issue if the article text is stable. But I'm more interested in what specifically the prose issues you see are - I would love to try to address them. A2soup (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The fact that they are not edit-warring does not mean there is consensus. Prose is a pretty major issue to try and get right and moving it here means we're not closing this as a "keep", that is all. Further work and continue before editors comment on whether the article should retain or lose FA status. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Banff National Park
- Notified: MONGO, WikiProject Geography of Canada, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject World Heritage Sites, WikiProject Alberta, WikiProject Geology
Review section
I am nominating this featured article for review because it's a 2006 promotion, and I don't think this still meet the criteria. Like I mentioned at talk page, there's still some paragraph lack footnotes.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- I'll mention it to the primary author...all I did was nominate it. You could of course look for some references yourself and help out, as I mentioned on the article talkpage back in May. Some things are generally common knowledge that wouldn't need an inline ref.--MONGO 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
- If they were common knowledge, then this should be very easily done.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at your meager contributions to en.wiki, you are not only too lazy to assist but also too lazy to list the issues. Looks like trolling to me.--MONGO 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wow... good for you.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Come up with specifics troll or be gone. Surely you can come up with specifics....no? That should be easy shouldn't it?--MONGO 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Wow... good for you.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- Looking at your meager contributions to en.wiki, you are not only too lazy to assist but also too lazy to list the issues. Looks like trolling to me.--MONGO 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
- If they were common knowledge, then this should be very easily done.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Guys, enough of the sniping here. Jarodalien, can you please specify which of the criteria you feel are not met and why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Already add cn tags more than 5 months ago, and mentioned at talk page. Lots of paragraphs have no inline citation at all.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for that, but just so we're clear - your only concern with FA status here is the state of the article's sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Sourcing is my main concern, but shince you mention it, I also hope infomation like "As of the 2005 census, the Town of Banff has a population of 8,352, of which nearly 7,000 are permanent residents", "Climate data for Banff", "with 3,927,557 visitors in 2004/2005", "with 32 wolf deaths along the Trans-Canada Highway between 1987 and 2000, leaving only 31 wolves in the area" along with other data could least update to 2010s. Thank you.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for that, but just so we're clear - your only concern with FA status here is the state of the article's sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
Weak close.I have fact checked the entire history section, finding no problems.Consequently, although the geography and geology sections are not fully sourced, I'm inclined to believe that the content of those sections is also verifiable. There don't appear to be any statements in the section that are controversial.Other editors have done some updating of the figures, and I've done a copyedit and review of the images. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
-
-
- For the issue related to climate data, it is from 1971–2000 and there is none from 1981–2010 since the weather station closed in 1995 so only 15 years of data from 1981–1995 using the 1981–2010 data. Environment Canada did opened an automatic weather station from 1997 until the present (Banff Cs) though no climatological normals for that station is published so manually calculating the normals from that station would run into WP:OR. It would be impossible to update the data to 2010s for it if the weather station closed in 1995. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that too. I've asked for help at WikiProject Geology for the geology section. Pinging User:MONGO and User:Aude. DrKay (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- For the issue related to climate data, it is from 1971–2000 and there is none from 1981–2010 since the weather station closed in 1995 so only 15 years of data from 1981–1995 using the 1981–2010 data. Environment Canada did opened an automatic weather station from 1997 until the present (Banff Cs) though no climatological normals for that station is published so manually calculating the normals from that station would run into WP:OR. It would be impossible to update the data to 2010s for it if the weather station closed in 1995. Ssbbplayer (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
-
FARC section
I have moved to FARC mainly because of the Geology section needing cleanup. Comments on prose also invited. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Delist. Geology section needs clarification, citation and cleanup per Talk:Banff National Park#Possible FAR. DrKay (talk) 10:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)DelistPer unsolved problems. --Jarodalien (talk) 02:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)- Hold delisting for 2 weeks please and I'll attempt to address the issues.--MONGO 11:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
- Keep MONGO has made a considerable effort to bring this article back to the high standard demanded of a featured article and I consider he has succeeded. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- @DrKay: and @Jarodalien:, given there's been some work by MONGO, just wondering if you feel your concerns have been addressed? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I added specifics to the talk page so that other readers may help with fixing. The geology section needs major cleanup, imo. Even without a background in geology, editors inspecting the article should question mixed up facts, mountains trend this way then that, mixed up times, difficult geography (in and out and around the park), sensationalist claims about research unsupported, and other problems in a featured article.
- There is no way I can edit it, because it is too difficult to follow, but, also, no one can be an effective editor once ownership of an article is established by calling other editors trolls for raising issues and pointing out problems. 2601:283:4301:D3A6:DC63:FC39:86B3:6D1E (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- I can continue to address some of your concerns and from what you posted at the article talk page there do appear to be some issues yet to address.--MONGO 18:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Can we move your comments from the article talk page to here?--MONGO 18:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Go ahead. I think it is better on the article's talk page, personally. Also, I have worked with you before on Western forest fire articles, and I think you're a good editor, so you can probably do this, but I think an outline of geological date and place, then moving from there in the writing to finer details would make it easier to write and wind up with something understandable. 2600:380:985F:CE86:C9B7:33E4:EA8:F7CF (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Also, if you do it this way, I am willing to correct errors as I catch them, but it's too jumbled up right now. 166.173.58.255 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2016 (UTC)