Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Featured article review Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:14, 1 September 2009 editDabomb87 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users66,457 edits archive← Previous edit		Revision as of 00:47, 1 September 2009 edit undoYellowAssessmentMonkey (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,460 edits →Removed status: rm 6Next edit →
Line 50:		Line 50:
	==Kept status==		==Kept status==
	==Removed status==		==Removed status==
			{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Médecins Sans Frontières/archive1}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Franklin B. Gowen/archive1}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Sequence alignment/archive1}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Yuan (surname)/archive1}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Baby Gender Mentor/archive1}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Douglas Adams/archive1}}
			{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Stanisław Koniecpolski/archive1}}

Revision as of 00:47, 1 September 2009

Pages are moved to sub-archives based on their nomination date, not closure date.

See the Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/archive for nominations under the previous FARC process.

Kept status

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 Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 .

Médecins Sans Frontières

Review commentary

Notified: WP Africa, WP France, WP Medicine, WP Spain, WP Organizations. Quadell, Xenophrenic

I am nominating this featured article for review because it appears to have degenerated and/or not kept up with our evolving standards. The lead looks odd and includes a rudimentary table of founders not included in the article proper. Citations are inconsistently formatted and occasionally appear incomplete, and some paragraphs lack any citations. Overall, a rather large percentage of citations appear to be to primary sources (i.e., MSF publications). Thus, I question whether the article, as it stands now, is really within reasonable distance of 1c and 2a, while having concerns that 2b, 2c and possibly 1a are lacking. Apologies if this nomination is lacking, this is my first FAR. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Images lack alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Surely 22 external links to MSF are unnecessary? DrKiernan (talk) 11:16, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
The bullets at the beginning look horrible and I dont know how to get red of them; a box appears around them.--RayqayzaDialgaWeird2210 15:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the bullets, but probably the names of the founders do not need to be in the lead. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment: The group's work in Afghanistan should merit a mention other than in the "dangers" section. JKBrooks85 (talk) 08:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - I am concerned that all of the information seems to come from the organization MFD. There may be additional issues regarding MFD that can give some context. See “Nationals” and “expatriates”: Challenges of fulfilling “sans frontières” (“without borders”) ideals in international humanitarian action and Humanitarianism in the Post-colonial era: the history Médecins Sans Frontières and Ethics, research and Medecins sans Frontieres —Mattisse (Talk) 17:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there is an issue with WP:PRIMARY here. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, reliable sources (bias?), citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Delist, per FA criteria concerns, above comments, particularly WP:PRIMARY. Cirt (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist. Someone needs to go through the article, find and cite 3rd party sources, and rewrite the text to match the sources. It will take quite some work. Eubulides (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 .

Franklin B. Gowen

Review commentary

Notified: User talk:Slambo, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Trains, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Philadelphia, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Pennsylvania.

FA from 2005, 1c issues throughout article. WP:LEAD has a bit of an unorthodox style format with bullet points, and is larger than the requisite amount of paragraphs. Image File:Franklin B. Gowen.jpg lacks sufficient source information on the image page, same goes for File:James McParland.jpg, and the page for File:Uriah-stephens-circa-1900.gif could use some improvement as well. Cirt (talk) 18:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment This article has had one edit since it was nominated on August 2.

Need for alt text has not been addressed.
None of the {{citation needed}} tags for the uncited quotes and unsourced material have been addressed nor has the bullet list and other problems in the lead.
I do not understand the reference system. For example, there are citations like Schlegel, 222–22, Daggett, pp. 100–101, Wallace, p. 435, Wallace, p. 435 etc. but there is no bibliography listing books by these authors. Therefore, I'm not sure what these are in reference to.
Most of the article is made up of very short paragraphs, making for choppy reading, and lacks flow.
Some of the prose needs work. Random examples:

In collaboration with his close friend, George deBenneville Keim—who had bought Gowen's Pottsville home in 1864, and was subsequently appointed first president of the Coal & Iron Co.—Gowen's perhaps most crucial business bet was made upon these lands: development of the Pottsville Twin Shaft Colliery.
From that time, through fresh sanguine predictions for improvements in the business climate and the Reading's overall performance, which allowed him to borrow more funds on a less grand scale and to get the McCalmonts to defer interest payments due; and maneuverings such as periodically paying workers in scrip—essentially promissory notes—instead of cash, Franklin Gowen continued to run the Reading.
As noted above, in the 1871 legislative investigation of coal field agitations and the Reading Railroad, Gowen portrayed the WBA as having at its core a murderous, secret association. In his 1875 testimony before another investigative committee, he characterized this same core of the union as "Communists." (The citation is: Schlegel, p. 84. See Misplaced Pages articles on the Paris Commune and International Workingmen's Association to better understand the contemporary connotations of this charge.)
For instance, the shot to the head from which Gowen died was from an angle very unlikely to have been self-inflicted, ...

—mattisse (Talk) 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, lead, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ?

Delist Per citation and prose concerns mainly, although the image copyrights, alt text and lead would also have to be fixed to have this brought back up to FA status. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist. Citations need work, and I'd suggest introducing more images to break up the large amounts of text in the article. The bulleted structure of the lede is odd, but it might work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 05:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 .

Sequence alignment

Review commentary

Notified: Opabinia regalis, WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology

I am nominating this featured article for review because of 1c concerns. The article has been edited extensively since it passed FAC in July 2006 and there are whole sections that are unreferenced. It has been tagged for {{Refimprove|date=March 2009}} —Mattisse (Talk) 00:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The lead is only two sentences on a complex subject, violating WP:LEAD.
The lack of citations suggest the much of the article may be original research. For example, this uncited section:

Very short or very similar sequences can be aligned by hand. However, most interesting problems require the alignment of lengthy, highly variable or extremely numerous sequences that cannot be aligned solely by human effort. Instead, human knowledge is applied in constructing algorithms to produce high-quality sequence alignments, and occasionally in adjusting the final results to reflect patterns that are difficult to represent algorithmically (especially in the case of nucleotide sequences). Computational approaches to sequence alignment generally fall into two categories: global alignments and local alignments. Calculating a global alignment is a form of global optimization that "forces" the alignment to span the entire length of all query sequences. By contrast, local alignments identify regions of similarity within long sequences that are often widely divergent overall. Local alignments are often preferable, but can be more difficult to calculate because of the additional challenge of identifying the regions of similarity. A variety of computational algorithms have been applied to the sequence alignment problem, including slow but formally optimizing methods like dynamic programming, and efficient, but not as thorough heuristic algorithms or probabilistic methods designed for large-scale database search.

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 06:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I haven't decided yet whether I'm going to have the time to update this article, but I'm really glad to see that alt text has been implemented. Still, I'm at a loss as to how to write useful alt text for a sequence alignment... I mean, it already is text; the trick is in the formatting. Since you seem to be the alt-text expert, do you have any suggestions? Perhaps at least one alignment can be presented as text in table format rather than as an image? I think that would help text-based browser users, but I'm not sure about screen readers. Thoughts? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right to be cautious about screen readers: they do tables, but sometimes it's easier to summarize the gist of a table in text rather than to list each row and column separately. However, for the two sequence-alignment images here I expect that tables would be better. Even for a sighted reader a table can be better, e.g., you can copy and paste from it. Eubulides (talk) 20:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

General comment I agree that this article is in need of an update, though I'm not sure yet that I'm going to have the time to do it. "Citing" it is a bit of a red herring; references to a bioinformatics textbook would technically be appropriate, although I'd rather also include the references to the original descriptions of the older methods (even if the 'standard' current implementation has been modified from the original). For one thing, the prose has degraded (not that mine was brilliant to begin with). And three years is a long time; there are new methods that belong here (relatedness-aware MSA methods should certainly be included) and dead links to prune (the software subarticle looks like the lawn of a home in foreclosure). Lastly, it's suffering from the bias of its author in that most of the examples derive from protein rather than nucleic acid sequences, and there's very little on methods used in genomics. (As a side note, I'm really surprised to find things like PSI-BLAST not even mentioned by name.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, it's not looking good for finding the time to fully update this; I'm in the middle of revisions for a real paper. Sounds like the best way to show an alignment is either a table or a preformatted text box, although I'd like to keep at least one image showing a large MSA (perhaps not the current one, which is a screenshot from software that was rather old 3 years ago). I'll try to at least update the images and insert the original refs for the methods next week, though that won't help with the dated text. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Delist per the concerns of Opabinia regalis. The article needs an expert in the subject. JKBrooks85 (talk) 06:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist per above and per nom. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist If Opabinia agrees that the article needs significant work, then it probably does. There's not much that can be done here without an expert. Better to delist and have it resubmitted when it's up to standard again. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist, per FA criteria concerns, and above comments. Cirt (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 .

Yuan (surname)

Review commentary

Notified: WikiProject China

This article is definitely close to FA, but it needs some cleaning up.

The entire article needs way more inline citations. Even if they're all coming from the same source. There's plenty of bombastic language that needs backing up.
The citation style is messy, and includes "Ibid." and so on.
Someone ought to review these sources, since they're all in Chinese and there's no way to tell what's a reliable source (is Zhonghua shu ju a "well-regarded academic press"?). This doesn't look like a reliable source but it could be, I would have no way of knowing.
The lead image claims to be "circa 2nd century" but the description page says it's self-made, which is it? The stele image doesn't have a source.
The "prominent personages" list includes people without articles, are they notable?
The prose is good and meets MOS but is it brilliant? Noisalt (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the problem of redlinks in the "Prominent Personages" list by creating an article on one of the people, who is definitely notable, and deleting the other two, on whom I could find little.--Danaman5 (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarified caption of lead image.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Alt text added. As before, your corrections are welcome.--Danaman5 (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. My own feeling is that when an image focuses on text, that text should appear in alt text even when the text is not English. File:Yuan character (1st century).png is a Chinese character, so its alt text should contain the text equivalent of that character; since that image is particularly about visual appearance of a character, it should briefly describe the gist of the character's appearance to an English-language reader (something like "a character with ten strokes: a stick figure of a man above a circle..."); the color is not that important here since it's arbitrary editorial choice. The alt text for File:Yuanshi Zongpu.jpg should contain the text for the Chinese characters in the image (no English translation, obviously; that's in the caption; also there's no need here to describe the characters in detail). Similarly the Chinese text of the stele should be added to the stele's alt text, since the text is quite legible. ~~One image still lacks alt text; this comes from the protected {{Surname}} template and I just now asked to get this fixed.~~ Eubulides (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just now struck the items that have been fixed, but the other problems still remain. Eubulides (talk) 12:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale needed for File:Yuanshi Zongpu.jpg. DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, prose, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 00:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Delist per lack of citations. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist per Dabomb87. Most of article is unsourced. Article has not been worked on since last month. —mattisse (Talk) 15:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist. I've seen worse-cited articles, but no work is being done to fix the problems in this article. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 06:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist. Several paragraphs and important sentences remain unsourced. Eubulides (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 .

Baby Gender Mentor

Review commentary

Notified: Johntex, ... WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, ...Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine

I am nominating this featured article for review primarily because of 1c concerns. It was promoted to FAC in January 2007

There are many dead links, and links that go to irrelevant pages that do not contain the information cited.
Many of the references go to pages that are marketing or selling the product, pages of the developer of the product or blogs. They are not unbiased and neutral.
There have been long-standing tags on the article requesting citations.
Although the article is covered by the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, there are almost not references that fulfill the requirement of WP:MEDRS. Rather, the references seem to reinforce that this article is about this product for which it appears there is little scientific evidence that it is reliable or works as advertised.

There are also 1d concerns; for example, there are some promotion quotes included in the article from those that are selling it, but none from the scientific community giving an unbiased view.

Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Done; thanks. ~~The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT.~~ Eubulides (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply from original FA nominator - Hello, I am the author that worked this article through the original FA and I will try to address the remarks above.

"There are many dead links, and links that go to irrelevant pages that do not contain the information cited." - Please cite specific examples and I will address them. All of the links went to relevant information at the time of FA listing. Please note that Misplaced Pages does NOT require the removal of a link just because it is not working at a given point in time. Websites sometimes go offline or get restructured; sometimes this is only temporary. The link may come back to life and it may not. Even if it is dead, it may still be a useful guide to a reader who is trying to find this informaiton.
"Many of the references go to pages that are marketing or selling the product, pages of the developer of the product or blogs. They are not unbiased and neutral." - "Many" is a weasel word, according the WP:MOS. Yes, "many" of the links give the manufacturers viewpoint. That is entirely appropriate for presenting their side of the story. "Many" of the links go to other sources. There is no problem with having "many" links to the manufacturer of the product. The overall tone of the article is certainly not an advertisement, nor is it biased in favor of the manufacturer. Therefore, the links are not a problem.
"There have been long-standing tags on the article requesting citations." - I checked a version from 2 weeks ago. As of that point in time, there were no major tags on the article. As of 2 weeks ago there were 2 references that someone wanted verification on because the cited sources are apparently not currently on-line. Again, there is no requirement that every source be available online. We cite plenty of out-of-print-books, magazine articles that have never appeared online, etc. I'd prefer to see each source accompanied by a live link, but that is not an absolute requirement.
I'll examine this statement in two parts
1. "Although the article is covered by the WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, there are almost not references that fulfill the requirement of WP:MEDRS...." - this has nothing to do with whether the article if FA or not. Any wikiproject can come along and find a thin connection to an article and slap their talk-page tag on it. I've seen articles with 10 wikiproject tags on it!! That doesn't mean that article must meet the requirements of those projects to be FA. WikiProjects don't control FA.
2. "Rather, the references seem to reinforce that this article is about this product for which it appears there is little scientific evidence that it is reliable or works as advertised." - yes, exactly. The available scientific evidence seems to say that this test does not work and may even be fraudulent. That is reflected 100% in this article, which is how it should be.
"There are also 1d concerns; for example, there are some promotion quotes included in the article from those that are selling it, but none from the scientific community giving an unbiased view." - again, on the whole I think the article is very fair. Any educated reader who read this article would come away with the idea that the product is no good and possibly fraudulent. I don't see any bias in favor of the manufacturer at all.
The two images need alt text as per WP:ALT. - I am not familiar with WP:ALT. I will read up on it and come back to reply and/or fix that issue.

Best, Johntex\ 00:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: I have now added Alt text for the two images. Johntex\ 02:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All the dead links are tagged on the article; the tags were removed by a revert. Please do not revert the tags if you want to know what the problems with the article references are. All the links that do not give the information purported are tagged on the article; again you reverted the tags. Please do not remove the tags without fixing. The tags are there to inform you of what needs fixing. I stand by my opinion that the article appears to promote the product and there are not balancing views from the scientific community. It has a banner on the talk page that it belongs to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Medicine (recently added) and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, therefore it should follow WP:MEDRS for reference citations. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the version of the article that tags the dead links and those that do not provide the information cited. Please use this version to address the link issues I have raised. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I can refer to that version; no need to have all the tags in the live version. Johntex\ 02:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you look at Talk:Baby Gender Mentor, you will see that my concerns have been voiced there repeatedly over the years by other editors. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is an accurate reflection of the discussion on that page. If you look at the time stamps, you will see that discussion occurred over a period of about 5 days. This was one incident; it is not like people have repeatedly voiced any concern "over the years".

What happened was this: When the article was selected to be the Main Page FA, there were some people who were worried that having ANY product featured on the Main Page was akin to serving as an advertisement for that product.

If you will please re-read the discussion, you will see that other people joined in the discussion on the other side: saying that Misplaced Pages has articles on many things, and that includes products. Any of those articles can make it to the main page. You will also see people saying that they don't see how this can be interpreted as any kind of advertisement. Johntex\ 02:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

But this is a product that appears to be unreliable and possibly a scam. Also, most of the references go to either product pages, or to sites that sell the product. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:15, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Note to FAR reviewers: Please consider this version in evaluating the article, as the nominator has again reverted the tagging of dead links and inaccurate links, so that the problems are not evident in the "live" version. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To Johntex: it was unhelpful of you to remove the dead link/verification needed tags from the (live) article. This is a wiki where many users collaborate to improve the content. If you leave the tags in place, other editors (including myself) would find it easier to find and correct the highlighted problems. Axl ¤ 19:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've never thought this was a particularly brilliant article -- good, and maybe good enough, but with odd flaws. For example, ref is to Pamela Prindle Fierro. "Vanishing Twin Syndrome". About.com. Why the heck are we citing About.com for the percentage of pregnancies that involve vanishing twins? Can't we cite proper papers or medical textbooks? Or is this statistic so generally rejected that we have to stoop to what is essentially a self-published source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Note It is very unfortunate that the editor is working on the version of the page that reverted the links marked {{deadlink}} and links marked {{Failed verification}} and {{rs}}. These included many named references that were repeatedly cited. The editor should agree to check the this version before declaring that these link problems have been rectified. Altogether, approximately 40 citations fell into these categories. Many links are to unreliable or irrelevant sources. I don't understand all the links to the "vanishing twin" issue. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 19:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Sample of dead or dysfunctional or misleading links:

Many sources are unreliable or have very limited reliability, and some are used repeatedly. Examples:

Some sources are irrelevant:

—Mattisse (Talk) 00:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Delist per above concerns (many, many "" and "" links; editor reverted the tags without fixing problems); too many links to commercial sites; concerns about source quality). I don't understand the many reference citations to the "vanishing twin" issue, at least three to PMID articles. What is the relevance to the apparently fraudulant Baby Gender Mentor? Seems at best like WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Not sure it looks too bad at first glance - is work still being done actively on this? Cirt (talk) 06:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I have gone through the article once again and marked the many, many {{deadlink}} and {{failed verification}} tags. Before when I did this, the tags were reverted without the article being fixed. I don't think anyone but me has really checked the article out and looked at the citations. I am at a loss how this article ever passed FAC to begin with. It has a lot of seemingly relevant (but actually irrelevant to the topic) information to give it a clothing of respectability, like so many links on the "vanishing twin" stuff. Basically, this is an article about a fraudulent product. Please check that the numerous faulty links (which I have checked individually) are actually fixed and not just reverted without fixing. Also, there are links to blogs and old {{verification needed}} tags in the article. Many links are to the company sites and to press releases. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist per Matisse's comments. A lot of tags need to be repaired, but I think it can be done. JKBrooks85 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 .

Douglas Adams

Review commentary

Notified: JohnDBuell, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biography, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject BBC, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Atheism, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Monty Python, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Doctor Who, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Comedy, Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject London

1c) Undercited - in my opinion, there are facts that need citations. I am listing only a few examples. There are many throughout the article:

"A version of the revue performed live in London's West End led to Adams being discovered by Monty Python's Graham Chapman."
"He had been wandering the countryside while carrying a book called the Hitch-hiker's Guide to Europe when he ran into a town where, as he humorously describes, everyone was either "deaf" and "dumb" or only spoke languages he could not understand. After wandering around and drinking for a while, he went to sleep in the middle of a field and was inspired by his inability to communicate with the townspeople. He later said that due to his constantly retelling this story of inspiration, he no longer had any memory of the moment of inspiration itself, and only remembered his retellings of that moment."
"A postscript to M. J. Simpson's biography of Adams, Hitchhiker: A Biography of Douglas Adams, provides evidence that the story was in fact a fabrication and that Adams had conceived the idea some time after his trip around Europe."
"This was an entirely original work, Adams' first since So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. Reviewers, however, were not as generous with praise for the second volume as they had been for the first. After the obligatory book tours, Adams was off on his round-the-world excursion which supplied him with the material for Last Chance to See."

1c) There are uncited quotations. Here is one example:

"After graduation he spent several years contributing material to radio and television shows as well as writing, performing, and sometimes directing stage revues in London, Cambridge and at the Edinburgh Fringe. He has also worked at various times as a hospital porter, barn builder, chicken shed cleaner, bodyguard, radio producer and script editor of Doctor Who."

3) File:DNA in Monty Python.jpg - I am unconvinced by the need for this non-free image. I agree it is cool, but I'm not sure it meets WP:NFCC #8.

1a, 1b, and 2b) Comprehensiveness and structure:

The sections on Adams' writings do not explain what they are about, their themes, or his writing style. I would cut some of the details about production of Hitchiker's, for example, and describe the series/books themselves.
The "Doctor Who" section is poorly organized. Much of it seems to be an assortment of trivia rather than an explanation of precisely what Adams' involvement was with Doctor Who. There are several very short paragraphs that reveal this.
The "Music" section seems to be given a lot of space in the article when it is actually just a collection of rather random facts. Much of the information seems relevant to the articles on Hitchiker rather than this article (it explains allusions, for example). I would suggest removing much of this material.
I'm wondering if the "Computer games and projects" section should be integrated into the biography proper. Right now it is a prose list. If it were integrated into the biography, it would help the reader understand when particular events happened in Adams' life.
I would suggest integrating the "Personal life" section into the biography proper. Too much of Adams' life is fragmented in the article right now to properly understand it.
I do not think that the "Biographies" section is necessary, as these are sources that the article should use.
I'm wondering if the "Tributes and honorifics" section should be deleted. It seems as if this is WP:TRIVIA.

1c) Sourcing: I checked the MLA database and there are scholarly articles by literary critics on Adams and his works that should be a part of any biography on him. None of those are used as sources in this article, therefore it is not "well-researched" and does not represent a "thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic".

I hope these suggestions are helpful. Awadewit (talk) 16:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The signature in the image is legible, so it doesn't illustrate illegibility. The image does not illustrate the point being made. DrKiernan (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Links 27 and 40 are dead.--andreasegde (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Agree with Awadewit's observations. This article has ballooned up from 62 kB when it was passed as FA to 213 kB now. I believe it needs to be reorganized, cleaned of cruft, the prose polished, and facts and quotes need to be properly cited. There are unreliable sources like a yahoo user group. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, reliable sources, comprehensiveness, quality of research, structure alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Delist per 1a, 1b, 1c, 2, and 3. Awadewit (talk) 03:04, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist per concerns raised by Awadewit and others. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist, per FA criteria concerns. Cirt (talk) 11:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist. Matisse appeared to be doing some work on it, but he hasn't edited it in a week. Many of the concerns raised in the first part of the review remain. JKBrooks85 (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Delsit. Per Awadewit. Her concerns are not being addressed. The section "Tributes and honorifics" is a trivia section containing cruft having nothing to do with tributes and honorifics. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:47, 1 September 2009 .

Stanisław Koniecpolski

Review commentary

Notified WikiProject Poland, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Biography and Piotrus.

This article currently fails FA criterion 1c, since there entire paragraphs/sections without citations. In addition, the article almost entirely relies on one source. I'm not sure if other sources are available, but I would appreciate it if some more attention could be paid towards identifying potential sources that might detail notable information not found in Podhorodecki (1978). Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 14:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the books here, but on the bright side, anybody with access to Podhorecki biography of him should be able to reference this article easily. This book, which I used when writing the article,is as far as I know is the major work dedicated to him, and hence, practically the obligatory source for the article (any other works are either less comprehensive or very specialized one one aspect/era of his life). On the down side, without access to this book one will not be able to finish referencing this article. Few months ago I started adding inline citations, but didn't finish (as can be cleary seen from refs :D). I'll have access to my copy in Poland again in December. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started adding refs from what I can get from online sources but unfortunately I don't have access to Podhorodecki. I think the more general stuff can be reffed with online sources but some of the details will need the more specific book. I think most of the reffing can be done in the next few weeks - how much time do we have here?radek (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Could we get an update here? I've seen some progress since the FAR started, but the page has been devoid of activity for the past two weeks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Delist. The prose in this article is abysmal, it's riddled with weasel words and imprecise language, and missing citations abound. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. It's summer - activity is bound to be sporadic. A good bit of citing has already been done but then I had to take ten days off for real life reasons. I can now resume work on this.radek (talk) 10:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Good to hear! I'll keep an eye on it and remove the delist in a few days as progress continues. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!radek (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Also it would be helpful if someone could fact tag all the text that needs to be referenced. In several cases multiple sentences can be sourced to the same ref but I'm not sure if I need to inline after every comma (if one's familiar with the person one might miss a need for a ref). This would make the work easier and direct my efforts to where they need to go.radek (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Added. Citations also are needed for that footnote about the year of his birth, since none were included in the body of the article there. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

To try to help out a bit, I added a toolbox to the upper right corner of this review page. For example, you can visit its "alt text" tool to find out the alt text problems I mentioned above. Eubulides (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Delist The article is riddled with citation tags and the alt text has not been added. There are also prose concerns (random examples):

Stanisław Koniecpolski lived a life that involved almost constant warfare, and during his military career he won many victories.
With inferior forces fought the Swedish forces of Gustavus Adolphus to a stalemate in Prussia.
In 1615 and 1616, Koniecpolski gained experience in Ukraine fighting against Tatar hordes, but he failed to break or capture any sizable enemy units.
Soon afterward, Koniecpolski was defeated by the Tatars near Oryn, where he made a mistake of charging in front of his army against overwhelming odds and consequently barely made it out of the battle alive.
They returned to Poland in spring 1623 during the aftermath of the Ottoman defeat at Khotyn and the stabilization of Polish-Ottoman relations that was helped by the diplomatic mission of Krzysztof Zbaraski which bought the freedom of captives for 30,000 talars.
He also repelled a counterattack by Swedish raitars, who were pushed in the direction of Pułkowice, where another counterattack was led by Gustavus Adolphus with 2,000 raitars. This counterattack was also stopped, and the Swedish forces were saved by the last reserve units led by field marshal Herman Wrangel, who managed to stop the Polish attack.

—mattisse (Talk) 19:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the stauts on this? Major improvements have not been made for 10 days. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
No one has edited the article since you posted above on 21 August. Dabomb87. —mattisse (Talk) 23:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Misplaced Pages

:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:47, 1 September 2009

Archives

Kept status

Removed status

Médecins Sans Frontières

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Franklin B. Gowen

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Sequence alignment

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Yuan (surname)

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Baby Gender Mentor

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Douglas Adams

Review commentary

FARC commentary

Stanisław Koniecpolski

Review commentary

FARC commentary