Misplaced Pages

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

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article review Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:29, 9 October 2009 editYellowAssessmentMonkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,460 edits →Removed status: +← Previous edit Revision as of 23:53, 12 October 2009 edit undoYellowAssessmentMonkey (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,460 edits →Removed status: +2Next edit →
Line 53: Line 53:


==Removed status== ==Removed status==
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/"Weird Al" Yankovic/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Introduction to evolution/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Arrested Development (TV series)/archive1}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Arrested Development (TV series)/archive1}}
{{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Sheffield/archive1}} {{Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Sheffield/archive1}}

Revision as of 23:53, 12 October 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.

Archives

Kept status

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by Marskell 20:59, 8 October 2009 .

Talbot Tagora

Review commentary

Notified: Bravada, WikiProject Automobiles

Concerns: Seems quite short (1b), limited number of references, few of which are clear cut reliable sources (1c), could use move/better quality images and more comprehensive captions (3). Aubergine (talk) 01:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 03:19, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment: It doesn't look that bad to me; the main thing I'd suggest is substituting specific page numbers for the Auto Katalog references (if possible) instead of a general range reference. Without having the catalog at hand, I can't make that decision. I'd also suggest a quick runthrough for weasel words; forex "far short". Other than that, the prose looks concise. JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I have gone over the article and fixed up all issues that are within my ability to fix, however, I do not have any print sources for this car so I can replace the two "questionable" references. I would just like to note that the "questionable" sources are not referencing anything controversial (it's only a car) so I would argue that they are okay. If this was a biography or controversial event, I wouldn't be arguing this.
"Seems quite short (1b)": we work with the references available, the article seems to cover everything important. Aubergine, could you please point out the information that you felt was lacking?
"could use move/better quality images and more comprehensive captions": the image quality is fine for the subject in question. Captions have been addressed. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Can you please fix the alt text too? Click on the "alt text" button in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. Please see WP:ALT for advice about what should go into those (now-empty) blue boxes. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, comprehensiveness, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 02:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


  • Keep I admit to have written a good chunk of this article as it stands, and I am absolutely positive those were and are the "best quality" sources we can get on this obscure subject. Other possible sources are either inaccurate or incomprehensive, so even if they might look nicer by means of being print or more "high-quality" websites, they wouldn't consitute better-quality SOURCES for me. This is a rather special case in that there was minimal coverage of the subject by any form of lasting media, and I understand it is raising considerable doubts, but I hope this meets with understanding. Please do point me towards better sources if I missed some by any chance.
    As concerns comprehensiveness, this article really says all there was to say about the subject, and then some. I was actually getting anxious there was too much of trivial and unencyclopedic material put in there, so I am quite surprised the article is getting doubts on the other front. OTOH, similar concerns were raised during the original FA candidacy, and proved mostly to stem out of reviewer's cursory look at the article as "too short". Such concerns usually fade away on more thorough reading - there really isn't much, or actually anything, left to say.
    The alt text issue seems to have been fixed by OSX, or am I wrong?
    Kind regards, PrinceGloria (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"I admit to have written a good chunk of this article as it stands" - Good to see you back Bravada! I think I asked you about this last year YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Your not the only one then: "So I am guessing you are the same person as the long retired User:Bravada? I have kind of suspected that for a while now." OSX (talk • contributions) 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I emailed him last year. Who else edits vintage cars and Eurovision? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 04:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the alt text problem has not been fixed yet. Please click on "alt text" in the toolbox at the upper right of this review page. All the little blue boxes are blank, which means the alt text is missing. Eubulides (talk) 07:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
All images have captions. Please check the actual article rather than relying on that tool sever programme. OSX (talk • contributions) 07:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This thread is about alt text, not about captions. Alt text is intended for visually impaired people, who cannot see the image; it typically has very little to do with the caption. Please see WP:ALT #Difference from captions. Eubulides (talk) 16:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
So if visually impaired people cannot see the image, how are the supposed to read the text? Wouldn't an alt text description be against WP:OR? OSX (talk • contributions) 12:59, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Typically they use a screen reader like JAWS, which reads the alt text and caption out loud to the user. The alt text should contain only information that can immediately be verified by a non-expert who is merely looking at the image; this satisfied WP:OR since the image itself supports the alt text. These topics, and others related to alt text, are discussed further in WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Alt text now added. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, it's now present, but it needs work. "Brown Talbot Tagora" conveys one word ("Brown") about visual appearance, but the other two words "Talbot Tagora" are not about visual appearance and repeat the caption. Alt text is supposed to not repeat the caption, and should focus on visual appearance only. It's OK for later images to have alt text that say "Talbot Tagora" and thus to refer to the lead image, but the lead image should describe the gist of the visual appearance of this automobile: it's a 4-door sedan, it's an angular style with rectangular headlights, it has a black stripe along the side at bumper height. This shouldn't be too long; just the gist. Later images can have alt text that describes what's distinctive about this particular view of the car. Similarly, "Grey-coloured automobile interior" doesn't contain quite enough detail: I'd shoot for something more in the range of 20 to 40 words. Eubulides (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comments: I'm concerned about the adverbs in the first sentence of the design subsection: "generous", "ample", and "large" aren't precise and might be called weasel-wordy, unless they can be backed up with a source. Can someone provide one or give accurate measurements as to the wheelbase changes, etc.? JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I have fixed this up as best I can without loosing meaning (). It cannot be ignored that the Tagora is a large car. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, the sources seem to use much of the same language. How well has the car held up under maintenance? Have there been any long-term problems? JKBrooks85 (talk) 04:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Hard to see how this ever became a FA to begin with. Seems like a very minimal article. If this can be a FA, then many, many can be. But so be it. —mattisse (Talk) 00:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Looks alright. Not sure if it'd pass through WP:FAC today, but not worth delisting either. Cirt (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Provisional keep. But has someone sifted through for prose and MoS? "newly-launched"? (Check Hyphens).
  • Why is "bankruptcy" linked? It's a normal English word, yes?
  • Some of the images are TINY. Please increase: see this for the syntax: try 240 to 260px often.
  • "The deal was finalized in 1978, with the buyer paying a mere"—clumsy. Try ", in which the buyer paid ...". See this.
  • "Rather" is almost always unencyclopedic.
  • Does the "axle" link-target go to a specifically car axle section? ("Pre-production" is good: car article).
  • Linked "billboard advertising"? Is it an obscure item? "Brass"?
  • "higher power rating." -> "higher power-rating." Easier to read. Tony (talk) 14:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. OSX (talk • contributions) 14:05, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

Removed status

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Misplaced Pages talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 23:53, 12 October 2009 .

"Weird Al" Yankovic

Review commentary

Notified: User:BullWikiWinkle, User:Maxamegalon2000

I am nominating this featured article for review because large chunks are lacking in sources (1C):

  • The first three paragraphs of the "Music" section are unsourced, as is most of its "Music Videos" subsection.
  • "Reactions from original artists" also has unsourced OR.
  • "Notable television appearances" is also sorely lacking in sources, replete with a {{fact}} tag.
  • The discography list of Grammy awards should probably not have the dates pipe-linked, either.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Images need alt text as per WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Quick comment: Discog links are piped to the respective year's Grammy awards, as opposed to a date page. This would be appropriate "date" linking as such as it is. --MASEM (t) 20:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, sources, alt text. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:51, 28 September 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 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 23:53, 12 October 2009 .

Introduction to evolution

Review commentary

Notified: User:Filll, WikiProject Evolutionary biology, Evolution


I would like to nominate that Introduction to evolution be reconsidered and removed as a FA. I am a biologist with a BSc, MSc, I am working on my MEd in ecoliteracy, and I have been teaching evolution to university students for the past ten years. I also hold grants and research in the field of evolutionary biology. There are MANY conceptual errors in this article. It is not entirely clear why this article exists in the first place, it is almost as complex as the main article Evolution and it is misleading in many respects. This is a very poor introductory article to be read by schoolkids for example - it would confuse the hell out of them.

Reviewing the criteria:

1. It is—

  • (a) not well-written: its prose is not engaging, hardly brilliant, and of a un-professional standard;

For example:

"Several basic observations establish the theory of evolution, which explains the variety and relationship of all living things. There are genetic variations within a population of individuals. Some individuals, by chance, have features that allow them to survive and thrive better than their kind. The individuals that survive will be more likely to have offspring of their own. The offspring might inherit the useful feature."

Please re-read that last paragraph. It is clearly not well-written. It is confusing because it makes broad generalizations that miss the premise and requires huge conceptual leaps.

  • (b) comprehensive: it neglects lots of major facts or details and places the subject in context;

There are entire sections that have few if any references that are entirely based on conjecture. For example, the first few paragraphs on Introduction_to_evolution#Source_of_variation is original research that cites only Darwin. I hardly doubt that Darwin reflected on how he was mistaken about heredity. The first sentence in this section is also a run-on sentence and so I refer you back to criteria 1a. This article cannot deliver on the type of information that is required of any person to grasp the concepts of natural selection (e.g., )

  • (c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature on the topic. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported with citations; this requires a "References" section that lists these sources, complemented by inline citations where appropriate;

Some sections are well-researched, however, the interpretations are oftentimes incorrect. For example, the lead states: "Traits which help the organism survive and reproduce are more likely to accumulate in a population than traits that are unfavorable, a process called natural selection." This is NOT natural selection - it conflates adaptation with natural selection in an awkward way only to confuse the issue. Hence, it does not serve its utility as an introduction. This topic is of such importance and has been addressed time and time again by many scientific organizations, such as The National Academy of Sciences’s book, "Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science (1998)" -- the concepts must be presented accurately.

  • (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;

There are lots of missing examples that would give the article balance. For example, there is no mention of sexual selection - which is one of the simplest examples that is used to demonstrate the principals of natural selection in an introductory level. What about ring-species? Every introductory book on evolution teaches the ring-species example, because it is conceptually the simplest way to demonstrate how breeding and geographic isolation has occurred. Some of the references are suspect - some of them take you to websites rather than peer-reviewed literature source, which introduces bias.

  • (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

Did the reviewer even read the talk pages? What a mistake this nomination was. There is an effort taking place to re-write the entire article from scratch because of the problems it faces.

2. It follows the style guidelines...okay, it does this, but the structure is poor:

  • 1 Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection
  • 2 Source of variation
  • 3 Modern synthesis
  • 4 Evidence for evolution
  • 4.1 Fossil record
  • 4.2 Comparative anatomy
  • 4.3 Molecular biology
  • 4.4 Co-evolution
  • 4.5 Artificial selection
  • 5 Species
  • 6 Different views on the mechanism of evolution
  • 6.1 Rate of change
  • 6.2 Unit of change

Looking at this from afar you can see that it jumps around. This is an introductory article and #3 is about the Modern synthesis?? It is highly inconceivable that someone without any knowledge of the subject would be able to understand and comprehend the modern synthesis in the way it is presented. This introduction should be presented using a time-line of the topic, such as Historical Figures in Evolution. There are few sub-headings that would help in the organization of this article.

and

4. Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

For an introductory article the paragraphs are long and tedious. None of my students would be able to maintain consciousness long enough to get through one of the un-captivating paragraphs. They go into too much detail and need to be broken down. The sub-heading issue discussed above would help this.

Without going into too much detail - there has been much debate on this controversial topic - this article is DEFINITELY not worthy of FA designation. Please see that this article is removed from the FA list so that people do not get a misleading idea of what evolution is really about. This would confuse the hell out of the kids I teach. Thanks.Thompsma (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


Delist for three reasons: (a) clarity and conciseness; (2) scope; (iii) quality of writing. (These pertain to WP:FA? 1a and 4. I think criterion 1b "comprehensive" can be bracketed for the moment, since an introductory article is expected to overlook at least some major issues that are too 'complex' to be adequately treated in a mere introduction.) a and iii are pretty self-evident, but regarding scope, I question why an article 'introducing' readers to the concept of evolution would spend 2 pages explaining evolution, 2 pages polemically defending evolution ("here's evidence for why you should believe us!"), and 2 pages discussing the history of evolutionary biology and the complex network of changing ideas in the field. Should our Introduction to general relativity article spend as much time discussing the lives and politics of physicists as it spends explaining the actual content of the theory? As I understand it, an article merely introducing a scientific idea or concept to readers should spend 99% of its time on that concept alone, and at most 1% explaining its historical background and social context. Framing the first section of an intro article as 'Darwin's idea: evolution by natural selection' does absolutely nothing to clarify what evolution is to anyone; if someone's taking a British history test and needs to know what Charles Darwin's big idea was, this might help (though not much, since Darwin never once used the term "evolution"), but if they're here to understand biology and the natural world, they'd be much better served by sections with titles like 'Natural selection: Traits helping and harming organisms', or even just 'Selection'. -Silence (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor technical correction: Charles Darwin stated that "from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved" as the closing sentence to all editions of On the Origin of Species, he introduced the increasingly fashionable term "evolution" to his writings in his 1871 publication The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, and subsequently used the term in the 1872 6th edition of The Origin of Species. . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment In regards to stability. The article is essentially identical to the version that achieved FA status over a year ago (The concern raised does not seem related to archaic information). The changes that have occurred are extremely minor at best. Perhaps the concern over stability raised by the nominator is based on the torrid history up to the Fa achievement. If so, then please see Raul654 comments on the original FA listing Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Introduction to evolution regarding edits for improvement during FA. Since the article has not changed since the original FA; this request; I can only assume is a rejection of the original decision to list. No doubt, Raul654, filtered through the massive amounts of commentary during that period along with the even more dramatic Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Introduction to evolution (2nd nomination) that was occurring simultaneously. Essentially, we are opening an old case. Few, if any of the many contributors during that period wish to re-live that event. I suspect the members of "The Wiki-gang" from the past hung up their guns and went into seclusion. This should prove interesting... I'll watch list the page.--Random Replicator (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)(Sorry - I was responding from my retired account --JimmyButler (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC))

  • I agree that the article is very stable. In fact, I would raise the opposite problem. Too little change has taken place on this article. The editors at Evolution and others should be working on maintaining and improving it, but instead it seems that different factions have taken over the different pages, turning Evolution and Introduction to evolution into editorial POV forks of one another rather than an 'introduction-overview' relationship. (The lack of growth and change on the Intro page also accounts for part of the divergence between the two articles: Many of the 'features' of Introduction are actually vestigial leftovers which used to be present on both pages, but were removed from the more high-traffic Evolution page because they weren't very helpful, while slipping through the cracks on the Intro over the years.) -Silence (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Ownership and POV pushing are serious allegations that go beyond a merely badly constructed article. I've carefully re-read the talk page since FA and fail to see any evidence of this claim. In fact, I see the contrary, nothing but passionate discussion; however, consensus was reached in every case. Most importantly, I see no reverts of anyone's contributions other than vandalism. Your perception would have to be based on indirect observation; since I can see no examples where you have contributed to either the discussion or the article since it obtained FA status. I have requested that Thompsma respond; since he is the only User that I can find in the edit history that engaged in serious dialog over content in the past year. If he felt ostracized, then I am both wrong and sincerely disappointed in my behavior as an editor. --JimmyButler (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
?? Where did anyone suggest ownership or POV pushing? All I said was that different groups of editors have tended to work on Evolution and Introduction to evolution; it's as though the two articles, though sharing a distant common origin, were reproductively isolated, preventing healthy hybridization and gene (idea) flow, with the result that the article with less selective (editorial) pressure placed on it, Introduction to evolution, retained many subpar traits that were whittled away on the main page. :) That is how content forks usually develop. (If I was unclear in talking about 'editorial POV' above, I was simply referring to the different views editors have about, e.g., what sections to include on the page. If you go back to what Evolution looked like when the Intro to Evolution was created, you'll notice many, many more similarities to how the Intro page looks even today, e.g., with sprawling "Evidence" and "History of evolutionary thought" sections, lipservice to Dawkins and Gould, etc.) -Silence (talk) 18:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I misinterpreted "different factions have taken over the different pages" which was intended to read "different groups tend to work on different articles". Thank you for your clarification. --JimmyButler (talk) 18:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Culpa est mea, I am sometimes prone to overly melodramatic wordings. :) -Silence (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The article was - very - thoroughly reviewed while at FAC. It hasn't changed much since then. If the nominator sees problems, then be bold and edit the article. All articles can be improved including this one. But to suggest that it somehow slipped through the cracks and doesn't meet FA standards is a bit off-base. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would gladly simply start editing the article today .. except that the edits I'm proposing are so sweeping that they would require us to delist the FA article anyway (both because it would violate the 'stability' criterion, and simply because the article will have changed so much that it needs to be resubmitted as an FA). So, whether I improve the article to the point where it satisfies me (and thus completely change its scope) or leave it the mess it is, either way it has to be delisted because it will either be too low-quality to be FA, or it will be in effect a brand-new article, needing to go through the same series of hoops any article does before becoming FA'd.
For example: My first suggestion is to delete two-thirds of the article immediately. No "Evidence" sections (an article is not an argument!), no "Different views on the mechanism of evolution" sections, and no "Modern synthesis" section. And delete "Artificial selection" too while you're at it; this obfuscates the underlying process of evolution in the exact same way that appealing to the 'macro/micro' distinction would here. My second suggestion would be to completely reorganize and rewrite all the remaining sections: Instead of a "Molecular biology" section (which is about as non-introductory as you can get), integrate occasional crucial details of molecular biology (e.g., 'What is DNA?') into more general, flowing, and straightforward sections with super-simple names like "Variation" or "How does evolution work?". If our presentation of the topic isn't maximally simple and straightforward, and we don't want to treat the intro article as a content fork, all we're left with is simple:Evolution, which is obviously not the main function of introductory pages (even if simplicity of language is part of our modus operandi). -Silence (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Which policy or guideline says that an FA article must be delisted to make changes - even 'sweeping' changes? I think you misunderstand article stability which is to do with edit warring than legit content addition. FA articles can always be edited and improved. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I fully agree with Silence and I don't see where there was any mention of POV pushing in the article. Nobody has said this is what has happened. I think that the article had not been accesses as much as the main Evolution article and so it had not received the same degree of scrutiny. The article may have been stable at the time of the FA review - forgive me for not putting a proper time line to the events. However, now that it has been opened up for discussion to a wider audience I feel that some of its deficiencies are coming to light. Given my review and understanding of the material - I completely disagree with Wassupwestcoast, the article does not meet FA standards. There are too many mistakes in the article and it is not very well written. I agree with Silence that too little has changed in the article. Moreover, I wrote JimmyButler to let him know that he did not make me feel ostracized at all - in fact I found his comments useful. This is a very difficult subject matter to be contending with and this is why this debate is taking place. In my expert opinion on the subject matter at hand - this article does not qualify for FA status because:

1. It is not introductory - it is complex.

2. It makes conceptual errors by trying to squeeze a difficult topic into simple language.

3. The quality writing hardly qualifies for FA standards.

Thompsma (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This article went through a very thorough FAC: it meets FA criteria. Sorry it doesn't meet your personal FA criteria. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't see any "personal FA criteria" above. Thompsa is using the same criteria as you. We simply disagree about whether the article meets those criteria. -Silence (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
What I mean is that the community - Misplaced Pages - engaged in a thorough debate. Some editors thought that it didn't and some thought that it did. Concensus was reached that the article did meet FA criteria. This doesn't mean that it will satisify everyone's personal FA criteria. An FA article isn't supposed to be the definitive article on a subject: there will always be room for improvement and disagreement. All articles are a work in progress. The FA star doesn't indicate 'done'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! I agree with you on all counts.
However, I will give you one more chance to qualify your recommendations that I be bold and just start improving the article with my proposed changes. I do not think this would have the effect you expect :) I have stated that the proposed changes would render the article unrecognizable, compared to its status ante-FAR. This is why I do not think "just fix it!" is a valid option for keeping FA status. "Accept criticism + don't make improvements" and "Accept criticism + make improvements" will both result in delisting, for different reasons. The line defenders of this article's FA status should take up instead is: "Reject criticism" (+ make other, unrelated improvements, and/or leave it as-is). For example, if you can explain why my understanding of the role of an 'introduction to evolution' is wrong, my objection to over 2/3 of the article will evaporate. -Silence (talk) 19:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't really know how to answer. Misplaced Pages is a community where consensus - policy - is the guiding principle. I guess if your 'sweeping' changes don't have the tacit agreement of the community then they would be reverted. Personally, I don't see why they would be. You don't seem to be a vandal :-) Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
My critique of the article with respect to Wassupwestcoast suggestion that it does not meet my 'personal' FA satisfaction is incorrect. I am not presenting my argument according to my personal views - I am a scientist and I have published on the subject of evolution in peer-reviewed journals. In my expert opinion, after studying on the topic of evolution, and teaching the subject matter for many years I can see that there are MANY conceptual errors on the page. An FA article must meet professional writing standards and this article does not meet this criteria because it fails to present the correct information. The first few sentences of the article make an immediate error on what natural selection is - how much worse can it get? I read through the extensive review - many of the reviewers admitted that they could not comment on the scientific accuracy and would defer this to others to comment on this. There were a few comments on the science - but few that I would qualify as expert on the subject. I am an expert on this subject and I am giving it my review in this context - the page as it stands does not give an accurate portrayal of evolution - it is filled with propositions that differ from the peer-reviewed published scientific explanations. If an FA article is going to introduce the topic - it better get it right. This article needs to be de-listed from the FA status because it is not factual. It is a quasi-scientific article that uses many of the terms found in evolution publications - it sounds scientific and it sounds correct, but does not put the pieces together correctly. It needs to be removed because it does not give a proper review and/or understanding of evolution.Thompsma (talk) 20:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you are an expert then be bold and add content to the article. I'm not certain that you understand that 'delisting' the article has but one result: the little bronze star disappears from the article page. The article itself is still accessible. And, I doubt very many readers of Misplaced Pages notice or understand what the star means. If you are concerned with the content of the article: contribute by editing and revising the article. You are expending a lot of effort in finding fault. No one is going to do the revision for you. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I say this with no intent to inflame. Respect for expertise on Misplaced Pages is gained through your contribution history as judged by others. Real world attributes - in isolation - hold no credibility. For one, they can be falsified (I do not for a moment think that is the case here). It is important that with respect all editors contributions on equal footing and not use our credentials to strengthen our case. It may in fact, intimidate potential contributors who may feel inadequate when we use, as merit to out argument - our expertise. Again, I know that is not your intent; however, the listing of your credentials in the opening statement may give undue credence to one individuals point of view. I am very sensitive to this, in that I have a group of high school students editing Misplaced Pages and at present their biggest fear are the potential experts. (Insert request for all to join us here: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject AP Biology 2009! Cheers!--JimmyButler (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. For an example of major revisions occurring to an FA article without the article being delisted, consider the case of The Hardy Boys; a seemingly innocuous article that was thoroughly reviewed at FA. Within a short time after being listed, a couple of new editors wanted to do some major revisions. The affair was heated. Just looking at Talk:The Hardy Boys/Archive 2 will melt your eyeballs a la Indian Jones. But the revisions gained consensus. The changes were made. And, the article maintained its FA status throughout. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All good points. After thinking this through - I agree with Wassupwestcoast - it is open to revision and perhaps the time would be better spent doing this. There is much of the article that I do like, by they way - but feel the FA review is premature. There are some sections that need help - I'll do what I can to help out, but I think I'm going to take a little time-out and come back to this when my thoughts are clearer. Perhaps we can find a good compromise - I do like the work that Silence is doing on his sandbox - he has some great ideas.Thompsma (talk) 04:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I strongly agree with Wassupwestcoast too. There are some very good points here about weaknesses in the article, and some good suggestions for improvements, and if someone – especially someone with expertise in the subject and experience of making such a subject accessible to beginners – is able to spend some time working on it, then that is to be applauded and encouraged. What I completely fail to understand is why it is necessary to indulge in a discussion about whether the present version is worthy of FA status. If work is done to improve the article, the "present version" rapidly becomes irrelevant. The rubber-stamping of "FA status" is equally irrelevant. If the article isn't up to standard, then improve it, tinker with it, rewrite it from scratch, whatever it takes! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 06:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment the article did well for its time, as the main evolution article has improved it has exposed weaknesses in this article, and Silence's proposals which are currently being implemented appear to be bringing significant improvements. Welcome attention to an article which has been a bit neglected. . . dave souza, talk 19:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has been restructured to the point that the original FA in no longer relevant. It should be de-listed immediately and renominated at a later date.--JimmyButler (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There is no need to delist the article immediately and nominate it later. On the contrary, it is common for articles to be edited substantially while being reviewed, and then to be kept. As Misplaced Pages:Featured article review says, "The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them." Eubulides (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I guess I mis-understand the process. Is the commentary on this page an evaluation of the original article or the new version? If the new version - then none of the comments above are relevant to this discussion and in fact make no sense. If the old - then the old is gone. It just seemed that the FA status listed at the top of the article is no longer applicable - in the sense that it was a highly discussed "battle" over an article that is now gone. It seemed logical to resubmit an entirely different article for an FA review process on its own merits; once the editors feel they have a product worthy of such an attempt. The FA status that is currently placed there clearly is based on a product that no longer exist. Its not being edited substantially - its been completely replaced. Perhaps this page is the FA review - sort of a nominated for removal from FA approach; where you really hope it stays? I'm only familiar with the path where you offer up your work to the community for FA listing not de-listing. Sorry for my confusion -seriously.--JimmyButler (talk) 23:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
        • No problem. Your last comment is correct: this is an featured article review (see WP:FAR) and each comment on this page typically refers to the version of the article that was in place when the comment was made. It is normal during FAR for an article to (ahem) evolve and for review comments to become obsolete. There's no rush in removing the star; on the contrary the goal is to fix any problems and keep the star. Eubulides (talk) 23:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concerns are prose (1a), comprehensiveness (1b), referencing (1c), neutrality (1d), and focus (4). Marskell (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Please make concise declarations on whether the article should retain status. Marskell (talk) 22:10, 26 September 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 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 01:29, 9 October 2009 .

Arrested Development (TV series)

Review commentary

Notified: Brian0918, Arrested Development Taskforce

This article was promoted in 2005, and it doesn't look like it has had a review since. The most obvious problem with the article is its lack of citations throughout the "Themes" section (1c). I also have my doubts about how many non-free images are used (3). I believe many of them are unneeded and are unjustified. --Torsodog 19:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

  • File:GOB on stage.jpg should definitely be removed; an image doesn't help readers understand that a particular song was used. The other images, except for the logo, appear decorative; they illustrate the text but don't aide in understanding it. Is the logo actually copyrighted? I know it's trademarked, but it's typeface and a pen-marking, could be ineligible. Jay32183 (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, images. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:14, 23 September 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 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 Marskell 20:59, 8 October 2009 .

Sheffield

Review commentary

Wikiprojects notified. Nominator retired

This article has an extreme lack of citations in some place, while other places are well covered. Secondly, it has accumulated an extremely large amount of examples of notable people, groups over the years, probably due to a large amount of drive-by additions of examples, due to vanity, advertising etc YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are correct that much of the material added to this article since it became feature is not properly referenced, and some gives no appearance of notability. But I disagree that it has an "extreme lack of citations" - it has a reasonable number, and the core material is referenced. It shouldn't be too difficult to look over the additions and either reference them or remove them for lack of notability. It may, however, be a good chance to utilise more of the information available in paper publications concerning the city - the vast majority of current references are to websites. Warofdreams talk 13:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Clarified YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 06:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. FAQ? YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • It's definitely improved, but there's still some prose and citation issues. Forex, starting a sentence with a percentage figure is frowned upon. Also, "five are Grade I listed. 42 are Grade II*, the rest being Grade II listed" isn't clear to me. Is the asterisk a note that should be referenced, or is "Grade II*" a classification? I've added a smattering of citation needed tags that should be addressed. Good luck! It's been getting better, and I'd encourage Yellow Monkey to not close this as long as progress is being made. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold. Looks pretty good, but there are two places I think should be cited a little better: the first paragraph of the geography section (maybe refer to a map?) and the sport section (particularly the various minor teams that have child articles. I'd also point out that many places and terms are linked multiple times in the article, occasionally several times in the same section. I removed a few of them, but I think there are others ... the neighborhoods feel like chronic offenders. But these are fairly minor things. The article has been improved a great deal. Kudos to everyone who worked on it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 23:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that I have made good progress towards addressing many of the issues raised above. Please re-review the article before deciding on whether or not to delist. Thanks, —Jeremy (talk) 01:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold Progress is being made. I'll go through and add citation needed tags. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your help. I have dealt with most of your citation requests either by adding citations or by copyediting the text. There are six remaining for which I can't find citations or I am unsure what to do with--in all of these cases I would not object to the removal of the uncited material. —Jeremy (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. Suggest commenting out any uncited content. I see a few things to which I myself could add easy cites, which I will work on later today and tomorrow. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: I still see some citations needed issues. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Note, this article still needs a good deal of work before it's in keep territory. I saw awkward prose throughout and copyedit needs; will list examples if needed as work progresses. Mixed uses of upper and lower case throughout, and WP:DASH work needed (it's east–west, not east-west, for example). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm travelling a lot at the moment, so don't have much time for editing. If this FARC is still ongoing when I return I will be able to offer more help then. —Jeremy (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  • The population statistics in the infobox should have sources as it is counter-intuitive to suppose that the population of the entire county of Yorkshire is less than the population of Sheffield's city region.
  • Geoffrey Chaucer isn't from Sheffield. I don't think the picture is particularly pertinent. The Abbey isn't mentioned in the History, so why is it depicted?
  • The climate section needs attention. Sheffield gets 1218 DAYS of frost from December to March? That is obviously impossible. Most of the section isn't even about Sheffield. Talking of a "rain shadow" implies that it is a dry city, when surely it is actually one of the wettest places in Britain? I thought that was one of the reasons the steel industry grew up there, because of the plentiful and constant supply of water (steel production requires thousands of gallons).
  • Mention of Museums Sheffield's climate change exhibit is trivial. I would remove it and merge the section in with a reduced climate section. DrKiernan (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Delist unless a copy-edit is conducted soon. Here are problems just in the lead. Redundancy is in strong evidence. Good attributes, so let's try to save this one.

  • "The population of the City of Sheffield is estimated at 530,300 people (2007 est.)"—Estimate twice; I'd remove "estimated at".
  • Why is "steel" linked, particularly when two types of steel are linked two seconds later?
  • Remove "eventually"?
  • has increased by 60 per cent in recent years.
  • What is the "overall" economy, as opposed to the economy?
  • "averaging around five per cent annually and, as such, has been growing at a higher rate than has been experienced in Yorkshire and the Humber in general."
  • Remove "located".
  • Noun plus -ing—sometimes OK, but awkward here, as almost always when it's "with + noun + -ing": with much of the city having been built on hillsides. Three "withs" within that many seconds, too. Tony (talk) 05:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've been through and copyedited the entire article as it currently stands although I've not touched the dashes. I've also corrected the figure regarding ground frost (67 days is far more realistic than 1218!). The Economy section could do with some more citations. Thryduulf (talk) 12:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Note Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) will go through the prose within a few days. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comments
    • There's clearly something missing in this sentence from the Carbon footprint and climate change action section: "Through a combination of educational events, a portable exhibit, and community town meetings, developed and promoted a variety of action awareness programs to help Sheffield residents respond to and cope with climate change", but I'm uncertain what it is.
    • The citations need to be formatted consistently; some are formatted manually, and describe the last access date as "Accessed 13 September 2009", whereas others use "Retrieved 2009-08-016"—which obviously ought to be 2009-08-16 anyway. Probably better to consistently use either the {{cite}} template or manual formatting.
    • From the climate section: "The area's western and eastern boundaries influence its climate." The article explains that the Pennines to the west create a rain shadow, but says nothing about how Sheffield's eastern boundary shapes its climate.

--Malleus Fatuorum 21:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Status? This is long overdue but there was work just a few days ago and it has seen substantial improvement. Is anyone still working on it? Any of the opposers have further comment? Marskell (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments. Revisiting: spot check reveals that more thorough sifting is required. It's nearly there. Independent copy-edit, fairly quick job, I think.

  • Why is "sea level" linked?
  • "It has over 170 woodlands (covering 10.91 sq mi/28.3 km2),"—I think "It has over 170 woodlands covering 10.91 sq mi (28.3 km2). See top here. But then "square miles" is given in full a few seconds later: please decide for the primary units. Should area be switched from the prevailing metric primary units? Is it a road distance?
  • 10-15. See MoS. Tony (talk) 14:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Geez, this can't seem to get done. I'll ask someone to look at the images if that's one of the last two things to do. Marskell (talk) 16:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The images are fine. The one of the old football team doesn't have an absolutely solid provenance or license but it's so old (and poor quality) I can't imagine anyone claiming copyright. I still have problems with the population statistic for the City Region (which is uncited) and the Climate sections (which need trimming down as they include information which is either trivial or not about Sheffield). These would prevent me from supporting the article at a FAC, but are not sufficient for me to "!vote" to delist on a FAR. DrKiernan (talk) 08:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Great work to everyone who has cleaned up the article. However, as Dabomb87 has said, the climate section is in the most park unreferenced. Without going through the article, other bits and pieces are without sources. I suggest the article gets removed as a FA and when everything is sourced and copy edited, nominated for FA. Aaroncrick (talk) 09:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems a shame to remove after all this time. But worked has stopped and concerns remain, so off it goes. Marskell (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.