Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/April 2023

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Kept

Delisted

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

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [1].

Macedonia (terminology)

Notified: [2], 9 Dec 2022

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of sourcing issues and a needs update banner. See the talk page notice for more info. Last FAR in 2009. (t · c) buidhe 03:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing through: does anyone know what this sentence is trying to say? "Demographically, it is mainly inhabited by four ethnic groups, three of which self-identify as Macedonians: two, a Bulgarian and a Greek one at a regional level, while a third ethnic Macedonian one at a national level." For starters, who is the fourth ethnic group? It seems that something got removed at some point (though the article has been like this for years.) Zagalejo (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sentence did jump out at me as unnecessarily confusing. (t · c) buidhe 15:41, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The fourth ethnic group should be Albanians. The two groups identifying as Macedonian on a regional level are the Greeks and the Bulgarians, the one identifying as Macedonian on a national level is that of the Slavic Macedonians, North Macedonia's main ethnic group. It's confusing but that's what it means. Antondimak (talk) 09:05, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [3].

New Zealand national rugby union team

Notified: Shudde, Rodney Baggins, AmarikSZN, Dale Arnett, Giants2008, Rugby.change, Roger 8 Roger, GordyB, Gadfium, WP Rugby union, WP New Zealand, noticed on 2023-02-11

Review section

An article that has not been well-maintained for the last several years. Significant amounts of uncited text have accreted, as well as entire uncited sections and tables. Also noting some failed verification in the paragraph beginning with "Their all-time points record for tests stands at 17,715 points for and 8,521 points against ...". Some of the listings of information need to be assessed for due weight/statscruft as well. Hog Farm Talk 02:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [4].

Vkhutemas

Notified: DVD R W (last edit 2010), WikiProject Russia, WikiProject Visual arts, WikiProject Higher education, WikiProject Architecture, 2022-12-28

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because there are several unsourced statements in the article, some of the listed sources are not used as inline citations, and there is no "History" or "Timeline" section to describe its creation or significant events of the school, a common element in articles. Z1720 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that the sectioning is very unusual. That, combined with the short length/few references leads me to believe that we'd likely find comprehensiveness issues if we dug deeper. It also means that some elements in the lead, such as the student count, are not present in the body. Best, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC) [5].

Hurricane Danny (1997)

Notified: Mass Message Send, talk page notice 2021-12-07 (noting that original nominator, Hello32020, has opted out of talk page messages)

Review section

This 2007 FA has not been maintained to standard, and the nominating editor is inactive. The main issue outlined on talk on 2021-12-07 is a comprehensiveness failure, newer sources not included, and there are minor MOS issues as well. If someone intends to attempt to save this article, a CCI check will be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:04, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Rees shall we proceed to FARC, or are you planning more work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to work on Danny more as time allows.Jason Rees (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Rees you haven't edited the article since 28 February; shall me proceed to FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Time is my enemy at the moment so I guess you will sadly have to go to FARC.Jason Rees (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [6].

Liberal Movement (Australia)

Notified: Mass Message Send, talk page notice 2022-01-21

Review section

This 2007 FA has not been maintained to standards, and its FAC nominator has not edited since 2010. The main item of concern noted on talk is sourcing (over-reliance on one source). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I was the editor who place the pre-FAR notice, I've been trying to follow along with this FAR. See this reply on the article talk page from Adpete. I'm beginning to believe that some of the sourcing I thought I saw out there was for different, but similarly-named groups. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ignace Tonené/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Herman the Archdeacon/archive1 both passed fairly recently with heavy reliance on a single source as well. I'm having trouble finding the right search terms to filter attempts to find sources down to just looking for this one, because "liberal movement" + "australia" or "liberal movement" + "steele hall" are largely bringing up irrelevant things. If Jaensch is indeed the only real scholarly source to have discussed this in detail (meaning not Dunstan's memoirs or Hall's or Bullock's writings), then IMO if we used all that's available that's not a major issue. But I'm struggling to verify other literature's existence/nonexistence. I queried an Aussie MILHIST writer I respect to see if they knew of any editors who would be familiar with this topic, but they're on wikibreak and I haven't heard back yet. Hog Farm Talk 14:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My answer there was about the reliability of the source in general, not about whether it impacts on FA status. Sorry, I should have read the question more carefully. I know almost nothing FA rules so I can't really comment on its suitability, beyond saying that I consider Dean Jaensch a reliable source. Adpete (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree - I'd definitely consider Jaensch to be reliable. The bigger question is if pretty much only using Jaensch is a "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" from WP:FACR. Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC; in it's time at FAR, the lead has been tweaked a bit, a maintenance tag has been added, and the very extreme reliance on one source has increased via the removal of other sources.[7]. When I add "Steele Hall" to the search, journal articles and other paywalled sources that aren't used turn up. This is overeliance on one source to an extreme (I already intimated at WT:FAC that I didn't think Ignace Tonené worthy of the star). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to FARC per Sandy and my original notice. Hog Farm Talk 20:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:52, 15 April 2023 (UTC) [8].

The Quatermass Experiment

Notified: User: Angmering, User Heartfox,WikiProject BBC, British television task force, talk notice 2023-01-26

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the following issues:

  • Some of the citations do not appear to be reliable/have editorial oversight (IMDb, The Quatermass Home Page, Doctor Who Restoration Team, Mausoleum Club).
  • Viewership figures would benefit from footnotes.
  • Fn 15 and 21 lack page numbers.
  • The last sentence has no citation.
  • I don't know if a BBC DVD should be used to cite "Viewers' responses were generally positive" for a BBC program; how can this be a neutral source?
  • Are there any other newspapers/magazines from the time period that can be used to cite/add stuff that are now available online?
Problems I found
  • Removed a [citation needed]-tagged sentence from the intro, as it was info not expanded on in the body.
  • Is Screen Online an RS?
  • Removed "Quatermass Homepage", an archive of a geocities fansite.
  • [Citation needed]s all over the place, including "Other Media".
  • Lots of choppy one-sentence paragraphs, including "Production" and "Other Media".
  • Viewership numbers in the "Episodes" table are unsourced. I also think this should be converted to text, as a table is a lot for only six episodes and it disrupts the flow.
  • "Mausoleum Club" link was 404, and this appears to have been a web forum so I don't think it was a RS to begin with
  • Is Digital Fix an RS?

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Geocities source may be a WP:SPS that meets reliability (if it's the same one we checked last time through), but nonetheless, per the other issues raised, Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above, the Geocities page was actually fine here as a WP:SPS interview with the series writer, but this needs substantive work across the board, so move to FARC. Hog Farm Talk 20:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [9].

Scottish Parliament Building

Notified: Globaltraveller, Wikiproject Architecture, Wikiproject Edingburgh, Wikiproject Scotland, 2023-01-27

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review for the following reasons;

  • The archaeology section is a list which would be better served in prose.
  • There is a controversy section, this info should be relocated elsewhere in the article.
  • No section is called "Design" making it hard to find the architecture of the building. Instead that information is blended into a description of the modern workings of the building.
  • No section is called "construction" so its hard to find the timeline of events while being built
  • The Demonstrations section looks like a news item and should be removed.
Note: Scottish Parliament was another FA by the same nominator, it was already delisted at FAR

Desertarun (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the comments here. In terms of the demonstration section, would argue this needs to be deleted. The demonstrations are not re the building but rather against the government, parties within or for a cause. If the demonstrations section is to be kept, then it would need an expansion to ensure sufficient coverage. To my mind, there have been dozens of demonstrations outside the Scottish Parliament ranging from issues for and against independence, to recent demonstrations over the Gender Recognition Bill. That aside perhaps the biggest omission from this article and why maybe it should not be FA anymore is it does not adequately cover the current building. As a recent visitor, there are numerous issues with the structure, much of it related to water ingress, a leaky roof and other building issues. Go one step further and one need only read the numerous news sources about lighting issues during debates that run pass standard opening hours... I would rate the article as B-class at present. Coldupnorth (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section primarily concerned the article's organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delist. No edits since the start of this FAR. Desertarun (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [10].

Gangtok

Notified: Dwaipayanc, Nichalp, Yashthepunisher, WP India, WP Cities, WP Travel and Tourism, WP Nepal noticed in January 2021

Review section

A 2005 FA last formally reviewed in 2008. Datedness and sourcing issues are present, as the article has not been well-maintained in recent years. Example include "Sikkim is known for its very low crime rate" sourced to a city police website from 2011 (who of course wants people to think the city is safe), very few post-1990 events in the history, a need to check the Nathu La content in the economy section for updating, statistics to fairly old sources in the utilities section, and a government section referring to 2009 events as the most recent election when there have been state elections in 2014 and 2019. These are only examples. There are good bones here, but it needs some TLC. Hog Farm Talk 18:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC) [11].

Quneitra

Notified: Mass Message Send, talk page notice 2023-01-25

Review section

This 2007 FA has not been maintained to standards, and its FAC nominator has not edited for over a year. The main item of concern noticed on talk on 2023-01-25 is extreme datedness, but prose and short stubby sections also needs review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include currency and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC) [12].

United States Academic Decathlon

Notified: Yohhans, NuclearWarfare, WikiProject Education, WikiProject United States, 2022-12-28

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because the history section is disorganised, is missing citations, and ends at 2010. This makes me believe that the article has not be substantially maintained, and editors will need to check the other sections (like events and participation) to ensure that the procedures of the event have not changed. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include organization and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/April_2023&oldid=1152474730"