Wikipedia:Featured article review

Reviewing featured articles

This page is for the review and improvement of featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria. FAs are held to the current standards regardless of when they were promoted.

There are three requisite stages in the process, to which all users are welcome to contribute.

Raise issues at article Talk:

  • In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

Featured article review (FAR)

  • In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them. Nominators must specify the featured article criteria that are at issue and should propose remedies. The ideal review would address the issues raised and close with no change in status.
  • Reviews can improve articles in various ways: articles may need updating, formatting, and general copyediting. More complex issues, such as a failure to meet current standards of prose, comprehensiveness, factual accuracy, and neutrality, may also be addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators— Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia—determine either that there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage.

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

  • An article is never listed as a removal candidate without first undergoing a review. In this third stage, participants may declare "keep" or "delist", supported by substantive comments, and further time is provided to overcome deficiencies.
  • Reviewers who declare "delist" should be prepared to return towards the end of the process to strike out their objections if they have been addressed.
  • The featured article removal coordinators determine whether there is consensus for a change in the status of a nomination, and close the listing accordingly.

Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process. Nominations are moved from the review period to the removal list, unless it is very clear that editors feel the article is within criteria. Given that extensions are always granted on request, as long as the article is receiving attention, editors should not be alarmed by an article moving from review to the removal candidates' list.

To contact the FAR coordinators, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{ @FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

Table of Contents – This page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nominating an article for FAR

The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows:

  1. For articles on the Unreviewed Featured Articles list, no more than three nominations per week and twelve per month.
  2. For all other articles, one nomination at a time per nominator, unless permission for more is given by a FAR coordinator.

Nominators are strongly encouraged to assist in the process of improvement; they should not nominate articles that are featured on the main page (or have been featured there in the previous three days) and should avoid segmenting review pages. Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination here, unless there are extenuating circumstances such as a radical change in article content.

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, , filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Save page".
  6. Notify relevant parties by adding ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through article stats script), the editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article status (identifiable through the Featured Article Candidate link in the Article Milestones), and any relevant WikiProjects (identifiable through the talk page banners, but there may be other Projects that should be notified). The message at the top of the FAR should indicate who you have notified.

Featured article reviews

Hurricane Mitch

Notified: Hurricanehink, Titoxd, WikiProject Tropical cyclones

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is one of the oldest, and as such most heavily decayed and neglected FAs of the Tropical Cyclone project. This one has been a contendor under discussion by the project for years now – it's time to finally cut the knot. The article simply does not reflect the mounts of literature and data available, while much of the information it does contain is unverifiable, as mentioned by SandyGeorgia back in 2015. More specific subsections that need attention:

  • Lead - A bit sparse for the deadliest modern hurricane ever. Should more adequately reflect the severity and destruction of the storm.
  • Preparations - This section does not properly cover the scope of this storm; a Category 5 stalling and approaching Central America is bound to create more upheaval and media attention than is currently reflected. Moreover, a bit of discussion and context would be helpful: If there were preparations and evacuations, why the high number of deaths, still? Did local authorities fail to anticipate the unprecedented severity of this storm or did residents not heed the warnings? I am sure there have been studies on this.
  • Impact - The only country that has been covered reasonably well is Honduras, and that one has a subarticle. There are no Spanish language sources for a predominantly Latin American phenomenon, nor are there links to journal articles or important books on the storm.
  • Aftermath - Same as above. No mention of the homeless, no real context given to the scope of the devastation, no sense of global response sketched, and the discussion of the recovery phase is lacking. A quick search on Google Scholar reveals a plethora of journal articles mentioning its effects on numerous areas, from ecology to psychology, while a scan of Google Books gives numerous high-quality, important accounts of the storm, its impact, and its implications.

Overall, then, my biggest issues are with 1 b. comprehensive and 1 c. well-researched, due to the omission of crucial book, journal and Spanish-language sources and insufficient verifiability of the sources currently used. Auree 09:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Houston

Notified: Example user, WikiProject Houston, WikiProject Cities, WikiProject Texas

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

  • There are statements failing verification from citations. Please see section on History, and section on Crime, as two examples.
  • There is much outdated material. Some material could be replaced with new data; other material should be retained and supplemented with new data. Another editor placed a request to update the Transportation section in 2016, but there has been little change since last year.
  • There is unsourced material in the History section.
  • The History section is not comprehensive. There is a main article History of Houston, but this has been largely unsourced for years. I recommend as a part of improving the Houston article to improve its context within Wikipedia relative to several important Houston-related articles. This would allow the main article to be comprehensive, but offering greater detail indirectly through links to related articles.
  • Some parts of the article have become a Christmas tree, with Houston's appearance on various rankings. Could these be updated or culled? Some segments reads like spare parts thrown together. Sometimes people just have a little factoid to post, and that is their contribution. Editing these segments to better unify the narrative would help.

These are several categories of issues with the Houston article, and this I compiled from a fairly cursory reading. As I continue to check citations, this list could grow.

However, I hope this is not too negative. There must have been a great effort and good work by many various editors to bring this article to FA back in 2007. This is more than ten years later and it appears that the article needs a comprehensive effort. For those Houstonians who are are still cleaning up after Harvey, or helping others doing the same, there could be nothing more important. But not everyone interested in improving the Houston article currently lives in the region. Thank you for reading, Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 17:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Total area and land area The citation from 2009 cites a land area of a bit over 599 miles while the text reads 667 miles, which is given elsewhere as the total area.

  • Has the total area and land area increased since 2009?
  • What is the correct source for these figures?
  • Geography nerds: what is the correct denominator for population density: land area or total area? (Since people don't usually live on the water.)

In any case, the article and the citation disagree. Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 18:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Lead section has old links Some citations link to articles from 2010, 2011, and 2012. Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 18:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Land purchase, founding of Houston A statement in the History section is incorrect:

  • The sale of land from the Parrotts to the Allens did not occur on August 30. It was August 26, 1836
  • August 30, 1836 is the date that the Allen brothers first advertised their land scheme.
  • The Parrotts did not sell 1.5 leagues (6,642 acres) to the Allens. They sold a half league (2,214 acres).
  • The Parrotts did not sell land to the Allens in consideration of over $9,000. They sold it for $5,000.
  • Two days prior, on August 24, 1836, the Allens did buy one league (4,428 acres) for $4,428 from the estate of John Austin's brother. There is no indication that the Allens had plans for developing this land. This is difficult to source (original research) because this ended up being a convoluted transaction, and many writers try to simplify the story by combining the two transactions. Sometimes writers combined the two transactions incorrectly.

Second, when Houstonians claim that the city was founded August 30, 1836, the significance of this date is the famous advertisement that the Allen placed. For some reason, people attempt to attach other events to this date.

Sports: claim fails verification "It is the only MLB team to have won pennants in both modern leagues." The Astros just won their first AL pennant last month, but the sentence is followed by a citation to a web site last retrieved in 2013. Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 02:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: area Perhaps there is are editors who have already vetted these numbers and who are still on Wikipedia. I know it is tempting for other editors to change one of the numbers in a way that renders the other number correct. Confession: A few years ago, I think I changed a total population number without changing the density number, for example. I apologize to those who were trying to keep the page in good order. In any case, these current numbers are inconsistent:

Area

• City      667 sq mi (1,625.2 km2)   (I have seen 599.6 elsewhere.)
• Land   639.1 sq mi (1,642.1 km2)
• Water 667 sq mi (1,625.2 km2)   (I have seen 27-ish elsewhere.)
• Metro 10,062 sq mi (26,060 km2)

Once these correct numbers are reintroduced, I would agree to monitor them for unhelpful edits. Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 10:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Geography statement fails verification
Houston#Geography:

"The Piney Woods are north of Houston. Most of Houston is located on the gulf coastal plain, and its vegetation is classified as temperate grassland and forest. Much of the city was built on forested land, marshes, swamp, or prairie which resembles the Deep South, and are all still visible in surrounding areas. The flatness of the local terrain, when combined with urban sprawl, has made flooding a recurring problem for the city."

Here is the archived link from the citation.

If I have read this correctly, this links to dry paper on the modeling of measurement of storm events, without any characterization of regional features or analysis of flooding. I agree with some of the statements, but this is not what the linked source talks about. Oldsanfelipe ( talk) 11:58, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Blyth, Northumberland

Notified: Dbam, WikiProject United Kingdom

I am nominating this featured article for review because the demographics and education sections need updating. Some unreferenced additions noted. Not too much work but not none either, and enough to warrant a formal review. I placed a request months ago with no response. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Summer of '42

Notified: WikiProject Film, WikiProject United States

I am nominating this featured article for review because it poses major problems primarily with regard to citation, sources, coverage, and prose which is far from the professional writing standard expected of FAs. The plot section—which has 914 words—is well over the 700 word required per WP:FILMPLOT, and isn't exactly well-written as there are some excessive scene-by-scene breakdowns, especially the opening paragraph. (Who in the world begins a plot summary with 'The film opens'?). The reception section is rather underdeveloped since it includes not a single review from critics (not even a report from Rotten Tomatoes!) which could back its claim of a "critically-acclaimed" production, and its theatrical run is not adequately reported. Finally, the sequels, soundtrack, and cultural impact sections have some unsourced statements, and two coverage are missing: a theme/analysis section, given the film's intriguing subject matter, and a home media section for its VHS, DVD, Blu-ray releases. I don't find this article's FA status particularly appetizing for these reasons and it's really unfortunate. Slightly mad 15:43, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Voyage: Inspired by Jules Verne

Notified: Raul654, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Science Fiction

I am nominating this featured article for review because of its sourcing issues, using questionable sources such as "2404", "Quandary", "Game Chronicles", "BonusStage", "GameOver Online", "Jolt Online Gaming UK", "ICGames", "ToTheGame", "GameBoomers" and any other sites I missed that isn't part of the Reliable Sources list for gaming articles. Another issue I have is the prose throughout. For example, starting the "Gameplay" section with "The main focus of Voyage is puzzle-solving." shows how dated the standards were when this was promoted. GamerPro64 03:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Mount Tambora

Notified: ONUnicorn, Meursault2004, JarrahTree, Materialscientist, GeoWriter, Anthony Appleyard, WikiProject Indonesia, WikiProject Volcanoes

First time I am doing this. I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't seem to meet 1a and 1c of the FA criteria anymore; there is a large amount of unsourced material and choppy paragraphs. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:12, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@ Jo-Jo Eumerus:, let me take a look at your comments and improve the article. We will discuss this on the talk page of the article further. Tisquesusa ( talk) 20:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Chandralekha (1948 film)

Notified: Ssven2, Numerounovedant. Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Article alerts, Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Article alerts, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force/Article alerts

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been substantially reworked after one abundantly used source, which was later discovered to be a non-RS, was removed. Now I want to re-evaluate the article and see that it is still FA-worthy. Kailash29792 (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@ Kailash29792: Could you please notify some relevant WikiProjects? Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
I've notified two users as seen above. I doubt if the users will respond to my request at the Indian cinema task force since they rarely respond to messages. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Close without FARC: I have given a good look at the article and it still does seem to meet the standards for FA. Only one query: The critical reception can be improved by describing what the critics say in our own words instead of simply stating "xx said xx". Otherwise, I can't find much fault with the article.  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 07:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Ssven2, thank you for your comments. I'll be travelling from tomorrow till 14 Sept, so I hope someone will respond to further comments in my place. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 16:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, Sven. I have amended the bold title as we do not usually declare keep or remove in the review stage. DrKay ( talk) 16:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep: I think there should not have been an FARC in first place. The article is very much of FA-standard and I think it deserves that bronze star. Krish | Talk 08:54, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

West Bengal

Notified: Dwaipayanc, Noticeboard for India-related topics

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is suffused with unsourced weasel words like "prominent", "prefer", "major", "well-known", "rare", "finest", "dominated", etc. and requires extensive copyediting. On just a quick scan, I can see spaces missing after punctuation, use of ampersands in flowing text, and short stubby paragraphs. DrKay ( talk) 16:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I'll try to check/address the issues mentioned here. Regards. -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 17:37, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment Hello! Thanks for bringing this article to FARC. I was the nominator of FAC of this article, and thereafter did try to maintain its quality, of course with the help of other editors. However, the article has been neglected for quite a while now. It will be excellent if this FARC process is continued beyond May 15 (I am hoping for some free time in real life after that date). With the help of other editors, we can surely save this FA! Thanks, -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 23:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    Comments This page does need some work but here are a few suggestions:
  • "91 million inhabitants"... as of when?
  • "making it similar in size to Serbia" is this a good comparison? Wouldn't it be better to compare it to other states in India?
  • " has borders with five Indian states" should be "borders five Indian states"
  • "West Bengal is the sixth-largest contributor" ... largest contributing state?
  • "It is noted for its cultural activities and the presence of cultural and educational institutions"... I don't know what this means specifically.
  • "stalwarts in literature"... I'm not sure that is the correct use of that word.
  • "to scores of musicians, film-makers and artists"... can't this be said for any state? What makes this state unique in this respect?
  • "playing association football besides cricket, the national favourite sport." This sentence is needlessly passive and can be rewritten to be more readable.
  • That's just my comments on the lead, have not had time to delve into the article itself. Mattximus ( talk) 22:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Dwaipayanc: It's now after May 15 - where are we at with addressing the concerns that have been raised? Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
    • Hi! Unfortunately I am very busy in real life and short of time for addressing the concerns. Still I am trying... I have covered only the history part. However I am not up to date with copy edit benchmarks, so there are problems even after I go through sections. Please let us have some more time. I'll try to get more people involved. Thanks a lot. -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 03:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
    • I am interested in trying .Even though I am a relative newbie after all West Bengal is my 'matribhoomi' .I will certainly try my best. Please give at least a month or two to do the work FORCE RADICAL ( talk) 11:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Update: Copyediting has been started in the article. -- Dwaipayan ( talk) 17:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Update 2 Copyediting is complete. Thanks,-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 20:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
  • This article still has several 'citation needed' comments and unreferenced sentences. I would support delisting unless these problems are dealt with shortly. Dudley Miles ( talk) 17:05, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
It's a pretty good article close to FA, but even a quick glance shows that it needs some fine editing first. For example the historic population table is good, but there is no reference to 2011 census in the box. What does "serial" mean in the districts section, and rank of what? All of India? These little things need to be clarified. Mattximus ( talk) 19:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @ Titodutta and Dwaipayanc: Are you able to address the issues raised by Dudley and Mattximus? Nikkimaria ( talk) 18:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
    • I logged in after several weeks. The concerns raised are of course addressable. Copy edit was a difficult problem, and now has been addressed. However, I need some more time. I promise I will try my best to address the issues as soon as possible. Please allow some more time. Thanks.-- Dwaipayan ( talk) 02:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Update on progress here? Nikkimaria ( talk) 15:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. The review has been open for seven months and the article still has many unreferenced statements and a few citation neededs. Dudley Miles ( talk) 10:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Other Languages