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 ~~~~) to relevant talk pages (insert article name). Relevant parties include main contributors to the article (identifiable through XTools), 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

KaDee Strickland

Notified: Extraordinary Machine, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Women

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been updated to include information on Strickland's career since its promotion as a FAC. Information in the "Career" section ends around 2007, and one can see just from looking at the "Television" and "Film" tables in the "Filmography and performances" section, that there is a large gap of Strickland's career unaccounted for. As for more minor notes, reference 6 is also a dead link (a permanent dead link?) and I noticed that there are several instances of WP:SHOUTING in the reference titles.

I have left a message on the talk page and pinged @Extraordinary Machine: as this was the primary user during the FAC process. I think that a lot of wonderful work has gone into this article, but it requires so much updating that I feel that it no longer fulfills the criteria for a featured article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment: Extraordinary Machine hasn't edited since this past September, so I'm not sure that user will be around anytime soon to help improve the page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @SNUGGUMS: I apologize if this question has an obvious answer, but I am assuming that this is left open to allow other users to comment and potentially improve/revise the article even though Extraordinary Machine is no longer active on Wikipedia? I am very unfamiliar with the FAR process so I am just uncertain about things work from this point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes it is. They can also comment here on issues found within the page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse

Notified: Sugar Bear, WikiProject Musicians

I am nominating this featured article for review because: It does not meet the criteria for a Featured Article. It has major sections un-referenced, and only has two very grainy photos. The "Joker card" Concept is listed multiple times but it is never explained what that is. The more recent sections are poorly written and formatted. RF23 (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

  • This was a 2008 FA. Even looking back at the promoted version, the evolution of FA standards is obvious; I cannot imagine it would pass FAC now. On top of that, the article has been restructured in the 7 years since getting the bronze star. Even if the 2008 article was FA-quality, this is fundamentally a different article. And it's a long way from being an FA-quality one. Prose needs work throughout, entire paragraphs are unreferenced, and I have substantial reservations whether the "era"-based article rebuild was for the better. Speaking of references... they're a mess. Unarchived dead links, entries missing necessary bibliographic information, improperly formatted entries, multiple date formats, and at least a handful of probably-not-reliable sources. And that doesn't even address the image quality problems. I know the goal of FAR is to determine a path that would permit an article to be restored to FA-quality and retain its bronze star, but I just don't see one here: even if enough changes could be made to make this a potential featured article, so much has changed from 2008 (both in terms of standards and this article specifically) that I think it would almost have to go through the process again. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • As well as the issues noted above, the article is also out of date - as but one example, it states that the group was sued in 2008, but not what the result is. As a broader concern, the article's content seems very random - for instance, it's not clear why some of the band's many concerts are described when they don't seem to have been unusual. I'd suggest this moving to FARC immediately given that it would require a massive amount of work to bring up to modern FA standards. I'd note that the FAs I took the lead with in 2008 were of a much higher quality than this, so standards weren't that bad back then! Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an example of something that should be fast-tracked to being delisted. The problems are many, and obvious. --Laser brain (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC),

Scene7

Notified: Gary, Chisme, Dank, WikiProject Computing, WikiProject Software

I am nominating this featured article for review because, after much discussion across the years, it has been pared down (changing significantly the content that was once promoted to featurement) and concerns of WP:NPOV have been raised. Leefeni de Karik (talk) 04:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Scene7 was swallowed by Adobe in 2007, eleven years ago. It has not been heard from since. The article as it stands now IMHO is about right considering the import and significance of the company. If anybody can fill out what happened in the last eleven years, I'm in favor of rewriting the article. But otherwise there is no point in beating a dead horse. Chisme (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Baseball

Notified: WP Baseball, WP Sports, Woohookitty, no other active unblocked significant contributors ‎

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its last FAC. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Notes, @Fasach Nua: reviewed images, so they should be good, unless new images have been added. @Giants2008: the only active FAC supporter. I did not promote this FA, so will be participating in this review, particularly with regard to WP:SIZE and WP:SUMMARY Georgia (Talk) 15:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Well, I'd describe myself as kind of active the way things have been going, and I've been dealing with other issues (having a TFL changed on you unilaterally isn't fun!), but I'll try to find some time to look at this article. I remember adding a few cites to it at one point, and it looks to be in decent shape at first glance. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments

WP:SIZE recommends WP:SUMMARY at 50 kb. The readable prose size of this article greater than 62KB, about 12,000 words (the Drpda prose script is not picking up considerable KB in lists and block quotes, so I measured it directly by copying text into Microsoft Word.) I suggest that summary style could be better used at:

Hatnotes are used incorrectly, since Summary style is not generally used. For example, the section, Uniqueness of each baseball park, is not a summary of Baseball park; that hatnote should be changed from Main to something else, like further information. This happens everywhere.

Checking for outdatedness is in order:

  • ... for example, stated records in the popularity section.
  • Another example, "As of 2007, Little League Baseball oversees more than 7,000 children's baseball leagues with more than 2.2 million participants ... " ... It is 2018, why 2007 data unless it is in History section?
  • "In 2008, nearly half a million high schoolers and over 35,000 collegians played on their schools' baseball teams.[183] The number of Americans participating in baseball has declined since the late 1980s, falling well behind the number of soccer participants.[186]" Why a 2004 and 2008 source?

Player rosters; idea of DH rule in other countries where baseball is a major sport.

Prose can be reviewed, example redundancy: "... the first games of baseball to charge admission took place. The games, which took place ..."

This archived source does not point to the text it is citing, so a page number is missing for the book:

  • The tactical decision that precedes almost every play in a baseball game involves pitch selection. By gripping and then releasing the baseball in a certain manner, and by throwing it at a certain speed, pitchers can cause the baseball to break to either side, or downward, as it approaches the batter.

This is a dead link, that is not at archive.org-- should be easy to source:

Another dead MLB link, not at archive.org

Would it be appropriate to mention the extent in the US (Japan also) of players coming from the Caribbean and Venezuela?

Going through 12,000 words to make sure everything is up to date will be a chore-- this is one of the problems that occurs with size bloat. This is only a brief foray. Georgia (Talk) 20:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I ran the DYK checker on both the current version and the one that passed FAC, and the current one is longer by about 1,000 words. That indicates that I may be able to do some trimming, although some of this is surely the effect of updates. In general, I'm not as bothered by the length as you are, Sandy. FAs in general are longer now than they were in those days, and any article on a major general subject like baseball is going to be longer than a run-of-the-mill FA if it is truly comprehensive (and it will fail the criteria if it isn't comprehensive). I wrote an FA about this long that passed with flying colors, so length alone should not be a barrier if it has a purpose. When I go to copy-edit this page, we'll find out how necessary it is.
  • Changed as many of the hatnotes as I could find.
  • When I get a chance, I'd like to take a shot at finding those MLB.com pages. They changed their website at some point, and I've had some success digging through the archive to find old pages that were tagged as lost causes. My editing has been cut down to almost nothing because of real-life work, so work on this page may come in stops and starts. However, I will do as much as I can for this page, as it is so important for all of us sports fans. Giants2008 (Talk) 12:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Just took a quick look at the size of the section that were mentioned by Sandy, and the rules section is the one that really need trimming. Just doing that will take the size down by a good amount. Some trims should be possible in the history section, although I tend to like long history sections so I may not be the best judge. As for the "around the world" section, we do need some of this information for the article to be comprehensive, so I'd lean towards the conservative side in making changes there. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I suspected you would have some tricks up your sleeve re finding those links, which is why I tagged them! They are also things that could easily be re-sourced, and I suspected you also would know where to find other sources. I trust you on size, but I would say to take into consideration what an average reader is looking for. As of now, this is 40 printed pages! But what do you think about the outdatedness of some of the info, records and such? Best, Georgia (Talk) 20:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Giants2008: Any update on how work is progressing here? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
    • My busy season is over, so I'm ready to resolve the remaining issues. I've fixed some of them already, and the rest will soon follow. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
      • All right, I think I've handled all of the comments above. I'll read through the article again and make further tweaks if necessary, but it's looking better now. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
  • @SandyGeorgia: Thoughts on Giants' edits? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the ping, Nikki; I will look in better detail during the week. Meanwhile:
      • Does anyone know how to convert See also to two columns? I have forgotten ...
      • Further reading; what is the inclusion criterion? Can it be cut down?
      • This article is still huge. Dr pda's prose size says about 10,000 words, but because there are significant lists, it is actually much larger. It is hard to understand why History of Baseball did not aim for a separate featured article.
      • Images need work; there are multiple instances of sandwiching.
    • Georgia (Talk) 16:05, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Here is History of baseball, which I just created; at 3,650 words, it is fully a third of this article. History does not need to be a third of the total article; this article can still be cut down to use summary style in the History section. Georgia (Talk) 16:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

  • @Giants2008: I cut 2,000 words from History and moved it down; as odd as it seems to us, people in some other countries have no idea how baseball is played, so to be talking in so much detail about the game before explaining how the game is played seemed odd. I think the size is manageable now (it is STILL a huge article), but we should look at Further reading, See also. Georgia (Talk) 17:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
    • PS, Giants, for your effort, you might take History of Baseball to FAC, and get an FA out of it. With a better lead, it might be there. Georgia (Talk) 17:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I can live with the size, but I do think the section should be towards the top of the page, not near the bottom. At a minimum, it should be higher than Distinctive elements and Statistics. There's some logic in keeping the rules and strategy-related sections together, but I'd certainly consider it more worthy of appearing higher than those other sections. You apparently answered your own question on the See also section; I'll try to make further trims here and in the external links. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:33, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
        • I've done all I can, so edit away-- move History section wherever you'd like ... any ideas on Further reading? Bst, Georgia (Talk) 18:36, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
          • The article is down to a trim 8,000 words, I did a little image work to fix sandwiching, and some updates have been made where necessary. In addition, the further reading section has been trimmed (I agree with the implication that it was bloated before). Perhaps, with the copy-editing pass that I'll start later today, this won't even need to go to FARC. Giants2008 (Talk) 16:36, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
            • @Giants2008: Update on progress? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
              • I have finished with my copy-editing pass and performed some cleanup after a couple of other edits to the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:09, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation (season 1)

Notified: WP Television Episode coverage, ‎WP Television, ‎ WP Comedy, Hunter Kahn, no other active unblocked significant contributors

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its previous FAR. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Note, @PresN: reviewed the images, so they should be good. I promoted this article, so will not be reviewing. Georgia (Talk) 15:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Good as in the sock didn't review the images, but not good in that it was literally 8 years ago... Anyway, sure, re-reviewed, they're fine. --PresN 01:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment An obvious, and significant, deficiency with this article is that the 'reception' section only presents assessments written at the time this series was first broadcast. No use is made of sources looking back at this series at a later date, including after Parks and Recreation finished up. As I understand it, the general view is that this was the worst series in the show's run, and the show was only successful after a lot of changes were made. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

  • I was the primary author of this article when it was brought to FA review. I will look into some additional sources to add to address this, but I likely won't be able to until after the holiday. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 20:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Sorry it took a bit longer than I expected added some additional facts elsewhere in the article. Let me know if you think any changes or further improvements are needed! — Hunter Kahn 20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Those changes look very good - thanks. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Film noir

Notified: WP Film

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Film noir/archive1. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Incidentally, a high score at Earwig's Copyvio Detector appears to be due to the listing of same refs etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I did the image review 8 years ago; it's mostly the same, but 3 fair-use music samples have been added. They're all pretty short, but frankly having 3 seems excessive, I'd cut to 1. --PresN 01:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Size also a concern for me. Look at the copyvio tool, the main element driving it up seemed to be film titles. Removed two of the audio files. Article has been heavily edited since promotion, and since the first retirement. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I've read through both the promoted version of the article and that which exists today, and I don't see any major red flags in the differences between them. In fact, in some ways today's article is better; the prose has been tightened up in places, and there have been a couple of layout improvements. On the copyvio front, like Ceoil I don't see any issues; the Berkeley page similarities are down to article titles and film titles, while the other high % match appears to have cribbed from our article for a couple of sentences. Of some small concern is the slight bloat in size from the promoted version. Some of this is well-cited, and I'm not bothered so much by kB count (it's very large, but not precedent-setting), but by the occasional insertion of detail that is not cited, appears to not have fresh citation to go along with it (to all intents an purposes looking like it's cited to whichever one was there for the existing material), or has resulted in content where even with a new citation it's now unclear what's referencing what. The current last paragraph of 1980s and 1990s] is a good (bad) example of the latter two issues; without access to the original sources, it will be difficult to wrangle this into shape. I also share some of the concerns that were brought up by several people during the original FAC, most especially by Moni, regarding the structure. These concerns were brushed aside by one or more socks and consensus seemingly reached, but the problem remains. Long story short, the Identifying characteristics section does not work at all where it is now bolted onto the end. This should be tied to Problems of definition somewhere closer to the top to aid those readers unfamiliar with the subject. However, I don't know if this can be done without significant rewrites elsewhere to ensure context is kept. As Moni put it, "Primary components to Film noir appear at the end of the article, following an extensive and interesting discussion of film history. This creates a chasm of prose that gives readers no connection to what they are trying to grasp: film noir is difficult to define; this is its history; these are films considered noir; these are the characteristics of noir. It would be much clearer to arrange the article as: film noir is difficult to define; these are the characteristics of noir; this is its history; these are films considered noir, so readers can understand why films are considered to be within the noir genre." She wasn't the only editor to point out that on such a large subject it would make more sense to to "[start] with the basic and [get] more cognitively complex". What does everyone else think on this point? Steve T • C 23:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Steve, yes and my gut feeling about the socking, born by many years of experience, related and not related, is that Geist was too involved, arrogant and proud of his contributions to have made deliberate mistakes on sourcing. It just doesn't scan. I have already mentioned my concerns on focus and length. Its your area of interest, so if editorializing is needed, you would probably be the man for the job and as such you might go for it. ps, we all miss Moni. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
You may be right about the sourcing; digging through the history, I was set to use this diff as an example of added content to multiple sections with no cite, but it turns out that DCG went back later to add the necessary (e.g.). After another read through, I think this needs less of a rescue job than did Tenebrae. To begin with, I'm going to put each section through a better diff checker than Wikipedia's, see where we might have problems with uncited or unwanted additions. That might take some time, but after that I'll have a better idea of whether we need to alter the structure and if we do, what might need to be rewritten to accommodate that. Steve T • C 21:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I read through this today and I agree with previous comments that the article organization is not ideal. It seems that Steve has not been active since April so I don't know where this leaves us. I believe DCG was a breed of FA writer who didn't want to compromise their vision for anyone, and used socks to help ram it through. It's a good article but not as good as it could be. --Laser brain (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry I haven't been able to work on this recently; work commitments have left me with very little free time these last 6 weeks. As far as the quality of the article stands, I've been through every section diff-by-diff, and have removed those unwanted and uncited additions that have crept in over the years, along with some other minor clean-up. However, this is still fundamentally the same article that passed the original FAC. It is a good article, and doesn't exactly bring shame to the gold star, but the organisational problems still exist and whichever way I imagine it, no natural structure presents itself. I had a mind to bring Identifying Characteristics to after the Background section, but that doesn't quite work either, owing to the section's reliance on examples that span several decades, which I think would then sit oddly with the strictly chronological nature of the subsequent sections. What do you think? Steve T • C 19:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Other Languages