Featured article reviews
- 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)
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. The number of Americans participating in baseball has declined since the late 1980s, falling well behind the number of soccer participants." 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:
- Wrigley Field, home of the Chicago Cubs, is known for its fickle disposition: a hitter's park when the strong winds off Lake Michigan are blowing out, it becomes more of a pitcher's park when they are blowing in.
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)
- 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)
- Notified: WP Companies, WP Film, no other active significant contributors
This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its 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) 09:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Notes, this is a 2007 promotion, on only three supports, so should receive a full review, including images. @Ceoil: Georgia (Talk) 15:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments. The size is manageable (atypical for this nominator), and has not changed significantly since the article's 2007 promotion. Inline citations were just coming in to requirement when this was passed, and it appears they are covered here. Table of contents is reasonable (an issue I find on other DCGeist articles).
On scanning the citations, I noticed that one is a "note", so went to see how it was being used:
The cited source does not verify if was R-C's first, nor does it name the director. So, WP:V should be reviewed more thoroughly.
I cannot decipher what this sentence wants to say, and the source is paywalled:
- The business began in 1918 as Robertson-Cole (U.S.), the American division of a British import–export company and Robertson-Cole was formed by the English-born Harry F. Robertson and the American Rufus Sidman Cole.
- REF: "Screen; Again the import tax". New York Times. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
- Rephrased, and took out mention of Rufus Sidman Cole, who is not mentioned in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I skipped down to one section, where a prose issue was found:
- With Thomson's personal contract with Kennedy due to expired in mid-1927,
So, a complete review is in order, and it would be grand if someone had access to the hard-print sources for Verifiability. Georgia (Talk) 20:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sandy, "due to expired" was introduced in 2014 here, ie well after the first retirement.. While I am the last person on earth to degenerate on typos and confused spelling, I don't think they were a feature of Geist's work. But, on the other matters, I don't have access to the sources, and agree, a full review would be no harm. Have the noms watchlisted and will give views. Note, I'm not that enamored by edits since he first retired (as apposed to his recent quote "retirement" unquote), so might in the end urge review of a roll backed version. As time goes on and articles depreciate, I guess this will, alas, become more common. Note also, I am not seeing these through rosy glasses of nostalgia, being disillusioned by the cross over in the two account's editing. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Notified: WT Film, no active 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) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Note: this is a 2006 promotion, with scant support-- should receive a full review. It was reviewed in 2010, but that review was also influenced by socking. I see no image review. I did not promote this FA, and will be participating in the review, particular concerns about WP:SIZE and lack of WP:SUMMARY. Georgia (Talk) 15:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Comments Size is not bothersome-- I don't see anything that would be better summarized to a separate article.
- Since 1934, with the sole exception of 1952, India has been among the top three movie-producing countries in the world every single year.
Source is dead link. Info is dated (a 2001 source). Prose. How about,
- Between 1934 and 2001, with the exception of 1952, India was among the top three movie-producing countries in the world.
In fact, that sentence does not seem to be about sound film at all, but without access to the source, hard to know.
Several dead links, that might be found in archive.org, but it is not cooperating for me today, so I tagged them.
There is only one section (Early steps) in the History section, so why does it need a heading?
Hard to know which source applies to which person (verification requires sorting through three books):
- While the introduction of sound led to a boom in the motion picture industry, it had an adverse effect on the employability of a host of Hollywood actors of the time. Suddenly those without stage experience were regarded as suspect by the studios; as suggested above, those whose heavy accents or otherwise discordant voices had previously been concealed were particularly at risk. The career of major silent star Norma Talmadge effectively came to an end in this way. The celebrated German actor Emil Jannings returned to Europe. Moviegoers found John Gilbert's voice an awkward match with his swashbuckling persona, and his star also faded.
- REF: Crafton (1997), pp. 480, 498, 501–9; Thomson (1998), pp. 732–33, 285–87; Wlaschin (1979), pp. 34, 22, 20.
But because the page numbers aren't in order (???), one can guess that 32, 22 and 20 refers to Talmadge, Jannings and Gilbert?
Georgia (Talk) 21:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- 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)
- Notified: NewTestLeper79, Music2611, WP House task force, WP Television, WP American television task force
This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House (TV series)/archive2. 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)
- Notes. I promoted so will not be participating in review. Original nominator appears to be inactive, Socks account for the majority of the edits, and the top contributor has not edited since 2010. I can say that the socks were entirely influential in my promotion of this article, and I agreed with the Opposer, who mentioned WP:SIZE relative to WP:SUMMARY. Image review by David Fuchs. Georgia (Talk) 16:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- As has been remarked I retired from Wikipedia a long time ago, but it so happened I noticed this today during a trip down memory lane. Looking over the article it is clearly visible that the article would benefit from some work to bring it up to date for developments in the show post-2009 as the show was still running at the time this article as promoted. However, it appears the majority of the article's main body is still of high quality, though an argument based on lacking quantity could be made. From the discussion you mentioned regardin WP:SIZE relative to WP:SUMMARY I can only judge that this is a question of interpretation, one which appeared to be ultimately resolved by the promotion of the article (i.e. majority rule). Yet if sockpuppetry was influential in this promotion (how unfortunate! Quick sidebar, I was about fifteen at the time and I remember spending a lot of time on this), I understand the grounds for reconsideration. All in all, I'd say what the article mainly needs updating and maybe some tweaking here and there. Having been absent for such a long time I do not consider myself in the position to judge whether the tilt in favor of the first 5-6 seasons is appropriate grounds for removal, but, again, as far as I can tell, general quality has not dropped significantly. Let me know if I can be of any further service, I'll check this page to watch the developments.--Music26/11 16:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Top six editors blocked or no longer active. Notified WP Rock music, WP Las Vegas, WP Mississippi, WP American music, WP Tennessee, WP Pop music, WP Elvis Presley, WP Musicians
This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elvis Presley/archive4. 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)
- (partial, limited) image review There are no obvious issues with the images currently in the article, but about half of them are claimed as PD-US under "pre-1963/1977, no copyright renewal". Given the previous image review was performed by one of the socks, the absence of a renewal cannot be presumed accurate and should be audited by someone qualified (which is not me, sorry).
The one that potentially raises some red flags for me is here (where the copyright notice is legible, including the names of the physical persons holding the copyright). The image was also uploaded by one of the socks.
Again, I didn't find any obvious problems, but once good faith can no longer be presumed, there're enough red flags to suggest thorough checking. --Xover (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- General comment: This is one I'm not concerned about. It has a lot of (independent) eyes on it, disputes are readily discussed on the Talk page, and there is ongoing effort to keep the sourcing of high quality and stop the never-ending scope creep and trivia creep. Over time some undesirable passages have snuck in but DCGeist actually undertook a cleanup effort in early January. Despite the socking issues, he did a fine job. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Right, so that means you think it still meets or nearly meets FA criteria? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:08, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'd like to dig a bit more before I make a declaration. Between the socking and Xover's evidence that there may have been deliberate copyios, I'm growing increasingly uncomfortable with assuming good faith about anything this guy did. --Laser brain (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Comment I read through this article a while back; I wasn't in "reviewer mode" but I certainly didn't think "who on earth thinks this is an FA", so I can't imagine there's that much wrong with it. Your best bet is to ping 7&6=thirteen as he's good at fixing Elvis-related articles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:38, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- Comment, I did not promote this article, but I did archive it once, so have asked at WT:FAR whether people think I should recuse from review. As with all of DCGeist's articles, the WP:SIZE issue is a concern for me, and I never saw any reason he was excused from a perfectly doable compliance with WP:SIZE. This article is HUGE, and unnecessarily so. Georgia (Talk) 16:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think you need to recuse. I recall you voicing your size concerns and they are still present. Every time someone finds an eggplant that looks like Elvis they want to add a paragraph to the article. --Laser brain (talk) 18:16, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with Laser brain on this comment and the others. The article gets a lot of careful attention from reliable editors, so I think it merits its FA status, but it errs on the side of inclusion (though the "eggplant Elvis" crowd would beg to differ). Contributors tend to be fans, and they sometimes lose sight of the appropriate scope of an encyclopedic biographical article. I would vote that it be edited for length, but not demoted. Pstoller (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have concerns with the comprehensiveness criteria (1b) of WP:Featured article criteria: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context. From a glance, this article doesn't even mention many of his film roles within article prose after Wild Country, which is a glaring omission when he starred tons of movies. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- This article includes a complete filmography plus a link to a second article, Elvis Presley on film and television. Even that much is arguably redundant. It is neither necessary nor productive for a biographical article to discuss details of every film in which a primarily musical artist appeared, especially when those films are formulaic and held in low critical esteem. One may as well ask why every song Presley recorded is not discussed. The answer is, it's not necessary in order to say the article "neglects no major facts or details." Pstoller (talk) 04:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'm not saying we have to go into all of the production bits or casting process, but the films at the very least should be mentioned by name, especially when their soundtracks spawned hits for him. As for music, I'd say the same with album titles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:51, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- I repeat: All the films are mentioned by name at the bottom of the article in a complete filmography. This is in addition to a link to a separate article devoted entirely to Presley's films and TV appearances that also lists all the film titles. There are likewise separate articles for Presley's complete singles discography, complete album discography, hit albums only with chart information, and all songs recorded by Presley, in addition to the partial single and album discographies in the present article. The reason there are separate articles is that, without them, this article would be too long. Thus, adding that information back into this article would be counterproductive. Pstoller (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Simply mentioning them in a filmography section isn't enough if they're not cited anywhere in the page. It otherwise looks like one is using WP:CIRCULAR referencing by trying to use another Wikipedia page as a source. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:46, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- First, the other Wikipedia page is not employed as a source: it's a separate article devoted to detail on a subsidiary subject, just as the discographies are. External sources provide the information in both articles. So, it is not at all WP:CIRCULAR, nor does it look like it. Second, if listing all the film titles within the article is not sufficient, then what would be? Again, these films are widely regarded—critically, popularly, and historically—as being without significant individual merit, either as cinema or as examples of Presley's artistry. The article text thus deals with them categorically. That is the the appropriate framework. Otherwise, an already overlong article would become considerably longer still by expanding on the creative nadir of Presley's career. An article, even a feature article, cannot go into detail on every aspect of its subject's work or life, but at best provides a comprehensive overview. To gain a decent understanding of Presley's cultural significance or personal character, it is entirely unnecessary to call out Kid Galahad, Harum Scarum, or Change of Habit. In fact, to manage this article (which, without counting filmography, selected discographies, or notes, is already pushing 100kB) per WP:SIZE, WP:SPLITTING, and WP:CONTENTFORKING, I would recommend deleting the included filmography, as it's entirely redundant with the linked filmography article. Each of those films in turn has its own article, just as all the albums issued during his lifetime and over half the songs contained therein do. All that information and more may belong on Wikipedia—but not in this article. Pstoller (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Notified: JimmyBlackwing, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Halo
I am nominating this article for FAR because I do not believe it meets the featured article criteria anymore. It was promoted way back in 2006, when the standards were far lower (this is what an FAC looked like back then).
Problems I notice are:
- It's not "professionally written" (1a) (these examples aren't the only ones, either):
- For one thing, the lead is structured kind of weirdly—"it was released as a launch title for the Xbox gaming system on November 15, 2001, and is considered the platform's "killer app" is the second sentence of the first paragraph.
- The gameplay section is poorly worded: "As a first-person shooter, the gameplay of Halo: Combat Evolved is fundamentally similar to that of its peers". How can a video game have peers? Also, the phrase "FPS" is repeatedly used with no context given as to what this means.
- The reception section follows the ill-fated "A said B" list of facts format, rather than an overview of the critical reception (WP:RECEPTION).
- It's not comprehensive (1b):
- The development section barely even talks about how Bungie made the game and is more like a schedule of major announcements about the game. One big question: why did Bungie change it to an FPS?
- It's not well-researched (1c):
- There are many questionable sources, such as "The Adrenaline Vault" (which is explicitly listed as unreliable at WP:VG/S) and "Xbox Kombo".
- Mass amounts of text are unsourced. This is a big problem.
JOEBRO64 19:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment: There was an inadequate delay (24 hours) between the nominator raising concerns on the article's talk page and nominating it here. Per WP:FAR, "Each stage typically lasts two to three weeks, or longer where changes are ongoing and it seems useful to continue the process." This includes the initial concern-raising stage. The nomination should be closed until the proper procedure has been observed. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
- We can give this stage twice the length in time if you want. :) --Izno (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Whichever way works for the FAR coordinators. Sad as it is to see this article nominated here, Halo doesn't grab me like it did 12 years ago as a research subject—I don't plan to mount a rescue operation here. I will say that the prose quality seems to have been deteriorated by drive-by edits over the years, so I might rescue a few paragraphs of the old text from previous versions. Beyond that, we'll just cross our fingers that others at WPVG are interested in saving it. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
- Happy to leave it sitting here for longer given the speed of the notification. Given you know the article and subject well @JimmyBlackwing: it'd be great if you could just double check the additions anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- I'll see what I can do. Halo's development in particular is a really, really big subject (probably article-worthy in itself), so I don't envy anyone who wants to write a 2018-quality version of that section! We'll see if someone makes an attempt. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
- Notified: Peter Isotalo, WikiProject Languages, WikiProject Sweden
The article was promoted in 2005 and hasn't been properly reviewed since then. (The 2007 review was aborted.) It's been tagged for citation for over 3 years and there was very little response to the verifiability concern raised on the talk page then. DrKay (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- There aren't many tags, actually.
I'll see about some refs for them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
- I've added a dozen refs, and removed a few bits of uncited text, so it's now tag-free. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no idea how the whole FA stuff works, but I would expect from an article about a major language a little bit more content about the syntax. This article very briefly touches upon some aspects, but given the enormous amount of literature on the topic, I think this is far from adequate. – Uanfala (talk) 00:42, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
- The article covers grammar (including syntax), and is linked to a subsidiary article on Swedish grammar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- My point was that the coverage of syntax in either of the two articles is rudimentary at best. – Uanfala (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to review the article. I would like to bring the article up to snuff, so I'll try my best to address any concerns.
- I would like to aim for a reasonable level of detail. Can you provide some bullet points on some of the most essential facts that you believe should be added to the article text?
- Peter Isotalo 17:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Well, there don't appear to be any decent Swedish grammars easily accessible in my library, so I'll have to go by my first impressions from reading the section in the article – some of the following may not be relevant. For example, there is a mention of reflexive pronouns with a hint that they might be unusual. But why are they unusual? How different are they from neighbouring languages or from English? Given how important anaphora is in Chomskyan syntax, there's bound to have been research out there that has uncovered interesting aspects of the way the reflexives work in Swedish. There are two sentences about word order, but this almost certainly glosses over a more complex picture. At the very least, some examples would have been needed at least to show how SVO differs from V2 order. How are questions formed? How are relative clauses constructed? How does the grammar of the spoken language differ from the written standard?
- These are all things I would expect to see in a top-quality article about a language. But I won't go far as predicating the FA status on them. If anyone is interested in syntax and they are willing to expand the article tha would be great. But it's better not to have any content than have content contributed by someone without a background in syntax solely for the sake of passing FA review. – Uanfala (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarifications. I've started working on this, but I feel a bit rusty, so the going might be a bit slow. I'll be sandboxing the content here User:Peter Isotalo/Swedish rather than trying to screw up the article with too many minor edits.
- Do you have any examples of other language FAs that you believe contain good descriptions of unique, unusual or fairly specific traits? It might prove very useful inspiration.
- Peter Isotalo 09:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- I would suggest writing a full grammar section based on the chapter on Swedish by Erik Andersson in Auwera and König's "The Germanic Languages" - that is a very useful little grammar sketch that has all the main elements for a sketch of the language. I would do it similar to what I have done in the articles on English and Danish - which have sections that also cover basic syntax.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- also I would suggest cleaning up the references to have a harvard bibliography, with citations using harvrefs and then a separate note section.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- I have this as pdf and can send it. Ahlgren, J., Holmes, P., & Serin, G. (2006). Colloquial Swedish: the complete course for beginners. Routledge. And I have ordered Holmes' two grammars from the library.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:16, 24 March 2018 (UTC)