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: , Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content: Featured articles ← Featured lists Featured pictures Featured sounds Featured portals Featured topics Today's featured article (TFA): This month's queue Recent TFAs and statistics Current TFA requests Potential TFA requests TFA oddities Most viewed TFAs Featured articles yet to appear as TFA Featured article tools: Featured article criteria Featured article candidates Featured article review Featured article log Featured article statistics Random featured article Former featured articles

Nominating an article for FAR The number of FARs that can be placed on the page is limited as follows: For articles on the Unreviewed Featured Articles list, no more than three nominations per week and twelve per month. 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. 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. Place {{subst:FAR}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article. Write "FAR listing" in the edit summary box. Click on "Save page". From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text. 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". Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{Wikipedia:Featured article review/name of nominated article/archiveN}}, filling in the exact name of the nominated article and the archive number N. Click on "Save page". Notify relevant parties by adding {{subst:FARMessage|ArticleName|alt=FAR subpage}} ~~~~ (for example, {{subst:FARMessage|Superman|alt=Superman/archive1}} ~~~~) 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

Second Malaysia Plan

Notified: Johnleemk, Nakon, Borisblue, WikiProject Malaysia

WP:URFA nom

There are some unsourced statements such as "Due to this wide disparity ... improving the economic status of the Malays" and "new conundrum was therefore considered". The article is heavily reliant on a single source that was written in 1977, calling into question whether the criterion 1c ("thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature") is met. The phrase "It was also alleged by some" should attribute the allegations to specific persons or organizations. DrKay (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Belarusian Republican Youth Union

Notified: Zscout370, WikiProject Belarus, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject Socialism

WP:URFA nom

There is an update tag on one section, and when I tried to address it I couldn't verify the article content. The dead links and age of the material also indicate that the article needs updating on a broader scale. The latest information in the article is from 2006, which is almost ten years ago. DrKay (talk) 15:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Arthur Percival

Notified: Singaporean wikipedians' noticeboard, WikiProject Malaysia, WikiProject Military history. Main author and nominator inactive since 2013

WP:URFA nom

Several paragraphs and sentences are unattributed [I've marked two but there are others], some of which contain potentially controversial statements, including "difficulties with his subordinates", "Bennett was full of confidence, but faced a mixed reaction", "Percival threw away potential advantages", "restrained rather than self-serving", and "Unusual for a British lieutenant-general". DrKay (talk) 15:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Walter Model

Notified: Hongooi, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Military history

I am nominating this featured article for review because as noted on the talk page last year it is tagged for citation in many places, some of which contain peacock and weasel words such as "his audacity and improvisational skills (and the tactical ineptness of the Russians) had brought him rich rewards", "he felt great displeasure towards officers bearing the red trouser-stripe", "meteoric rise" and "His stubbornness, energy and ruthlessness were more qualities that Hitler found admirable, and Model's blunt and direct manner of speaking also made an impression". These examples are also typical of some of the prose employed in the article, which is not dispassionate or idiomatic, such as "he gave the U.S. 12th Army Group a bloodied nose". In places, the prose is also overcomplicated, such as "The statement that he was no strategist can be agreed to because the conditions for that existed for no general in the Third Reich". DrKay (talk) 21:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment As a quick comment, the article notes that Model expected to be prosecuted for very large scale war crimes following the war, but his involvement in these is never discussed. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The Illuminatus! Trilogy

Notified: WP Books, WP Novels, WP Sci-Fi. Main author and nominator inactive since 2009

WP:URFA nom

Criteria of concern are prose and reliability. On prose, there are many single-sentence paragraphs. On reliability, there are dead links, fansites, and unsourced sentences, including "joke typical of the trilogy", "new lease of life to flagging sales", "they suggest closely resembles the face of Weishaupt", "authors are well aware that it also provides an excuse for mere titillation", "books espouse the use of mind-altering substances to achieve higher states of consciousness", "trademark of Wilson's writing", and "Interest in Lovecraft reached new heights in 1975". It is not clear whether the quote from Leary (sourced to the trilogy's blurb) is a real quote or one made up by the trilogy's authors. DrKay (talk) 09:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song)

Notified: WikiProject Hip hop, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject Reggae, WikiProject Songs

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is not up to today's FA standards. Meant to put it up for review earlier after leaving commentary on the talk page, but somehow forgot until now. Anyway, this is how it currently compares against the FA criteria:

• 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard

• No major problems, but could be better. For example, I feel that "Lisa Haines of BBC Music referred to the song as" could be something like "Lisa Haines of BBC Music called the song" or "Lisa Haines of BBC Music described to the song as", and "Ben Wener told Stefani that the song was disingenuous and 'absurd'" would probably be better as "Ben Wener criticized the song as disingenuous and 'absurd'".

• 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context

• Almost. The music video section doesn't contain any reviews, and it feels incomplete to just list live performances without any commentary or detail other than the names of events.

• 1.c. well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature. Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate

• Absolutely not. The "live performances", "use in visual media", and "track listings" sections are completely uncited. That alone would automatically fail the GA criteria if nominated today. There are also some dead links, and I'm not sure if "Rebel Waltz" (one of the dead links) or "Neumu" are reliable. ATRL is a forum and definitely not reliable, and neither is Jason Shawhan's About.com review per WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources/About.com Critics Table. Video director and theme also need references. Not sure why "Above deck Stefani, the Harajuku Girls, Eve, and more pirates dance on the deck and rigging. Stefani is also seen dancing with the Harajuku Girls in a treasure trove, often carrying a sword, and swinging from an anchor. When the girls dunk the toy ship in a fish tank, the galleon engages in cannon fire, causing Stefani and the pirates to fall all over the ship, and Stefani and the Harajuku Girls are soon shipwrecked." is unreferenced when other music video bits are cited. Since its reception and composition seem to rely heavily on album reviews, more reviews dedicated specifically to the song would be helpful.

• 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias

• Looks good.

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

• Seems OK.

• 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections

• No. It fails to take into account the music video, genres, and what critics said about the song. It also doesn't name any of the nations where it charted in the top ten.

• 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents

• As far as I can tell, there are no problems here.

• 2.c. consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes (<ref>Smith 2007, p. 1.</ref>) or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1)

• Not exactly. There are a few bare URL's, and some references contain the publishing companies for works (a practice that became largely deprecated this past January) while others don't. "The" is not part of the title for Orange County Register, "Top40-Charts.com" should read simply Top40-Charts, and "top40web.nl" should just be "Top 40 Web".

• 3. Media: It has images and other media, where appropriate, with succinct captions, and acceptable copyright status. Images included follow the image use policy. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.

• Almost. File:RichGirl1.jpg is rather blurry, and I'm on the fence as to whether File:RichGirlSheetMusic.png or File:Rich Girl (Gwen Stefani song - sample).ogg are particularly beneficial. The audio sample is currently 24 seconds long when it should not exceed 23.6 seconds (10% of the song's length) per WP:SAMPLE. All images have appropriate licensing.

• 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style

• No excess detail detected.

The edition that passed for FA in June 2007 wasn't exactly ideal and is not something I would've supported if reviewing at the time, but to be fair, the criteria was less demanding back then. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Banff National Park

Notified: MONGO, WikiProject Geography of Canada, WikiProject Protected areas, WikiProject Canada, WikiProject Geography, WikiProject World Heritage Sites, WikiProject Alberta

I am nominating this featured article for review because it's a 2006 promotion, and I don't think this still meet the criteria. Like I mentioned at talk page, there's still some paragraph lack footnotes.--Jarodalien (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll mention it to the primary author...all I did was nominate it. You could of course look for some references yourself and help out, as I mentioned on the article talkpage back in May. Some things are generally common knowledge that wouldn't need an inline ref.--MONGO 02:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

If they were common knowledge, then this should be very easily done.--Jarodalien (talk) 06:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at your meager contributions to en.wiki, you are not only too lazy to assist but also too lazy to list the issues. Looks like trolling to me.--MONGO 10:42, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow... good for you.--Jarodalien (talk) 14:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Come up with specifics troll or be gone. Surely you can come up with specifics....no? That should be easy shouldn't it?--MONGO 16:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Guys, enough of the sniping here. Jarodalien, can you please specify which of the criteria you feel are not met and why? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Already add cn tags more than 5 months ago, and mentioned at talk page. Lots of paragraphs have no inline citation at all.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, but just so we're clear - your only concern with FA status here is the state of the article's sourcing? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Sourcing is my main concern, but shince you mention it, I also hope infomation like "As of the 2005 census, the Town of Banff has a population of 8,352, of which nearly 7,000 are permanent residents", "Climate data for Banff", "with 3,927,557 visitors in 2004/2005", "with 32 wolf deaths along the Trans-Canada Highway between 1987 and 2000, leaving only 31 wolves in the area" along with other data could least update to 2010s. Thank you.--Jarodalien (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I have added more sources, and could update some of the information like the census numbers. Aude (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Weak close. I have fact checked the entire history section, finding no problems. Consequently, although the geography and geology sections are not fully sourced, I'm inclined to believe that the content of those sections is also verifiable. There don't appear to be any statements in the section that are controversial. Other editors have done some updating of the figures, and I've done a copyedit and review of the images. DrKay (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Rwanda

Notified: Amakuru, Lemurbaby, BanyanTree, WikiProject Rwanda, WikiProject Countries

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it currently falls short of being comprehensive and well-researched. Parts of the article are rather dated. For example, the data on religion is from the 2002 census, not the more recent 2012 census, and much of the data in the economy, education and health sections is from the late 2000s. There are some questionable statements, such as "It is not clear who funded the next batch of 100,000 XO-XS laptops nor the additional laptops leading to the 400,000 XO-XS laptops", which is sourced to a wiki site. The section Millennium Development Goal 6 lacks context, with no explanation of what this MDG is. There is a general need to update the article, which quite a few relatively old "as of" statements present. I have personally rewritten the sport section, and have tried to encourage other editors to help with improving the article, but not much progress has been made. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

An inconsistency: the introduction states that "Rwandans are composed of three ethnic groups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa", whereas the demographics section states that "the population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: there's a general problem here, because it is quite a hotly disputed topic in sources as to what the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa groups actually are. In some sources, Banyarwanda are regarded as one ethnic group, sharing a language and culture, with Hutu and Tutsi being social classifications, while in other sources the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa are themselves regarded as separate ethnicities. The text tries to explain this issue, and I've changed the lead to match what's in the Demographics section. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but I still think this part needs work. The lede states "The Rwandan population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda, although within this group there are three subgroups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. The Twa are a forest-dwelling pygmy people descended from Rwanda's earliest inhabitants. Scholars disagree on the origins of and differences between the Hutu and Tutsi; some believe differences are derived from former social castes, while others view them as being ethnicities or tribes". The scholars who consider Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups can't consider that the Rwandan population is drawn from just one ethnic group. I think we need more of a sense that there is disagreement between scholars who think there is one ethnic group, and those who think there are multiple ethnic groups (both in the introduction and the demographics section). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Cordless Larry. I think part of the difficulty here is that the term "ethnic group" is not clearly defined. In the UK we tend to talk of an "Anglo Saxon" ethnicity, but that is of course itself a hybrid of various different peoples, not just Angles and Saxons, but some native and other peoples as well. The main source I used in this section is Mamdani's book "When Victims Become Killers", which looks at some of the arguments in the matter but doesn't really give a definitive answer. One thing he says is "If we understand an ethnic group to mean a cultural group, comprising those who speak a common language, then the Banyarwanda must be considered East Africa's largest ethnic group". So he's saying it doesn't matter what their origins are, as long as they share language and culture, then they're a single ethnic group. I've just edited the article and replaced "ethnic and linguistic" with "cultural and linguistic" to make this more clear, and I've removed the bit saying Tutsi and Hutu may be ethnicities, to more explicitly say that those scholars on that side of the fence believe they come from separate origins, but without treading the minefield of whether that means they're separate ethnicities or not. Let me know what else I can do to make this clear. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Amakuru. I think the new text works better than the old, and while there's more that could be said, I think this is about right for a main country article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Education and health

The main focus for my efforts this weekend is going to be bringing the health section into line. I would like some feedback on one thing though - at the time of featuring, this as the version of the article: [1]. Then, education and health were in one paragraph (which I had modeled on a similar paragraph over at Cameroon, an earlier FA). The education part has not changed much, apart from the addition of some over detailed analysis of laptops. The health section, however, has been hived off into a separate section, and largely filled with non encylopedic and over detailed information.

My question is whether it makes sense to fold these two back into one paragraph, with just a summary of the details of each. The thing to bear in mind is that this is strictly a summary article. Country articles can never hope to go into very much detail on any particular topic, which is why we have child articles Education in Rwanda and Health in Rwanda to provide much more detail on that. In fact, the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates does not suggest including any detail about education and health at all. Personally I would favour the approach of updating the paragraphs from the FA version, to reflect up to date information, but keeping the two subjects in one short section, as before. What think you?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few of the country featured articles do have health and education sections, often as sub-sections of demographics. Do they naturally belong together in one section? I'm not sure they do, personally. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've now rewritten the health section, it gives a general overview, with citations and some relevant statistics, but without going beyond two paragraphs. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Amakuru, that now looks much better. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sport sub-section

Amakuru's post above reminded me that I meant to mention that the sport sub-section that I wrote is currently quite long. There is perhaps a need to create Sport in Rwanda, to move the content of the sport sub-section there, and to summarise it for the Rwanda article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I had thought of that myself a while ago. That's a very good idea.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Things that need updating

Lead

• Confirm relgion figures. - Already done.
• Check females in government posistions fact - Done.

History

• Last paragraph updated for recent developments - Done.

Politics and government

• Mention the two term limit and current proposals to remove it - Done.
• Update with recent sources for criticism of constitution - Done.
• Update numbers of deputies with more recent election, including facts about female majorty - Done.
• Check on latest status of courts (in particular gacaca) - Done.
• Update facts and figures on corruption - Done.
• UPdate cites on the RPF dominance - Done.
• Update relations with France and Francophonie - Done.
• Update relations with Uganda and Congo - Done.

Administrative divisions No changes needed

Geography

• Make sure still 149th largest country (given new countries that have come into place) - Yes it is.
• Make sure climate figures are up to date - Yes.

Economy

• Update GDP figure - Done.
• Update USD exchange rate - Done.
• Update plans for EA shilling - Done.
• Update farming figures, and GDP contribution - Done.
• Update crops - Done.
• Update industrial sector figures and products - Done.
• Update tourism figures - Done.
• Update media and communications - Done.

Infrastructure

• Update water figures - Water is up to date.
• Update electricity figures - Electricity up to date.
• Update transport

Demographics

• Make sure basic figures and densities are up to date - Done.
• UPdate faith figures - Done.
• CHeck languages - Done.

Culture

• Check national holidays - Done.

Cuisine

• Check beers - Done.

Education

• Check and update - Up to date.

General

• Go through all references, check for deadlinks and format correctly.

@Cordless Larry: now that the sport and health has been dealt with, the above is a list of things I'd like to check and update now, based on a read through of the article just now. If you can think of anything else, please let me know. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work, Amakuru. I'm incredibly busy off-Wikipedia at the moment, but that looks like a good list. If I get some time, I'll help out making the checks you identify. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've not looked at this for a week or two, but it's still on my to-do list and I hope to get back to the tidy up very soon... please keep open for now!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I checked for more recent tourism figures yesterday, but could only find official statistics to 2011, though more recent figures have featured in reports such as this, so they must exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I also found this potential source for beers. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the number of public holidays from 11 to 12, but the source also lists Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Are these full public holidays too? If so, it should be 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The relevant law suggests that they are official holidays, so I will update to 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry. I have no idea why I looked at the new source and thought there were still eleven. I must have counted very badly!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry and Amakuru: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've not been able to commit much time to this, but Amakuru has been chipping away at it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry it's taking so long, (I've been very busy in real life), but as Cordless Larry says, I have been doing it little by little over the past few weeks. If it's OK I'd like to keep it open until I can polish off the remaining items on the list above, and then we can see where we are. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The statement "Clans existed across the Great Lakes region, with around twenty in the area that is now Rwanda." has been tagged for clarification since June 2014. DrKay (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  @DrKay: I was about to look in to this, but I see you've already cleared the sentence in question. Well that's fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Close without FARC. Thank you for keeping the article updated. I have cleared the final tag. DrKay (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• On the issue of referencing, there are some full citations in amongst the shortened footnotes of the notes section (mostly, if not entirely, my doing). Is this a problem? If it is, I can attempt to fix things. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry: not to worry - I'm slowly moving them all down to the sfn format, and once that's done I will go through and fix all the deadlink refs. Then I'm pretty much done with my fix ups I think. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Amakuru. I've done the remaining citations from the sport and education sections. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks Cordless Larry.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Phew, finally finished checking and updating the refs, so I've now finished my list of things to do. @Cordless Larry: do you see anything else that needs doing? Assuming not, my vote is as for DrKay, Close without FARC. I believe with the work we've done, this is now back to FA standard. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates

Place the most recent review at the top. If the nomination is just beginning, place under Featured Article Review, not here.

Pulaski Skyway

Notified: WikiProject Bridges, WikiProject New Jersey, WikiProject New Jersey/Hudson County Task Force, WikiProject Organized Labour, WikiProject National Register of Historic Places

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because after a discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, the following issues were left unresolved with a project-level consensus that this article should be reviewed here.

1. There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.
2. There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status
3. The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.
4. There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues.

I left a notice on the article talk page on September 27, and nothing changed with respect to the article, so it's time to move things here. The account for the original FA nominator (SPUI) has been inactive for years, so notifying that editor is a futile endeavor. I am placing the customary notifications on the appropriate WikiProject talk pages. Imzadi 1979 → 01:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I will rehash the points I brought up at the ACR that touch upon the issues with the article, which include many minor and some major issues:

1. "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.
2. "The landmark structure", WP:PEACOCK.
3. The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.
4. "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.
5. Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."
6. Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.
7. Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.
8. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.
9. "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.
10. The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.
11. Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."
12. The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.
13. "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence.
14. The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.
15. "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.
16. "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?
17. References 3 and 103 are dead links.
18. The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.
19. Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.
20. Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.
21. Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source. Dough4872 02:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

With regard to suggestions above:

• "bridge-causeway"? I'd think the Pulaski Skyway would just be a really long bridge, as causeways are generally supported by earth rather than piers.

Not doneCategory:Causeways appear to include numerous structures of similar type

• "The landmark structure", WP:PEACOCK.

Not doneLandmark aptly describes the structure, designated by NRHP, and referred to as such:http://www.northjersey.com/news/road-warrior-old-pulaski-rollercoaster-will-continue-to-ride-1.415651?page=all

• The sentences "The landmark structure has a total length of 3.502 miles (5.636 km). Its longest bridge spans 550 feet (168 m)." should probably be combined.

Not done not necessarily as the the separate ideas derive no benefit from combining

• "federal and NJ state registers of historic places", maybe spell out New Jersey here.

Done fixed; it is clearly established that the Skyway is in NJ

• Source needed for "Route 1 again in the 1953 highway renumbering in New Jersey."

Done link to Route 1 Extension covers topic in appropriate article

• Source needed for "providing access at the Marion Section (southbound entrance and northbound exit only) of Jersey City and South Kearny (northbound entrance and southbound exit only)." Also the parentheses and ordering is awkward.

Done countless road articles, including most in Category:FA-Class U.S. Highway system articles route description mention places w/o references; why here? Many appear to be from observations taken from maps and satellite imagery; info is pertinent, while pertinent, is non-esstenial, thus parenthetical. Nonetheless refs added.

• Perhaps should mention what roads the ramps provide access to.

Not doneWould seem to add unessential information into an already long article. An exit list has been previously deleted by consensus:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pulaski_Skyway&diff=389106688&oldid=389090659

• I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section.

Not done please do so, though

• "Except for crossings over Jersey City rail lines and the Hackensack and the Passaic", should indicate the Hackensack and Passaic are rivers.

Done It is clearly established that the Hack and Passaic are rivers; it is common to call rivers "the"

• The sentences "The concrete jacketing of the steel was removed from the plans since it would make the taller fixed bridges heavier. This resulted in more maintenance." should be combined.

Not done combing could possibly create confusion about what reason for maintenance: the weight or lack of concrete jacking. Clear as written

• Source needed for "However, tolls were never implemented."

Done removed

• The sentence "During the mid-1920s, redevelopment of Journal Square, Brandle's Labor National Bank, founded in June 1926, acquired a new 15-story headquarters, the Labor Bank Building." is choppy and awkward.

Done fixed

• "In January 2013, NJDOT announced that work on the $335 million projects for repaving and restoration of the roadway would begin at the end of 2013", 2013 used twice in sentence

Doneannouncement in January; "end of year" would not be specific enough, thus named "end of 2013" consistent with Wikipedia:DATED

• The fifth paragraph in the Rehabilitation section is large and needs to be split.

Done split

• "NJ Transit" should be spelled out as New Jersey Transit for consistency.

Done fixed

• "In April 2015, NJDOT said that unforeseen additional repairs would be made extending the completion date and adding $14 million in costs.", when would the completion date be extended to?

Done fixed Per source: "Construction began a year ago, and was expected to be finished by April 2016. A new completion date has not been determined yet." at end of the same added

• References 3 and 103 are dead links.

Doneref 3 de-linked, 103 not dead link

• The Google Maps reference of Jersey City should be refocused to better show the skyway.

DoneMap focus supports statement: Google Maps includes the Route 139 eastern approach.Google (October 16, 2010). "Jersey City, NJ" (Map). Google Maps. Google. Retrieved October 16, 2010. 

• Reference 90 should have the city added to be consistent.

Done location= Hoboken, NJ added

• Reference 106 appears to be a blog and is not a reliable source.

Done removed

• Reference 109 appears to be a fansite and is not a reliable source.

Done removed Djflem (talk) 02:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll reiterate that everything above is ignoring some fundamental issues with the article, and unless those issues are discussed, we're just doing work to text that will end up trimmed, summarized or even outright deleted. Imzadi 1979 → 09:36, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• With regard to above:
• There are slow-motion stability issues with the article.

but bit of a non-issue since many FA articles are continually be edited such, as Statue of Liberty, a FA with lt more hits than Pulaski Skyway, has had 120 revisions since October 2014; this article has had 56; but the point is, especially since you mention:

• There is a lot of text added since the last FAR kept the article's FA status

which would make sense since that time, the specifics of it the reconstruction have come to light as has the political backlash for it's funding

• The new section is WP:UNDUE weight compared to the rest of the history section.

which which is long and would make sense since, as mentioned above, Pulaski Skyway#Rehabilitation covers a $billion reconstruction of the which is no small undertaking; it covers the reasons why it's being rebuilt, how it's being re-built, the alternatives to traffic while it's being re-built, and the political scandal that springs from the funding. While there is no WP:UNDUE issues (do you contend that there are differing points of view about the facts being presented/), can you be specific as to why it is too long and what should be removed?

• There is also a concern that much of the new content was created by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for WP:NOTHERE and WP:RS issues,

but the last edit made by that person was in April 2014: 140 revisions ago & the work has greatly changed since then.

Your statements, while clear, do not address improvements to the article with regard to content, style, and structure. Without specific concerns as to what appears Wikipedia:Published in the Wikipedia:Namespace, there seems little to be done with your concerns. Can you please state exactly what is wrong with the with the article in regard to Wikipedia:Content policies Djflem (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. The paragraph on tolls looks incomplete: the last sentence should have a source or explain why tolls were not implemented. I'm not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue, given that not much appears to have happened in the history of the skyway: it was built, it stood, cars drove over it, it was shut for repairs, etc. Once the design and construction is covered, there's only a limited amount one can write about what happened during its years of use. As work on the article seems to have stalled, without obvious consensus on the article's status, I think we have to move to declarations. DrKay (talk) 10:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  It is unclear why you have moved this to FARC. The article is not stalled. You will note that where specific issues have been brought up, they have been addressed. Other commentary has been about "concerns" which have not been articulated in a way that express any reasoning for what the specific problem/solution is or have been thoughts or opinions based on personal taste. Other observation and broad generalisations have not been constructive or instructive about making improvements to the article. As seen above, the editor who suggested other changes has been asked to clarify on this page what their wishes are and to react to responses given to those wishes. (By the way, those concerns were never brought to the article talk page, where they should been hashed-out. They were presented as an afterthought in Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways/Assessment/A-Class Review/Pulaski Skyway, a closed discussion was posted there). The editor has time to do so, so the lack of response IS consensus. I have waited for answers to questions as to how to handle statements for which are no sources to verify, but none have been forthcoming, and therefore, they have been removed. Any discussion about the claims about UNDUE cannot be talked about without there being an rationale as why they are being made, which has not been offered, thus not fulfilling the criteria for a to proceed from FAR to FARC.Djflem (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC - While many of the minor concerns I brought up were addressed, there are still major concerns with the article that need to be touched upon for this to remain a FA, including the undue weight given to the rehabilitation, unsourced information, and poor structure. Since it seems no one wants to address the major issues, we need to move this article to FARC. Dough4872 15:35, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  You will have to be more specific than the vague statement you have made above as you are stating opinion, but not backing it up with anything substantive. It appears most the items you brought up have been dealt with. Others are just a matter of preference for a writing style, which is a perogative. Please explain which issues are not addressed and why they should be, particularly in regard to the following. I think the sections could be organized a little better. I would move the first paragraph of the Design and construction section to the Description section, as it serves as a description of the bridge, and would put the Design and construction, Labor issues, Truck and other safety issues, and Rehabilitation sections as third-level headers in a History section. Please explain why it would be better to present the material as you propose; otherwise your claims of improvement cannot be considered constructive. Also, please explain what and why you find the rehabilitation section has undue weight, citing exactly what you are talking about, as is stated above you have not "not convinced that the rehabilitation section is all that undue".Djflem (talk) 19:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC—the only progress here so far is some minor polishing and window dressing, yet substantive issues related to weight of coverage remain untouched. There doesn't seem to be any interest in tackling those substantive issues, so I don't foresee this remaining as a FA at this time. Imzadi 1979 → 19:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't move to FARC Inappropriate at this time since no explanation, justification, or rationale has been given to any of the claims made re:substantive issues on this or Talk:Pulaski Skyway. As stated per Wikipedia:Featured article review

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.

This has not happened. Firstly, there is conflict with regards to [[Wikipedia:UNDUE as there are no opposing point of view about the simple facts presented. Further, the comments made do not provide for changes that are actionable, as explained in Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in feature discussions. Djflem (talk) 07:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

@Djflem: we generally only conclude Review sections as Keep if it is striaghtforward. Moving it here doesn't mean it is demoted, but it can undergo a more protracted editing period to ensure it gets sufficient time to be worked on (sometimes months...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:55, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

That's clear. So why move an article it to FARC if the review is not complete? If there are concerns they should be expressed by those who have them in such a way that other editors can address them, no? Djflem (talk) 17:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Peru

Notified: Victor12, Materialscientist, Peru Wikiproject

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because...the article no longer meets the standards.

1. The history has become too long and with focus on random areas (such as Inca worship and Fujimori inflation statistics).
2. Citations are missing from several parts of the article. For example, foreign relations and military sections.
3. Too much focus is placed on unimportant topics, such as water supply and sanitation, making for a terrible structure.
4. The reference formats are too inconsistent.
5. Demographic statistics are of dubious neutrality, especially when considering the complex racial structure of the country.
6. Too many images, causing excessive text sandwiching.
7. The article is wordy as a whole and does not follow WP:Summary guidelines.

These are just a few of the many problems in the article. Unfortunately, it no longer meets the criteria for FA status.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 04:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see where you have followed step 1 of the FAR process (raising issues directly on the talk page and giving editors a chance to respond). --Laser brain (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Laser! Good to see you again. I made a comment on several of these same issues back in July 2014 ([2]), these include: the references, the use of images, the increasing use of text contrary to summary guidelines. None of these points were addressed at the time, despite promises by an editor working in the article to do so, and the article has fallen under further disarray. Victor12, the editor who had the most extensive knowledge of the topic, as well as being the article's original FA nominator, seems to have stopped editing Wikipedia (except for a few, minor and sporadic edits)—at this time, nobody is addressing other important points raised in the talk page ([3] and [4]).

I'd volunteer to work on the article and fix it, but have no time at present (in addition to being tied to an AN/I issue that is taking away what is left of my free time in WP). The article's FA status may be giving the wrong impression to potential editors who can help it. Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 12:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. No-one working on it. DrKay (talk) 22:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

Moved here as no action for one week since DrKay's comment above. Article's length as such is 36 kb readable prose, which is within generally accepted article size limits. Outstanding concerns are five dead links, and unreferenced segments. Image rationalisation may be needed as well. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

• Delist. Unsourced statements include, but are no means limited to, "resistance was suppressed when the Spaniards annihilated [the Incas]", "the church came to play an important role in the acculturation of the natives", "massive native depopulation", and "reduced the power, prominence and importance of Lima". Entire paragraphs have no sources, or are sourced to "discover-peru.org" and "allempires.com", which do not appear to meet the criterion for high-quality reliable sources. Potentially non-neutral statements without counter-balancing comments include "people were forcefully converted", "the church employed the Inquisition, making use of torture", "marred by atrocities", "symbols of the human rights violations", and comparing "free and fair" elections with "tainted" ones without providing a source. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I hadn't noticed it, but the Black Legend is heavy in the article.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 17:14, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Tamils

Also note: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Tamil people/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tamil people

Notified: Vadakkan, Sundar, Subramanian, Wikiproject India, Wikiproject Dravidian civilizations, Wikiproject Tamil civilization

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review. The article has been a prime candidate for FAR since 2010 and at that time Dana boomer and I had some discussion on getting this here. However, I didn't follow through on time. We've had posts about some of the problems on the talk page: Nov 2010, Oct 2013, Talk:Tamils#Featured Article Review. The major issues include (a)quality of sources used within the article, (b)image use -- while copyright vios are a regular concern, the random use of images without context is also a problem (c)Undue weight to certain aspects, including synthesis of information from external sources, (d) some copyvios have been inserted into the article and have stayed in for a while (a deeper check is still needed). I have also started a deeper source evaluation here; hoping it would be ready by the time we go to FARC. —SpacemanSpiff 07:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

• I was hoping this would get some comments. Personally I don't think this is an easy fix, the history is complex and over the years a lot of unsourced content has been dropped in front of references. There's a lot of OR and POV stuff that's being edit warred over even during this review.—SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Sourcing, stability and copyright problems. A couple of years ago, I tried to fix up Azerbaijanis and eventually gave up after a large amount of work because it proved to be a wasteful time sink. This article appears to be suffering in a similar way, and I doubt it will be possible to fix it through this process. DrKay (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Got to know about the FAR just today. Agree, the quality of the article has come down in the recent years. May I ask to kindly allow a reasonable period of time? —Vensatry _(ping) 06:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

I note recent editing by blocked users. The articles's size and broadness/complexity means it needs a detailed FARC to come though with its star intact. Concerns are fidelity to sourcing, stability and risk/presence of copyvios. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, but that's only one part of the whole mess. If you see this revert of mine (since reinserted) you'll notice how some of the POV nonsense is taking over the article:
  • "The Tamil rebels in Sri Lanka reflected some elements of Tamil martial traditions which included worship of fallen heroes (Maaveerar Naal) and practice of martial suicide. They carried a Suicide pill around their neck to escape the captivity and torture."
  • "A remarkable feature besides to their willingness to sacrifice is, that they were well organized and disciplined. It was forbidden for the rebels to consume tobaccos, alcohols, drugs and to have sexual relationship."
• It is really unfortunate as this is a subject that has significant scholarly study, but over the past three to four years the article has become a place to promote fringe perspectives and most editors who've been interested in maintaining this article have simply given up. —SpacemanSpiff 04:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delist. Unsourced statements from February 2011; dead external links from August 2015; apparently unsourced weasel words, such as "what is considered to be folk Hinduism"; mixture of American and British spelling; inclusion of material in the lead that is not found in the article body. DrKay (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vensatry: Any update here? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Georg Forster

Notified: Kusma, WP Libraries, WP Germany, WP Plants, WP Journalism, WP Birds

URFA nom.

Review section

This is a 2006 promotion that has not been maintained to standard; it has uncited text and some MOS issues, as mentioned on talk in April 2015. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe in the future you could ping the appropriate projects, rather than just putting a comment on the talk page and hoping someone might notice? We didn't know there was a problem until you pinged us today with news of the review. :P Will see what I can do. MeegsC (talk) 15:10, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm thrilled to see people descending on the article for improvements, even though the talk page notice was ignored for more than two weeks, indicating that we had another older unwatched FA. Meegs, your suggestion is impractical for many reasons, which we could take up at WT:FAR (so as not to muck up this page) if you are interested. Please keep in mind that one of the main objectives of FAR is to improve articles, and being here is not a "punishment". Also, I hope you've noted from the FAR instructions that we can KEEP without FARC, which is an outcome that delights most of us here ;) Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I am a bit busy IRL these days, and do not have much wikitime to dedicate to this right now, especially not without a bit more detail on what is wrong. As I haven't kept track of everything that happened at MOS: could you point me to the major issues that you see? Also, not every sentence is followed by an inline citation, but if you could tell me where you would expect additional citations I am happy to go hunting through my Forster biographies. Sadly, my current university library doesn't seem to have a copy of Saine's biography, but I'll see what I can do. —Kusma (t·c) 13:03, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes-- happy to see people willing to work here! I will start a list, not yet comprehensive, and add to it as issues are addressed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your list. I'll try to improve the messiness. Fortunately, there actually are page numbers in most citations to Saine's biography, but they are visible only in the wikitext, not in the displayed result. I do not recall why this is the case and whether they used to be displayed when the article passed FA. On the whole, the article has been quite stable since it became a FA, but I certainly agree it no longer looks like the best we can do. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• spaced WP:EMDASHes ... the article should use either unspaced WP:EMDASHes or spaced WP:ENDASHes.
• What is the order of the Works section? Alpha, chrono?
• Book sources need page nos.
• Citations do not have a consistent style (as but one example, look at the many different ways author names are rendered)
• Citations are incomplete or incorrently written. All sources need a publisher, all websources need an accessdate, and author and date should be supplied whenever available, also ...
  • [2], English translation at australiaonthemap.org.au (archived link, 19 July 2008) needs to be cleaned up to a correct citation.
• Check image captions (for example, The Pinnacle of liberty, A satire by James Gillray)
• Italics should not be used here, and I'm wondering if this can be reversed (that is, put the English version, with a footnote to the original ???) ("The freedom of the press finally reigns within these walls where the printing press was invented.) See WP:NONENG. That is one sentence: I don't think it needs a pull quote, but Maralia may know better.
• There's sort of a mess everywhere in terms of WP:ITALICS in relation to words as words, translations, quotes, etc:
  • called "Freunde der Freiheit und Gleichheit" ("Friends of Freedom and Equality")
• Avoid WP:OVERLINK on common terms known to most English speakers and not needed for understanding of this article (samples, Latin, England, philosophy, there is more) and link on first occurrence.

This is not a complete list, but is enough to get started. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment

• Fixed all dead links, captions and a few overlinks.
• Improved dash-usage (opted for spaced en-dash), but this will need another look (especially in refs).
• WP:ITALICS, "page numbers and other ref details", and "sorting of works" in a meaningful way is above my paygrade.
• I could try to transform references into cite-templates - if nobody is objecting against that citation style. Only a minority of references use cite-templates currently. GermanJoe (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC to keep on progress. Is anyone willing/able to finish this up? There are still inconsistent citations, minor amounts of united text, italics issues (e.g. quotes), and Overlinking, at least. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

  I am still giving this 100% of my wikitime, but that hasn't been much at all (travelling, work, sick kids). I hope I'll get through the citations next week. —Kusma (t·c) 06:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

  Thanks, Kusma; I will be traveling for a few weeks if you don't hear back from me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Kusma: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Back from the dead (marking exams and other business meaning no wikitime at all), back to normal not-enough wikitime. Will report on progress as it happens, hopefully during July. —Kusma (t·c) 14:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I am having difficulties with the "Works" section, it is a completely random mess in my opinion. I am uncertain how to best approach it between OR and copyvio concerns. —Kusma (t·c) 14:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Why not just remove the works section then? FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Would anybody object if it is gone? —Kusma (t·c) 18:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I can't believe I am saying that, but the list should stay imo. Granted, it is a bit messy and borderline-useless for most average readers, but someone interested in in-depth research about Forster may find the information useful. I trimmed a few entries with no conceivable immediate usage and sorted the list. GermanJoe (talk) 11:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

It does look a lot better (thank you!) and does not compare too poorly to some other Works section in FA-class biographies. Something like Charles Darwin bibliography, while desirable, should not be necessary here. —Kusma (t·c) 14:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• I have cleaned up some of the more obvious problems with citations, switched to "surname, given name" format, and removed the optional publisher locations. Unfortunately several of the references include non-standard information and additional remarks, where I have no real clue how to improve them - or if it's even necessary. And I lack all of the older sources to add eventually missing details. Another look on the reference progress and additional advice would be great. I hope, we can give old articles a bit of leeway :), but can clean up some more if needed. GermanJoe (talk) 00:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

I have moved this here to clarify who thinks what about whether this article is kept or removed. So please comment here if you think it now meets FA criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment - The notes are still a bit of a mess, with lots of problems in formatting and consistency. I'll start going through them as I have time, and then I'll do a read-through of the prose for any other problems. I'm hoping we don't have problems with missing page numbers from inaccessible sources. --Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems to be within criteria now. DrKay (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• @Laser brain: can you let me know your feelings on the article now? I am keeping a coordinator hat on so I can close this....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

O-Bahn Busway

Notified: Michael (original nominator, retired), Jj98, WP Buses, Australia noticeboard

URFA nom

Talk page notice Jan 2015

Review section

This is a 2006 promotion that has been tagged for a year as outdated. There are other issues, which I will list if someone engages to improve the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• Move to FARC, insufficient progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

FARC section

The review section concerned the article's datedness. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

• Delist. Needs updating and copy-editing. Unaddressed concerns with sourcing and comprehensiveness on the talk page: Talk:O-Bahn Busway#FA Concerns. DrKay (talk) 09:15, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delist - This needs a fair amount of work. In addition to other text previously tagged as outdated, the fares are out of date. The claim "The O-bahn design is unique among public transport systems..." seems to have been invalidated by the 2011 debut of the Cambridgeshire Guided Busway. Some attention is needed to representations of money: Australian dollar is not linked until the sixth section of the article; some figures are given as A$ while others are simply $; and no conversions are given at all. The See also and External links sections need pruning. The citations need work: there's a bare url, a dead link, missing accessdates, and an undefined source (UBD Adelaide?). Maralia (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
• Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Hold, improving. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
    • I am going to be traveling and may not have internet access (don't know yet); once Maralia is satisfied, I'm satisfied. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment A couple of us have put some work in to returning it to standard, but none of us are FA experts, so are really only responding to specific concerns, not the general principles. Any additional advice and assistance would be welcome, although it may be too late now. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I will be out all day, but will look in this weekend. Thanks for the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Review

• Too much happening in this image caption, it took me a long time to figure out what it was trying to say: "Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied Mercedes-Benz O305 on the O-Bahn guide-way".
• Is this hyphen an Austrlian or English thing? "city's rapidly expanding north-eastern suburbs".
• Per WP:V, how would one go about verifying sources like these ?
  • Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson
  • Busway Information, Paper Three: Operational Strategy, South Australian Department of Transport (1983)
    • Are these published documents or some sort of in-house thing?
• Where is this information from the lead cited in the article?
  • The Adelaide O-bahn was the first bus rapid transit system in Australia and among the first to operate in the world.
• Is there any problem with the simpler language of:
  • The population of Adelaide more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
• instead of:
  • Adelaide has had significant population growth since the industrial expansion following World War II, with the population having more than doubled from 313,000 in 1933 to 728,000 in 1966.
• In addition to the growing population, there was an explosion in the number of new motor vehicle registrations, a 43-fold increase in the period from 1944–65. This was fuelled by nation-wide full employment, annual economic growth close to 10%, and the discontinuation of government fuel rationing after World War II.
  • More unnecessary verbiage which sounds like a political promotion.
• There have been a number of proposals to extend ...
  • is sourced to 1983, suggesting the article still needs updating (what happened with that)?
• On a quick skim, I didn't find current usage/ridership/whatever data.
• Sentences should not start with numbers.
• Convoluted bodied bodied bodies ... I don't know what it's saying:
  • Pressed Metal Corporation South Australia bodied 41 rigid and 51 articulated bodied buses, their cost included in the original $98 million budget.
• These along with a single Mercedes-Benz O405NH make up today's fleet.
  • No as of date, no idea what "today" refers to, and an incomplete citation, with no date as a clue.
• Biodiesel fuel was trialled between July 2005 and May 2006.
  • And ???

In summary, there are prose issues, but more significantly, I am still concerned about needed updates, and quite a few of the citations are incomplete. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: are you still following? More than a week has passed ... I am still at Delist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

That ping will not work as you did not sign again when you changed the name. Rcsprinter¹²³ (parlez) @ 16:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks, sorry, I thought I had! @ScottDavis: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry @SandyGeorgia: - I had seen your more detailed notes but not had time to look at them and the article properly since you posted them. Thank you, I'll try to address some in the next few days. I hope that @BarossaV: might drop back in to help too, but he/she might be away as they haven't edited for over a week. --Scott Davis ^Talk 11:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Review response

Thank you for the detailed review. I have attempted to address most of your points, and perhaps a few others I saw for myself.

• I think I have trimmed and simplified the captions
• Yes. north-east is spelled with a hyphen in Australian English (ref: Macquarie Dictionary online)
• I have not found those documents online, not sure if that shows I didn't look hard enough, or if they are only available in hard copy somewhere due to their age. a comment on the Railpage forum confirms that one of them exists and can be found from that reference.
• I deleted the sentence about first BRT - I think it is probably true, but I have never heard it called that, so unlikely to find a reference that it was first, other than a complete list with start dates, if such exists.
• Thank you for the suggested simpler language. I think I went further in a few other places too.
• No extensions have eventuated, so references are simply to a selection of proposals. Something might come of the current proposal to add a tunnel or lanes closer to the city, but the consultation is not complete yet, so it probably won't look exactly like the concept drawings. If anything, I'd like to shorten that section to avoid undue weight, but I think it needs to remain in some form.

Thank you for the help on this article. I don't know if I've done enough to save its FA status, but I'm certain it has improved through the review process from where it was when it was nominated for review. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks for continuing, ScottDavis, and for the improvements; I can give it another pass to see where we stand, if you indicate that you are committed to restoring it to standard. If not, I'm unsure if I should invest the time, so please let me know of your availability to continue work. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes @SandyGeorgia:, I am prepared to continue working on it. Thank you for helping. I don't have easy access to resources that are not online though, so I can't verify or expand the citations for things that are cited to documents without URLs from the 1980s. --Scott Davis ^Talk 05:58, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Update

1. The WP:LEAD is short and doesn't adequately summarize the article, but the work of finishing the lead is usually best left to last, after content in the body is nailed down.
2. In the "See also" section, I suspect that Bus rapid transit could be linked somewhere in the article and removed from See also, but I'm unsure where to link it.
3. Citation consistency, some have author first, some have author at end, some have author last name first, some have author first name first ... pick on :)
   • (author is last here). Items of Interest for Planning of Luton Dunstable Translink, Appendix A: Report on Adelaide O-Bahn by Tom Wilson ... and this is missing publisher ... where does one locate this document?
   • First name last name. Susan Marsden. "Hindmarsh – a short history". Professional Historians Association (SA). p. 23. Retrieved 10 April 2015.
   • Last name, first name. Donovan, Peter (1991). Highways: A History of the South Australian Highways Department. Griffin Press Limited. ISBN 0-7308-1930-2. (Books need page numbers)
   • tom name ? Pengelley, Jill; Zed, tom (16 October 2009). "South Road Superway to connect Regency Rd, Port River Expressway". The Advertiser. Retrieved 16 July 2010.
4. More citation consistency, some of the citations are rendered by manual (rather than template), and there is no consistent punctuation ... for example,

   Hunt for O-Bahn fleet Adelaide Advertiser 29 September 2007

   has no punctuation whatsoever, while other citations have periods after title and publisher. All of the citations should use the same format ... preferably with punctuation :)

5. Missing accessdates ... these things change ... Route 500 timetable Adelaide Metro ... and again, no punctuation ... you all might discuss whether you would rather use citation templates for consistency.
6. It is not clear that all of the External links are necessary ...

Prose (this is not a comprehensive list ... skipping around for samples)

1. "developed with American assistance" ... US ? Venezuelan? Argentine? All are America ... unclear what is meant here, government, private enterprise ? Vague.
2. The same as problem as before ... excess wordiness ... why not instead of:
   • A transport blueprint, developed with American assistance, was presented to the government in 1968: the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS).
   • A transport blueprint, the Metropolitan Adelaide Transport Study (MATS), was developed with assistance from (??) in 1968.
3. Isn't "abandonment" kind of a one-time thing? How do successive governments abandon something? The plan was abandoned by successive governments, ...
4. alluvial soil could probably be wikilinked ...
5. comma ? On some sections 115 km/h (71 mph) was achieved in tests.

This article is definitely improving, and you're on the right track, but I suggest that @Tony1: might help on the prose matters. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

@Maralia:, @DrKay:, fresh eyes needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, getting better. I removed three external links (one was about transport in Adelaide generally; another was a personal website that had only 3 images; and the last literally did not mention the O-Bahn). I also took care of the rest of the citation formatting. Agree that some prose work is still needed, but this is getting close. I've struck my delist comment above. Thanks for your work, ScottDavis; just a little more tightening for clarity, along the lines of SG's "Prose" list immediately above. Maralia (talk) 04:26, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: Thanks for taking care of the specific issues mentioned above. This is getting close to ready, but the prose isn't quite there yet. I undertook a major rewrite of the Planning section in an attempt to demonstrate a more logical flow. I still think this article would benefit from a full copyedit. Maralia (talk) 05:49, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you @Maralia: I have read through and tweaked a few phrases, but I suspect I've reached the limit of my ability. The "Expansion proposals" section feels very long and somewhat incidental. It also seems to assume a fair bit of knowledge of Adelaide landmarks and geography. To someone reading from further away, does the article lose anything significant by deleting the heading and first three paragraphs of that section? --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

This seems to have stalled, but while the issues with the original article at the time of its writing seem to generally have been fixed, I think it's out of date. There is no mention of the extension in the lede, and gets all of two sentences in the article, which seems drastically short since it's both politically controversial and probably the signature public transport policy of this term of the Weatherill government. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

My reason for not putting any more about the current proposal to extend is that it is currently still only a proposal. I agree there could be an update that there are now four versions of the proposal in 2015, but it doesn't belong in the lead until it is actually happening; there have been many other proposals that have not eventuated. The political controversy probably belongs just as much in Rymill Park or Weatherill government. I need help from someone else to polish the text further, as FA-standard text is not what I usually practice. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I can understand it not going in the lede on that basis, but there still needs to be more details in the relevant section of the article since it is a significant political issue. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion the quality of the text is fine.--Grahame (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. FARC section open for 4 months with no substantive delist votes remaining. DrKay (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• ozroads.com.au is a self-published source.
• Last two sentences of the second paragraph of Development not sourced
• First paragraph of Buses is not sourced
• The article would really benefit from a map of the route
• I would expect a more detailed route desription for the busway – from one end of it to the other, describe the direction it travels in, features it passes, type of development around it, suburbs it goes through, etc. See the route descriptions of Kwinana Freeway, Great Eastern Highway, Forrest Highway for some examples of how a route from point A to point B can be described – readers should be able have a basic idea of what a journey on the route is like.
• The Route table, which uses {{AUSinttop}}, can have an interchange column turned on. This will allow the location column to be used for the actual suburbs, which is its purpose.
• Does any reference show the distances ad being exactly 3.0, 6.0, and 12.0 km? If not, don't use a false precision.
• Converted speed limits should be rounded to the nearest 5 – the extra precision doesn't serve any purpose for readers
• In terms of structure/organisation, I would usually put a description-type section first, before a history-type section. This allows readers, especially those not familiar with the subject or area, to understand more of and have some context of what is discussed in the history section.
• The lead is meant to summarise the article, and so there shouldn't be information in there that isn't in the rest of the article – I don't see O-Bahn etymology, passenger capacity, operated by Light-City Buses, and current passenger numbers elsewhere in the article.
• The lead seems quite short and an inadequate summary of the article – whole sections aren't mentioned at all (Effects on local development, Environment).
• Has an infobox been considered? {{Infobox rail line}} has some appropriate fields, and allows ones that aren't applicable to be skipped. The route diagram could also go in the infobox.

Those are the more major issues issues I can see – I haven't done a full check for MOS or other minor/copyediting issues. - Evad37 [talk] 07:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to attempt to address all of those at once tonight, but am making a start...

• OzRoads is a secondary reference for two points about the MATS plan, the text probably is suitable by just removing it, but they are offline sources difficult to access.
• It appears the unreferenced sentences were referenced until a significant copyedit in April seems to have just dropped the reference, so I have put it back.
• I've cited the first sentence of that paragraph, haven't found a WP:RS for the rest yet.
• I've tried making a few maps for Wikipedia, but my computer system is not really up to the job yet. I think the SA roads datasets has the relevant data with a suitable licence. I hope to get a suitable computer within 12 months.

I've learned a new parameter for {{convert}} - thanks :-)

Route table, lead and infobox can wait for another session.

--Scott Davis ^Talk 14:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@ScottDavis: and @Jj98:, do you feel you've covered all of @Evad37:'s issues raised above. I don't think leaving this open a few more weeks is a problem if we are in striking distance of keep territory. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the nudge @Casliber:. I had thought I had addressed @Evad37:'s issues, but have made a couple of new edits to the lead section after looking with fresh eyes today. The "O-Bahn City Access Project" also now addresses comments from @SandyGeorgia: months ago, and @The Drover's Wife: before any certainty that the extension would go ahead this time. --Scott Davis ^Talk 00:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)