Wikipedia:Featured article review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Reviewing featured articles

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

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

Raise issues at article Talk:

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

Featured article review (FAR)

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

Featured article removal candidate (FARC)

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

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

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

Older reviews are stored in the archive.

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nominating an article for FAR

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

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

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

  1. Before nomination, raise issues at talk page of the article. Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
  2. Place {{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".
  3. From the FAR template, click on the red "initiate the review" link. You will see pre-loaded information; please leave that text.
  4. Below the preloaded title, write which users and projects you'll notify (see step 6 below), and your reason(s) for nominating the article, specifying the FA criterion/criteria that are at issue, then click on "Save page".
  5. Click here, and place your nomination at the top of the list of nominated articles, {{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".
  6. 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[edit]

Judy Garland[edit]

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Women,

I am nominating this featured article for review because it doesn't meet today's FA standards. Dr. Blofeld previously started two threads about how the article wasn't up to par, and I can't say these have really been fulfilled. Details to follow. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is what I find when comparing this article to the FA criteria:

  • 1.a. well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard
  • Could be better. As an example, "Emmy nominated" should be hyphenated (if mentioning noms at all), "Film appearances became fewer" reads rather awkwardly, and I'm not sure about the tone of "hit on a winning formula". There are also lots of rather short paragraphs which make the text look choppy.
  • 1.b. comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
  • Certainly not. It doesn't talk about her genres of music or any studio albums she recorded, and the "legacy" section says nothing about her impact/influence on society or the music and/or film industries.
  • 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
Fixed all dead links but the Google News link about an article in St. Petersburg Times. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 1.d. neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias
  • This needs work. "Notable" in "Other notable roles" is a POV description. Same with "memorable" in "her most memorable role", "attractive" and "dowdy" in "the attractive leading lady, rather than the dowdy girl next door", "notably" in "Most notably, she performed" and "disastrous" in "A 1964 tour of Australia was largely disastrous". "Tremendous" in "a tremendous critical success" is borderline puffery.
  • 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
  • This is absolutely A-OK.
  • 2.a. lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections
  • No. I don't really see the need for mentioning Mickey Rooney here, and there's nothing on her musical works except for Judy at Carnegie Hall. Not even her song "Over the Rainbow" is mentioned. As for accolades, it's best to just include what she won to avoid over-focusing on awards, and have any mere nominations instead be included within article body.
  • 2.b. appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents
  • Seems fine to me.
  • 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)
  • One bare link, and url names shouldn't be listed when work titles are already included
Fixed all bare URLs, and which one is the listed URL name? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • See citations 133 ("activemusician.com" → "Active Musician") and 139 (The Sydney Morning Herald, which should be italicized, has "smh.com.au" as its work title) Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:37, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • 4. Length: It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style
  • Maybe. I'm not sure if "Her daughter Liza Minnelli made her film debut at the age of two and a half at the end of the film" is necessary. Not so sure this needs to go into detail about nominations she lost when there are other accolades she won.

This clearly is going to take some work to salvage, and the promoted version doesn't look much better even if FA standards weren't so strict back in 2008 when it passed FAC. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Indonesia[edit]

Indonesia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox

I am nominating this featured article for review because......unfortunately, this article has slipped from featured quality over the past decade. Last review back in 2008 Wikipedia:Featured article review/Indonesia/archive1

Dead sources
Ref formatting all over.
Many one or two sentence paragraphs.
Duplicate reference and cite errors.
Sections with few refs. (like Architecture)
Odd image placement with text sandwiching.
Huge icons. Done Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Different styles of English.
Out dated info from 2006.

......list goes on....... Lots to fix.....needs a big overhaul ...Not even GA level at this point in my view. --Moxy (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is the version from the 2008 FAR. It is a thorough yet concise appraisal of the subject. The current version is filled with boosterism, and has bloated to more than twice the size. Ditching the current article and working on the 2008 version instead may be the most efficient way to bring the article back up to par. CMD (talk) 07:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I would worry that might replace up to date material with out of date material. It would be easy to compare the two versions and move down the article and relegate material to daughter articles or remove it. The article stands at 71 kb of prose, which is significantly larger than the 50 kb prose we recommend maximum article size at. I'd normally insist that discussion have taken place on the talk page first but the size and breadth of the article mean that coming to FAR is inevitable and anyway FAR is probably the best place for a thorough overhaul (that is needed) to be properly assessed and reviewed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting just dumping the 2008 one back into the live version, but that working from that base and updating that may produce a quicker and better result than working from the current article and trying to trim down on the excesses in prose and tone. Sorry for the confusion. CMD (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Chris will want to see this, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 13:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: no, my bad. I should have realised that was what you meant. Still, we agree on that pathway anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've tried maintaining the article before. Ultra-nationalists always seem to find their way back to "fluff up" the article. I agree with Chipmunk: starting from the 2008 version will likely be easier.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Needs a thorough overhaul. Mr Stephen (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree. I have noticed this trend of fluff up/whitewashing on a number of country articles (most recently Saudi Arabia) and there is only so much we can do. I would be OK with starting from the 2008 base, comparing with the present version and adding content. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I have copied the 2008 version to User:Chipmunkdavis/Indonesia (minus interwikis and category application), which is easier to look at than a page in history. It's there as a reference or as a draft page. I don't have time to work on it myself at the moment, but others can feel free to do what they want on that page. I don't know how long this stays open before the process moves to delisting, but it would be nice to save what was one of the best country articles. CMD (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidates[edit]

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

ToeJam & Earl[edit]

Notified: Bridies, WikiProject Video games

Review comments[edit]

This article no longer meets 1a, 1b, 2b and 2c of the FA criteria. I can see that it has unfortunately slumped over the past few years as a lot of it is also out of date. I'll list some of the more glaring issues in broad strokes: the lead does not summarise the article, the reception section has overquoting issues and is not comprehensive enough, there is an inconsistent use of "Genesis" and "Mega Drive", and the majority of the prose is choppy. Also, some references are unformatted and unreliable. The article has deteriorated since 2009 and seems shy from meeting the GA criteria in its current state. I'll alert the original author, Bridies, but he's sadly retired. JAGUAR  12:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

  • The Reception section in particular needs work—should be cohesive prose rather than one-off summaries of reviewers. czar 00:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I removed a section on a revival, as YouTube and Kickstarter were the only sources cited in it. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 22:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Like czar, I think the most glaring issue here is the lack of cohesiveness in the reception section. It also isn't anywhere near comprehensive enough as I could find almost a dozen scans just through a cursory search. JAGUAR  12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for the ping guys. I think the blunt end of what I have to say is that I doubt I'll help bring it back up to FA standard, if it's even possible; if there were a bullet-point list of things to "fix" I might be tempted, but on the other hand, I don't want to contribute to the site (other than fixing typos etc.), on principle. I think much of the mess in the reception section seems to have simply been caused by someone smacking the enter button and turning each sentence into a paragraph. I considered a big roll-back revert but it appears infeasible. Ditto the inconsistent citation style seems largely (the kickstarter stuff now being removed) the result of someone changing refs (and/or new ones) to template-d ones (instead of using the simpler, no-templates, style that was in place before; I checked the FAC and, yes, this is still how new refs should be added). With the prose issues and "over-quoting issues" I am tempted, if you will forgive me, to simply raise my middle fingers. I vaguely recall there being complaints about my use of directs quotes (and I liked to do so, because the style of reception section otherwise advocated, e.g. here, as in "Reviewers XYZ said the graphics were good. ABC said they were very good." and so on, is coma-inducing, and part of the reason no one actually reads Wiki articles beyond the lead. In my humble opinion.) Anyway. The prose went through copy-edits (previously, there may have been many more quotes!) by at least one guy with a load of FAs and a load of FA copy-edits (and from what I gathered from my talk page interactions with him, professional writing and editing experience - as I now also have). Although I've seen his FACs take a bashing on prose too, I think. TLDR: The FAC prose requirements are a hugely subjective moving target which I no longer take very seriously; but most of the prose passed FAC as-is (just with less treatment of the enter button). The really big issue I see above is the assertion that the reception section is not comprehensive, and that many more scans are easily available. I'm pretty certain this was not the case when I wrote the thing in what, 2009? But I can well believe that there could be now. I think they would be for someone else to add, though. A last quick note on the review summaries being short: I think reviews from the early '90s, at least the ones I saw, were simply themselves very short, and certainly on substance. Cheers, bridies (talk) 07:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Good to see bridies again, although the circumstances could be better. I felt compelled to reply here because I was the "one guy with a load of FAs and a load of FA copy-edits" mentioned above. The article's prose is clinical and stripped down, to be sure, but there are many valid ways to write a Wikipedia article. This sort of strictly-business staccato has been my preference for years. And, although I've run into my share of prose trouble at FAC, I don't recall a single objection over that style—not even from Tony1. The article's prose may very well have actual flaws (I copyedited it around 7 years ago), but style preference is not an actionable objection. Also, at a glance, the lead seems to summarize the article fairly well, and I see absolutely zero unreliable sources in the citations. (Perhaps these two things have changed since the FAR started.) Finally, per WP:CITEVAR, template-free citations are fine as long as they're applied consistently. Template-free cites were always bridies' go-to, if memory serves. Looking at the featured version, no templates were used—which means that the templates now in the article were added later, by editors apparently unaware of CITEVAR. Barring a few small carry-overs, I see no reason not to revert the page to the 2009 version and call this FAR done. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 06:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Comment: I also read through the 2009 version, and I'd say it looks alright, but simply reverting back to that version isn't enough. The reception section seems like a mashup of random comments from reviews. I understand that older games didn't get extensive reviews like they do nowadays, but it seems like there's no direction. Also, certain retrospective articles would need to be included, like The Verge and GameSetWatch. I think that if someone is willing to put the time into fixing up the 2009 version, which is in better shape than the current version in my opinion, then I think we can close this FAR. Famous Hobo (talk) 08:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This sounds like a pretty easy rescue job. I'd do it myself but work has me tied up until mid-January, and probably later. Any Good Samaritans interested in the chance to save an FA? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I can probably make an attempt. Not until 1st Jan at the earliest, though, for the same end-of-year reasons as probably everyone else. bridies (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, everyone. I will be quite busy myself until January at the earliest, but I'll be happy to help. To summarise I think the reception section could also do with a mention of its GameRankings aggregation and more cohesive prose, which seems to be the more glaring issue. JAGUAR  17:53, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

FARC commentary[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include comprehensiveness, prose, MOS, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delist. I haven't looked at the other issues, but dead links, bare urls and inconsistent citation style are enough for me to declare at this point. DrKay (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Covent Garden[edit]

Notified: SilkTork, WikiProject London

Review section[edit]

This article is scheduled to be featured on the main page on 30 June, but it's a complete mess. The introduction is five paragraphs long and comprises a mix of tourist guide-style material and an extended paraphrase of a single source detailing the history of the area; the history section, which should and sometimes does have that information, is poor; the geography and landmarks sections are completely tangled, again frequently containing material that should be classed as history; the rest of the article is a hodgepodge of trivia and unnecessary detail: the stage of the Royal Opera House is roughly 15 metres square, the collection of the Transport Museum had previously been held at Syon Park and Clapham, The Harp has been owned by the landlady since 2010. Et cetera, et cetera. The writing is of poor quality throughout, largely as a result of how disorganised the article is. Here's an example: Platform access is only by lift or stairs; until improvements to the exit gates in 2007, due to high passenger numbers (16 million annually), London Underground had to advise travellers to get off at Leicester Square and walk the short distance (the tube journey at less than 300 yards is London's shortest) to avoid the congestion. The reader of this article, once they get their breath back after trying to read that in one go, will recall that the 300 yard factlet had already been presented to them irrelevantly in the introduction. It's not worth trying to scrub through this piece and spot and fix the issues in time for it to be featured again; this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting before it goes anywhere near the main page.  — Scott talk 22:55, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment. Since FAR generally requires more warning than this on the article's talk page, I'm guessing this will be rejected at FAR ... but if anyone here has time, it would be great if you could offer opinions before June 30, regardless of what happens to the FAR. - Dank (push to talk) 23:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I brought it directly here because the article has had barely any regular editors and is due to be featured so soon. If this incredibly bureaucratic process rejects it because of that, well... the less said about that, the better.  — Scott talk 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
      • You are also welcome (and recommended) to have a go at tightening the prose yourself ("Before nomination, ... Attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article.") — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
      • And btw, this hasn't actually been transcluded to WP:FAR, so it's just us chatting at the moment. And note that SilkTork said on his talk page that he'll be looking for problems over the next few days. - Dank (push to talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
        • Oops. Done.  — Scott talk 20:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think a question we should answer sooner than later is whether it's salvageable in time for TFA or if that slot should be rescheduled. --Laser brain (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - I haven't worked on this article for years, so all my notes are gone. I did have it watchlisted to keep it tidy, but took it off my watchlist some time ago. I think I last made an edit about a year ago. I am in the same position, therefore, as anyone else looking at the article, and would need to do the same things. Because of personal circumstances I rarely have the time or energy to spend long periods on Wikipedia, so my time here is random and uncertain. Sometimes I can spend a few days on an article, but rarely at a high level. It will mostly be obvious tidying up. I will take a look at Scott's concerns, though I would urge him in the meantime to get stuck in and do the copy-editing of that sentence he finds over-complex, and to sort the lead into a more acceptable number of paragraphs. Also, Scott, it would help those who are to work on the article if you could more clearly list the areas you feel need attention. You mention the number of paragraphs in the lead, one sentence that is over-long, and that you disagree with the arrangement and value of certain pieces of information, but in general your comment comes over as "I don't like this", rather more than helpful and constructive criticism. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:33, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong on almost every point. I would suggest not involving yourself in this any further, out of kindness to our readers.  — Scott talk 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more constructive, Scott? I have seen some minor areas of concern which I am addressing, but other than that you dislike the lead having X number of paragraphs, and one sentence was too complex to parse easily, you haven't given us much to work on. At this point I'm not seeing a valid reason for this "review", and from the timing, the carelessness, the mistakes, and the language, this simply seems disruptive. I am willing to work on the article to address concerns, and I have already done some tidying up, but I am not seeing the cause for concern. At this point the article is substantially as it was when it was accepted as featured, and is up to date with relevant changes to the area, and with current Wikipedia policies and procedures. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
"Disruptive"? That's Wikipedia Discussion Bingo! I'm out of here. Would say good luck, but luck has got absolutely nothing to do with where you're headed.  — Scott talk 20:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
OK. I've just had a quick look, and it does have areas of concern. Some sourced material has been removed, and some trivia and grammar mistakes inserted ("Covent Garden is a area in London..." is currently the opening sentence). It looks like the article has been fiddled out with since I last looked at it. I'll see what I can do. It may be best to roll it back to the last secure edit, and then look at what positive edits have been done since that date, and reinsert them. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
  • SilkTork asked me to comment. I would say roll it back to the version that passed FAC, or the most recent version that SilkTork is happy with, and see whether Scott still has the same concerns. SarahSV (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Judging by Scott's comments I think that Scott sees Silktork's writing as part of the problem. I don't think we can have two parallel versions. My vote would be for looking at the current version as it is already being worked on. Fresh eyes are good, so will look later. Will be in transit for a bit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't see a problem with the writing. SarahSV (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Nor I. The version as it stands is pretty much the version that was passed, and several people were involved in copyediting at the time. There has been minor updating is all. Over the past few months, as I had taken it off my watchlist, some errors had been introduced, which I have now corrected. I have looked at the transport section and refined the information regarding the underground station, which now reads better, and I hope satisfies Scott. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Scope and Stability The main problem with the article is its scope, which is huge – hundreds of years of history and hundreds of notable buildings and businesses. This is an issue for FA status because featured articles are supposed to be complete. As an example, note that the article has a section about "Pubs and bars" but has nothing much about eating establishments such as restaurants. This district contains numerous notable restaurants including London's oldest restaurant, Rules, several incarnations of the Beefsteak Club and modern institutions such as The Ivy. I have written several articles about such places myself, including Food for Thought, Gaby's Deli, Hawksmoor and Old Slaughter's Coffee House.
It might be feasible to expand the article to include missing aspects such as this but we will then have the problem that FAs are supposed to be stable. The page currently has a banner tag saying that it "is in the process of an expansion or major restructuring" and this indicates that it is not currently stable. I'm not especially bothered about such formalities myself and so will give the page some attention over the coming days, as it approaches the main page.
Andrew D. (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Some good points. I will take down the updating tag, as I don't think there is that much work to be done to justify the banner. And I will also look into those eating establishments you mention. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:00, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
To add to this, the article has 26 kb of readable prose as of this revision, so there is scope to add material, if we take 50 kb prose as a limit to article size. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment I think User:SilkTork has this well in hand. I wouldn't worry too much about what Scott thinks, especially as he seems to have walked away. Despite being an admin, he is a combative and prickly editor. When I remonstrated with him once for abusing his admin powers (threatening to block editors who disagreed with him) he simply removed my comment from his talk page. I suppose this is a COI, but I've tried to be objective when reading the article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
  • In para 2 of the lead, it opens with Though mainly fields until the 16th century, - which is confusing as it seems to contradict what comes next and is out of chronological order - I'd either remove it or move it along to appropriate time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You know, that has always troubled me slightly, but I've never done anything about it... until now! Thanks for the push. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:58, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I have addressed concerns raised, and added a restaurant section as suggested. Where do we go from here? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I've been walking through the area with a view to making suggestions. There's history around every corner there. Walking down King Street, for example, at one end, by the Apple Store, there's a plaque commemorating the National Sporting Club. Down the other end is the original branch of Moss Bros which closed recently, alas. More anon. Andrew D. (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm too busy currently to give this much attention. Perhaps it can be postponed a month or two. Andrew D. (talk)
  • Comment The process is that "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." We are just waiting for that to happen. There was no first stage, so usually the second stage is rejected. I think there was no rejection of this second stage because the article is scheduled for the main page, and it was felt appropriate to give it a look over. It has been looked over and the article has been cleared of recent errors, and has been updated and expanded along the lines suggested in the FAR. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@Scott, Andrew Davidson, and Casliber: Where do we stand here? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Trying to read this, the main outstanding concern appears to be @Andrew Davidson:'s issue around comprehensiveness. So the question is, what should be added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Since you pinged, I'll answer. Despite the fiddling and diddling in evidence above your question, my concerns as originally stated remain almost entirely unresolved in this mess of an article.  — Scott talk 23:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
O-kay, before we get stuck into copyediting too far, do you think there's anything actually missing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually I do think the prose can be tightened. I'll take my coord hat off and keep trimming. Will solicit some independent and thorough eyes. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
update - I've had one runthrough and I found some spots I had to massage. I tend to agree with Scott that some material is placed in odd spots, and there is some unnecessary repetition. I can't see any prose glitches now, but I generally find that if I found as many as I did, I suspect there are more that I will have missed. I need to sleep on this and have another look later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Comments / Singora CasLiber has asked me to look at the prose. I'll do this over the coming week. Singora (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Feedback / Singora

Scotts' comments can be summarized as:

  • 1. The introduction is too long.
  • 2. The history section is poor.
  • 3. The geography and landmarks sections are tangled.
  • 4. Much of the article is a "hodgepodge" of trivia and unnecessary detail.
  • 5. The prose is weak.
  • 6. Conclusion: this is C-class work and needs significant rewriting.

I agree with Scott. I'm surprised there's no section for footnotes (something needs to be done about the excessive trivia and unnecessary detail). IMO, the only interesting part of this article concerns Harris's List of Covent Garden Ladies, the "essential guide and accessory for any serious gentleman of pleasure". Singora (talk) 22:12, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: I think this needs to be moved to FARC as unresolved concerns are significant and I have been editing it so cannot wear coordinator hat...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not seeing the point of this process now. The page was featured on the main page and so that's a done deal. Further agonising about the content does not seem efficient – see diminishing returns. Andrew D. (talk) 13:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The point of the process is whether or not the article meets FA criteria. It has these two segments. From this point on folks can state delist or keep below and/or try and fix things. Whether or not an article has been on the main page is not relevant now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Concerns raised in the review section include prose, coverage and organization. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Exoplanet[edit]

Notified: JorisvS, Drbogdan, PlanetStar, ‎Astredita,‎ Kevin Nelson, WikiProject Astronomy

Review section[edit]

This article no longer appears to meet criteria 1, 2b, 2c or 4 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria. There are several very short sections and paragraphs consisting of single sentences; some sections are merely lists of individual miscellanea. The table of contents is too extensive, and the citations are not formatted consistently. For an article that should be written in summary style, it is over-long with too many individual specific examples that should be summarized to give a more general picture. DrKay (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

This article about the now major astronomy topic deserves it once we address these issues, like expanding short sections and summarizing it. PlanetStar 03:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
@PlanetStar: Please note that "keep" and "delist" are only used in FARC (removal candidates) and not here in FAR (review). As noted above, "In this step, possible improvements are discussed without declarations of "keep" or "delist". The aim is to improve articles rather than to demote them." From a quick glance, it does in fact look like it's much too long. If it can be condensed adequately without removing anything essential, I think it has a good chance at staying featured. Tonystewart14 (talk) 02:47, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

"Relativistic beaming – Relativistic beaming measures the observed flux from the star due to its motion. The brightness of the star changes as the planet moves closer or further away from its host star." Is this name correct? I thought relativistic beaming was for matter moving at near light speed. It might be better to use 'Doppler beaming' unless this use of 'Relativistic' can be confirmed. Praemonitus (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Both terms are used, as well as others. The effect is very small even for close-in planets. The description in the article is poor, though. Lithopsian (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay yes, I found one instance that used the term in the context of a planet,[1] compared to many using "doppler beaming". Praemonitus (talk) 03:21, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
More generally - I see that some work has started to improve the article, but I'm struggling to see how it will be brought back to FA level. As DrKay describes, the problems go far beyond simply being too long. I guess give it a little time and see how it goes. Lithopsian (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Comment: As a suggestion, the planet article tree can (and does) cover many of these topics. This article should focus on aspects specific to exoplanets: a high level discovery history plus the various detection methods, observation techniques, and nomenclature. Elements of the article that are highly dynamic, such as new discoveries, should be spun off to a child article, leaving just a summary here. Praemonitus (talk) 15:43, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments from Graeme Bartlett[edit]

There are quite a few minor issues to fix

  • There are some references where the title is all caps. (or other bits all caps) These should be changed. refs 91 144 165 196 201 207 Fixed x6   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • reference 8 claims to have invalid bibcode Not fixed Bibcode OK. Per Help:CS1 errors#bad bibcode, digits will be allowed in positions 6–8 at the next code update.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  19:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • reference 228 has lower case "kepler" — should this be upper case? Fixed (Kepler M-dwarfs)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 183 time not needed Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • not fixed Actually fixed this time   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 174 has "world★" with bonus "★" that should get stripped Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 150 looks to be deformed and missing stuff: Astronomers Find a New Type of Planet: The "Mega-Earth" date=June 2, 2014 authors=HARVARD-SMITHSONIAN CENTER FOR ASTROPHYSICS (but in lower case) Fixed (used the 2 authors listed at bottom of source and publisher=H-S CfA)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 146 looks as if it would be a journal article, but may only be a web page. full date=6 January 2014 Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 145 missing most info "Probabilistic Forecasting of the Masses and Radii of Other Worlds" Jingjing Chen, David M. Kipping 29 Mar 2016 Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 149 is confusing, it seems you go to a page then click a piece of text to view a video. But what is "22:59"? It looks like a time or duration. Fixed ({{cite video}})   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 88 "01.17.96 – Discovery of two new planets -- the second and third within the last three months -- proves they aren't rare in our galaxy" needs information and formatting author=Robert Sanders date=17 January 1996. Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 79 "NameExoWorlds" is missing info, date=30 November 2015 publisher=IAU Fixed (& surrounding refs)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
    • 79 clearly states "Updated on Nov 30, 2015" but you have added "July 2014" (should we use the current one or the version as retrieved when the article was written?) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
      • (now ref #76) Using the version as retrieved makes more sense to me since it's talking about a 1-time event (the start of NameExoWorlds), so having a 2015 date for a 2014 event seems counter intuitive. The only problem is that the earliest archive.org entry is 15 Aug 2015, which prevents the next logical step of assigning a correct |archive-url=.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 60 Kepler telescope bags huge haul of planets is missing date=26 February 2014 author=Jonathan Amos, publisher=BBC News Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 59 missing publisher and retrieval date (perhaps many are) Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 45 Peter van de Kamp has an article, but do we need to author link when there is one in the page already? Fixed by someone else (I would have opted to keep it in, since someone might not see the prose-link while looking at the refs; will leave as-is)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 39 how about finding an online link for "On the Infinite Universe and Worlds"? And given that this was titled De l'infinito universo et mondi to start with, the quote is probably a translation, but from where? Fixed (now ref 36)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  20:09, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 4 is missing info. Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 203 " Patterns of Sunlight on Extra-Solar Planets" no publisher Fixed ({{cite web}})   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 191 "Astronomers May Have Found Volcanoes 40 Light-Years From Earth" missing info Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • " life as we know it" incorrect style Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  22:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "wasn't available" incorrect style Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "vs." should not be abbreviated in a title or text. Not fixed I don't see this mentioned in WP:MOS, and the MOS uses vs. in text.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • strange unicode in "V 391" ref 72 Not sure I can't find it it, and I don't remember fixing it. Is it still there? The only "weird" character I see is Ø, which isn't causing me any problems. (now ref #69)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    • It was between the V and 391. Perhaps it was thin space, but I have changed it to normal space. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
  • upper-case or uppercase - choose one spelling. Fixed (uppercase)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • triple-star or triple star — choose one style Fixed (triple star, per Star system)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • time-scale or timescale - choose one spelling Fixed (timescale, the prevailing usage)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Super-Earth(s) or Super-earth(s) should Earth have a capital letter? and should it be in quotes:'super-Earth'? (I like caps version best) Fixed (super-Earth, per Super-Earth)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • spin-orbit or spin–orbit (perhaps n dash versus hyphen) Fixed (spin–orbit, prevailing & per Tidal locking)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • RJup is used as a unit without explanation (or non breaking space). Probably it is radius of Jupiter. Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In ref 57 a name appears here as Pr Sa, but originally listed in the journal as Andrej Prˇsa, also listed as Prsa, very likely should actually read "Prša".[2] Fixed Prša per pmid & IAU.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • planets' or planets' (I can't tell the difference in these) Not fixed Identical; all 3 instances use ascii 39 (keyboard apostrophe).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 67 and 163 are the same Rodler, F.; Lopez-Morales, M. (fix this last so as not to mess up the ref #s here) Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Should "non-linear" be "nonlinear"? Fixed (nonlinear)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • NASA’s or NASA's (different apostrophes) Fixed (straightened)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • maximum-masses should have no hyphen Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Mass‐Radius or Mass-Radius (used in reference names so should not be an issue) Fixed (both titles currently use keyboard hyphens, per their respective bibcodes & dois)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:06, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Lopez-Morales also appears as López-Morales Not sure what to do; both are correct per their respective sources (I'm tempted to not consider this a problem).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
  • "isn't" should not be used Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Thomas N. Gautier III's ordinal incorrectly appears as Iii in ref70 Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • hydrogen-helium or hydrogen–helium or H–He? Pick one of the three. Fixed (hydrogen–helium, per List of planet types & Helium planet   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • In ref 151 "Harps-N" should read HARPS-N Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • link G-type star on first use Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ref 201 non standard date format FEB Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • extrasolar or extra-solar Not fixed All (minority) instances of extra-solar are in titles.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • exoplanet’s or exoplanet's Fixed (straightened (except in filenames))   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • should equilibriums be equilibria? Fixed (equilibria)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia is excessively linked, and is this the same as Extrasolar Planet Encyclopaedia? Fixed (and yes, also fixed)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • disc or disk? Fixed (disc -> disk, 1 non-title instance)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • 1-planet and 2-planet should be one-planet and two-planet Fixed   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  04:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • °F is used in one spot. Perhaps it should be dropped, or used in the other places with °C Fixed °C-to-°F replaced with °C-to-K.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • None of the images has alt= text, which should differ from the caption and describe what is in the picture, for those who cannot see the image. On hold I've never paid attention to alt text. Can you (or anyone here) point me to a good example-page, and I'll attempt to apply it? Just found WP:ALTTEXT & will apply it.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC) Fixed All images have been assigned alt text to the best of my ability.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  14:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:52, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

  • @Tom.Reding: please let me do the striking of my own issues! which I will do when I have checked the issue is addressed. Then I know what I have checked or not checked. Thanks for the corrections so far. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Graeme Bartlett, oops... Sorry about that (I thought it was a just a formatting preference). I'll unstrike my new posts from today.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  23:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Comment from Lithopsian[edit]

The lead is, apart from being rather long, almost impossible to read because it is crammed full of inline citations. My understanding is that an FA should comprehensively address all the points that are summarised in the lead, making citations in the lead entirely unnecessary. If that were done here, the lead would be a lot more manageable and appear shorter even without having fewer words. Lithopsian (talk) 13:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to do this, but I hope someone else does (so page watchers know I don't plan on doing everything).   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  17:39, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it is too long. Citations don't make it hard to read in the final text. But the sentences in parenthesis make it hard to read. If we can turn these into flowing text it will be clearer. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Fixed(?) Graeme Bartlett's suggestion by incorporating the longer parantheticals into the surrounding text. The remaining parantheticals are now only 2 words each.   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  16:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
At least until Fdfexoex reverted it. And JorisvS fixed it. Thanks :) (didn't see that until later)   ~ Tom.Reding (talkdgaf)  15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
More generally, the lead is supposed to be a concise summary of the article. It most definitely is not that. Praemonitus (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
N[edit]

Artistic views should be removed, and the intro should have one of the actual pictures of an imaged exoplanet. Nergaal (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

FARC section[edit]

Multiple concerns were raised in the review section; moving here so we can establish consensus on what issues remain and where this stands. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Comments by Dudley[edit]
  • The article has a number of unreferenced statements:
  • Notes a to d.
  • Nomenclature section.
  • Last sentence of History of detection section.
  • The last sentences in the second and third paragraphs of Confirmed discoveries section.
  • The last sentence of the second paragraph, and the last clause in the final paragraph, of the Planet-hosting stars section.
  • Last sentence of Moons section.
  • The Candidate discoveries section is out of date.
  • The article is not an easy read, it has far too many one sentence paragraphs, and the Detection techniques section is inadequate, but it does not seem to have any faults beyond fixing (I see that Tom Reding has already made a major contribution) by an editor far more competent than me. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)