Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive: Difference between revisions

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:30, 5 December 2009 [1].

Notified: Chensiyuan, GilbertoSilvaFan... WikiProject_Football, ...

I am nominating this featured article for review because following Henry's handball in the World Cup qualifier against the Republic of Ireland and the controversy that followed, this article no longer meets the featured article criteria, as it does not cover to the controversy comprehensively, possibly due to a lack of neutrality in highlighting 'positive' aspects of Henry's career far more than this. Prose is no longer well written, as it is hamstrung by a narrative style. Stability of the article has been an issue since the handball took place. Petepetepetepete (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to close this article, as we aren't going to FAR every still-active BLP as soon as some rumbling starts off, eg Obama, Jackson dies, McCain, H Clinton. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 00:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

but that doesn't answer any of the four reasons that I have requested the review? He hasn't died, but was involved in a footballing controversy which still hasn't been incorporated comprehensively into the article. (which also has other faults) Petepetepetepete (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the requirement goes beyond raising the problems, remedies must also be proposed. Brief rejoinders, however: a substantial paragraph has been written and there is a link to the incident that is really situated in a wider context; claim of positive bias is framed in a broad brush and in any event, is unsustainable because only the facts are stated; nominator is asking beyond the inclusion of so-called negative facts, nominator wants an aspersion-based narrative; prose has remained largely the same since it was first nominated for FA; and not sure what to make of the stability claim because it is semi-protected only because of the constant childish, partisan vandalism. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

zomg it out with procedure if you want and leave it as it is, but my interest is in improving the article to comprehensively cover the life and times of Thierry Henry. A review would have been able to bring together a number of people to propose how to best to do this. I've proposed how best to do this on the talk page, in short to include a mention of it in the article lead. Besides, the review wasn't closed on the grounds that you've just suggested, but simply because Henry has been involved in a controversy and apparently ipso facto can't be reviewed, which seems wrong to me as the qualities which make an FA can be compromised if they dont reflect the controversy (two weeks on, with a lengthy full protection imposed at the time).

FAC states that (articles is...) "well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard;" The constipated style in this article plainly is none of the aforementioned. The style is unhelpful to such an extent that a worldwide controvery featuring the player is reduced to a couple of sentences placed at the end of his 'international career' section, simply because they were the most recent things to have happened in his international career. Petepetepetepete (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest why the review was closed. Again, examples. You keep talking in broad terms about constipated prose, let's see you walk the talk. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first time i've mentioned constipated prose. Might I sugggest that your defensiveness with this article is characteristic of your edits in the Emmanuel Eboué article, where, by the look of the talk page, you've managed to blur out any mention of the fact that one of the most notable things that has happened in his whole career was when he was brought on as a subsitute and played so badly that he was brought off too resounding boos; something that hardly ever happens in football and was a huge talking point across England. Petepetepetepete (talk) 03:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First explicit use of the word yes, but you've talked several times about the problems of the prose without providing any concrete examples. The Eboue example is irrelevant to the current discussion, though the arguments that you try to raise with it already belie your own tendency to elevate unsubstantiated normative claims. That a substitute being substituted is booed is one of the most notable things in his career... right. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[2]], [[3]], [[4]], [[5]] are four examples of where you've just removed edits on that article to remove mention of an incident which Eboue is possibly best known for in English football without making any attempt to place it into the article in any better way. Not living in England, it's possibly difficult for you to judge the reaction to footballing events, such as Eboue playing so badly in a game that he was subsituted off despite having only just come on, I can actually only remember this happening to one other player. I knowit does happen a lot in US sports, where subsitutions have a greater significance. I'm concerned that your priorities on WP are to protect the articles of sports teams that you like from anything but positive information. Petepetepetepete (talk) 04:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already closed this and moved it off the FAR list, it's just that the bot hasn't done the packaging yet. Please stop filling up this page with stuff that is veering off topic and beginning to analyse editor's skills more than the content directly at hand. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 04:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:11, 4 December 2009 [6].

I am nominating this featured article for review because of this discussion. —S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Should we even have an FAR and AFD going at the same time, even though both its status as FA and its overall notability are in question? I think we should play out the AFD first. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xanadu Houses. WP:NN and WP:WIAFA are entirely separate; the notability tag placed on this article is unwarranted; whether it deserves FA status is a separate question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that at least one editor is doubting the notability, I hardly think the {{Notability}} tag is unsubstantiated. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This was listed at FAR and AFD at the same time; AFD closed as keep. My concerns re: the notability still stand. The sources are very thin and the article clearly not of FA quality. I'd barely even call it anything more than start class. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sheesh, TPH, you must be kidding. You closed the AFD yourself, and then come here and still question its notability? That isn't wise; why'd you close the AFD then? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Presumably because it was a snow keeper, and TPH has learned not to fight consensus.

  Meanwhile, back in the land of on-topic, I have not yet notified anyone of the FAR. The primary contributor seems inactive.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed; consensus is clearly against me, but I still say that the notability is tenuous at best. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps e-mail Wackymacs, just in case? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Notability feels okay to me, three independent newspaper articles spread over three years. (Pretty flash in the pan, but not a single incident). More troubling is the SELF/VANITY angle in Acropolis books, which should be sent to RS/N for a detailed investigation of their publishing quality in the early 1980s. "For almost five decades, Acropolis Books has been a respected publisher of non-fiction books. In 1995, Acropolis started to reintroduce out-of-print classical mystical literature, and began publishing works of the 20th Century mystic, Joel Goldsmith, whose teachings have helped hundreds of thousands of people around the world grasp the eternal principles of spiritual living." The second statement puts lie to the first in my mind. ... I'm deeply uncomfortable with a FA being sourced from the creator's account of his creation. Personally I'd claim Author-Creator is self for anything but an impeccable academic press. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Notability is there, I think - but sourcing is an issue. The limited number of sources (and footnotes) was noted as an issue in 2005, when the article was promoted, and there has been little improvement. Couple that with the fact that sourcing requirements have gotten stricter, and it's not a good picture. I'll see if I can find anything else to add source-wise. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, no one is working on the issue raised above, no edits besides mine and TPHs for days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist for lack of secondary sources and lack of progress in article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist - Concerns about standards of sourcing. Cirt (talk) 09:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:11, 4 December 2009 [7].

Notified: User talk:Matt Crypto main editor and nominator, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Telecommunications, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography

I am nominating this featured article for review because it currently lacks inline citations. Tom B (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing problems including a mixture of inline and footnote citations. Either is fine. Pick one and be consistent in its use. Text inline like this: "and improved by Biham and Biryukov (1997)." shouldn't exist if footnote referencing is being used. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please add alt text to images; see WP:ALT. Eubulides (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

• File:Board300.jpg: source is a dead link. Confused licensing: says both copyright and GFDL.
• File:Copacobana.jpg: missing permission. DrKiernan (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yet another reason why we need a "speedy delist" for former FA-class articles now in this lousy of shape. Once again, I think this is proof that FA is flawed: articles get promoted to a certain standard, and never get touched again after their promotion, even if the standards are increased. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• See here; perhaps if you had written an FA yourself, you might feel differently about the amount of work that someone once put into this article. Patience, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is still in terrible shape. I retract my statement on speedy-delists, but I still think it's absurd that articles can still be called "FA" if they are this bad. Fifelfoo's concerns about sources are, as always, spot-on. As tagged, there is one whole section that lacks sources entirely, and overall there seem to be several other unsourced areas. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:19, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested FA criteria concern are citations, formatting of citations. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles Featured topic drive:one left) 02:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist, no one is working on the issues identified, and there are tags and MOS issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist per citation problems and relative lack of improvement as stated by SandyGeorgia. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist referencing issues throughout. Cirt (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.