Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/November 2014

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. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: WikiProject Video games

I am nominating this featured article for review because I noted these issues a week or so ago on the talk page and they haven't been fixed. The major contributor, Giggy, has only made three edits on Wikipedia since 2009, the last of these being in June 2013; I think it's safe to say he's not around.

• Some informal and awkward writing, e.g. "cops" (which is actually linked to police officer), "damaged out".
• Also some vague writing, e.g. "somewhat realistic", "The game is distinctly different from other racing games" (What other racing games? Roughly what percentage of them, or what subgenre of them?).
• The first two paragraphs of Gameplay are slightly wanting of detail. I don't feel like I really understand the individual modes.
• Not a big deal, but there's one dead link.
• Gameplay needs some extra citations.
• The Vehicles section is unnecessary and should be merged into Gameplay as a table or list in the prose. Also needs sources, particularly for the parenthetical information about the Red Rocket and Monster Truck.
• Reception is poorly organized: the second paragraph lapses near the end into information unrelated to sound, and the first one could probably be split into two as it covers a great deal. Also, the use of "fun" is vague and probably unnecessary. Overall, Reception could stand to be reorganized from scratch.
• The screenshot needs a much more comprehensive FUR and should probably go in Gameplay.
• In addition, czar states that completeness alone would keep this from passing an FAC today.

Tezero (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to be a major contributor on this, but just a note: if you run this article through the Checklinks tool, there are at least seven dead links (five 404s and two 101s. Also, I didn't check them by hand, but there are 11 uncategorized redirects that could potentially be broken).--chrisFjordson (talk) 09:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and updated this article's citations (although I wasn't able to update the dead link Tezero mentioned). Notes:

• Ref 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 12, 15, 19, 20, 22, 25 - Updated link to current URL. Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
• Ref 3 - It has been concluded that Moby Games is an unreliable source. I'm moving it here. The claim already has a source, but it's so general that it should be rewritten entirely. I'm removing the second use of this source (MB parameter in the video game reviews box) since it no longer displays on the page anyway.

• Midtown Madness for Windows. MobyGames. Accessed July 12, 2008.

• Ref 6, 7, 23 - Broken link updated with Wayback. Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
• Ref 9 (now 9&10) - I split this into two refs since it cites two URLs. The ref numbers here reflect this change. Added Wayback URL. Added cite web template. Updated citation data. Note: the claim this citation supports is almost certainly outdated.
• Ref 11 - Updated with cite journal template. Added volume and issue numbers.
• Ref 13, 14, 18- Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
• Ref 16 - Added Wayback URL. Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
• Ref 17 (!)- I'm not surprised this is the only one that actually had a dead link tag. There is no archive on Wayback or WebCite, and the only archive.today snapshot is a 404 page. As far as I can tell, the page is no longer hosted on the original website under any URL. The claim this one supports is very specific. I'm not sure how replaceable it will be.
• Ref 21 - Standardized dates.
• Ref 24 - Broken link updated with archive.today. Added cite web template. Updated citation data.
• Ref 26 - Added cite journal template. Updated citation data, added issue number. Note: in the ref parameters (before my edit), this bit was commented out. I've removed it since it doesn't seem to do anything.

• ftp://ftp.mitaphane.com/Wikipedia/MidtownMadnessReview.jpg/

• Ref 27 - Added cite book template. Added ISBN. Updated citation data.

All links (except Ref 17) and citation data should be good. I did not check the content of these URL to see if they support the claims in the article.--chrisFjordson (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed vehicles section and unsourced paragraph from gameplay, they were not part of the article during the original FAC and they've been unsourced for years. --Mika1h (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that was the thing to do, but the article is even more incomplete now. Tezero (talk) 21:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have this FAR on my watchlist. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I split the first paragraph in "Reception" into two. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Midtown_Madness&diff=607592381&oldid=607232307 }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 06:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made a GoCE request to copyedit this article. See diffs here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors%2FRequests&diff=607728388&oldid=607726942 }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 04:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank @Jaytwist: for copyediting Midtown Madness. I'm happy! (=D) }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:23, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I took down my Midtown Madness GoCE request. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some improvements were made in the review section but the review seems to have stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:50, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist per my yet-unaddressed concerns. Tezero (talk) 01:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist Tezero's concerns are valid, and since the main contributor hasn't been active in a while, I'll have to concur with him.--Retrohead (talk) 22:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for the update JimmyBlackwing, I withdrawn my vote.--Retrohead (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The article has seen vast improvement since the nomination in May. What still needs to be done to save it? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think Gameplay still needs some more detail. Reception is looking much better, though. Tezero (talk) 00:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell ya what. I'm pretty much busy for the rest of today as well as most of Saturday, and tomorrow I'm gonna spend following through on various obligations like drawing enemy sprites for a game my friend is developing. I think that the article is probably okay aside from comprehensiveness in Gameplay, so at some point during these three days I'll try to research it a bit - watch gameplay videos, maybe flip through a player-created guide - and then add whatever I think is necessary. Either way, no matter how much I've gotten around to doing, I'll remove my "delist" vote no later than 12:00 am (Eastern U.S. time) on Sunday. (If for some reason I forget or something comes up, count this as a "keep" vote in advance.) Tezero (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It's not the best-written FA I've ever seen, but after some small content additions just now I think it fits the criteria. Kudos to those who have helped take care of other issues during this FAR. Tezero (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (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 kept. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Bishonen, WikiProject Norway, WikiProject Arctic, WikiProject Sweden

I am nominating this featured article for review because of the article having large sections of it being unreferenced. Paragraphs throughout it lack citations to back up what is written in it. Examples of the problem being in the "The 1896 fiasco" and "The 1897 disaster" sections. GamerPro64 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know there is no Featured Article criterion that requires a paragraph (or any particular size block of text) to be referenced. FACR 1c states: "Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate". In The 1896 fiasco there are six references; The 1896 fiasco contains four. Is the substance of your reason for this review that you do not believe that the thirteen principal references in the article do not appropriately support all of the claims in the text? If so, may I ask if you've read all (or any) of the references and have been able to identify which claims have not been appropriately referenced? --RexxS (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty much in RexxS camp on this particular matter. The guidelines do not demand we have inline references unless a particular issue is controversial and needs a direct reference. The only time I get really strict about direct references is in the case I just mentioned, in scientific articles or in biographies of living or recently deceased persons. I'm going to read over the article and see if I find any specific points that really do need a direct reference.--MONGO 13:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@User:GamerPro64...the original primary author of the article, User:Bishonen, has apparently added a bunch more refs to the article and standardized all the formats to make them uniform. Was there other issues that needed to be addressed?--MONGO 16:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GamerPro, could you specify a bit more precisely what you feel needs reference bolstering?

Peter ^Isotalo 15:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, apologizes for not responding to all of this sooner. Anywho, looking at the article again, there is an increase in referencing. However, I'm now concerned about how I perceive this article and calling out flaws in it. When I originally read the article, I was questioning the lack of sourcing in parts of the article. My thought process was on whether or not the references support the claims in the text, RexxS. I will admit to not reading any of the references so I may have jumped to conclusions. I would like to get a second opinion on this article because of my now lack of confidence towards this review. GamerPro64 03:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No reason to beat yourself up here. The article did become featured quite some time ago and periodic questioning is important to ensure an article has been maintained or to identify possible inadequacies.--MONGO 11:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section mainly focus on referencing. Dana boomer (talk) 20:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral - I started this nomination in April yet don't feel for having it demoted. It probably does need to be looked at again, but I'm not voting for or against it. GamerPro64 17:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. There is no consensus to delist at this time and the nomination has stalled. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2014 (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 delisted by Nikkimaria at 17:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Esprit15d, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Musicians, WikiProject Guitarists, WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), WikiProject Comedy, WikiProject Pop music, WikiProject Rock music, WikiProject Music

I am nominating this featured article for review because after looking it through, I find that it fails multiple FA criteria and would require extensive work to even meet GA standards. Here is what I've found when comparing this against FA criteria:

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

• Not the worst, but could definitely be better. For example, these statements could be more encyclopedic: "Mayer's reputation began to build", "Aware inked a deal", "Mayer has also done endorsements, such as a Volkswagen commercial for the Beetle's guitar outlet and for the BlackBerry Curve", "It was around this time that Mayer began hinting a change in his musical interests".

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

• Absolutely not. This is a major weak point in the article, especially when compared to FA's like Elvis Presley and Michael Jackson. While it discusses his career as well as controversies he faced regarding his dating life and such, it doesn't really go into his artistry (musical styles, themes, and influences). As Czar stated this past April, it doesn't include what critics have said of his works or anything like that. It is mostly this unaddressed issue that prompted me to list this for FAR. In fact, I've noticed this was missing when the article was promoted to GA back in February 2007 as well as when it was promoted to FA in July 2007. For this, I definitely would've failed its GAN and opposed its FAC if I was reviewing back then. It also doesn't give a list for his tours or mention them much in article body.

• 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"

• Another major concern. I see references such as Tumblr, YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter being used. These are generally discouraged—especially for FA's—when high-quality third-party sources could be used in place. Additionally, many dead links, thus making much of the article's content difficult to verify. The statements "The song was the third most downloaded song of the week on the iTunes Store following its release on July 11, 2006, and debuted at No. 25 on the Billboard Hot 100 Chart", "He recorded a session for the British program Live from Abbey Road at Abbey Road Studios on October 22, 2006", "He accompanied Alicia Keys on guitar on her song "No One" at the ceremony", "A follow up cruise titled "Mayercraft Carrier 2" set sail from Los Angeles from March 27–31, 2009 on the Carnival Splendor", "In August 2006, Fender started manufacturing SERIES II John Mayer Stratocasters", "This performance was led to Urban and Mayer teaming up again for future performances, including at the 2010 CMT Music Awards", and "In 2004, after being asked for numerous past years, he performed for over 1000 students at the Pennsbury High School Senior Prom. Wonderland: A Year in the Life of an American High School (Grove Press, ISBN 978-0802141972), a book written by Michael Bamberger, describes the world- famous prom and John Mayer's performance" are missing citations.

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

• Seems OK

• 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"

• Probably the article's strongest point, as it hasn't been edited much in recent months.

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

• It appears to have fair detail, but is not very well organized. It would be better to have the first paragraph focus on his career beginnings, the second on his continued career, and the third on his awards and other endeavors.

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

• Not really a concern

• 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)"

• The citations are a mess. I see many malformatted references; "PBS.org", "TweedMag.com", "J-mayer.org", "Berklee.edu", "CreativeLoafing.com", "MixOline.com", "AllMusicGuide.com", "AwareRecords.com", "Nique.net", "Star-Ecentral.com", "SongWritersHallofFame.org", "ArsTechnica.com", "LA Times", "ellen.warnerbros.com", "Jhnmyr.tumblr.com", "E-Online", "allheadlinenews.com", "Details magazine", "The Belfast Telegraph online", "WashingtonExaminer.com", "US Magazine". Some of them are even missing work parameters.

• 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."

• No copyright issues with images, but this article seems a bit cluttered with them.

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

• I'm not too sure if the details on his parents' divorce is needed since it took place when he was an adult, and perhaps "Touring" could be trimmed down somewhat.

With all of the above issues, I feel the article should be delisted, and is currently no higher than a C-class. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree, particularly on criteria 1a and 1b. Having no section on musical style in a biography of a musician is obviously a problem. EddieHugh (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns raised in the review mostly focused on coverage, prose, and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist as nominator and due to lack of effort to resolve listed concerns Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist on comprehensiveness alone. It's a shame - I'm very fond of Heavier Things and Continuum and his article is one of the few FAs we have about music created in the 21st century - but it simply isn't appropriate for this page to be classed as one of Wikipedia's best. Tezero (talk) 03:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist because of uninspiring prose–excessive use of day, month, year structures.--Retrohead (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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