Wikipedia:Featured article review/Equipartition theorem/archive1
- 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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 8:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC) [1].
Equipartition theorem edit
- Notified: WillowW, WikiProject Physics
Review section edit
I am nominating this featured article for review because there's a lot uncited text, Promoted more than 8 years ago, talk page noticed 17 days ago. FAC nominator inactive for almost a year, notified.Jarodalien (talk) 03:13, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The nomination is problematic for at least a couple of reasons:
- According to Wikipedia:Featured article review, the nominator should raise issues and attempt to resolve them on the talk page first. But the nom did not do this. There is only a section with the cryptic title "possible FAR". Who knows what a FAR is? "FAR" is FA geek jargon that ordinary editors aren't expected to be familiar with. There should have been an explanation of the {{refimprove}} tag being a possible prelude to a featured article review, a list of concrete issues to be solved, and a notice that there may be a time limit to this, after which a formal review may be invoked. None of this was stated, nor even a link provided.
- No policy-based reason was given for either the {{refimprove}} tag on the article or this nomination. The assertion "a lot uncited text" (sic) is not a valid issue. On the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria admin page, inline citation guidance is given by the essay Wikipedia:When to cite. In that essay, there are no thresholds for citation count or percentage of cited text. Instead there are particular classes of assertions that should always be cited (e.g., BLP stuff, quoted text, etc.) and other assertions that may be cited, if the assertions are non-frivolously challenged as being controversial or wrong. There are also classes of assertions, such as common knowledge in the field, that should not be cited.
- Hence, I think it would be best to close this nomination, go back to the article and engage the editors on the talk page with concrete, policy-based issues to help improve the article. --Mark viking (talk) 22:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the nominator did follow instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As always, I warmly welcome constructive feedback on my articles. I left a message on the Talk page offering my assistance in bringing Equipartition theorem up to current standards in FAs and asking for concrete points that need to be referenced. I may need some help from the Physics Wikiproject, my present whereabouts being in Germany and my personal physics library not being with me. Nevertheless, I'm optimistic that we can bring the article up to respectability. P.S. Hi, Sandy! So lovely to see you here. :) Willow (talk) 13:04, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, WillowW ... the FAR process has the built-in ability to be flexible on timing, so please keep the page posted on your progress. Will you be able to access your library any time in the next month? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, no, because I moved permanently to Germany and 100 boxes of sundry textbooks were too much to send by post. I sent my favorites, but my Stat Mech books didn't make the first cut. So they're resting serenely in a storage unit. Still, I have a pretty good memory of where to find what and I daresay I can find many English sources online. Worst case scenario, I'll just *have* to buy the latest editions, like Br'er Rabbit thrown into the briar patch. ;) I intend to resolve this to Jarodalien's satisfaction, however, within the month. Willow (talk) 18:26, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @WillowW: any update on this? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I left a message right away for Jarodalien asking what he would like references for, but I didn't hear back for several weeks and I got busy at work, so it fell off my radar. I see now that Jarodelian has since replied, and I'll get to work on fixing those elements. Sorry about the molasses movement on this. :P Willow (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Still didn't see anything happen, I suggest move this to FARC to keep the process going.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 3 months passed... I'm kind of regret this nomination...--Jarodalien (talk) 16:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Still didn't see anything happen, I suggest move this to FARC to keep the process going.--Jarodalien (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi, I left a message right away for Jarodalien asking what he would like references for, but I didn't hear back for several weeks and I got busy at work, so it fell off my radar. I see now that Jarodelian has since replied, and I'll get to work on fixing those elements. Sorry about the molasses movement on this. :P Willow (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FARC section edit
- Issues raised in the review section mostly dealt with sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:22, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: Nothing happened. --Jarodalien (talk) 13:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist - None of the issues the article has seemed to have been addressed during the time the FAR started. GamerPro64 18:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delist: tagged as needing additional sourcing. DrKiernan (talk) 13:18, 23 August 2015 (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. DrKiernan (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.