Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2011

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

August 2011 edit

Kept status edit

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 Nikkimaria 16:23, 29 August 2011 [1].

Duke University edit

Notified: Bluedog423, ElKevbo, LaszloWalrus, Ttownfeen, Pismo01, Tinlash (all users with more than 50 edits who have edited in the past year) Universities WP, Christianity WP Methodism work group, Christianity WP, North Carolina WP, Atlantic Coast Conference WP, Durham NC WP

I am nominating this featured article for review mainly because of numerous issues with referencing. Specifics:

  • A bunch of dead links, see this, which leaves a good bit of information (including a bunch of statistics) unreferenced.
  • A lot of the article is sourced to primary sources, including information that is laudatory of the University and therefore needs to be sourced to third-party sources. For example, in the Football section, "he and his staff have been widely hailed as contributing to a turnaround that is currently in progress." is sourced to a Duke University website. In the Research section, "while philosophers Robert Brandon and Lakatos Award-winner Alexander Rosenberg make Duke a leading center for research in philosophy of biology." is also sourced to a Duke University website, and "leading center for research" isn't exactly NPOV coming from the institution itself.
  • Several areas with statistics are unsourced, including "Nine of the 11 non-fraternity selective living groups are coeducational. Central Campus provides housing for approximately 1,050 students (of which about 850 are undergraduate juniors or seniors) in 45 apartment buildings. About half of Duke seniors, however, choose to live off campus."
  • Referencing missing information or poorly formatted, including websites that include only a bare URL.
  • Other references have improper publishers. For example, ref #99 should be U.S.News & World Report, not Colleges.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com.
  • Why does "small compared to the percentage for Trinity undergraduates (47%), but much larger than the national average for engineering students (3.2%).[82][83][84][85][86]" need five references, including three to primary sources?
  • Many areas of the article, especially in the Athletics section, are outdated. They discuss 2005, 2006 and 2007 information which may or may not still be relevant mid-way through 2011.
  • Dab links for The Chronicle and The Hangover.
  • The Alumni section is extremely dense and listy. The sheer amount of blue links makes it very difficult to read and navigate.
    • I second the serious need to clean up the Alumni section. It needs to be converted to prose and supported with reliable sources. —Eustress talk 00:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was in prose format previously before this nomination. Somebody then changed it to a list format based on his/her interpretation of this comment even though (as I stated below) I prefer the prose format as it includes more transitions and seemd to flow better. I may simply revert it to what it was before as that follows other university FAs. The density of blue links seems to be common among university FAs (such as Dartmouth College and University of Michigan) which list even more alumni than this article. I think it's unavoidable since it's basically a large set of names, but the prose format seems to be the preferred format. I will work on supplying references as well. -Bluedog423Talk 03:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I've reworked the alumni section. Still have a few more references to go - will get to them as soon as possible. -Bluedog423Talk 04:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have also added some references to the Alumni section, and will continue to add them later in the day when I get a chance if someone doesn't get to it first. Merveilleux (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good call on getting it back to prose. I think if you're able to populate the remainder of the citations needed, then this issue could be struck through. —Eustress talk 14:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've provided the remaining references for the rest of the alumni section. I also re-worked the structure and copyedited line by line to follow the protocol set by other university FAs. I think it's greatly improved. -Bluedog423Talk 05:16, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Looks good to me. Striking through issue. —Eustress talk 16:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose needs a look-through. The are unclear areas, including "In March 2006, the university also purchased 15 houses in the Trinity Park area that Duke students had typically rented. These houses are now owned by individual families who live in them, including the Dean of Duke Chapel." - this begs the question of if the university purchased the houses, how are they now owned by individual families? Language such as "finally" in "Duke Men's Lacrosse finally won its first national championship" in unencyclopedic.
  • Watch out for vague language, including wording like "At present, there is a plan to restructure Central Campus." When is present? Also, this specific paragraph is unreferenced.

Despite a comment on the work needed being placed on the talk page in April, little work has been done, with the exception of fixing several dead links (a chunk of which I did myself, before realizing the true extent of the issues). However, many more dead links still remain, and little work was done on the major issues with the article. Dana boomer (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I did do an article cleanup about a week after you posted on the talk page, but as you stated, it was mostly fixing dead links. However, at least it's not near the top of the cleanup listing anymore. It's below such education FA's as Georgetown University, Stuyvesant High School, Florida Atlantic University, Michigan State University, Texas A&M University, University of California, Riverside, Baltimore City College, Plano Senior High School, Amador Valley High School. So, it's in good company. I'm not suggesting that makes this review invalid, but rather that dead links are a common issue with even FAs since it necessitates a dedicated user to stay on top of them since the internet is constantly changing. Or maybe all those should also be nominated for review also. The majority of the article is unchanged since the last FAR in 2008, but perhaps that's one of the issues since you mentioned some of the information is out of date at this point. In any event, I'll work on addressing your concerns over the next week or so. Cheers, -Bluedog423Talk 01:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bluedog, thank you for the work that you have already done on the article. I agree that there are many FAs (including those you list above) in need of some serious TLC before they are back up to FA standards. Those you mention probably do need a FAR, or at the very least a prod on the talk page to let people know that they are being looked at. As to your other point (that the article is largely unchanged since 2008), this is partially a problem because of out-of-date info, and partially a problem because FA criteria have changed in the intervening three years. Since that point, the requirement for high-quality reliable sources (as opposed to simply reliable sources) has been added, and FACs over the past two years or so have been getting much closer checks for image licensing, source reliability and close paraphrasing/copyright violations than they were in 2008, or even before that when the article was originally featured. I am not saying any of this to try to discourage you, simply pointing out what tends to be a major issue with old FAs - even if they were kept up to the standard (no dead links, etc) of when they were featured, they quite likely don't meet today's featured criteria, even though they did meet the criteria in place at the time when they were promoted. I look forward to the work that you plan to do on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the DAB link to The Hangover. I also fixed the formatting on ref #99 and removed 3 useless references from the section on study abroad. Ryan Vesey (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the work you have done. On my note that improper publishers, however, you will see that ref #99 was just an example - there are a bunch more in the article. I have removed the "done" tags that someone added, mainly because two of the three things marked were not actually done - one of the dab links still remains and only the specific publisher example has been fixed. However, thank you again for your work, and I hope that additional work will continue. Dana boomer (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, that's weird, I used DAB fixer to correct the link to The Chronicle. I couldn't find it earlier because it was in a reference. I'll go through and fix it manually. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
DAB links have been removed [2] can you strike? Ryan Vesey (talk) 00:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Criteria 3:
  • Criteria 2c:
    • Please update the "retrieved on" dates for all of the external links used as references. Additionally the "retrieved on" dates need to be standardized. I currently see a mixed format of ie 2008-01-22 and or January 21, 2008 etc.
  • MOS Issues
    • Per MOS:Images the photos need alt text; see WP:ALT. See WP:LINK regarding overlinking and linking common terms or items that aren't helpful to the reader with understanding more about Duke.Brad (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • My issues have been resolved. FARC not needed. Brad (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why can there not be done templates? I believe the existence of them allows editors trying to know what has been done and what still needs to be changed. Ryan Vesey (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is with editors working on the article adding done templates to issues that the reviewer doesn't think have been finished. For example, a done template was placed next to my comment about the publishers not being inputted correctly. This was not, in fact, "done" - only the example given had been corrected. Another user coming to the page would look at that template and go "oh, the issue has been fixed", when in fact it hadn't been. So, editors should leaving the adding of done (or striking, as I have done above) to the people making the comments, rather than the people fixing them, since the two parties can have very different ideas of what constitutes "done". Hope this helps. Dana boomer (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixes - I have fixed all the broken links. Now when I run this tool, I get no suspicious or dead links. By the way, what a great tool! As to utilizing more third-party sources, especially when laudatory language is used, I will go through the article more thoroughly when I address overall prose and syntax, but for now have addressed the two examples you gave. The first example actually didn't have a source at all incidentally (the source was for the subsequent statement of the assistant coach being named ACC assistant of the year - which seems fine to have Duke as the primary source on that since it's 100% fact), but it did give an opinion that a "turnaround is in progress" (which is debatable). Thus, I replaced the statement with a fact regarding number of wins. For the Philosophy of Biology references, I replaced "leading center for research" with "rank[s] as the nation's best program in philosophy of biology, according to the Philosophical Gourmet Report" - which, again, is simply stating a fact and I supplied a link. As for the two image issues raised by Brad, I honestly wasn't sure how to properly address the Cameron Indoor picture as it was uploaded by somebody who hasn't edited a page since 2005, so it's extremely unlikely I'd get a response. That individual released several of his photos in the PD, but did some with GFDL. However, I suppose I'm not allowed to simply guess the particular disclaimer (if any), so to be safe, I replaced it with a clear PD image. (Although I prefer his image, so if there's a reasonable approach to rectify this, let me know.) The Ricardo Lagos image has simply been removed as images in the Alumni section aren't typical anyways. Next, I plan to go through the article sentence-by-sentence to work on the prose and fix out of date statistics/statements. While doing that, I'll give my best effort to fix any missing information from references. Let me know if you see any issues with my revisions. Cheers. -Bluedog423Talk

You're doing a great job! I've struck the issues above that I feel to be completely remedied, and it looks like a start has been made on most of the others. Dana boomer (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More fixes - I updated 41 references that should address your fourth and fifth bullet points. Many had improper publishers, missing information, etc. I also worked to address Brad's concern around Criteria 2c - mainly that the date formatting was inconsistent. As to the first part of his comment, is that a suggestion to simply update ALL references in the entire article to retrieved on July 6, 2011? I mean, that's a simple find/replace and I now know that all the weblinks are valid, so perhaps that's okay, but I just wasn't sure. Brookie made adjustments to the Alumni section to attempt to address your concerns there. Thanks Brookie! Personally, though, I thought lists were discouraged and I prefer the prose format of this section as that seems to be the typically accepted protocol among university Featured Articles. The length of such a section and the number of blue links is obviously subject to personal opinion and debate. I mean, we could simply not link every name (which doesn't sound like a good solution) or eliminate some notable alumni. However, I think this section being as complete as possible is preferred. This Alumni section is not any longer than Dartmouth's, which is also a featured article. Feel free to give your opinion, but I personally prefer the (perhaps lengthy) thorough listing in prose format, just like in the Dartmouth article. If somebody wants information about Duke alumni, they can read the section in its entirety - if they're not interested, they can skip it. Hope those improvements help! I'll work on alternative text for the images next...-Bluedog423Talk 16:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the date of retrieval as long as the dates are from the past year (July 2010-July 2011) should be sufficient. We know the links are working but to the average reader it may seem like the article hasn't been updated if they see 2007 etc. Brad (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MOS Issues - I have supplied alternate text for all photos (used my architectural knowledge to the best of my ability!) and also removed several (60+) wikilinks that do not add to the understanding of the main topic. -Bluedog423Talk 18:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Update - I have worked through several more issues throughout the article and performed line-by-line copyedit on the first few sections (lead, history, and most of campus) of the article. I added references for unsourced statistics where I saw them and attempted to replace certain primary sources. I updated statistics when they were out of date, and removed old information. I also sought to rectify any instances of "recent" past, "currently," etc. and replace them with specific dates. I performed edits on all your examples above. Essentially, I believe all the items outlined by Dana boomer have been (mostly) addressed except for "prose look-through" and perhaps vague language in later sections. I can't perform any work or respond to any requests over the next few days, so hopefully you're pleased with the work that has been done up to this point. I will continue my thorough copyedit next week and address any instances I find of vague language, incorrect syntax, and continuing to replace primary sources where applicable. Cheers. -Bluedog423Talk 02:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – Providing a targeted review of the athletics section (sports is my forte), in the same fashion as if this were FAC instead.

  • NCAA should be spelled out somewhere. I see that it's first given in the history section; that would be a good place to do so. When you do this, make sure to leave the abbreviated version in parentheses afterwards, to make things easier on readers.
  • As a newspaper, The Trinity Chronicle should be presented in italics.
  • Another abbreviation in NACDA. This should be handled the same way as the one before.
  • Overlinking: There's no need to have two links to Division I and ACC in such close proximity to each other.
  • First mention of the Atlantic Coast Conference in the section could use the abbreviated version right after it as well. Or you could put it in the lead.
  • "and placed the best in the ACC,[165],". Stray comma here. Hope the rest of the article doesn't have anything like this.
  • Men's basketball: What is meant to be sourcing the last sentence of this sub-section?
  • Football: "Duke reached their first Rose Bowl appearance". Last word should be chopped, unless you think "made their first Rose Bowl appearance" is better.
  • Missing period before ref 197.
  • American Football Coaches Association could be linked a paragraph before it is now.
  • Few reference-related comments while I'm here. First, ref 162 needs fuller formatting.
  • What makes http://www.hoopsworld.com/Story.asp?story_id=8686 (ref 184) a reliable source?
  • References 192 and 194 appear to be the same and can easily be combined. Oddly, they have different publication dates given.

Quite a few things, considering how small a percentage of the article this is. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I italicized Trinity Chronicle, spelled out NCAA and NACDA, removed the stray comma, changed "Duke reached their first Rose Bowl appearance" to "Duke made their first Rose Bowl appearance", filled out ref 162, and removed the ref to hoopsworld. Ryan Vesey (talk) 04:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Giants2008 for the review and Ryan for some fixes. I've addressed the remainder of your points, although I still plan to do a more extensive copyedit of the section. I'll admit that a couple of the things you pointed out (errant comma) was due to a recent edit by me to update some statistics, so it hadn't been like that for long. The athletics section is the one that is probably the most difficult to keep FA-quality simply due to the fact that users tend to update it the most of any section. Cheers, Bluedog423Talk 15:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done more copyediting, paying particular attention to references. I just have the Student Life and Athletic sections remaining. Let me know if you notice any issues. -Bluedog423Talk 02:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the strikethroughs, Giants2008. As for the last remaining item (sorry I missed that), I found two sources that state 14 alumni in the NBA as of the 2008 season (GoDuke and DukeScout). However, since they're both primary sources and already three years old (and having to constantly update that figure requires too much upkeep), I simply got rid of the sentence. -Bluedog423Talk 17:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked over the article about 24 hours ago and the sources are still primarily from Duke. The alumni section is hideously overlinked; I would only link to the names of the alumni. 2c referencing is still chaotic. Brad (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the suggestion Brad. I've delinked everything in the Alumni section except for the names and agree that it is much more readable. In regards to sources being primarily from Duke, I'd think that in many circumstances Duke would be the most reliable and up-to-date source. I understand the desire for secondary sources when citing certain statistics that could be seen as self-congratulatory. However, much of the article is simply citing information about Duke's curriculum, housing model, etc. The mission of Duke's curricular requirements, the % of undergraduates that live on campus, etc. I think are best cited using Duke sources. If there are particular examples of situations in which you believe a Duke source is not verifiable, then I'd be happy to replace them. For 2c, can you also outline what you are referring to when you say it's "chaotic"? I have made sure that all the formatting is consistent, so the only thing that differs is the "Retrieved On" date, which I wouldn't think is a bad thing. But since I've gone through every source and verified that there are no dead links, I could certainly easily update all the Retrieved On dates to simply read August 2, 2011 if that is preferred. I guess you basically suggested that above. Thanks for your thoughts. -Bluedog423Talk 03:12, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • An example edit of some cleaning I did. This is very picky formatting but needed nonetheless. You will see the date format corrections I made, though even I messed one up in the same edit. As for "retrieved" dates I think they should reflect a date within the past year so that the casual observer would see a recent date. We know the links are still current but that needs to be shown. As far as the Duke sources are concerned they're correct if just citing statistics and programs etc. Brad (talk) 07:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the help Brad. I've gone through the article and updated all the retrieved dates. -Bluedog423Talk 16:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another Update - I've completed my copyedit of the prose and have spent many many hours on updating, correcting, and adding references. The difference between how the article read when this process began and now is stark. It began with about 205 references (that weren't fully functional and properly formatted) and now contains 279 in addition to extensive structure changes, grammatical fixes, image modifications, and more. Hopefully, all this effort has been worthwhile and made the article greatly improved. If the original nominator, Dana boomer could come back and check her original concerns that would be greatly appreciated. Perhaps I'll message her on her talk page. Thanks! -Bluedog423Talk 03:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for dropping out of sight for so long on this review - RL has been insane. I took a quick look at the article today and it's looking much better, and is probably headed for keep without a FARC territory. I'm going to try to take some time over the next couple of days and actually do a full review, to make sure that my first impression is the correct one and to give ya'll any further comments that I have. Again, I'm very sorry for not keeping up better on this review, and thank you for all of the work you've done on the article. Dana boomer (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments
  • Ref #161 (Clubs) redirects to the Duke home page.
  • Ref #145 doesn't have any text on that page, and other wikis are not reliable sources.
  • Ref #214 (SMU Receives...) dead links
  • Formatting of the refs still needs some work. For example (note example) ref #159 and 160 have the titles italicized, which they shouldn't be, and include no publisher information. In ref #227 the publisher is given as "nobelprize.org" when it should be The Nobel Foundation - the publisher is the organization, not the website homepage. Then consider the formatting differences between refs #102 and 103. Inconsistent date formatting - see ref #110 with 3 September 2006, while most dates are month day, year. Refs like #140 should have Duke University or Duke Student Affairs as the publisher, not "Residence Life and Housing Services". This needs significant work.
  • Recent history, " In 2002 and 2006, three students were named Rhodes Scholars, a number surpassed by only one other university both years" Does this mean that three students were named in each 2002 and 2006? Or three between the two years? And what university was the one that surpassed them?
  • Academics, "The yield rate for accepted students is approximately 44%." What is the yield rate?
  • Residential life, "Similarly, students in Focus, a first-year program that features courses clustered around a specific theme, live together in the same residence hall as other students in their FOCUS cluster." Focus or FOCUS?

More comments shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I ran checklinks about 24 hours ago and it picked up some new ones. There would have been a lot more except the dukechronicle website seemed offline temporarily; I left those alone. Brad (talk) 02:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I just ran checklinks again and I don't get any suspicious or dead links. Can you point out which ones you're referring to? I did fix refs 161 and 214, though. I'll work on addressing the other points later. The date format is as follows: date article was published is Day Month Year, while Retrieved On date is Month Day, Year. I think it's consistent throughout the article. But if you're saying that published date format should be same as retrieved on date format, I can adjust the published date format. I just kept it that way since that seems to be what was used most prevalently with the webref template. Cheers, Bluedog423Talk 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's not consistent, though. Ref #118 has the article date format as month day, year, as does #33, #56, #71, #74, #87, etc. And now I see a bunch that have the article date format as day month year, not just the one I mentioned above. They're all over the place. Dana boomer (talk) 14:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think one of the reasons for inconsistent reference layout is that some references are using templates and others aren't. Some editors dislike referencing templates but they do help to bring uniformity. I fixed a few more refs just now. Brad (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have gone through the article and fixed 20+ references, paying particular attention to date format and publisher information. I have also resolved the few prose issues you identified above. If you see other reference inconsistencies or missing information, let me know or feel free to fix it directly. The fixes typically don't take any more time than the identification of them and I'd think the major purpose of reviews such as this is to improve the article and you definitely have more expertise in this area than I do. Thanks again! Cheers, Bluedog423Talk 16:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And even more comments...
  • #155 (General Rules - Kville) is now deadlinking, and in a quick website search I couldn't figure out exactly which link it was supposed to be.
The webpage has taken down the content until the new tenting season, I suppose. It looks like it'll be back up once the basketball season begins again. No matter, I've replaced it with a book reference that states the same thing.
  • Recent history, "Overall, Duke has produced 42 Rhodes Scholars through 2007, including 21 in just a 15-year timeframe from 1993 to 2007." This should be updated to "through 2011", and the number of scholars updated if applicable.
Updated with new numbers and replaced reference with a secondary source (The Rhodes Trust).
  • Recent history, last paragraph - this paragraph is really disjointed, and reads like a bunch of facts strung together with no regard for flow. We jump, with no bridges, from a medical program to the rape case to research expenditures - it's very jarring.
Put research information together and added several transitions.
  • Campus, "stone from a local quarry which was purchased in Hillsborough to reduce costs." The quarry was purchased or the stone was purchased?
Clarified. The quarry was purchased (obviously the stones were purchased indirectly, however).
  • West, East & Central campus, ", the heart of Duke University, " - hyperbolic language, sounds like a press release.
Replaced with "considered the main campus" in one instance and the "center of campus" in another.
  • Key places, "adjacently located to West Campus' north" What? This sentence takes some major puzzling to work out - it should be made clearer and easier to understand.
Re-worded to demonstrate that it borders the main campus and is located directly to the north.
  • Academics, "Duke's endowment had a market value of $4.8 billion in the fiscal year that ended June 30, 2010." Can this be updated for 2011?
I can't find the 2011 figures for the life of me. It looks like they haven't been released yet as far as I can tell. I searched for several minutes and couldn't find anything anywhere except for long-term pool investments, but that includes more than just endowment funds.
  • Graduate Profile - can we update the first paragraph? All of the info is 4 years old.
Updated medical school and law school data and supplied new references.
  • Research - can we update the first paragraph? Again, the info is several years old.
Total research output is FY 2009 - just a year old. Total NIH funding is from 2005, but this is the last year NIH released figures. I have updated the reference with the direct NIH source. According to their official website, "Note: Information on organization rankings discontinued as of FY 2005 [...] Please note that, in FY 2006, NIH discontinued the publication of organizational rankings." The funding increase is also NIH data, using the last year NIH supplied the data. The Nursing research data is from FY 2008, just a couple years old.
  • Rankings - the first paragraph has several pieces of information from 2002, 2005, 2006, etc. Can these be updated?
Updated some of these. As of now, US News ranking is 2011 (latest available). QS, THE, Newsweek, ARWU rankings are 2010 (all latest available). WSJ Feeder rankings is from 2006, which is the last time they released the rankings. CMUP is 2010 (latest ranking). National merit scholar numbers is 2005, which is the latest I can find...tried to find more recent data, but couldn't find anything. Pay data is 2010-11. Updated PR Dream Colleges ranking from 2006 to 2011. Kiplinger is 2010-11. Journal of Blacks in Higher Education is from 2002, but that's the latest ranking they have. All of second paragraph is recent.
  • Greek and social life - "In March 2006, the university purchased 15 houses in the Trinity Park area that Duke students had typically rented and subsequently sold them to individual families." I'm confused as to why the university did this... Were they attempting to make the houses unavailable for rent?
Clarified. They didn't want it to be student housing anymore. Supplied an additional reference indicating this.
  • Athletics, "Eight of these teams were ranked either first or second in the country during 2004–05." Update?
Updated for 2010-11 athletic year using top 10 statistics.
  • Football, "Duke made their first Rose Bowl appearance, where they lost 7–3 when USC scored a touchdown in the final minute of the game." What year?
Added transition to clarify that it's referring to the same year as the previous sentence (1938).

Overall, the article looks very good. I have finished my final read-through of the article, and once the above issues are dealt with (mainly dealing with updating statistics and minor prose issues), I think I'll be happy to say the article can be kept without being moved to FARC. Dana boomer (talk) 14:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I put in a request for copyediting at GOCE; probably be a few days before they get around to it. I also agree that the repair work done by Bluedog423 has been excellent and I don't see any reason why the article should continue to FARC. Brad (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without FARC - Bluedog, the work you've done looks great. I think the article can be kept without a FARC now - it is much improved. Dana boomer (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the extensive review Dana! (And thanks for the direct edits you made to the article.) It's greatly appreciated. I've addressed the vast majority of your prose concerns as indicated above by my replies to your comments. There are a few pieces of data that could be considered old still (from 2006 or such), but that's the latest available data as far as I can tell. In some instances, it might make sense to simply delete it, but overall I don't find it to be too out of date at this point, especially NIH funding data which is of interest to readers (and doesn't change dramatically year-to-year). Let me know of anything else. Thanks! -Bluedog423Talk 05:14, 26 August 2011 (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 by Nikkimaria 16:44, 2 August 2011 [3].

Blade Runner edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: RoyBoy, DrKiernan, WikiProject Film

I am nominating this featured article for review because it is no longer up to standards for a featured article, as it was promoted almost six years ago. There are many facts that are missing references (most of which have been tagged) and too many lists for an article, most of which could be converted into prose to help the article flow much better. Some of the lists may also be split into a new list article. I spend the past several months in a FA nomination for another film article, and I am very familiar with the expectations and requirements for an article to become FA status, and feel that this article needs a lot of work in order to retain its status.

As far as content, the article is well-written; however, the "Derivative works" section needs some attention. I think there is too much detail and I don't think a separate section is necessary for each documentary that has been made about the film. The lists of every single DVD/Blu-ray special feature (along with its run time in minutes and seconds) is an example of both bulletted information that takes away from the prose and how there is too much detail, which can be removed. The "Cast and characters" sections should be merged into "Casting" and "Production" as a lot of the section contains quotes from the actors about the film's production or their opinions about the film, which can be relocated elsewhere. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The statements requiring verification (concentrated in the Soundtrack and Derivative works section) are of minor significance and most can be verified against the relevant primary source material. The list of accolades could arguably be split, but it's not overwhelming as is. The Derivative works section is a little over-detailed and could use tightening up, and yes there is perhaps some redundancy between Cast and Casting/Production. These are by and large cosmetic issues and don't rise to the level of requiring FAR in my (disinterested) opinion. Skomorokh 18:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • 2c There are reference related cleanup tags throughout the article. deadlink, citation needed, page number etc.
  • 3 File:BladeRunner Spinner.jpg, File:BladeRunner Sun.jpg and File:BladeRunner Spinner Billboard.jpg are copyrighted images that do not have a fair use statement for inclusion in the article Blade Runner. Overall there are four non-free images in the article. Reconsider the importance of each image and attempt to reduce non-free usage. All photos in the article need alt text. Brad (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I may have not explisitly mentioned, there are no major problems with the article, there are (were) just tons of minor ones, but too many to the point where they weren't being taken care of. It looks like progress has been made over some issues, but here's a list of some other things that should be done:
  • Add alt text to all images (check altviewer)
  • Consolidate lists into prose, particularly the "Cast and characters" and "Versions" section. Since both sections already have their own separate "List of..." articles, I don't think a list in this article is necessary. "Cast and characters" could be merged into "Casting", eliminating the bulleted list. Fight Club (film) and Little Miss Sunshine are good examples of this.
  • The prose in reception could be expanded. Most of the section is just a table of all the rewards it either recieved or was nominated for, but there isn't too much discussion about the reception in general. Only three specific critics are mentioned in the section (two of whom had some sort of negative reaction) and other critical references use weasel words.
  • "Documentaries" section is a little too detailed. Information about the documentaries should be included (since they're each about 1/2 hour to 3 hours long), but doesn't need to be as detailed.
  • Very little information about home video releases is included. Unlike most films, Blade Runner has had a significant home video releases, since the most common release for the longest time was different from the theatrical version. I don't know of any other individual feature films that have been released in 5-disc DVD/Blu-ray sets. More detail about these releases and the information behind them (creation, packaging, reception) is also worth mentioning. (Not the mention of each and every special feature included though.)
  • In general, prose should be cleaned up for better flow. There are a lot of paragraphs as short as two sentences long that should be moved into the larger ones somehow.
–Dream out loud (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the review section include referencing, prose, MOS compliance, images and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 16:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As there are (to quote from above) "no major problems with the article", I don't see why we would want to delist. Skomorokh 11:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update I have addressed the list issues, cast section and alt test. I do not see many templates, and documentaries looks fine... as it has already been significantly reduced. - RoyBoy 23:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per criteria 3. Comment As noted above there are still open issues with non-free media that have not been addressed. The spinner pics were questioned on the talk page last December and were never resolved. On another note, why is there bold text scattered throughout the article? Brad (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC) Brad (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. 2c and 3 have been resolved satisfactorily. Brad (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously, is there anything actually significantly awry with the article? These trivialities seem better fit for the article talkpage (or even immediate improvements) than requiring a featured article review. Skomorokh 23:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't understand why everyone is making a big deal about this article is getting delisted. When I nominated this article, I did so because I wanted to see it improved, not delisted. This is a featured article "review" and the purpose here is to review and improve the article, not try take away its FA-status. So is there anything significantly wrong with the article? No. Is it up to FA-standards? No. But it's getting close and this review has helped, and I really don't think this article will be delisted, especially since that was never my intention. –Dream out loud (talk) 01:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, a note on procedure: if you read the intro at WP:FAR, it makes out there are three stages to the process: raising issues on the article talkpage, a more formal review with an eye to the FA criteria deficiencies, and finally a delisting discussion. The "review and improve" stage was the second one; we are now at "Featured article removal candidate (FARC) commentary" where the purpose of discussion is to assess whether delisting is necessary. Skomorokh 07:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe it should be keep. The article may need some small details fixed but on the whole, though I have not yet checked the refs and their quality, I believe it meets FA criteria.
  • Linkrot - I have checked the refs and fixed the only dead link (according to CheckLinks).
  • Images:
  1. I have looked at the alt text and made them more descriptive rather than repetitions of the captions.
  2. I have checked the fair-use rationales and licences and see no problems there after amending one.
  • I will perform a copy-edit for prose, MoS compliance etc., though it initially seems in a good state.
One comment I noted above concerned the derivative works section which I have also deboldened as per MoS. I think the issues with the Documentaries sub-section are content versus weight and their location. On the Edge of Blade Runner and Future Shocks could be cut down slightly; Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner and All Our Variant Futures: From Workprint to Final Cut are included on various of the DVD releases and are fairly succinct. I am not sure how a Channel 4 or TVOntario documentary are derivative works and, though released on the DVDs, the same for the other two. Should these not be, respectively, in an "In media" section and "DVD extras" as a sub-section of "Versions"? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Criteria 3 on media is still in violation. Please read what I've outlined twice already during this review. Brad (talk) 02:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have and had before I posted, though it may be that I misunderstood what you see the problems as being. If I read things correctly the media would surely be up for deletion if they were not following the criterion for fair use.
It seems that the only remaining objection is: "Overall there are four non-free images in the article. Reconsider the importance of each image and attempt to reduce non-free usage."
Is this correct?
The images are used in three specific instances: BladeRunner Sun.jpg for the depiction of "Film Noir" mise en scene; BladeRunner Spinner Billboard.jpg to depict the use of buildings as bill boards (to differentiate between a billboard on a building and a building as a billboard)
BladeRunner Spinner.jpg is used as a depiction of the spinner, though it is not really necessary for the spinner description it is certainly better to show the lights and smog effects. It could be removed without detracting from the article as a whole, though it certainly helps to visualise the description.
I know you may feel that you are repeating yourself, but can you please put the specifics of how you feel these still fail. THanks Chaosdruid (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. There are four non-free images in the article:
  • File:Blade Runner poster.jpg is correctly licensed.
  • File:BladeRunner Spinner.jpg is correctly licensed.
  • File:BladeRunner Sun.jpg and File:BladeRunner Spinner Billboard.jpg are the ones with issues. I corrected the licensing template on both files so that they now state: Non-free media use rationale for Blade Runner which were previously stating: Non-free media use rationale which was not specific to the article Blade Runner. However, both of these files were apparently at one time used in the article cyberpunk and their current rationales still reflect the reasoning for that article. The rationales need to be specific for Blade Runner; not cyberpunk and both rationales need to point out the exact reason why they're used here. You were the first person to justify the two "spinner" type pics; one to illustrate a spinner and the other to illustrate the billboards. I see the difference now. Brad (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem above still has not been addressed. Brad (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I thought you had done that. I will address that now. Chaosdruid (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good thanks. Delist now struck. Brad (talk) 07:01, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Can we please get some further comments on whether this should be kept or delisted? This article has been at FARC for over a month, and there has only been one solid keep/delist declaration made. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon revisit I notice there are a lot of 2c problems with citation uniformity. Brad (talk) 23:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)... The 2c problems have been fixed. Brad (talk) 02:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's been open long enough, and the article has improved. It's time to close and move on. DrKiernan (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


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

Removed status edit

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 Dana boomer 14:53, 24 August 2011 [4].

United States Marine Corps edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Top five editors by edit count: Mmx1, Looper5920, Fnlayson, ERcheck, and Bahamut0013. Projects:WikiProject United States and WikiProject Military history.

Article was promoted in 2006 and is not up to 2011 standards. Talk page notice was given over 6 months ago.

Upon further thought this photo has been released to public domain but it's a photo of a 3D sculpture meaning that the sculpture itself may be under copyright. Ask at commons for help. Brad (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quick comment (I've no strong interest in the USMC, but its FA stauts is rather iconic, and it would de shame to lose it): globalsecurity.org certainly isn't the best source, but I wouldn't be so quick to declare it as unreliable as answers.com. I might comment more here as things progress. I'll be happy to copy edit once the other issues are close to being addressed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"high-quality" is a key word of "high-quality and reliable". GS might meet reliable but it lacks as a high-quality source from my past experience with that site. Brad (talk) 02:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
GS is something of a "cut-and-paste" collection. And with their conversion to a pay-model site you can't always verify information cited from there.Intothatdarkness (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah; I've caught several of their articles plagiarizing text from the US Military because they didn't make notice of using PD text. But then they have the nerve to slap their own copyright on the article. Their attempts to promote their own reliability and importance are just as humorous. Their main page has a banner shouting Reliable Security Information. Brad (talk) 00:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a quick technicality (responding to Intothatdarkness) - It doesn't matter that a source is behind a paywall. The only requirement for verifiability is that anyone can verify a source, not that it be easy to verify. I have seen FA writers use books (and have used books myself) that are only held by a handful of libraries worldwide - not every editor would be able to verify the information in these books, but some can, and so it passes the criteria. Same for sources behind a paywall - inconvenient, but not against the verifiability policy. Dana boomer (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - given the 1b, 1c, and use of globalsecurity.org, my opinion would be a move to FACR would be the best course. Buckshot06 (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amusing observation: While editors add and remove tags from the article this little piece of vandalism has gone uncorrected for almost 48 hours now. Brad (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Concerns raised in the FAR section include prose, comprehensiveness, sourcing and images. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist Unfortunately little if any effort has been done to address the issues. Brad (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist This article is no longer of FA standard, unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 08:28, 24 August 2011 (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 Dana boomer 14:53, 24 August 2011 [6].

Sharon Tate edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: User:Rossrs (FA nominator) and all of its wiki projects

I am nominating this featured article for review because I believer that it currently does not meet the 2011 FA criteria. The article was first promoted in 2005 so it's not shocking that this is pretty how still how it looked back then since the criteria was much lower at that time. However, as the time goes by and FAs need to be in better condition, this article should be updated. Another editor raised concerns about this article in November 2010, but from what I can see not much was done to better improve it. This biggest problem is that a lot of it is largely unsourced (like the early life and career sections). Other problems are the sourcing (ref 17 is a fansite and refs 19, 24 and 25 seem questionable). Another problem is the use of three non-free images which I do not think help the reader better understand the article.

I have notified the user who helped promote it to FA status in 2005, but it does not seem like he is active anymore (his last edit was made in May). Looking at the article's edit history, it does not seem like there is any editor heavily involved with it to notify of its FAR. This is my first FAR so if I made a mistake please inform me of it for future reference. Thanks.Crystal Clear x3 07:52, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify the wikiprojects listed on the talk page. Brad (talk) 01:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done so. Crystal Clear x3 03:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsourced paragraphs all over the place. Something like "They became engaged, but the relationship was volatile and they frequently quarreled." should definitely be sourced.
  • The film career section is huge; can it be broken down?
  • Legacy — Doris Tate Crime Victims Bureau shouldn't be bold.
  • Two one-sentence paragraphs in Legacy.
  • Filmography is unsourced.
  • The print sources with Geocities links should have those removed.
  • What makes aboundinglove.org a reliable source?
  • Several primary sources in the Legacy section.
  • Book sources are given in the footnotes, but not used in the article itself.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Concerns raised in the FAR section revolve mostly around sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Does not appear that any work has been done on the article. Since FAR nomination only 8 edits have been made. One of them was mine and at least 4 others dealt with vandalism. Brad (talk) 21:26, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Per Brad. GamerPro64 20:00, 22 August 2011 (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 Dana boomer 13:58, 22 August 2011 [7].

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: User:SchuminWeb, User:MLilburne, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rocketry, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight

Prose and citations are sadly lacking the quality and number required to keep this as a Featured Article. I raised the issue on its talk page over a month back, but there seems to be little impetus to improve the many issues this article has. As a side note, this article seems to rely heavily on online sources - I would have thought that print sources for this subject would be numerous. There may therefore be issues with reliability, although that's my hunch, and not my claim. Parrot of Doom 16:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • 1a: I did not do an in depth study on this but prose could use a brushing up. There are bullet lines that should be in prose. The Legacy section is repeatedly filled with "In xxxx"'s and short one sentence paragraphs. The amount of unreferenced and minor trivia needs to be trimmed. I feel better knowing that Punky Brewster wrote the disaster into the show script only days after it happened. *snerk
  • 1c: In addition to many missing citations there is a full bibliography but not all of the listings are used as references. The article sorely needs the requisite "reliable third-party sources".
  • 2c: All of the external links used as references are missing retrieved dates and standardization throughout the article. Surprisingly no dead links were found.
  • 3: File:Challenger STS-51-L-launch.jpg needs a source; presumably it's NASA but it needs to be listed. File:Zlacze miedzysegmentowe rakiety SRB promu kosmicznego.jpg, what sources were used to assemble the information being given? Without sources this is nothing more than original research. File also needs an English translation.
  • MOS: Fails MOS:Images for text sandwiching, and crowding. Images also need alt text; see WP:ALT. Brad (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: None of these seem very difficult to fix. Who's the primary author? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be User:SchuminWeb and User:MLilburne, who were notified (see the notifications note at the top of the review). If you feel that you can remedy some of the issues identified above, please feel free to do so! Dana boomer (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, it's precisely this editing that makes me avoid, and fail, FA. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears MLilburne is both the primary author, and no longer active on the Wiki. Have we tried emailing him/her? Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern mentioned in the review section include referencing, reference formatting, prose, MOS compliance and images. Dana boomer (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist Maintenance tags abound and the tags have valid reasoning. Citations still chaotic. Some work was done but a lot more remains. Brad (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist – A lot of the content is uncited, particularly in the early part of the article. It's a shame to say this because it's an important topic, but this clearly doesn't meet the present FA criteria. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:04, 19 August 2011 (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 Nikkimaria 16:44, 2 August 2011 [8].

Belgium edit

Review commentary edit

Note on closing: already listed at WP:FFA as re-promoted.
Notified: Vb, Le Fou, JoJan, SomeHuman, Edcolins, Oreo Priest, Fram, WikiProject Countries

I am nominating this featured article for review because of concerns regarding sourcing and coverage. There are a number of issues that should probably be discussed in this article that aren't. The article lacks the headings on, for example, transportation and military, suggested at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries. The sourcing problem speaks for itself, with large chunks of the article lacking in references. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Questionable sources: http://www.eubusiness.com/europe/belgium/belgium-country-profile/
  • Footnotes feel overly extensive and bloated. Trim them down to remove all the quotes.
  • Also, some should be split into a separate section — things like "Belgium is also a member of, or affiliated to, many international organizations, including ACCT, AfDB etc. etc." shouldn't be in the references, but rather in a separate "footnotes" section. Some should also be checked for tl;dr — these "footnote" thingies seem the most bloated.
  • "Whilst taste is highly subjective and individual, some international beer drinkers consider the Westvleteren 12 to be among their favourite beers. The majority of members of BeerAdvocate.com and RateBeer.com, two beer rating websites, consistently rate the Westvleteren 12 as their most enjoyable beer; the 8 and the Blonde also rank highly on both sites." (footnote 130) — I just removed this, as it's weaselworded and based entirely on user submitted data.

Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I have sourced what remained of the Westvleteren part, so that should hopefully be allright now (and I didn't include quotes in my refs!). Fram (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria of concern discussed in the review section include referencing and coverage. Dana boomer (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am one of the main authors of this article. I however do not believe the reasons provided are sufficient for removing the featured status of this article.
For example, military and transport sections are not required by the guidelines (Wikipedia:Countries#Sections).
Though a military section might be necessary to countries like France or the USA, they are not relevant to countries like Belgium which military history is quite irrelevant to such a general article.
The article mentions a link to the article Transport in Belgium.
I have added some references to the history and technology sections. Please tell us whether this is enough.
The source http://www.eubusiness.com/europe/belgium/belgium-country-profile/ is questionable but easy to access and supported by the reference to Fitzmaurice which is reliable but not that easy to read.
The presence of quotes is due to the fact that many parts of this article are controversial (mainly because squabbles between Flemings and Walloons) though these parts might appear harmless to foreigners.
Hence I would like the contributors to this FARC to help the editors and provide very precise critics which really endanger the featured status of this article. I think it would be very sad if this article would lose its featured status for such small critics. Thank you. Vb (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My main problem is with the lack of references in the Hvistory and Government and politics sections. The majority of these sections are unsourced, which I don't think is appropriate for a featured article. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look. Could you please add [citation needed] tags where you're missing some source. 10:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I've added them where I think citations are needed throughout the article. I haven't added any to the history section, because I didn't want to fill it with them. It should be fairly obvious where citations are needed here - each major point should really have one.
In adding these, I also noticed the large number of short (sometimes one-sentence) paragraphs in the article. This also needs to be dealt with. Also, the introduction should summarise the article rather than have its own content, so perhaps material such as that about the name of the country could be added to the main text? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How is work on this going? An update would be much appreciated. Thanks! Dana boomer (talk) 18:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Much has been done. It would be great if the reviewers could comment these changes. Vb (talk) 20:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional citations have been provided and are welcome. There is still a need for more thorough sourcing though, particularly of the history section. The problem with short paragraphs still exists, such as in the Science and technology section. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Another update, please? It would be helpful for the main editors of the article to provide occasional updates (every week or two), as well as pinging the editors who have commented when their comments have been addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 17:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Citations have been added where required. There is no need for additional sources to the history section. This section's statements aren't controversial at all and can be found in any book or website on Belgium that are provided at the end of the article. It is however difficult to provide inline citations because the editors have opted for a presentation which is not always supported by one source only but by a mixed bag of sources. We have also merged several paragraphs, in partical in the section over science and technology. Vb (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Things are certainly looking better on the citations front, although there are still some unsourced claims that could do with references, such as "Belgium also has a strong reputation in motocross". I think the main issue now is style. The citations are inconsistently formatted. Some lack detail (e.g. "See for example Belgium entry of the Catholic Encyclopedia"), whereas others include long quotes, as raised above. I also still think that the text needs working on to reduce the number of short paragraphs and to consolidate sections of text. The Religion section is a good example of this. Cordless Larry (talk) 00:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - This is an archived FAR page (Archive3) and near the top I read 'Note on closing: already listed at WP:FFA as re-promoted' in red. I do not find a more recent FAR page, thus this review appears to be closed. Then why does the article's talk page still show a box stating that this article 'is undergoing' a FAR? - Btw, most of the "long" quotes had and remain to have good reason, as Vb mentioned. Furthermore, in this article the quotes from French and Dutch texts also provide translations; one must not expect readers of the English language WP to be able to read through entire pages so as to find the one or two relevant sentences, and then to be able to properly understand those.▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-25 03:41 (UTC)
  • It's not closed - all FAR pages are created as archive# by default. You're welcome to help out with the issues pointed out above so that it may be closed. As for your point about long quotes, I'm not going to revert you, but having multiple quotes that say the same thing is unnecessary and bloats the page. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The added complication is that this article was promoted in May 2004, Demoted in June 2005 (here), Promoted again in November 2005, and then run through FAR in June and August of 2007 (Kept both times). This is Archive 3 because it is the third such review through the current FAR process; it's already listed as a former featured article because, at one point, it was. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I see. Nikkimaria's remark about multiple quotes sounds so obviously correct, but:
  1. All quotations from a non-English source need to be in the original language, followed by a translation as well as we can get; that inevitably makes each quote appear twice as long. That leaves us with (hopefully only) 2 issues that take multiple references showing a quote saying the same thing:
  2. About 4 linguistic regions, the official reference is in French; not the wiki-editors but another reference gives the necessary translation (and offers context) in English. That second reference however, states that it is an unofficial translation. Therefore, simply eliminating the French language reference would leave us with a then questionable source - not wise for an article that causes controversies all over.
  3. About Brussels being an enclave in Flanders, the term 'enclave' has caused great consternation (and had been strongly contested by Vb) because that is precisely one of the aspects that the politically involved French-speakers on and out of Wikipedia would like to change: Giving one or two still officially Flemish municipalities a bilingual status to 'fairly' reflect their present-day speech, and thus making these part of the Brussels Region, would form a 'corridor' linking Brussels directly to Wallonia - The Flemish can never give in because the language border was intendedly fixed 'once-and-for-all' precisely to stop Dutch-speaking areas to be silently crept in and in time changed to French-speaking while Flemish people that went/go to live in French-speaking areas immediately needed/need to learn and speak the there native language; that one-way-street is how once simply Dutch-speaking areas had become Wallonia tout court (a large part of now Walloon Brabant, e.g. Waterloo) or 'bilingually' for possibly 95% French-speaking (Brussels Region). The annexation by France had initially caused the effect and allowed immigrating French-speakers to resist learning the local language, and this effect still goes on. In other words, if it were not so heavy, the Flemish might have turned the lion at Waterloo facing South instead of westwardly scaring off France. Thus the 'enclave' bit apparently needed and presumably continues to need more than one quote to convince Belgian French-speakers that this term for Brussels is not tendentious but a widely recognized simple factual presentation of the present situation.
Anyway, the references section should not be considered "bloating the page" ("page" being the correct word) because it is a matter of current Wikipedia layout/concept/software to present all references visible within the article page. To overcome the problem of bloated pages for well referenced articles, one might put references on a separate (pop-up) page, or show context-sensitive pop-up of only the relevant reference, or only open the initially closed 'references' section when an index number is clicked and closing it again when the index in front of the reference is clicked by which we go back to the proper place in the article. That suggestion exceeds 'Belgium' FAR and I'm not immediately jumping to try and work it out, but it strongly indicates that a FAR should not be concerned with the length of references or their section, just with their quality and relevance.
I would suggest that consecutive FARs avoid becoming farces, by excepting the evaluation of characteristics that were present at FA or survived a previous FAR: remarks are bound to be largely the same and their acceptance should not reflect who happens to be participating.▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-26 10:50 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see some good work, but the style issues noted above require additional TLC. Looks good overall, though. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. At first sight, the very last part of the section 'Religion' appears to belong rather in the section 'Demographics'. Within the 'Religion' section, in case the more recent percentage for Islam near the end is correct and equally well sourced as its somewhat higher-up 2001 figure of 3.5%, it should be moved so as to replace that older one. As it stands now, this appears a bit too sloppy for a FA.
    It might not hurt to look at a side-to-side comparison between the version at the end of the latest successful FAR review, and the current version [perhaps also needed per section if things may have been moved around] - checking whether each change is well enough sourced and of at least as good a quality. I may not have the time to do these things myself.
    Nevertheless, this article does still have far too much merit to allow its demotion.▲ SomeHuman 2011-01-31 03:20 (UTC)
-- Jappalang (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can we please get an update on how work is going here? Dana boomer (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd seen that comment had stalled here for a while, but haven't commented myself because I've been far too busy to read the article properly. Can anyone else give an update on its progress? Cordless Larry (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There has been essentially no work on the article over the past three months. There are still many outstanding image concerns, multiple dead links, a mix of British and American spellings and other miscellaneous outstanding comments. Unless an editors steps forth to work on this article in the next week, it will be delisted from FA status. Dana boomer (talk) 15:29, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dear Dana, as far as I can see nobody has ever asked this article to get delisted. Some made comments but nothing more. I don't see any arguments which could lead to a delisting. Since the FAR procedure started, editors have provided references where required. The image concerns are in my opinion harmless. If Jappalang really believes there is any doubt about the copyright status of some images, he is free to remove them. I however believe the suppression of those images shall not lead to any dramatic decrease of the value of the article. Vb (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Vb, it is not Jappalang's responsibility to remove or fix bad images. It is, however, the responsibility of those who want the article kept to make sure that the article complies with the featured article criteria, which include image copyright. Also, please see the comments above by SomeHuman, which the last time I checked hadn't been addressed. Once you have addressed everyone's comments, please ping them to return to this review and note if they feel the article should be kept. Although no one has specifically asked for a delisted, no one has specified keep either, and several editors have identified deficiencies in the article which lead to it not meeting the featured article criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 14:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delist (allow me to be the first) The article has been listed here for five months and still has outstanding issues. Photo copyright is an important issue not to be ignored. Practically all I see in the article history page the last few weeks is vandalism reverting. Brad (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vb asked me to update and I find six dead links and some missing retrieved on dates. Photos need alt text. See WP:ALT. Brad (talk) 20:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Mogoyo and Denis Jacquerye do really seem to be a single person: [9] Vb (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please have a look at [10] to see what has been done since the nommination of this article as FARC. Vb (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • It says "30,528 [[km2]] (139th) 11,787 sq mi". Links to common units of measurement are excessive, even more so when a conversion is provided. I recommend that the article is reviewed for such links.
  • It says "3 °C (37.4 °F)". Precision is part art, part science. In this case, integer Celsius should be matched with integer Fahrenheight i.e. '3 °C (37 °F)'.
  • It says "latitudes [49th parallel north|49°] and [53rd parallel north|53° N]". I think links to latitudes could also be removed to increase the average value of links.

Hope that helps Lightmouse (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update? Have the issues raised by above reviewers been addressed? Do other editors have an opinion on whether this article should be kept or delisted? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep listed On Dana boomer's request on my talk page, my further tuppence: There's nothing in this FAR that allows demotion. Any article, regardless how outstanding, can still be improved. And when it would meet even the most arbitrary standards for trivialities of whomever might be participating at the latest FAR, the next edit could again cause someone disputing its status.

  • Just a moment ago, I spotted the recently changed population figure, that of 2011. Someone updated the figure, and the date that corresponds to it is set to January 2011. And indeed, on the TV news I too had heard we have over 11 million inhabitants now. But the (CIA stats) reference's last access date was still 2010... So I checked the reference, expecting to find its figures updated. Surprise: The CIA mentions only 10.4 million inhabitants for a "July 2011" estimate. Thus theoretically, the update in our article is no longer supported by a reference. I'm not going to find another reference: Surely, the CIA figures will be corrected soon enough, and that reference will then continue to reflect proper data also for the coming years - which would not be guaranteed by some new reference. Meanwhile, there is nothing better than to leave our update as it is, as long as no-one disputes the facts.

And I suggest to keep this kind of attitude with respect to FARs: If the facts and their balance are undisputed or a dispute does not clearly suggest a change, and if style or copyright issues are perceived less than perfect by only a few editors, than that is about the best one can expect for any real article. For a community the size of Belgium, the number of capable editors on the English language WP ensures sufficient input to avoid long-standing serious shortcomings. But their number will never match the input and effort available for the US or Britain, and results will hardly ever fully match. Repeated FARs continually demanding editors to respond to smaller issues, will make all editors for smaller communities turn their backs on WP (or to stay on the Dutch and French language WPs only). The FARs will then finally result in substandard English language articles - and that is not the purpose of creating a status like 'FA'. 'FA' status should be given to the best of articles that can be compared, by topic as well as by expectedly available editors - and by available sources (or would the CIA be as easily mistaken about the number of US inhabitants?). And that status must then not become revoked lightly.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-05-15 13:35 (UTC)

The standards for country entries have risen. The article lacks a comprehensive presentation of the subject. Main sections such as Foreign relations, Military, Transport/Infrastructure and Health are missing. Italiano111 (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Italiano, you are the first to raise these concerns after 8 months of FARC. I really don't think a military section is required for Belgium. I wrote once such a section and removed it a short while later. There is almost nothing to say about the military of Belgium without giving this section an ovedued weight. With respect to transport I believe this is the same. We say already a bit about this in the section Econony. I have never thought about writing something about health in Belgium. Do you think there is something interresting to say about this? You are the first editor requiring this. I just remark that India has nothing on the topiv but Germany does. 89.0.131.100 (User:Vb talk) 12:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Italiano is not the first to raise them. Please see my original nomination. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the mentioned sections are key subjects to provide a complete picture of a country. The article is just not comprehensive enough. Italiano111 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Wikipedia:Countries#Sections. Vb (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still quite a few unsourced areas, especially in History. They do not however appear to be controversial in any way, but references would be preferred. I added some citation needed's a few days ago, they need to be dealt with. In addition, the lead currently contains quite a few citations. Per WP:LEAD, everything in the lead should be available in the body, referenced there, so if it's referenced in the lead I worry it is not in the actual body. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - I feel like the article still has reference problems in it. GamerPro64 20:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, it's been long enough and there are still problems. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added several refs, a paragraph on transportation within the Economics section and two sections : Health and Military. Vb (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vb, if you feel reviewers' concerns have been addressed you could ping them to revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Valuable efforts have been undertaken to increase comprehensiveness. Well done. I´d like to see a single section Foreign Relations, but for now my former delist assessment is obsolete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Italiano111 (talk • contribs) 28 June 2011
  • The article is now looking in much better shape content and sourcing-wise. A remaining concern is the consistency of the citations, however. A look at the list of references reveals a mixture of styles and of date formats, and there are also a number of dead links that need to be fixed. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delist sourcing is much better but far too many sections are still unsourced. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 21:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/August_2011&oldid=765502565"