Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2018

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept 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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 1:01, 20 August 2018 (UTC) [1].

Parks and Recreation (season 1) edit

Notified: WP Television Episode coverage, ‎WP Television, ‎ WP Comedy, Hunter Kahn, no other active unblocked significant contributors

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its previous FAR. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note, @PresN: reviewed the images, so they should be good. I promoted this article, so will not be reviewing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good as in the sock didn't review the images, but not good in that it was literally 8 years ago... Anyway, sure, re-reviewed, they're fine. --PresN 01:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An obvious, and significant, deficiency with this article is that the 'reception' section only presents assessments written at the time this series was first broadcast. No use is made of sources looking back at this series at a later date, including after Parks and Recreation finished up. As I understand it, the general view is that this was the worst series in the show's run, and the show was only successful after a lot of changes were made. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was the primary author of this article when it was brought to FA review. I will look into some additional sources to add to address this, but I likely won't be able to until after the holiday. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 20:31, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry it took a bit longer than I expected NickD, but I've added some new information about reviews of the first season following the run of the show (from 2015 onward), in response to your comment. In doing so I also found an additional source and added some additional facts elsewhere in the article. Let me know if you think any changes or further improvements are needed! — Hunter Kahn 20:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those changes look very good - thanks. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nick-D: do you think the article is within FA status? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:19, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • This was my only concern after a light read of the article. As no-one else has raised concerns, I'd suggest this could be closed. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, as another comment the 'cast' section is currently unreferenced. I imagine that this can be quickly fixed using IMDB or similar, so it's not a reason to move to a discussion of delisting. Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Nick-D and Hunter Kahn: - one of the annoying things about being coordinator is it takes me out of fixing things a bit. So if someone can do this then I can close maybe....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • I didn't realize this until now but the cast section has been changed since the FA review. It used to be a straight narrative with sources which you can find here, but it appears it has since been changed to a list format without sources. I can either restore it to the way it originally was, or I can use some of the sources that were removed and add them to the existing list. Do you have a thought or preference on this? — Hunter Kahn 15:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The straight narrative is nice actually, so that'd be fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The narrative looks good and reads well, and is a good fit for a FA. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 16 August 2018 (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. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 20 August 2018 (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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 9:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC) [2].

Susi Kentikian edit

Notified: WikiProject Boxing, WikiProject Women's sport

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because (copying my comments from article's talk page): This article has a few issues that should be addressed if it's to keep its FA status. It's fairly obvious it's been neglected over the past few years. The FA nominator, EnemyOfTheState, hasn't edited in nearly four years, and no one appears to have picked up the slack.

  • Mainly, there are statements that need citations; the 2013, 2014, and "Other activities" sections are all unsourced. There are also a few other statements elsewhere that need sources.
  • There's no prose concerning her career in 2015 and 2016.
  • The most recent information that is there is very poorly written, making it obvious that it was added by drive-by editors. Per FA criteria, prose should be engaging. "On [date], she defeated [person]. On [date], she defeated [person], etc." is definitely not engaging.
  • Sections containing a scant amount of info should be merged into other sections.
  • The "Highlights" and "Awards" sections each contain bulleted lists of only three items; these would be better presented as prose.
  • The "Other activities" section contains a diacritic being used as an apostrophe (trivial, but it highlights how neglected this article has been). Lizard (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I cleaned up a couple of the things pointed out above and will try to add updates on her recent fights as time allows. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include referencing, prose, and need for updating. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has been updated with her post-FAC fights and those updates have been sourced. I'll try to do a prose run-through if time allows. Giants2008 (Talk) 17:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just wanted to let everyone know that I've done some copy-editing work on the article, in addition to fixing the issues raised at the start of the FAR. Hopefully this is moving towards keep territory. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The comments in the review section have been addressed. Images are appropriately used and licensed. DrKay (talk) 10:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My issues are resolved. Looks like recent info on her is scarce, so I suppose this is about as good as we can hope for, unless Giants2008 can dig up something more to add. Lizard (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2018 (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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 3:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC) [3].

House (TV series) edit

Notified: NewTestLeper79, Music2611, WP House task force, WP Television, WP American television task force ‎

Review section edit

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/House (TV series)/archive2. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes. I promoted so will not be participating in review. Original nominator appears to be inactive, Socks account for the majority of the edits, and the top contributor has not edited since 2010. I can say that the socks were entirely influential in my promotion of this article, and I agreed with the Opposer, who mentioned WP:SIZE relative to WP:SUMMARY. Image review by David Fuchs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:17, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As has been remarked I retired from Wikipedia a long time ago, but it so happened I noticed this today during a trip down memory lane. Looking over the article it is clearly visible that the article would benefit from some work to bring it up to date for developments in the show post-2009 as the show was still running at the time this article as promoted. However, it appears the majority of the article's main body is still of high quality, though an argument based on lacking quantity could be made. From the discussion you mentioned regardin WP:SIZE relative to WP:SUMMARY I can only judge that this is a question of interpretation, one which appeared to be ultimately resolved by the promotion of the article (i.e. majority rule). Yet if sockpuppetry was influential in this promotion (how unfortunate! Quick sidebar, I was about fifteen at the time and I remember spending a lot of time on this), I understand the grounds for reconsideration. All in all, I'd say what the article mainly needs updating and maybe some tweaking here and there. Having been absent for such a long time I do not consider myself in the position to judge whether the tilt in favor of the first 5-6 seasons is appropriate grounds for removal, but, again, as far as I can tell, general quality has not dropped significantly. Let me know if I can be of any further service, I'll check this page to watch the developments.--Music26/11 16:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include size and coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No major problems found. Image review fine, and a random spot-check of about a half-dozen sources was OK too. I did some copy-editing. I thought that the detailed description of the opening credits was tedious, but not sufficiently so to bother shortening it. DrKay (talk) 15:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright @TenPoundHammer: - I can see you supported this article in 2009 (and are the only editor from that still active now), can you have a look and offer an opinion on whether it has held up to FA standards? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, no issues found. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:36, 15 August 2018 (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 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 delisted by Casliber via FACBot (talk) 0:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC) [4].

Film Booking Offices of America edit

Notified: WP Companies, ‎WP Film, no other active significant contributors ‎

Review section edit

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its FAC. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notes, this is a 2007 promotion, on only three supports, so should receive a full review, including images. @Ceoil: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. The size is manageable (atypical for this nominator), and has not changed significantly since the article's 2007 promotion. Inline citations were just coming in to requirement when this was passed, and it appears they are covered here. Table of contents is reasonable (an issue I find on other DCGeist articles).

On scanning the citations, I noticed that one is a "note", so went to see how it was being used:

The cited source does not verify if was R-C's first, nor does it name the director. So, WP:V should be reviewed more thoroughly.

I cannot decipher what this sentence wants to say, and the source is paywalled:

  • The business began in 1918 as Robertson-Cole (U.S.), the American division of a British import–export company and Robertson-Cole was formed by the English-born Harry F. Robertson and the American Rufus Sidman Cole.
    • REF: "Screen; Again the import tax". New York Times. Retrieved 25 January 2014.
      Rephrased, and took out mention of Rufus Sidman Cole, who is not mentioned in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I skipped down to one section, where a prose issue was found:
  • With Thomson's personal contract with Kennedy due to expired in mid-1927,
So, a complete review is in order, and it would be grand if someone had access to the hard-print sources for Verifiability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandy, "due to expired" was introduced in 2014 here, ie well after the first retirement.. While I am the last person on earth to degenerate on typos and confused spelling, I don't think they were a feature of Geist's work. But, on the other matters, I don't have access to the sources, and agree, a full review would be no harm. Have the noms watchlisted and will give views. Note, I'm not that enamored by edits since he first retired (as apposed to his recent quote "retirement" unquote), so might in the end urge review of a roll backed version. As time goes on and articles depreciate, I guess this will, alas, become more common. Note also, I am not seeing these through rosy glasses of nostalgia, being disillusioned by the cross over in the two account's editing. Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section include verifiability and prose. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. I was doing an image review, and couldn't find the sources in the article that support the statements in some of the image captions. For example, where is the source for the dates for the introduction and abandonment of the logos? There is a film poster from 1926 shown in the article, but the logo on the poster is not the logo shown as being from 1926. Nor could I find where in the text it tells me that Brent was in 14 films or Tyler in 29 or Karloff in 6. Nor do I see the source for the six years given in the Tarzan caption. On looking through the footnotes, it is not clear whether there are sources for the editorial comments in footnotes 8, 12, 23, 27, 33, and 50, or whether these are original research by the article's writer. DrKay (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2018 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 5:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC) [5].

Cortana (Halo) edit

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it falls considerably short of FA standards, and personally I wouldn't pass it through GA in its current condition. I raised issue regarding it at WikiProject Video games and the two people who replied there both expressed concerns about the article. The original FA nominator, David Fuchs, has also been made aware of the listing via a discussion on the article's talk page. A commentator at Project video games raised concerns was about the plot length. The article was passed in 2008 when I can only presume standards were lower; I'd argue by today's standards it fails on FA criteria 1a, 1b and 1c. Specific issues listed below.

  • I think the article has too many fictional in-universe details. For example, why do we need to know that Master Chief wears 'MJOLNIR battle armor', and what does MJOLNIR even mean?
  • There's a lot of details about Cortana's appearance in the first novel; why aren't subsequent appearances given the same level of detail?
  • Cortana appears to play a minor role in Halo: Ghosts of Onyx, but this isn't mentioned at all. There's a lot of literature set in the Halo universe, and I'm not convinced this article summarises all her appearances in them adequately.
  • In the 'Character design' there's very little on the characters initial design.
  • Several things are introduced in the article without any background information; her voice actress appears out of nowhere (how did she land the job?). What is '343 Industries'? Who are the Forerunners?
  • I'm most concerned about the reception section though. It begins with the characters reception from the third game, rather than initial reception, and there's no coverage of the character from academic sources/journals even though plenty of these sources exist. There's an embarrassing quote farm with poor prose that focuses heavily on the character's sex appeal (Examples: "Part of Cortana's appeal has lain in her good looks ... [she is] the sixth most "disturbingly sexual game character").
  • There's a fair amount of inconsistency in reference formatting and even several bare URLs and a couple unreferenced sentences. Freikorp (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how to square your concerns about plot length when you're asking for more descriptions of minor appearances. As for your comments about coverage and references, perhaps you could link these plentiful sources? Otherwise the comment is less than helpful. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 03:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned somebody else had concerns about plot length just to give an indication on what others have said; my concerns about under-detail are entirely confined to the 'In other media' section.
  • This thesis comments on Cortana's technically nude appearance: [6]
  • This academic source comments on both Master Chief and Cortana's lack of sexuality: [7]
  • This one comments on Cortana's dialogue and emotional support: [8]
  • This thesis gives a very brief comment on her body type in comparison to other female video game characters [9]
  • This thesis comments on Cortana's personality, dialogue and flirtation with Master Chief: [10]
  • This thesis talks about Cortana's physical appearance and her relationship with Master Chief: [11]
  • This thesis questions why Cortana's appearance is sexualised and comments on the gender stereotyping between Cortana and Master Chief. It cites Cortana as an example of a character "drawn and designed to appeal to heteronormative standards of beauty, even when it does not make sense within the context of the game ... as a computer program Cortana could have taken any form but the game elected to make her adhere to the heteronormative ideal of an attractive, shapely woman. The interviews suggest this may be because of the lack of female representation behind the scenes and the lack of support and encouragement for women to join in the industry." [12]
  • Here's an interesting source about Cortana's nudity: [13] Anita Sarkeesian cites the source and the issue in one of her articles: [14]. Here's another quote from Sarkeesian about Cortana: [15]
I'm sure you can find more. If you don't have access to any of those sources I can email them to you. Freikorp (talk) 07:42, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look a bit more into the authors, but none of those theses strike me as reliable sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if all those academic sources fail WP:SCHOLARSHIP, the GamesRadar+ source about her nudity and Sarkeesian's comments on the issue should be used. Freikorp (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've added both to the article. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 21:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some decent improvements were made to the article in December, and the bare URLs were formatted properly in early January, but there's been no significant improvements made since then. Many of the issues raised above remain. The article is better, but I still wouldn't even pass it through GAN without further improvements, including heavy modifications to the reception section. Freikorp (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary-sourced plot for a fictional character is twice as long as the Reception? Seems like a due weight issue. Also the Reception ¶ on Cortana's appearance no longer passes contemporary FA muster. If the listicles are worth mentioning at all (super low quality sources), they should be stacked into a summative statement. But is it even noteworthy that she was listed among the "top babes" in video games? We wouldn't put the same dubious accolade in a film star's biography—it would be rephrased as, "Video game journalists noted her character design for its sex appeal" or something more encyclopedic and stacked with several refs (only a few of the "best" instances needed). Other generalizations like "Cortana's return in Halo 5 was subject to mixed reception" are challengeable and should have immediate refs. As for the academic sources above, I wouldn't cite theses but mentions made in a scholarly journal would be more applicable. czar 11:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open for trimming the section, but the idea that you cloud what sources actually say to 'sound' more encyclopedic isn't a great tack to take. Her sex appeal is a large part of the character's reception, trying to cloud the issue because of personal feelings on what "should" be covered is bias. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 13:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you're getting the sound/cloud stuff. Being ranked #1 supporting character by Cracked.com is a dubious accolade (nevermind that the source doesn't even make that claim). A listicle assertion such as this should be generalized proportionate to the source's weight. What noteworthy elaboration would we miss by stacking the six "lists of babes" refs as I had mentioned? If none, then was it really such a large part of her reception? The section appears to be much more about commentary on her in-game appearances, and on that point, shouldn't it address Halo 1–2 alongside its current coverage of 3–5? czar 01:02, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've already stacked the lists. You're welcome to pull commentary for Halo 1 and 2 if you can find it, but there frankly isn't much of anything. That's why it's not in the article in the first place. It's extremely rare to find an review that actually mentions Cortana, much less provides some useful commentary beyond 'she's the voice in your armor'. Chalk it up to people not dwelling much on story in old reviews, I suppose. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 15:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Moving to get more input on the Reception section and other issues mentioned above. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. It's not a million miles off, but this article will likely need serious work to keep its shiny star. In addition to the concerns about the reception section, I'm also noticing some sourcing issues—"Cinema Blend" is explicitly listed as an unreliable source at WP:VG/S, this forum post is used to source the statement "The character model's face was based on a sculpture of Egyptian Queen Nefertiti", and there are multiple dead links. There are also several unsourced statements (and the massive in-universe plot summary). JOEBRO64 19:34, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:TheJoebro64: The forum post is by a Bungie artist, it meets SPS criteria. Thanks for the update about Cinema Blend, I have removed the statement. Can you be useful and actually highlight what you think is unsourced? As for the plot summary, "massive" is an unhelpful qualifier. Explaining exactly how you think it is necessarily large to detail the character's appearances would be far more useful, not to mention actionable. I will double check the links, but dead links are and never have been a reason to delist an article per WP:FA?. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 22:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The unsourced statements I noticed were "Cortana's first appearance in the Halo franchise is in the novel Halo: The Fall of Reach, a prequel to the first Halo game" (this goes beyond what the primary source (the book) says and needs a secondary source to confirm it), "The assistant is also available on iOS and Android", "Despite mixed opinions of Halo 4's campaign as a whole", and "Cortana's return in Halo 5 was subject to mixed reception" (the last two are unsourced because they are generalizations that can be challenged, so they are required to have direct refs). As for the Appearances section, by "massive", I mean it goes into too much in-universe detail and is sourced only to primary sources. I'd trim details that aren't necessary to understanding the story, and also add a bit of analysis from secondary sources to the section. I think Doomfist and Joker (character) are good examples of pages that give basic descriptions of the characters and their backstories while balancing it with real-world facts and opinions. JOEBRO64 22:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That Fall of Reach is a prequel and the first appearance doesn't require a secondary source; the Fall of Reach released before Halo 1, and the book itself calls itself a prequel (including in big letters on the first printing "the official prequel to the explosive Xbox™ game!" etc.) I've sourced the assistant mention, I'll see about directly citing the reception lines or rewording the starts of those paragraphs.
As for the appearances section, I'm going to need more specific guidance. It summarizes what the character does in each game in a paragraph. Doomfist and the Joker are not great comparisons because one is a character in a single game with a paper-thin plot and the other is a character of repetitious comic arcs for decades. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 00:37, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Czar and Freikorp: Thoughts on current status? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. This would need a lot of rewriting and source work to pass FAC today. Without delving into a full review, here are some areas, starting with the most broad:
  • Plot: Delves too far into individual appearances instead of just providing an overview of her role. This section should be easily sourced to reviews and other secondary source summaries of its plot (game guides even, as a last resort). This would help focus its contents from going off into the weeds and general story summary.
  • Background needs more out-of-universe tweaking. The first paragraph of the body doesn't denote that she's fictional or a character.
  • The Reception still drags out basic points. Lots of periodicals are mentioned inline by name when the sentiment could be generalized without mentioning them.
  • I have serious reservations that the "top 10 babes" listicles are worthy of encyclopedic mention at all, nevertheless as evidence that Cortana has "been recognized for her sex appeal". I click through and there's just zero content. If we removed the refs with insubstantial mentions from that sentence, I don't think that sentence would even be justified. If this is an important claim, is there really no other source that says it succinctly, directly?
  • Topic sentences like "Despite mixed opinions of Halo 4's campaign as a whole, Cortana and her story was often considered a strong point of the game." need immediate refs, esp. if making new claims not cited in the rest of the paragraph
  • Most of the Reception is built around quoting directly from reviewers. Since the majority of those quotes are more for style than essential detail, they detract from whatever the paragraph is supposed to say, especially when done in every sentence. If each sentence was paraphrased without regard to the pull quotes, the section would be half its length.
  • Which brings us to: how much is the Reception about Cortana anyway? This is commentary on par with any major character role in any game—it's the type of stuff than can be summatively stated in a section of a "List of Halo characters" but no Reception source appears to call out the character as independently notable from the series.
  • Overquoting in the Character design section
  • Namedropping of non-notable individuals in the Reception without explaining why their names are important to know
  • No discussion on how the personality aspects of the character translate into the voice assistant? [16]
  • The |publisher= field is redundant for all the {{cite web}} instances. That field was designed for book publishers. The |work= field alone is sufficient almost always, especially if the work is a linked entity with its own article.
That's a taste without even touching whether the prose is engaging (once "brilliant") and the sources are reliably appropriate for FA-level consideration. But that's all the time I have for this right now. czar 17:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, unfortunately, for reasons mentioned in my nomination. I was hoping the nomination would result in all the issues being addressed, though most of them remain; the article has received no improvements for over a month now. Freikorp (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Shockingly, things don't get edited when you never respond to my points. Truly hard to understand. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 02:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • The only post you directed at me was one asking to point out academic sources, and I gave a detailed response. You haven't asked me anything else. I provided a detailed list of issues with the article over five months ago and you still haven't replied to most of them or made any attempt to address the overwhelming majority of the issues. Five months. Five months and you couldn't even take the two minutes to explain something simple like what 'MJOLNIR' means. Don't blame me for your article losing its status. I'm taking this discussion off my watch list as I don't think anything constructive is going to come out of it. Freikorp (talk) 02:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist for all the reasons already discussed. It would take a lot of work to get this up to current FA standards. Specifically, it feels like the reception section is not really on point, as it feels like the examples given are excerpts of reviews of the game and are not really touching on response to Cortana as a character. The character design section is also out of balance, as there is more about minor changes to the character in later games in the series than there is on creating the character in the first place. Also, as described the Cortana Letters promotional campaign appears to have little to do with the character. Because of the role she served in the Halo story, her name was attached to this campaign, but the character herself does not appear to be integral to it. Right now, this feels less like an article and more like a group of random mentions of the character that do not paint a coherent picture of the subject. Indrian (talk) 05:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More substantiative discussion of the genesis of the character simply doesn't exist. You're asking for a version of the article that cannot be created from available sources. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps there aren't sufficient sources available to create an FA-quality article about the subject. Popcornduff (talk) 14:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FA criteria has no such requirements. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless obscure video games (to pick one topic alone) you'd struggle to find sources sufficient to write about in any depth at all, let alone to FA quality. I'm not saying Cortana is one of them - but it's reasonable to observe gaps in articles, whether they can be filled or not. Popcornduff (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist given the issues already described above (primarily echoing czar's comments in particular). However, I believe that this article could be substantially revised and put through the FAC process again to reach FA quality. It would just take a substantial amount of work to get there first. I can tell that a lot of work has been put into this article so hopefully it can be further improved in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2018 (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 Casliber via FACBot (talk) 0:43, 10 August 2018 (UTC) [17].

KaDee Strickland edit

Notified: Extraordinary Machine, WikiProject Television, WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers, WikiProject Women

Review section edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has not been updated to include information on Strickland's career since its promotion as a FAC. Information in the "Career" section ends around 2007, and one can see just from looking at the "Television" and "Film" tables in the "Filmography and performances" section, that there is a large gap of Strickland's career unaccounted for. As for more minor notes, reference 6 is also a dead link (a permanent dead link?) and I noticed that there are several instances of WP:SHOUTING in the reference titles.

I have left a message on the talk page and pinged @Extraordinary Machine: as this was the primary user during the FAC process. I think that a lot of wonderful work has gone into this article, but it requires so much updating that I feel that it no longer fulfills the criteria for a featured article. Aoba47 (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Extraordinary Machine hasn't edited since this past September, so I'm not sure that user will be around anytime soon to help improve the page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SNUGGUMS: I apologize if this question has an obvious answer, but I am assuming that this is left open to allow other users to comment and potentially improve/revise the article even though Extraordinary Machine is no longer active on Wikipedia? I am very unfamiliar with the FAR process so I am just uncertain about things work from this point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is. They can also comment here on issues found within the page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Chiming in from oblivion - I assumed this had been demoted already! As well as the article being out of date, I'd imagine standards/criteria for featured articles have rightly changed since this article got promoted (13 years ago... how time flies!). Unfortunately I have neither the time nor inclination to bring it back up to scratch, but don't let that stop anyone else! :) Extraordinary Machine (talk) 21:05, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response! If I have more time in the future, I might try to expand on the article. Either way, I hope that you are having a wonderful week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section edit

Issues raised in the review section mostly centred on coverage. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist. Article is unbalanced with career prior to 2007 described in detail and career afterwards not at all. DrKay (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2018 (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 DrKay via FACBot (talk) 8:09, 14 August 2018 (UTC) [18].

ROT13 edit

Notified: Matt Crypto, WikiProject Cryptography, WikiProject Computer science

The article fails 1(c) due to the use of references like Usenet group comments, blogs and raw code. Parts of the article (in Variants, Implementation) are completely unsourced. There are also 1(b) concerns: if we remove the unreliable sources and their associated content, the article will be too short to meet the "comprehensive" criterion. Specifically, I think the article lacks formal pseudocode, implementation details (e.g. function in ASCII) and cryptographic details (e.g. substitution cipher not mentioned in body, or explained), and there may be other content that is missing.

The FAC was in 2004, when standards were completely different—the article looked like this. The FAR in 2007 also held the article to vastly different standards to those we use in 2018. So the article has never passed through an FA-related process under the rigorous standards of today. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 01:18, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Comment: wow, if ever there were a need for "speedy delist" in FAR, this would be it. Getting this to current FA standards would practically reqiure WP:TNT. The sourcing and formatting are atrocious. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @WP:FAR coordinators: Yes, please, per TenPoundHammer. Let's IAR and delist this. It's so far from modern standards as to be almost comical—I'd barely place it at Start or B class. --Laser brain (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree that IAR delisting is preferable, and in fact I suggested it myself. (I would rate it C class.) — Bilorv(c)(talk) 20:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - looking at the previous FAR (Wikipedia:Featured article review/ROT13/archive1), that could have been closed as no consensus (and hence delist) even then really. I am open to speedy delisting, but as that is out-of-process am happy to get a more solid consensus from the other FAR coordinators. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to a speedy delist from me, given the state of the article. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At 5 comments for delisting in the space of 4 hours, this is one of the most active reviews we've had for some time. Consensus seems clear. DrKay (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2018 (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_2018&oldid=855789423"