Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/February 2013

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

Kept status edit

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 18:51, 24 February 2013 [1].

Gregory of Nazianzus edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: User talk:Majoreditor (FA nom, semi-retired), Wikipedia talk:Christianity noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christian history, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity/Theology work group

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues I raised in February about the article still exist:

  • Missing page numbers in references eg. Børtnes (2006).
  • Ref 25 is General Roman Calendar of 1962. An article is considered unreliable, by default
  • Use of WP:PRIMARY references: PG, 37.1157–9, Carm. de vita sua, ll 1828–55.
  • Inconsistency in references
  • Comprehensiveness:
    • Primary sources of his biography?
    • Primary sources of his theology
    • What are his relics?
    • A Doctor of the Church should definitely have a more comprehensive section on theology and views.

Redtigerxyz Talk 13:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's some information for FAR consideration:

  • Many of the the page references are in the article but supressed. Go into edit mode and you'll find the page refs for Børtnes, etc.
FA criterion 2c is violated: some pages are in the text, while others are in pp. format in the references.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 25 and associated material have been removed. Nonetheless, I'd appreciate it if you can describe why the General Roman Calendar of 1962 isn't a reliable source for describing how his feast day was historically observed.
  • I have changed a PG citation to cite a secondary source. There are still some PG citations in the article, but they are, I believe, used exclusively for direct quotations - a practice which allowed under WP:PRIMARY.
Patrologia Graeca (PG) is in Greek. The English translation of the quote may be flawed. Secondary ref/primary ref translation is needed.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inconsistency in references: please provide examples of what you'd like changed. There may be an issue which arose from one of the damnable bots which periodically changes reference format. Guys, if you want to de-list the article because citations have been wrecked by bots, please do so. I'm tired of cleaning up after them.
Besides inconsistency in point 1, look at formatting of ref 17 and 21; then where pages are in text compare ref 2 and 15. Citation formatting is not a huge issue, comprehensiveness is. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you state that "A Doctor of the Church should definitely have a more comprehensive section on theology and views" - which views and theology do you specifically feel should be included?
See note on "Theological and other works" below.--Redtigerxyz Talk 06:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • His relics are primarily his bodily remains, including a creepy-looking skull. I haven't found a reliable source which goes into details about which specific bones and tissues are contained in his reliquery. (Is that level of macabre detail really necessary for the article to be considered complete?). I'll keep looking for reliable sources detailing his relics, but I have my doubts that it's anything other than de minimus material.
  • The primary source of his biography is his own writings. Thanks for the suggestion; it would be helpful to include a sentence to that efffect (probably sourced from McG).
"Theological and other works" does not detail the names of his books/writings and the core subjects and views in each. A generic "theological writings" is used. Which writings? "Gregory's most significant theological contributions arose from his defense of the doctrine of the Trinity." what is the source of this? His own writings/his hagiographies/his discourses recorded by others???? I googled and found that the primary ref "Carm. de vita sua" is actually his book Carmen de vita sua, which is unnamed in the article. Also add the language in which the books are written. --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean by "primary source of his theology". Do you mean which theological schools influenced him, or which individuals influenced him?
His influences, any. Theological schools/individuals/visions/study of the Gospels ??? --Redtigerxyz Talk 06:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your observations and feedback. I'm happy to help in small ways to improve the article. If consensus at FAR is that the article needs extensive rework then perhaps someone else will feel free to pitch in and help. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 02:11, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

FA criteria under discussion in the FAR section include references and comprehensiveness. Dana boomer (talk) 16:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, no progress, no one seems to be watching or working on this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably doesn't need much work. References may need tidying, but I'm not too sure about the other points. The article mentions his works began to be translated into Latin, from of course Greek. There's no reference to him ever even visiting a Latin-speaking region, so it hardly needs mentioning, though if people are raising the question perhaps it should be. The article did already mention "He also began composing De Vita Sua, his autobiographical poem...." - using the more usual Latin title. A little should be added on what sources about, & writings by him we have - evidently a small minority of the original output, as usual at this date, and a mixture of letters and sermons. I don't really think the questions about relics or influences actually need resolving, though his actual theological views could be expanded on a bit. Johnbod (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate comment - Are there any other opinions here? Dana boomer (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist from Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see a number of paragraphs which don't end in citations.
    • There are chunks which feature very unencyclopedic writing. The best (or worst) example is the last paragraph of the Second Ecumenical Council. Wikipedia is not a children's book!
    • I find myself asking the seemingly obvious question "What relics?"
    • If there is more to be said about his Feast Day, why isn't it presented? If there is not anything more to say about it, why is the subject given a top-level section? Two sentences is not enough.
    • I'm a bit puzzled by the quotations used throughout the article. Gregory didn't actually write or say these words in English did he? I presume that these are modern English translations of the ancient Greek originals, but the way they are presented now might mislead readers into thinking that they are themselves the original phrasings.
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 User:Dana boomer 17:01, 9 February 2013‎ [2].

Layla edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Y2kcrazyjoker4, Deltabeignet, SummerPhD

There is uncited information about living people in this article, even if BLP may not apply to this song. Other non-BLP information needs references. George Ho (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Littered with tags, not sure if YouTube can be a RS, inconsistent citing. --Rschen7754 02:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Youtube is no longer reliable, but, if not copyvio, can be legitimate external link. --George Ho (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Turns out that instrumental, orchestral versions were performed in 1980. I tried to find albums released in 1980s, but no luck. Only ones are recent years, like 1997 and 2010s(?). --George Ho (talk) 05:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And there are two bare urls that need completing. Chris857 (talk) 04:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will work on it. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no BLP issues because that information is included in Boyd's autobiography. I made a quick search and found a lot of sources. I removed one rather off-topic comment in the first section. The only issue are the missing pages for some books. I will try to find a solution for that. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 13:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include sourcing and BLP concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Per its sourcing issues. GamerPro64 04:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per sourcing and BLP concerns. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist unless some quick and serious improvements are made regarding:
    • Peacock wording, e.g. "an unmistakable guitar figure" and "famously contrasting movements", just in the first paragraph.
    • Lack of citations, particularly in the legacy section and chart performance table. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2013 (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 User:Nikkimaria 08:56, 2 February 2013‎ [3].

Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Zeality, WikiProject Video games

I'm pulling this off of the talk page but my concerns still stand. The first problem I have is the sourcing. Some of them (EX: Sakekan Game Reviews, 64 Lightland) seem to be unreliable. Another issue is the Length. Primarily the Plot section, which contains unnecessary content like an entire section for the Humor in the game.

Its been a while since I've done an FAR so if there's any problems I made please let me know. GamerPro64 15:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include sourcing and coverage. Dana boomer (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per issues listed above. I've cut down the humor section and merged it into the reception section, but more work needs to be done on that score. I don't think that the article as written supports all the nonfree content used within it; I see an argument for a screenshot demonstrating the graphics and a music sample to add to the discussion of its unusual style commented upon, but the rest probably need an audit. I'll work on what I can when I have time but that's not going to be enough to pass all FA criteria. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 19:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per David Fuchs's reasonings. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - Per the issues I addressed. GamerPro64 17:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:56, 2 February 2013 (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/February_2013&oldid=541584669"