Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2013

< Wikipedia:Featured article review‎ | archive

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 User:Dana boomer 15:14, 28 September 2013 [1].

She Shoulda Said No! edit

Notified: WikiProject Film

This was promoted in 2007 - since then, a number of problems with the article have arisen. Several references are unreliable (Amazon.com for starters) and others are dead. The sections also have different amount of length, for instance, the plot and reception section are relatively tiny compared to the production section. Overall, some improvement is needed. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:48, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate comment - This nomination is on hold until a reasonable amount of time has passed for the talk page notification to be read and replied to. Dana boomer (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No replies were made to the talk page notification in the intervening week, so the review may now progress. Dana boomer (talk) 12:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not deeply familiar with the article. However, the complaints don't seem tremendously relevant. It's a short article so a short lede is expected. Amazon.com is referenced exactly once, and for the rare fact that makes sense to reference to Amazon.com - a rerelease of a movie, where all that needs be proved is the date and that it's being sold. The fact is somewhat trivial, so WP:BOLDly remove the sentence if you find it so objectionable? Dead links are additionally explicitly NOT reason to strip FAC status, or even to remove the reference - to do so would presumably require removing things like book references which also lack an active link. Additionally, there's no expectation that sections be the same length. I highly doubt there's much more plot to be explained that could be interesting for such a simple movie. "Overall some improvement is needed" is far too vague. SnowFire (talk) 21:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article per Snowfire's statements. All sources, even Amazon.com, are reliable, and saying that this isn't a featured article based on length of sections and lead is just bullshit. 和DITOREtails 01:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dana boomer, I would like to withdraw this featured article review, please. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:42, 28 September 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 kept by User:Dana boomer 14:38, 27 September 2013 [2].

Bupropion edit

Notified: User:Jmh649, WT:PHARM, WT:MED

Just copy-pasting what I said on the talk page: This article has a few problems. I see some [citation needed] tags, and an [improper synthesis] tag under "Psychiatric". I find it very strange that this one sentence has ten footnotes, which is certainly eyebrow raising. Some sections are also short and choppy, including Psychiatric, Interactions, while other sections are underdeveloped (Detection in Biological Fluids, Synthesis, Animal research).

After I said this, a user commented that there seems to be a lot of WP:OR in the article as well, leading me to believe that there is no rush to start fixing things up, so FAR would be the best way to go. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even when this article was promoted, consensus was weak and there were issues ... in retrospect, there is an over-reliance on primary sources, so the concerns about original research are not surprising. It is unlikely that anyone will take on improving this article, so I suggest it is likely to end up defeatured. Bringing this article to standard would involve rewriting a good deal of it to reflect secondary reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I have totally reworked the article over the last couple of days -- it's now roughly half as long, with less than half as many sources. There are still some flaws, but I would like to think that the concerns about primary sources and OR have largely been addressed. Looie496 (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prose is still kind of choppy, with lots of one- and two-sentence paragraphs. I would suggest trying to combine some paragraphs, also getting rid of short sections like "Seasonal Affective Disorder". Also, why did you hardcode a link to another wikipedia article like this]? Finally, there are still a handful of [citation needed]s, especially in the intro. There really shouldn't be a need to have citations in the intro, since it summarizes what is stated elsewhere in the article, so check the intro to make sure it summarizes, without presenting info found nowhere else in the article. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those cn's in the intro were just added a couple of days ago. And that "hardcode" was just added yesterday. I'll look over the "cn" info to make sure that information actually is properly supported. Looie496 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have time to weigh in further, so once Looie496 is satisfied, I am ... Looie, pls ping me if review is needed, but I will be busy until September. (Leads summarize so not everything needs citation, but it can be helpful to cite data in the lead ... pls be sure to review for primary sources, as that was a problem in the past with drug articles.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:43, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have altered one statement in the lead that I couldn't verify (about number of prescriptions), and removed the cn tags after making sure that they are all supported by references cited in the body of the article. Looie496 (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still see at least one tag. Also, the prose is still choppy. Try combining some shorter paragraphs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've just read through this and it's certainly seen a lot of improvement. No tags remain, the prose is much better, I don't see anything contentious that's unsupported, and the sourcing and reference formatting look good. Nice work Looie. TPH, do you see any remaining issues? Maralia (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks better now but I would still suggest trying to combine more of the paragraphs. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead had become a bit incoherent due to repeated editing since I reworked it. I just did a substantial copy-edit that hopefully makes it flow significantly better. Looie496 (talk) 16:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks better, but there are still a ton of one-sentence paragraphs that make the flow very clunky. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This sounds like a stylistic concern. I personally am in favor of short paragraphs, especially when they are on a unique subject that doesn't make sense to combine with something else. It would make absolutely no sense, for example, to have a subsection entitled "Obesity and Seasonal Affective Disorder", which would imply these two short paragraphs are somehow linked. They aren't. If the "price" is short paragraphs, well, they're fast and easy-reading then. That's a good thing! In the same way, the "Recreational Use" section is only 3 sentences, but it too would make no sense to combine with something else ("Recreational Use & Syntheis?!"). Anyway, the article reads fine to me, at least. SnowFire (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delegate comment: how's the progress on this? Are reviewers now satisfied that the article meets the criteria, or are further improvements needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering why this has been open since May (four months); unless there are pressing issues, can we not pick up the pace here at FAR? A month used to be quite typical, two months long, and three months excessive ... and the only issue identified here in months was one that amounts to personal preference about paragraphs, with no explanation for what was missing or needed to be combined. Close it already! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we can finally close this, yeah. Still not 100% satisfied with the flow, but whatever. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:39, 27 September 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.

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 User:Dana boomer 14:35, 27 September 2013 [3].

Girl Scouts of the USA edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: Rlevse, Erp, and Gadget850 (top three still active contributors); and WikiProject Scouting

I am nominating this featured article for review because it needs clarification (tagged July 2013), contains dead external links (tagged April 2012), has unsourced statements and paragraphs (tagged June 2012, August 2012, October 2012, and July 2013), and needs updating (tagged July 2013). Anonymous talk page notification last month: Talk:Girl Scouts of the USA#Featured article?. DrKiernan (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include referencing, comprehensiveness and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 18:36, 7 September 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:Dana boomer 14:35, 27 September 2013 [4].

Battle of Badr edit

Review commentary edit

Notified: WP:WikiProject Islam, user:Palm dogg

I am nominating this featured article for review because this article has a lot of unaddressed citation needed tags, thus failing criterion 1c. I brought this issue up at the article's talk page weeks ago, got no response, and nothing was fixed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was the primary author up until this became a featured article in February 2006, then got tired of having to constantly revert edits. I haven't monitored it since late 2007. I know this was written before FA standards were significantly tightened up, but would request that any review of it also look at these two versions before any downgrade. If all it needs is a simple clean-up, let me know and I'll be happy to go through and do that. Keep me posted. Palm_Dogg (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The current version does seem rather sparse in term of references. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support delisting this on the grounds there aren't enough references. Personally I wouldn't pass this at GA either with the current state of references. ★★RetroLord★★ 19:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this article suffers from a lack of serious military history sources. Basically, unless you're willing to believe the supernatural explanation of the archangels fighting on the Muslim side, there's little in the article explaining how the Muhammad's followers overpowered a force three times larger. Alas, I don't think more critical sources are likely to be found because all that remains in the historical record is the victor's account. One source [5] suggests the Meccans did not have much stomach for a fight that day. Another [6] says the attacking Meccans ran into a sandstorm. But there's little to back up any of these. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary edit

Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section are mainly those related to sourcing. Dana boomer (talk) 21:53, 30 July 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/September_2013&oldid=575233947"