Wikipedia:Featured article review/Enigma machine/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was removed by YellowAssessmentMonkey 00:30, 12 May 2009 [1].

Enigma machine

FAR commentary

FA from 2004, referencing/1c issues, lede doesn't adequately summarize article, there is some WP:OR, and could use an overall reassessment for copyediting/flow. Cirt (talk) 07:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: User talk:Johnleemk, User talk:Matt Crypto, User talk:Ww, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cryptography, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. Cirt (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My current evaluation of the article is that it has accumulated a good bit of cruft, mostly grammar infelicities, such as verb tense conflicts. I've made a preliminary edit pass over the first sections of the article which should help with 'flow'. The rest of the article will need a similar pass, at minimum.

Well, on looking again, it seems that the edit was committed to some other Wikipedia in the sky. So I've re-edited those sections, and checked and this time WP has acknowledged them. Sigh...

As for OR, I don't think there's much of an issue here. Cryptography, certainly government crypto, is shrouded in secrecy, and so enthusiastic (and crypto innocent) fact and citation taggers can have a veritable field day. Most such articles will necessarily have a higher reasonable inference proportion than other articles, and nothing can be done about that. I think making clear what is sourced and what is fair inference is adequate warning for our Gentle Readers and for anyone vetting WP for 'reliability'. What exactly is 'fair inference' might become the subject of some discussion, of course. In the instant case, fortunately, there is a vast amount of information available (at least in comparison to the usual government crypto articles) and so this article can be, and is, much better sourced and referenced. I think adequately. This issue should not affect the FAR.

I will attempt to finish my editing pass in the next few days. Others should feel free to jump in. ww (talk) 09:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article seems to have large swaths of unreferenced content. That will need to be fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed something. The further reading section has many books, even some by authors used elsewhere (Ulbricht, Heinz is one), which maybe should be used to source the large swaths of unreferenced content? The Wurdalak (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images

File:Enigma.jpg has no source or author. A possible replacement image is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/austinmills/13429632/in/set-329599/.
The licence for File:Four-rotor-enigma.jpg should be updated.
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 101I-241-2173-06, Russland, Verschlüsselungsgerät Enigma.jpg needs a caption. DrKiernan (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

Suggested FA criteria concern is citations, image copyrights. Also note the recent change to WP:WIAFA (1c) requiring "high-quality" sources. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 00:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delist per my comments above, as well as those by Piotrus (talk · contribs) and DrKiernan (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to delist. I found it difficult to concentrate on and understand how the machine actually works. At first, I thought this was due to my poor intellectual ability but having just read another physics-oriented article without trouble, I fear it may be symptomatic of prose problems. DrKiernan (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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