Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/August 2016

< 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 14:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[1].[reply]

George III of the United Kingdom

edit
Notified: WikiProject Military history

The overcrowd of images out of context and the unsourced content are the most striking, of the content, there's almost nothing of politics and governments of the Monarch, instead there's a timeline of the UK in the period. Just my 2 cents. Frenditor (talk) 03:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The initial promoter has long since retired - I am not familair with the subject - can you be more specific in political material that might be missing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with this characterization of the article. There are three sections without images; most sections have one or two images, with only one section (the longest) with three images and one section (on Arms) containing a gallery of five. The only part of the article where text is between images (on anything other than a massive screen) is the first section "Early life", where the first image is opposite the tail end of the infobox. But because the infobox and the images in the first section are staggered, the 30% of readers that use mobile devices should not see text squeezed between two images facing each other. The images are in context: matched by date or subject matter to the appropriate section.
The "unsourced" material was discussed at the previous review, where I chose not to source it because they are general statements (such as "The Second Coalition, which included Austria, Russia, and the Ottoman Empire, was defeated in 1800") that can be found in any history of the period.
As evidenced by section titles such as "Constitutional struggle" and "William Pitt", as well as the content of those sections and others, George's involvement in politics and government are covered. DrKay (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who started this was blocked as a sock. --Rschen7754 14:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. In that case, I think it should either be deleted as WP:CSD#G5 or archived. DrKay (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it up to the delegates as to whether they want it archived or deleted. --Rschen7754 18:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, given that it's here, I can see a few things that need attending. There are some uncited sentences that I will tag, and "kaleidoscope of changing views" in the lead that should be easy to rephrase and dequote. Also the Legacy section has 3 paras that start, "George III..." If these get done I think I am happy to close. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with the level of images, and I suppose given the number of his children we are stuck with the long infobox and awful template. Close, ideally after fixing Cas' points. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am ok with that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh - I suppose my points could be taken as stylistic issues - the quotes add a certain vividness of meaning and the three paras are hard to tweak..will close this as a keep in a sec. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 23 August 2016 (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) 4:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC) [2].

Fritz the Cat (film)

edit
Notified: Secret Saturdays, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Animation, WikiProject Comics

Review comments

edit

This is a 2007 promotion that is the work of a banned editor (Sugar Bear) and has not really been maintained since that editor's departure. Specifically:

  • 1a) The article contains poor writing ("As Krantz began to prepare the paperwork, preparation began on a pitch presentation...") and writing of an improper tone ("He decides to ditch his bore of a life"), and requires copyediting once the content issues are resolved.
  • 1b, possibly 4) The plot section has been altered heavily since the promoted version, and I'm no longer sure it accurately describes the plot of the film. It needs to be compared with the old version and with the film itself.
  • 1c) The Reception section is not well-researched and likely does not represent the literature out there on the subject. The Critical reception subheading has had a maintenance tag since November 2014.
  • There are uncited passages (see last para of Rating).

Since the principal editor of the page is banned, I'm hoping someone else who is familiar with the film can help get it back to standard. --Laser brain (talk) 16:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curly Turkey, you're hot on animation and all it covers: is this one you can cover? - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a peek, though I have to admit I haven't watched the movie all the way through—I love Crumb's comics, but the movie bored me. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The prose needs a lot of work, and I'm surprised at the lack of background—we learn virtually nothing about Robert Crumb, the underground comix movement, the Fritz comics (some of Crumb's most prominent work), nor do we learn anything about who Bakshi was or where he was coming from. It mentions how Crumb "later drew a comic in which the Fritz character was killed off", but not that the strip appeared immediately after the film came out in direct response to the film (the strip is called "Fritz the Cat—Superstar" and satires his rising fame). Fails on comprehensivenss. I'll see if I can motivate myself to fix some of this, but I'm afraid a lot of research will have to be done to determine just how comprehensive (or not) it is. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 23:39, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The closer I look, the more work this article seems to need. A lot of the text I can't even understand. Example:
  • "Bakshi says that he "started to get giddy" when he "suddenly was able to get a pig that was a cop, and this particular other pig was Jewish, and I thought, 'Oh my God—a Jewish pig?' These were major steps forward ..."
This line was gibberish to me—why is he getting "giddy" over a Jewish pig? Is he a bigot? Is this some bizarre countercultural humour? Click through to the Bakshi article and find out he's Jewish—"Aha!" I think. Then I read it again and I'm still in the dark.
I'll still take a whack at this thing, but I'm not sure I've got the motivation to bring it up to standard within whatever timeframe there may be. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 04:27, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm never sure of the timeframe, but I don't think that there is ever any rush (within reason), as long as there is progress toward improvement. Nikkimaria, what's the normal process with FAR - it's not an area I'm familiar with. - SchroCat (talk) 09:20, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair summary - if you need time to work you'll have it, within reason. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC comments

edit
Concerns raised in the review section included comprehensiveness, clarity, sourcing, and accuracy. DrKay (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing happening here I see. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:37, 23 August 2016 (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) 4:38, 23 August 2016 (UTC) [3].

Pope Pius XII

edit
Notified:WikiProject Catholicism

Review comments

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it was promoted and reviewed last time 10 years ago. In the meanwhile the literature on Pius XII has developed quite a bit with important new work by authors such as David Kertzer (his recent Pulitzer awarded book on Pius XI includes much relevant material on Pius XII, especially his period as Nuncio and Camerlengo), Susan Zuccotti and Robert Ventresca, which has provided new critical perspectives on his relations with Mussolini and views on and actions regarding the Jews. The lack of integration of these new prominent pespectives made me placea NPOV tag on the article more than a year ago. No one has contested this criticism, and another editor arrived and expressed agreement that the article is currently not neutral but lacks engagement with relevant criticism. Hence I nominate the article to have its status as FA reviewed. I think that it currently fails both the requirements 1b, 1c and 1d - as well as probably having some MOS related issues (criterion 2c specifically) that should also be fixed for the status to be retained. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also rather...large...@Maunus: if you could highlight material that could be relagated to a daughter article that'd be great...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is 102kb readable prose, but size is not in fact among my concerns and I am much more interested in the article accurately and neutrally summarizing the differing viewpoints on Pius XII's relations to fascism, nazism and anti-semitism before and during WW2. Since this is a very controversial topic there are many different views to be summarized, this can be done in different ways - for example by spinning out more comprehensive daughter articles and summarizing them. Nonetheless I dont think shortening the article is in itself a solution to the content related problems, which need to be addressed regardless of what length the article ends up having. The work involved in fixing these problems is quite substantial, more than I am willing and able to take on at this point, otherwise I would have done some of this work myself before nominating for FAR.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FARC comments

edit
Concerns raised in the review section included comprehensiveness, neutrality, and style. DrKay (talk) 14:03, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are two issues. One is the problems raised by Maunus. The problem there is that it is very unlikely that there is any other FAC reviewer who has the specialist knowledge required to judge the validity of the complaints. The other is how it reads to a reviewer with no specialised knowledge. It is in many respects a first class article, but there is no question that if it was nominated for FAC now it would fail. One section has been tagged for disputed neutrality for over a year, some comments are unreferenced, and some are POV. I therefore support delisting. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, have to say these are clear cut grounds for delisting. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:38, 23 August 2016 (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 Nikkimaria manually on 17:51, 26 November 2021 (UTC) [4].[reply]

Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering

edit
FAR Coords, WT:FFA and Hog Farm

Per this discussion, this is a procedural FAR to reflect that this article was unilaterally delisted in September 2016, without a FAR, after this August 2016 AFD led to a merge. Because this FAR is for bookkeeping purposes only, I have not listed it at WP:FAR. If a @FAR coordinators: will close this without moving it to FAR archives (which would trigger FACbot and make a mess), I will then update Talk:Harold and Inge Marcus Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering and WP:FFA. @Hog Farm: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 26 November 2021 (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.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/archive/August_2016&oldid=1057470101"