Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/March 2020

< 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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 2:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC) [1].

MissingNo.

edit
Notified: Kung Fu Man, WikiProject Video Games, WikiProject Pokémon

I am nominating this featured article for review because the information that was contained on this page when it was submitted for featured article status was not substantially correct and was in part based on information that did not appear in cited sources, and attempts to improve it since in a way that adds content (as opposed to simply removing incorrect content) have failed due to a lack of reliable sources that could be used to correct it and a lack of any indication that new ones will appear in the future. That is, it is not comprehensive and cannot be. Blah2 (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Between this and the talk page, the issue appears to be that there's "facts" about MissingNo that "gamers" know about, but not at all documented in any type of RS. We can't add information that's not from RS, even if its presumed its correct information. So thus the question is if the article remains comprehensive without these, and I'm not seeing major gaps for what I'd expect of a character article to contain, even for a character as unusual as this. --Masem (t) 20:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly it: common 'gamer knowledge' is that the entries that spawn MissingNo. were taken up by actual Pokemon in the beta version of the game, but the sources that are often cited for that information are wikis like Bulbapedia or require WP:OR. The Yellow 'version' of this glitch is also at times brought up by other editors, but outside of the name and role as an error handler if the game tries to spawn a pokemon that isn't there requires a completely different method with completely different results and isn't covered in notable sources, making it fall somewhat outside of the scope of this article. Am I about right Blah2?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think part of it is more that the article used to go into more detail when it became featured, but I later discovered that wasn't actually in the sources that were supposed to contain it, and I am assuming the existence of that detail contributed to the article receiving featured status. Personally I don't believe that there is even original research to back up the idea that we can know what was in the MissingNo. slots and I am not concerned with that at all. Blah2 (talk) 23:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it actually hasn't shrunk in size Blah. Additional sources can be added to give more bulk (it went to FA almost ten years ago, and sources like the below mentioned Ars Technica article exist), but I'm not quite seeing why you seem to have a bias against it being FA on the current grounds.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this article is moved out of FA, then it can become a GAN. Still, article talk page says: 
"The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
The Mythos and Meaning Behind Pokemon's Most Famous Glitch"
Aya Syameimaru 文々。新聞 23:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC) (modified 23:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Keep from Lee Vilenski

Be aware, I may claim participation credits towards the Wikicup. Or maybe not? Who knows.

There's a few things here. I'd say there is a lack of inline citations in some key areas, there is a real lack of the lede on this item.

Specific issues
  • Citation 18 - "[PRE REVIEW]: Missingno: a missing data visualization suite". Journal of Open Source Software. January 26, 2018. Retrieved September 8, 2019. Though I don't see a citation necessary as the name was derived from a pokemon glitch" - was this a joke by someone? Is this item even something that we should be citing?
  • Quite a few of the refs use "staff" as an author - should we be using this in place of no known author?

Additional comments to come. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAR instructions; pages are not segmented, and Keep/Delist are not declared in the FAR phase. Perhaps you meant to suggest this FAR should be closed without a FARC. (And without a subhead). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) - conflict with Masem - I hadn't read the talk page for this one. I'd suggest there is at least some benefits to looking at specific issues (content dispute notwithstanding) on an FAR. However, quite happy to have this close if it's a consensus. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Citation 18 and that whole line, looks like it got snuck in between edits and really has no relevance to anything. As for the others it was my understanding during the FAN that Staff was acceptable if the source website/publication was considered reliable but no writer was directly attributed to the article? As for the lead length I remember that was a point of recurring discussion during the FAN where just exactly what to include given the size of the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Realistically, if we don't have an author, we should leave it blank. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:24, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been my understanding through several FAC's that leaving it blank entirely is frowned upon, and in the cases of some templates will cause it to show an error instead.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Encountering MissingNo. causes graphical errors and increases the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128" could we expand this? Something about "MissingNo. causes graphical and gameplay changes. When encountering MissingNo. in Red and Blue, graphical anomalies occur as well as an increase in the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was at one point, I think with subequent edits over the years it got accidentally removed when people kept trying to cite wikis as evidence of its presence in Pokemon Yellow, even though that glitch is related only by name and is non-notable in terms of sources.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they don't fall into the scope of the article, and don't have a lot of notability in outside sources or even the same cultural examination/impact. It would be like an article on the Minus World talking about screenwarp glitches for Super Mario Bros.: they're related to one another, but one has cultural impact over the other.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above fixes/comments are enough for me to support remaining at FA. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:14, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone who knows what this is saying please disentangle it?

Encountering MissingNo. causes graphical anomalies and gameplay changes, specifically increasing the sixth item in the player's item menu by 128. The latter effect resulted in the glitch's coverage by strategy guides and game magazines, though with words of caution about the former.

Latter= gameplay changes? Former = graphical anomalies? Even if the sentences are re-cast, I have no idea what the lead is saying, and the lead should be digestible to non-gamers. The promoted version was only slightly better. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, better, now what is a "sixth item"? It is mention in the lead but never defined.
Is this still true? (It needs an "as of" date.) "Despite Nintendo's statements on the glitch, it has not been removed from re-releases of the games, such as on their virtual console service.[6]"
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Attempted to address the issues mentioned, bear with me I'm dealing with a bit of a flu right now so not 100%.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, get better, there is no rush at FAR. I still need to understand in the lead what the glitch is— what a sixth item is, what it means for it to be increased. The only part I get is 128 is a power of 2, so a likely programming error, but is that explained? Maybe Ealdgyth can lend some clarity here. That there is some very unusual, uncorrected glitch in this game is all I am getting as a non-gamer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see Kung Fu Man is back in the saddle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Laser brain, Ealdgyth, Lee Vilenski, and Blah2: could others please evaluate the progress here? I still don't know what it means for an item value to increase, but I guess that's a non-gamer speaking. Can this be closed without FARC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • That does help but we should be better than a link, and explain that to dummies like me, and also explain what it means for an item value to increase by 128. How does the "value" work in the playing of the game? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:30, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that's explained, and fixed, I think we can Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blah2: Do you concur? Any further issues? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't posted in over a month. Not sure if they will reply in a timely manner. GamerPro64 05:52, 22 March 2020 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC) [4].

War of the League of Cambrai

edit
Notified: User talk:Kirill Lokshin, MILHIST

I am nominating this featured article, nominated by Kirill Lokshin in 2005, for review because notification was made more than a month ago on the talk page of some issues with the article, especially missing citations, and no one has stepped up to fix them. It's not in as bad shape as many FAs from that era, so I'm hoping it can be rescued. buidhe 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Buidhe, I do not see a notification at User talk:Kirill Lokshin; people can have pings disabled, and Kirill is an active editor, so should be notified using the subst notification in the FAR instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point of this comment? It would be easier to place the template yourself. buidhe 15:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure you (and others) know how to do it in the future. FAR has been moribund for so long that folks don't know the procedure. It's important to use the notification template because newcomers here don't always read the instructions. Also, in some cases, there are dozens of notifications to be done, and it's not easier for another editor to do them (although we should be able to check that they have been done). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed the {{fact}} tags, and have gone through the rest of the text and added citations throughout. Please let me know if there are any other concerns with the article, and I'll be happy to address them. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless Buidhe has further issues, this is well into Close without FARC territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 20 March 2020 (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 Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 3:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC) [5].

The Adventures of Tintin

edit
Notified: User:Prhartcom, WikiProject Belgium, WikiProject Children's literature, WikiProject Comics

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because it has been tagged for unsourced statements for over 2 years, and has paragraphs of uncited text. The prose includes short, stubby paragraphs and concerns about the reliability of sources were raised on the talk page over 3 and a half years ago. DrKay (talk) 15:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Barkeep49

I would agree with the concerns expressed by DrKay. While I might be able to do some work on fixing the prose, I will not be able to do the work necessary to really address the issues with text citation and agree it falls below our FA standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is actively working to retain/restore status, time is always given; please keep this page posted on your progress. (See the FAR instructions, FARs are not segmented, and it is assumed that work will proceed on article talk, with updates to here.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two weeks and no evidence of progress or anyone working here: diff since nomination. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include prose and sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2020 (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 via FACBot (talk) 8:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC) [6].

George B. McClellan

edit
Notified: WikiProject Military history

Review section

edit

I am nominating this featured article for review because, since its promotion in 2007, the article has atrophied somewhat, but more importantly, it doesn't hold up to today's Featured Article standards. The sources are rather condensed into a few (the first half is essentially from one book), and some POV has crept in. The main article writer has since retired so the likelihood of the article improving again is slim. Wizardman 04:54, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • To repeat my comments during the pre-FAR discussion on the article's talk page, the article is pushing what I believe is a WP:FRINGE viewpoint that McClellan was a successful general who was wrongly sacked. Everything I've read on the topic (which is a fair amount, with a focus on the standard works on the US Civil War and Lincoln's relationship with his generals) has concluded that McClellan was a failure as a battlefield commander and Lincoln should have sacked him much earlier. My edits to remove POV pushing from the lead [7] illustrate this issue, but similar material crops up in the body of the article. I'd also note that the article devotes too little attention to McClellan's presidential campaign (and I believe that the claim that he would have continued the war if elected is incorrect or at least needs further explanation) and his term as the governor of New Jersey. Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To summarise the entry in my copy of the Oxford Companion to Military History, McClellan possessed "caution bordering on paralysis" and "totally lacked the killer instinct". It also states that Lee met him on unequal terms at Antietam because he had such contempt for him as a commander. On the positive side, it indicates that McClellan showed a skill in retreat during the Seven Days battles, and that he re-organised the Army of the Potomac and restored its confidence after First Bull Run. It's a tertiary source, but the general thrust of it should be reflected in our article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert: G'day, in addition to the above points, I'd add that there are many areas of the article that appear unreferenced. For retention of FA status, I would suggest that it should have at least a citation at the end of each paragraph in the body, and after every quote. The citation banner/tag in the Battle of Antietam sub section will need to be rectified too, if possible. The duplicate link checker indicates that there are potentially quite a few terms that are overlinked, although some of them may be ok. I'd also suggest that the placement of images could be improved. In a couple of places (on my screen at least) the text seems to be sandwiched between several images. I'd help with the referencing if I could, but unfortunately this isn't a topic I know much about, nor do I have any sources on the Civil War on my bookshelves, sorry. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just pinging a few Milhist editors that might be able to help and have an interest in the ACW, @GELongstreet, Djmaschek, Kges1901, and BusterD:. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are two "jobs" here. Firstly, fixing the content and correcting the POV stuff. Once that is done, fixing the MOS, image licensing, a copy-edit, etc. For this FAR to have any chance of bringing the article up to FA standard, one or more editors need to put their hand up for the first job. To do it they will need some knowledge and expertise regarding the ACW in general, and access to the relevant sources. Unfortunately, that isn't me. I am happy to do the second job if someone can be found to do the first one, but the first one needs to be done before the second one starts. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:40, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also happy to help on the second, always, but first someone has to do the first. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:24, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have the library and the knowledge to tackle this one. However, I shudder at the size of the task, so I will not promise anything. Please note that all authors that I have read are critical of McClellan. He was a very able organizer and strategist, but he seems to have convinced himself that he was always outnumbered (it was the other way around), which made him very cautious. President Lincoln once remarked about McClellan, "He's got the slows." Djmaschek (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Djmaschek. Having at least one ACW specialist would make a big difference. I suggest focussing on the areas identified above, a section at a time. Anything I can do to help, let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A week later and no article edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest moving straight to a FARC discussion per the above. It would be a major project to return this article to FA status, and no-one seems to be in a position to take it on at present. Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section

edit
Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and neutrality. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2020 (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/March_2020&oldid=947725574"