Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/October 2012

< 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 Dana boomer 00:20, 23 October 2012 [1].

Microsoft Security Essentials

edit
Notified: Codename Lisa, WikiProject Microsoft WikiProject Microsoft Windows WikiProject Computer Security WikiProject Computing WikiProject Software

Consider the following quotes from reviews of this product. None of these are very obscure, in fact they are all from the very first page of Google's results for "Microsft Security Essentials review". I could have gone on a lot further but stopped there in the interests of brevity:

Perhaps because the ‘file count' is so high, Microsoft Security Essentials 4 took 2 hours 42 minutes to scan them, well over twice as long as any other product we've reviewed.
Perhaps more worrying is that Microsoft Security Essentials 4 drops off to 2.5/6.0 in the Protection category.
...it was a long way behind in zero-day detection, scoring 76 and 80 percent in consecutive months, against an average of 88 percent.
All this means that top protection from brand new malware will be better provided by one of the other free AV applications.
..its speed and, more especially, its protection against zero-day attacks, mean it's not the best.
We liked Microsoft Security Essentials 2.1's interface, but other free antivirus software does a better job at blocking malware.
...it falters at stopping new malware, and it plods through its chores.
It fully blocked 71.4 percent of new malware in our real-world tests, slightly worse than average. In our zoo test, it detected 97.0 percent of known malware samples. With that result, it lags the competition - some packages detected over 99.9 percent of samples.
In scan speeds it also fell behind the pack: Its on-demand scanner completed our virtual obstacle course in a worse-than-average 3 minutes, 56 seconds. The on-access scanner was poky too, clocking in at 6 minutes, 43 seconds.
Although Microsoft Security Essentials 2.1 has some good qualities, you would be better served by looking at some other options.
Unusually slow scan. Failed to run on one test system. Low detection rate in malware cleanup test. Failed to thoroughly clean up threats it did detect.
...in testing its cleanup of already-infested systems wasn't thorough. You can get better protection for the same price.
On the malware-infested systems where Microsoft Security Essentials installed and ran correctly, a full scan took hours. Scanning my standard clean test system took 72 minutes, about twice the average. And despite these lengthy scans, the cleanup wasn't very thorough.
Microsoft Security Essentials detected 63 percent of the threats, lower than any product tested with the current or previous set of malware samples.
40 percent detection of rootkit samples is also a new low.
Protection weaker under Windows XP. Mediocre results in hands-on malware blocking and malware removal tests. Left some threats running after alleged removal.
Other free products offer better protection.
In the Windows XP test, though, Microsoft took just 11.5 points, not enough for certification. It score high for usability but low for protection and repair.
A couple of threats were still running after it reported successful removal, which isn't good.
I also test each product's ability to detect and remove commercial keyloggers. Microsoft detected just 50 percent of these and left two of the detected samples running after alleged removal, for a score of 3.2 points.
Microsoft Security Essentials detected 89 percent of the rootkit samples. That's good, but more than half of the recent antivirus products detected 100 percent.
Microsoft Security Essentials' scores in my malware removal tests were barely average. Many other products, including free products, have shown much greater success.
It's simple to use, but the protection isn't as good as from other free anti-virus software
Sadly, performance isn't so good. In our test run of 50 viruses, Microsoft Security Essentials allowed our PC to be compromised four times (eight per cent), protecting against 92 per cent of test viruses.
Unfortunately, despite its ease of use, Security Essentials is rather limited.

Of course, I've been selective here to show, but in no way have I pulled out every negative quote. Indeed I had to restrain myself a couple of times since I was in danger of quoting a substantial chunk of the respective articles. However, I think I've cited enough to show that the reviews of MSE are very much a mixed bag.

Reading the article however, you gain little insight to this, especially in context. Some detection figures are quoted but with little indication of how they compare to its competitors. At FAC I noted that reviews appeared to have been cherry-picked, and sources had been misquoted or misrepresented (in one case a review of a released version was dismissed as "only a beta"). As such I do not consider that this article can be considered balanced and therefore its FA status should be revoked on neutrality grounds. Quantumsilverfish (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quantumsilverfish (talk) 01:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I do see problems here. The article has certainly improved in this respect since it was listed but I still wouldn't call it NPOV. Quatumsilverfish does seem to be playing devil's advocate here but to be fair I can respect that: somebody needs to since there is certainly a case to be made. He/she presented legitimate concerns and these were at best not adequately explored and at worst dismissed because of the very bias alleged.
  • The complaints about misquoting or misrepresenting sources are minor in isolation and do not affect the current revision as far as I can see in any case, but when they all point in the same direction (towards more favourable coverage) that is enough to raise an eyebrow over concerns of systemic bias.
  • The crux of the issue as presented is does the article reflect the whole range of expert opinion in a balanced manner? After a bit of independent research and considering the above in aggregate I suggest that whether intentionally or not, the balance is firmly shifted towards the positive end of the spectrum. I would say the main pros cited are that it's free, it's from Microsoft, and it has little impact on system performance. The main cons are poor detection rates, even worse removal rates, and very slow scanning speed. The article does not present those kind of tradeoffs.
  • Concerns have been raised on the article talked page but essentially brushed aside. There has been a certain amount of hostility shown: this edit[2] in particular gives me cause for concern, as even to a certain extent Jasper Deng's dismissive comments above.
  • I also note that Codename Lisa (the nominator at FAC) and Jasper Deng (another proponent at FAC) are also cited in another dispute, again for lack of balance in coverage of another Microsoft product. This is beginning to look very suspicious indeed.
Can these concerns be addressed? Sure, but POV, especially on such a well-developed article, can be deep-seated and difficult to spot. As Quantumsilverfish pointed out at FAC the article really needs thorough review from fresh blood, especially in the light of the other dispute mentioned above. In that respect at least this review process may help since it has been listed on so many wikiprojects. Why wasn't the same done for the original nomination? It would certainly have helped get some more independent input into the process.
With all this in mind it is difficult to not conclude that there are legitimate concerns over NPOV and consequently it is not FA standard (or even GA standard) regardless of whether it got through some debate once. I see the convention here is to try and address issues as opposed to simply delisting articles.
Here there is a lot of work to do: it isn't a case of referencing a few negative reviews, but given there are concerns of editorial independence the entire article must be regarded with suspicion: that means checking and validating everything in the article for balance. This is a relatively new FA and it does not appear to me that it was NPOV even when advanced to FA: therefore I'm tempted to say delist it now regardless of convention and take it back to FAC when it is truly ready. The editing environment on the article simply appears too hostile to expect any immediate resolution. Crispmuncher (talk) 04:22, 22 October 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • NPOV entails giving weight in direct proportion to its coverage, which I feel that the article does. It just happened that everyone else (but Quantamsilverfish) who commented on the FA nomination seemed to have shared this perspective. I do agree that we can elaborate a little more on criticism, but that one paragraph should be sufficient. I will disclaim that I endorse Microsoft's products as a personal view, so my views here may be disregarded if necessary.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, please comment on content, not contributors. Personalizing content disputes is often considered disruptive editing. Mark Arsten (talk) 14:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hi. The nomination says delist the article because its subject has poor detection rates. Nominator has expressed these very same concerns in the FAC of the article; I showed him that no only he is right but also the article agrees with him. I said:
Quantumsilverfish says... Article says...
"...it does not overly impact on system performance..."
  • Four source cite its low resource usage
  • AV-Test.org gives it a usability score of 5.0 out of 6.0
"...but has relatively poor detection rates..."
  • "This product received a protection score of 2.5 out of 6"
  • "Version 2.1 received a protection score of 3.0 out of 6"
"...and painfully slow scanning speed." "Some full scans took over an hour on infected systems; a scan on a clean system took 35 minutes."
I do not see why we cannot have a featured article on a product that does not have excellent detection rates.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article was promoted just over a month ago. --Rschen7754 08:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We don't limit FA status to products with perfect commercial reviews. FA status is supposed to be relative to the quality of the article, not the quality of virus detection. FA doesn't stop anyone from adding more criticisms if you think that is needed. "Neutral" isn't an exact thing, it is a range. If you think it needs more criticisms, adding one or two wouldn't make it overly lopsided, but it isn't overtly biased now, so no reason to delist. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Additional closing note - This FAR is being closed as kept because, according to the FAR directions, "Three to six months is regarded as the minimum time between promotion and nomination". It has been barely one month since this article was promoted. Also, as a side note, this seems to be more of a content dispute than anything else, so it may be the case that one of the content dispute resolution boards may be of more help than FAR. I would suggest that both groups of editors continue to work together to come to a mutually-agreeable solution, if possible. Dana boomer (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2012 (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 20:51, 22 October 2012 [3].

Barack Obama

edit
Notified: Example user, Example WikiProject

I am nominating this featured article for review because...

1. There has been a very extensive discussion for FAR. Even someone who opposes FAR wrote "A review would be welcome, but only after the seas are calmer. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC). An administrator wrote "I think an FAR would be very beneficial, especially given the visibility of the article. The purpose of FARs is to discuss possible improvements "without declarations of "keep" or "delist"', with the aim "to improve articles rather than to demote them" (see WP:FAR). —Eustress talk 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

2. This article is far different from the article of 2004.

3. Others have commented about why it does not meet the criteria.

4. As far as not meeting the criteria, my own experience is about the religion section. We all know he is a Christian. However, it is going overboard to have 3 paragraphs about his Christianity as other Presidents don't have this. There could be a reason, that is because he has been accused of being a Muslim. There are many sources to back this up (the fact that the false accusation has been made -- I gave the Washington Post citation). A simple mention that there has been accusation, then follow it with a condensed Christian description would be fine. Yet to have this current version (which tries to convince the reader of a point) violates criteria 1(a) well-written: its prose is engaging, even brilliant, and of a professional standard; (b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and

5. Violation of criteria: (e) stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.

Even the discussion on the talk page about having a review is met with fighting and try to shut up the discussion by closing it up into a box.

If we improve the each section of the article like I just proposed, then it will be a fantastic article.

Someone mentioned that a lot of editors will attack Obama, the man, in this process. This can be controlled by trying to keep on subject. As far as being close to the election, we could finish before November, which is 3 months away. We are not that slow.

In the interest of disclosure, I voted for Obama and have an Obama magnet on my car but basically want a better article, not one that is overly pro or overly against the man.

George Tupou VII (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

technical details-notifications done

main contributor:Hailfire

editor who originally nominated the article for Featured Article: Meelar

WikiProject: WikiProject Biography

Comments by Wikidemon

  • The editors on the talk page recently rejected a FAR, and I don't believe this is a good time for it. The article talk page has recently undergone some tendentiousness on the topic, and this latest renomination doesn't seem to address any of the shortcomings of the last nomination and could itself be perceived as an aggressive contravention of other editors' actions. Certainly, we haven't done the first step, to discuss the issues and suggestions for improvement on the talk page or even identify the problems. The one issue identified above, the religion section, can readily be addressed by editors on the talk page. The issue that others have mentioned, creating a preferred point of view more negative towards Obama than a perceived pro-Obama current point of view, is not something that FAR can achieve (nor is it a good way to approach an article). The article is stable (any edit wars basically restore the status quo). That's perhaps one of the issues, that it gets stale because editing is somewhere between incremental and gridlocked, and does not keep pace with world events. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh, we have single purpose accounts and IPs who are hell-bent on unhatting closed discussions and attacking the article by trying to get it delisted from FA status. This is a misuse and abuse of the Featured Article Review process. None of the "problems" cited by the filer are actual "problems" at all, this is just the same run-of-the-mill "this article doesn't criticize the subject enough" stuff that we see as the US moves closer to election time. Please close this, sanction the filer, and we can get on with normal editing work. Tarc (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John

  • Currently this article fails to meet, by 2012 standards, 1a; it is easy to find poor writing throughout the article; indeed, most of it is really badly written. It would need a top-to-bottom rewrite to pass this criterion.

Examples

    • "Regarding tort reform, Obama voted for the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which grants immunity from civil liability to telecommunications companies complicit with NSA warrantless wiretapping operations." (Why "regarding"? It looks tacked on.)
    • "During both the primary process and the general election, Obama's campaign set numerous fundraising records, particularly in the quantity of small donations." (Why "numerous"? It would be better to list the specific claims that the references support.)
    • "In his first few days in office, Obama issued executive orders and presidential memoranda directing the U.S. military to develop plans to withdraw troops from Iraq. He ordered the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, but Congress prevented the closure by refusing to appropriate the required funds." (Did Congress prevent the closure by refusing to appropriate the required funds in the first few days of the subject's term? That's what it looks like it says.)

Three of many instances which I regret to say would fail a basic-level school essay, let alone a Featured Article on Wikipedia.

  • Currently this article also fails to meet 1d. This is inherently harder to potentially fix, given the strong feelings that arise about the subject, and the somewhat toxic editing environment this has led to. Again, the list that follows is not intended to be exhaustive but is merely a sample.

Examples

    • Economic policy We have "The Congressional Budget Office and a broad range of economists credit Obama's stimulus plan for economic growth." yet it is also quite easy to find critical views of Obama's package. While there is no space at present for any such critical material, we do currently manage to have a long and generally very positive quarter-by-quarter commentary on the unemployment statistics. The graph that supports this section is also somewhat ridiculous, as has been discussed in talk already.
    • Foreign policy The Iraq War and War in Afghanistan sections need updated as they include language like "...scheduled the withdrawal of combat troops to be completed by August 2010, decreasing troops levels from 142,000 while leaving a transitional force of 35,000 to 50,000 in Iraq until the end of 2011" and "On December 1, 2009, Obama announced the deployment of an additional 30,000 military personnel to Afghanistan. He also proposed to begin troop withdrawals 18 months from that date [i.e. by May 2011]" The War in Afghanistan, Israel and Osama bin Laden sections collectively include no, zero, mention of any negative aspects to the sub-topics they explore. As though there had been no controversy at all about the drone attacks, relations with Pakistan, relations with Israel, and the targeted killing of a foreign leader, as though these events had been as bland and routine as William Howard Taft's admission of New Mexico to the Union. In fact, it is extremely easy to find good sources for valid criticisms of all of these areas of policy, without going into fringe territory. That the article at present does not do so is a regrettable omission.

Comments from Mark Arsten

  • Comments from Mark Arsten: I copyedited the first few sections a couple months back and though they were in good shape. Looking at the rest of the article, I'm inclined to agree that an FAR would be a good idea. Probably won't need to be delisted, though.
  • A few 1a issues are present, notably including Wikipedia:Proseline issues in "Domestic policy".
  • It seems like there's lot of Human interest story, here, particularly in the last few sections. He's quoted for 8 sentences talking about his faith, we learn about his favorite and second favorite football teams, some trivia about the Bears' 1986 championship, his thoughts on his youthful image, his visiting Irish cousins in 2011. I would expect there to be some of this, but it seems like some more significant aspects of his presidency are crowded out.
  • There are only 5 sentences about his relationship with Israel. Only two about the 2010 midterms, which don't quite capture the tone of the cited coverage [4]. I think there's too little about these topics, but also, 2 or 3 sentences is probably too small for a subsection.
  • I don't see anything about Drones, which have been a pretty notable part of his military strategy. I also see there's no mention of the Tea Party, which was a pretty notable response to Obama. (I don't think we should include much about them, but to totally ignore them seems like it's going overboard.) Mark Arsten (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disappointingly, it doesn't seem like the article has been improved since this FAR began. While a lot of respect is due to those who have kept this article presentable, legitimate unresolved issues remain. As a fairly active FAC reviewer, I am reasonably confident that this article would not pass FAC in this state. Since it doesn't appear that any effort is being made to remedy the issues pointed out here, I suggest this be moved to FARC. Mark Arsten (talk) 10:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regretfully, I agree with the above. To allow this article to continue to carry the star devalues the whole concept of Featured Articles. --John (talk) 11:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wiwaxi

  • Good to have this FAR

I do not live in the US and am not American but English is my first language. I do not think that writing in this article is very good. It very choppy. I believe a reassessment is needed. I also see that others agree with my assessment. Here are quotes by others (I'm not against a review, I'm just saying it might be a problem trying to do it at the same time, that's all. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:56, 27 July 2012 (UTC) and I took a look at a couple of sections and he quality of the writing is terrible. I started copy-editing it, but there are so many more serious problems of completeness that it seems premature to do this until the more major problems have been addressed. --John (talk) 23:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC) ) I agree: I'm not against a review, am for it if done civilly, and the quality of the writing is terrible.

Since this is a hot article, everyone, including me should pledge to be civil. I pledge to be civil. Hopefully, there will not be extremists who insist Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, but even if there are, we can work with them and explain to them that such theories are outside the purview of Wikipedia.

One problem is the selection of things include some trivia and some major things are not included. Once this FAR gets started, I am happy to point out some examples. Let's make this the best article in WP. It will take longer than a week or two but it CAN be done! Wawaxi (talk) 02:39, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a reasonable person. I see some merit to Mark Arsten's comments, particularly about the Israel part. The fix would not be anti-Obama so supporters do not have to worry. The fix would not be cheerleading so opponents do not have to worry. There is also a problem that some of the biography is about the administration of Obama. There are some things that Mr. Obama strongly supported and did things for, so that is appropriate but there are some things are make the article bloated. Some of his Illinois Senate sections are not very detailed and look lopsided compared to the very long Presidential section.
I read the talk page and some comments are way over the top but some are very useful. One example was that there was such a large part devoted to Christianity, really undue weight. I can see why...because Mr. Obama has been accused of being a Muslim. If that is put in (it is not in) then it gives it context but without it, it is pure cheerleading and almost seems to be Wikipedia trying to convince the audience that Mr. Obama IS a very strong Christian. I can't take credit for this but merely cite it as an example of some good points raised in the talk page.
I kmow content forks are not appreciated but one brainstorming way would be to have 3 versions of the article as an exercise only and see how they compare. They would be entitled "Obama by supporters", "Obama by opponents", and "Obama by neutral parties and foreigners located outside the USA". I would be happy to do the latter. However, given that content forks are not liked, I do not think that alternative versions for an exercise (which is not a true content fork) will be liked so let's not do it unless there is very strong support. Wawaxi (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kyle:The US Elections make a FAR difficult because of instances of impartiality. This should be tabled until AFTER the november elections. 99.99.61.169 (talk) 09:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Malleus Fatuorum: I think this FAR is ill-timed given the upcoming US presidential election and premature. I see no evidence that a serious effort has been made on the article's talk page to resolve whatever issues may exist, which is a prerequisite for initiating an FAR. Is the article perfect? No, but what article is? The issues so far identified seem to me to be relatively easily fixed and in some cases arguably in areas where reasonable people may reasonably disagree. Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dank: I'm concerned about the process questions, about possible harm to the editing and discussion process for this article, and harm to FAR itself. If we threatened to run off to FAR every time an edit has been made that doesn't seem to meet the FA criteria (this is FAR #10 for this article), that would create an oppressive editing environment, and this is not the point of the FAR process. If FAR reviewers and delegates have to evaluate every defect in detail on an ongoing basis, that takes up time that very busy people don't have, for no gain at all that I can see. The nominator has selectively, and disingenuously, pulled out a quote from Dana that makes it sound like Dana thought it was time for a FAR, when she actually strongly suggested that FAR seemed premature, since there was no consensus or attempt at consensus on the subject at the article's talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Spevw Kyle and Malleus Fatuorum are not in favor of FAR before the election. However, that would just delay improvement. Perhaps there is fear that the article will get better and the poorly written version is preferred? Dank makes sense in that FAR should not become oppressive and every effort should be made to ensure civility and constructive improvement. However, Dank mentions that "FAR reviewers and delegates have to evaluate every defect" and that they are busy. This is a good reason to have a FAR because Dank admits that there are defects in the article. In my opinion, the article needs improvement and work to bring it back to FA standards. There has not been a serious FAR for several years (there are a few joke FAR, like the last one, which last a day or so and result in no changes in the article before the FAR is closed up right away). This FAR should go on but care should be made to have a good discussion about editing and not have some people want to include "he's born in Kenya" though I have faith in WP that there aren't too many of those people. Spevw (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then why not just do the work you believe is required? That doesn't require an FAR. Malleus Fatuorum 01:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: serious error Looks like there is an error here preventing discusssion. It is not in the FAR page. The only way to get into here is through an obscure link in the Barack Obama talk page. I have fixed this. George Tupou VII (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's because there's isn't a legitimate review going on here, just some sporadic nattering by a handful abusing the FAR process. Tarc (talk)

Additional comments for improvement: from me I've looked into other FAR above and the concerns listed seem to be real. I think some are confusing support for President Obama for opposition against FAR, which is wrong. Opposition for FAR should be because the article is so great that virtually nothing needs to be done, which is not the shape the article is in.

Looking at the talk page archives, there are legitimate points that are never addressed. This should give us a clue that FAR may be needed to prod improvement. Looking at just the last archived talk page, there is concern about the Afghanistan section being not comprehensive (which nobody refuting the suggestion...therefore a consensus that it is poorly written). There is concern about the Israel section and some agreement but nothing written, maybe because people figure "it's already a FA, why bother?". There is mention of overemphasis on his Christianity with no context to the reader. The reason given is because he has been accused of being a Muslim. There is a suggested new picture of Obama with no response. I do not claim support or opposition to any of these changes. I merely am making a list from 1 of 75 archives and this list seems reasonable.

So far, I have not seen anyone comment here insisting that we smear President Obama. This suggests that a FAR could actually be very productive and civil. I am not sure what is the process after this. Is it further FA review? If so, let's do it! and make Wikipedia better! George Tupou VII (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: File:Lugar-Obama.jpg, source is dead link, needs source per WP:IUP. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 21:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source website is archived at archive.org [5] Rreagan007 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. JJ98 (Talk / Contribs) 10:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - after reading the article and some of the talk page "discussions", i am still not sure FAR can help to improve the article. When interested editors can find a common ground to collaborate on the article, great. But just moving a discussion to FAR doesn't magically make it more civil or productive. FAR is great to fix clearly identified specific issues, it's not well suited for general content disputes (imho). Also reading and following the FAR process guidelines should be a basic requirement. GermanJoe (talk) 06:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - "I am stil not sure FAR can help improve the article" reads the above comment. The best and neutral way is to try it. By denying it FAR is like saying "let's not have an election because it will not improve the government". Well, not having an election is dictatorship. Certainly, we should not support those who advocate dictatorship. Let's have a FAR and see how it improves the article. Certainly, quacks that say "Obama is a Muslim" can be discounted. Besides, in this civil FAR discussion, no quacks have appeared.
I do have and have seen many good suggestions but the political nature of the article means that some good suggestions are ignored and nobody has the stomach to pursue the discussion. Every section I read can be greatly improved. The big problem is that over the years stuff has been added on but the comprehensive focus has been lost. Let's take one example. The Israel section of a bad representation of the biography of Obama. Then multiply that with how many sections that ere.
Some have said to wait until after the election. Wikipedia needs improvement as soon as possible, not after some external event. Everyone has been civil so far, much more civil than on some talk pages, so AGF and let's start the FAR. Best of luck...
Disclaimer. I am not a U.S. citizen and edit outside the U.S. so I have no axe to grind. I cannot and do not want to vote in the U.S. election. Wawaxi (talk) 23:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's give you another example. Foreign policy. The subsections are Iraq, Afghanistan, Iarael, Libya, Bin Laden. That is a terrible outline of both US foreign policy and/or Obama's emphasis of foreign policy. However, if suggestions are made for major re-write, this will be impossible in the normal way. If there is FAR agreement of the need to re-think foreign policy, there is a chance that ther will be great improvement.
If anyone insists that Libya, Israel, Bin Laden, Iraq, and Afghanistan together summarize Obama and foreign policy, there is a serious problem with Wikipedia. Anyone with a little knowledge of the world knows that such summary is very bad prose. Obama has said he wants to bring Asia to the forefront. So, that is an idea. That also shows that even President Obama disagrees withthe contents of this WP article summarizing his foreign policy.
Let's work together through the FAR to improve this article. It can be done. Show the world how good we can get. Wawaxi (talk) 23:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One problem is that there has been no overall direction, just people adding things here and there. This results in a skimpy Senate career, a Senate campaign section almost as large as his Senate career, and a Presidency, which has been shorter in length than his Senate tenure, yet is much longer. The Senate career section almost exclusive is a list of bills that he introduced and is not even represenative of the Chicago Tribune articles about then Senator Obama then.

His state senator section is in even worse shape. There are major omissions, including events that got him elected, his well publicized mentor, etc.

There was a concern that this is the wrong time to have a FAR due to the election. The election should have no bearing at all about writing and improving this article. The concerns about extremist editors is unfounded because, as you can see, everyone here has been civil. If we wait until President Obama leaves office in 2017 (probably) then that is so long and so much time wasted, as well as editors leaving WP who could have helped. Let's proceed with the FAR review. George Tupou VII (talk) 03:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some good insights. Agreed on all points. • Jesse V.(talk) 04:09, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. --John (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rules say "there is consensus to close during this second stage, or that there is insufficient consensus to do so and so therefore the nomination should be moved to the third stage." Two months have passed and the suggestions made were not done. There is no consensus to close during this second stage. In fact, there is support not to close it. (note: I changed by username but I did comment above). George Tupou XXI (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disruption
    Wikid77 has repeatedly deployed {{cite quick}} into this article citing this review as a rationale. The article is currently exceeding the template preprocessing limit, resulting in the loss of navboxes and a few other templates at the bottom of the article. Editors need to cull a few unneeded cites; or something ;) Wikid77's template is one of a suite of experimental templates he has going. He has been repeated told by many, in TfDs and elsewhere, to confine these to non-article testing with the goal of improving standard citation templates. {cite quick} is currently at TfD. The core issue those opposed to Wikid's approach have is that it's disruptive. The other simple fact of the matter is that his templates are unfit; they drop all sorts of parameters in the interest of speed and less preprocessor overhead; i.e. they are incompatible. Stuff ordinarily passed to citation templates simply fails to appear on the rendered page. And there are all sorts of punctuation, order, and formatting anomalies. I'm not seeing anything from him here, although he's referenced this FAR in edit summaries and on the talk page. So, an FYI… Br'er Rabbit (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "Religious views" subsection, I believe that this is given appropriate weighting. The text is well-written and well-sourced. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I read it and I have no idea what's supposed to be wrong with it. Yes, its length and level of detail is, in a way, a response to the existing "controversy" about his religion, but I don't understand why some editors feel that's undesirable. I feel that ideally, encyclopedia articles should devote more space to aspects of a topic that are of increased general interest regarding that topic. For example, the Michael Jackson article devotes eleven paragraphs and two sub-articles to his death, while the Albert Einstein article has three short paragraphs on the subject. This is eminently reasonable, since Einstein's death was unremarkable and uncontroversial, while Michael Jackson's wasn't. Similarly, Obama's religion is a contentious matter that's been chewed over by talking heads in the media many times, which is certainly not true of most other presidents' religion. --Ashenai (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Over 2.5 months have passed since the FAR request and there is no consensus, which means that there needs to be progression to the next step. A lot of users want a review of this article, although some say that the election will make editing not objective and that we should wait until afterwards. That is not going to solve anything because if there is not objectivity now, it will not change. However, I only see civility in this discussion so that suggests that there will be civility with further review. One editor said he has "no idea what's supposed to be wrong" but that editor can simply wait for the finished product. I see many things wrong with this, only some of which are mentioned above. Let me add another one. The foreign policy section is not representative. There are lots of areas not covered and the areas covered, such as Israel are not well covered at all. Iran's nuclear problem isn't covered at all by a sub-section. Even the Libyan section is out-dated, with particular lack of emphasis of President Obama's role.
Let's end this FAR and proceed. We can make this article better. Wawaxi (talk) 00:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


This is probably going to be controversial, so I'm leaving a longer note here than usual. First, it seems there is intense disagreement, both above and previously on talk, about whether neutrality/coverage issues exist. Such issues are far less likely to be solved by a move to FARC than they would be by resuming the discussion on talk and, if necessary, taking it to a content noticeboard. Secondly, no matter what happens next month, there is going to be a need for article expansion, and reviewing a moving target is rarely productive. I respect that there have been some legitimate issues raised above, and I would encourage contributors to continue working on the article and discussing its possible deficits on talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2012 (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 Nikkimaria 18:04, 14 October 2012 [6].

Search engine optimization

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Jehochman, Bonadea, Ohnoitsjamie, Versageek, WP Computing, WP Business, WP Internet

I'm putting this up for FAR mainly because of reference issues.

  • See tags regarding original research, verification and unreliable sources. (Major concern)
  • There are additional untagged areas that need sources: third paragraph in White hat versus black hat section, second paragraph International markets
  • It seems strange that the Legal precedents section only covers a five year time span.
  • It seems that a huge proportion of the references are to what are in this case are primary sources (Google, Yahoo, Bing and their employees). I would hope that it would be possible to find secondary (and in many cases higher quality) sources for much of this information.
  • Some outdated information. For example, "In 2003, Danny Sullivan stated that Google represented about 75% of all searches." is almost a decade out of date.
  • Ref formatting should be made consistent and information (access dates, etc) added where necessary.
  • More minor MOS issues include formatting things such as extraneous spaces between punctuation and refs and similar concerns.

Overall the concerns with OR, verifiability and unreliable sources is the largest issues, in my opinion. This seems to be an article that is popular with people attempting to popularize themselves or their personal search engine, which is probably where a large portion of the un/poorly sourced information has come from. Dana boomer (talk) 18:19, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The prose needs a once over. I see lots of one-sentence paragraphs in "History", and nearly the entire last half of that section is nothing but "In X, Y happened."
  • As already mentioned, many citations are to Google, Yahoo! and Bing themselves.
  • Also as mentioned, there is a complete lack of more recent info, and much of what's already here is now quite dated. The article is clearly not being maintained.

Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:49, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated the worst problem contents, but it still would benefit from updating. I hope somebody takes on the task. The article is a magnet for spammers. All the spam and revert cycles result in occasional retention of bad content. That's been cleaned up. Somebody with time could read it top to bottom and help with gentle copy editing and updating. Jehochman Talk 20:33, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Issues raised in the review section include prose, content, sourcing and NPOV. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist per stability problems alone, but no other problem seems to have been taken care of. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist - while I appreciate the work that Jehochman did, this article is still a ways from FA status. Quite a few of my comments above have not been addressed (outdated information, ref formatting, Legal precedents section, etc). The biggest issue that I see is still the lack of secondary sources. The argument at the time of the FAC was that there were few (if any) books written on the topic; this argument cannot still be made, based on a quick Google/Amazon/WorldCat search. Dana boomer (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Times change. There are plenty of books now. Marketing in the Age of Google and The Art of SEO are two I recommend. This article was previously a good article. If it is delisted it should go back to Good, no? Hopefully an editor with time available will come along, read those books, and upgrade the article. The content of the article is still accurate. The extensions needed would be a discussion of recent algorithm changes by Google, including the Google Panda and Google Penguin algorithms. Also, it should be mentioned that Yahoo is no longer a search engine. They source their results from Bing. Jehochman Talk 20:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Times definitely change :) And, no, an article does not go back to GA status when delisted from FA - when an article is promoted to FA from GA it loses its GA status (is removed from the GA pages), and when demoted from FA does not regain that status. So, to be re-listed as a GA, it would need to go through a new GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 21:20, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am going to see if there is an editor who'd like to update this. It probably doesn't require a huge amount of work. Some of the online sources, such as SearchEngineLand are excellent. The books will only cover matters up to 2010 or so. For recent developments we will still have to rely on the online sources. Jehochman Talk 23:43, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment any progress? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 10:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist It is outdated since a lot has happend in this area since the majority of this article was written. --Harthacnut (talk) 18:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist I'm finding the quality is going downhill as article becomes more and more biased to showcase the views of insiders who hold stakes on this topic like Danny Sullivan (of Searchengineland a reference frequently quoted), Matt Cutts(of Google), Danny Sullivan, and others like "WebProNews". As you can see, Jehochman defends these arguably questionable reliability SEO producers while some of them watch his back and what I see as collaborative effort between SEO personnel (to look after each other) is threatening objective neutrality and veering towards industry newsletter. While we have Wiki editors like Jehochman who swear up and down that "Searchengineland is excellent source", there's no general consensus that they're considered reputable source. Same with iNetwork's WebProNews that offers articles by "staff writers" that can look like personal blogs. While tags may have been removed, reliability of these sources haven't been demonstrated beyond personal assertions from one or very few editors that they're "highly reliable".Cantaloupe2 (talk) 11:50, 4 October 2012 (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 Dana boomer 16:48, 4 October 2012 [7].

Operation Downfall

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: User talk:Raul654, WP:MILHIST, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

I am nominating this featured article for review because I posted about concerns on the article talk on 29 Aug. A few minor edits were made 29-31 Aug, but nowhere near addressing the concerns. Two users posted agreeing substantial work is needed: several page needed and citation needed tags, unsourced paragraphs, weak prose, heavy reliance on mostly just two sources, dead link on Silkett, could mention more the "intimidate-Soviets" aspect, isn't at all comprehensive, and doesn't reflect modern scholarship on this topic (especially Giangreco's book Hell to Pay, which is probably the best available book on this subject).PumpkinSky talk 15:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(stuff shifted to talk page; review belongs here. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Comments: Unfortunately this article now falls well short of FA standards. Some issues include:

  • As noted by PumpkinSky, the article's citation and prose standards are deficient
  • The article does not cover its topic fully. There have been a number of good books on this topic in recent years (most notably Hell to Pay, but also Richard B. Frank's excellent book Downfall and Stephen Zagola's short but very useful Defense of Japan 1945 ) which would allow the article to go into considerably more detail. The article should be at least a third longer than it currently is, and could justifiably be longer still.
  • The coverage of Operation Coronet is clearly much too short
  • The article needs to discuss the way the Allied and Japanese plans evolved over time, especially given that the Allies were only beginning to realise the scale of the Japanese forces in Kyushu in the last weeks of the war
  • The section on 'estimated casualties' is confusing, as it presents a series of different opinions. The focus should be on the way in which these estimates evolved over time. This section also doesn't cover the expected Japanese casualties, which is a major shortfall (Hell to Pay is particularly valuable on these topics).
  • The article doesn't note that the Allied build-up for Operation Olympic was well underway at the end of the war; for instance, the Eighth Air Force was within days of becoming operational on Okinawa at the time of the surrender, and large numbers of Army units were either travelling to the Pacific from Europe and North America or preparing to do so. Again, Hell to Pay provides good coverage of this. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Originally this article met the FA standards of the day; I doubt it would pass today though without some work. In addition to the above, two further issues I'd note:

  • It makes considerable use of Sutherland's 1945 planning document. There's nothing inherently wrong with this, but Sutherland is a primary source, and as such needs to be used with care. There aren't supporting secondary sources deployed to back up the interpretation of Sutherland that's given, or to support the prominence of the use of the source in the first place. Fixable, but essential.
  • I'm not an expert in this area, but I'm surprised not to see more about the Soviet context and its effect on planning assumptions here. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Move to FARC this is way more than enough to move to FARC. PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criteria mentioned in the review section include coverage, references and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 13:54, 20 September 2012 (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 Dana boomer 16:48, 4 October 2012 [8].

Infinite monkey theorem

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Deepak, WikiProject Mathematics

I am nominating this featured article for review because of poor referencing (1c) and prose (1a). Numerous sections are in need of references, prose complaints date back several years. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with the nominator: this seems to fail the FA criteria on the referencing standards, haven't looked at the prose in detail. Overall it would take quite a bit of work to get this up to the sourcing requirements.
  • It fails 3c by quite a bit, I counted 12 or 13 unsourced paragraphs (not counting the lead)
  • Source reliability (1c) is an issue too. Likely non-high-quality reliable sources include: Think Biblically!: Recovering a Christian Worldview and Quotationspage.com.
  • Cruft (4) is probably an issue too, some of the references are a bit trivial, though it's not as bad as Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delist, Concerns have not been addressed. meshach (talk) 23:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criteria brought up as issues in the review section include referencing, coverage, images and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2012 (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 Dana boomer 16:48, 4 October 2012 [9].

Red vs. Blue

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notified: Dr. B, TKD, WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Halo, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Animation, Machinima work group, WikiProject Internet, WikiProject Internet culture, WikiProject Science Fiction, WikiProject Comedy

This article has a lack of citations throughout the section "Project Freelancer" and "Music" which fails 1c. I've posted on the discussion on the article's talk page, but no one hasn't respond and improved it. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 09:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "Filming" section is terrible. I'm seeing a lot of first person ("we"), informal tone with contractions, and overall bad writing (e.g. "recently"). Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 13:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • When it was originally promoted, there were only four seasons of the show and now it's on its tenth. (The version that was promoted: [10]). It'll take a lot of work to get back up to speed, if I have time I'll try and flesh it out a bit. Nomader (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll take a look tonight. My expectation is that the entire article needs to be refreshed, as their production techniques are no longer-machinima based with the amount of custom CG they do. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:03, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've started (we're talking barely started) a list of resources in my userspace here that could be used to improve the article. I'll see what I can do... but as I've only ever worked on FLs and GAs, if I end up editing this heavily someone else should really take a strong magnifying glass to it and look over my changes. Nomader (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a note: I discovered Red vs. Blue production while searching for sources and I have to agree with the tag at the top of the page; it would really appear not to meet WP:GNG and is mostly just longer and worse written parts of the actual article. The actual article doesn't even link to it. Nomader (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Featured article criteria brought up as issues in the review section include referencing, coverage and prose. Dana boomer (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2012 (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/October_2012&oldid=521430486"