Misplaced Pages

User:Dweller/Featured Articles that haven't been on Main Page: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< User:Dweller Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:19, 1 November 2012 editJohnbod (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Rollbackers280,377 edits →2004: Quatermass and the Pit comment - hope that's ok← Previous edit Revision as of 07:53, 2 November 2012 edit undoCasliber (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators200,915 edits being worked on by birds wikiproject nowNext edit →
Line 51: Line 51:
* ] FAR n/a - Review: Title inconsistent with opening words. Article opens with what sounds like a big claim, but is puzzlingly small (worst in four years) so on reflection must be a comment about it not being so bad... but it's worded like it's dreadful. Just not sure what it's supposed to mean. Worse, the claim doesn't appear to be in the main text, so is unreferenced. "light wind shear"=? "average track forecast error" =? "flood potential statement"=? Huge, lightly referenced paragraphs. The before and after photos are perplexing: the top one seems to show flooding on the right of the picture, but the bottom one seems to show sand (dumped by a storm?) along the seafront properties. Or is it that the storm blew that sand away? Inappropriate for Main Page currently. * ] FAR n/a - Review: Title inconsistent with opening words. Article opens with what sounds like a big claim, but is puzzlingly small (worst in four years) so on reflection must be a comment about it not being so bad... but it's worded like it's dreadful. Just not sure what it's supposed to mean. Worse, the claim doesn't appear to be in the main text, so is unreferenced. "light wind shear"=? "average track forecast error" =? "flood potential statement"=? Huge, lightly referenced paragraphs. The before and after photos are perplexing: the top one seems to show flooding on the right of the picture, but the bottom one seems to show sand (dumped by a storm?) along the seafront properties. Or is it that the storm blew that sand away? Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
* ] FAR n/a - Review: Do we normally include foreign language names of species in bold at the top of their articles? A quick glance down the interwiki links shows Spanish is not the only language in which the bird has a different name. Not sure "discoverer" is encyclopedic language. What is "aerial" leaf litter? What is "middle" canopy? Why is "sally hover" not in the same part of speech as "gleaning" and "probing"? No information presented on whether birds pair for the season or for life. Bird named in at least three different styles in articles (eg "Elfin-woods Warbler") Latin name explained only in Lead, and without reference. English name never explained, only implied. Inappropriate for Main Page currently. * ] FAR n/a - Review: Do we normally include foreign language names of species in bold at the top of their articles? A quick glance down the interwiki links shows Spanish is not the only language in which the bird has a different name. Not sure "discoverer" is encyclopedic language. What is "aerial" leaf litter? What is "middle" canopy? Why is "sally hover" not in the same part of speech as "gleaning" and "probing"? No information presented on whether birds pair for the season or for life. Bird named in at least three different styles in articles (eg "Elfin-woods Warbler") Latin name explained only in Lead, and without reference. English name never explained, only implied. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
::<font color="green">being worked on by birds wikiproject now</font> ] (] '''·''' ]) 07:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
* ] FAR n/a - Review: Lead includes a one sentence paragraph - and it's one that's neither cited there, nor in the body text. "complete 3D perspective" - what's an incomplete one? multiplayer component spoken of in present tense, despite lead saying it closed 3 years ago and the body then saying it closed five years ago. Better style to list the civilisations in the body, not the lead. Surely the lead can be longer without artificially puffing it up? Absence of citations suggests significant amounts of OR in the Campaigns section - and that alone would be enough to make this inappropriate for Main Page currently. * ] FAR n/a - Review: Lead includes a one sentence paragraph - and it's one that's neither cited there, nor in the body text. "complete 3D perspective" - what's an incomplete one? multiplayer component spoken of in present tense, despite lead saying it closed 3 years ago and the body then saying it closed five years ago. Better style to list the civilisations in the body, not the lead. Surely the lead can be longer without artificially puffing it up? Absence of citations suggests significant amounts of OR in the Campaigns section - and that alone would be enough to make this inappropriate for Main Page currently.
* ] FAR 2010 Not considered due to relatively recent FAR. * ] FAR 2010 Not considered due to relatively recent FAR.

Revision as of 07:53, 2 November 2012

Introduction

Following the appearance of an "old" FA on Main Page in October 2012 that contained several significant flaws, this is an effort to speedily review all articles that:

  • passed FAC in 2008 or earlier
  • are still Featured
  • have not yet appeared on Main Page
  • have not had an FAR or subsequent FAC since 2008

The reason is to see if they are, at a quick glance, of a standard appropriate for a Featured article appearing on Main Page, would require a light brush-up or need so much work that their appearance would inappropriate, as not reflective of our best work.

The reason for choosing 2008 as a cut-off is that the FA standards rose significantly in and after 2009.

2003

None

2004

  • Representative peer FAR 2007 Review: Inappropriate. Littered with tags. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Quatermass and the Pit FAR n/a Review: Well-referenced. One section tagged. Some linking issues. Overall needs small amount of work before being appropriate for Main Page currently. (Johnbod adds:Lead needs plot summary- see the talk. But yes nearly there)

Tally:

  • Two articles, one currently inappropriate for Main Page and the one needing a small amount of work

2005

  • Dietrich v The Queen FAR: 2009 Review: n/a Not considered due to relatively recent FAR.
  • Music of Maryland FAR: n/a Review: Lead a little short. Some evidence of recentism. Lots of ORish unreferenced claims spotted, eg "There have been no major musicological studies in Maryland" and "The oystermen and others who work on the Chesapeake Bay have their own distinct folk song styles". Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Cincinnati, Lebanon and Northern Railway FAR: 2008 Review: Large sections devoid of inline references. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.

Tally:

  • Three articles
  • One recently reviewed at FAC or FAR
  • Of the remaining two, both are currently inappropriate for Main Page

2006

Many of these articles have short Leads, frequently two short parags.

  • 1928 Okeechobee hurricane FAR n/a - Review: Minor issues only.
  • 1987 (What the Fuck Is Going On?) FAR n/a - Review: "Plagiarised" used several times but looks like editorial comment... Incidents of destruction referred to in Lead not mentioned in article. Probably needs a close look before going on Main Page.
  • 1995 Pacific hurricane season FAR n/a - Review: More impact from some of the storms, I don't think the lead is a problem, the season did not do much. Should be okay to go on the Main Page.
  • 2003 Pacific hurricane season FAR n/a - Review: A bit of expansion required, a lot of unnecessary links
  • 2005 United States Grand Prix FAR 2007 - Review: Unreferenced/unclear comments about both Toyota and Trulli in lead not mentioned in article. Some unreferenced tracts. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Ace Books FAR n/a - Review: Opens with big, unsourced claim and descends into unsourced crufty fansite information. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Áedán mac Gabráin FAR 2009 Not considered due to relatively recent FAR.
  • All You Need Is Love (The JAMs song) FAR n/a - Review: Large tracts of unsourced material. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Angelina Jolie FAR n/a - Review: Filmography and awards seem uncited. Some other minor issues in text and some dreary writing "Jolie next starred in... Jolie then starred in... Jolie starred alongside" etc but seemingly could be fixed up.
  • Baden-Powell House FAR n/a - Review: Some weak referencing and some PEACOCK language, to the point of sounding like an ad ("With special Scout atmosphere, Baden-Powell House provides a hostel and conference centre for people visiting London") Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Battle of Moscow FAR n/a - Review: The second citation appears at the end of the 11th paragraph. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Battle of the Eastern Solomons FAR n/a - Review: Minor issues only.
  • Battle of the Santa Cruz Islands FAR n/a - Review: Some odd language (do you "redeem" a lost aircrew?) and some referencing problems, eg first paragraph of "Aftermath". Could probably be fixed up relatively easily.
  • Battle of the Tenaru FAR n/a - Review: Serious issues. Unsourced casualty numbers in Lead, conflict with casualty numbers in Lead and infobox, conflict in combatant numbers between Lead and infobox, contradiction between Lead and body as to what the Japanese commander knew of US strength. Final citation used to apparently source detailed comparison of real events and depiction of the battle, but none of the detail is actually present in the source. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Battle of Tulagi and Gavutu–Tanambogo FAR n/a - Review: "frenzied mob" needs a source, as does "one of the finest natural harbors in the South Pacific". Some text issues, eg "utilizing improvised explosive charges to kill the Japanese defenders taking cover in the many caves and fighting positions spread throughout the hill and ravine. Employing the improvised explosives, the individual Japanese fighting positions were destroyed." Otherwise, probably fine with a going-over
  • Crawford expedition FAR n/a - Review: some light referencing. Claim of a "rout" in the Lead not referenced and not supported (possibly contradicted) by description in body. "Notorious", as currently used, is POV. Article looks like it could be fixed-up relatively easily.
  • Cretan War FAR n/a - Review: Massively dependent on primary sources and therefore not Featured quality. Definitely inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Don Dunstan FAR n/a - Review: Huge paragraphs in an oversized Lead. Pretty well referenced. Minor niggle: MATS "plan" or "plans"? Taking a random part of the article for a close look, I examined his retirement, straddling two sections of the article. Some odd use of photo caption to include important sourced material that should be in the main text and is not. What was he "seriously ill" with when he resigned? What was "stage-managed" about the press conference (aren't press conferences by definition stage-managed? They're hardly spontaneous.) Article doesn't properly address his retirement from anything other than premiership - retirement from politics is alluded to only. These issues makes me suppose there are others I'm missing on this whistlestop lookthrough. Probably inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Effects of Hurricane Isabel in North Carolina FAR n/a - Review: Title inconsistent with opening words. Article opens with what sounds like a big claim, but is puzzlingly small (worst in four years) so on reflection must be a comment about it not being so bad... but it's worded like it's dreadful. Just not sure what it's supposed to mean. Worse, the claim doesn't appear to be in the main text, so is unreferenced. "light wind shear"=? "average track forecast error" =? "flood potential statement"=? Huge, lightly referenced paragraphs. The before and after photos are perplexing: the top one seems to show flooding on the right of the picture, but the bottom one seems to show sand (dumped by a storm?) along the seafront properties. Or is it that the storm blew that sand away? Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Elfin Woods Warbler FAR n/a - Review: Do we normally include foreign language names of species in bold at the top of their articles? A quick glance down the interwiki links shows Spanish is not the only language in which the bird has a different name. Not sure "discoverer" is encyclopedic language. What is "aerial" leaf litter? What is "middle" canopy? Why is "sally hover" not in the same part of speech as "gleaning" and "probing"? No information presented on whether birds pair for the season or for life. Bird named in at least three different styles in articles (eg "Elfin-woods Warbler") Latin name explained only in Lead, and without reference. English name never explained, only implied. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
being worked on by birds wikiproject now Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Empires: Dawn of the Modern World FAR n/a - Review: Lead includes a one sentence paragraph - and it's one that's neither cited there, nor in the body text. "complete 3D perspective" - what's an incomplete one? multiplayer component spoken of in present tense, despite lead saying it closed 3 years ago and the body then saying it closed five years ago. Better style to list the civilisations in the body, not the lead. Surely the lead can be longer without artificially puffing it up? Absence of citations suggests significant amounts of OR in the Campaigns section - and that alone would be enough to make this inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Final Fantasy VIII FAR 2010 Not considered due to relatively recent FAR.
  • Final Fantasy X-2 FAR n/a - Review:
  • Firefly (TV series) FAR n/a - Review:
  • Fuck the Millennium FAR n/a - Review:
  • George Washington Dixon FAR n/a - Review: "a small town growing out of the Industrial Revolution" sounds miraculous. NYTimes satire is far from clear. Why were "Dixon and the printer" so anxious that the conductor should get his money early that they would commit fraud? Links included in quotes, against MOS. "a charge leveled by Rowland Minturn's brothers that Dixon's article had resulted in the man's death" - the implication is that "the man" is Minturn, but the text says that the man that died was Roome. Section called "The Polyanthos" includes chunks of unsourced material, as is the account of his death later in the article. "Madam" needs a wikilink. "she had sent Dixon back" mangled tense. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • History of Burnside FAR n/a - Review: Choice of name explained only in Lead and not referenced. "only 29 months after the foundation of the colony." What colony? Can't understand why the history of Burnside begins with a very large paragraph outlining the early history of other places. Later it seems that the older villages become part of Burnside district, but some sort of clarity is needed. When did the Andersons arrive? (If we don't know, say so). District councils section lightly referenced and is one mega paragraph. "Burnside District Council" needs a wikilink. "modest" population is PEACOCK, as is "immense" growth (343 people is subjectively "immense") "the Boer War placed more emphasis on physical activity and merit within society" what's the link? "Ten per cent of the £60,000 budget consisted of commercial enterprise payments, while the rest was made up of ratepayer fees" A "budget" in my understanding, is about expenditure, but this seems to be income. Clumsily placed image of a memorial. "1965 saw an Olympic Grandstand" - what Olympics? "the Adelaide newspapers had a ball" is not encyclopedic language. "Premier Playford"=? Swimming centre wikilinked only in modernity section. Inappropriate for Main Page currently.
  • Hurricane Claudette (2003) FAR n/a - Review:
  • Hurricane Erika (2003) FAR n/a - Review:
  • Hurricane Esther (1961) FAR n/a - Review:
  • Hurricane Irene (1999) FAR n/a - Review:
  • Hurricane Irene (2005) FAR 2008 - Review:
  • Hurricane John (1994) FAR n/a - Review: The "Meteorological History" section could be longer.
  • Hurricane Nora (1997) FAR n/a - Review: Some expansion in the impact needed.
  • Joel Brand FAR n/a - Review: Looks reasonably good.
  • John W. Johnston FAR n/a - Review: Arlington Memorial section is incomprehensible. Who did it belong to at the beginning of the controversy? Why are "thousands" of dead people buried in a house? Why might there be George Washington "relics" (body parts?) in the house? Is the penultimate sentence a summary of his speech? Otherwise, the article's fine, but this is such an important passage, it needs fixing before going on Main Page.
  • Joseph W. Tkach FAR n/a - Review:
  • Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater FAR n/a - Review:
  • Military career of Hugo Chávez FAR n/a - Review:
  • Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon FAR n/a - Review:
  • Óengus I FAR n/a - Review:
  • Only Fools and Horses FAR n/a - Review: A real treat, very enjoyable but littered with OR and great unreferenced tracts of text. Inappropriate for Main Page.
  • P. K. van der Byl FAR n/a - Review:
  • Pixies FAR 2011 Not considered due to relatively recent FAR.
  • Psittacosaurus FAR n/a - Review: Looks really good. A review by a dinosaurs expert might be worthwhile.
  • Rhys ap Gruffydd FAR n/a - Review:
  • Sassanid Empire FAR n/a - Review:
  • Summer of '42 FAR n/a - Review:
  • Toledo War FAR n/a - Review:
  • Tourette syndrome FAR n/a - Review:
  • Tropical Storm Bill (2003) FAR n/a - Review:
  • Tropical Storm Bonnie (2004) FAR n/a - Review:
  • Tropical Storm Edouard (2002) FAR n/a - Review:
  • Tropical Storm Henri (2003) FAR n/a - Review:
  • Witchfinder General (film) FAR n/a - Review:

Tally:

  • 55 articles
  • Three recently reviewed at FAC or FAR
  • Of the remaining 52, xx are currently inappropriate for Main Page and xx need a small amount of work

2007

FAR'd

2008