Wikipedia:Featured article review/archive/September 2018

Review section

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at its previous FAR. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Note: this is a 2006 promotion, with scant support-- should receive a full review. It was reviewed in 2010, but that review was also influenced by socking. I see no image review. I did not promote this FA, and will be participating in the review, particular concerns about WP:SIZE and lack of WP:SUMMARY. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Comments Size is not bothersome-- I don't see anything that would be better summarized to a separate article.

• Since 1934, with the sole exception of 1952, India has been among the top three movie-producing countries in the world every single year.
  • Robertson (2001), pp. 16–17; "Analysis of the UIS International Survey on Feature Film Statistics" (PDF). UNESCO Institute for Statistics. May 5, 2009. Retrieved December 13, 2009.

Source is dead link. Info is dated (a 2001 source). Prose. How about,

• Between 1934 and 2001, with the exception of 1952, India was among the top three movie-producing countries in the world.

Several dead links, that might be found in archive.org, but it is not cooperating for me today, so I tagged them.

There is only one section (Early steps) in the History section, so why does it need a heading?

Hard to know which source applies to which person (verification requires sorting through three books):

• While the introduction of sound led to a boom in the motion picture industry, it had an adverse effect on the employability of a host of Hollywood actors of the time. Suddenly those without stage experience were regarded as suspect by the studios; as suggested above, those whose heavy accents or otherwise discordant voices had previously been concealed were particularly at risk. The career of major silent star Norma Talmadge effectively came to an end in this way. The celebrated German actor Emil Jannings returned to Europe. Moviegoers found John Gilbert's voice an awkward match with his swashbuckling persona, and his star also faded.
  • REF: Crafton (1997), pp. 480, 498, 501–9; Thomson (1998), pp. 732–33, 285–87; Wlaschin (1979), pp. 34, 22, 20.

But because the page numbers aren't in order (???), one can guess that 32, 22 and 20 refers to Talmadge, Jannings and Gilbert?

• ??? James Cagney and Joan Blondell, who had teamed on Broadway ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section largely concerned sourcing, although review of other criteria is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Delist. No-one working on it. Comments in the review section are not addressed. DrKay (talk) 10:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Review section

Following issues raised on talk page:

• "The instrumentation of the recordings was primarily acoustic guitar..." -- unsourced
• "The same year, Smith released a split 7" single with Pete Krebs..." -- unsourced
• "1995–97: Elliott Smith and Either/Or" has several unsourced sections.
• "Smith's backing band during most of this period was the Portland-based group Quasi..." -- unsourced
• "2001-02" subheader has several [citation needed] tags
• There are overall huge chunks of unsourced content throughout.
• Reference 7 ("Bitcandy") is broken and redirects to a different site.

There are also maintenance tags all over the place. @DannyMusicEditor: was in agreement, but no one else said anything on the talk page.

This article was an FA in 2007, and a lot has changed since. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:40, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Move to FARC. Tagged for unsourced statements, failed verification and original research since April 2017. Not maintained and no-one working on it. Original nominator only editing very intermittently. DrKay (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
• Move to FARC: I hate to agree to this, as I'm a fan of Smith's work, but there are so many unsourced or badly sourced statements here that the whole article needs going through from top to bottom. Just to give one example – one unsourced sentence from the "2001–02: Addiction and scrapped recordings" section states, "[David] McConnell told Spin that, during this time, Smith would smoke over $1,500 worth of heroin and crack per day, would often talk about suicide, and on numerous occasions tried to give himself an overdose". Here is the link to that Spin article and McConnell's statement – we can clearly see that the claim of the $1,500 drug habit has come from the article author, not McConnell, and that the claims that Smith would "often" talk about suicide and tried overdosing "numerous times" are original research. Given the amount of OR in just this one sentence, the whole article needs a thorough revision, and it's going to take a while – many of the unsourced statements aren't going to be as easy to track down as that Spin one. Richard3120 (talk) 22:01, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
• Move to FARC. Ditto everything that's already been said. I put in most of the tags that currently remain on it. My interest in Wikipedia has been diminishing recently; that aside, I never really had an interest in Smith, just was surprised to see this trainwreck bear the star after I had been working on Fightstar (they claim him as an influence, believe it or not), so I'm certainly not the one to fix this article, even if tracking the references was easy. dannymusiceditor ^oops 04:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section mostly focused on sourcing. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

• Delist as nominator, and per the consensus above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:57, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• Delist per my above rationale. dannymusiceditor ^oops 00:55, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
• Delist per comments in the review section. DrKay (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Review section

I am nominating this featured article for review because it objectively fails WP:FACR criteria 1b (comprehensiveness), 2a (lead section), and 2c (consistent citations).

• Issues with 1b: There's poor coverage of synthetic antioxidants in the article's Antioxidant#Drug candidates section, which lacks context. Notable plant-derived antioxidants are completely missing from this page (e.g., Quercetin, among many others in this topic's navbox {{Antioxidants}} and which are mentioned in general-purpose reviews like PMID 20716905). Mention of a class of dietary antioxidants (polyphenols) is, however, scattered throughout the article. There is a "Further information" link to articles about dietary antioxidants (Antioxidant effect of polyphenols and natural phenols and List of antioxidants in food) under Antioxidant#Levels in food, but this is a very brief section which contains no information on plant-derived antioxidants. Some antioxidant biomolecules are entirely omitted (e.g., melatonin). Thus, the article does not currently comply with criterion 1b because these are highly notable subtopics within the scope of "antioxidants" that are not covered or even alluded to (e.g., via passing mention) in the article.
  • By far the most significant omission in this article is the lack of coverage of the transcription factor Nrf2, the master regulator of cellular antioxidant responses.^[1][2]
• Issues with 2a: The lead is very short for an article this size and inadequately summarizes several parts of the body. As an example, the 4th paragraph is a 1-sentence long summary of an entire level 2 section.
• Issues with 2c: The citation formatting is inconsistent. This is the least significant problem with the FA criteria and is easily fixed. I mention it only because it needs to be fixed along with the 2 other issues above.

I attempted to address some of these issues on the article's talk page at Talk:Antioxidant, but was met with opposition. That said, at least one other editor (Jytdog) has indicated that they think this article no longer meets the criteria. In order to start resolving the issues this article has with the criteria, the lead needs to be rewritten to adequately summarize and be consistent with the body, the body needs to be significantly expanded (including the creation of an entirely new level 2 section) to include the subtopics mentioned above (plant-based and synthetic antioxidants) that are missing but well within this article's scope, and the citation formatting needs to be fixed. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:32, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Re 2c: I fixed the date formats in this edit; however, in the current revision (Special:Permalink/849739302), page formatting is inconsistent in the journal refs (some are truncated like 123–6, some list the full page range like 123–126), some of the web references are missing publication/update dates which are listed on the cited webpage (e.g., ref numbers: 2 and 189), and some (e.g., ref number 2) are missing publishers. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include coverage and citation formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

• Levels in food section is not up to FA quality. Vague statements about cooked versus raw, then dismisses ORAC (correctly) as flawed because it is an in vitro assessment, but goes on to name and reference other in vitro methods. I have refrained from working on the article because of COI (consultant to dietary supplement companies that market products with antioxidant claims), but in my opinion this article no longer qualifies as FA, given progress in the science literature. David notMD (talk) 13:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delist. Confusing and self-contradictory. The lead says supplements of beta-carotene, vitamin A, and vitamin E have no effect on mortality rate or cancer risk, while the Adverse effects section describes studies showing an increased mortality and increase in lung-cancer rates. DrKay (talk) 12:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delist, much as I hate to say it about a TimVickers original. I read the article and thought "hm, this reads like it was written ten years ago", then I looked at the FAC and discovered it was written 11 years ago. It's fallen out of date and has had some bitrot issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:27, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Review section

This article was promoted through FAC in 2007, and was FAR'd in the same year but kept. Looking at it now, I see lots of reasons to be concerned that this article does not meet FA standards. Its primary author that made it through FAC, User:No-Bullet, has been inactive for quite some time. I am concerned that this article fails WP:WIAFA 1a and 1c: there are several areas where the prose is what I would call unprofessional including short paragraphs and structure issues, as well as plenty of paragraphs that don't end in a citation, a bright red flag to anyone reviewing the article. Red Phoenix ^talk 16:31, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

As a gut feeling, if this article was at B-class or lower now, I think it would take a significant amount of work to get it to GA, let alone anything else. The group's history is extensive but line-up changes (until recently) have been few and far between so there is a risk of falling into a pattern of "in 1983 they did this .... in 1985 they did that .... in 1988 they did the other" which gets monotonous after a while. It really needs a subject expert who knows what sources should take priority in the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Issues raised in the review section include prose and referencing. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Right, I notice there has been some work on this - @Red Phoenix and Ritchie333:, I hope you'll keep an eye on the progress and comment on when it meets or approaches FA criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I will definitely keep an eye on the situation here. I am glad to see there has been some progress in edits in the last week and am hopeful the involved editors can turn this article around. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• After only glancing at the articles, it seems there are a lot of statements without citations (as has been brought up above), and if this can't be fixed, I guess it needs to be demoted. FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Delist. Unsourced statements include "By the middle of 1974, the band had built up a strong live reputation", "they frequently played at the Hard Rock", "some people thought it was the title track", "Young gained notoriety for mooning", "the band were at the peak of their popularity", "returned...to rebuild their finances", "gained invaluable experience", "this has been challenged more recently". DrKay (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delist. I just can't see any possible way that this article could meet criteria 1c in any way soon. The first two citations I looked at in the body are links to a copyright violation of a television documentary which has now been removed, so I haven't a clue whether the entire paragraph is factually accurate or relevant. The books in "further reading" are a good start, but they need to be brought in as actual references against the main prose. We've long passed the days when you could put in a vague hand wave to a book source and say "it's all referenced in there, more or less". I've got no issue with the editing that's going on, but I think it's going to need a serious pouring over the book sources before it's going to be even close to GA let alone anything else, as I said above. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
• Delist for now, although I will still keep my eyes out for changes and will be willing to reverse my !vote if the issues can be fixed. I won't say it's not absolutely going to happen just because I've been that kind of editor myself who can gut and repair an article in a week's time (yes, with a thorough review of sources), but despite the improvements I haven't seen anyone go quite that deep yet into this article, and it's in desperate need of that. If someone picks that up, I'd be happy to reconsider. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I know from first hand experience you can, Red Phoenix; and I will concur that if an AC/DC expert turns up tomorrow and does a whirlwind blitz through the article in the next week, I'll strike my view to delist as well. I just can't see it happening, though. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

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

Review section

This featured article review is a procedural nomination as there was sockpuppet involvement at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Film noir/archive1. Thus the article needs to be immediately reassessed. Note that this does not necessarily mean that it is not up to standard, but that it needs to be checked. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:11, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

• Incidentally, a high score at Earwig's Copyvio Detector appears to be due to the listing of same refs etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I promoted this article, so will not be participating in the review. Image review by @PresN: also pinging @Jakob.scholbach: @Bodnotbod: @Maclean25: Moni3 opposed, struck oppose, but did not support. Source review was done by sock. WP:SIZE should be reviewed relative to WP:SUMMARY SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I did the image review 8 years ago; it's mostly the same, but 3 fair-use music samples have been added. They're all pretty short, but frankly having 3 seems excessive, I'd cut to 1. --PresN 01:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Size also a concern for me. Look at the copyvio tool, the main element driving it up seemed to be film titles. Removed two of the audio files. Article has been heavily edited since promotion, and since the first retirement. Ceoil (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've read through both the promoted version of the article and that which exists today, and I don't see any major red flags in the differences between them. In fact, in some ways today's article is better; the prose has been tightened up in places, and there have been a couple of layout improvements. On the copyvio front, like Ceoil I don't see any issues; the Berkeley page similarities are down to article titles and film titles, while the other high % match appears to have cribbed from our article for a couple of sentences. Of some small concern is the slight bloat in size from the promoted version. Some of this is well-cited, and I'm not bothered so much by kB count (it's very large, but not precedent-setting), but by the occasional insertion of detail that is not cited, appears to not have fresh citation to go along with it (to all intents an purposes looking like it's cited to whichever one was there for the existing material), or has resulted in content where even with a new citation it's now unclear what's referencing what. The current last paragraph of 1980s and 1990s] is a good (bad) example of the latter two issues; without access to the original sources, it will be difficult to wrangle this into shape. I also share some of the concerns that were brought up by several people during the original FAC, most especially by Moni, regarding the structure. These concerns were brushed aside by one or more socks and consensus seemingly reached, but the problem remains. Long story short, the Identifying characteristics section does not work at all where it is now bolted onto the end. This should be tied to Problems of definition somewhere closer to the top to aid those readers unfamiliar with the subject. However, I don't know if this can be done without significant rewrites elsewhere to ensure context is kept. As Moni put it, "Primary components to Film noir appear at the end of the article, following an extensive and interesting discussion of film history. This creates a chasm of prose that gives readers no connection to what they are trying to grasp: film noir is difficult to define; this is its history; these are films considered noir; these are the characteristics of noir. It would be much clearer to arrange the article as: film noir is difficult to define; these are the characteristics of noir; this is its history; these are films considered noir, so readers can understand why films are considered to be within the noir genre." She wasn't the only editor to point out that on such a large subject it would make more sense to to "[start] with the basic and [get] more cognitively complex". What does everyone else think on this point? Steve ^T • C 23:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Steve, yes and my gut feeling about the socking, born by many years of experience, related and not related, is that Geist was too involved, arrogant and proud of his contributions to have made deliberate mistakes on sourcing. It just doesn't scan. I have already mentioned my concerns on focus and length. Its your area of interest, so if editorializing is needed, you would probably be the man for the job and as such you might go for it. ps, we all miss Moni. Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You may be right about the sourcing; digging through the history, I was set to use this diff as an example of added content to multiple sections with no cite, but it turns out that DCG went back later to add the necessary (e.g.). After another read through, I think this needs less of a rescue job than did Tenebrae. To begin with, I'm going to put each section through a better diff checker than Wikipedia's, see where we might have problems with uncited or unwanted additions. That might take some time, but after that I'll have a better idea of whether we need to alter the structure and if we do, what might need to be rewritten to accommodate that. Steve ^T • C 21:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I read through this today and I agree with previous comments that the article organization is not ideal. It seems that Steve has not been active since April so I don't know where this leaves us. I believe DCG was a breed of FA writer who didn't want to compromise their vision for anyone, and used socks to help ram it through. It's a good article but not as good as it could be. --Laser brain (talk) 14:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• I'm sorry I haven't been able to work on this recently; work commitments have left me with very little free time these last 6 weeks. As far as the quality of the article stands, I've been through every section diff-by-diff, and have removed those unwanted and uncited additions that have crept in over the years, along with some other minor clean-up. However, this is still fundamentally the same article that passed the original FAC. It is a good article, and doesn't exactly bring shame to the gold star, but the organisational problems still exist and whichever way I imagine it, no natural structure presents itself. I had a mind to bring Identifying Characteristics to after the Background section, but that doesn't quite work either, owing to the section's reliance on examples that span several decades, which I think would then sit oddly with the strictly chronological nature of the subsequent sections. What do you think? Steve ^T • C 19:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

FARC section

Moving to get more input on organization and related issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

• Default keep. I'm not enthusiastic but the only problem identified is that the source review was inadequate (as it was done by the puppet). Most of the sources are offline, so unless someone can demonstrate that the sources do not support the article content, there is no reason to delist. DrKay (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• @Laser brain: what or how would you reorganize? Is it within stylistic bounds or is it really suboptimal? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Casliber: At this point I think it's subjective. If no one has the bandwidth to propose an alternate organization, I wouldn't hold up the FAR on my comment. --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• Spot check and source review: Numbers refer to footnote numbers as of revision 858730187
  • 34: website confirms caption content but "thrillingdetective.com" wouldn't count as a high-quality reliable source
  • 90: verified
  • 92, 93: websites confirm article content but "koreanconfidential.com" and "articledestination.com" wouldn't count as a high-quality reliable sources
  • 101: verified with reservations (the source confirms that one source ranks Chinatown as the greatest neo-noir but doesn't explicitly state that it is universally acclaimed)
  • 107: AFI ranking verified
  • 115: Barra supports statement "Miller's Crossing—loosely based on the Dashiell Hammett novels Red Harvest and The Glass Key"
  • 122: confirms the immediately preceding sentence but not the two that precede that, which are unsourced. Also, there's no mention of noir at the source, so its relevance to this article is questionable.
  • 124: I would call this unverified. The source doesn't seem to support the claim that Park is "the most prominent director outside of the United States to work regularly in a noir mode" and Thirst isn't a noir picture. It's a vampire flick.
  • 125: most commercially successful neo-noir verified; "extravagantly stylized" not verified by source, though self-evident from the movie itself
  • 127: winner of 2005 Village Voice poll verified, but graphic novels and Road to Perdition are not mentioned in the source
  • 128: verified
  • 141: verified
  • 144: verified
  • 150: source says the film poster is by Bass, but why are being told this? The source says nothing about noir and so this content seems irrelevant.
• A bit of a mixed bag. It would seem that the greater part of the article is well-sourced and verifiable, and there's a comprehensive reading list, but occasionally the article trips up. I'm finding it difficult now to decide between keep and delist. After re-reading Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Sock issue and Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/archive 12#Two-step process? Is it necessary or does it just confuse or complicate things unnecessarily?, I'm tempted to say default demote for articles with no keep declarations and sock puppet supports. DrKay (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@DrKay: if there are actionable issues that are not resolved, then the default is to delist - would be my opinion. The good news in the article is in good shape and within striking distance, so if someone wants to buff it in future, then they'll have plenty of tips on the past review pages. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:44, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

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