Wikipedia:Featured article review/Germany/archive1


 * 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 14:34, 13 June 2011.

Review commentary

 * Notified: KarlMathiessen, Tomeasy, Lars T., Boson, WikiProject Germany

I am nominating this featured article for review because I think it fails some of the FA criterion. It was promoted in 2007.

Criterion I believe not up to standard:
 * 1(b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context
 * 1(c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature.  Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources and are supported by inline citations where appropriate;
 * 1(d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias;
 * 2(a) a lead: a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
 * 2(b) appropriate structure: a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents;
 * 4 Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

Summary of issues copied from the talk page:
 * The lead has sources not present in the rest of the article, suggesting it is presenting new information and therefore not being a summary of the article.
 * History section clearly fails summary style. In addition, a fair number of paragraphs in history are unsourced.
 * Geography section is shockingly undersourced.
 * There is basically no information about the administrative divisions. Just an unsourced sentence and an unsourced list.
 * Climate has just one citation.
 * 3/4 paragraphs in biodiversity are uncited.
 * Environment section seems to be slightly promotional, as well as half unsourced.
 * The Politics, government, and law sections are almost unsourced.
 * Half of military unsourced
 * Much of Energy unsourced
 * Unsourced statistics in demographics section
 * Media has two small pointless unsourced paragraphs.
 * Some writing seems promotional, eg. "Germany has established a positive reputation around the globe. (Claudia Schiffer, model)" Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments by Night w
 * The captions and images in that last section don't make sense together. The first one: "Germany has established a positive reputation around the globe," doesn't seem to have anything to do with Claudia Schiffer? The second is the same: it talks about Germans travelling abroad, but then the image is of Schloss Neuschwanstein. Most of the content in that section is basic data, and there isn't anything I can see that'd have an appropriate image. I'd suggest either removing them, or moving them to a more appropriate section.
 * I see overlinking in the lead. "Temperate climate" is linked in the climate section, "federation" and "parliamentary republic" in the infobox. I don't see the need to link to "purchasing power parity" when the ranking article is linked right next to it.  Night w   21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope you don't mind, I fixed up a few minor issues I could see. For the states section, any objection to using this source? The figures are different to the ones currently in the article (I think theirs are more recent), and they apparently get them from Federal Statistical Office, though I can't find them on that site.  Night w   21:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd also argue that "Administrative divisions" should be changed to something else, since by definition federated states are not divisions. I'm not familiar, though, with the technical details of the situation in Germany.  Night w   17:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Have changed to 'Political snd administrative divisions' since it describes the "division" into Länder and Kreise. The United States article uses "Political divisions". --Boson (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Regierungsbezirke should also be mentioned. --Boson (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

FARC commentary

 * Featured article criteria of concern brought up in the review section include comprehensiveness, sourcing, neutrality and MOS compliance. Dana boomer (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * 2 dead links left after fixing the rest, 1 link to PW protected site (oxfordreference), no dab links, automatic peer reviewer (while not always 100% accurate) points to missing nbsp in front of units, occasional weasel wording and some mixups between British (article style) and American English . Some of the sources, like in section "Climate", cover the whole section or several sentences, so the situation may not be as bad as it looks - but it certainly needs thorough checking. GermanJoe (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - This has been at FARC for over two weeks, with no comments on whether the article should be kept or delisted. Could we please get some thoughts on this subject? Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak delist Chipmunkdavis (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delist at the moment. While I think the article has everything it needs to be a FA, it still basically just has far too much information. The History section is huge, with many paragraphs lacking entire sources. Many other sections also contain large unsourced paragraphs, and the Table of Contents is a monster. There is also far too many images. Editors of the article I feel could still easily bring this to almost FA level by simply removing excess unsourced information, and sourcing what little remains to be sourced. I do however commend the amazing work of editors in improving this article since I opened this FAR, I reckon they checked every source in the article, which is fantastic. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

* Strong Delist The version which has been put for a review qualifies still for a FA status. The number of references are still the most pressing issue, but it should be acknowledged that all of the old ones have been checked. Some controversial rethoric has been improved. Some controversial images have been removed. The History section is already a very condensed version of History of Germany. The critcism "the Table of Contents is a monster" should not be seen as valuable hint. The TOC is comparable to many other articles especially those dealing with nations. The criticism that too many images are part of the article contributing to a lower quality has to be rejected. The images fulfil an important part in communicating the written content and maintain the FA quality standards. KarlMathiessen (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment As of today some necessary cutbacks (in History) have been done. Nevertheless the process of reviewing and reediting the article has lead to a loss content, a loss of references, a loss of significant illustration and a loss a comprehensive presentation of the issue. So far the quality has been lowered and can´t qualify for an FA status anymore. KarlMathiessen (talk) 07:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 As of today it can be observed that the article does not even fulfil the first requirement of a good article as it has become highly unstable. Because of the repeated deletion of stable longterm content, the article does experiences an ongoing devaluation. At the moment no evidence of improvements can be recognised. The article fails FA and GA standards and will most likely deteriorate in the week ahead rapidly. KarlMathiessen (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC) Striking commentary of user blocked as a sockpuppet. Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The current instability is in response to the review process and thus does not contravene the FA or GA requirements ("its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process" (my emphasis)). I will not comment on the rest of your post except to say that I disagree: in my view, the article has experienced a net improvement due to the addition of citations, formatting and layout changes, etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Request further extension of FARC review and input from previously uninvolved reviewers. – The article is currently being worked on, and many referencing issues have been addressed. Summary style of the history section (and the use of the Main template) may still be an issue, in my opinion. A major focus at the moment is the number of images, which is currently at the dicussion phase of the WP:BRD process. The number of images was over 60; this was reduced to around 34, and the FARC objection was struck out; however, the bold removal of images (and other media) has now largely been reverted, back to about 60. Input from previously uninvolved reviewers more familiar with featured articles and the interpretation of FA criteria would be appreciated. --Boson (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The image issue can hopefully be solved on some middle ground. The referencing has been greatly improved, though i haven't had time to check them in depth. History and overall prose could still use some work and more time for tweaking - but the article has to summarize more than 2,500 years of history, so at some point "summary style" will reach its limitations. GermanJoe (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

At the moment I would say  Delist. After considering Featured article criteria my comment would be this: 1. The lemma is not consistently well written, example: Weimar Republic and Third Reich 2. The lemma is not well sourced: I estimate 30-40 references are missing 3. The lemma does not use appropriate images and media: Many sections fail to include appropriate images, example: introduction culture, law, health, economy, holy roman empire, berlin republic.Herr Kent (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not all sections need to have images. Can you be more specific on what/where references are needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

 Delist. Agree on the previous arguments by Herr Kent. To me the article portrays an old fashioned Germany that has nothing to do with reality. Important images have been cancelled. This article is not worth the high merits of Wikipedia. Kantianer (talk) 08:08, 26 April 2011 (UTC) ''Striking commentary of user blocked as a sock puppet. Dana boomer (talk) 14:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)''
 * Unnecessary and redundant "important" images have been removed so this article can stay a FA. From WP:IUP: "For an image to add to an article, it should be relevant and helpful in making a point. In general, images that are not mentioned in the article itself, tend to not meet this guideline." Kantianer and Herr Kent seem to miss this point. —Кузьма討論 11:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Note - two of the editors making declarations at this FARC (KarlMathiessen and Kantianer) have been blocked as sockpuppets. Can other editors offer insight into whether this article should be kept or delisted, and what improvements are still needed? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have listed some not very serious (and easily fixed) issues at Talk:Germany. Once most of those are fixed, I would be for Keep. --Boson (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. The issues raised have been adequately addressed.--Boson (talk) 23:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. After an "interesting" FAR process with many ups and downs the article (especially sourcing and prose tweaks) has improved enough to be kept FA. Image usage is obviously a matter of taste sometimes, but has been improved overall. GermanJoe (talk) 08:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The lack of references is the main problem I believe. The recently FA kept Japan article can give some direction in this respect. Around 200 references should be the aim for Germany. Italiano111 (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no specific number of references that an article needs, featured or not. If you see specific places that need references, please point them out. However, there is no number of refs to aim for and so a request for a certain number is not an actionable issue per the featured article criteria. Dana boomer (talk) 23:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment The article has shaped up nicely, but I'm worried stability (criteria 1e) may be an issue. Are there guidelines on how to deal with this? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Conventionally instability in response to the featured article (or featured article review) process is exempted from consideration in the stability criterion, as obviously the article has to change (relatively) rapidly in response to the review process. Prior to this FAR the article was fairly stable, although as it's a high-profile article that measure is relative. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist Still not enough references. One other thing I noticed after remembering that I once commented on a missing sentence about the culture in the introduction (a year ago). Now we have an adequate phrase in the introduction but the culture part presents only Beethoven, a cake and Marx. I believe this does not characterise the culture in a comprehensive way. Italiano111 (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you point out specific facts or sections in need of further references? Also, while those are the only images in the Culture section, the section presents content on much more - you can't judge comprehensiveness on images alone. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else think that the History section is disproportionately weighted towards post-1900 events? NW ( Talk ) 00:07, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not when you consider, that Germany saw 4 completely different government systems (with all their consequences), 2 World Wars and a Cold War within this period; those enormous and rapid changes need to be covered in greater detail. The history section is a bit wordy at times, but the complexity of the topic makes it difficult to trim further without loosing context. GermanJoe (talk) 13:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Somehow, from the opening of this FAR, Germany has managed to shed 37,672 bytes, 15 TOC headers, and 41 unnecessary pictures. This is even with the still-long history section. Interestingly enough, the number of references is currently the same (162). Anyway, if everyone agrees that this is good I think this FAR can end at Keep quite well, as soon as the last couple of minute reference issues are dealt with. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 14:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delegate comment - I think as soon as the last few tags taken care of - I see a couple of citation needed tags and a not in citation given tag - this can probably be kept. Is anyone still working on this that would be willing to take care of the tags? Dana boomer (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The citations in the "religion" section are a mess due to some previous reorganisations, but i'll try to clean some of them up over the weekend, together with the last missing cite. GermanJoe (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, a quick ce of the changes would be appreciated. The military reserve information had to be rather vague due to the current Bundeswehr reform. GermanJoe (talk) 18:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


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