Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/archive38

Albert Einstein
After a very distasteful experience with the FA process I have abandoned work on the Albert Einstein article. I have done a lot to it to get it up to status and if someone is interested they should be able to get it to FA status relatively quickly. Most of the remaining work is related to cleaning up and pruning down the references.--Kumioko (talk) 15:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand your lingering frustration. First, do not consider the archiving of the FAC to be a failure. Nearly everyone who has participated in the FAC process has had to re-nominate an article. I disagree that it might be quick work on this article. It appears to be a simplified look at his life, but I would ask for much more detail about his achievements. He was the most influential scientist of the 20th century, yet the legacy section does not address his impact not only in the scientific community, but elsewhere. I would suggest at the least two peer review several months apart, asking scientific wikiprojects in particular to participate. Have you read other FAs biographies on scientists? Check out Frank Macfarlane Burnet, Johannes Kepler, and Edward Teller. I'd focus on Kepler's article since it gives what appears to be good detail on Kepler's theories and discoveries. --Moni3 (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sore about it not getting promoted, I am sore that it was closed as I was making changes. If I was not making the changes I would expect it to be closed after a period of time had gone by or if the article was grossly lacking, which I do not beleive it is. It had some changes that where required but it was nothing that wasn't fixable. By the way I spent about ten hours repairing the remaining issues including adding some content, expanding some references and info, and pruning the list of over 100 references down to about 40 solid ones. I have deceided not to make the change though because it was felt that I was not a major contributor. I found out the article was closed when I went to make the last change. I also do not understand what you are talking about.  Identified in the article are several of the most significant achievments, it discusses his views on Nazism, Zionism, the atomic bomb and religion.  Also included are a number of forks and links to other articles that are also about him or things that he did. Due to the overwhelming amount of data available about him and the sheer volume of books he himself published it would be unrealistic to document every detail of his life in this one article. With some biogrpahies including the one you attached there is a limited amount of info available, in this case there is almost too much so we have to trim it down.  Case in point you could devote an entire article just on his childhood, 1 for his life while attending college or working as a patent clerk, many of the books he wrote have an article and many of the hundreds of theories and ideas also have articles. If I missed a major topic or need to add data to one then someone could have just said that and I would have found it. All I am saying is that good faith should be assumed before just closing an article without so much as a statement saying it wasn't ready. Additionally, none of the 3 articles you gave me is over 75K, Albert is already at 97K so if we add too much more we wil be hitting critical mass.--Kumioko (talk) 17:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Renaming "peer review" to "internal review"
This post is a notice for a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Peer review. Since our review process is a step in writing featured articles, editors interested in candidates for FA status might also be interested in the name of the review process. Please participate in the discussion at the link above. Thanks! Ecto (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Date unlinking bot proposal
The community RFC about a proposal for a bot to unlink dates is now open. Please see Full-date unlinking bot and comment here. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Image review needed

 * Featured article candidates/Symphonic Poems (Liszt)/archive1
 * All images captioned, and orientated correctly, File:Franz_Liszt_conducting.jpg would be better licenced as free everywhere, not just US, due to age, all other images fine Fasach Nua (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Jjraffportrait.jpg is missing essential info for validation of license. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 19:27, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Featured article candidates/Diocletianic Persecution/archive1
 * File:Strdubmainaltar.jpg does not have licencing information about the 3D work it is derived from, otherwise fine Fasach Nua (talk) 19:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 18:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! When I'm reviewing FACs, it's unlikely that I'll remember comments left on this page; they should be left on the FAC.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Featured article candidates/Quark/archive4
 * Featured article candidates/Cloud Gate/archive4
 * Featured article candidates/John Wark/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Luton Town F.C./archive1
 * Featured article candidates/SECR N class/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Charles Carroll the Settler/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Maiden Castle, Dorset/archive1

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:33, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fronds
(I'm assuming that people who review potential featured articles watch this page. If somewhere else would be better, just shout.)

Admittedly, I have never reviewed potential articles to see if they meet the criteria. But I extrapolate that some of the regular editors here end up making a lot of repetitive, mechanical edits in order to move the article closer to perfection. If that sounds like you:


 * Familiar with AutoWikiBrowser (AWB)?
 * Know what a regular expression is? Don't worry if you don't.
 * Keen to share and improve your mechanical editing skills so that as little time is wasted on it as possible, leaving more time for the important stuff?

If you answer "yes" to any of the questions above, then Fronds may be for you. Fronds is a central location for find-replace combinations for AWB, which are normally expressed as regular expressions (regexes). Now, these regexes can be very powerful, and can be used to make virtual any repetitive action "automatic" when you pass the article through AWB. Unfortunately, as they get more useful, they get more complex. Fronds aims to connect those who have already coded, or can code, regexes with those who may want to use them:

Familiar with regexes?

Contribute
 * 1) Build lists of find-replace combinations (fronds).
 * 2) Add, improve or remove entries.
 * 3) Upload your existing find-replaces from AWB and declutter.

^[a-z]+\|# [01]*$ seem like nonsense?

No worries
 * 1) Select which lists to use.
 * 2) Have these complicated regexes delivered to your door.
 * 3) Edit as usual.

You can read all about this new system at WP:FRONDS, or post questions to an appropriate talk page. Just ask, and I can create a separate list for those wanting to finish off article to FA level. Thanks for reading! - Jarry1250 (t, c, rfa) 09:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Criteria on high-quality sources
This new criteria was enacted after a lot of fuss, so I think it should be enforced properly, especially at WP:FAR in my opinion. At the moment I don't think it is being enforced by reviewers. I am hesitant to shut down a FAR and delist an article citing bad quality sources, if nobody else has brought up this fact at all. I see a few articles on very prominent figures where being selective on sources can bee applicable  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What new criteria? What fuss?  Wha?  Wha? Looie496 (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I share Looie496's confusing, to an extent. checks every single candidate for source quality. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was advertising to FAR, primarily, especially as there are few articles there that are similar to the John Wilkes Booth FAC that prompted the criteria, for example  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 07:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Incentive system for reviewers, again
For WT:FAR. To be frank, I think there is 0% chance that the average detail of reviews will decrease.  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 02:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate nomination interrrupted in the middle
It appears that a new editor User:FuzzyPandaBear was attempting to nominate two different articles as Feature Article candidates - Chinchilla and Lil Wayne. I am not familiar with the article Chinchilla, a quick glance looks like it might be within spruce up distance for FA and so I think I fixed/finished the nomination for that article. I know that Lil Wayne is not very close and doesnt seem to have an editing crew working towards that goal, but FPD did create the FA archive page for it, and so I am not sure what the appropriate next steps would be? -- The Red Pen of Doom  05:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions needed on the RS-ness of a source widely used on FAC/GAC/GA/FA
A lot of Eurovision Song Contest articles, some of which have been successful and unsuccessful at FA/GA use a few websites that have been contested and are the subject of some debate. Please see Featured article review/Eurovision Song Contest/archive2 and WT:EURO  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) paid editing=POV 01:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Image check needed
Sandy Georgia (Talk) 23:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured article candidates/Helgoland class battleship/archive1

Unfinished nom: Turkish Air Force
Not sure what the protocol is, but an editor has an outstanding unfinished nomination of Turkish Air Force (Featured article candidates/Turkish Air Force/archive1). Looks like a drive-by nom...article is nowhere near FA quality. TwilligToves (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I put a db-g6 on it ... perhaps someone else has time to explain FAC to the nominator? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Every dablink
I would like to note to tool reviewers about the toolbox at the top of this page. This toolbox differs from review sub pages in that the results are from every page listed. Dablinks benefits the most from such large sweeps as it avoid needless clicks and loading. When the results are done you can open up the sub pages and alert authors to the problem. Also, I might be working on a tool that'll quicken disambiguation. — Dispenser 15:11, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to tag
I thought that other quality content editors might like to see and contribute to the poll going on at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources.

In a nutshell, the contributors are discussing options whereby the references are all placed at the foot of an article.

Anyone who uses inline citation a lot, like Featured Article writers and copyeditors, should at least review this, if not voice an opinion. --Dweller (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Borderline article / list?
As part of a merge proposal a featured list is being merged with an article. The question has arisen as to whether the result (which would probably look a bit like this sandbox version) is a list or an article. Any eyes on this matter and comments here would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  15:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I also have a couple that walk a line between list and article. Here are a couple Commandant of the Marine Corps, Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps  Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps and Marine Corps Brevet Medal. The Commandant of the Marine Corps and Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps have been previously approved as featured lists because the majority of the article is list info but in my opinion it walks a line between the two. I guess my question here is should these be considered Lists, Articles or can they be both? --Kumioko (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In cases like these, I say to call it whatever you want it to be. For Commandant of the Marine Corps, judging by the title it's technically an article with a list in it; it's just not long enough to warrant a split to List of Commandants of the Marine Corps. If it had more information about the position, it could very well be a featured article. President of the United States is an article and List of Presidents of the United States is a list, but what if there wasn't enough information and we didn't want to split? Then you can make it what you want. Reywas92 Talk  00:34, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyright detection tool
Would anyone happen to know of any tools that check the copyright status of images here in a manner similar to the ones already in use for the FAC process to check for dead external links and dab links? And if we don't have any tools of this nature, would you happen to know anyone to whom I could suggest such a tool if it has not already been suggested? TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 02:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you could create an automated tool that would catch any kind of nuance needed for checking status of images. It's a dirty job that has to be done by hand. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 03:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I am getting at is more along the lines of having such images in an article so that we know to locate them and check by hand. If you've got an article that has 30 images most people are only going to check 1 or 2 images before assuming they are all free, and if there is a copyrighted image in there somewhere the folks checking the article may not get a chance to check the image to ensure all copyrighted images are correctly filled out. What I am looking for is not so much a tool that will check the fields as I am a tool that will check for a copyright template or fair use tag and report that to the reviewers so they know to check the image to ensure everything is correctly filled in. Ideally, I was hoping that we would have a tool somewhere like the external links checker that could list all images in an article and highlight the ones that may need to be manually checked. TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 04:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno if anybody has heard... TinEye reverse image search engine is a good tool for finding copyright violations. You only need the url to check all the images on the page. It finds any images that match any parts the image you pick, its pretty good. It has been used to expose hoaxed paranormal photos. In essence, if you get back results that match the sources exactly, you almost certainly have a copied image. Whether the source is a copyvio or not is another question one must ascertain using other factors. --  ErgoSum • talk • trib 04:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about writing one, but when I did the research I found that other people were developing bot that would help. I'm not sure what it would do other than display images thumbnails with the copyright icons or fair use rational.  — Dispenser 12:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For projects like ours that usually deal with free images exclusively it would be nice to know when copyrighted images are being used so we can determine whether they need to be in the article or not. I don't make a point to check for copyright status, but I got to thinking that if we could do that at milhist for our ACR process then it would further reduce the amount of work FAC people would have to do. TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 14:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Any reason why the peer review bot isn't reviewing FAC?
It seems to me that it would be pretty useful to have around? Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 03:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It used to be very lengthy and not always accurate ... and it takes a lot of space. I seem to recall a discussion a while back where it was decided someone was welcome to leave the results on the article talk page, but they wouldn't really be helpful here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well right now it leaves the results on a subpage. See for example Peer review/Virtual camera system/archive1, with its the bot review stored at Peer review/Automated/June 2009. While the review is not always accurate, they are also rarely completely useless: at the very least, it's something to chew on while waiting for comments. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 04:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * At PR, it is me using a script as User:AZPR, so it is a semi-bot at best. I do not have the time to do this, but others could install and use the script if they want to. Please see this discussion Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 18:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've hack up something that will run peerreviewer on a page's text without needing to install scripts. You can add it Featured article tools if you want, but beware it quick and dirty.  — Dispenser 02:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Nomination not closed properly
The nomination for Magdalena Neuner was removed from the FAC page, however it was not closed correctly. Both the FAC archive and the article's talk page still show it as a candidate. EnemyOfTheState undefined 22:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The last bits of the archiving are handled by a bot, which usually runs on the weekend and on Tuesdays. It'll catch the article the next time it runs. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:FAC/ar. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 22:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Image reviews needed

 * Featured article candidates/Volcano (South Park)/archive1
 * Featured article candidates/Hepatorenal syndrome/archive1

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:40, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. NW ( Talk ) 04:33, 27 July 2009 (UTC)